HUMPHREY AKUSOBI & ORS V. AUGUSTINE OBINECHIE & ORS
(2003)LCN/1449(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 8th day of July, 2003
CA/PH/60/97
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WAYS TO PROVE TITLE TO LAND
“It is well settled law that title to land can be proved in one of the following five ways:
i. Proof by traditional evidence
ii. Proof by production of documents of title duly authenticated unless they are documents 20 or more years old, produced from proper custody.
iii. Proof of acts of ownership, in and over the land in dispute such as selling, leasing, making a grant, renting out all or any part of land or farming on it or portion thereof – extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such proprietary acts are true owners of the land.
iv. Proof by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land which prima facie may be evidence of ownership, not only of the particular piece of land with reference to which such acts are done, but also of other land so situated or connected therewith by locality or similarity that the presumption under section 46 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 of 1990 applies and the inference can be drawn that what is true of the one piece of land is likely to be true of the other piece of land.
v. Proof of possession connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owners of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.”
See Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227. ” PER MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
DAVID ADEDOYIN ADENIJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1.HUMPHREY AKUSOBI
2. ALEXANDER OHAJIANYA
3. ORISAKWE DURU
4. REUBEN ANAMEGBE
5. MADUAKKO OSIGWE
6. ADIMEKWE IZUEGBU
7. GODIAN OGUERI
(for themselves and as representatives of the UMUCHOKE COMMUNITY of DIKENAFAI in the IDEATO SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA of Imo State) Appellant(s)
AND
1.AUGUSTINE OBINECHIE
2. PATRICK OKWARA
3. ADULPHUS UBAWUIKE
4. RICHARD AGANOSI
5. GREGORY NWAOGU
6. GODWIN ANYANWU
(for themselves and as representatives of the UMUABO COMMUNITY OF DIKENAFAI in IDEATO SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF Imo State) Respondent(s)
MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Imo State sitting at Nkwene/Isu delivered on 15th August, 1996.
The plaintiffs’ claim in the lower court are as follows:
“(a) A declaration that the defendants are not descendants of NCHOKE the founder of the Umuchoke community of Dikenafai in the Ideato Local Government Area of Imo State and as such that the defendants are not members of the Umuchoke Community aforesaid.
(b) A declaration that all those pieces and parcels of land known as and called “ALA ISIOBI AKUSOBI”, “ALA ISIOBI AMAECHI” and “ALA NGBALA ONYEWUCHI” form part of larger pieces and parcels of land all lying and situate at Ndiabo Umuchoke Dikenafai in the Ideato Local Government Area of Imo state over which members of the plaintiffs Ndiabo Umuchoke are entitled to customary right of occupancy to the exclusion of the defendants.
(c) Injunction perpetually restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents and or by any other person acting for or on their behalf from:
(i) representing themselves to any person as members of or descendants of the Umuchoke community of Dikenafai in the Ideato South Local Government Area of Imo State; and
(ii) Committing any further act of trespass on or over any part of the said land of the Umuchoke community of Dikenafai in the Ideato South Local Government Area of Imo State.
(d) A declaration that the defendants have forfeited that customary grant of land for residential purpose made by Ibeke Alisigwe of the plaintiffs’ Ndiabo Umuchoke to the defendants’ Anthony Agonsi and Dominic Okwaranyaegbu Ubawuike on the ground that they have challenged the title of their grantor.”
The defendant also counter-claimed as follows:
“(i) An order of court that the defendants are the owners of the land in dispute and are entitled to the grant of a right of occupancy over the area.
(ii) N1,000,000.00 (One million Naira) general damages for trespass.
(iii)An order of forfeiture of the right of the plaintiffs over all the portions of land occupied by them on the disputed land.
(iv) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, heirs, assigns and workers from further trespass to the said land.”
