IN RE: KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED & ANOR v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2022)

IN RE: KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED & ANOR v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

(2022)LCN/16855(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, April 11, 2022

CA/LAG/CR/288/2020(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

IN RE: KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED – APPLICANT BANK PHB/KEYSTONE BANK – APPELLANT APPELANT(S)

And

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHEN PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ARE TO BE DETERMINED

Now, it is settled law that Preliminary Objections, where raised by a Party, should initially be determined before resolving the substantive appeal or the Application, in the event that the Preliminary Objection was successful. The essence of a Preliminary Objection is to terminate in limine an appeal or Application. When raised by a Respondent, the Court is duty bound to hear and determine the issues before hearing the appeal or the Application. This is so because the Court would have saved the energy it would have dissipated over the hearing of an incompetent appeal or Application, if it were indeed incompetent. See GALADIMA VS STATE (2017) LPELR-41911 (SC) LASE VS STATE (2017) LPELR-42468 (SC); YARO VS AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD (2007) 17 NWLR (PART 1063) 333; AGBAREH VS MIMRA (2008) 2 NWLR (PART 1071) 378.
Therefore, this Court will first consider the Preliminary Objection in order to ascertain whether it is weighty enough to dispose of this Application in limine. Reliance is placed on OKOROCHA VS UBA PLC (2018) LPELR-45122 (SC); ONYEMEH VS EGBUCHULAM (1996) 5 NWLR (PART 448) 255; EFET VS INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (PART 1247) 423 AT 438. PER BANJOKO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A CAUSE OR MATTER CAN BE DEFEATED BY REASON OF MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES

It is settled law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of Parties and the Court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the Parties actually before it. See the Case Authorities of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LTD VS HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC1; BELLO VS INEC & ORS (2010) LPELR-767 (SC).
In the instant appeal, the misjoinder of the four parties is not fatal to the determination of the Issue before this Court in this Application. Thus, it is a curable irregularity, which does not affect the whole process. Reliance is placed on CROSS RIVER STATE NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION VS ONI & ORS (1995) LPELR-898 (SC); AYANKOYA & ORS VS OLUKOYA & ANOR (1996) LPELR-669 (SC); OLADEINDE & ANOTHER VS I.O ODUWOLE (1962) WNLR 41. PER BANJOKO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURTS CAN DETERMINE A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER AT THE INTERLOCUTORY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

It is settled that the Courts are duty bound not to delve into substantive matters at interlocutory stage. The question is: What is Interlocutory?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, the word, “interlocutory”‘ means interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy.
Since the interlocutory Applications are usually dealt with before the substantive suit, the law is that a Court should not say anything at that stage of the proceedings that would jeopardize the just and proper determination of the suit after the trial. Simply put, the Court must not determine substantive issues at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings. See AGWU & ORS VS JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC (2019) LPELR-47625 (SC) MORTUNE VS GAMBO (1979) LPELR-1913 (SC). PER BANJOKO, J.C.A.

ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): This is a Motion on Notice dated and filed on 18th March 2020, praying this Honorable Court for the following Orders:
1. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to change the name of the Appellant to read “Keystone Bank Ltd’’ from “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd” as used at the trial Court.
2. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to raise fresh issues on appeal in the manner shown as underlined in Ground 1 of the Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal (annexed as Exhibit C to the Affidavit in support of this Application) against the Final Judgment of the High Court of Lagos delivered by Hon. Justice K.A. Jose on 9th December 2019 in Suit No. ID/112C/2012.
3. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to adduce fresh evidence on appeal to wit: Applicant’s Certificate of Incorporation and Banking Licence (annexed as Exhibits D and E to the Affidavit in Support of this Application).
4. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to compile additional record of appeal to incorporate Exhibits D and E for use in the hearing of this appeal.
5. AN ORDER granting leave to Applicant to amend the Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 24th February 2020 by reflecting the name of the Appellant as “Keystone Bank Ltd” instead of “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd” as used at the Trial Court.
6. AN ORDER deeming as properly filed and served the Amended Notice of Appeal, and Appellant’s Brief in line with prayers Nos. 1, 2 and 5 above, same having been separately filed and served alongside this Application.
7. AN ORDER allowing the Appellant to rely on the Record of Appeal as originally transmitted from the Registry of the trial Court, deeming as properly compiled, filed and served the annexed bundle of documents titled “ADDITIONAL RECORD OF APPEAL” same having been filed and served separately alongside this Application for the purpose of hearing and determination of this appeal.
And for such Further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem necessary in the circumstance.

