INC. TRUSTEES OF MORIAH COUNSELLING CENTRE v. COP, RIVERS STATE & ORS
(2022)LCN/16860(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, April 01, 2022
CA/PH/FHR/295/2021
Before Our Lordships:
Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal
Paul Obi Elechi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
INC. TRUSTEES OF MORIAH COUNSELLING CENTIRE APPELANT(S)
And
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RIVERS STATE 2. INC. TRUSTEES CATHOLIC DIOCESS OF PORT HARCOURT 3. REV. FATHER STEVE DEDUA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT PARTIES CAN CONFER JURISDICTION ON A COURT WHERE NONE EXISTS
It is trite that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court, where none exists and where the Court has no competence to hear the case. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF A PARTY CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED AT THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
The Supreme Court in Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur Vs Gongola State Government (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) at 546 – 547 held that the principal claim of the appellant at the Federal High Court relates to his deposition as the Emir of Muri, the action for the enforcement of his fundamental right banishment and detention was held to be tied to his deposition as an Emir and that the claim of breach of fundamental right was necessarily tied to the deposition which he had challenged at the main claim and could only be heard at the Federal High Court where the principal relief was filed and pending to be heard together. See Morayo Vs A.A.U. Akungba (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1552) 245 at 251.
In the instant case, the alleged breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights was ancillary to the main claim of unlawfully and illegally locking the entrance gate of Atrium Event Centre, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, and stationed policemen in front of the gate to stop the appellant, their members and participants access to the event centre for an organized programme, which it challenged at the Federal High Court. Therefore, the alleged breach of Fundamental Rights was ancillary to the main claim which could only be heard at the Federal High Court. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is statutorily conferred and in relation to Courts, it is a matter of law. Jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter is also not defeated by the non compliance with the rules of procedure or practice. It is only when it is expressly stated that non compliance with the rules particularly renders a cause of action incompetent. This is because the Court’s pre-occupation must be the doing of substantial justice between the parties in respect of the dispute the Court is asked to resolve. Each case is decided according to its peculiarity. The rules of Court should not provide the means of compromising the appellant’s right of ventilating his right as conferred by the Constitution. See Dr. Okowo Mudiaga Odje & Ors (1985) 10 SC 267; Joseph Afolabi & Ors Vs John Adekunle & Ors (1983) 8 SC 98 and Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a motion on Notice dated the 9th day of November, 2019 and filed on the 14th of November, 2019 brought pursuant to Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rules 1-5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 at the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, the appellant as plaintiff therein, prayed the Court for the enforcement of its fundamental rights against the respondents as follows:
A. A Declaration that the Respondents breached the Applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of assembly when it unlawfully and illegally locked or caused to be locked the entrance gate of Atrium Event Centre, Port Harcourt, Rivers State of Nigeria and stationed policemen in front of same in order to deny the applicant, her members and participants access to the said event centre for the purpose of the programme organized and held by the Applicant in the said Atrium Event Centre on 17/3/2017 and 18/3/2017.
B. A Declaration that it is unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful and breach of the Applicant’s and her members fundamental rights to freedom of religion, expression and thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement for the respondent to invade and block the said Atrium Event Centre with armed policemen for the purpose of preventing or stopping the Applicant and her members from holding a conference on the theme “Anointing to Prosper in Hard Times” Scheduled for 17th and 18th March, 2017 at the said Atrium Event Centre.
C. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen and/or privies by any name whatsoever called from further breaching the plaintiff’s fundamental rights to freedom of assembly, religion, expression, thought and movement guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
D. The sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million) being general and exemplary damages for the reckless, unwarranted, unjustified, illegal, unlawful and constitutional breach of the Applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom to hold, impart and/or disseminate information or knowledge including religious or secular based ones, freedom of expression, thought and religion guaranteed under Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Constitution (as amended).
The motion is supported by fifty paragraphs affidavit deposed to by one Anthony Mbakaogu, the National Chairman Outreach Organising Committee of the Applicant. Attached to the motion are twelve annextures marked as Exhibits “A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11 and A12”. There is filed a statement on 14th November, 2019 pursuant to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 setting out the names and description of the applicant, the reliefs sought, the grounds for the reliefs and a written address attached.