The summary of the appellants’ case in the court below was that the portions of land called Ala 1st Obi Akusobi, Ala Isi Obi Amaechi and Ala Mgbala Onyewuchi are part of a larger area of land over which their Umuchoke village of Dikenafai obtained judgment from the Governor’s Appeal Court of Eastern Nigeria in Appeal No. 5/1952 based on the area of land shown on their survey plan No. OR/1/48 against the Nkahu of Dikenafai. During the duration of the case, the respondents knew of it but did not try to lay claim to the said parcels of land even though they claimed that they were living in Nkahu as fugitives.
The certified true copy of the appellate judgment including the survey plan were admitted in evidence as exhibits “B” – “B2” at the trial in the court below. It was also their case that they do not share a common ancestral origin with the respondents and they do not inherit land together with them because they are not natives of umuchoke Dikenafai but natives of Amorie Dikenafai which is not part of Umuchoke. The respondents’ entry into the land resulted from a customary grant for temporary residential purposes made by Ibeke Alisigwe of their family sometimes about 1964 to one Dominic Okwanyaegbu Ubawuike (the father of the 3rd respondent) and Anthony Agosi over parts of the land.
They claimed forfeiture against them because they challenged their title to the land. It was also their case that PW II, the surveyor who made exhibit F, gave evidence that exhibit A, the survey plan and exhibit C, the respondents’ survey plan relate to the same land which is within the land reflected in exhibit B2 for which judgment was given in their favour against the respondents in 1948 which was later affirmed by the Governor’s Appeal Court of Eastern Nigeria in Appeal No. 5/1952.
The respondents’ case put briefly in the lower court was that they are natives of Ndiabor Umuchoke Dikenafai and they are also known as Umuabor to distinguish themselves from those who infiltrated Ndiabor as strangers and to show their direct linkage and lineage to Abori. They are the owners of the land in dispute having settled therefrom time immemorial until in or about 1890 when they fled from the land in dispute to Nkahu in another part of Dikenafai because of the hostility of the people of Umuohuodu. In 1944, they returned to the land in dispute and published this fact in the Eastern Guardian of 12th June, 1954. When they returned to the land in dispute, they found that late Felix Akusobi, the father of the 1st appellant who was from Ndiabor Umuchoke and their relation by blood had given out part of the land in dispute to the other appellants who are from other kindreds in Umuchoke.
The late Felix Akusobi also pledged part of the land in dispute which they redeemed. They protested to him but he could not ask the strangers to whom he pledged the land to leave it. In 1990, and 1991, the appellants invaded the land, damaged their homes and halls and carried away their various building materials and cut their palm fruits on the land. They made a report to the police and they were arrested and charged to the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Ideato. They traced their origin to Abor, their ancestor who founded Ndiabor kindred or a section of Umuchoke up to Dikenafai and they have been in possession of the land until the appellants trespassed on it.
At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the respondents in their counter-claim and dismissed the appellants’ claims.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants filed a brief of argument and framed five issues for determination and at the hearing of the appeal, they abandoned issue one leaving issues 2, 3,4 and 5 and they read as follows:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“(ii) Whether the relief claimed in paragraph 48(a) of the appellants’ amended statement of claim offends section 39(2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and in any case whether the learned trial Judge could found his decision on such an issue which never arose and was never canvassed at the trial?
(iii) Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he concluded that the plaintiff (now appellants) failed to establish their entitlement to the claim in paragraph 48(a) of the amended statement of claim, namely “a declaration that the defendants are not descendants of Nchoke, the founder of Umuchoke – and as such – not members of Umuchoke community.
(iv) Whether the appellants established their title to the land?
(v) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to grant to the respondents the reliefs he granted them or to uphold their counter-claim?
The respondents also filed a brief of argument and adopted the issues formulated by the appellants for determination.
I would like to consider issue 4 first, which to my mind is very crucial to the resolution of this appeal having regard to the reliance placed by the appellants on exhibits B – B2, certified copy of the judgment of the Governor’s Court of Appeal No. 5/1952 based on dispute survey plan OR/148 and composite survey plan exhibit F tendered by PW II.