This Motion is an Interlocutory Application in the appeal against the judgment of High Court of Lagos State presided over by Hon Justice K.A Jose delivered on 9th December, 2019, wherein the Appellant was convicted for the offence of stealing by conversion under Counts 1 and 3 and the Offence of Publishing False Statement under Counts 10 and 13 of the Further Amended Information filed by the First Respondent. Both offences were contrary to Sections 390 and 436 (b) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Lagos State, respectively. The Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Twenty Million Naira Only (N20,000,000.00) and restitution in the sum of Two Hundred and Eighty-Five Million Naira Only (N285,000,000.00).

Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed against the said judgment by lodging a Notice of Appeal dated 11th December 2019 based on diverse grounds. It however filed this Application, which has the main purpose of changing the name of the Appellant from “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd” as used at the trial Court to read “Keystone Bank Ltd”.

This Application is predicated on fifteen (15) Grounds, which is as contained in the Records of this Court. It was supported by a five (5)-Paragraph Affidavit deposed to on the 18th day of March 2020 by one Sesan Adebayo, a Litigation Officer in the Lawfirm of the Applicant’s Solicitors. All the averments in the Affidavit are on Record. The said Affidavit had attached to it the following five (5) documentary Exhibits:
a) The Certified True Copy of the judgment marked as Exhibit A.
b) Original Notice of Appeal settled by the Counsel previously seised of the suit marked as Exhibit B.
c) Proposed Amended Notice of Appeal marked as Exhibit C.
d) The Copy of the Applicant’s Certificate of Incorporation marked as Exhibit D.
e) The Copy of the Applicant’s Banking Licence marked as Exhibit E.

The Appellant/Applicant filed a Written Address in support of the Application dated the 13th of July 2021. The 1st Respondent in response filed a Counter-Affidavit and a Written Address in opposing the Application on 10th November 2021. All the averments in the 1st Respondent’s Counter Affidavit are on Record. The Appellant/Applicant subsequently filed a Reply to the 1st Respondent’s Written Address on the 6th day of December 2021.

In the Applicant’s Written Address, the Applicant submitted a lone issue for determination as follows:
a. WHETHER CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL, THE ORDERS SOUGHT VIA THE APPLICANT’S MOTION ON NOTICE OF 18TH MARCH 2020 OUGHT TO BE GRANTED.

The Respondent, in turn, also submitted a lone Issue for determination, which is worded differently, but has similar substance with the Issue formulated by the Applicant. The issue is:
a. “WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS BEING SOUGHT.”

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Due to similarity in the Issues formulated by the Parties, this Court will adopt the Issue formulated by the Applicant to resolve this Application as follows:
‘’WHETHER CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL, THE ORDERS SOUGHT VIA THE APPLICANT’S MOTION ON NOTICE OF 18TH MARCH, 2020 OUGHT TO BE GRANTED.’’

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
In arguing this issue, Learned Counsel to the Applicant submitted that the name, “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd is a non-existent and a fictitious person in law and as such it raises a question as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suit.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the Respondent intended to enforce the judgment of the lower Court against Keystone Bank Limited, hence the need to properly describe the Parties in the suit as the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a non-existent entity. He relied on U.O.O. NIG PLC VS OKAFOR & ORS (2020) LPELR-49570 (SC). He further stated that the law recognizes two categories of persons who can sue or be sued. They are natural Persons and other bodies having juristic personality. A body not vested with juristic or legal personality cannot sue or be sued. He relied on ABUBAKAR & ORS VS YAR’ADUA & ORS (2008) LPELR-51 (SC).

He further contended that the Legal Personality of non-natural persons such as the Appellant in this appeal can only be conferred either by a Statute creating such Body or upon Incorporation as provided in the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and as such the trial Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a non-existent person. He relied on FAWEHINMI V N.B.A. (NO.2) (1989) 2 NWLR (PT 105); PHCN PLC. & ANOR VS AG SOKOTO & ANOR (2014) LPELR-23825 (CA); OREDOLA OKEYA TRADING COMPANY & ANOR, VS BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22011 (SC).

He referred to AG FEDERATION VS KASHAMU & ORS. (NO. 1) (2020) NWLR (PT. 1711) CA 209 AT 267 to argue that this Court is adequately clothed with the jurisdictional powers to effect such an amendment. Further reliance was placed on the Case Law Authority of S.G. BANK VS SARAKI (2000) 81 LRCN 3015 AT 30-35D.

