IN RE: INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLE CHURCH & ORS v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLE CHURCH & ORS
(2015)LCN/7879(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 28th day of May, 2015
CA/L/174/2008
RATIO
APPEAL: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL; WHETHER THE LAW PRESCIBE ANY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN INTERESTED PARTY MAY BRING AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AS A PERSON HAVING AN INTEREST IN A MATTER AND WHETHER SUCH APPLICATION IS NECESSARY
The first relief in the applicants’ motion on notice is for an order extending the time within which to apply for leave to Appeal as an interested party. Although the point was not raised by any of the parties, it is pertinent to mention that neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor the Court of Appeal Act or Rules prescribe any period within which an interested party may bring an application for leave to appeal as a person having an interest in a matter. Application for extension of time is consequently unnecessary. See Re: Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 153 @ 164; Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assemly (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 50 @ 69; Ojora v. Agip (Nig) Plc (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 916) 515 @ 547; Chukwu v. INEC (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 385. All the Applicant needed to apply for is leave to appeal as a person having an interest in the matter and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal, if out of time etc. per. CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: RIGHT OF A PERSON TO APPEAL; HOW TO DETERMINE A PERSON HAVING INTEREST
The right of a person to appeal against a decision in which he was not a party and at the hearing of which he did not participate is conferred by Section 243(a) of the 1999 CFRN. It provides:
“243. Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court conferred by this Constitution shall be:-
(a) Exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal, at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter.
What a person needs to do to bring himself within the above provision is to show that he is a person “having interest in the matter”. In the case of Ikonne vs C.O.P. [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt.36) 473 @ 503, Karibi-Whyte JSC observed:
“The expression “person having interest” has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved.” In Re: Sidebotham, Ex. P. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D. At p. 465, James L.J., said,
“A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.”
In Re: Reed, Bowen & Co. Official Receiver (1887) 19 Q.B.D. at p.178, Lord Esher pointed out that “a person aggrieved” includes “a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests.”
In Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (Supra) it was held that the test of interest to determine a party interested is whether the person could have been joined as a party to the suit. See also Re: Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 153 @ 164; Williams v Mokwe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 249. per. CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF PARTIES SEEKING LEAVE TO APPEAL AS INTERESTED PARTIES
1. INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLE CHURCH
2. MR. SOLOMON OMOLERE OLADUNJOYE (JP)
3. CHIEF ANDREW EDAMISAN ALAGBA
(APPLICANTS) Appellant(s)
AND
THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLE CHURCH (APPELLANT)
AND
1 MRS OLUFEMI FATUNDE
2 MRS JOLADE OLUSOLA AJAYI
3 MRS SULOLA AINA SHONUKAN
4 MRS MOFOLUWAKE O. OLUGE
(For themselves and on behalf of the entire Family of Chief Abolade Olatunji Coker)
(RESPONDENT) Respondent(s)
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): This is an application by motion on notice dated and filed on the 14th day of November, 2014 by the applicants herein praying for the following orders:
“1. Extending the time within which to apply for leave to Appeal as an interested party against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Coram A.J. Coker (Mrs) sitting at the Ikeja Judicial Division and given on the 16th day of November, 2007 Between MRS. OLUFEMI FATUNDE & ORS VS. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLES CHURCH in Suit NO: LD/945/2003.
2. Leave to Appeal as an interested party against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Coram A.J. Coker (Mrs) sitting at the Ikeja Judicial Division and given on the 16th day of November, 2007 Between MRS. OLUFEMI ATUNDE & ORS VS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLES CHURCH in Suit NO. LD/945/2003.
3. Extending the time within which to Appeal as an interested party against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State, Coram A.J. Coker (Mrs) sitting at the Ikeja Judicial Division and given on the 16th day of November, 2007 Between MRS. OLUFEMI FATUNDE & ORS VS. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLES CHURCH in Suit NO. LD/945/2003.
4. Leave to raise a fresh issue of Law on appeal as an interested party against the Judgment of the high Court of Lagos State, Coram A.J. Coker (Mrs) sitting a the Ikeja Judicial Division and given on the 16th day of November, 2007 Between MRS. OLUFEMI FATUNDE & ORS VS. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ACTS OF APOSTLES CHURCH in Suit NO. LD/945/2003.
