LAWRENCE OSUOHA v. LEONARD OFODUM & ANOR
(2017)LCN/10338(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 28th day of August, 2017
CA/PH/127/2001
RATIO
APPEAL: INSTANCES IN WHICH THERE IS NO APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The law is trite, that where there is no appeal against any findings/holding, the same remains unchallenged, binding and conclusive. See the case of Igbokwe Vs Edom & Ors. (2015) 8 CAR 224; Nnaji Vs Alozie (2014) LPELR 24014 (CA); Anyalenkeya Vs Anya & Ors. (2016) LPELR – 40218 (CA); Amale Vs Sokoto L.G.A. (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt.1292) 181; Anyawu Vs Ogunewe & Ors (2014) LPELR – 22184 (SC). PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
DECLARATION OF TITLE: WHETHER THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON THE PLAINTIFF; WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN RELY ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENDANT’S CASE TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM
The law is trite that the onus of proof remains on the Plaintiff, especially in a declaratory action, as it remains the duty of the party who alleges, to lead credible evidence to establish his allegation; and he must succeed on the strength of his own case. See the case of SUU Vs Jobak Nig Ltd (2012) 49 WRN 53; and Adewuyi Vs Odukwe (2005) 7 SC (Pt.11) 1 at 13 – 14, where the Supreme Court held:
in a claim for declaration of title, the onus is always on the Plaintiff to establish his claim, and that it is not open to him to rely on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. Trial Court has always held that what is required of the Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title is at least to establish his claim by preponderance of evidence. It is often enough that he has produced sufficient and satisfactory evidence in support of his claim.
Of course, this principle is not limited to cases of title to land, as the burden of proof in all declaratory actions is the same, founded on Sections 135, 136 and 137 of the Evidence Act that a party seeking declaratory relief(s) has the burden to lead evidence to show that he is entitled to the declaratory relief sought. It is for him to satisfy the Court, by the quality of the evidence adduced by him, that he is entitled to the relief(s) sought. See Shittu & Ors Vs Olawumi & Ors (2011) LPELR – 3955 (CA). Dumez Nig Ltd Vs Nwakhoba & Ors. (2008) LPELR – 965 (SC); (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361; Emenike Vs PDP & Ors. (2012) LPELR – 7802 SC; Matanmi & Ors Vs Dada & Anor. (2013) LPELR – 1992 SC.PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
LAWRENCE OSUOHA Appellant(s)
AND
1. LEONARD OFODUM
2. CYRIL ORDU Respondent(s)
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in Suit Nos. HO/44/88 and HO/50/88 (consolidated), delivered on 18/8/97 by Hon. Justice B.A. Njemanze (as he then was), wherein the trial Court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in Suit No. HO/44/88 and dismissed the Suit No. HO/50/88.
In Suit No. HO/44/88, the Plaintiff therein (now Respondent) had sought:
(1) ?A declaration that the Plaintiff as the owner of house and appurtenance adjacent to the defendant?s premises is entitled to have his house and appurtenance supported by the defendant?s adjoining land.
(2) N50,000.00 special and general damages for wrongful interference with support of adjoining house and appurtenance, nuisance and negligence.
(3) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, privies and/or his servants from further acts of interference with Plaintiff?s peaceful enjoyment of his premises.? The Suit was filed on 23/6/1988.
In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff alleged that the defendant damaged his (Plaintiff?s) house
1
due to negligence and/or breach of duty of care, and stated the particulars, that the defendant:
(a) Failed to exercise due care and caution while excavating the soil next to Plaintiff?s building;
(b) Failed to foresee that the soil around the building was so porous, and so required some support wall to the building of the Plaintiff while carrying on the excavation work on his land;
(c) Failed to prevent excavated soil around the Plaintiff?s building from being washed away by erosion, after excavation work done by defendant?s agent;
(d) Failed to take any or adequate steps to prevent the excavation from reaching so deep as to affect the Plaintiff?s building;
(e) Failed to take any effective measures to ensure that the steep hill on which the defendant carried out the excavation did not erode the sub-soil and so cause damage to the Plaintiff?s building.
