IBRAHIM COUNCILLOR JIMLARI v. JAURO SANTI TIPPI
(2010)LCN/3930(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 6th day of July, 2010
CA/J/264/2004
RATIO
IDENTIFICATION OF LAND: WHETHER THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE MUST BE PROVED CLEARLY BEFORE THE PROOF OF TITLE BECOMES RELEVANT
The law is settled, that identity of land in dispute, in issue (ie where the parties are not idem on it), must be proved clearly, before the proof of title becomes relevant. See MICHAEL ODUNZE VS NWOSU (2007) 5 SCNJ 234. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
IDENTIFICATION OF LAND: WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE AND THE EFFECT OF HIS FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THIS DUTY ON HIM
The identity of the land must be established by the plaintiff or else the action will be dismissed – YUSUFU VS BALOGUN (2007) 3 SCNJ 227; GBADAMOSI VS DAIRO (2007) 1SCNJ 444. It is the duty of the plaintiff who seeks a declaration of title to land, to lead credible evidence to satisfactorily and sufficiently, describe and identify the land with certainty – EZEOKEKE and ORS VS UGA & ORS (1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 3) 482 at 484; ELIAS VS 0M0-BARE (1982) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 1) 70 at 86 and AWOTE VS OWODUNNI (No 2) (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt 52) 367. It is because of the crucial nature of the identity of land, that once a plaintiff fails to discharge the onus on him of defining it precisely, his claim will fail at that stage and no further enquiry will be necessary – see UDOFIA VS AFIA (1940) 6 WACA 216 and IMAH VS OKOGBE (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 316) 159. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE: WHETHER EVIDENCE LED WHICH IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE PLEADINGS IS INADMISSIBLE AND GOES TO NO ISSUE
Evidence led which is at variance with the pleadings is inadmissible and goes to no issue and if admitted, should be expunged or discountenanced with. DOKIBO VS OMONO (1999) 6 SCNJ 168 at 183 – 184; ALAO VS A.C.B. (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 542) 339. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
ROOT OF TITLE TO LAND: WHETHER A PARTY WHO TRACES HIS ROOT OF TITLE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON OR FAMILY MUST ESTABLISH THE LATTER’S ROOT AS WELL
On root of title, the law is that, a party who traces his root of title to a particular person or family, must establish the latter’s root as well, unless admitted by the adverse party – AMUKAN VS AMUKAN (2008) 2 SCNJ 62. In the case of UKEGBU VS NWOLOLO (2009) 1 SCNJ 49 at 66, OGBUAGU JSC in the lead judgment of the Supreme Court held – “…it is now settled that where title is derived by either grant, sale conquest or inheritance etc. the pleading should aver facts relating to the founding of the land in dispute, the person or persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession. See the cases of PIARO VS CHIEF TENALO & ORS (1976) 12 S.C. 31 at 34, and OJO VS PRIMATE E. O. ADEJOBI & ORS. (1978) 3 S.C. 65…Thus if the pleaded root of title is not established by evidence, it will be a futile exercise to go to the issue of possession or acts of ownership. See the cases of FASHINO & ANOR. VS. BEYIOLU & 2 ORS (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 76) 263 at 271 and ALHAJI ARE & ANR VS IPAYE & ORS (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt 132) 296 at 301.” PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND: WHETHER DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT
…declaration of title to land cannot be established by admission of defendant, because the plaintiff has the duty of satisfying the court by cogent and credible evidence, his entitlement to the declaration – ANYANWU VS MANDILAS LTD (2007) 4 SCNJ 388. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
IBRAHIM COUNCILLOR JIMLARI Appellant(s)
AND
JAURO SANTI TIPPI Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): At the High Court of Jalingo, Taraba State, the appellant as plaintiff, filed an action against the respondent as defendant claiming for –
“(a) A declaration of title to the parcel of land lying and situated at Abuja, Jalingo measuring approximately 400 x 400 being part of a larger land which plaintiff bought from one Jauro Notani in 1982.