In arguing Reliefs 2 and 3, seeking the Orders of this Court to raise fresh issues, Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant needed to prove its juristic personality. He however conceded that even though the Appellate Courts are reluctant to admit fresh evidence, they would only do so if the conditions have been met. He relied on G & T INVESTMENT LTD VS WITT & BUSH LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PART 1250) 500 AT 532; DIKE-OGU & ORS VS AMADI & ORS (2019) LPELR-47847 (SC); CPC & ANOR VS OMBUGADU & ANOR. (2013) LPELR- 21007 (SC); IN RE: ABDULLAHI (2018) LPELR-45202 (SC)
He finally urged this Court to grant this Application.

Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent raised a Preliminary Point of Law, submitting that the Reliefs sought by the Applicant in his Application is similar to Ground One of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and as such the Court cannot delve into the substantive suit while considering an interlocutory application. He referred to the Case Authority of SHELL PETROLEUM DEV CO (NIG) LTD VS EDAMKUE (1998) 13 NWLR (PART 580) 123 AT 131. Further reliance was placed on FCMB PLC VS A. L. B (NIG) PLC (2008) 8 NWLR (PT 667) PG 42 AT 50; UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD VS IK MARTINS (NIG) LTD (2000) LPELR-3421 (SC); RIBADU VS DOMA & ORS (2020) LPELR-51378 (CA), CIL RISK & ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD VS EKITI STATE GOVT & ORS (2020) LPELR 49565 (SC), OJORA VS AGIP (NIG) PLC & ANOR (2004) LPELR-7421 (CA).

In regard to the Main Issue in this Application, Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent submitted that the Applicant was not wrongfully named and that there was no dispute at the trial Court as regard the Identity of the Appellant/Applicant who was described as Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd. It is his submission that where there is a dispute as to the Incorporation of a Company, the production of the Certificate of Incorporation will be required. He referred to ACB PLC VS EMOSTRADE LTD (2002) ALL FWLR (PART 104) 540 AT 550 – 553.

Learned Counsel submitted further that there was evidence before the lower Court as to the Name and Description of the Appellant. He referred to Exhibits P18 and P34, to state that even the Defendants themselves were interchangeably referring to the Appellant as Bank PHB or Keystone Bank. What the Prosecution did in the instant case, was to add the Name of the Legacy Bank (Bank PHB Plc.) through which the offence was committed, and further demonstrate through evidence adduced, that Keystone Bank Ltd took over the Assets and Liabilities of Bank PHB

He submitted that the Further Amended Information and the previous information were read to the Defendants and they took their plea without raising objections. The description of the names of the Appellant (Who was the 6th defendant at the lower Court) was sufficient enough to discern the identity of the actual bank charged with the offence. On this, he referred to the Provisions of Section 143 (1) & (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2011. The Bank PHB PLC who committed the Offence and Keystone Bank Ltd that took over from it, have been described reasonably and sufficiently enough to identify the actual bank referred to and that is why the Appellant and the other Defendants pleaded to the Charge, without raising any Objections before the lower Court.

If the Applicant is allowed to adduce further evidence at the Court of Appeal, then the Court of Appeal, will not be sitting on the appeal of the lower Court’s judgment, since the evidence that the Applicant sought to be adduced at the Court of Appeal, was never considered by the lower Court. He referred to the Case Authority of ADELEKE VS ASERIFA (1990) 3 NWLR (PART 136) 94, to argue that an Application to adduce or produce and rely on fresh or additional evidence on appeal is not granted as a matter of course. It is granted only on very special or exceptional circumstance, which the Applicant has not shown. He relied on UZODINMA VS IZUNASO (NO. 2) (2017) 17 NWLR (PART 1275) 30 (SC) AT 55; OPANUM VS SGE NIG LTD (1998) 7 NWLR (PART 599) 537 AT 554 – 555; UBA PLC. VS BTL IND LTD (2005) 10 NWLR (PART 933) 356 370; EHINLANWO VS OKE (2008) 16 NWLR (PART 1113) 357 AT 384 – 385.