On this issue, learned counsel for the appellants submitted forcefully that no document of title can be stronger than a considered judgment of a competent court whose validity or accuracy is not challenged at all and relied on exhibit B – B2, certified copy of the judgment of the Governor’s Court of Appeal No, 5/1952 based on survey plan OR/14/8 in which judgment was given in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke family, stressing that the documents were tendered by the appellants who had due custody of them without objection.
He also relied on the evidence of PW II, an officer in charge of Topography in the Surveyor-General’s office who tend Ted exhibit F and testified to the effect that exhibit A, the appellants’ survey plan, and exhibit C, the respondents’ survey plan related to the same land that is within the land reflected in exhibits B – B2 for which judgment was given in 1948. He further argued that the respondents did not call any other expert evidence to contradict or even challenge his evidence stressing that if the learned trial Judge had taken proper approach in the evaluation of the evidence before him, he would have relied on the evidence of PW II, the only expert evidence before him on the issue whether the land in dispute fell within the land adjudged in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke family in exhibits B – B2.
He further contended that in the face of the evidence of PW II, the finding of the learned trial Judge at (page 601) lines 17 – 31 that exhibit A cannot be realistic and that it is a product of an imaginary area of land amounted to no more than a postulation of presumptions in the face of hard evidence.
He finally submitted that in the face of exhibits B – B2 in which judgment was given in favour of the appellants of the Umuchoke constituted unchallenged proof of title by them over the land in dispute.
With regards exhibits B – B2, certified copy of the judgment of the Governor’s Court of Appeal No. 5/1952, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision is not relevant to this appeal because the appellants failed to link the land now in dispute to the land for which judgment was given in 1952 because the land in dispute between the appellants and the respondents is situate at Ndiabor Umuchoke and Ndiabor is one of the seven kindreds or section that make up Umuchoke and each section owns its own land exclusively and no section owns land in another section and that Umuchoke as a whole or as a community does not own land in common.
It was also his submission that the 1952 case was between Nkahu and Umuchoke and Nkahu is one of the six villages, which make up Dikenafai and that there was no evidence as to what part of Umuchoke, the land in dispute in the 1952 case is situated. He further argued that the people of Ndiabor own the land in dispute as found by the learned trial Judge and as such they are not bound by the decision in exhibits B – B2 which has not been shown to be part of the land in dispute in 1952 and that the learned trial Judge accepted this fact which is supported by evidence that Umuchoke do not own land communally.
On the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, that PW II having given expert evidence, the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted it, he submitted that expert evidence does not stand alone but must be related to other pieces of evidence before the court on the basis and consideration of which the court gives its verdict, stressing that since the learned trial Judge held that exhibits B – B2 is not relevant, to the consideration of the case, and as such the respondents are not obliged to call expert evidence to prove an irrelevant fact.
On this issue whether the appellants proved their title to the land in dispute, the appellants contended that they proved their title to the land in dispute by exhibits B – B2, certified copy of the judgment of the Governor’s Court of Appeal No. 5/1952, in view of the evidence of PW II an officer in charge of Topography in the survey general’s office who tendered exhibit F and testified that exhibit A, the appellants’ survey plan and exhibit C, the respondents’ survey plan related to the same land that is within the land reflected in exhibits B – B2 for which judgment was given in 1948.
Counsel for the respondents argued to the contrary and submitted that the decision in exhibits B – B2 is not relevant to the appeal because the appellants failed to link the land now in dispute to the land for which judgment was given in 1952 because the land in dispute between the appellants and the respondents is situated at Ndiabor Umuchoke, and that since the judgment is not relevant to the appellants’ claim as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, and as such the respondents are not obliged to call expert evidence to prove an irrelevant fact.
