INYE v. REGD TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH (2020)

INYE v. REGD TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH

(2020)LCN/14581(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, September 11, 2020

CA/PH/201/2018

RATIO

PLEADINGS: GRAVITY OF AN ERROR/MISTAKE IN A JUDGMENT.

My Lords, it is settled law that it is not every error/mistake in a judgment that will lead to the setting aside of a judgment on appeal. See F.B.N PLC vs. OZOKWERE (2014) 3 NWLR (pt. 1395) p. 439. For a mistake of a trial Judge to have the effect of vitiating of his judgment such must be substantial and must lead to miscarriage of justice. See ONAJOBI vs. OLANIPEKUN (1985) 4 SC (pt. 2) 156; AZABADA vs. STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) p. 40.
The question is, was the error of the trial Judge identified above substantial enough and did it lead to miscarriage of justice?
The party whose name was struck out in Exhibit “ID” was the REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH who was the 2nd Defendant in the case. The other Defendant, who was the 1st Defendant was PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE. PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE was a servant of the 2nd Defendant whose name was eventually struck out in the case, at the material time. PASTOR AJIKE was sued in “Exhibit ID” because he was on the land through the church. He never claimed title to the land. He got on the land through the 2nd Defendant i.e. the church.
It seems clear to me therefore that PASTOR AJIKE was a privy to the 2nd Defendant in view of the above. See ARABIO vs. KANGA (1932) 1 WACA 253 at 254; AGBOGUN LERI vs. DEPO & ORS (2008) 3 NWLR (pt. 1074), p. 217. Hence 2nd Defendant was still bound by the said judgment.
In any case, the judgment in Exhibit “ID” is a judgment in rem as it determines the status of the parties and others with respect to the land in question. See COLE vs. JIBUNOH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1503) p. 499. It binds all persons including the Respondent whose name was struck out. See OGBORU vs. UDUAGHAN (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1277) 727 at 764-765.
I therefore hold that this error of the lower Court is not substantial and does not lead to miscarriage of justice. I however resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant. Per TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A

RATIO

PLEADINGS: THE PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

The conditions for successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam were explained by the Apex Court in MAKUN & ORS vs. FUT, MINNA & ORS (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1278) 190 where it was held that: (a) the parties or their privies must be the same in both the previous and the present proceeding. (b) the claim or issues in dispute in both actions must be the same. (c) the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases must be the same, and (d) the decision relied upon in support of the plea must be valid. I am convinced that the above conditions were met and the doctrine of RES JUDICATA was rightly raised. This issue is in the circumstance resolved against the Appellant. Per TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A

RATIO

PLEADINGS: ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY OF A COUNSEL TO HIS CLIENT.

A Counsel holds himself out to his client as being professionally competent to handle the legal needs of the said client. He has a duty to handle the instructions of his client with competence. If through his sheer incompetence and utter irresponsibility he causes his client to incur losses he should be damnified in costs or even damages.
In ABUBAKAR & ANOR vs. USMAN (supra), CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. held thus, when a similar situation arose before the Apex Court:
“…I shall not only enter an order striking out this appeal; I am under a duty to damnify Learned Senior Counsel for this ill-advised and ill-fated forensic trip to this rare judicial attitude where only serious questions of law ought to be canvassed.
Accordingly, I hereby award costs, assessed and fixed at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only in favour of the first and second Respondents (objectors to be personally paid by Senior Counsel for the Appellant).”
It is right to adopt a similar approach in this appeal just as the learned trial Judge rightly said. I resolve this issue against the Appellant. Per TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A

Before Our Lordships:

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Court of Appeal

Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MISS IDONIBOYE BETEBO INYE APPELANT(S)

And

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH RESPONDENT(S)

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is the Judgment in respect of the Appeal filed by the Appellant who was the Claimant at the lower Court against the decision of the Rivers State High Court delivered on 22/3/2018.