He claimed N32,000.00 as special damages and N18.000.00 as general damages ? N50,000.00, in all.
?
The Defendant (Appellant) filed a defense, and denied liability. He also filed a cross action as Plaintiff, against the Respondent herein and
2
another person, seeking some declarations, injunction and damages. That was the substance of Suit No. HO/50/88, and it related to the same subject matter in Suit No. HO/44/88. See pages 3, 6 ? 7 of the Record.
Appellant, therein was praying for:
(i) ?A declaration that there was no duty of care, whatsoever, on the Plaintiff to provide support for the 2nd Defendant?s house and premises at a higher level adjacent to the Plaintiff?s land.
(ii) A declaration that the 1st Defendant had exhibited manifest ignorance and gross incompetence in erecting a fence wall along the boundary line between the land of the Plaintiff and the land of the 2nd Defendant, contrary to all known building regulations.
(iii) A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not entitled to superimpose a storey building on a fence wall along the boundary line of the said lands and premises of the Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant and thereby to cause the rain water from the slopping roof of the said storey building to fall unto the Plaintiff?s land and premises.
(iv) A declaration that the storey building standing on a weak fence wall constituted a
3
great danger to the lives and property of persons in the premises of the Plaintiff.
(v) An Order of Court that the said storey building, superimposed on a weak fence wall be demolished.
(vi) A declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to allow the flood water from the 2nd Defendants premises to pour into the adjoining land and premises of the Plaintiff, situate at a lower level.
(vii) An Order of Court that the defendants should divert the flood and rain water from the 2nd Defendant?s premises away from running into the premises of the Plaintiff.
(viii) N100,000.00 Damages to the land, building and premises of the Plaintiff.
(ix) A perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, privies, servants and workmen from allowing flood and rain water from the 2nd Defendant?s premises into the land and premises of the Plaintiff.? (See pages 22 ? 23 of the Records)
After hearing the two (consolidated) Suits, the trial Court held (in respect of HO/44/88):
I am satisfied from the above facts before me, that the wall fence of the Plaintiff fell down as result of
4
the excavation of the soil near it by the defendant. I therefore hold that the defendant was negligent and so liable to the Plaintiff because he should have known that his act of excavating the soil near to the wall fence was likely to cause the wall fence to fall down. Furthermore, I have considered the issue of contributory negligence, though not raised by the Defendant, but because the Counsel for the Plaintiff? raised it in his address and I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff did not contribute to the negligence (Page 84 of the Records).
On the Suit No. HO/50/88, the trial Court held that the Plaintiff therein had a duty to prove that the Defendants contravened the Town Planning Law/Regulations in the way they defendant erected the buildings complained of, relying on Section 82, (Cap 126) Volume 7 of the Town & Country Planning Law, 1963 of Eastern Nigeria. It said:
?But from the evidence before me, the Plaintiff failed to discharge this onus. The Plaintiff, in particular, failed to adduce any evidence from the Okigwe Town Planning Authority to prove that the Defendants built in contravention of the law. I
5
therefore hold that the Plaintiff failed to prove this case as required by law. I therefore dismiss Suit No. HO/50/88. See page 88 of the Records.
In respect of Suit No. HO/44/88, the Court granted N5,000.00 general damages to Plaintiff.
Appellant?s Notice of Appeal, filed on 13/11/97, as per pages 89 ? 95 of the Records, appears to be appeal against the decision in Suit No HO/50/88 (Appellant did not state in the Notice of Appeal the Suit Number appealed against, though the heading carried the two consolidated Suits (HO/44/88; and HO/50/88), that is, going by the grounds of appeal, which stated, as follows, (without their particulars):
(1) The trial Judge erred in law when he required the defendant to call the Okigwe Town Planning Authority in evidence that the Plaintiff built on a wall fence on the boundary line between his building and the building of the defendant and that the Plaintiff superimposed a storey building on a part of the said wall fence when those facts were admitted by the Plaintiff?s witnesses, PW2 and PW3.
