LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. BEN LAWRENCE & ANOR (2017)

LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED v. BEN LAWRENCE & ANOR

(2017)LCN/10179(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 5th day of July, 2017

CA/B/158/2015

RATIO

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

There is no doubt that the issue of jurisdiction in Nigerian Courts whether a Court has or does not have jurisdiction is a threshold issue and it is of the greatest importance in all manner of litigations before the Courts. Whenever the issue of jurisdiction is raised, it must be looked into first or at the earliest opportunity. This is so because any proceedings before a Court, no matter how well conducted without jurisdiction, is a nullity and the outcome thereby has no legal consequence whatsoever. The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and important, it is a sine qua non to an action. It is due to its importance that it can be raised by parties at any stage of the case and even for the first time on appeal before an appellate Court. Jurisdiction is like what blood is in human body because without blood the organs of the body cannot function at all. See the following cases:- ELABANJO VS DAWODU (2006) 6 SCNJ Page 204;

– R. OGUMKA VS CORPORATE AFFARIS COMMISSION (2010) LPELR 4891 (CA); – ELUGBE VS OMOKHAFE (2004) 18 NWLR Part 905 at Page 319; – OKAFOR VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR Part 200 Page 659. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: INSTANCES WHERE A COURT WILL BE SAID TO BE COMPETENT TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION OVER ANY MATTER

A Court is competent when:

(1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members on the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another.

(2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, and

(3) The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS RAISED IN ACTION COMMENCED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS

In restating the trite principle of law on when a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised in an action commenced by Originating Summons, Per Onnoghen J.S.C. in the same case of HONOURABLE M. DAPIALONG & ORS V. CHIEF (DR) JOSHUA C. DARIYE & ANOR (Supra) after a painstaking review of the law on jurisdiction generally aforequoted stated thus:-

It is settled law that where an objection is raised to the jurisdiction of the Court in a matter commenced by originating summons where the evidence required is in the form of affidavit as in the instant case, it may be prudent to hear together the arguments as to jurisdiction and the merits of the case see Senate President v. Nzeribe (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 251; Inakoju v. Adeleke Supra.

In the recent case of the Honourable ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS V. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2014) LPELR 22701 (SC) delivered on Friday the 11th day of April, 2014, the apex Court per Muhammad J.S.C. restated the position of the law on the need to take preliminary objection(s) together with the substantive application in a matter commenced by way of Originating Summons thus:

When a preliminary objection is raised in action such as the present one commenced by Originating Summons, it is always better to take the Preliminary Objection with the substantive that if the objection to the action succeeds, the case or action is terminated in limine. If the objection fails however, then the Court will proceed to determine the substantive action on its merit. See Dapialong v. Dariye (2007) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1036) 332 and Amadi v. N.N.P.C. (2000) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 674) 75 at 100. In line with the requirement of the law and the practice of this Court, I shall proceed to consider the Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs action filed against it. The duty of this Court and indeed any other Court where Preliminary Objection has been raised to the competence of an action, is to determine the objection first before looking into the substantive matter. See Onyekwuluje v. Animashaun & Ors (1996) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 439) 637 at 644. PER JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.

JUSTICE

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COY LTDAppellant(s)

AND

1. BEN LAWRENCE
2. CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSIONRespondent(s)

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Benin, in Edo State of Nigeria in Suit No FHC/B/CS/93/14 Between: BEN LAWRENCE AND (1) CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION (2) LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED delivered on the 9th day of June, 2015.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that by the Originating Summons filed on 7/5/2015, the 1st Respondent sued the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant at the Federal High Court, Benin for the determination of the following questions and reliefs:-
By virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004 whether the 1st Defendant acted within the scope of the said law in purportedly registering the 2nd Defendant Company known and referred to as LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD with R.C. NO 1100541 and a Certificate of Incorporation dated 6th day of March 2013 despite the failure and/or refusal of the subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association to satisfy the provisions of Section 18 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 when the said company was

purportedly incorporated with only one subscriber to the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