The Claimant had instituted an action against the Defendant (now Respondent in this appeal) claiming as per paragraph 11 of her Statement of Claim thus:
“11. The Claimant’s claims against the Defendants are for:
(a) A declaration that the Claimant is by purchase, the owner of all that parcel of land called Opuene Briggs, Kiri lying and situate at Briggs compound Abonnema, in Akuku-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State and more particularly described and verged red in Survey Plan No. COO/RV2011/050B dated 29th October, 2011, measuring Area of 252,512 Square meter by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance dated the 5th day of November, 2011 made in favour of the Claimant.
(b) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant acting by themselves, their agent and privies from interfering or disturbing howsoever, with the Claimant’s property and possessory rights over the said

Opuene Briggs Kirri lying and situate at Briggs compound Abonnema, in the Akuku-Toru Local Government Ares of Rivers State of Nigeria.
(c) An order directing the Defendant, to pay the Claimant the sum of (N20,000,000.00) Twenty Million Naira representing general damage for the Trespass.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The Claimant called OPUENE DAFIRI BRIGGS who she claimed to have bought the land in dispute from. In his adopted Statement on oath, OPUENE BRIGGS stated inter alia thus:
“(4) That I bought the land in dispute from one Humphrey Jack now late in August, 21st 1995; an agreement was made by the both of us as at that time and we also signed a Deed of Conveyance. The said Deed of Conveyance is hereby pleaded and same shall be founded upon as an evidence or proof of purchase of the land in dispute at the trial.
(5) That since I bought the land in dispute, there has never been any third party claim, I have never had any problem with any person concerning the said land and I did not instruct any person to sell the said land on my behalf at any time before I took ill sometime in 2007.
(6) That in 2009 or there

about, I was reliably informed that my land has been encroached upon by the Defendant, on hearing this, I quickly ran to the site and saw some workers and materials on the land and I had to stop them because I do not know them.
(7) That I was not satisfied and I instructed my lawyer to sue the Pastor I met at the site by name Pastor Francis Ajike. In his Statement he said that he was only a messenger of the now Defendant and based on his statement, the Court ordered that the now Defendant be joined and they were so joined.
(8) That during the trial, the now Defendant refused to appear and also did not file any statement of defence and as such their name was struck out, my claim against the Pastor was dismissed.”

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge found inter alia as follows:
“From the pleadings and evidence before this Court, the following findings may not be out of place to make:
(1) PASTORE FRANCIS AJIKE, the 1st Defendant and DW1 in SUIT NO. DHC/17/2009, was the present Defendant’s PRIVY in the said suit.
(2) The subject matter in SUIT NO. DHC/17/2009 is the same as the one in the present suit,

that is, “OPUENE BRIGGS KIRI”.
(3) Defendants herein, on the basis of No. 1 above, are indirectly entitled to the benefits of the judgment tendered in this case by DW1 as EXHIBIT ‘1D’.
(4) The Claimant in EXHIBIT ‘1D’ is CW1 in the present case and the supposed Vendor in EXHIBIT ‘B’ tendered by the Claimant in the present suit.
(5) CW1 herein, had nothing in “OPUENE BRIGGS KIRI” as at the 5th of November, 2011, to convey or assign or transfer to the Claimant and CW2 in this case. NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.
(6) No. 5 above, is correct and true because CW1 herein knew about the judgment, EXHIBIT ‘1D’, when he purported to have executed EXHIBIT ‘B’ tendered herein, by the Claimant, CW2. CW1 in this suit and executor of EXHIBIT ‘B’ is certainly a fraudster. CW1 even said under cross examination that he did not lose the judgment in EXHIBIT ‘1D’.
(7) The judgment, subject of EXHIBIT ‘1D’ is still subsisting and valid until same is set aside by an Appellate Court. See the cases of NWOKEDI vs. OKUGO (2002) 16 NWLR (pt. 794) 441,

GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE vs. TUKUR (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 592) cited by OWOBU, ESQ, for the Defendants.
(8) The present suit constitutes an abuse of the judgment in EXHIBIT ‘1D’, and which judgment is a complete defence to the present suit on ground of RES JUDICATA.”

His Lordship finally dismissed the suit in the following terms:
“In the end, all the reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in this suit must fail hence this suit is dismissed with costs assessed at N250,000.00 against the Claimant in favour of the Defendants. In consonance with the mood of the Supreme Court, this cost of N250,000.00 must be paid by MR. O. I. BRIGGS to the Defendants in order to encourage international practices in the legal profession in our country.”

Miffed by the above decision, the Appellant appealed via her Notice of Appeal filed on 20/4/2018.
After transmission of Record of Appeal to this Court, parties filed and exchanged Briefs of Argument.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
Appellant’s Brief of Argument was deemed filed on 16/07/2018. It was

settled by her learned Counsel O. I. BRIGGS, ESQ.