5. Deeming the Notice of Appeal filed by the Applicants as properly filed and served.
6. Granting a departure from the rules by allowing the record of appeal compiled in Suit No. LD/945/2003 in respect of Appeal No. CA/L/174M/2008 (now pending in Court 2) to be used as the main record of Appeal in the Appeal filed by the 1st to 3rd Applicants.
7. Consolidating the Appeal filed by the 1st to 3rd Applicants and arguing same together with the Appeal No. CA/L/174M/2008 now pending before Court No. 2.”
The grounds for the application as set out by the applicants in the motion paper are as follows:
“a) The High Court delivered Judgment on 16th November, 2007 granting the Respondent among other things, Possession of a 5 Acres of Land at Makoko, Aiyetoro, Ebute-Metta and held that the customary tenancy of the 1st Applicant has been determined.
b) The Appellant on record filed an Appeal against the Judgment on 30th November, 2007 in Appeal No. CA/L/174M/2008M which appeal is still pending.
c) The Appellant as constituted is not a Juristic Person and the issue goes to the Jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State to have entertained the Suit or give Judgment thereon.
d) During the pendency of the appeal, the Respondents proceeded to the High Court to file an application ex parte praying the Court for an order granting the Respondents permission to demolish wooden structures and any other structures on the land which is the subject matter of the pending appeal.
e) In the affidavit in support of the application ex parte, the Respondents disclosed among other things that they have executed a Warrant of Possession.
f) The Respondents also deposed that the order was meant to chase away thugs and hoodlums kept on the premises of the 1st Applicant.
g) The Learned Trial Judge failed to order the Appellant on record to be put on Notice before granting the Respondents’ Prayer as amended.
h) In the meantime, the Appeal pending against the main Judgment has proceeded and facts emerged that indeed a lot of persons including the Acts of Apostles Church, buildings in which many including the 2nd Applicant reside, the 3rd Applicant and very many families who worship in the Church are on the premises up to date.
i) In the process of enforcing the ex parte order of the High Court, the Nigerian Police, Lagos State Command has at various times attempted to enter the premises to arrest the Members of the Church, and the Applicants, demolish the buildings on the premises and displace over 5,000 residents who reside in the premises.
j) The Applicants are not aware of any Warrant of Possession and are still in occupation of the premises as no proper processes to eject them have been received and effected.
k) The 1st to 3rd Applicants briefed the Chambers of Bonajo Badejo & Co. and retained Mr. J.A. Badejo, SAN as Leading Counsel in the prosecution of the pending Appeal.
l) During the briefing sessions, it was discovered that the Applicants need to appeal against the ex parte order as well as the Judgment of the Court.
m) The Applicants who are interested in the Appeal and have followed the efforts of their Counsel, Mr. Ademola Oliha to stay execution of the main Judgment pending Appeal had all along been of the impression that the pending Appeal in CA/L/174M/2008 covers their interest.
n) The 1st Applicant are the real owners of the Church known as the Act of the Apostles Church, the 2nd Applicant lives within the 5 Acre Land, the 3rd Applicant is a member of the Church and both represent over 5,000 families presently resident in the premises known as Makoko, Aiyetoro Compound comprising the Act of the Apostles Church.
o) Upon being advised by the Leading Counsel, Mr. J.A. Badejo, SAN, the Applicants have discovered that it is necessary to seek leave to Appeal as an interested party against the Judgment of 16th November, 2007.
p) Since time within which to apply for leave has expired, it is in the interest of Justice to grant the three pronged application for extension of time to apply for leave, for leave to Appeal and extension of time to Appeal.
q) The Five Grounds of Appeal on CA/L/174M/2008 are the same as the Grounds of Appeal in the Appeal of the 1st to 3rd Applicants.
r) The sixth Ground of Appeal raises the issue of Jurisdiction since it is predicated on the non-juristic personality of the Appellant in CA/L/174M/2008.
s) It is necessary to apply to this Honourable Court to raise this fresh issue contained in Ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal which bothers on Jurisdiction and competence of the Lower Court.
t) All the facts necessary to determine the entire Appeal of the 1st to 3rd Applicants are also contained in the record of Appeal in CA/L/174M/2008.
u) In order to avoid unnecessary delay and save time, it will be in the interest of Justice to allow the 1st to 3rd Applicants to utilise the record of Appeal in CA/L/174M/2008 and also hear the two Appeals together at the same time to allow a composite Judgment to be delivered.
v) The Grounds of Appeal deal with Jurisdiction, fair hearing and questions of law which are recondite, good and arguable.
w) It is in the interest of Justice to grant the Prayers sought.
