HELEN JOHNSON UDOH v. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR
(2011)LCN/4604(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 6th day of June, 2011
CA/C/124/2010
RATIO
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION; MAIN PURPOSE OF FORMULATING ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION
In the connection it is firmly settled that issues for determination may be those framed by either one or both of the parties. They may also comprise issues reframed by the court after consideration of those set out by the parties alongside the grounds of appeal filed. It must be borne in mind that the main purpose of formulating issue(s) for determination is to enable the parties to narrow the issue(s) in controversy in the grounds of appeal in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity and if an issue is not covered by any ground of appeal, it is incompetent and will be struck out. SEE: MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES V. OLUSANYA (1987) 2 NWLR (PT.5) 179; ONOH V. ONYIA (1989) 1 NWLR (99) 564; ADELAJA V. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.131) 137; OGBUANYIYA V. OKUDO (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.146) 551; SHA V. KWAN (2000) FWLR (PT.11) 1798. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: WHETHER ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE BASED ON THE COMPLAINT IN THE GROUND AND NOT ON THE PARTICULARS
I find that there is no coherence in the grounds and the particulars supplied and the issues formulated and if one should adhere strictly to how grounds of appeal are supposed to be couched, the complaint being made by learned counsel for the Respondent in the preliminary objection will have to be upheld and the appellant’s brief struck out because an issue must be based on the complaint in the ground and not on the particulars as the particulars cannot be argued as separate grounds of appeal. See STIRLING CIVIL ENGINEERING (NIG) LTD. v YAHAYA (2005) 4 SC 124 at 136 per Edozie, JSC. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
APPOINTMENT OF A DONEE: WHETHER A PERSON CAN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY DELEGATE OR ASSIGN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT POWERS OR FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO THE AFFAIRS, FINANCES, ASSETS AND PROPERTIES OF INCORPORATED TRUSTEES
The learned trial Judge was absolutely right when he observed as follows: “…The donor failed to draw a line between his personal property in respect of which he has the plenitude of powers to appoint the defendant his Attorney, irrevocably, if he so wishes and that of the association in respect of which he has no such powers”- And so he had to answer the question in the negative when he held that, “… having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 590(1), 596(1)(2), 601, 602 and 603(1)(2) of PART C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004, the alleged or purported donor of Exhibits “A” and “B” (Leader O.O. Obu) cannot delegate or assign to the defendant administrative and management powers or functions in relation to the affairs, finances, assets and properties of the community of persons known as the BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR in term of Exhs. “A” and”B”. PER KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
HELEN JOHNSON UDOH (a.k.a. QUEEN IBUM OLUMBA OBU) – Appellant(s)
AND
REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR – Respondent(s)
KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Brotherhood of the cross and star was registered in March 1964 as a religious organization under the Land (perpetual succession) Act cap 98 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
At the time of the registration there were four duly appointed trustees to wit, Leader Olumba Olumba Obu, Edet Eyoma Asuquo, Okon Ita and Mary Abiom. Three of the trustees have died. The only surviving trustee, Leader Olumba Olumba Obu is also the Spiritual Head of the Brotherhood of the Cross & Star (BCS). He appointed his eldest daughter, Helen Johnson Udoh (alias Queen Mother Ibum Olumba Obu) the Defendant/Appellant as Secretary General and Head of Administration of BCS. He also donated a power of attorney to her in respect of both his personal properties and those belonging to BCS. Mr. Roland O. Obu who is the second son did not like the powers conferred on his senior sister so he set about constituting another Board of Trustees for the Organisation. The sister sharply resisted the move and filed an action before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/508/2002 and obtained a restraining order against her brother from reconstituting the Trustees. The suit was served on the Corporate Affairs Commission. Inspite of the pending action the Corporate Affairs Commission went ahead to register a new Board of Trustees for the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star and issued a new Certificate of Registration to the BCS. Mr. Roland O. Obu as one of the newly appointed Trustees of the Organisation. After the issuance of the new certificate the Defendant took out an Originating Summons in the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/98/2004 to challenge the issuance of the Certification of Registration. The Defendants were the Corporate Affairs Commission and Mr. Roland O. Obu. While this action was still pending, the Registered Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star took out an Originating Summons against the Defendant/Appellant in Suit No. FHC/CA/CS/69/2008 claiming:
(a) A declaration that the documents/instruments purportedly signed/issued/executed on 21st October, 2000, titled “CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF HER HOLINESS, QUEEN IBUM OLUMBA OBU, AS THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR WORLDWIDE and 28th March, 2001, titled “POWER OF ATTORNEY” by which defendant alone was allegedly delegated, entrusted and/or assigned with administrative, supervisory and management functions in relation to the affairs, finances, assets and properties of the Plaintiff is ultra vires, unlawful and illegal being contrary to the operations of sections 590(1), 596(1)(2)m 601, 602 and 603(1)(2) of the companies and Allied matters Act, 2004.