In response to the Motion filed by the plaintiff/applicant, the 2nd and 3rd respondents with leave of the Court filed a motion and a counter affidavit on the 6th of February, 2020, with exhibits and written address attached. The motion is asking for the dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiff/applicant in response to the counter affidavit filed a further affidavit on the 10th of March, 2020 and a reply on point of law also filed on the 10th of March, 2020.
After considering the parties’ processes filed as adopted, the trial Court in its judgment delivered on the 23rd day of June, 2021, dismissed the case of the plaintiff/applicant. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to this Court vide a Notice of Appeal dated the 28th day of July, 2021 containing six grounds of appeal with their particulars and reliefs sought.
The appellant’s brief filed on the 24th of September, 2021 settled by Chief G. Oseloka Osuigwe has four issues, distilled for determination thus:
1. “Whether the learned trial judge was right to hold as he did that the Applicant’s Reply to the preliminary objection was filed out of time?” (Grounds 2 and 5)
2. “Whether the trial judge was right on the facts and circumstances of this case to hold that the defect of non compliance by the applicant as to time to file a reply to preliminary objection is fatal to the competence of the Court to entertain the suit?” (Ground 4)
3. “Whether the mere fact that the learned trial judge found that the Applicant’s reply to the preliminary objection of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was filed out of time and therefore incompetent entitled the 2nd and 3rd respondents objection was unchallenged and uncontroverted and that the applicant has no defence to the motion on notice for an order dismissing the suit” (Ground 1).
4. “Whether the learned trial Judge denied the Applicant’s right to fair hearing by dismissing the application for the enforcement of fundamental rights by not determining on the merit?” (Ground 3).
Ground 6 is deemed abandoned having no issue distilled therefrom.
The appellant’s Reply brief was dated 3rd day of November, 2021. Learned counsel for the appellants adopted the brief and the reply brief and urged the Court to allow the appeal.
The 1st respondent did not file any brief and hearing notice served on the 1st respondent for the hearing of the appeal on 3rd March, 2022 was not responded to as there was no appearance on the said date of hearing and no reason was given for the absence.
The 2nd and 3rd respondents’ brief settled by Donald Atogbo Esq. was dated and filed on the 25th of October, 2021. Learned counsel for the respondent adopted the issues formulated by the appellant in determining this appeal. He adopted the brief and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
Issues one, two and three formulated by the appellant’s counsel are on the same issue of filling of the applicant’s reply to the preliminary objection of the 2nd and 3rd respondent out of time. There is no basis for splitting the issues into three. Prolixity of issues formulated is not a merit as it is more likely to obscure the core issue to be determined. Multiplicity of issues tend to reduce most of them to trifles. The practice is most condemnable. In other words, issues for determination must not be presented in fragment as done in this appeal thus leading to proliferation. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal frown at proliferation of issues. See Chiadi Vs Aggo (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1603) 175; Alikor Vs Ogwo (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 331; C.B.N. Vs N.D.I.C. (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498)1 and Onochie Vs Odogwu (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 65. It is not the number of issues that will result into the success of an appeal but the quality of the issues presented.
Therefore, issues one and two and three are taken as issue one. Splitting them into three issues leads to proliferation so the three issues and issue four will now read issues one and two.
ISSUE ONE
“Whether the mere fact that the learned trial judge found that the Applicant’s reply to the preliminary objection of the 2nd and 3rd respondents was filed out of time and therefore incompetent entitled the trial Judge to hold that the 2nd and 3rd respondents objection was unchallenged and uncontroverted and that the applicant has no defence to the motion on notice for an order dismissing the suit.”
ISSUE TWO
“Whether the learned trial Judge denied the Applicant’s right to fair hearing by dismissing the application for the enforcement of fundamental rights by not determining it on merit.”
Arguing on issue one, learned counsel for the applicant relying on the case of Director, SSS Vs Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314 SC, submitted that the special procedure stipulated for the enforcement of fundamental right is different from the normal proceedings used to. That the procedure being sui generis does not admit to the importation of any other procedure of Court, including the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents failed to point out the rules or procedure which requires the appellant to file a reply to the preliminary objection within five days, thus disputing the Court’s jurisdiction. Counsel referred to Order VIII Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 which provides for notice of preliminary objection, disputing jurisdiction of the Court, did not prescribe the time within which the applicant is required to file a reply. That the decision of the trial Court was made in error that the notice of preliminary objection is independent of the counter affidavit of the respondent which is contrary to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure (FREP).