And now sought for the following reliefs against the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant respectively.
(1) An Order of the Honourable Court compelling the 1st Defendant to de-register the 2nd Defendants Company purportedly registered as League Management Company Limited with RC No. 1100541 and a Certificate of Incorporation dated 6th day of March 2013 for failure and/or refusal to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 18 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004.
(2) An Order of the Honourable Court compelling the 1st Defendant to strike out or delete the name of the 2nd Defendants Company purportedly registered as League Management Company Limited with RC No. 1100541 and a Certificate of Incorporation dated 6th day of March 2013 from the Register of Incorporated Companies in Nigeria.
(3) And for such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The Appellants application on notice challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court based on proper venue for the

institution of the action prayed for the following orders:-
(i) An Order striking out this suit.
(ii) Alternatively to (i) above, an order transferring this suit to Abuja Judicial Division for adjudication.
(iii) Such further or other orders.
The Grounds for the objection are as follows:-
(i) The 2nd Defendant has its headquarters at No. 46 Lobito Crescent, Wuse, Abuja where it resides and carries on substantial part of its business.
(ii) The 1st Defendant also has its headquarters at Plot 420 Tigris Crescent, Off Aguiyi Ironsi Street, Maitama, Abuja where it resides and carries on substantial part of its business.
(iii) The complaint of the Plaintiff in his suit, is closely connected with or related to Abuja in that the Plaintiff is challenging the registration of the Applicant as a company, which registration was carried out at the headquarters of the 1st Defendant at Maitama, Abuja.
(iv) Having regard to Order 2 Rule 1 (9) of the Federal High Court Rules 2009, this suit could only have been properly instituted in the Abuja Judicial Division of this Court.
(v) In the light of the foregoing, this Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

At the hearing before the lower Court on 9th June 2015, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Court rather than consider the Appellants objection to the hearing of the suit in Benin Division of the Federal High Court first, it suo motu ruled that it would take the Appellants objection and the substantive Originating Summons at the same time notwithstanding the contention of the Appellant to the contrary.

The Appellant, who is dissatisfied with the Ruling of the lower Court now appealed to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows:-
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Learned Trial Judge was right in his decision that he shall be taking the Appellants objection to the hearing of the suit in Benin Division of the Federal High Court and the substantive Originating Summons together.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent adopted the issue formulated for the determination of this appeal by the Appellant.

The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in his own case, formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal. The said issue is reproduced as follows:-
Whether the trial Judge was right to hold that the motion to strike out and the Originating Summons should be taken at the same time.

At the hearing of the appeal in this Court on 23/5/2017, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appeal is against the Ruling of the Federal High Court Benin City delivered on 9/6/2015. He went further that two notices of appeal were filed, the first on 12/6/15 and the other on 15/6/2015.

He relied on the notice of appeal filed on 15/6/15 and abandoned the one filed on 12/6/15.

The notice of appeal filed on 12/6/15 by the Appellant having been abandoned, it is hereby struck out.

The Appellants brief was filed on 10/9/2015. He also filed the Appellants reply brief of argument on 13/10/2016.

He adopted the said Appellants brief of argument and the reply brief of argument to the 1st and 2nd Respondents briefs as his argument in urging that the appeal be allowed. He urged that the Ruling of

the lower Court be set aside and order that the case be heard de novo by another Judge.

The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent referred to the brief filed on 5/10/2016. He adopted and relied on the said brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

Also, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent referred to the brief filed on 22/8/2016. He adopted and relied on the said brief in urging that the appeal be dismissed.