(b) AN ORDER DIRECTED to the Defendant to produce all the ORIGINAL COPIES, COUNTERPARTS OR PHOTOCOPIES of the said documents/instruments in her control, custody, possession and power before this honourable court for CANCELLATION, OBLITERATION or ERASURE all references to the plaintiff and/or her affairs, finances, assets and properties in the said documents/instruments.
(c) AN ORDER DIRECTED to the defendant to list enumerate or itemize all assets and properties upon which she exercises or had exercised administrative and managerial control over pursuant to the said documents/instruments and to give a genuine, honest, bona fide, comprehensive, full, adequate and proper accounts of all monies and/or benefits received by her in exercise of the putative powers under the said documents/instruments and payment over to plaintiff of such monies and/or benefits.
(d) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the defendant whether by herself, agents, privies or whosoever from exercising or purporting to exercise any administrative or managerial powers or functions in relation to the affair, finances, assets and properties of the plaintiff pursuant to her putative powers contained in the aforesaid documents/instruments.
And for the DETERMINATION of the following QUESTION(S):
1. Whether having regards to the combined provisions of sections 590(1) 596(1)(2), 601, 602 and 603(1)(2) of PART C of the COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT 2004, the alleged or purported donor can while acting alone, delegate or assign to the defendant alone and howsoever any administrative and management powers or functions in relation to the affairs, finances, assets and properties of the community of persons known as the BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR?
ALTERNATIVELY
Whether the power of Attorney allegedly made on 28th march, 2001 has not been rendered UNAUTHENTIC, NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER having regard to the operation and tenor of the purported instrument or document dated 21st October, 2000 titled CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF HER HOLINESS, QUEEN IBUM OLUMBA OBUM, AS THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE CROSS AND STAR WORLD, by which such mentioned instrument or document was to derive its authenticity, legitimacy efficacy and validity?
On being served with the originating summons, a memorandum of conditional appearance was filed on behalf of the Defendant. On 14th January 2009, the Defendant filed Notice of Preliminary objection to the originating process. The grounds for the objection were:-
1. The plaintiff lacks the locus standi or basis to constitute and institute this suit.
2. The Plaintiff have (sic) shown no cause of action.
3. The suit offends the rule of duplicity, multiplicity of suit and double compensation and constitute (sic) gross abuse of court process to the irritation of the defendant/applicant.
The learned trial Judge dismissed the preliminary objection and granted reliefs (a), (b), (c) and (d) as prayed by the plaintiff in the originating summons. The defendant felt aggrieved and appealed against the decision. There were six grounds of appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal. The grounds shorn of their particulars are:
1. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held the Plaintiff/Respondent had the locus standi to constitute this suit at the trial.
2. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge erred in law in his interpretation of the various sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act relied upon in his judgment.
3. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial Judge erred in law in that the Defendant/Appellant is not the proper person to be sued in the circumstance but the Donor of the power complained of.
4. ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he opted to reframe the plaintiff/respondent’s issue for determination and inadvertently applied same against and in total disregard to the Defendant/Appellant’s issue for determination on the same issue.
5. MISDIRECTION IN FACTS
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself to issue a blanket judgment affecting both the Properties of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, and the Personal properties of Leader Olumba Olumba Obu.
6. The judgment of the Lower Court was against the weight of documentary evidence submitted before the trial court for determination of this matter.
The Appellant formulated the following six issues for determination:
1. Whether a trustee can sue himself.
2. Whether an organization can parade two certificate (sic) of incorporation at the same time
3. Whether it was proper to sue donee of a power of attorney rather than the donor by originating summons.
4. Whether a trial court is permitted to cover the field, “reframe” or repair a case for a party.
5. Whether a blanket judgment affecting other interest (sic) outside the parties before the court can be binding.
6. whether the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of evidence before it.
The Respondent filed Notice of preliminary objection to the Appellant’s brief which was argued at pages 3 – 8 of the Respondent’s brief. Learned counsel for the respondent went further to adopt the issues formulated by the appellant except issue 3 in the event that the preliminary objections are dismissed.