Learned counsel submitted that the counter affidavit of the 2nd and 3rd respondents being regularised on 16th March, 2020 by implication the applicant’s reply to the preliminary objection filed on 10th March, 2020 was not filed out of time but ought to be deemed as properly filed and served on 16th March, 2020, since it is only when the respondents’ process was regularised and deemed properly filed that time for the applicant to file its reply will start to run.
Counsel argued that, even if the reply to the preliminary objection was filed out of time, it ought to be treated as an irregularity, because the purpose and overriding objectives of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure is to ensure speedy and unhindered protection of fundamental rights by Court. The Court was referred to Director General Industrial Training Fund Vs Centage Savings & Loan Ltd (2018) LPELR 46804 (CA) and Julius Berger (Nig.) PLC Vs. IGP & Ors (2018) LPELR 46127 (CA).
That the non compliance with the provisions of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules as to time of filing process is not one which the rules that will render the proceedings a nullity. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Judge ought to have overruled the objection, the 2nd and 3rd respondents having waited for more than one year before raising the objection are deemed to have waived their right. He relied on this submission in the case of Federal Polytechnic Bauchi & Anor Vs Aboaba & Anor (2013) LPELR- 21916 (CA).
Submitting further, learned counsel argued that after striking out the applicant’s reply to the preliminary objection for allegedly being incompetent, the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the preliminary objection on merit. That failure to file the reply on time does not automatically entitle the 2nd and 3rd respondents to the success of the preliminary objection. The Court was referred to Chukwubuzor & Sons Nig. Ltd vs Akan Dickson Idiong (2013) LPELR- 23143 (CA); All Progressive Congress Vs Ibrahim Umar & Ors (2019) LPELR- 47296 (SC); Joseph Chike Odogwu Vs Samuel Nwajei (2013) LPELR-21030 (CA) and Bob Vs Akpan (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 501) 896 at 941.
The Court is urged to resolve the issue in favour of the appellant.
Responding, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents referred to Order XV Rule 4 of the Fundamental Rules, 2009 which provides.
“Where in the course of any Human Rights Proceedings, any situation arises for which there appears to be no adequate provision on these rules, the Civil Procedure Rule of the Court for the time being in force shall apply.”
The Court was referred to the books titled FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE IN NIGERIA (Second Edition) 2010 by Femi Falana SAN and FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 (PRACTICE, PROCEDURE, FORMS AND PRECEDENTS VOL.1 by Ogwu Onaja, SAN, to submit that contrary to the submission of the appellant’s counsel, the correct positions is that where lacunas exist in the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules recourse is to be made to Rules of Court where the matter is pending.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court did not import irrelevant or inapplicable rules in holding that, the appellant’s reply brief was filed outside the period provided for, by the rules. He referred to Order II Rules 6 and 7 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules which provided for filing of the address within five days of the service of the application and may be accompanied with a counter affidavit and also a reply on point of law within five (5) days.
Relying on the cases of Kano Plastic Ltd Vs Century Merchant bank (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 543) 567 at 572 and Muhammed Vs Kayode (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 584 at 598 – 599, it is submitted that the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules and the Court Rules inclusive of the decided authorities above, provided for five (5) days to respond to each other’s processes with respect to the main application for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. That orders and rules of Court have the force of law, and they are made to be obeyed, as the particular provision of Fundamental Rights Procedure Rules specifically provided the period within which the applicant should respond to processes filed by the respondent.
In response to the appellant’s submission with regard to Order VIII Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the case of Odom Vs PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527 at 548 and Morayo v. Adekunle Ajasin University Akungba (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1552) 245 at 271 – 272 paragraphs H – B, to submit that, the intendment of Order VIII Rule 2 of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules is to allow for speedy dispensation of justice, hence preliminary objections filed alongside the counter-affidavits are argued together during hearing, and the notice of objection is not bound by Order II Rule 6 of Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure (FREP) Rules requiring the filing of a respondent’s counter affidavit within five (5) days after the receipt of the originating application.