Learned Counsel to the Appellant formulated 3 issues for determination by this Court. They are:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have relied only on pages 2, 4 and 5 of Exhibit “ID” to dismiss the Appellant’s suit, when it is very clear that the name of the Respondent in Exhibit “ID” was expressly struck out of the suit in page 9, 3rd paragraph of the said Exhibit “ID” or page 8 of records?
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have held that “Estoppel per rem judicatam has been established based on the pleadings and evidence before this Court” when it was clear that the parties are different in law?
(3) Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have applied the case of Abubakar vs. Usman (2017) 15 cost of N250,000.00 against Appellant’s Counsel in this case, when the facts, issues and circumstances are not the same?

ISSUE ONE
On issue one, learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge of the Court below was

wrong in answering the question; whether the Respondent can take the benefit of the judgment in Exhibit “ID”, to have considered only pages 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit “ID” to dismiss the Appellant’s case; instead of considering the pleadings, evidence adduced before the Court and the whole of the said Exhibit “ID”.

He further submitted that miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the error of not considering the pleadings, evidence adduced in Court and reading the whole of Exhibit “ID” or reading up to page 9 of the said Exhibit “ID” being page 48 of the records. He relied on the case of DAGGASH vs. BULAMA (2004) ALL FWLR (pt. 212) 1660 ratio 40. He urged this Court to resolve issue Number one in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE TWO
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted on issue two that the learned trial Judge of the Court below was wrong to have held that “Estoppel per rem judicatam has been established based on pleadings and evidence before the Court, when it is clear that the parties are different in law”. Learned Counsel contended that, if the learned trial Judge

had averted his mind to Exhibits “C, D, E, F and G” in the course of delivering the judgment now appealed against, the truth of how each of the parties came to the issue of ownership would have been known and the judgment would have been different. He urged this Court to resolve Issue 2 in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE THREE
On issue three, learned Counsel submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned trial Judge was wrong to have applied and relied on the case of ABUBAKAR vs. USMAN (2017) 15 NWLR (pt. 1587) 30 in awarding cost of (N250,000.00) against Appellant’s Counsel in this case, when the facts, issues and circumstances are not the same. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge misdirected himself by relying on Exhibit “F” “G” and “ID” leading to his misapplication of the case of ABUBAKAR vs. USMAN (Supra) on the Appellant’s case. He urged this Court to resolve issue 3 in favour of the Appellant.

In conclusion, learned Counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment made by the Court below on 22nd March, 2018.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
Respondent’s Brief of Argument was deemed filed on 30/08/2018. It was settled by her learned Counsel C. E. Owobu, Esq.

Learned Counsel to the Respondent formulated two issues for determination by this Honourable Court. They are:
(1) Whether the Honourable lower Court was not in error when it relied on the judgment of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No. DHC/17/2009 as estoppel per rem judicatam in the determination of this current case.
(2) Whether the lower Court was right when it awarded cost of N250,000.00 against the Claimant to be paid personally by the Claimant’s Counsel.

ISSUE ONE
Learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted that an evaluation of the judgment of the lower Court showed that the Court painstakingly evaluated the evidence and pleadings of the parties before the Court.

Learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted further that from the manner this action is constituted, it will be overreaching on the judgment of the High Court in Suit No. DHC/17/2009, which judgment remains valid and subsisting at the time of filing this case, therefore judgment entered in

favour of the Appellant in the lower Court will amount to setting aside the earlier judgment of the High Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. He relied on the case of CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA & ANOR vs. OLATAYO ARIBO (2018) 4 NWLR (pt. 1608) 130 at 171 paras. D-F.

Learned Counsel to the Respondent urged this Court to hold that the judgment in Suit No DHC/17/2009 is subsisting and binding on the parties and therefore Mr. Opuene Dafiri Briggs cannot transfer a valid title to the Appellant.

ISSUE TWO
On issue two, learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted that this is a clear case of giving a false hope to a Litigant. He relied on the case of ABUBAKAR vs. USMAN (2017) 15 NWLR (pt. 1587) 15 at paras. C-D. Learned Counsel to the Respondent further submitted that although it is the right of the Appellant to commence this appeal, the Appellant’s Counsel had not advised her properly, hence this appeal. Learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the whole matter constitutes an abuse of Court process and the Counsel should be made to pay dearly for it.

In conclusion, he urged this Honourable Court to dismiss this appeal with

substantial cost.

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
Appellant’s Reply Brief was deemed filed on 07/09/2018. It was settled by her learned Counsel O. I. BRIGGS, Esq.

Learned Counsel to the Appellant, submitted that the singular error of summarizing the issues of facts in the Appellant’s case that the Respondent was a party in Exhibit “ID” is what gave rise to the misdirection and thereby affected the whole judgment now appealed against.

