HON. ADEGOKE SAHEED ADEWALE & ANOR v. ALHAJI AKIMOLA SIKIRU ALLI & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4941(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 8th day of December, 2011
CA/I/EPT/SH/6/2011
RATIO
NOTICE OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION : STATUTORY PROVISION ON DUTY OF A PARTY SEEKING TO RELY UPON A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL TO GIVE HIS OPPONENT THREE CLEAR DAYS NOTICE BEFORE THE HEARING SETTING OUT THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
Under the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, a party relying upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal shall give the opponent three clear days notice before the hearing setting out the grounds of objection. See Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Appellant filed the Reply Brief containing the preliminary objection on the 2nd of November 2011 to the appeal which was to he heard on the 3rd of November 2011. It is clear from the date on the Reply Brief that the Respondents were not given clear 3 days as stipulated under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 27(1) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AS REGARDING THE HEARING AND DISPOSING OF INTERLOCUTORY QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended provides:- “All interlocutory questions and matters; may be heard and disposed of by the Chairman of the Tribunal or the Presiding Justice of the Court who shall have control over the proceeding as a Judge in the Federal High Court”. The above provision is very clear and when a statute provides a procedure or method for performing duty or for doing an act that procedure and no other can be used otherwise the action will be incompetent. See the cases of GALAUDU VS. KAMBA (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. part 895 page 31 at 55, AMASIKE VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL C.A.C. (2006) 3 N.W.L.R. Part 968 Page 462 at 500… PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN A LEGISLATION: EFFECT OF CARRYING OUT A PROCEDURE THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAID DOWN PROVISION OF A LEGISLATION
OKEREKE VS. YAR’ADUA (2008) ALL F.W.L.R. Part 430 at 626 particularly at 654 paragraph D where Onnoghen J.S.C. had this to say: “It is settled law that where legislation lays down a procedure for doing a thing, there should be no other method of doing it. C.C.B. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE (1992) 10 S.C.N.J. 137 at 763 and BUHARI VS. YUSUF (2003) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 841 Page 446 at 498″ In the instant case, the application was heard and determined by all the members of the tribunal who each signed same and not by the Chairman alone. This procedure is contrary to the provision of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. See the case of Hon. Ayo Adeseun and Another Vs. Chief Luqman Oyebisi Ilaka and Others (unreported) with appeal No.CA/I/EPT/NA/3/11 delivered on the 12th of September 2011. I agree with the view expressed by my lord ALAGOA J.C.A in this judgment because it is the law.” PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
MAY: INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD “MAY”
Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended is in no way ambiguous except for the interpretation that may be given to word “may”. In OGUALATI VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL RIVERS STATE (1997) 6 N.W.L.R. Part 508 Page 209 AT 233, the Supreme Court in interpreting the word “may” under Section 28(1) of the State Lands Law of Eastern Nigeria as applicable to Rivers State stated as follows per Iguh JSC: “It therefore seems to me settled that although Section 28(1) of the State Lands law applicable to Rivers State provides that the Lessor “may” enter a suit for recovery of possession on expiration of the Lessee’s ease, the word “may” in that section must be constructed as mandatory and/or as meaning “shall” or “must” since it imposes a duty upon a public functionary for the benefit of a private citizen.” PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: PURPORT OF PARAGRAPH 27(1) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 AS AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ELECTION TRIBUNALS
In R v Bishop of Oxford (1879) OBD 245 Land Blackburn stated that the enabling words are constructed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right. In the same tune, the purport of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended with respect to interlocutory applications cannot mean otherwise than that with respect to the hearing and determination of interlocutory applications before the Election Tribunals, the Chairman alone should do sit and determine such interlocutory applications to the exclusion of the other members. PER MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HON. ADEGOKE SAHEED ADEWALE
2. ACCORD – Appellant(s)
AND
(1) ALHAJI AKIMOLA SIKIRU ALLI
(2) ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA
(3) INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION – Respondent(s)
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal was allowed on the 9th of November 2011 and reasons for allowing the appeal were reserved. I now give my reasons.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the National Assembly/Legislature Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Oyo state delivered on the 14th of September 2011 in petition No.EPT/OY/SH/13/2011. The Tribunal dismissed the petition of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant who was the Petitioner at the lower court did not apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notice within 7 days of close of pleadings as required by paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
Briefly, the Appellants as Petitioners at the lower Tribunal by petition dated and filed on 15th May 2011, challenged the election of the 1st Respondent on an application filed on the 23rd of August 2011 as a member of Ibadan South East Constituency II of Oyo State House of Assembly praying, in the main that the Tribunal should determine and declare that the 1st Responder was not duly elected.