(b) An order of court directing the defendant to remove all he has brought on and deposited on the land.
(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant howsoever and by whomsoever from further trespass.
(d) N100,000.00 general damages for trespass.
(e) Cost of filing and prosecution of this action.”
The respondent denied the claim and filed a statement of defence. After the exchange of pleadings, the matter went to trial.
The case of the appellant at the trial court in which he called three witnesses and also testified for himself as the fourth witness, is that he purchased a large parcel of land in 1982 from one Jauro Notani. The sale was witnessed by people and a written agreement was drawn up as evidence of payment of the land. It was tendered and marked as Exhibit P1. The appellant at a later time, sold some portion of the land he so bought, to some named people. The un-sold portion is what he said the respondent had trespassed and encroached upon. It is the disputed land he said.
The respondent who denied the claim, called three witnesses and stated that the land in dispute belonged to him, having inherited same from his late father Tippi.
On conclusion of the trial, the lower trial court made a finding that the appellant had established that he bought the land in dispute from Jauro Notan, but it dismissed his case, stating that it was not clear, how Jauro Notani got title to the piece of land. It also held that the appellant had failed to establish with clarity, the extent and boundaries of the land he was laying claim to.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed an appeal to this court vide his Notice and five grounds of appeal on the 9th July, 2004. His brief of argument was filed by his counsel, Mr. E.D. Galumje on the 26/8/2005 but deemed filed on the 14/2/2006. The respondent’s brief of argument was filed on the 8th of March, 2006.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, three issues for determination were identified. They are –
1. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in basing his decision on his inability to understand and comprehend the evidence of the witnesses he had the singular privilege of seeing and hearing instead of the evidence on record.
2. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the plaintiff’s case without considering all issues and claims raised before him.
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in dismissing the plaintiff’s case when he held thus: “The plaintiff has failed to establish with clarity the extent and boundaries of the land he is claiming before me.”
For the respondent, two issues were identified to be
(A) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in law by holding that the Appellant did not prove title and the piece of land in dispute unascertainable?
(B) Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced the Learned Trial Judge was justified in law when he dismissed Appellant’s claim for a declaration of title and other reliefs sought?
Issue No. 1 identified for determination by counsel for the appellant did not state on what ground of appeal it is based upon. It appears to be based on Ground (iii) of the appeal. But even in the quoted passage in ground (iii), the trial judge never stated that he could not understand and comprehend the evidence of witnesses before him and certainly, did not base his decision on such so called inability to comprehend. Issue No. 1 is therefore not based on a ground of appeal, and facts on the record. In view of that, I shall utilize the issues formulated by the respondent in resolving this appeal.
ISSUE A
Counsel for the appellant submitted on this, that the trial judge had before arriving at the decision to dismiss the appellant’s case, made copious findings in favour of the plaintiff. He referred to pages 63 lines 22 – 27; 70 lines 20 – 26 and 71 to the effect that he was satisfied that Jauro Notani had sold his land to the appellant. With this finding he argued it was surprising and wrong, for the trial judge to now dismiss the appellant’s case saying that the appellant had failed to establish the boundaries of his land. This finding could not be based on evidence but on the failure of the trial judge to comprehend the evidence before him, he argued. Counsel argued strongly, that a trial judge has the duty to listen, comprehend evaluate evidence led before him and choose which side to believe before arriving at his decision. If he fails to comprehend and understand the evidence and decides to partake in speculation and conjecture, his decision will be perverse – EZEMBE VS IBENEME (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt 223) 1786 at 1845. He submitted that the trial judge in this case did not comprehend the evidence adduced before him.