The application is further supported by an affidavit of 35 paragraphs which repeated all the paragraphs of the grounds as set out above. A copy of the judgment of the Lower Court, copy of proceedings granting the Respondents ex parte application, the appellant’s amended Notice of Appeal and the Applicants’ Notice of Appeal were annexed as Exhibits 1-4 to the affidavit. In opposition to the application, the Respondents filed a counter affidavit of 15 paragraphs with 4 Exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibit A is Certificate of Execution of Warrant of Possession. Exhibit B, the two Court Orders issued pursuant to the ex parte application. Exhibit C is a copy of the fundamental rights action instituted by one Fredrick Esomojumi and the appellant herein. Exhibit D is a copy of the Ruling of the Lower Court on the fundamental rights application. The Applicants filed a Reply of 22 paragraphs to the counter affidavit of the Respondents with one exhibit – the Notice of Appeal.
Pursuant to the order of this court, the parties filed written addresses. In their written address, the Applicants formulated five issues for determination as follows:
1) Whether the Applicants have disclosed sufficient reasons to justify the Prayers for extension of time to apply for leave to Appeal, leave to Appeal and extension of time to Appeal as an interested Party against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos dated 16th November, 2007.
2) Whether the Applicants have disclosed sufficient reasons to justify the Prayers for leave to raise fresh Issue of Law as an interested Party in the Appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Lagos State dated 16th November, 2007.
3) Whether in the circumstances, it will be in the interest of Justice to deem the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 14th November, 2014 as properly filed and served.
4) Whether the Applicants have disclosed sufficient reasons to justify being granted a departure from the Rules to allow the record of Appeal in the pending Appeal CA/L/174M/2008 to be used as the record of Appeal in the Appeal of the 1st to 3rd Applicants.
5) Whether this Honourable Court will, in the circumstances, consolidate the Appeal of the 1st to 3rd Applicants with the pending Appeal No.CA/L/174M/2008.
The Respondents in their written address opined that one issue is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. The issue is as follows:
“Whether the Applicants ought in the circumstances of this case, to be granted leave to appeal as persons having interest in the subject matter, against the judgment delivered on the 16th of November 2007”.
I agree with the Respondents that issues 2-5 of the Appellants’ issues; leave to raise fresh issue of law on appeal inclusive stand and fall together with the above sole issue. I will therefore adopt the Respondents’ sole issue in the determination of this appeal.
ISSUE:
“Whether the Applicants ought in the circumstances of this case, to be granted leave to appeal as persons having interest in the subject matter, against the judgment delivered on the 16th of November 2007”.
APPLICANTS’ ARGUMENTS:
Learned counsel submitted that the Applicants qualify as Interested Parties who have right of Appeal with leave of this Honourable Court within the meaning of Section 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Counsel referred to the case of Attorney-general of the Federation Vs. Manufacturers Association of Nigeria & 18 Ors. (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt 1092) 251 @ 264 G-H, where this court in an application similar to the one in hand defined the expression “having an interest in the matter” as follows:-
“The expression “person having interest” has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved” – meaning a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against which a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something”.
Counsel submitted that the 1st Applicant has disclosed that the correct juristic name of the Appellant on record is Incorporated Trustees of Acts of Apostles Church and that it wants to appeal against the judgment in this correct name. Counsel argued that the Respondents have not denied this assertion but have merely stated that this objection was not raised in time. It was submitted that since the matter goes to jurisdiction and the use of the proper name of a party, it could be raised at any time. Counsel referred to Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu vs. Military Governor of Lagos State & Ors. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 10) 806 where the Supreme Court held that Ojukwu Transport Limited, the real owner of the property in dispute had sufficient interest to qualify as a “party interested” in the pending Appeal.
