HOLIDAY EXPRESS SUITES AND RESORTS LTD & ANOR v. SKYE BANK (2020)

HOLIDAY EXPRESS SUITES AND RESORTS LTD & ANOR v. SKYE BANK

(2020)LCN/14659(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, October 16, 2020

CA/L/792M/2016(R)

RATIO

AFFIDAVIT: EFFECT OF NO REPLY FILED TO A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

The position of the law is that where no reply is filed to a counter affidavit the facts therein are deemed admitted vide Jumbo Unanganga v. M. G., Imo State (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.59) 123. PER IKYEGH, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships

Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh Justice of the Court of Appeal

Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. HOLIDAY EXPRESS SUITES AND RESORTS LTD. 2. MR. ANTHONY BIODUN AYENI APPELANT(S)

And

SKYE BANK PLC RESPONDENT(S)

JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The motion on notice dated and filed on 08.07.16 prayed for —
“1. “An order extending the time within which to seek leave to appeal against the ruling of Honourable Justice K.A. Jose (MRS) of the High Court of Lagos, delivered on the 16th day of May, 2011 in Suit No: 11/2081/2009.
2. An order granting leave to appeal against the aforementioned ruling.
3. An order extending the time within which to appeal against the said ruling.
4. An order extending the time within which to file the notice and grounds of appeal against the said ruling.
5. Leave to appeal on ground of mixed law and facts.
6. An order deeming the attached Notice and Grounds of Appeal marked as Exhibit ‘F’ as properly filed and served the appropriate fee having been paid.
7. An order enlarging the time within which the appellants/applicants may file their motion for stay of execution of the said ruling.
8. An order granting leave for the appellants/applicants to file the said motion for stay of execution of the said ruling as indicated in the proposed motion for stay of execution marked

as ‘Exhibit G’.
9. An order deeming the said motion for stay of execution as properly filed and served. Marked as Exhibit ‘G1’.
10. AND for such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”

The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows —
“i. The appellants/applicants have exceeded the statutory period within which to appeal against the said ruling and file motion for stay of execution.
ii. The appellants/applicants not having the advantage of proper legal advice misconstrued the ruling to be in the common run of other decisions which could be appealed against after final determination within three months.
iii. The appellants/applicants changed their counsel.
iv. Interest of justice.”

Paragraphs 1 — 25 of the affidavit in support of the application deposed —
“1. That I am the 2nd Appellant/Applicant in this suit and also the Managing Director of the 1st Appellant/ Applicant.
2. That by virtue of my position aforementioned above, l am familiar with the facts of this case which facts are within my personal knowledge

except as otherwise stated.
3. That I have the authority and consent of the 1st appellant/applicant to depose to this affidavit.
4. That the applicants initiated an action against the respondent vide a writ of summons and statement of claim dated 9th day of December 2009 whereby they sought and claimed against the respondent, inter-alia declaratory and injunctive orders as follows:
(i) A declaration that the respondent’s interference in the affairs of the 1st claimant and harassment of the 2nd claimant without due process of law is illegal.
(ii) A perpetual injunction of this Honourable Court restraining the respondent, its agents, privies, servants, officers from interfering with, obstructing, disturbing, frustrating the business operation of the claimant
(iii) N16,500,000.00 as special damages for loss of revenue from the 1st claimant hotel business for the period of 33 days from the 14th of September, 2009 to 16th of October, 2009.
(iv) General damages in the sum of N250, 000, 000.00 against the respondent for harassing the 2nd claimant and for obstructing the business operation of the 1st claimant. Attached and marked

Exhibit ‘A” are copies of the applicants’ statement of claim.
5. That the respondent thereafter filed its statement of defense and counter-claim dated 12th March 2010 in response to the applicants’ claim. Copies of the said respondent’s statement of defense and counterclaim are hereby attached and marked Exhibit “B”.
6. That in the course of the pre-trial conference in the suit, the respondent applied for judgment on admission which was granted against the 1st applicant in the sum of N20Million on the 16th May, 2011 which ruling is also the subject of the instant application.
7. The certified true copy of the ruling is also annexed herewith as Exhibit “C”.
8. That the applicants/appellants being dissatisfied with the said ruling sought an order of the lower Court staying execution of the said vide a motion on notice filed on 19th May, 2011.
9. That on the 13th day of September 2011 when the application came up for hearing the applicant’s former counsel, Mr. Layiwola Faboro was surprisingly absent in Court and the lower Court struck out the application. Attached and marked exhibit “D” is the record of Court proceeding of 13th day of