(2) The trial Judge erred in law, when he failed to give effect to his observation, at the locus
6
in quo which observation confirmed and strengthened the defendant?s case that the Plaintiff built a wall fence on the boundary line between his premises and the premises of the defendant and that the Plaintiff superimposed a storey building on a part of the said wall fence and thereby denied the defendant of a well-earned judgment.
(3) The trial Judge misdirected himself in law, when he failed to make use of facts admitted in evidence and which facts were confirmed by his observations at the locus in quo that the Plaintiff built a wall fence along the boundary between his compound and that of the defendant, and that the Plaintiff superimposed a storey building on a part of the said wall fence, but required that Okigwe Town Planning Authority should have been called in evidence to prove those same said facts.
(4) That trial Judge erred in law by dismissing in its entirety the defendant?s case in his cross action, when he found out at the locus and so recorded that the premises of the Plaintiff stand on a higher elevation than that of the defendant, that the Plaintiff raised a part of the said wall fence to form the back wall of a storey
7
building he superimposed the storey building on the said rampant; this situation obviously required no gain saying that the said storey building constituted a great danger to lives and property on the premises of the defendant.
(5) The trial Judge erred in law by dismissing in its entirety, the defendant?s case in his cross action when he observed at the locus that erosion was very rampant in the entire area where the wall fence had collapsed, allowing all the flood water into the premises of the Defendant; that the premises of the Plaintiff stand on higher elevation, that the Plaintiff used P.V.C. pipes to channel water into the boundary area of the defendant and that one of such pipes was still in existence, yet he failed to make any order with a view to controlling the erosion aforesaid or proper channeling off of the water from the premises of the Plaintiff.
(6) The judgment of the lower Court was against the weight of evidence, which evidence, if properly valuated, would have entitled the defendant to the judgment of the Court on a preponderance of evidence.?
Appellant filed brief of argument on 24/3/03 and distilled four (4)
8
Issues for the determination of the appeal, namely:
(1) Whether the Appellant discharged the burden on him of proving that the 1st Respondent built his wall fence along his boundary line and superimposed a storey building on the same.
(2) Whether the trial Judge was not entitled to resolve the conflict on whether or not the 1st Respondent built his wall fence along the boundary line and superimposed building on the same by his observation at the locus.
(3) Whether on the totality of the evidence before the trial Court and on the observation of physical facts at the locus, the trial Court was right in dismissing Appellant?s cross action in its entirety.
(4) Whether on the totality of the evidence before the trial Court, the trial Judge was right in finding the Appellant liable in negligence.?
?
Appellant did not relate the Issues to the grounds of Appeal in the brief, but on the face of it, it would appear that Issues 1, 2 and 3 flowed, or derived from grounds 1, 2 ? 3 and 4 ? 6 of the Notice of Appeal, respectively. There is no ground of appeal to support the 4th Issue for determination, which is a quarrel against
9
the grant of the relief in HO/44/88. I had earlier observed that there is no appeal against the decision in HO/44/88, going by the grounds of Appeal, raised by the Appellant.
The law is trite, that where there is no appeal against any findings/holding, the same remains unchallenged, binding and conclusive. See the case of Igbokwe Vs Edom & Ors. (2015) 8 CAR 224; Nnaji Vs Alozie (2014) LPELR 24014 (CA); Anyalenkeya Vs Anya & Ors. (2016) LPELR ? 40218 (CA); Amale Vs Sokoto L.G.A. (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt.1292) 181; Anyawu Vs Ogunewe & Ors (2014) LPELR ? 22184 (SC).
I shall therefore consider this appeal on the 1st to 3rd Issues donated by the Appellant, which I also think are basically on the same main issue, which is whether the trial Court was right to hold that Appellant did not prove that the buildings by the Respondent violated the town planning laws and to dismiss the Suit, despite observable facts of the Respondent erecting the back wall of the storey building on part of the wall fence of the Respondent.