Counsel submitted also, that the trial judge had failed to consider the evidence of PW1 to the effect that the land Notani sold to the plaintiff is not part Of the defendant’s land and Exhibit P2, which showed that the defendant, who testified before the Area Court 1 Jalingo on behalf of the plaintiff, said the land in dispute was sold to the plaintiff. Equally he submitted, the trial judge failed to and overlooked the evidence under cross-examination of the respondent at page 58, where he denied being the owner of the land in dispute whose boundaries were described to him and said he had no objection to the grant of the said land to the appellant. Counsel also argued that it was the lack of comprehension of evidence, that led the trial judge to conclude without any evidence on the record, that the respondent’s land was part of the land Notani sold to the plaintiff. This was perverse, he said.
For the respondent, his counsel submitted that the respondent had joined issues by his paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of defence, with the appellant in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim to the effect that the land in dispute, did not form part of the land the appellant’s vendor had purportedly sold to the appellant. This therefore, indicated that the respondent had challenged the title of the appellant’s vendor over the land in dispute and the appellant has a duty to establish the title of his vendor – NGENE VS IGBO (2000) 2 S.C.N. 146 at 141 and OWHONDA VS EPECHI (2003) 49 W.R.N 1 at 16. Counsel submitted that the appellant neither pleaded in the statement of claim or in a Reply, nor led any evidence to prove how his vendor Jauro Notani came by the land, as opposed to the respondent who pleaded and led evidence in support of his root of title – paragraph 9 of the statement of defence and his evidence at pages 56, 57 and 58 of the record. He argued that the trial judge was therefore right when he concluded at page 71 that although he accepted that Jauro Notani had sold his land to the appellant, he did not know how he came by it. This is unimportant he argued, because paragraph 3 of the statement of defence had averred that the land Jauro Notani sold to the appellant in 1982, was different from the land in dispute, and that this averment has not been denied by way of a reply by the appellant.
On title over the disputed land, counsel submitted that the appellant had failed to do so on the strength of his case and could not do so on the weakness of the defendant’s case. BANKOLE VS PELU (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt 211) 523 at 541. The trial judge was therefore right when he held that at the extent of the boundaries of the land had not been established. This is seen he said, because the evidence led on the boundaries of the land, via PW1 at pages 30 and 31, PW2 at pages 33 and 34, PW3 at page 37 and the appellant at page 41, are at variance with the pleading at paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. Following the cases of EPI VS AIGBEDION (1992) 10 S.C. 53 at 59; UDOFIA VS AJIA 6 WACA 216, KWADZO VS ADJEY 10 WACA 264; OLUWI VS ENUOLA (1967) NWLR 339 and EXENDU VS OBIAGWU (1996) 3 SCNJ at 26, he submitted, a plaintiff seeking for a declaration of title to land must first show the court clearly, the area of land he is claiming, as the declaration cannot be granted unless the area is identified with certainty, otherwise the claim will fail and must be dismissed. Since this is the position in this case, the trial judge was right in dismissing the claim he argued. The other reliefs had collapsed and the trial court was right when it, did not consider them, he argued.
The appellant was claiming for declaration of title to the land in dispute. By paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of-the statement of claim, the appellant pleaded that he bought a large parcel of land from Jauro Notani in 1982 and an agreement was made to that extent. He then sold portion of the land to named persons. By paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, he averred that –
“The Land in dispute is part of the plaintiff’s remaining land and it is bordered in the East by the remaining part not encroached upon by the defendant, in the North by River Mayo-Gwoi, in the west, by road from Jalingo Town to the State Secretariat, across River Mayo-Gwoi in the south by the land the plaintiff sold to Abdullahi.”
On his part, the respondent averred at paragraph 3 of the statement of defence, that
“the land of Jauro Notani which he purportedly sold part to the plaintiff in 1982 is a different land from this piece of land now in dispute.”