September 2011 wherein the lower Court made on order striking out the application.
10. That the respondent in its counter-claim at the lower Court is claiming against the applicants the sum of N41,200, 645.81 and interest on the said sum.
11. That the suit at the lower Court is still ongoing and has not been concluded.
12. That dissatisfied with the manner which the former counsel referred to in paragraph 9 above was handling this suit, the applicants changed their counsel to Mr. Taiwo Taiwo Esq. who has now been appointed a judge.
13. That the applicants not having the benefit/ advantage of proper legal advice had all along misconstrued the ruling of 16th May, 2011 to be in the common run of other decisions which could be appealed against after final determination within three months.
14. That it was only on or about the 28th day of June 2016 when the applicants were introduced to new counsel, Folajimi Adesuyi Esq. of Nobilitas Solicitors and briefed him about this case, that he informed the applicants, that the ruling is appealable and I accordingly instructed him to file an appeal and other necessary process against the said

ruling.
15. That I have also being informed by the said Folajimi Adesuyi of counsel, and I verily believed him that the motion for stay of execution struck out by the learned judge on the 13th September 2011 cannot be refiled under the High Court Rules.
16. That in view of paragraph 13, 14 and 15 above, it was legally impracticable for the applicants to apply to the lower Court for both leave to appeal and application for stay of execution in view of the effluxion of time to appeal and the fact that once a stay of execution has been struck out by the lower Court no further application for same shall be made in the same matter.
17. That the averment in paragraph 16 above necessitated the filing of the instant application before the Honourable Court including the stay of execution.
18. That the proposed notice and grounds of appeal are herewith annexed and marked Exhibit ‘E”.
19. That this applicants to appeal against the said ruling and file stay of execution in their Court.
20. That my new counsel, Folajimi Adesuyi, informed me and I verily believe him that the applicants’ appeal is arguable with prospect of success as it raises

the issue of the propriety of the lower Court holding that the respondent is entitled to judgment on admission against the 1st applicant.
21. That it is in the interest of justice to grant this application.
22. That the delay in bringing the instant application is attributable.
23. That the delay in bringing this application is attributable not deliberate but due to lack of proper legal advice of the applicants.
24. That the respondent would not be prejudiced if this application is granted.
25. That I swear to this affidavit in good faith and in accordance with the Oaths Act”.

The respondent opposed the motion with a counter affidavit filed on 12.06.17 containing these facts —
“1. That I am a legal practitioner in the firm of Legal Resources Alliance, counsel to the Respondent in this suit and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts of this case.
2. That I have the consent of the Respondent and that of my employer to depose to this affidavit.
3. That I state that most of the facts stated in the Applicants’ affidavit in support are false and mere fabrications.
4. That the judgment on

admission in the sum of obtained by the Respondent upon which the Applicants’ application is based had been granted by the lower Court since 16th May, 2011.
5. Contrary to paragraph 8 of the Applicants’ affidavit in support, the application dated 19th May, 2011 being referred to actually have two prayers; one for stay of execution and the other for an order permitting the Applicants to pay the judgement sum in instalment. Hereby attached and marked Exhibit HS1 is a copy of the said application dated 19th May, 2011.
6. Further to paragraph 5 above, the Applicants also attached photocopies of four cheques (covering the judgement sum) to the said application dated 19th May, 2011 but never delivered the original copies of the same to the Respondent. In fact, counsel to the Applicants precisely on the 14th June, 2011 told the lower Court that he did not have the original cheques with him.
7. That facts stated in paragraph 5 and 6 above shows that it is not true that the Applicants were dissatisfied with the said judgment otherwise they will not be asking for an order to pay the judgment sum in instalment. This is aside the fact that they did not