I shall therefore determine this appeal on the said main Issue, which I think it takes care of all the Issues by Appellant and
10
grounds 1 to 6 of the appeal.
When the appeal came up for hearing, on 3/7/17, Counsel for Appellant argued strongly as per the brief, settled by Z.O.E. Nwosu Esq, that Appellant had discharged the burden of proving that 1st Respondent contravened the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Law, Cap 126, Laws of Eastern Nigeria, applicable in Imo State, by constructing his wall fence along the boundary line, and superimposing a storey building on the same; that it is trite that a fact can be proved either by adducing evidence on same, or by admission of same by the parties or agent/witnesses, or by writing under their hand (pleading inclusive). He relied on Section 75 of the Evidence Act.
Counsel said that at the trial, both the PW2 and PW3 admitted under cross examination, that 1st Respondent built his wall fence along the boundary line and superimposed a storey building on it. He referred us to evidence of PW2 and PW3, on pages 52 and 55 of the Records, respectively, and to paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim of Appellant (page 17 of the Records) on the Issue. Counsel said the 1st Respondent did not deny the paragraph 4 of the Statement
11
of Claim properly which alleged that 1st Respondent ?raised the height of part of the said fence wall and converted the same to a back wall of a storey building
Counsel referred us to paragraph 4 of the Statement of defence, where 1st Respondent denied paragraph 4 of the Appellant?s pleading, and added that he was not a party to the contract to construct the building! Counsel said such denial/reply fell short of the standard required by law; he was relying on Order 25 Rule 4 of the High (Civil Procedure) Rules, which abhors evasive rely. He said that a Reply/Pleading must answer to the point fully and substantially. He relied on Omorluhi Vs Enatewere (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.73) 746; Nwokoro Vs Onuma (1999) 9 SC 59.
?
Counsel said that the trial Court failed to resolve the conflict on whether or not the 1st Respondent built his house in accordance with the stipulations of the Town & Country Planning Law and Regulations, which said that nothing shall be built within 5 feet of the boundary line; that Appellant had proved that the 1st Respondent built his house and wall fence contrary to the stipulations, as he did so along
12
boundary line; that the 1st Respondent kept denying the above allegations. He said that failure to resolve that conflict was wrong and occasioned miscarriage of justice, especially as the trial Court had visited the locus and made some observations, thus:
?Also the compound of the Plaintiff (1st Respondent) was fenced with cement wall fence on all sides except at the back, where it shared common boundary with the compound of the Defendant (Appellant). The wall fence on this side was the wall fence that fell down and which was the cause of action. The Court observed that part of the wall fence on this side, and which did not fall down was used by the Plaintiff (1st Respondent) as part of the building wall of his storey building.? (Page 63 of the Records of Appeal).
Appellant said that, from the above observation of the Judge, it was clear that the 1st Respondent had contravened the building law/regulation, by building his wall fence along his boundary line; that the trial Court should have resolved the issue in line with his observation. He relied on the case of Seismograph Services Ltd Vs Ogbeni (1976) 4 SC 85; (1976) 1 NWLR 198 at
13
215.
Thus, Counsel said the trial Court was wrong in dismissing the cross action in its entirety, having regards to the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the observations at the locus. He admitted that the trial Judge was right to say that the onus was on the Appellant to prove non-compliance with the requirements of the Town & Country Planning Law; but said that the Court was wrong to hold that failure of the Appellant to adduce evidence from the Okigwe Town Planning Authority on the case was fatal to the case. He urged us to resolve the case for Appellant and allow the appeal.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
The law is trite that the onus of proof remains on the Plaintiff, especially in a declaratory action, as it remains the duty of the party who alleges, to lead credible evidence to establish his allegation; and he must succeed on the strength of his own case. See the case of SUU Vs Jobak Nig Ltd (2012) 49 WRN 53; and Adewuyi Vs Odukwe (2005) 7 SC (Pt.11) 1 at 13 ? 14, where the Supreme Court held:
in a claim for declaration of title, the onus is always on the Plaintiff to establish his claim, and that it is not open
14
to him to rely on the weakness of the Defendant?s case. Trial Court has always held that what is required of the Plaintiff in an action for declaration of title is at least to establish his claim by preponderance of evidence. It is often enough that he has produced sufficient and satisfactory evidence in support of his claim.?