It is well settled law that title to land can be proved in one of the following five ways:
i. Proof by traditional evidence
ii. Proof by production of documents of title duly authenticated unless they are documents 20 or more years old, produced from proper custody.
iii. Proof of acts of ownership, in and over the land in dispute such as selling, leasing, making a grant, renting out all or any part of land or farming on it or portion thereof – extending over a sufficient length of time, numerous and positive enough as to warrant the inference that the persons exercising such proprietary acts are true owners of the land.
iv. Proof by acts of long possession and enjoyment of the land which prima facie may be evidence of ownership, not only of the particular piece of land with reference to which such acts are done, but also of other land so situated or connected therewith by locality or similarity that the presumption under section 46 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 of 1990 applies and the inference can be drawn that what is true of the one piece of land is likely to be true of the other piece of land.
v. Proof of possession connected or adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owners of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.”
See Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 – 10 SC 227.
The appellants predicated their proof of title to the land mainly on production of document exhibits B – B2, apart from traditional evidence and acts of possession, while the respondents predicated their title to land in dispute on traditional evidence and acts of possession. As I said above, I would like to consider the submission of learned counsel of the appellants first, in which he relied heavily on exhibits B -B2 and evidence of PW II to show that the appellants proved their title to the land.
At this stage, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the evidence of PW II on exhibits B – B2 at pages 411 – 413 of the records:
“The surveyor general was asked in the subpoena to superimpose the other two new survey plans on the 1948 plan in which judgment was given, and determined to what extent the land in dispute in the two new survey plans is part of the 1948 land in respect of which judgment had been given. The 3/three survey plans mentioned by the witness are shown to him who after examined them one by one said;
1. This is the 1948 plan – exhibit ‘B2’ No. OR/1/48 Imperial
2. This is Ex. ‘A’ No. ASA/IMD68/91 of 20-05-91; and
3. This is Ex. ‘C’ NO. VEN/D09/92 of 20-2-92.
To carry out what we were asked to do, we first of all converted the ‘imperial’ into ‘metric’ so as to bring all the plans into uniform scale. The plan in imperial when converted became 1 meter to 7,500 metres and I decided and reduced the other plans in metric to the same scale i.e. to 1 metre to 7,500 metres. Then the 3/three plans were merged and therefrom emerged this result:
a. The 3 plans have ‘Nkoro’ as their boundary between ‘Nkahu’ and ‘Umuchoke’ in the suit No.301/47.
b. Plan No. ASA/IMD68/91 agreed with plan No. OR/1/48 having R.C.M. Nkahu/Umuchoke as a common feature also having C.M.S. Dikenafai as a common feature also a point from which many roads take off to various parts of Imo State as a common feature. Also as a common feature is ALAKRAMODU tree.
c. But between exs. ‘A’, ‘B2’ and ‘C’ ‘Nkoro’ is the only common feature. As between exs. A and C, they have a ‘square’ as a common feature which is not in ex. ‘B2’.
From the foregoing a composite plan No. MISC(m) 288 of 30-5-96 was produced have ‘KEY’ for guidance.
Counsel seek to tender the composite plan and without objection it is tendered and received in evidence and marked ex. ‘F’. My finding is that exhibits. ‘A’ and ‘C’ relate to the same land and the land is within the land reflected in ex. B2 for which judgment was given in 1948.
Under cross-examination, PW II said that the area verged Blue in ‘F’ is the ‘Nkoro’ on the northern part of which is the land of Nkahu people while on the south part is the land of Umuchoke Dikenafai.”
It is beyond argument from the evidence of PW II reproduced above, that exhibit ‘A’ the appellants’ survey plan and exhibit ‘C’ the respondents’ survey Plan is the portion of the land for which exhibits B – B2 was given in 1948 which supports the appellants’ case. In view of the evidence of PW II, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants failed to link the land in dispute to the land covered by the 1952 case is of no moment so also his submission that if the people of Ndiabor own the land in dispute as found by the trial court, they are not bound by the decision of the native court in 1952 in respect of their (Ndiabo) land which has not been shown to be part of the land in dispute in 1952.