file a Notice of Appeal prior to bringing the said application.
8. The Respondent admit paragraph 9 of the Applicants’ affidavit in support to the extent that the said application dated 19th May, 2011 was struck out by the pre-trial judge – Honourable Justice K.A. Jose of the High Court of Lagos State. However, the Applicants again filed a similar application dated 11th October, 2011 before the trial judge Honourable Justice J. E. Oyefeso. Hereby attached and marked Exhibit HS2 is the said application dated 11th October, 2011.
9. The Applicants in their usual practice of frustrating proceeding intentionally failed, neglected or refused to put the said application in the Court’s file so that same can be timeously determined.
10. The matter was subsequently adjourned for trial which said trial has not been done till the time of filing this affidavit as the Applicants are always coming up with one excuse or the other for not been able to proceed to trial one of which is unending change of counsel by the Applicants. The Applicants have so far engaged three different counsel in the matter.
11. On the 19th of June, 2014, the Applicants

voluntarily through their counsel withdrew the said application dated 11th October, 2011 and same was accordingly struck out by the lower Court.
12. In response to paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 23 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support, the Respondent, in addition to the preceding paragraphs of this affidavit, states as follows:
i. Contrary to paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support, the Applicants only changed their counsel to frustrate the proceedings (which was already slated for trial) and not because of the absence of their former counsel on the 13th September, 2011.
ii. The fact stated in paragraph 12 (i.) above becomes more obvious considering the time frame between 2011 when the incident happened and 2015 when the Applicants’ application dated 3rd March, 2015 for change of counsel was brought. Hereby attached and marked Exhibit HS3 is the application dated for change of counsel dated 3rd March, 2015.
iii. That the Applicants’ inordinate delay in bringing this application (based on judgement on admission that had been obtained over six years ago) goes to show that same is only an afterthought aimed at frustrating the

Respondent.
13. Contrary to paragraph 20 of the Applicants’ affidavit in support, the Applicants have not raised any recondite or arguable points of law in their proposed Notice of Appeal.
14. That it is in the interest of justice for this Honourable Court to dismiss this application.
15. That the Respondent will be greatly prejudiced if this application is granted by this Honourable Court.
16. That I swear to this Counter-Affidavit in good faith conscientiously believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act, 2004.”

The applicants’ written address accompanying the motion on notice contained in the following issue for determination —
“The applications submit that the sole issue for determination in this motion is; WHETHER THE APPLICANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE GRANT OF THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THEIR MOTION”.

The applicants argued in the written address that by the community reading of Order 7 Rules 10 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 (the Rules of the Court) the applicants have to show good and substantial reasons for the delay in appealing and arguable grounds of appeal and must contain the

trinity prayers before an application of this nature may be granted citing in support thereof the cases of Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5 – 7 SC 42, Mobil Oil Nig. Limited v. Agadaigho (1988) 2 NWLR (pt.77) 383, F.H.A. v. Abosede (1998) 2 NWLR (pt.537) 177, Okereke v. NDIC (2003) 2 NWLR (pt.804) 218, Idris v. Audu (2005) 1 NWLR (pt.908) 612, Co-operative Commerce Bank (Nigeria) Limited v. Ogwuru (1993) 3 NVVLR (pt.284) 630, Ikenna v. Bosah (1997) 3 NWLR (pt.495) 503.

The applicants argued that the law does not require explanation of the reason for delay, day by day, but the justification for the delay vide Iyalabani Co. Limited v. Bank of Baroda (1995) 5 NWLR (pt.387) (no pagination), and that in the instant application the applicants are relying solely on lack of proper legal advice in respect of the ruling of 16.052011 as being the reason for the delay in filing the appeal vide paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the affidavit in support of the application which should satisfy the first requirement.

The applicants argued that the proposed grounds of appeal show prima facie good cause why the appeal should be heard thus satisfying the second requirement.

The applicants relied on paragraphs 15 and 16 of the affidavit in support of the application to contend that by Order 54 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure Rules), 2012 (the rules of the Court below) the application for a stay of execution having been struck out by the Court below, the impracticability of filing the motion at the Court below necessitated the prayer for enlargement of time to file the motion for a stay of execution on this case; upon which the applicants urged that the application should be granted.

