LOWE LINTAS LIMITED v. HUDSTRADE NIGERIA LIMITED (2010)

LOWE LINTAS LIMITED v. HUDSTRADE NIGERIA LIMITED

(2010)LCN/3944(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 12th day of January, 2018

CA/L/448M/2012

RATIO

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: WHETHER WHERE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS RAISED AS TO THE COMPETENCE OF AN APPEAL, IT HAS TO BE DETERMINED FIRST

It is trite law that where a Preliminary Objection is raised as to the competence of an Appeal, the preliminary objection has to be determined first. See: U.B.A. PLC. VS. A.C.B. (NIG.) PLC LTD (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 232, ABIOLA VS. OLAWOYE (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 996) 1 and NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999) 1. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

APPEAL: WHAT IS AN APPEAL

…the position of the law is that an Appeal is generally regarded as a continuation of an original suit rather than as an inception of a new action. An Appeal should be a complaint against the decision of a trial Court. Thus, in the absence of such a decision on a point, there cannot possibly be an Appeal against what has not been decided against a party. See: NDIC VS. S.B.N. PLC (2003) 1 NWLR (PT. 801) 311 OREDOYIN VS. AROWOLO (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 114) 172 BABALOLA VS. STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 115) 264 JUMBO VS. BRYANKO INT. LTD (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 403) 545 at 547 and NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999) 1. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: PURPOSE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

…Grounds of Appeal are the reasons for considering a decision of Court wrong. Thus, the purpose of the Grounds is to isolate and accentuate, for attack, the basis of the reasoning of the decision being challenged. See: SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 264) 156. METAL CONST. (W.A.) LTD VS. MIGLIORE (1990) 1 MWLR (PT. 126) 299 and P.D.P. VS. K.S.I.E.C. (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 968) 565. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: WHETHER A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST BE COUCHED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ATTACK THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT ON THE ISSUE DECIDED BY IT

…a Ground of Appeal must be couched in such a way as to attack the Judgment of a Court on the issue decided by it. In other words a Ground of Appeal must give the exact particulars of the mistake, error or misdirection alleged. See: KALU VS. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 981) 66, F.B.N. PLC VS. MAY MEDICAL CLINICS (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 471) 195, FOLBOD INVESTMENT LTD VS. ALPHA MERCHANT BANK LTD (1996) 10 NWLR (PT. 478) 344 AT 351, BOSIEC VS. KACHALA (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 962) 587 and NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999). 1. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: EFFECT OF AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION BASED ON AN INCOMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL

…an Issue for determination which is based on incompetent Grounds of Appeal as in the instant case is at large and goes to no issue. Such Issue will be struck out as worthless. This is because it is the Grounds of Appeal that provide the legal basis for any attack on the Judgment or Ruling of a trial Court. It is the Grounds of Appeal that give rife, meaning and content to the issues raised in the Appeal for determination. See: JOHN HOLT VENTURES LTD VS. OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 470) 101 at 113. ONONIWU VS. R.C.C. LTD (1995) 7 NWLR (PT. 406) 214, SADIKU VS. A-G, LAGOS STATE (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 355) 235. U.B.A. PLC VS. A.C.B (NIG.) LTD (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 232, THOR LTD VS. F.C.M.B LTD. (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 757) 427 and NKPUMA VS. STATE (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 421) 505 at 507. PER MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

Juctice

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

LOWE LINTAS LIMITEDAppellant(s)

AND

HUDSTRADE NIGERIA LIMITEDRespondent(s)

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Decision/Ruling of Hon. Juctice O. A. Williams of the High Court of Lagos State delivered at Court No. 30 Ikeja Commercial Division 01/06/2012.

By a writ of summons followed by a statement of claim of 17/08/2010, the Respondent in Paragraph 24 of the said Statement of claim, claimed from the Appellant/Defendant as follows:
24. WHERE OF claimant claims against the Defendant as follows:
a) An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N1,560,000:00 to the Claimant being the value of the Xerox Printer (phaser 7760) supplied to it on 29/06/2009.
b) An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N86,859:50 to the claimant being the value of the consumables supplied to it on 29/06/2009.
c) Interest at the rate of 10% from January 1, 2010 till Judgment and thereafter at 21% until final liquidation.
d) N5,000,000:00 damages for breach of contract.
e) Cost of this action.

The Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and other accompanying processes in this suit were served on the Appellant on 23/08/2010. When

the time allowed by the Rules of Court to file Defence elapsed, Respondent applied for the issuance of Pre-trial conference Notice which was approved and issued by the Court below (Pages 21-25 of the Record).

Hearing Notice was issued and served on the Appellant in the Suit on 02/02/2011 and 18/04/2011 (See Pages 48-49 and 55 of the Record).

Some Sixteen (16) Months after service of processes on the Appellant, the Respondent brought a Motion on Notice dated 21/02/2012 and filed on 01/03/2012 for Judgment in default of Appearance and Defence. The Motion for Judgment in default of appearance/Defence was served on the Appellant on 1st March, 2012 (Pages 62-63 of the Record). In addition by a letter of 9th March, 2012, Respondent’s Counsel informed the learned Counsel for the Appellant of the date and purpose for which the suit was slated for.

However, Mr. Emmankhu Addeh of Counsel to the Defendant Appellant wrote to Court that he would be absent on 13th March, 2012, the adjourned date as he was scheduled for medical check up at the University of Benin, Teaching Hospital Edo State.

On 13/03/2012, the learned trial Judge entered default Judgment

against the Appellant as per the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim (Page 193 of the Record). Consequent on the above, the Appellant brought a Motion on Notice on 16/03/2012 for:
(a) An Order setting aside the Judgment of 13th March, 2012 obtained in this suit against the Defendant for default in filing a Statement of Defence.
(b) An Order staying execution of the Judgment of the Honourable Court made on the 13th March, 2012.

Parties filed and exchanged Written Addresses. In a considered Ruling contained at Pages 194-204 of the Record, the learned Judge held inter alia first at Pages 199-201 of the Record that:
Now, to the Records. On 13/03/2012 when the claimant’s Counsel was about to move his application, he informed the Court that:
“I got a letter from the Defence Counsel that the he would be absent. All the processes necessary have been filed and served by the Claimant. The Claimant also filed and served a motion for Judgment on the Defendant.”

The records of this Court reveal that on 02/02/2011, this Court issued hearing notice for the pretrial conference that was fixed for 23/03/2011. The hearing notice was duly served on the

Defendant on 10/02/2011 as attested by the affidavit of service sworn by Wale Bello a Sheriff of this Court on 16/02/2011. There is also an affidavit of service before the Court sworn by Onyedika Nwosu of Counsel to the Claimant, in which he deposed in the second and third paragraphs that:
“That in my schedule of duties on March 1, 2012, I served the pre-trial Conference processes (i.e form 17 & 18) and the Claimant Motion for Judgment, affidavit in support, Exhibits, and written address on the Defendant in this case at its office at No. 6 Sylvia Crescent, Anthony Village, Lagos.
That the above processes were received and acknowledged by its receptionist Franca. The acknowledged copies is attached herewith and marked as Exhibits A and B respectively.”

On 12/03/2012, another affidavit of service was sworn by counsel for the claimant. Cynthia Ibewuike of counsel deposed in the third and fourth paragraphs of her affidavit, that:
“That I was assigned to serve the motion on notice dated 28th February, 2012 on the Defendant/Respondent.
That consequently, I served the said processes in the offices of the Defendant, Respondent and same was

received by one Franca on 1st March 2012.”

One of the Exhibits attached to the affidavit is an acknowledged copy of the letter dated 09/03/2012 written by the claimant’s counsel to the Defendant informing it that this suit had been adjourned to 13/03/2012 for the pretrial conference. If all these depositions and processes were not enough to satisfy the Court that the Defendant was duly notified, the letter written to the Court by the Defence counsel settles the matter for good. He wrote a letter dated 12/03/2012 in which he stated:
“I regret to inform my Lord that I shall be unavoidably absent from Court on Tuesday, 13th March 2012, on health grounds as I am due my scheduled medical check-up at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Edo State.”

The Defence knew this matter was coming up for pretrial and that the business of the Court at pretrial is to hear interlocutory applications. The excuse that the Court did not serve a hearing notice for the hearing of the motion on the Defendant is not tenable.

Further at page 202 of the Record, the learned Judge held that:
“The Judgment entered by this Court which the

Defendant seeks to set aside was based on failure to file a Defence. The Defendant herein has not given any good reason for the failure to file its Defence to this Suit —-”
He concluded at page 204 of the Record thus:
“—– the Defendant has not shown that it is entitled to the favour of this Court. In the circumstances, I find and hold that the Juctice of this case demands that the Defendant application be refused—-.”