It is the contention by the respondent that all the issues formulated in the appellant’s brief are incompetent because they are not based on any grounds of appeal. He said that issues 1 and 2 are predicated on the particulars of error and not on the grounds of appeal and so are incompetent; so also the arguments canvassed under issues 5 and 6 are fresh issues and no leave of court was sought before they were raised. It is also the contention by learned counsel that the arguments canvassed under issue 6 are not founded on the complaint that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.
In reply to the preliminary objection, the appellant submitted that the law allows a rephrasing of an issue in so far as it does not lose its appeal meaning or con from the grounds. He argued that the case of STIRLING CIVIL ENGINEERING (NIG) LTD. v YAHAYA (2005) ALL FWLR (pt. 263) 628; (2005) 4 SC 124 cited by the Respondent is inapplicable because the appellant did not couch an issue from a ground, and another “separate” issue from the particulars of error of the same ground. He said that the fact that the issue couched have (sic) similar features with the particulars of the very grounds upon which it is couched goes to demonstrate that appellant is not out of the con of the ground of appeal from where she derived her issue for determination. On the contention that the appellant raised fresh issue on appeal without obtaining leave to do so, learned counsel recounted that on 22/4/2010 a Motion on Notice for leave to appeal on Grounds 3 and 5 was filed and in its ruling delivered on 9/6/2010 the lower court held that there is nothing new or fresh in the records to warrant the application and so refused granting leave. He referred to pages 208 -211 of the additional records.
In an appeal, what the court of appeal has to consider is not the grounds of appeal but the issues for determination raised from such grounds of appeal. In the connection it is firmly settled that issues for determination may be those framed by either one or both of the parties. They may also comprise issues reframed by the court after consideration of those set out by the parties alongside the grounds of appeal filed. It must be borne in mind that the main purpose of formulating issue(s) for determination is to enable the parties to narrow the issue(s) in controversy in the grounds of appeal in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity and if an issue is not covered by any ground of appeal, it is incompetent and will be struck out. SEE: MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES V. OLUSANYA (1987) 2 NWLR (PT.5) 179; ONOH V. ONYIA (1989) 1 NWLR (99) 564; ADELAJA V. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.131) 137; OGBUANYIYA V. OKUDO (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.146) 551; SHA V. KWAN (2000) FWLR (PT.11) 1798.
I have carefully considered the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal and the issues formulated therefrom. There are two main issues. The first issue has to do with the Certificates of Incorporation of the Registered Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star with Registration No. 697 issued on 25th day of March, 1964 and the second Certificate of Registration No. MIA/3027 issued on 6th August, 2003. The second issue has to do with the judgment which affected the official properties of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star and the personal properties of olumba olumba obu, the spiritual Head and Leader of the Order. They are issues 2 and 5 respectively. I find that there is no coherence in the grounds and the particulars supplied and the issues formulated and if one should adhere strictly to how grounds of appeal are supposed to be couched, the complaint being made by learned counsel for the Respondent in the preliminary objection will have to be upheld and the appellant’s brief struck out because an issue must be based on the complaint in the ground and not on the particulars as the particulars cannot be argued as separate grounds of appeal. See STIRLING CIVIL ENGINEERING (NIG) LTD. v YAHAYA (2005) 4 SC 124 at 136 per Edozie, JSC.
It was submitted in the preliminary objection that issue 5 is a fresh issue on which parties did not join issue in the court below; neither did that court pronounce on it. Being a fresh issue leave of this court must be sought and granted before same can be competent and since the said leave was not sought and obtained, the said ground and the issue framed therefrom are incompetent. Learned counsel for the appellant argued in reply that a Motion for leave to appeal on grounds 3 and 5 was filed but the court held that this was not necessary as there was nothing new or fresh in the records to warrant the application. Learned counsel then, referred to the additional records which was filed in this court on 14/3/2011.
The additional record contained the written submission of counsel for the Defendant/Appellant and the Ruling of the Learned trial Judge. In his submission learned counsel had stated among other things that –
“Grounds 3 and 5 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal are already part of the records and fully deliberated/ruled upon, but in order to avoid unnecessary arguments and delay of the Appeal, leave is hereby sought to cover those Grounds of Appeal. Ground 3 concerns the lack of locus standi (lack of capacity) of the applicant in this suit, while Ground 5 deals with the failure of the Plaintiff to distinguish the properties refer (sic) to in Exhs. ‘A’ & ‘B”.”