The respondent argued in the written address filed on 28.06.17 that the appellants did not misconstrue the ruling delivered on 16.052011 and had shown their satisfaction with the ruling by filing a motion for instalmental payment of the judgment debt of N20 million on 19 05.2011 at the Court below, therefore the present application is calculated to stall time and frustrate the respondent. Likewise, the application filed on 11.10.2011 which could not be heard for over 3 years for the purpose of frustrating the respondent as shown by its withdrawal on 19.06.2014; and that the application for change of counsel

filed on 30.03.2015 was another step of wasting time to frustrate the respondent which should be frowned at citing in support thereof the case of Fagbenro v. Orogun (1993) NWLR (pt.284) 662 at 673.

It was also argued by the respondent that the delay of 6 years was inordinate so the discretion to extend time in this case should not be granted citing in support thereof the cases of Kolawole v. Alberto (1989) 1 NWLR (pt.98) 382, Odutola v. Lawal (2002) 1 NWLR (pt.749) 633 at 660 read with Order 6 Rule 9(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 (the Rules of the Court).

The respondent further argued that as the applicants did not supply good and substantial reasons as well as the inordinate delay in bringing the application, same should be refused citing in support the case of Kassab v. Ulasi (1991) 2 NWLR (pt.174) 448 at 454.

The length of delay in bringing this application is 6 years. Length of delay becomes material only where good and substantial reasons are given for the delay. In other words, the length of time that elapsed before filing an application for an extension of time to appeal is not a material factor to be considered whether to

grant or refuse the application, provided there are good and substantial reasons for the delay vide Jimoh v. Minister, Federal Capital Territory and Ors. (2019) 5 NWLR (pt.1664) 45 at 75, Elias and Anor. v. Eco Bank Plc (2019) 4 NWLR (pt.1663) 381 at 407 and the cases (supra) cited by the applicants on the issue of length of delay per se not being a material factor in determining an application for extension of time to appeal.

The sole reason for the delay in appealing was according to the applicants’ affidavit evidence (paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 thereof (supra) due to their ignorance of law in misconstruing the ruling by which judgment was entered against them and the absence of the benefit and advantage of proper legal advice until 28.062016 when their new counsel informed them that the ruling was appealable.
A cursory look at paragraphs 12 – 14 of the affidavit in support of the motion (supra), however shows that the applicants are complaining of not having the benefit/advantage of proper legal advice from 16.05.2011 when they engaged counsel until they changed counsel on 28.06.2016 who advised them that the ruling was appealable.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

Paragraphs 12 – 14 of the affidavit in support of the application (supra) is a thinly veiled indictment of the professional competence of the applicants’ former counsel whom they had retained from the inception of the case at the Court below in 2011 up to the aftermath of part of the case where judgment on admission was entered against the applicants and when they briefed a new counsel in 2016.
It would appear that the applicants by insinuation attributed the delay in appealing to lack of proper legal advice by their former counsel. The error of judgment must be true, genuine and reasonable. It should not be of doubtful validity. The issue of error of judgment of counsel as to the legal position in the matter is also subjective and counsel at fault should swear to an affidavit that he made the particularised mistake, not nebulous assertion that there was misunderstanding of the legal position in the case.
The former counsel who appeared to be obliquely blamed for not giving the appellants the benefit and advantage of proper legal advice should have sworn to and/or caused to be sworn to an affidavit admitting the alleged short-coming or lapse

vide the case of Adeniyi and Anor. v. Tina George Industries Ltd. and Anor. (2019) 16 NWLR (pt.1699) 560 at 595 following Lauwers Import-Export v. J.I.C. Ltd. (1998) 3 NWLR (pt.83) 429, Obande Obeya v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2012) All FWLR (pt.636) 344, to the effect that a party relying on error of his counsel is obligated to procure the affidavit of counsel wherein counsel personally admitted the lapse, error or short-comings.
The former counsel whose alleged short-comings were called into question should therefore, have sworn to a affidavit that his instructions covered the filing of an appeal and that he indeed gave legal advice to the applicants that the decision was not appealable.

Paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the affidavit in support of the motion for instalmental payment at the Court below which is attached to the counter affidavit as an Exhibit read together conceded that the judgment debt of N20 million was entered upon the admission of the applicants who “demonstrated good intention to settle” the judgment debt and were prepared to settle the judgment debt instalmentally if the Court below granted a stay of execution of the

judgment debt for that purpose.
These facts point irrevocably to the stance of the applicants that they had no intention of appealing against the judgment which was fortified by the unchallenged paragraph 7 of the respondents’ counter affidavit read with paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof that the applicants were satisfied with the judgment and had no intention of appealing against it and sought to settle it by instalmental payment. The position of the law is that where no reply is filed to a counter affidavit the facts therein are deemed admitted vide Jumbo Unanganga v. M. G., Imo State (1987) 3 NWLR (pt.59) 123.
Further, the situation in this matter appears to be a replay of what happened in the case of Obande Obeya v. F.B.N. Plc (2012) All FWLR (pt. 636) 544 at 557 — 558 verbatim as follows –
“To support the deposition in paragraph 19 that the applicant never instructed his former counsel, Mr. M.N. Chukwuma to appeal, exhibit 10 dated 16 December 2002, written by Mr. M. N. Chukwuma to the respondent counsel is relevant. It reads in part:
In the course of our discussion, I indicated to counsel my readiness to come with my client,

the defendant/judgment debtor in the suit, to meet with you in your chambers at Jos on Thursday, 19 December 2002 for discussions related to the payment of judgment debt in the suit…
Your junior, in the course of our discussions served me with a copy of the notice of appeal which you filed in the suit to the Court of Appeal. I readily accepted service at the time with the hope of contacting my client later about the appeal. As shown above, I have not been able to see him since the service and have not discussed with him about the appeal. Since I had no instruction to represent him in the appeal, I should have accepted service on his behalf initially.
This letter was written four months after judgment was delivered on 9 August 2002. This is a situation where contents of a document (exhibit 10) makes depositions in an affidavit believable for the following reason. Nowhere in the affidavit in support did the applicant say when he instructed his former counsel to appeal. Secondly in the absence of reply affidavit the fact that the applicant never instructed his former counsel to appeal has been established to my satisfaction. Affidavit evidence-not

denied, and documentary evidence show clearly that at al/ times, the applicant was more interested in finding a way to liquidate the judgment debt. That explains why the applicant filed an application seeking Court order that the judgment debt be paid by hire installmentally, and another application to vary the order that the judgment debt be liquidated by monthly payments of N300,000.00 (three hundred thousand naira).”
Accordingly, counsel’s decision not to appeal was the case here. It was not the case of mistake in failing to appeal. The decision not to appeal was evinced by the unmistakable intention and step to accept the judgment by the appellants filing the motion to enable them pay the judgment debt instalmentally at the Court below.
To show that there was no genuine or bona fide mistake in this case but a ploy to deny the respondent the right to reap the fruit of the judgment, the applicants after filing an application for instalmental payment neglected to follow it up or kept abreast of it and same was struck out on 13.09.2011 vide Exhibit D attached to the applicants’ affidavit showing the applicants were stalling for time to frustrate the

respondent.
Good and substantial reasons in the sense of satisfactory, essential, material, important, favourable and cogent reasons, not fanciful, strange or tangential reasons were not given by the applicants to justify a grant of the application vide Ikeme v. Ugwu (2013) 15 NWLR (pt.1377) 358 at 371 following Ikenta Best (Nig.) Ltd. v. A.-G., rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (pt.1084) 612, Prudent Bank Plc v. Obadaki (2012) 2 NWLR (pt.1285) 504.
Justice is not a one way traffic. Justice is at least a dual way traffic for the applicants and the respondent in this case. It must inure to all the parties in the case. In the present case to hold the respondent to ransom for a period of six (6) years before this application was laid or brought when the judgment was based on admission of the sum of N20 million owed the respondent by the applicants which deprived the respondent of enjoying the fruit of the judgment in its favour, would not be justice vide Adeniyi and Anor. v. Tina George Ind. Ltd. and Anor. (2019) 16 NWLR (pt.1699) 560 at 589.
Although the grounds of appeal which are attached to the applicants’ affidavit as Exhibit E appear on face value