Learned Counsel contended that a judgment dismissing the action of a Claimant as in Exhibit “ID” and/or this suit now appealed, decrees no title to the Defendant, the latter having not sought the declaration. He relied on RAFIU SANGODARE vs. TAYO OLADOKUN & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22737. Learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that Pastor Francis Ajike sued as 1st Defendant in Exhibit “ID” having not filed a counter claim therein, whether sued as a privy or not, cannot attain title to the land by virtue of the dismissal of the Claimant’s case in Exhibit “ID”.

Learned Counsel to the Respondent contended that the discretion of the Court to

award cost was not exercised judicially and judiciously in this case. He relied on the case of UBN PLC vs. ASTRA BUILDERS (WA) LTD (2010) 5 NWLR (pt. 1186) 1 SC.

He concluded by urging this Court to allow the appeal of the Appellant and set aside the judgment of the Court below delivered on the 22nd day of March, 2018 based on the reasons put forward by the Appellant in this appeal.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I have deeply considered the submission of learned Counsel on both sides and the issues proposed for determination by Counsel on either side.
I am convinced that the issues formulated by the Appellant’s Counsel are apt and wide enough for the just determination of this appeal. I therefore adopt them.

ISSUE ONE
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT TO HAVE RELIED ONLY ON PAGES 2, 4 AND 5 OF EXHIBIT “ID” TO DISMISS THE APPELLANT’S SUIT, WHEN IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT “ID” WAS EXPRESSLY STRUCK OUT OF THE SUIT IN PAGE 9, 3RD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID EXHIBIT “ID”. OR PAGE 48 OF THE RECORDS?
Exhibit “ID” is the judgment

of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No. DHC/17/2009: MR. OPUENE DAFIRI BRIGGS vs. PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE & REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH delivered on 20/06/2011.

The 2nd Respondent in Exhibit “ID” is the Respondent in the instant appeal. The learned trial Judge had held in respect of the 2nd Defendant thus:
“As the record of this Court show, I have no difficult in holding that there is no service of the Motion for joinder and the originating processes on the 2nd Defendant in this case … It does not lie with the Claimant’s Counsel to argue that 2nd Defendant had abandoned this suit as it is an illogicality to say that a party abandoned a suit he is not served with or unaware of, consequently 2nd Defendant is struck out of this suit” (See page 93 of the record of appeal).

But the learned trial Judge in the case now on appeal inspite of the above held as follows:
“From the judgment of ENEBELI, J, tendered in these proceedings as EXHIBIT “ID”, the present Defendants were still listed as the 2nd Defendant on record therein. It is therefore not correct for MR. O. I. BRIGGS to

insist that the Defendants herein, were not parties to EXHIBIT ‘ID’. I have read through EXHIBIT ‘ID’ and there is no where it is stated directly or indirectly, that the names of the Defendants herein, were struck out from SUIT NO. DHC/17/2009. The Defendants herein, were parties to EXHIBIT ‘ID’. No order, however, was given against them or in their favour directly, because they were not served with the originating Court processes in SUIT NO. DHC/17/2009. The opinion of the Court as contained in EXHIBIT ‘ID’ does not amount to saying that the Defendants herein, were not partners in EXHIBIT ‘ID’.”

The above finding is clearly erroneous. But the question is, of what significance is the error?

AZABADA vs. STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) p. 40.
The question is, was the error of the trial Judge identified above substantial enough and did it lead to miscarriage of justice?
The party whose name was struck out in Exhibit “ID” was the REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH who was the 2nd Defendant in the case. The other Defendant, who was the 1st Defendant was PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE. PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE was a servant of the 2nd Defendant whose name was eventually struck out in the case, at the material time. PASTOR AJIKE was sued in “Exhibit ID” because he was on the land through the church. He never claimed title to the land. He got on the land through the 2nd Defendant i.e. the church.
It seems clear to me therefore that PASTOR AJIKE was a privy to the 2nd Defendant in view of the above. See ARABIO vs. KANGA (1932) 1 WACA 253 at 254; AGBOGUN LERI vs. DEPO & ORS (2008) 3 NWLR (pt. 1074), p. 217. Hence 2nd Defendant was still bound by the said judgment.
In any case, the judgment in Exhibit “ID” is a judgment in rem as it determines the status of the parties and others with respect to the land in

question. See COLE vs. JIBUNOH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1503) p. 499. It binds all persons including the Respondent whose name was struck out. See OGBORU vs. UDUAGHAN (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1277) 727 at 764-765.
I therefore hold that this error of the lower Court is not substantial and does not lead to miscarriage of justice. I however resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE NUMBER TWO
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT “ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT”, WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES ARE DIFFERENT IN LAW?
I have no hesitation in resolving this issue against the Appellant. She bought the piece of land subject-matter of this appeal from OPUENE DAFIRI BRIGGS, the Claimant in “Exhibit ID”.