In considering exhibits B – B2, the learned trial Judge said at page 601 lines 12 – 25:
” … from the nature of the plaintiffs’ case available evidence showed a total lack of know ledge of the extent of the land in dispute. In the circumstances, I am of the view that exhibit ‘A’ the plaintiffs’ survey plan of the land in dispute cannot be realistic in that the plaintiffs are not certain of the extent of the land in dispute and Ex. ‘A’ is a product of an imaginary area of land. I do not therefore countenance it as a dependable survey plan of the land in dispute.”
In the first place, there is no evidence on record from which the learned trial Judge arrived at this finding. There is evidence at page 309 of the records lines 10 – 30 that exhibit A was tendered by the respondents during the cross-examination of PW 6 and being evidence elicited under cross-examination, it formed part of the evidence put forward by them and as such they cannot challenge or reject it. The conclusion reached on exhibit ‘A’ cannot be sustained on the face of the evidence of PW II.
With regard to exhibits B – B2, they were duly pleaded and not denied. See paragraphs 19 and 20 of the amended statement of claim and paragraph 19 of the amended statement of defence at page 214 lines 17 – 21 of the records where the respondents pleaded thus:
“With particular reference to paragraph 19(b) of the statement of claim, the defendants shall contend that the judgment is irrelevant to this suit and should be disregarded.”
They did not deny that the land now in dispute formed part of a larger area of land over which judgment was given in exhibits B – B2.
The evidence of PW II, which I reproduced above, was clearly that of an expert. The respondents did not call any other expert evidence to contradict or challenge his evidence. If the learned trial Judge had properly evaluated the evidence, he would have relied on it, being the only expert evidence before him on the issue whether the land in dispute fell within the land adjudged in favour of the appellants’ Umuchoke in exhibits B – B2, see Seismograph Services Ltd. v. Onokposa (1972) 1 ANLR (Pt.1) 343 at 345. In the face of the unchallenged evidence of PW II, the finding of the learned trial Judge that exhibit ‘A’ cannot be realistic and that it is a product of an imaginary areas of land amounts to no more than a postulation of presumptions in face of hard evidence. As Sowemimo, J.S.C. put it in the case of Seismograph Services Ltd. v. Akporuovo (1974) 6 SC 119 at 136:
” … It is … abnegation of duty to run away from expert evidence and postulate presumption …”
Looking at exhibits A and C, it is crystal clear that the appellants and the respondents know clearly the land in dispute between them, and that it is clearly defined in both plans and that the land in dispute is one and the same land as such the findings of the learned trial Judge cannot stand in the face of exhibits A, C, F and B2. It is therefore my view that exhibit B2, the certified copy of the appellate judgment in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke constitutes unchallenged proof of title to the land in dispute by DW 1 and DW2 gave traditional evidence of the land in dispute but in the face of exhibits A, B – B2, C and F which showed clearly that it was the same land in which judgment was given in favour of the appellants in 1952, the learned trial Judge could have not relied on their evidence in arriving at his decision that the land belonged to the respondents.
This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the appellants against the respondents.
On issue 5, having held that the appellants established their title to the land in dispute, the learned trial Judge was therefore wrong in granting the counter claim of the respondent and dismissing the appellant’s claim. This issue is also resolved in favour of the appellants against the respondents.
On issue 2, learned counsel for the appellants referred to what the learned trial Judge said at page 587 lines 8 to 28 of the records and submitted that as the appellants and the respondents did not lead any evidence as to any circumstance of the birth of the respondents, the learned trial Judge was wrong in reaching his conclusion.