arguable, the absence of good and substantial reasons for the delay militates against the success of the application as the two conditions must co-exist before an application for extension of time to appeal may be granted vide Order 6 Rule 9(1) and (2) of the Rules of the Court read with the cases (supra) cited by the parties on the co-existence of the twin conditions and the case of Jimoh v. Minister, Federal Capital Territory and Ors. (supra) at 66 following Ikenta Best (Nig.) Ltd. v. A.-G., Rivers State (2008) 6 NWLR (pt.1084) 612, N.I.W.A. v. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. (2008) 13 NWLR (pt.1103) 48.

Prayers (7), (8) and (9) of the motion paper (supra) are on stay of execution of the judgment of the Court below. The applicants are yet to file an appeal. In the absence of a pending appeal, the prayers for a stay of execution of the judgment of the Court below are presumptuous and without foundation vide Ogunseinde and Anor. v. Societe Generale Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2018) 9 NWLR (pt. 1624) 230 to the effect that the jurisdiction to stay execution of a judgment can only be exercised pending a valid appeal. See also the cases of NDLEA v. Okorodudu (1997) 3 NWLR (pt.492)

221, Fatoyinbo v. Osadeyi (2002) 11 NWLR (pt.778) 384, Mobil Oil Nig. Ltd. v. Agadaigho (1988) 2 NWLR (pt.77) 382.
Prayers (7), (8) and (9) of the motion paper (supra) on a stay of execution of the judgment of the Court below are accordingly, misconceived and are hereby struck out.

In the result, I find no merit in the application and hereby dismiss it with N200,000 costs against the applicants in favour of the respondent.

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.: I read in draft the Ruling prepared by my learned brother JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion reached and I adopt same as mine in also refusing his application.
I abide by the order of cost made in the lead Ruling.

EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading the ruling of my learned brother Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA, and I see no reason to depart from the conclusion reached therein. In considering an application such as the one before this Court, there is no doubt that it requires the discretionary powers of the Court which must be exercised judicially and judiciously. The right of appeal to appeal is constitutionally

guaranteed and as such, such right cannot be taken away from the Appellant. However, there is a prescribed time for an Appellant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, to file his appeal before this Court. Where he fails to file his appeal within the prescribed time, he will be divested of such rights until certain conditions are fulfilled which will invoke the exercise of the discretionary powers of the Court. The conditions are arguable ground of appeal and good and substantial reason for the delay. These conditions are like Siamese twins at birth, they are joined together and must co-exist. When one of the conditions is established without the other, the application will not fly. See Mrs. Ganiat Yetunde Elias Anor vs. EcoBank Nigeria Plc (2019) LPELR-46527 (SC); Professor Dupe Olatubosun vs. Texaco Nigeria Plc & Anor (2012) LPELR-7805 (SC).

On the issue of the application for stay of execution, my learned brother has said it all, that is, being that there is no valid appeal, the application for stay of execution has no leg with which to stand on. The law is trite to the effect that for a stay of execution to be granted, there must

be a valid appeal. See Dickson Ogunseinde Vurya Farms Limited vs. Societe Generali Bank Limited & Ors (2018) LPELR – 43710 (SC). It is also the law that you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. See Sijuade vs. Elugbindin & 3 Ors (2017) LPELR – 42702 (CA); U.A.C. Ltd vs. Macfoy (1962) AC 152: Alugi-Obia vs. Okonta (2010) EPR Vol 6 page 485;J.A. Aderibigbe & Anor vs. Tiamiyu Abidoye NSCQR Vol. 38 2009 page 86.

On a wholesome consideration, I also find that this application is bereft of any iota of merit. Same is hereby also dismissed by me. I abide by the order of cost.

Appearances:

The Applicants were served hearing notice but were unrepresented. For Appellant(s)

Mr. O. Oyebowale For Respondent(s)