OPUENE DAFIRI BRIGGS litigated on the same piece of land and lost as he could not establish or prove the root of title of his Vendor, Mr. Humphrey Jack.

The trial Judge in Exhibit ID dismissed the claim of title of OPUENE DAFIRI BRIGGS in the following terms:
“I hold that the Claimant

did not prove his claim of title as required by law and therefore his claim for title as in paragraph 13(a) of the Amended Statement of Claim fails. Consequently, the claim for injunction and damages for trespass as endorsed in paragraph 13(b and c) of the Amended Statement of Claim, being ancillary reliefs to the main relief which has failed are also bound to fail.”

There is no appeal against the decision in Exhibit ID. It has not been set aside. It therefore stands. See OKUOJA vs. ISHOLA (1982) 7 S.C. 314; DURBAR HOTEL PLC vs. ITYOUGH (2017) 7 NWLR (pt. 1564) p. 256.
The decision in Exhibit ID remains valid and binding, therefore.

It is also important to note as earlier discussed in this judgment that the decision in Exhibit ID is a judgment in REM which is binding on the whole world. In my respectful opinion it would be wrong to state that the parties in Exhibit ID and the case now on appeal are different. The Appellant in this appeal derived her title from the Claimant in Exhibit ID. The 1st Defendant in Exhibit ID was at all material times a servant of the 2nd Defendant in Exhibit ID. The 2nd Defendant in Exhibit ID is the Respondent

in this appeal. Essentially the parties in the two cases are the same. The 1st Defendant was the privy to the Respondent in this appeal. The two cases are also in respect of the same piece of land.
The conditions for successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam were explained by the Apex Court in MAKUN & ORS vs. FUT, MINNA & ORS (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1278) 190 where it was held that: (a) the parties or their privies must be the same in both the previous and the present proceeding. (b) the claim or issues in dispute in both actions must be the same. (c) the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases must be the same, and (d) the decision relied upon in support of the plea must be valid.
I am convinced that the above conditions were met and the doctrine of RES JUDICATA was rightly raised. This issue is in the circumstance resolved against the Appellant.

ISSUE THREE
WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE CASE OF ABUBAKAR vs. USMAN (2017) 15 NWLR (PT. 1587) page 30 IN AWARDING COST OF N250,000.00 AGAINST APPELLANT’S COUNSEL IN THIS CASE, WHICH THE FACTS, ISSUES AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE

NOT THE SAME?

I resolve this issue against the Appellant. This is an appeal filed by an Appellant who purchased a piece of land from a Vendor who had no title to the land. The issue of title to the land subject matter of this appeal had been settled conclusively against the Vendor who sold the said land to the Appellant in Exhibit ID. The decision of the High Court in this issue was not challenged on appeal.

Yet learned Counsel for the Appellant embarrassingly advised his client to institute a fresh action on title to the said land in another High Court. Expectedly, the said action was dismissed, hence the present appeal.

out this appeal; I am under a duty to damnify Learned Senior Counsel for this ill-advised and ill-fated forensic trip to this rare judicial attitude where only serious questions of law ought to be canvassed.
Accordingly, I hereby award costs, assessed and fixed at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only in favour of the first and second Respondents (objectors to be personally paid by Senior Counsel for the Appellant).”
It is right to adopt a similar approach in this appeal just as the learned trial Judge rightly said. I resolve this issue against the Appellant.

This appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No. DHC/18/2016 delivered on 22/3/2018 is hereby affirmed.
I assess the costs of this appeal at N300,000.00 against the Appellant to be paid personally by Learned Counsel for the Appellant, O. I. BRIGGS.

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: I concur with the reasoning reached in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Awotoye, JCA to the conclusive effect that the present appeal lacks merits. Hence, I too unhesitatingly hereby dismiss the appeal and abide

by the consequential order made therein.

ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother T. O. AWOTOYE, JCA and I am in entire agreement with the reasoning and conclusion therein. I too dismiss the Appeal as lacking in merit and abide by all other consequential orders including order as to cost.

Appearances:

I. BRIGGS, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

O. ENAYEDU, ESQ. HOLDING THE BRIEF OF C. E. OWOBU, ESQ. For Respondent(s)