Of course, this principle is not limited to cases of title to land, as the burden of proof in all declaratory actions is the same, founded on Sections 135, 136 and 137 of the Evidence Act that a party seeking declaratory relief(s) has the burden to lead evidence to show that he is entitled to the declaratory relief sought. It is for him to satisfy the Court, by the quality of the evidence adduced by him, that he is entitled to the relief(s) sought. See Shittu & Ors Vs Olawumi & Ors (2011) LPELR ? 3955 (CA). Dumez Nig Ltd Vs Nwakhoba & Ors. (2008) LPELR ? 965 (SC); (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361; Emenike Vs PDP & Ors. (2012) LPELR ? 7802 SC; Matanmi & Ors Vs Dada & Anor. (2013) LPELR ? 1992 SC.
The case of the Appellant at the Lower Court was obviously a retaliatory
15
action, being a cross action against Suit No. HO/44/88, whereof the Respondent took out action against his neighbor (Appellant) to seek redress for infringement or interference with his property, by way of negligent conduct. Appellant, too sought to impeach his neighbor?s (Respondent) conduct, and based his complaint on Respondent?s failure to comply with building regulations/standards. That, to me, obviously, would amount to an infringement, or offence against municipal laws, for which the relevant government department or agency should prosecute the offender and enforce the laws against him (Respondent).
?
Appellant?s main complaint was that the Respondent built his fence on the boundary line, and did not observe the required 5 feet spacing, from the boundary line; that the Respondent even compounded the problems by superimposing a storey building on a part of the wall of the fence; building the storey house on a weak fence, and thus posed danger to him (Appellant) and others in his compound; he said that by reason of the wall of the fence being on boundary line and the back side of the superimposed storey building, sitting on the said
16
wall of the fence, rain water and flood from Respondent?s compound collect on his (Appellant?s) adjoining land and premises. He wanted the storey building on the fence, demolished!
I think that claim and catalogue of wrongs allegedly committed by the Respondent were, principally, against the Town & Country Planning Laws/Regulations, not directly against the Appellant to enure direct right/benefit to him, and so it required the Town Planning Authorities to be involved in the case, either as a party, or as witness to prove that in fact, the Respondent built against Town Planning regulations. I think, Appellant?s right of action in the circumstances or success in the Suit, was predicated on the evidence in the case or endorsement of the action, and prove of the allegations.
That, in my view, was the point the learned trial Court sought to impress upon the Appellant, in its judgment, when it said, as follows:
?In his address, Mr. Nwosu submitted that the defendants contravened the Town and Country Planning Law. Cap 126 Volume 7 of 1963 Laws of Eastern Nigeria. He submitted that they contravened in particular,
17
regulation 1(a), Part II of the 1st Schedule of the said law? The said law? applies to Imo State and Okigwe in particular. It should be noted that Okigwe is an Urban Area. It is one of the places designated as Urban Area in the DESIGNATION OF URBAN AREAS ORDER 1979 see IMO STATE LEGAL NOTICE NO. 1 of 1980. And as an Urban Area, a Town Planning Authority was established for it. See Imo State Legal Notice No.36 of 1978. The effect of all this is that anybody erecting a building in Okigwe Urban must comply with the provisions of the TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING LAW (Cap 126) Volume 7 of 1963, Laws of Eastern Nigeria, as amended and also other Bye-laws and Regulations. But where there is a dispute as to whether a person complied or not with the provisions of this law while building a house, the onus will be on be the person who alleges the non-compliance to prove same. In this case therefore, the onus is on the Plaintiff in Suit No. HO/50/88 to prove the non-compliance with the law. It should be noted that it is an offence to contravene any provisions of this law or any Regulation made there under (see) Section 82 of the said Town & Country
18
Planning Law See pages 86 ? 87 of the Records.