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing two (2) Grounds of same of Appeal in this Court on the 01/06/2012.

The Appellant’s Motion on Notice to file additional Grounds of Appeal and/or Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 20/06/2012 was struck out on 16/06/2016 when it was withdrawn.

The relevant Briefs of Argument for this Appeal are:
i. Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 21/11/2016 and deemed filed on 23/11/2016. It is settled by Emmankhu Addeh.
ii. Respondent’s Brief of (incorporating Preliminary Objection) Argument dated and filed on 21/12/2016 was served by Kenneth Ahia Esq.

Learned counsel for the Appellant nominated three (3) issues for

determination of the Appeal. They are:
1. Whether the Lower Court lacked jurisdiction to commence and hear applications at the pre-trial conference in the suit at the lower Court.
2. Whether by his pleadings and upon the totality of the evidence, the claimant had proved his case for the lower Court to find in his favour as per his Claims before the Court.
3. Whether the Defendant/ Respondent was granted fair hearing at the lower Court.

Learned counsel for the Respondent raised preliminary objection to the hearing of the Appeal and only formulated a sole issue for determination “in the unlikely event that your Lordship overrules the preliminary Objection.”

The sole issue according to the Respondent is:
“Whether in the circumstances of this case, the lower Court was right when it entered default Judgment, against the Appellant as per the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.”

By the Notice of Preliminary objection filed on 21/12/2016, learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed for the following orders:
i, An Order striking out this Appeal for being incompetent.
ii. An Order that this Honourable Court lacks Jurisdiction to

hear this Appeal.

The Grounds upon which the application was brought are that:
i. That the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal contained in Pages 205-206 of the Record do not emanate from the Judgment of the lower Court.
ii. That the Appellant in his Brief of Argument raised three (3) Issues for determination while it only raised two (2) Grounds of Appeal.
iii. That there was no Ruling delivered by the lower Court on 1st day of April, 2012 in this suit and the Appellant did not seek leave to appeal against the Ruling delivered on June 1, 2015 (sic) 2012 at the lower Court.

On the first Ground of Preliminary Objection, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal contained on Pages 205-206 of the Record do not emanate from the Judgment of the Court below.

He referred to the case of: CONTRACT RESOURCES (NIG) LTD VS. S.T.B LTD (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) at 260 where it was held by the Supreme Court that “Grounds of Appeal as well as issues formulated from a Ground or Grounds of Appeal, must arise from the decision appealed against.
“Where the converse is the case, the Courts are enjoined to

discountenance and strike out both the Ground or Grounds of Appeal and the issue or issues formulated there from —-”

He urged us to peruse the Ruling contained at pages 194-204 of the Records. That the summary of the Ruling and reasons given were that there was evidence that the Defendant (Appellant) was duly notified of the hearing, and given the opportunity to be heard but decided not to take it. That the Court below went further to find that the Defendant (Appellant) herein has not given any good reason for failure to file its Defence in the Suit.

Learned counsel for the Respondent further referred to the case of: EFCC VS. ODIGIE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 1384) at 607 where it was held that:
“An issue for determination, which arises from a Ground of Appeal, must be an attack on the finding and/or decision of the trial Court.”

He submitted that none of the issues raised by the Appellant in his Brief of Argument stems from nor directly attacks the decision of the lower Court. He urged us to strike out the Grounds of Appeal and the Issues formulated by the Appellant.

He submitted further that the first Ground of Appeal raised by the

Appellant bothers on an alleged no case submission by the Respondent. He submitted that this is neither a Criminal matter, nor did the Respondent or any party at all enter a no case submission at the lower Court. He added that the Court below did not make any mention of a no case submission.

On Ground two of the Preliminary Objection, Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the Appellant in his Brief of Argument raised three (3) Issues for determination while it only raised two (2) Grounds of Appeal.

He pointed out that the first issue formulated by the Appellant was not distilled from any Grounds of Appeal. He submitted that the Appellant does not question the Jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit rather it questions the Court’s Jurisdiction/discretion to do an act which is authorized by the Rules of Court to do. That the Second Issue raised by the Appellant is the question of whether the Respondent proved its case for damages. That the lower Court merely gave a default Judgment against the Appellant as per the writ of summons and statement of claim. Evidence is as a matter of course not given before the Court can exercise its

discretion and grant a default Judgment. There was no trial and no mention of evidence at the lower Court.