He also submitted that if the doors were left open for anyone who had fought and lost a case at the Court of trial to bring new evidence on appeal, there would be no end to litigation. He relied on the Supreme Court case of SHARING CROSS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD VS UMARU ADAMU ENTERPRISES LTD & ORS (2020) 10 NWLR (PART 1733) 561 AT 580 as well as Order 4, Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016. He also added that if the document were important to the case of the Applicant, it would have been tendered at the lower Court, when it had all the opportunity to do so and concluded his argument by stating that the Applicant was only attempting to raise a fresh defence to the charge. On this, he further referred to the case of OBOH & ANOR VS NFL LTD & ORS (2020) LPELR-55520 (SC) PAGES 13-14 AT PARAS E.
He finally urged this Court to refuse the Applicant’s Application.

By way of Reply, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s Counter Affidavit and Written Address were irregular, and such should be discountenanced as it added four other Parties against whom the Applicant did not have any grievance with. Further, the Respondent’s processes did not contain addresses for service of the Parties listed in the face of the processes and the Parties were not served contrary to Order 19 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2019.

He relied on the case of KWAME WISDOM VS STATE (2021) 7 WRN 1 AT 33 (SC).

Contrary to the contention of the Respondent that the determination of this Application will signify the determination of the merit in the substantive appeal, Learned Counsel representing the Applicant, submitted that the determination of the Application would only pave way for the hearing of the appeal, as criminal liability is not transferable. He relied on ECOBANK (NIG) LTD VS FRN (2021) 27 WRN 144 AT 157 LINES 12-32 (CA); PML (NIG) LTD VS FRN (2017) LPELR-43480 (SC); AKPA VS STATE (2008) 14 NWLR (PART 1106) 72.

Finally, the Applicant submitted that the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2011, cited by the Respondent is not applicable to the case at hand and therefore the Court should grant the Applicant’s Prayers.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
Now, it is settled law that Preliminary Objections, where raised by a Party, should initially be determined before resolving the substantive appeal or the Application, in the event that the Preliminary Objection was successful. The essence of a Preliminary Objection is to terminate in limine an appeal or Application. When raised by a Respondent, the Court is duty bound to hear and determine the issues before hearing the appeal or the Application. This is so because the Court would have saved the energy it would have dissipated over the hearing of an incompetent appeal or Application, if it were indeed incompetent. See GALADIMA VS STATE (2017) LPELR-41911 (SC) LASE VS STATE (2017) LPELR-42468 (SC); YARO VS AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD (2007) 17 NWLR (PART 1063) 333; AGBAREH VS MIMRA (2008) 2 NWLR (PART 1071) 378.
Therefore, this Court will first consider the Preliminary Objection in order to ascertain whether it is weighty enough to dispose of this Application in limine. Reliance is placed on OKOROCHA VS UBA PLC (2018) LPELR-45122 (SC); ONYEMEH VS EGBUCHULAM (1996) 5 NWLR (PART 448) 255; EFET VS INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (PART 1247) 423 AT 438

It is pertinent to note that the Applicant submitted in his Reply that the Respondent’s Counter Affidavit and Written Address are irregular and as such be discountenanced as four other Parties were added and the Applicant did not have any grievance against them

It is settled law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of Parties and the Court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the Parties actually before it. See the Case Authorities of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LTD VS HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC1; BELLO VS INEC & ORS (2010) LPELR-767 (SC).
In the instant appeal, the misjoinder of the four parties is not fatal to the determination of the Issue before this Court in this Application. Thus, it is a curable irregularity, which does not affect the whole process. Reliance is placed on CROSS RIVER STATE NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION VS ONI & ORS (1995) LPELR-898 (SC); AYANKOYA & ORS VS OLUKOYA & ANOR (1996) LPELR-669 (SC); OLADEINDE & ANOTHER VS I.O ODUWOLE (1962) WNLR 41.

It is settled that the Courts are duty bound not to delve into substantive matters at interlocutory stage. The question is: What is Interlocutory?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, the word, “interlocutory”‘ means interim or temporary; not constituting a final resolution of the whole controversy.
Since the interlocutory Applications are usually dealt with before the substantive suit, the law is that a Court should not say anything at that stage of the proceedings that would jeopardize the just and proper determination of the suit after the trial. Simply put, the Court must not determine substantive issues at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings. See AGWU & ORS VS JULIUS BERGER (NIG) PLC (2019) LPELR-47625 (SC) MORTUNE VS GAMBO (1979) LPELR-1913 (SC)

In this case, the Ground One of the Appellant/Applicant’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed 18th March 2020 in this Court is that:
‘’The trial Court erred in law and came to a perverse decision when it found Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd guilty of Counts 1, 10, and 13 of the Further Amended Information and thereby convicted Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd on the Counts notwithstanding that Bank PHB/Keystone Bank was not a decipherable legal entity.’’