The trial Court had reproduced the said Section 82, and by that law:
?Any person who:-
(a) Acts in contravention of any regulation made under the provisions of this law; or
(b) Being legally bound to comply with any lawful order or with the requisition contained in any notice served under this law or any regulation made there under refuses or neglects to comply there with, shall be deemed guilty of an offence and liable to conviction to a fine of N100 or to imprisonment for six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.?
The Lower Court had finally held and rightly, in my view, that:
?The effect of this Section 82 of the law on this case is that the Plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants contravened the provisions of this law by building in contravention of the Regulations made under the law. See Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 1990. But from the evidence before me, the Plaintiff failed to discharge this onus. The Plaintiff, in particular, failed to adduce evidence from the Okigwe Town Planning Authority to
19
prove that the defendants built in contravention of the law Pages 87 ? 88 of the Records.
I think the above findings/holding remains unassailable in the circumstance. As earlier stated in this judgment, Appellant was trying to do the case of Okigwe Town Planning Authority, unsolicited, the area of the dispute/complaint having been adjudged to be within the jurisdiction of Okigwe Town Planning Authority. Appellant had a duty to report the alleged wrong doings of the Respondent to the Authorities, and to have joined the said Okigwe Town Planning Authority in the Suit (as a necessary party), or to call same as witness, to give evidence, to establish non-compliance by the Respondent, with the building regulations. Of course, failure to join and/or call the said Authority to give evidence stood against Appellant, as Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, could be presumed against him.
See the case of Incorporated Trustees of Roh Empire Mission Vs Opara (2017) LPELR ? 42463 (CA), where we held that the Appellant was a stranger to the claim he brought, as in the instant case:
?Appellant cannot, in my opinion, invoke
20
the rights inherent in the tenancy contract, being a stranger to the transaction, and had no locus standi to institute the action, in its sole name (without joining the necessary party).? See Rebold Industries Ltd Vs Magreola & Ors (2015) LPELR ? 24612 (SC).
It should be appreciated that Appellant, having raised issues that border on criminal wrong doing (offence of contravention of building regulations) against the Respondent, (punishable, as stipulated by the Section 82 of the Town & Country Planning Law), Appellant had a duty to prove the alleged contravention beyond reasonable doubt by producing credible evidence from the Town Planning Authorities to establish the contravention. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Akinkugbe Vs Ewulum Holding Nig. Ltd & Anor. (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt.1098) 275; (2008) LPELR ? 346 SC. See again Incorporated Trustees of Roh Empire Mission Vs Opara (2017) LPELR ? 42465 CA.
Appellant had placed much reliance on the observation of the trial Court at the locus, when it said ?that part of the wall fence on this side and which did not fall down was used by the Plaintiff as
21
part of the building wall of his storey building? (page 63 of the Records); Appellant relied on that to establish his (Appellant?s) allegations that the fence was built on boundary line and that the weak fence provided the back wall of the storey building. The above observation, without more, could not have established the alleged contravention of the building regulations, alleged by Appellant, in the absence of the evidence from the appropriate authority ? Okigwe Town Planning Authority to demonstrate the contravention, especially as Appellant appeared to confused building line of a house with lining of a fence wall!
I cannot therefore disturb the judgment of the Lower Court as I resolve the Issue against the Appellant, and dismiss the Appeal.
There is no order as to cost.
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment prepared by my learned brother ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning of his lordship and conclusion therein.
TUNDE OYABANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I entirely agree.
22
Appearances:
Z.E.O. NWOSU ESQ (who settled the brief) With him, IJEOMA ORIAKU (MRS.), who argued it at the hearing.
For Appellant(s)
RESPONDENTS NOT REPRESENTEDFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
Z.E.O. NWOSU ESQ (who settled the brief) With him, IJEOMA ORIAKU (MRS.), who argued it at the hearing.For Appellant
AND
RESPONDENTS NOT REPRESENTEDFor Respondent