With regard to the submission of the appellant’s counsel that failure to regularise its reply to the preliminary object was a mere irregularity, respondents’ counsel submitted that it is clearly a misconception of the law. He referred to Order II Rule 7 which provided that an applicant served with the processes from the respondent has five (5) days to respond. That the appellant who filed its reply to the objection, despite being aware that it had only five (5) days to do so, did not bother to seek the indulgence of the Court to regularise same, goes to show that there was no opposition. He relied on this submission on the cases of Leadway Assurance Company Ltd Vs Zeco Nig. Ltd (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 480 at 487 and Onagoruwa Vs Jamb (2001) 12 WRN, 123 at 131 – 132.
It is finally submitted on this issue that where a party has no opposition to the application or claim, either by way of counter affidavit or reply or statement of defence, the Court is bound to hold that, the application or claim is unopposed. That the appellant’s process being incompetent, the appellant had no process before the Court to be relied upon challenging the objection.
The Court is urged to resolve the issue in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and dismiss the appeal.
The crux of this appeal is the striking out of the appellant’s case for failure to file a reply to the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion for dismissing the suit within the stipulated period of five days as provided by the Rules.
The appellant by a motion on Notice filed on the 14th of November, 2019 brought pursuant to Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Order II Rules 1-5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, at the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt prayed for the enforcement of its Fundamental Rights against the respondents.
The 2nd and 3rd respondents in response with leave of Court filed a motion on notice for dismissing the suit and counter affidavit to the appellant’s motion on the 6th of February, 2020. The appellant/applicant filed a reply to the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion on the 10th of March, 2020.
The contention is that the reply filed by the applicant/appellant on 10th March, 2020 was filed out of time and therefore incompetent. The 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion is challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action. The reply filed by the applicant/appellant was filed thirty three days after service of the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion contrary to the provision of the Fundamental Rights Procedure Rules, 2009. It was filed without the leave of the Court being sought and obtained.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the fundamental Rights Procedure Rules did not provide for the time a reply should be filed, the Court below was wrong to import the rules of the Federal High Court Rules to hold the reply as incompetent and deprived the Court of jurisdiction to decide the case on its merit.
By virtue of Order 8 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights Procedure Rules where the respondent is challenging the Court’s discretion to hear the application, he may apply to the Court for an order striking out the suit or setting aside the proceedings. The respondents objection must be filed along with the counter affidavit to the main application. On the date of hearing, the preliminary objection shall be heard along with the substantive application.
However, Order XV Rule 4 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rule, 2009 provides:
“Where in the course of any Human Rights Proceedings, any situation arises for which there appears to be no adequate provision on these rules, the Civil Procedure Rule of the Court for the time being in force shall apply.”
The above provision makes fundamental rights proceedings flexible in certain circumstances not covered by the rules, that Rule 4 provides for recourse to be made to the applicable Civil Procedure Rules of the States and Federal High Courts.
Order 8 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules is to ensure that applications in respect of alleged violations of such rights are heard and determined expeditiously. It is not the intendment of the Rules that strict legalism in the nature of defeating the hearing of such applications or delaying them or objections thereto shall stand tall in pre-eminence to fair, just and expeditious determination of justice.
The 2nd and 3rd respondents’ contention is that the reply to their motion filed by the appellant was filed out of time which deprived the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the action. There is no doubt, the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any stage of proceedings and at any hierarchy of the Courts. See Zakari Vs Nigeria Army (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt.1487) SC 77 and A-G Lagos State Vs A – G Federation (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217.
The appellant’s counsel in his attempt to mislead the Court canvassed that the Fundamental Rights Procedure Rules did not provide for time limit within which to file a reply. This is incorrect. For clarity, Order 2 Rule 7 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules reads:
“The applicant may on being served with the respondent’s written address file and serve an address on point of law within 5 days of being served, and may accompany it with a further affidavit.”