The penultimate application which led to the dismissal of the petition was the 1st and 2nd Respondents application dated 18th of August 2011 but filed on the 23rd of August 2011. The Appellants preliminary objection dated and filed on 31st August 2011 was taken along with the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ application. The ruling was delivered on the 14th of September 2011 wherein it dismissed the Appellant’s petition. It is the dismissal of the Appellants petition that brought about this appeal.
Dissatisfied with the said ruling, Appellant filed notice of appeal on 19/09/11 containing fifteen grounds of appeal. From these grounds of appeal, Appellants distilled eight issues for determination. The issues are as follows:-
(i) Whether the ruling delivered by the lower tribunal and read by Hon. Justice A. O. Ajileye in the presence of the Hon Chairman and another member is not invalid and made without jurisdiction Ground 1.
(ii) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have entertained the Respondent’s application after the period provided for pre trial session and without the leave of the lower Tribunal on the basis that the issue being canvassed by the Respondent is a jurisdictional issue. Grounds 2 and 3.
(iii) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have held that the application for issuance of the prehearing notice in the petition was filed out of time and clearly in violation of the provisions of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act. Grounds 4 and 5.
(iv) Whether the Petitioners had violated the provision of paragraph 18(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended to warrant the dismissal of the Petition pursuant to paragraph 18(4) of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended Grounds 7 and 8.
(v) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition pursuant to paragraph 18(4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended after the expiration of the period provided for prehearing conference Ground 9.
(vi) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have relied on the judicial authority of Okereke Vs. Yar’Adua (Supra) to dismiss the Petitioners petition and to distinguish the case of NGIGE Vs. Obi (Supra) notwithstanding the fact that the Respondents had taken steps after being aware of the alleged defect if any at all. Grounds 12, 13 and 14.
(vii) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have held that the consideration of all other issues raised in learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents written address become otiose and in another breath took into consideration cases or issues which the Respondents did not place before it. Ground 6, 10 and 11.
(viii) Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have allowed technicality to defeat substantive issues placed before it Ground 15,
1st and 2nd Respondents distilled five issues as follows:-
(i) Whether the ruling of the lower Tribunal is final or interlocutory so as to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction Ground 1.
(ii) Whether leave is necessary to raise the issue of jurisdiction Grounds 2 and 3.
(iii) Whether on the admitted facts, the application for the issuance of pre-hearing notice was not time barred so as to justify the dismissal of the petition. Grounds 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
(iv) Whether issue of jurisdiction can be waived Grounds 12, 13, 14 and 15.
(v) Whether the Tribunal made any case for the Respondents which occasioned a miscarriage of justice Grounds 6, 10 and 11.
3rd Respondent adopts the five issues formulated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
At the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellants adopt and relies on the Appellants brief of argument dated and filed on 2nd of October 2011. He also adopts the Appellant’s reply brief filed on the 2nd of November 2011 which is a preliminary objection to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
1st and 2nd Respondents brief of argument was filed on the 27th of October 2011. Learned counsel for 1st and 2nd adopts and relies on the arguments in the brief.
3rd Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 31st of October 2011 but filed on 1st of November 2011. Learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent adopts and relies on the arguments contained in the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief of argument.