Clearly, therefore, the parties had joined issues on the land in dispute and its identity is therefore in issue and is crucial. The law is settled, that identity of land in dispute, in issue (ie where the parties are not idem on it), must be proved clearly, before the proof of title becomes relevant. See MICHAEL ODUNZE VS NWOSU (2007) 5 SCNJ 234. The identity of the land must be established by the plaintiff or else the action will be dismissed – YUSUFU VS BALOGUN (2007) 3 SCNJ 227; GBADAMOSI VS DAIRO (2007) 1SCNJ 444. It is the duty of the plaintiff who seeks a declaration of title to land, to lead credible evidence to satisfactorily and sufficiently, describe and identify the land with certainty – EZEOKEKE and ORS VS UGA & ORS (1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 3) 482 at 484; ELIAS VS 0M0-BARE (1982) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 1) 70 at 86 and AWOTE VS OWODUNNI (No 2) (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt 52) 367. It is because of the crucial nature of the identity of land, that once a plaintiff fails to discharge the onus on him of defining it precisely, his claim will fail at that stage and no further enquiry will be necessary – see UDOFIA VS AFIA (1940) 6 WACA 216 and IMAH VS OKOGBE (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 316) 159.
What happened here?
Paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, is where the description of the land in dispute is pleaded. The oral evidence concerning the description of the appellant’s land allegedly trespassed upon by the defendant and therefore the land in dispute, as given by the appellant himself is at page 41 of the record. He said –
“I know the Defendant. I sued him before this court because he entered into my land by way of trespass on 5/11/82. My land is situate at Abuja by the eastern part of my boundary men are by the east is Mallam Isa, North is Minister, west is Alhaji Ahmadu Goje, south is J. Notani the man who sold the land to me. Jauro Notani sold the land to me on 5/11/82.”
The above quoted evidence is at variance with the pleaded description at paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, in that the boundaries to the North, to the West and to the East are different!
PW1 called by the appellant, in his oral evidence in chief on the identity of the land, at page 30 stated that –
“the land belongs to the plaintiff. The land is closed to our ward at Secretariat. At the night is Baba Agah and it is only the Agah that shares boundary with the plaintiff.”
Not only did this piece of evidence on the identity of the disputed land go contrary to the pleaded description, it is also at variance and did not support the evidence of the appellant on the issue, who called PW1 to testify for him. To add salt to the festering injury, PW1 under cross-examination, went completely against the evidence of the appellant, who he was supposed to support, in these damning words –
“I am aware that the whole land Ibrahim (appellant) bought from Notani is what he sold to Abdullahi.” This clearly and unequivocally shows that the appellant had no land at all there, as he had sold everything, including the land in dispute to Abdullahi. This evidence has further contradicted the evidence of the appellant.
PW2 in his cross-examination at page 34 of the record said that
“I am aware that the plaintiff sold the land to Baba Bororo, Alhaji Isa and Abdullahi, Alhaji Ahmadu Goje”
Although this witness said he knew the land sold to the Plaintiff, he did not describe it. He only described the land in dispute, in his examination in chief, which tallies with those he described in his cross-examination. He gave the impression that it was the whole land that the appellant sold to the named people. It was in his re-exam, that he said that the appellant sold half of the land and kept half. He never stated however, that it was the un-sold half that is the land in dispute or the land allegedly trespassed upon by the respondent.
PW3 gave oral evidence on the identity of the land in dispute at page 37 of the record. He said
“I know the land in dispute. The land is near a pond. Those who share a boundary with the land in dispute by the west is one Alhaji Goje, in the east is one Mallam Isa, to the North is one Minister, by the South is the same Jauro Notani.”
The description is at variance with the pleadings at paragraph 6 of the statement of claim and with the evidence of PW2, even though it tallies with that of the appellant.
Evidence led which is at variance with the pleadings is inadmissible and goes to no issue and if admitted, should be expunged or discountenanced with. DOKIBO VS OMONO (1999) 6 SCNJ 168 at 183 – 184; ALAO VS A.C.B. (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 542) 339. Therefore, the evidence of the appellant, PWs 1, 2 and 3 being at variance with the pleadings, is inadmissible. But as it has been admitted, it ought to be discountenanced by the trial court and this court. The result is that the appellant had woefully failed to discharge the onus on him, to establish and prove by credible evidence, the clearly defined boundaries of the land in dispute. In other words, the identity of the land in dispute which is in issue, has not been established by the appellant and as this is the foundation upon which his building, his claim for declaration of title to land ought to stand, his claim ought to fail, without further ado.