Counsel submitted that the 2nd Applicant is a member of the Church, has a house and lives in the Premises while the 3rd Applicant also lives within the premises and has a house on the 5 Acre land. Counsel submitted that the interest of the 2nd & 3rd Applicants were affected by the judgment sought to be appealed against in view of the Ex-Parte Orders made on 18th March, 2008 as shown in Exhibit “2” with the Respondents seeking to eject them from the premises through the use of the Police having described them as thugs and hoodlums. Counsel contended that the ex-parte orders made pursuant to the Judgment directed the Police to arrest any person found on the Premises and also permitted the demolition of what the order described as “wooden structures”. He submitted that the interest of the 1st and 2nd Applicants are clearly affected as shown in the fundamental rights application attached to the respondents’ Counter-Affidavit as Exhibit “D”. Counsel urged us to hold that all the Applicants have sufficient interests and qualify as persons interested in the Appeal.
RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS:
Learned counsel for the Respondents in his written address relying on Oloja-Oriri v. Itshekiri Communal Land Trustees (1973) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 272 @ 281 submitted that the applicants do not qualify as persons having interest in the matter because they were aware of the proceedings but chose to stand by and watch. They did not apply to join at the Lower Court and gave no reasons in their affidavit in support of the application as to why they failed to apply to join at the Lower Court. Learned counsel further submitted relying on Re: Afolabi (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 63) 18 @ 20 that a person interested for the purposes of this relief must have been unaware of the judicial proceedings, the judgment of which affects his interest. Counsel submitted that the applicants had knowledge of the suit but chose to stand by and allow the case to be fought on their behalf. Counsel contended that for an application for extension of time to appeal to succeed, the applicant must show in his affidavit that there are good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the period statutorily prescribed and secondly that there are grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. Yesufu v. Co-operative Bank (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 483 @ 494; Order 7 Rule 10(2) Court of Appeal Rules. Counsel further submitted that the applicants have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of the appeal as it is a case of landlord and tenant between the Respondent and Appellant on record. Counsel finally submitted that the judgment appealed against does not wrongly deprive the applicants of anything entitling them to be joined as interested parties.
RESOLUTION:
The first relief in the applicants’ motion on notice is for an order extending the time within which to apply for leave to Appeal as an interested party. Although the point was not raised by any of the parties, it is pertinent to mention that neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor the Court of Appeal Act or Rules prescribe any period within which an interested party may bring an application for leave to appeal as a person having an interest in a matter. Application for extension of time is consequently unnecessary. See Re: Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 153 @ 164; Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assemly (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 50 @ 69; Ojora v. Agip (Nig) Plc (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 916) 515 @ 547; Chukwu v. INEC (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 385. All the Applicant needed to apply for is leave to appeal as a person having an interest in the matter and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal, if out of time etc.
The right of a person to appeal against a decision in which he was not a party and at the hearing of which he did not participate is conferred by Section 243(a) of the 1999 CFRN. It provides:
“243. Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court conferred by this Constitution shall be:-
(a) Exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal, at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter.
What a person needs to do to bring himself within the above provision is to show that he is a person “having interest in the matter”. In the case of Ikonne vs C.O.P. [1986] 4 NWLR (Pt.36) 473 @ 503, Karibi-Whyte JSC observed:
“The expression “person having interest” has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved.” In Re: Sidebotham, Ex. P. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D. At p. 465, James L.J., said,
“A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.”
In Re: Reed, Bowen & Co. Official Receiver (1887) 19 Q.B.D. at p.178, Lord Esher pointed out that “a person aggrieved” includes “a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests.”
In Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (Supra) it was held that the test of interest to determine a party interested is whether the person could have been joined as a party to the suit. See also Re: Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 153 @ 164; Williams v Mokwe (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 249.
The Applicants must consequently show that they suffered a legal grievance in the sense of the judgment having wrongfully deprived them of something or wrongfully refused them something or that their title to something has been wrongfully affected by the decision of the court.