I have carefully examined the issues formulated for determination of the appeal by Counsel for the Appellant and 2nd Respondent. The issues are similar, but the issue formulated on behalf of the Appellant is apt in the determination of this appeal. I will therefore rely on the said issue.
ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Learned Trial Judge was right in his decision that he shall be taking the Appellants objection to the hearing of the suit in Benin Division of the Federal High Court and the substantive Originating Summons together.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a Court must be competent

before it can determine the rights of parties in a suit before it. He referred to the case of -MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR Page 341.
He also relied on the following cases:-
– CBN VS SAP NIG LTD (2005) 3 NWLR Part 911 Page 152 at 177;
– ASOGWA VS CHUKWU (2003) NWLR Part 811 Page 540 at 591.

It was also contended that jurisdiction is so important that a Court is bound at any stage to put an end to the proceedings if it becomes manifest that they are incompetent. He relied on the following cases:-
(1) SKENCONSULT NIGERIA LTD VS SECONDY UKEY (1981) 1 SC Page 4 at Page 15;
(2) N.D.L.E.A. VS OKORODUDU (1997) 3 NWLR Part 492 Page 421 at 442;
(3) OLUTOLA VS UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR Part 905 Page 416 at 456.

The contention of the Appellant is that its objection to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to determine this suit is predicated on condition (d) as stated in MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (Supra) which is that:
the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

It was further argued that by the

clear provisions of the Federal High Court Rules, this suit ought to be commenced at the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court and not Benin Division of the Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Order 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 contains provisions regulating the place of instituting and trial of Suits: Rule 1(1) thereof provides as follows:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of any law with respect to transfer of suits or to specific subject matter, the place for the trial of any suit or matter shall be as provided in this Order.

He went further in his argument that the said Order 2 Rule 1 proceeded from Sub-rule (2) to list suits relating to specific matters and provides where such suits shall be instituted. He referred to Rule 1(9) which provides thus:-
(9) All other suits shall be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which the Defendant resides or carries on substantial part of his business or in which the cause of action arose.

He also relied on paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Appellants affidavit in support of her application

challenging the Courts jurisdiction on the ground of venue. The said paragraphs are reproduced as follows:-
(5) Our firm has been retained by the 2nd defendant as its external solicitor for over two years now and by virtue of this fact, I know that the 2nd defendant has its headquarters at No. 46, Lobito Crescent, Wuse, Abuja where it resides and carries on substantial part of its business.
(6) I also know as a fact that the 1st defendant has its headquarters at Plot 420, Tigris Crescent, Off Aguiyi Ironsi Street, Maitama, Abuja where it resides and carries on substantial part of its business.
(7) In this suit, the plaintiff is challenging the registration of the applicant as a company, which registration was carried out at the headquarters of the 1st defendant at Plot 420, Tigris Crescent, Off Aguiyi Ironsi Street, Maitama, Abuja.
(8) the said registration of the 2nd defendant as a company which the plaintiff is complaining about, was done by the 1st defendant on 6th March, 2013 as can be seen from the Certificate of Incorporation of the applicant which is attached as Exhibit BL.1 to the affidavit in support of the

originating summons.

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that following the objection of the Appellant to the hearing of the suit in the Benin Division of the Federal High Court, that the lower Court ought to have first hear and determine that objection challenging its jurisdiction and determine it one way or the other before taking further step in the matter.

It was submitted further that taking the Appellants objection along with the substantive matter as ruled by the Learned Trial Judge will render nugatory the Appellants objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on ground of venue to hear the suit.
He relied upon the case of OKOYE VS NC&F CO. LTD (1991) 6 NWLR Part 199 Page 501 at 528 Paragraphs F G.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the objection in this case is not one that could be taken along with the substantive matter. He stated that the Court ought to rule on the objection first before taking any step in the proceeding.
He relied on the following cases:-
– WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD VS IRON & STEEL WORKERS UNION (1986) 2 NSCC Vol. 17 Page

786 at 798;
– NDIC VS CBN (2002) FWLR Part 99 Page 1021 at 1036 1037 Paragraphs F E (2002) NWLR Part 766.

He finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant and allow the appeal.

In his response to the submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that the principle of law on when to determine questions of jurisdiction has long been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (Supra).