Before going into the merits of the case it is important to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant in his reply brief. Appellant raised objection to the competence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief of argument filed on 27th October 2011 as same was neither dated nor accompanied by a valid list of authorities as enjoined by the relevant statute. The list of authorities attached to the said brief is neither dated nor signed by any Counsel or agent of any law firm. The implication of this is that there is no valid list of authorities attached to the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief of argument. Consequently the brief of argument is incompetent and ought to be struck out. He went further to submit that the 3rd Respondent who adopted the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief cannot place something on nothing as it is out of time to file the 3rd Respondent’s reply. Learned Counsel urged the court to uphold the preliminary objection.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in reply submitted that Appellants reply brief was served on him on the 2nd of November 2011 at 5.pm and the appeal was to be heard on the 3rd of November 2011. Learned Counsel argued that the objection was raised without following the procedure for raising preliminary objection in the Court of Appeal Rules under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Appellants Counsel did not state the rule of court that was not obeyed although he says rules of court must be obeyed. Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection.
Under the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, a party relying upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal shall give the opponent three clear days notice before the hearing setting out the grounds of objection. See Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Appellant filed the Reply Brief containing the preliminary objection on the 2nd of November 2011 to the appeal which was to he heard on the 3rd of November 2011. It is clear from the date on the Reply Brief that the Respondents were not given clear 3 days as stipulated under Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011.
In my view, it is the Appellants that have breached the rules of court and not the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He has raised a new issue which the Respondents would not be able to reply to. Besides the objection of the learned Counsel for the Appellant appears technical. I am unable to see what miscarriage of justice that has occasioned the non signing of the list of authorities. The era of technicality is over as courts are enjoined to do substantial justice. See the cases of AKUNYILI VS. EJIDIKE (1996) 5 N.W.L.R, Part 449 at 387, AKUMECHIEL VS. BCC LTD (1997) 1 N.W.L.R Part 484 at 698 and OMIDIRAN VS. OLUBUNMI (2010) V 25 W.R.N. Page 159 at 181-184 Lines 35-40.
In view of the foregoing, I hold the view that the preliminary objection lacks merit and it is accordingly struck out.
Having gone through the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated by the parties, I am of the view that issues 1, 2 and 8 formulated by the Appellants are adequate to determine the appeal.
ISSUE ONE
Whether the ruling delivered by the lower Tribunal and read by Hon. Justice A. O. Ajileye in the presence of the Hon. Chairman and another member is not invalid and made without jurisdiction.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that by virtue of paragraph 27 of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the Chairman of the lower Tribunal alone, is vested with the statutory powers to hear and dispose of all interlocutory questions and matters as a Judge sitting in the Federal High Court. In the instant application leading to this appeal, the application was not only heard by the Chairman and two other members, the ruling was delivered by Hon. Justice A. O. Ajileye a member with the Chairman Hon. Justice F.C. Nwizu and Hon. Justice M. M. Alkali sitting with him. He submitted that the application was heard and determined without jurisdiction because of the composition. Learned Counsel urged this court to follow its previous decision in the case of OMEH VS. OKORO & ORS (1991) 8 N.W.L.R. Part 615 Page 356 at 368 where members of the lower Tribunal like in the instant application leading to this appeal sat with the Chairman of the lower Tribunal. The Court of Appeal held that the lower Tribunal was merely meddling in an assignment given to the Chairman alone under the Decree. The Provision of the Decree interpreted in Omeh Vs. Okoro (Supra) are in pari material with paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule of Electoral Act 2010 as amended on the hearing and determination of interlocutory applications. The case of Omeh Vs. Okoro (Supra) was followed by this court in the case of Hon. Ayo Adeseun and Another Vs. Chief Luqman Oyebisi Ilaka and Others (unreported) with appeal No CA/I/EPT/NA/3/11 delivered on the 12th of September 2011. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that the Appellants did not advert their minds to whether the questions resolved by the lower Tribunal was final or interlocutory, In Adeseun’s case, the question was raised and answered that the decision of the lower Court was interlocutory therefore only the Chairman had the competence to decide the issue. Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents contended that the order dismissing the petition is final. Being a final decision therefore takes it out of the jurisdiction of the Chairman sitting alone. The Tribunal sitting as a full panel therefore rightly exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the petition. He contended that assuming without conceding that the decision was interlocutory and only the Chairman could entertain and determine the said Respondents application, Learned Counsel urges the court that upon the admission of the relevant facts by the Appellants, this court should set aside the ruling of the lower court and remit same back to the lower Tribunal without determining the merit, of the application or exercise its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and determine the issue on the merit. Learned Counsel referred to the case of INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) ALL F.W.L.R, Part 353 Page 3 at 105 Paragraphs F-G.