There are three applicants. The first applicant is Incorporated Trustees of Acts of Apostle Church. It wants to appeal as an interested party. But the 1st Applicant is already a party to the suit as the Appellant on record. The contention is that it was sued in the name of The Registered Trustees of Acts of Apostle Church instead of the proper name of Incorporated Trustees of Acts of Apostle Church. Is the proper cause of action in the circumstances an application by Incorporated Trustees of Acts of Apostolic Church to appeal as an interested party? I think not. In the case of Ishaq v. Bell (2008) LPELR-4337, this court held per Okoro JCA:
“A misnomer is said to be a mistake in name and it occurs when there is a mistake as to the name of a person who sued or was sued, or when an action is instituted by or against the wrong name of a person. In other words, the correct person is taken to court under a wrong name or incorrect name is given to a person in a Court. Usually, where there is an error only as to the correct name of a party to a suit, an amendment may be sought to correct the mistake and the court should be disposed to granting such an application. As in this case where there is a mistake in the spelling of the name of a party to the suit especially as such mistake is not occasioned by the maker of the document or even if the mistake is made by the maker, the law allows some room for human error and the Court should be obliged to allow an amendment in the circumstance. See Njoku v. UAC Foods (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 632) 557, Nkwocha v. Federal University of Technology (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 422) 112, Ajadi v. Ajibola (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91.
Where however the mistake in the name of the parties results in confusion and leads to a miscarriage of justice, I do not think it will be proper to allow such an amendment. See Fagbola vs. Titilayo Plastic Industries Ltd (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 909) 1 and Esenowo Vs. Ukpong (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 611.”
Now in the case in hand both names – The Registered Trustees of Acts of Apostle Church and the Incorporated Trustees of Acts of Apostle Church are juristic persons. There was simply an error in the name of the Appellant. There was no confusion whatever as to who was sued. It is a mere misnomer which can be corrected at any stage even on appeal. See Isuofia v. Umueze Village Union (2010) LPELR-8667; Okechukwu & Sons v. Nda (1967) NMLR 368. In the case of Agbule v. Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Co Ltd (2012) LPELR-SC 130/2005, the SC per Ogunbiyi JSC held:
“…….The wrong use of the name did not overreach or put the Respondent to any form of disdain in the absence of any earlier complaint thereof. The use of the name in my view is, at best a misnomer and which did not occasion any negative effect. This court under its inherent powers has the jurisdiction to correct such inconsequential error which did not require any formal application to make……”
The application by the 1st Applicant to appeal as an interested party is consequently uncalled for. As regards the 2nd and 3rd Applicants, there is no averment in the affidavit in support of the application to show that they suffered a legal grievance in the sense of the judgment having wrongfully deprived them of something or wrongfully refused them something or that their title to something has been wrongfully affected by the decision of the court. As submitted by the Respondents in their written address, this matter is a case of landlord and tenant between the Respondents and the Appellant on Record. The land has a registered title. It is not sufficient for the 2nd and 3rd Applicants to simply depose that they have houses on the land in dispute without more. Having houses on the land does not convert them to owners of the land or even tenants of the owner. Their claim that they are affected because of the ex parte orders to eject them from the land is non sequitur. A squatter on someone’s land cannot claim to have an interest on the land because he put up illegal structures on the land. I agree that the Applicants have disclosed no scintilla of proprietary interest in the subject land to ground their right of appeal as persons having an interest in the matter. In Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (Supra) it was held that since there was no dispute that the property belonged to Ojukwu Transport Limited, the company had sufficient interest to qualify as a party interested under Section 222(a) of the CFRN 1979 (S.243(a) of the 1999 CFRN). The 1st and 2nd Applicants did not show any proprietary or other interest in the subject matter of the suit. They certainly do not qualify to be joined as parties to the suit. The conclusion therefore is that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants did not pass the acid test that would enable them appeal as persons having an interest in the matter within the meaning of Section 243(a) of the CFRN.
Having determined this issue against the Applicants, issues 2-5 are now irrelevant and need not be considered. The application dated and filed on the 14th day of November 2014 is refused and is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.: I agree with the Ruling prepared by my learned brother, Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba, J.C.A., which I had the honour of reading in advance with nothing extra to add.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have read before now the draft copy of the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother C.E. IYIZOBA, J.C.A.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein, to the effect that the Application lacks merit.
I also dismiss the said Application and I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead Ruling.
Appearances
J.A. Badejo SAN with Abiodun Omidare Esq., and Thompson OlihaFor Appellant
AND
Chief Bisi Adegunle with O. Efoghe Esq., and F.I. Ukor Esq.For Respondent