He submitted that the principle of law on hearing of Originating Summons together with an application for preliminary objection has been settled by the Supreme Court in the following cases:-
– HONOURABLE MICHAEL DAPIANLONG & ORS VS CHIEF (DR) JOSHUA C. DARIYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR 928 (SC);
– HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS VS HONOURABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2014) LPELR 22701 (SC).

The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Learned Trial Judge was right to have held that he shall hear the Appellants Preliminary Objection

together with the 1st Respondents Originating Summons.

The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that in a suit commenced by Originating Summons, oral evidence is dispensed with, the Court will rely on the affidavit evidence in support of the Originating Summons.
He relied on the following cases:-
– DAPIALONG VS DARIYE (Supra);
– ADELEKE VS O.S.H. A. (2006) 16 NWLR Part 1006 Page 608 at Page 711 Paragraphs A B;
– A.G. LAGOS STATE VS A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (Supra).

He finally submitted that the trial Court was correct to hold that the Appellants application to strike out and the substantive suit are to be taken together.
He urged that this appeal be dismissed.

In his reply brief of argument to the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that the procedure whereby a preliminary objection can be heard along with the substantive suit which has been applied in cases referred to by Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents is not of general application. And that parties have to be in the proper Court before preliminary objection and substantive

matter can be combined.
He relied on the case of: –
– GARUBA VS OMOKHODION (2011) All FWLR Part 596 Page 404 at 427 Paragraphs C D.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant also referred to other objections which is under the Appellants written address in support of the preliminary objection wherein the Appellant indicated that after the determination of the proper Court for the hearing of the Plaintiffs action pursuant to the preliminary objection, the Appellant will press against the competence of the suit on the following grounds:-
(I) Failure to endorse the originating summons in accordance with Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.
(II) Failure to issue the Originating Summons in accordance with Order 3 Rule 12 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.
(III) That the suit is statute-barred by Section 2 of the Public Officers Protection Act and
(IV) That the Plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the action.

He submitted that it is imperative that the objection to jurisdiction be taken first before proceeding to a hearing of the substantive matter. He went further that

combining the Appellants preliminary objection and the substantive suit will amount to a denial of fair hearing against the Appellant. He relied on the following cases of:-
– DANLADI VS DANGIRI (2015) All FWLR Part 768 Page 815 at 876 877 Paragraphs H H;
– OKOYE VS N.C. & F COY LTD (1996) 6 NWLR Part 199 Page 501 at 528;
– STATE VS ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 NWLR Part 221 Page 33 at 57 Paragraphs E F;
– NDIC VS CBN (2002) 7 NWLR Part 766 Page 272 at 295 Paragraph A.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant finally urged that the argument of the Respondents be discountenanced and allow the appeal.

The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and important, it is a sine qua non to an action. It is due to its importance that it can be raised by parties at any stage of the case and even for the first time on appeal before an appellate Court. Jurisdiction is like what blood is in human body because without blood the organs of the body cannot function at all
See the following cases:-
– ELABANJO VS DAWODU (2006) 6 SCNJ Page 204;
– R. OGUMKA VS CORPORATE AFFARIS COMMISSION (2010) LPELR 4891 (CA);
– ELUGBE VS OMOKHAFE (2004) 18 NWLR Part 905 at Page 319;
– OKAFOR VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE (1991) 6 NWLR Part 200 Page 659.

It is also important to emphasise that a Court can only assume jurisdiction when a suit is properly initiated before it.
In MADUKOLU AND ORS V. NKEMDILIM (1962) LPELR 24023 (SC), it was held among others as follows:
A Court is competent when:
(1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members on the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another.
(2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there

is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, and
(3) The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.