By the ordinary interpretation of the law, the event applicable in determining the 7 days within which the Appellants must apply for the issuance of pre-hearing section was therefore the service of Respondents reply on the petitioner. Learned Counsel urged the court to hold that the application for the issuance of pre-hearing notice was not made in accordance with paragraph 18 (1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. Learned Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one against the Appellants but in favour of the Respondents.
The argument of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was adopted by the 3rd Respondent in its brief and also at the hearing. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat this argument all over or else it will amount to waste of useful time as it will be a repetition.
Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended provides:-
“All interlocutory questions and matters; may be heard and disposed of by the Chairman of the Tribunal or the Presiding Justice of the Court who shall have control over the proceeding as a Judge in the Federal High Court”.
The above provision is very clear and when a statute provides a procedure or method for performing duty or for doing an act that procedure and no other can be used otherwise the action will be incompetent.
See the cases of GALAUDU VS. KAMBA (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. part 895 page 31 at 55, AMASIKE VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL C.A.C. (2006) 3 N.W.L.R. Part 968 Page 462 at 500 and OKEREKE VS. YAR’ADUA (2008) ALL F.W.L.R. Part 430 at 626 particularly at 654 paragraph D where Onnoghen J.S.C. had this to say:
“It is settled law that where legislation lays down a procedure for doing a thing, there should be no other method of doing it. C.C.B. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE (1992) 10 S.C.N.J. 137 at 763 and BUHARI VS. YUSUF (2003) 4 N.W.L.R. Part 841 Page 446 at 498”
In the instant case, the application was heard and determined by all the members of the tribunal who each signed same and not by the Chairman alone. This procedure is contrary to the provision of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. See the case of Hon. Ayo Adeseun and Another Vs. Chief Luqman Oyebisi Ilaka and Others (unreported) with appeal No.CA/I/EPT/NA/3/11 delivered on the 12th of September 2011. I agree with the view expressed by my lord ALAGOA J.C.A in this judgment because it is the law.
Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended is in no way ambiguous except for the interpretation that may be given to word “may”. In OGUALATI VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL RIVERS STATE (1997) 6 N.W.L.R. Part 508 Page 209 AT 233, the Supreme Court in interpreting the word “may” under Section 28(1) of the State Lands Law of Eastern Nigeria as applicable to Rivers State stated as follows per Iguh JSC:
“It therefore seems to me settled that although Section 28(1) of the State Lands law applicable to Rivers State provides that the Lessor “may” enter a suit for recovery of possession on expiration of the Lessee’s ease, the word “may” in that section must be constructed as mandatory and/or as meaning “shall” or “must” since it imposes a duty upon a public functionary for the benefit of a private citizen”.
In R v Bishop of Oxford (1879) OBD 245 Land Blackburn stated that the enabling words are constructed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right. In the same tune, the purport of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended with respect to interlocutory applications cannot mean otherwise than that with respect to the hearing and determination of interlocutory applications before the Election Tribunals, the Chairman alone should do sit and determine such interlocutory applications to the exclusion of the other members.
In accordance with the principle of consistency in precedence, this Court again relied with approval on the case of Omeh Vs. Okoro (Supra) in the case of DR WALE OKEDIRAN VS. AGBOOLA HOSEA AYOOLA & ORS (unreported) with Appeal No. CA/I/EPT/NA/I/2011 delivered on 26th September 2011 when this court per IKYEGH J.C.A. held as follows:-
“I therefore find myself unable to depart from the case of Adeseun Vs. Ilaka (Supra). I follow it along with Omeh vs. Okoro (supra). The composition of the lower Tribunal with the Chairman and two other members when it heard and determined the interlocutory application of the 1st Respondent was accordingly in violation of paragraph 27(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act (supra) and struck at the root of the jurisdiction of the lower Tribunal and I respectfully so hold”.