He submitted that the Appellant’s Third Issue is totally out of con as there is ample evidence that all the processes filed in the lower Court by the Respondent were served on the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted further that assuming but without conceding that some of the Issues raised by the Appellant are competent, the Court has held in the case of: VISAFONE COMMS LTD VS. M.C.S.N. (LTD/GTE) (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1347) at 250 that:
“Where an issue for determination is supported by both competent and incompetent Ground of Appeal, it is not the function of the Court to carry out a surgical operation in order to sift arguments on competent Ground from those of incompetent ones. Thus where a Ground is incompetent and argued with a competent Ground in an issue, it has the effect of rendering the issue for determination incompetent.”

He urged us to hold that the Appellant did not state Grounds where the Issues are distilled.

Furthermore, said counsel, the Appellant raised Three Issues for determination on Two

Grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal. That in the case of: M.B.N. PLC VS. NWOBODO (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) at 379 that:
“Where the number of Issues distilled are in excess of the number of Grounds of Appeal, the implication is that there has been a parade or display of ignorance (nay) culpable lack of knowledge of the law.”

The Appellant, said Counsel never based the Issues formulated in its Brief on any of the Grounds of Appeal. That it is trite law that where this is the case, the issues raised outside the Grounds ought to be struck out. On this, counsel referred to the case of: FIDELITY BANK PLC VS. OGIRI (2013) 2 NWLR (PT. 1337) at 182 where the Court held that:
“Where Grounds of Appeal stand on their own with no Issues derived there from, ipso facto the lacuna makes the Grounds of Appeal liable to be struck out and indeed are deemed abandoned and liable to be ignored.”

In the instant case, said counsel, the Issues raised have no bearing to the Grounds of Appeal. He further referred to the case of: J.C. LTD VS. EZENWA (1996) 4 NWLR (PT. 449) at 391 where it was held that:
“— where the Issues set out in an Appellant’s Brief are

not predicated on Grounds of Appeal filed, the Grounds of Appeal are deemed abandoned and must be dismissed.”

On the Third Ground of Preliminary Objection, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Judgment appealed against herein by the Appellant is the Judgment delivered on the 1st day of April 2012. That from the Record of Appeal, no such Judgment or Ruling was delivered on that date. He submitted that it is fundamental that the Notice of Appeal must contain the date of Judgment/Ruling appealed against. From the Record of Appeal, said Counsel, it is obvious that the Notice of Appeal is incompetent as it does not emanate or relate to the Ruling appealed against. Moreover, there was no Ruling delivered by the lower Court on April 1, 2012 in this matter.

On another wicket, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the instant Appeal does not lie as of right to this Honourable Court by virtue of Section 241 of the 1999 Constitution. That the Appellant ought to be by leave of Court which was neither sought nor granted.

On this, he referred to the cases of:
ORGAN VS. N.L.N.G.LTD (2013) 16 NWLR (PT. 1381) 506 and TIMOTHY VS.

FABUSUYI (2013) 1 NWLR (PT. 1335) 379.

He concluded, relying on the case of: OKOLI VS. AJOSE (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 362) at 300 that no Appeal can stand without a proper Notice of Appeal. He urged us to strike out the Appeal.

It is trite law that where a Preliminary Objection is raised as to the competence of an Appeal, the preliminary objection has to be determined first.
See:
U.B.A. PLC. VS. A.C.B. (NIG.) PLC LTD (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 232,
ABIOLA VS. OLAWOYE (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 996) 1 and
NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999) 1.

In determining the Respondent’s preliminary objection, it is important to set out the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal together with their particulars as contained on pages 205-206 of the Record of Appeal.
“GROUND OF APPEAL
1. The trial Court erred in law when it failed to dismiss the claimant’s claim in its entirety based on a written admission of no case submission made by the claimant against his own interest pending before the Court.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
The trial Court failed to hold that it had jurisdiction to enter Judgment on the Motion for Judgment filed by the Claimant

against the Defendant whilst a prior and pending application by way of admission against the Claimant’s interest had been made by the Claimant and same had not been withdrawn before the Motion for Judgment was filed and heard.
2. The learned trial Court erred in law and in fact when it held that Claimant had proved his case and was entitled to the reliefs sought in his Statement of Claim from the Defendant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
The trial Court failed to hold that the Claimant’s case failed woefully as it did not provide any evidence to the Court of any request by the Defendant to the Claimant to supply any printer to the Defendant as the only such request in evidence before the Court had long expired and was never renewed.”