The learned trial Judge in his ruling held that the judgment being appealed against by the defendant/applicant is a final judgment of this Honourable Court and therefore an appeal is as of right which does not require the leave of the court.
In his judgment the learned trial Judge observed that “the donor of the power of attorney (Exh. ‘B’) failed to draw a line between his personal property in respect of which he has the plenitude of powers to appoint the defendant his attorney irrevocably, if he so wishes, and that of the association in respect of which he has no such powers.”
The complaint in ground 5 from which issue 5 was distilled is that the trial Judge could not heap the blame on the head of the undisclosed and unknown donor without hearing from the donor.
What I understand from this is that a necessary party was not joined in the suit. The complaint in ground 5 certainly raised a fresh issue which required the leave of the court before it could be raised. The lower court failed to appreciate this fact since it ruled that the appellant had a right of appeal to raise the issue. Since the appellant filed the application seeking the leave of the court, it is my view that the leave was granted and consequently grounds 3 and 5 are valid grounds of appeal. I shall consider the appeal based on the two issues I have identified.
On the first issue learned counsel for the appellant referred to the Certificate No. 697 issued on 25th March, 1964 as the valid and subsisting Certificate of registration while Certificate No. MIA/3027 issued on 6th August, 2003 is invalid as it was issued in defiance of a court order of an Abuja High Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/508/2002.
He contended that the six trustees of the 2003 certificate were never appointed by the Leader of the Organisation as required by its constitution.
Learned counsel for the Respondent pointed, out that the Certificate of Registration issued on 6th August, 2003 does not carry a different number from the one issued on 25th March, 1964. He said that both certificates bear No. 697 and so there are not two certificates but one. The only difference in the two certificates is that the certificate issued in 2003 contains the names of the new trustees in addition to the only surviving trustee whose name also- appears in the certificate issued in 1964.
At pages 8, 9 and 60 of the records is the Certificate of Registration of the Incorporated Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star. The document on pages 8 and 9 is the Certificate issued on 6th August, 2003 while the one on page 60 is the one which was issued on 25th March, 1964. The two certificates carry the same number which is 697. The only difference between the two is that whereas the Certificate issued on 6th August, 2003 has seven people who have been appointed trustees namely:- Leader Olumba Olumba Obu, His Holiness Olumba Olumba Obu (Jnr), Bishop Enun Olumba Obu, Pastor Ebenezer Isokrari, Bishop Emmanuel Olumba Obu, Her Holiness Aja Olumba Obu and True Christ Witness Bassey Unaowo Akpan but the registered trustees contained in the Certificate issued in 1964 are Olumba Olumba Obu, Edet Eyoha Asuquo, Okon Ita and Mary Abiom.
In Suit No. FHC/C/ABJ/CS/98/2004 which was instituted after the issuance of the certificate of Registration on 6th March, 2003, the following facts were stated in Support of the Originating Summons:
2. Having complied with the requirements of the law the plaintiff applied to the 1st Defendant (Corporate Affairs Commission) to register as trustees certain persons to replace some of its deceased trustees.
3. Meanwhile unknown to the Plaintiff and without any authority, one Rowland Obu (a.k.a. Olumba Olumba Obu Jnr.) approached the 1st defendant to also register as Trustees a different set of names from those presented by the plaintiff.
4. On becoming aware of this unpleasant development and to restore normalcy, the plaintiff approached the court, hence suit No. FHC/HC/CV/508/2002 was filed before the F.C.T. High Court.
5. The Plaintiff in Suit No. FHC/HC/CV/508/2002 sought and was granted on 12/6/02 amongst others an order restraining the 2nd defendant from taking any step or steps on the registration of Trustees of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was ordered to be served with the enrolled order, in order to ensure compliance.
6. The 1st defendant inspite of the said court order of Hon. Justice Aladetoyinbo dated 12/6/02 and duly served on its and acknowledged by one M.B. BELLO (CR1) still went ahead to issue to one Olumba Obu, Jnr (a.k.a. Rowland Obu) and others, a purported certificate of registration of the plaintiff dated 6/8/03.
The said certificate was issued in spite of:
i) The subsisting and valid order of the FCT High Court in the Pending suit
ii) A valid and subsisting certificate of Trustee of the Plaintiff
7. The issuance of a new certificate of registration of the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant and others was done
i) During the pendency of an action, and
ii) In flagrant violation: and disobedience of a valid and subsisting enrolled order of court.”