I also hold that the application dated 18th August 2011 but filed on 23rd of August is an interlocutory application.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents urged this court to consider whether the decision appealed against was interlocutory or final. Paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended refers to “interlocutory decisions” as submitted by Learned Counsel for the 1st and does not refer to “interlocutory decisions” as submitted by Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It is trite that where the language of a provision of law is simple, plain, clear and unambiguous, it required no external aid to interpret it other than giving it the ordinary and natural meaning. See the case of NTIERO VS. N.P.A. (2008) ALL F.W.L.R. Part 430 Page 688 at 703 paragraph C. I am therefore unable to depart from Adeseun Vs. Ilaka Supra and Dr. Okediran Vs. Agboola Ayoola & Others Supra. The case at hand is also not distinguishable from these two cases.
In my humble view, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents is of no moment.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants in view of the provision of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended rightly submitted that the application was heard and determined by the lower Tribunal without jurisdiction because of the composition. By the provision of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule, the Chairman alone is given the power to hear and dispose of interlocutory questions and matters and to have control over the proceeding as a Judge in the Federal High Court.
Non compliance with paragraph 27(1) thereof has stripped off the Tribunal of its jurisdiction as one of the factors which confer jurisdiction on a court of law is not complied with. See OKEREKE VS. YARADUA Supra at 646 Paras B-D, MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 S.C. N.L.R. at 341, A.G, LAGOS STATE VS. DOSUMU (1989) 3 N.W.L.R, Part 777 at 552 and STABILINI VISINOMI LTD. VS. F.B.I.R. (2009) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 1157 Page 200 at 227 Paras D-F.
Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents also urged this court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act determine the issue on the merit.
Let me quickly point out that we cannot involve Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to assume jurisdiction to look into the matter because in the event our decision goes contrary to that of the tribunal, it means we have to proceed with the hearing of the petition. This would involve calling of witnesses. The court would be saddled with the onerous task of taking evidence from the listed witnesses thereafter assess their credibility to arrive at a decision in the matter, an exercise where primary jurisdiction is constitutionally vested in the Election Tribunals. This of course might take some time and will eventually defeat the purpose of hearing election petition matters of which time is of essence.
The composition of the lower Tribunal with the Chairman and two other members when it heard and determined the interlocutory application of the 1st and 2nd respondents was accordingly in violation of paragraph 27(1) of the First schedule to the Electoral Act. It struck at the root of the jurisdiction of the lower Tribunal. The absence of jurisdiction therefore renders the proceedings of the Tribunal on the 10th of September 2011 and the ruling of 14th of September 2011 respectively in determining the application a nullity. See OKE VS. OKE (2006) 17 N.W.L.R. part 1008 page 224 and CADBURY NIGERIA PLC. VS. F.B.I.R.(2010) 2 N.W.L.R. part 1179 page 567 at 576 Paragraphs C – D. Issue one is hereby resolve in favour of the Appellant.
Having resolved Issue One the question of the composition of the Tribunal that it has stripped the lower Tribunal of jurisdiction for being in violation of paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, the consideration of the other issues would only amount to an academic exercise. See the case of OKOLO VS. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (2004) 3 N.W.L.R. Part 859 at 870 wherein the absence of jurisdiction renders the entire foundation of a case as not only shaken but completely broken.
Consequently, the appeal has merit and it is allowed. I therefore make an order setting aside the ruling of the lower Tribunal delivered on 14th of September 2011 by Hon. Justice A. O. Ajileye a member of the lower Tribunal dismissing the Appellant’s Petition. I hereby make an order remitting the petition for adjudication before another panel of the Election petition Tribunal to be constituted by the Hon. President of the Court of Appeal. Parties to bear their own costs.
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my brother Modupe Fasanmi (JCA) and I am of the view that the appeal has merit and should be allowed. I allow same and abide by the orders contained in the said judgment including order on costs.
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.: This appeal was allowed on the 9th of November, 2011 and I reserved the reasons for allowing the appeal.
I now give the reasons. I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the reasons given by my learned brother Fasanmi, J.C.A. I entirely agree with the reasons. I therefore adopt them as mine. I also allow the appeal and endorse all the consequential orders made in the lead judgment, cost inclusive.
Appearances
Titilola Dauda For Appellant
AND
M. F. Lana with Bola Alabi, Ibrahim Lawal and Oliver Okeke for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Omoniyi Fayanju for the 3rd Respondent For Respondent