The issue in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of this case, the Learned Trial Judge was right in his decision that he shall be taking the Appellants objection to the hearing of the suit in the Benin Division of the Federal High Court and the substantive Originating Summons together.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in his ruling that he shall be taking both the Appellants motion challenging the lower Courts jurisdiction on ground of venue and the substantive Originating Summons at the same time. Whereas the Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents are of the view that the decision of the Learned Trial Judge is right.

In this appeal, I am of the view that since all

the materials to be used are contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the counter affidavit filed against it by the Respondents, the objections of the Appellant could be taken along with the substantive Originating Summons.
I am fortified in my view above by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HON. M. DAPIANLONG & ORS VS CHIEF (DR) JOSHUA C. DARIYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR 928 (SC) where it was held amongst others as follows:-
It is settled law that jurisdiction is a radical and crucial question of competence because if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity ab initio, however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might be since a defect in competence is not intrinsic, but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication. Jurisdiction is therefore considered to be the nerve centre of adjudication; the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law in the very same way that blood gives life to the human being in particular and the animal race in general See Onyenucheya v. Milad, Imo State

(1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 429; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 Barsoum v. Clemessy International (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 632) 516; UTIH & Ors v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166.
In restating the trite principle of law on when a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court is raised in an action commenced by Originating Summons, Per Onnoghen J.S.C. in the same case of HONOURABLE M. DAPIALONG & ORS V. CHIEF (DR) JOSHUA C. DARIYE & ANOR (Supra) after a painstaking review of the law on jurisdiction generally aforequoted stated thus:-
It is settled law that where an objection is raised to the jurisdiction of the Court in a matter commenced by originating summons where the evidence required is in the form of affidavit as in the instant case, it may be prudent to hear together the arguments as to jurisdiction and the merits of the case see Senate President v. Nzeribe (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 251; Inakoju v. Adeleke Supra.
In the recent case of the Honourable ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS V. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2014) LPELR 22701 (SC) delivered on

Friday the 11th day of April, 2014, the apex Court per Muhammad J.S.C. restated the position of the law on the need to take preliminary objection(s) together with the substantive application in a matter commenced by way of Originating Summons thus:
When a preliminary objection is raised in action such as the present one commenced by Originating Summons, it is always better to take the Preliminary Objection with the substantive that if the objection to the action succeeds, the case or action is terminated in limine. If the objection fails however, then the Court will proceed to determine the substantive action on its merit. See Dapialong v. Dariye (2007) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1036) 332 and Amadi v. N.N.P.C. (2000) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 674) 75 at 100. In line with the requirement of the law and the practice of this Court, I shall proceed to consider the Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiffs action filed against it. The duty of this Court and indeed any other Court where Preliminary Objection has been raised to the competence of an action, is to determine the objection first before looking into the substantive matter. See

Onyekwuluje v. Animashaun & Ors (1996) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 439) 637 at 644.

Consequent upon the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, I am of the firm view that the Learned Trial Judge was right to have held that he shall hear the Appellants Preliminary Objection together with the 1st Respondents Originating Summons.

This lone issue is therefore resolved in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Appellant.

In the result, with the resolution of the lone issue for determination in this appeal in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and against the Appellant, it is my view that this appeal lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed.

The Ruling of the lower Court in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/93/14 BEN LAWRENCE VS CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION delivered on 9/6/2015, is hereby affirmed.

Each of the 1st and 2nd Respondents are entitled to costs which is fixed at (N100,000.00) One hundred thousand Naira each against the Appellant.
Appeal dismissed.

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment just

delivered by my learned brother J.O. Bada (JCA). I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached thereat in the resolution of the lone issue for determination in this appeal in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the Appellant. I too am of the view that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed and I affirm the Ruling of the lower Court in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/93/2014. I abide by the order of costs in the lead judgment fixed at (N100,000.00) in favour of the each of the Respondents.
Appeal dismissed.

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read before now, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA.

I completely agree with the reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother in dismissing this appeal. I adopt the leading judgment as mine and I also dismiss the appeal.

I abide by all the orders made by my learned brother, including the order for costs.