On the first Ground of the Preliminary Objection, learned Counsel for the Respondent was right to have said that the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal do not emanate from the decision of the Court contained in Pages 205-206 of the Record.

The Ruling of the Court on Pages 205-206 concerns the refusal of the trial Court to set aside the default Judgment of 13th April, 2012.

The merit of the Claims was not considered

in either of the two Rulings of the Court and there was no reference to any;
“Written admission of no case submission made by the Claimant—-”

In the Rulings of the Court below.

In such circumstance, the position of the law is that an Appeal is generally regarded as a continuation of an original suit rather than as an inception of a new action.
An Appeal should be a complaint against the decision of a trial Court. Thus, in the absence of such a decision on a point, there cannot possibly be an Appeal against what has not been decided against a party.
See:
NDIC VS. S.B.N. PLC (2003) 1 NWLR (PT. 801) 311
OREDOYIN VS. AROWOLO (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 114) 172
BABALOLA VS. STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 115) 264
JUMBO VS. BRYANKO INT. LTD (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 403) 545 at 547 and
NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999) 1.

Relatedly, Grounds of Appeal are the reasons for considering a decision of Court wrong. Thus, the purpose of the Grounds is to isolate and accentuate, for attack, the basis of the reasoning of the decision being challenged.
See:
SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 264) 156.
METAL CONST.

(W.A.) LTD VS. MIGLIORE (1990) 1 MWLR (PT. 126) 299 and

P.D.P. VS. K.S.I.E.C. (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 968) 565.

Indeed, a Ground of Appeal must be couched in such a way as to attack the Judgment of a Court on the issue decided by it. In other words a Ground of Appeal must give the exact particulars of the mistake, error or misdirection alleged.
See:
KALU VS. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 981) 66,
F.B.N. PLC VS. MAY MEDICAL CLINICS (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 471) 195,
FOLBOD INVESTMENT LTD VS. ALPHA MERCHANT BANK LTD (1996) 10 NWLR (PT. 478) 344 AT 351,
BOSIEC VS. KACHALA (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 962) 587 and
NGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 999). 1.

In the instant case, the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal are in no way related or connected with the Ruling sought to be appealed against.

The above observation renders the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal as incompetent.

By the same token, an Issue for determination which is based on incompetent Grounds of Appeal as in the instant case is at large and goes to no issue. Such Issue will be struck out as worthless. This is because it is the Grounds of Appeal that provide the legal basis for

any attack on the Judgment or Ruling of a trial Court. It is the Grounds of Appeal that give rife, meaning and content to the issues raised in the Appeal for determination.
See:
JOHN HOLT VENTURES LTD VS. OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 470) 101 at 113.
ONONIWU VS. R.C.C. LTD (1995) 7 NWLR (PT. 406) 214,
SADIKU VS. A-G, LAGOS STATE (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 355) 235.
U.B.A. PLC VS. A.C.B (NIG.) LTD (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 232,
THOR LTD VS. F.C.M.B LTD. (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 757) 427 and
NKPUMA VS. STATE (1995) 9 NWLR (PT. 421) 505 at 507.

This specie of incompetence of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal, in other words that the Grounds do not emanate from the Judgment purportedly appealed against is to my mind more important perhaps more devastating to the Appeal then the other Grounds of the Respondent’s preliminary objection – such as the Appellant having raised Three Issues from Two Grounds of Appeal or even for failure to seek leave to Appeal, supposedly on questions of mixed law and facts.

In totality, the Preliminary Objection of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is upheld.

The Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal and the

Issues purportedly formulated therefrom are struck out.

This Appeal is struck out for incompetence.

The sum of Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000:00) Costs is awarded to the Respondent.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read the draft copy of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, JCA. I am in total agreement with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at in upholding the preliminary objection and striking out the appeal for being incompetent. I abide by the order made as to costs.

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE PJ/JCA in draft.

The reasoning and conclusion therein is agreeable to me. The preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal struck out being incompetent. I abide on order as to costs.

Appearances:

O. B. Edogun, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Ken Ahia, Esq. with him O.R. Nwosu, Esq. and O.J. Okereke, Esq.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

O. B. Edogun, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Ken Ahia, Esq. with him O.R. Nwosu, Esq. and O.J. Okereke, Esq.For Respondent