On root of title, the law is that, a party who traces his root of title to a particular person or family, must establish the latter’s root as well, unless admitted by the adverse party – AMUKAN VS AMUKAN (2008) 2 SCNJ 62. In the case of UKEGBU VS NWOLOLO (2009) 1 SCNJ 49 at 66, OGBUAGU JSC in the lead judgment of the Supreme Court held –
“…it is now settled that where title is derived by either grant, sale conquest or inheritance etc. the pleading should aver facts relating to the founding of the land in dispute, the person or persons who founded the land and exercised original acts of possession. See the cases of PIARO VS CHIEF TENALO & ORS (1976) 12 S.C. 31 at 34, and OJO VS PRIMATE E. O. ADEJOBI & ORS. (1978) 3 S.C. 65…Thus if the pleaded root of title is not established by evidence, it will be a futile exercise to go to the issue of possession or acts of ownership. See the cases of FASHINO & ANOR. VS. BEYIOLU & 2 ORS (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 76) 263 at 271 and ALHAJI ARE & ANR VS IPAYE & ORS (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt 132) 296 at 301.”
In the instant case, the appellant placed reliance on the sale of the land to him by Jauro Notani and evidenced by Exhibit P1. On the authorities, he ought to plead facts relating to the founding of the land, who found it and exercised acts of possession before his vendor Jauro came by it, if he was not the one who found it. That is how the root of title is traced. Appellant did not at all plead any facts as to how Jauro Notani his vendor, came by the land and who founded it and exercised rights of ownership. Since he did not plead the facts, he could not lead any evidence on same as parties are bound by their pleadings. Even if he did lead evidence, as submitted by counsel to the appellant that Pw1 had stated that
“…he (Notani) got the land through inheritance from his father”
that evidence is inadmissible as facts upon which it will be led, had not been pleaded. At any rate, merely stating that Notani inherited it from his father is not enough. It ought to be pleaded and proved, how Notani’s father got the land. Did he buy it, inherited it or was he the one who founded it? It ought to have been stated but was not – LAWAL VS OLU FOWOBI (1996, 12 SCN3 376 at 384. In such a situation as this, the appellant must fail especially as the respondent did not admit that the land sold to the appellant by Notani, is the same as the disputed land ADOLE VS GWAR (2008) 4 SCNJ 1.
Also, declaration of title to land cannot be established by admission of defendant, because the plaintiff has the duty of satisfying the court by cogent and credible evidence, his entitlement to the declaration – ANYANWU VS MANDILAS LTD (2007) 4 SCNJ 388. So even if the respondent had admitted under cross-examination, as stated by counsel for the appellant, that title can be granted to the appellant, it is not enough. The appellant must satisfy the court, by credible evidence. It is infact not correct that the respondent said he had “no objection to the grant of the said land to the plaintiff.” What the record shows he said is
“I have objection for the grant of this land to the plaintiff.”
See page 58 of the record.
Again, he stated that
“The Land just described to be bounded by Alhaji Ahmadu Goje, Mal. Isa, Jauro Notani and M. I. Liman does not belong to me.”
This does not necessary mean that it belongs to the appellant. The description is also different from that pleaded at paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. So it cannot be the same land and this cannot be used to ground a declaration of title to the land in dispute, upon the appellant.
The trial judge was perfectly in order, as he was supported by the pleadings and evidence, that it was not dear how Jauro Notani got the land. In other words, root of title was not established, and declaration could not be granted. Further, there was no sufficient and satisfactory description of the land in dispute. Declaration cannot be made in vacuo. I therefore resolve Issue A in favour of the respondent.