It was also his submission that no relief claimed by the appellants at the trial offended section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended, because no person is bound by any rule of law to be related by blood to another except such persons may have been so placed by natural event of birth, stressing that the fact that the appellants are members of Dikenafai Community does not compel them by law to share blood descent with the respondents.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue raised by the learned trial Judge with regards to section 39(2) of the 1979 Constitution was not relevant to his decision with regards to the respondents’ claim in paragraph 48(a) of their amended statement of claim because it was made in passing and his decision was not based on it. It was also his submission that the issue did not affect his mind in arriving at his decision and has not led to any miscarriage of justice. Reliance was placed on the case of Ike v. Ugboaja (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 301) 539 at 556. At this stage,
I would like to reproduce what the learned trial Judge said at page 587 of the records:
“What however strikes intriguing is that almost all the plaintiffs’ witnesses are’ ad idem” that the defendants contribute their quota as and when required towards the development of Dikenafai and still there exists such thick-skinned apartheid on the part of the plaintiffs towards the defendants. And this is so outspoken that the plaintiffs claim that culturally their tradition forbids them from having anything in common with the defendant … I think I am duty bound to observe that the plaintiffs would appear to be unwittingly offending section 39(2) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria …”
I agree entirely with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants that no relief claimed by them offended section 39(2) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 as amended and as such the statement made by the learned trial Judge to the effect that he thought that he was duty bound to observe that the appellants would appear to be unwittingly offending section 39(2) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is most unnecessary because there was no evidence led by the appellants and the respondents in support of it. Be that as it may, it has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice. This is more so when it was not pleaded by the parties and therefore goes to no issue.
On issue three having held that the appellants proved their title to the land in dispute, it cannot lie in the mouths of the respondents that they are strangers on the land in dispute. The appellants’ case on their amended statement of claim and the evidence led in support was that the respondents were strangers in Umuchoke because they came from Umuoria or Obinorie. As I said above, the respondents said that they fled from the land in dispute to Nkahu in 1890 and returned to the land in 1944 which was in dispute between Umuchoke and Nkahu for which judgment was delivered in 1952 in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke and yet they denied any knowledge of the case and the judgment delivered against Nkahu where they fled to for safety and returned to the land in 1944.
If they are from Umuchoke in Dikenafai as they claimed, they could have heard of the dispute over the land between Umuchoke and Nkahu for which judgment was given in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke in 1952. Suffice therefore to say that they are from Amaoria and only came to the land in 1944 when it was in dispute between Nkahu and Umuchoke. The publication in exhibit D, the Eastern Nigeria Guardian Publications of 12/6/54 was clearly an after thought to enable them claim the land for which judgment was given in favour of the appellants of Umuchoke in 1952. If their story that they returned from Nkahu to the land in dispute in 1944 is true, why did they wait for 10 years before making the publication in exhibit D?
This issue is resolved in favour of the appellants against the respondents.
On issue 5, since the appellants proved their title to the land in dispute, the learned trial Judge was therefore wrong in granting the respondents, counter-claim.
It is well settled law that a Court of Appeal which did not hear or observe the demeanour of witnesses in the witness box should not interfere with findings of facts of a trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanour in the witness box, unless such findings were perverse unreasonable or not supported by the evidence. See Ike v. Ugboaja (supra); Woluchem v. Gudi (supra) and Ajewole v. Adetimo (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.431) 391. There is no doubt in this case that the findings of facts by the trial Judge were perverse because if he had properly evaluated the evidence led before him, he could have come to the irresistible conclusion that the appellants proved their title to the land in dispute in the face of exhibits A, B, B2, C and F.
From all what I have said above, there is merit in this appeal and it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the court below delivered on 15/8/96 is set aside and judgment is entered in favour of the appellants in terms of their amended claim. The respondents’ amended counter-claim is hereby dismissed. The respondents are to pay the appellants N10,000.00 costs.
ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, AKPIROROH, JCA just delivered and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I too allow the appeal and abide by the order made therein including the order as to costs.
DAVID ADEDOYIN ADENIJI, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Akpiroroh, JCA and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion.
I abide by all the consequential orders made including the order for costs.
Appeal allowed.
Appearances
B.E.I. Nwofor, Esq. (with him. T. Ogara, Esq.For Appellant
AND
J.N. Egwuonwu, EsqFor Respondent