The appellant therefore cannot be said to have complied with the 5 days prescribed. That is why by the rules of the enforcement of fundamental rights, the application for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and the preliminary objection shall be heard together on the date fixed for hearing and upon success or failure of the objection, the Court can either decline jurisdiction or proceed with the hearing of the substantive application. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid that the objection shall not be heard alone without the application for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. They shall be heard together before an order one way or the other shall be made taking the objection into account.
The fact that it is a jurisdictional question does not mean that having been raised, it should be determined in isolation without consideration of the facts upon which it sought to be raised, so as to give it an anchor.
It is trite that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court, where none exists and where the Court has no competence to hear the case.
The Supreme Court in Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur Vs Gongola State Government (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) at 546 – 547 held that the principal claim of the appellant at the Federal High Court relates to his deposition as the Emir of Muri, the action for the enforcement of his fundamental right banishment and detention was held to be tied to his deposition as an Emir and that the claim of breach of fundamental right was necessarily tied to the deposition which he had challenged at the main claim and could only be heard at the Federal High Court where the principal relief was filed and pending to be heard together. See Morayo Vs A.A.U. Akungba (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1552) 245 at 251.
In the instant case, the alleged breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights was ancillary to the main claim of unlawfully and illegally locking the entrance gate of Atrium Event Centre, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, and stationed policemen in front of the gate to stop the appellant, their members and participants access to the event centre for an organized programme, which it challenged at the Federal High Court. Therefore, the alleged breach of Fundamental Rights was ancillary to the main claim which could only be heard at the Federal High Court.
Jurisdiction is statutorily conferred and in relation to Courts, it is a matter of law. Jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter is also not defeated by the non compliance with the rules of procedure or practice. It is only when it is expressly stated that non compliance with the rules particularly renders a cause of action incompetent. This is because the Court’s pre-occupation must be the doing of substantial justice between the parties in respect of the dispute the Court is asked to resolve. Each case is decided according to its peculiarity. The rules of Court should not provide the means of compromising the appellant’s right of ventilating his right as conferred by the Constitution. See Dr. Okowo Mudiaga Odje & Ors (1985) 10 SC 267; Joseph Afolabi & Ors Vs John Adekunle & Ors (1983) 8 SC 98 and Odom v. PDP (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527.
In the instant case, the learned trial judge struck out the appellant’s application for enforcement of his fundamental rights on the basis that the reply filed by the appellant to 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion was filed out of the stipulated period of five (5) days provided by the Rules. In the result, not having been filed within 5 days of the service of the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ motion, the appellant’s reply filed on the 10th of March, 2020 was filed outside the required 5 days and therefore out of time. In the circumstance, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
However, because of the nature of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the trial Court having found the appellant’s reply filed out of time and struck same, should have proceeded on the substantive application for enforcement of fundamental rights. This is because an action decided against a party without giving him a hearing or at least an opportunity to be heard will be in breach of Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which guaranteed fair hearing of parties in the determination of their interests. See Poroye Vs Makarfi (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1599) 91 and Otemolu Vs Makarfi (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1611) 150.
While it is inequitable to condone this violation of the rules of procedure to file the reply within five (5) days, on the other hand, to endorse the objection by the respondents against the appellant’s application on procedural rules, the purpose and intendment of Order 8 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules which is to ensure that application in respect of alleged violations of such right are heard and determined expeditiously, will be defeated.
It is therefore for this reason that the appeal will be allowed. The appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The Judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 23rd day of June, in suit No. FHC/PH/FHR/206/2019 by Honourable Justice E.A. Obile is hereby set aside.
The case is remitted back to the Chief Judge of Federal High Court to be heard by a Judge differently constituted.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Tani Yusuf Hassan, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal ought to be allowed as it is meritorious.
My learned brother had considered and resolved all the issues raised for determination in this appeal. I have nothing else to add but also to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court.
Appeal allowed.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment authored and delivered by my lord, TANI YUSUF HASSAN, JCA in this appeal.
I agree with my lord’s exhaustive reasoning and the resultant conclusion in allowing the appeal having been meritorious
I too allow the appeal and abide by the consequential order remitting the case back to the Federal High Court for re-assignment to a different judge.
Appearances:
Chief G. O. Osugwe Esq. with him Ebere A. Okoye Igwilo Esq. For Appellant(s)
D. Atogbo Esq. For Respondent(s)