ISSUE B
This is as to whether the learned trial judge was justified in law having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced, to have dismissed the appellant’s claim for declaration of title. This has been adequately resolved in issue A. The appellant had the fundamental hurdle to cross in order to be entitled to the declaration he sought. He needed to clearly establish by credible evidence, the identity of the land in dispute, precisely. He led evidence at variance with his pleadings. The effect is that he did not lead any evidence in support of his pleadings. Having failed to establish the boundaries of the land in dispute, the onus on him had not been discharged and his claim must be dismissed.
Secondly, he needed to plead and prove the way and manner his vendor, Jauro Notani came by the land he sold to him. He failed to so do. Infact, one of his witnesses gave evidence that he had sold the whole land he allegedly purchased from his vendor. How then, could he have any land left for the respondent to trespass upon? None. The trial judge was therefore justified in dismissing his claim for declaration of title to land. Issue B is resolved against the appellant.
It is a fact, that the trial judge did not pronounce upon the other four reliefs claimed by the appellant as plaintiff. In order to bring an end to litigation, I will invoke section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, to resolve them since credibility of witnesses, is not involved. It is possible that it was inadvertence on the part of the trial judge.
Relief (b) is a prayer for an Order of court to direct the respondent to remove all he had brought on and deposited on the land. This prayer is obviously anchored on prayer (a), for declaration of title to land. Since that prayer had failed prayer (b) is not grantable. There is infact no evidence led on it. It is dismissed.
Prayer (c) is for perpetual injunction, to restrain the respondent howsoever and by whomsoever, from further trespass.
A perpetual injunction is grantable only after trial, when the applicant has duly established his right. GBO FISHING VS COKER (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt 162) 265. This is because it is a consequential order which naturally flows from the declaration of title sought, and if granted by the court even if it is not specifically asked for, the court should grant it, to protect the right. E.S.C. S. VS GEOFREY (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt 1011) 293; KELE VS NWEREBEREL (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 543) 515 at 526 and OGUNYONBO VS OVKOYA (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt 793) 224.
Trespass to land, is a wrong against possession by the one who cannot show a better right to possession. IMONA RUSSEL VS NIGER CONSTRUCTION LTD (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 60) 298 and ADEBANJO VS BROWN (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt 141) 661 at 682. Here, the appellant has not shown the court, that he has a better right to possession, than the respondent, as he had failed in his bid, to get a declaration of title to the land in dispute. He therefore, does not have any title to protect to enable him get a perpetual injunction – ILONA VS IDAKWO (2003) 5 SCNJ 330 at 354. He has not shown and established his right to exclusive possession of the land allegedly trespassed upon -OKOKO VS DAKOLO (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt 1000) 401. Even though the respondent does not have a counter-claim for title to the land in dispute, the appellant has not established the trespass and has not sufficiently identified the land in dispute. An injunction cannot, therefore be granted in respect of a land that is at large, that is, which has not been precisely defined. His prayer fails and it is dismissed.
The fourth prayer (d) is for N100,000 for general damages for trespass. There has been no finding against the respondent, for trespass to the land in dispute. The main prayer for declaration of title had failed. As the claim for general damages is tied to finding of trespass which has not been made, this claim also fails and it is dismissed.
Prayer (e) is for cost of filing and prosecution of the action. Costs follow the event. The appellant had failed in his action. He is therefore not entitled to cost, whether of filing or of prosecuting the action. He had infact not established by evidence what the cost of prosecuting the action is. The claim fails and it is dismissed. In the final analysis, this appeal is totally lacking in merit. It fails and it is dismissed in its entirety.
N30,000 costs to the respondent.
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A: I have the advantage of reading in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother Yahaya J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. I also dismiss the appeal with costs of N30,000 to the respondent.
UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft form the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Yahaya, J.C.A.
I agree that this appeal is unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed. I abide by all the consequential orders including that as to costs.
Appearances
E. D. Galumje Esq.For Appellant
AND
Elijah Nyaro Esq.For Respondent