From these facts stated above, it is clear that some of the trustees whose names appeared in the Certificate issued 25th March, 1964 had died and needed to be replaced. Efforts were made by the plaintiff and 2nd defendant to get the dead trustees substituted and the 2nd Defendant in Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/98/2004 succeeded in getting his nominees accepted as trustees by the Corporate Affairs Commission. The Corporate Affairs Commission was not made a party in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/508/2002. The learned trial judge considered the order made by the court in suit FCT/HC/CV/508/2002 as it affected the Corporate Affairs Commission when he stated at page 160 of the Records:
“I have taken a careful look at the said order made in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/508/2002. First the suit is between The Registered Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, (Plaintiff) and Rowland Obu (Defendant) I have noted that this said order was made on 12th June, 2002 upon the Ex-parte application of the Plaintiff in that suit, pending the determination of the Motion on Notice coming up on 3rd day of July, 2002 when the Motion on Notice came up for hearing. Further there is nothing in the said order restraining the Corporate Affairs commission from issuing Exh. ‘AX’ to the persons now constituting the Plaintiff. The argument of the Defendant that Plaintiff lacks the standing to initiate this action because the registration was … “unlawfully and contemptuously done in gross disregards to the order in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/508/2002 restraining one Rowland Obu from registering the Plaintiff by Corporate Affairs Commission….” is most unfounded.”
The learned trial Judge in my view reached the correct conclusion which cannot be faulted. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued without producing the Constitution that required the Leader of the Organisation to appoint the Trustees; so his argument about the re-constitution of the Board of Trustees is without any foundation. Since the Appellant tried to re-constitute the Board of Trustees but was beaten to it by the Respondent, she cannot be heard to say that the re-constitution was not proper. The answer to the issue is that there are not two Certificates of Incorporation. It is only the Board of Trustees that was re-constituted in the Certificate issued on 6th August, 2003 and the one issued on 25th March, 1964 is no longer valid.
The second issue is in respect of the interpretation of the power of attorney which was donated to the appellant. It is not the lower court that failed to distinguish between the personal properties of the donor and the properties of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star but the power of attorney itself which the appellant relied upon. In paragraph 1 of the Power of Attorney (Exhibit ‘B’) the appellant was given the power to –
“supervise all landed properties owned by me personally and the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star and also to collect rents and other monies accruing from my properties and that of the Brotherhood of the cross and star in any Bank or Financial company or institutions anywhere in the world”.
No schedule accompanied the Power of Attorney given to the Appellant to separate the personal properties of the donor from those he was holding in trust for the organization. The learned trial Judge was absolutely right when he observed as follows:
“…The donor failed to draw a line between his personal property in respect of which he has the plenitude of powers to appoint the defendant his Attorney, irrevocably, if he so wishes and that of the association in respect of which he has no such powers”-
And so he had to answer the question in the negative when he held that,
“… having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 590(1), 596(1)(2), 601, 602 and 603(1)(2) of PART C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004, the alleged or purported donor of Exhibits “A” and “B” (Leader O.O. Obu) cannot delegate or assign to the defendant administrative and management powers or functions in relation to the affairs, finances, assets and properties of the community of persons known as the BROTHERHOOD OF THE CROSS AND STAR in term of Exhs. “A” and “B”.
I find that these are the two main issues in this appeal which I resolve against the appellant in favour of the respondent. I find that there was no clarity of thought either in the complaints laid in the Notice of Appeal or the issues formulated in the Appellant’s brief and this made it extremely difficult to consider all the issues raised in the appeal. I would have struck out the grounds of appeal as incompetent as argued by the respondent in the preliminary objection but there is the compelling reason to do substantial justice hence I had to overlook the technical issues raised and try to find out the substance of the appeal.
I therefore fond that the appeal is totally devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I make no order on costs.
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Kumai Bayang Akaahs, JCA, just delivered. I am in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion to the effect that the appeal is devoid of both merit and substance. I adopt the said elucidating lead judgment of my learned brother, Akaahs, JCA and I also dismiss the appeal and make no order as to costs.
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Kumai Bayang Akaahs, JCA gave me the opportunity of reading in advance the lead judgment just delivered, I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion that the appeal is totally devoid of merit. I dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
Appearances
Dr. Tony Ukam with him Egbe and Ugwochi OmerejiFor Appellant
AND
Dafe DiegbeFor Respondent