While the first prayer of the Applicant in this Application is:
‘’AN ORDER granting Leave to the Applicant to change the name of the Appellant to read “Keystone Bank Ltd’’ from “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd” as used at the Trial Court.’’

A careful comparison of that Ground One of the Amended Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s first prayer in this Application will disclose that this Application and the main appeal have similar task of determining the proprietary or otherwise of prosecution of this case at the trial Court based on the way the Applicant is being described. Thus, determination of this Application will surely resolve the issue in the appeal.

The Apex Court has warned this Court in UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD v. I.K. MARTINS (NIG) LTD (2000) LPELR-3421 (SC) to desist from pronouncing on substantive matters or issues in the course of interlocutory proceedings when HIS LORDSHIP PER GODFREY OKAY ACHIKE, JSC, posited thus:
“This Court has counselled for caution, times without number, that trial Courts, as well as intermediate Appellate Courts, should desist from making positive pronouncements touching on the substantive issue while they are only engaged in determination of interlocutory matters before them. Surely, this practice is unacceptable because it prejudges the real matter in controversy even before arguments by Learned Counsel have been marshalled on the substantive issue. Ordinarily, where the trial Judge has in fact delved into and determined the substantive issue when considering an interlocutory matter, it is clear that even if he has rightly determined the interlocutory matter before him, he cannot dispassionately revisit the substantive issue and be expected to take an opposite view from his original stand on the matter. Indeed, whether the trial Judge remains constant in his view on the substantive decision he had earlier taken or not, it would make no difference to the dilemma arising from his procedural error. This is because if the trial Judge is allowed to revisit the substantive issue at any stage of the trial it will no doubt seemingly amount to the Judge sitting on appeal on his earlier decision on the substantive matter. This will surely outrage the sense of Justice of an independent observer. In such a situation an appellate intermediate Court will have no option than to order a re-Trial before another Judge of the same jurisdiction.”

Based on the foregoing analysis, supported with judicial authorities, the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent against this Application is valid.

This Application is hereby declared incompetent and as such is accordingly dismissed.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I have read in advance, the ruling of my learned brother, Adebukunola Adeoti Banjoko, JCA and I agree entirely with the reasoning and the conclusion reached therein.

The issues raised by both parties are similar and the lone contention for determination is whether considering the circumstances of the appeal, the orders sought via the Appellant/Applicant’s Motion on Notice of 18th March, 2020, ought to be granted?

The first prayer sought by the Appellant/Applicant in this Application is ‘AN ORDER granting Leave to the Applicant to change the name of the Appellant to read “Keystone Bank Ltd” from “Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd” as used at the Trial Court.’

However, Learned Counsel to the Respondent raised a Preliminary objection that the Reliefs sought by the Applicant in his Application is similar to Ground One of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal that: “The Trial Court erred in law and came to a perverse decision when it found Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd guilty of Counts 1, 10, and 13 of the Further Amended Information and thereby convicted Bank PHB/Keystone Bank Ltd on the Counts notwithstanding that Bank PHB/Keystone Bank was not a decipherable legal entity.”

I agree with the argument of the learned counsel to the Respondent because the first prayer sought in this Application and the Ground one of the Appellant/Applicant’s Notice of Appeal require this Court to determine how the Appellant should be described. and once the Court considers the first prayer sought in this Application it will resolve Ground one in the Appellant/Applicant’s Notice of Appeal. It is the law that the Court cannot delve into the substantive suit while considering an Interlocutory Application. The Supreme Court has called for caution that trial Courts and intermediate Appellate Courts should desist from making pronouncements on the substantive issue while they are considering the determination of interlocutory matters before them. See the case of Shell Petroleum Dev. Co (Nig) Ltd v Edamuke (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 580) 123 at 131; Agwu & Ors v Julius Berger (Nig) PLC (2019) LPELR- 47625 (SC); University Press Ltd v. I.K Martins (Nig) Ltd (2000) LPELR -3421 (SC).

Therefore, I hold that the objection by the Respondent to this Application is valid. I, too dismiss the Application.

PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A.: My Lord, ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI BANJOKO, JCA obliged me with a draft of the ruling just delivered, and I have had the advantage of reading it before now. I adopt as mine the reasoning and conclusion on the issues raised, and accordingly affirm my agreement with the ruling.