LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

MAINASARA v. FBN (2022)

MAINASARA v. FBN

(2022)LCN/4997(SC)

In The Supreme Court

On Friday, December 10, 2021

SC.322/2006

Before Our Lordships:

Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

ALHAJI MUHAMMADU MAINASARA APPELANT(S)

And

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO:

WHAT CONSTITUTE ORIGINATING PROCESS IN ANY APPEAL

The Notice and Grounds of Appeal constitute the originating process in any appeal. Where it is defective, the entire appeal collapses as the appellate Court would be deprived of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain it. See: Olowokere Vs African Newspapers (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 295) 583; Thor Ltd. vs F.C.M.B. (2002) 2 SC (Pt.1) 138; Daniel vs INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113.

WHEN GROUNDS OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL ARE INCOMPETENT

It is also well settled that where all the grounds of a Notice of Appeal are incompetent, the Notice of Appeal is incompetent and incurably bad. See Global Transport Oceanico S.A. & Anor. Vs Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2001) SC 154.

A SINGLE COMPETENT GROUND OF LAW CAN SUSTAIN A NOTICE IF APPEAL

On the other hand, a Notice of Appeal can be sustained by a single competent ground of law. See: Erisi vs Idika & Ors. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 66) 503; Daniel Vs INEC (supra); Niger Construction Ltd. vs Okugbeni (1987) 2 NSCC (vol.18) 1258; Opuiyo vs Omoniwari (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 415 @ 413 E.

UNSIGNED WRIT OF SUMMON

Also now well settled is that the non-compliance with the provision of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11, Laws of the Federation, 2004 is an incurable defect which renders the originating process incompetent and which defect cannot be waived. See Ajibode v. Gbadamosi (2021) 7 NWLR (pt. 1776) 475; JVC, P.P (UK) Ltd v Famuyide (2020) 13 NWLR (pt.1744) 334; Yusuf v Mobil Oil (Nig) Plc (2020) 3 NWLR (pt. 1710) 1.​The implication of the above stated principles of law is that an unsigned Writ of Summons renders the trial Court without jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) suit and consequently leads to the striking out of the suit along with the current appeal. This is because an unsigned writ of summons raises a fundamental question which impacts on the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. See Kida v Ogunmola (2006) LPELR-1690 (SC) 15.
The law is settled that an unsigned Writs. MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. 

REPERCUSSION OF AN UNSIGNED WRIT OF SUMMON

The law is settled that an unsigned Writs Summons is out-rightly void and not even a subsequent amended writ could cure such fundamental defect. Such a writ is void and remains void and nothing can be added to it. See Nzom & Anor v. Jinadu (1987) 2 SC 205.
The result of a void Writ of summons is that the case it has acted as an initiating/originating process remains incompetent and this deprives the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain same. This is because, among other things, for a case to be competent it has to be initiated by due process of law as a condition precedent without which the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant herein, a businessman, was a customer of First Bank of Nig. Plc (the respondent herein), where he maintained a current account No.7862 with its Gusau Branch, Zamfara State. He contended that between 1982-1990 he made various lodgements worth “billions of naira” into the said account and the respondent refused or neglected to issue him with statements of account covering the periods aforesaid despite repeated demands. He also contended that statements issued to him covering the period 1991-1994 revealed serious fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent, which contributed to the downfall of his business.

​He instituted an action against the respondent at the High Court of Sokoto State, Gusau Division vide a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, which can be found at pages 1-2 and 8-9 of the record. The processes are undated. Pursuant to leave granted by the trial Court, he filed an Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of Claim at pages 81-84 of the record. By paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of claim, he sought the following reliefs against the respondent thus:
“7(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff, being the holder of Account No.7862 with the defendant, is entitled to his statement of account in the period stated above.
(b) An order directing the defendant to issue the plaintiff with the statement of account No. 7862 for the period covering 1982-1990.
(c) N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) being damages for fraud and refusal to issue the Plaintiff with his statement of account as and when due.”

The respondent filed an Amended Statement of Defence pursuant to order of the trial Court made on 16th December 1997. It denied the appellant’s claim. It contended that all lodgments made into the appellant’s account were correctly recorded. It denied failing or refusing to issue statements of account to the appellant and denied the allegation of fraud and negligence.

At the trial, three witnesses testified for the appellant while the defence called two witnesses. In a considered judgment delivered on 10th November 1999, the learned trial Judge entered judgment in favour of the appellant as follows:
“Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as per subparagraph (c) of the said paragraph on general damages. The Court has considered the amount involved, the period of their relationship as well as the deliberate refusal of the defendant to issue the plaintiff with statement of account on this it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled (sic) for this defendant (sic) the sum of N500,000,000.00 as general damages plus N600.00 and the cost of this case fixed at N50,000.00”

​Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the respondent appealed to the Court below. He formulated 5 issues for determination, to wit:
“1. Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently proved the allegation of fraud given that this amounts to a crime and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the finding by the learned trial Judge that the Plaintiff had deposited the sum of N3,203 but only the sum of N2,603 was recorded leaving unrecorded the sum of N600 is supported by legal evidence before the Court.
3. Whether the finding of the learned trial Judge that the defendant had failed or refused to provide the plaintiff with his statements of account and therefore acted negligently is supported by the evidence before the Court.
4. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence.
5. Whether the award of damages of N500,000,000.00 in the circumstances is not manifestly excessive”

The Court, in a considered judgment found the appeal to be meritorious. The appeal was allowed. The judgment of Mika’ilu, J. was set aside and the appellant’s suit No. SS/95/96 was dismissed.

The appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment and has appealed to this Court vide his Amended Notice of Appeal dated 5/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021. It contains 5 Grounds of Appeal. The respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 16/1/2021 challenging the competence of the appeal. The parties duly exchanged their respective briefs of argument.

At the hearing of the appeal on 20th September 2021, A.S. Abdulkadir Esq. adopted and relied on the Appellant’s Amended Brief of Argument and Reply Brief both filed on 13/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021, in urging the Court to allow the appeal.

​Dr. K.U.K. Ekwueme adopted and relied on the Respondent’s brief filed on 16/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021 in urging the Court to uphold its preliminary objection argued therein and strike out the appeal for incompetence, or alternatively to dismiss it on the merits.

The respondent having raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal, it is prudent and accords with the practice of this Court to consider and determine same before delving into the merit of the appeal. The rationale for this approach, no doubt, is that in the event that the appeal is fundamentally defective, the jurisdiction of this Court to hear it would be ousted. A preliminary objection, if successfully raised has the effect of terminating the appeal in limine See: Aremo vs Adekanye (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572, Zenith Bank Plc vs John & Ors. (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 393; SPDC vs Amadi (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157 @ 192.

​The grounds for the objection are:
1. That the undated Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim which originated Suit No. SS/95/96 that culminated in this appeal were not signed by a legal practitioner.
2. That the grounds of appeal are incompetent for being of mixed law and facts and for which no leave was obtained.
3. That Grounds 1, 2 and 5 are incompetent because they offend Order 8 Rule 2(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (as amended).

In support of the first ground of objection, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in Okafor vs Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521 @ 531 B-E: SPDC vs Sam Royal (Nig) Ltd. (2016) LPELR-40062 (SC) 17-22 C-B, to the effect that a Writ of Summons signed in name of a law firm, Adamu Umar & Co. in the instant case, is incompetent.

In further support of the said ground, he submitted that an unsigned Writ of Summons is void and cannot be cured by amendment. He submitted that it is an issue that affects the competence of Court to entertain the suit. In other words, it goes to the root of the Court’s jurisdiction. He referred to Kida Vs Ogunmola (2006) LPELR-1690 (SC) 15 E-G; Nzom & Anor. vs Jinadu (1987) 2 SC 205. He argued that a suit initiated by an unsigned Writ of Summons is not initiated by due process of law and the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction therein. See: Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) ANLR 581 @ 589-590; Lado vs CPC (2011) LPELR-8254 (SC) 25-26 F-B.

​In support of the second ground of objection, it is contended that all the grounds of appeal are of mixed law and fact and that by virtue of Section 233 (2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the appellant was required to seek and obtain leave of this Court or the Court below before filing the appeal. He submitted that Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 require the Court to evaluate evidence and are therefore not grounds of law alone. He relied on B.A.S.F Nigeria Vs Faith Enterprises (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1183) 104 @ 133 D-E.

With regard to Ground 5, he submitted that an omnibus ground of appeal that complains that the judgment is against the weight of evidence is a ground of a fact requiring leave. He referred to Nwadike Vs Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 718 @ 743 H & 744 A: Teriba Vs Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1211) 243 @ 267 H. Relying on Nsirim Vs Nsirim (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.138) 285 @ 296, he submitted that where all the grounds of appeal are incompetent, the appeal is a nullity.

​With regard to the third ground of objection, it is learned counsel’s contention that Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal offend Order 8 Rule 2(4) of the rules of this Court for being vague, speculative an ambiguous, while Ground 5, which complains of error in law, failed to state clearly the particulars of the said error. He referred to Anadi vs Okoli (1977) 11 NSCC 117 @ 120.

He also contended that Ground 2 is deemed abandoned because issue 2 distilled therefrom does not flow from the said ground, He referred to PDP Vs INEC (2014) LPELR- 23808 (SC) 23 D-E.

In reply, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent’s objection regarding the issuance of the Writ of Summons in the name of a law firm, failed to take into account the provisions of Order 5 Rule 1(1), 12 and 15 of the Sokoto State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987, which were the extant rules at the time the writ was issued and which vests the responsibility for the issuance of a writ in the Registrar of the Court. He referred to Broad Bank Nig. Ltd. Vs ALH. OLAYIWOLA & SONS LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 251) 236 @ 262. He argued that neither a party nor his legal practitioner has any role to play in the issuance of a Writ of Summons. He submitted that once the Registrar has signed the process it is sufficient compliance with the Rules.

​Learned counsel urged us to be persuaded by decisions of the Court of Appeal wherein similar provisions to Order 5 Rule 1 (1) and 12 (1) and 15 of the Sokoto State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules were interpreted. He referred to an unreported decision: Mr. Johnson Ashaolu Vs Mr. Ibietin Ang Ofoir & Anor, in Appeal No. CA/PH/374/2014, delivered on 5/5/2017; Bello vs Gov. Gombe State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1514) 219 @ 250; David vs Jolayemi (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 320 @ 356 B-F.

He conceded that the signature of the Registrar does not appear on the Writ of Summons but argued that the plaintiff, having paid the necessary fees, has no further responsibility regarding the issuance of the writ. He referred to: Ogbuanyinya Vs Okudo (No.2) (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 551.

With regard to the competence of the grounds of appeal, he argued that Ground 1 alleges an error of law based on undisputed facts and is therefore a ground of law. He referred to A.C.B Plc Vs Obmiami Brick & Stone (Nig) Ltd (1993) 6 SCNJ (Pt.1) 98; Ajayi Vs Omorogbe (1993) 7 SCNJ 168, On Ground 2, he submitted that where a conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from facts as found, it raises an issue of law, for which no leave is required. He relied on Gen. Electric Coz Vs Henry Ayoade Akande & Ors. (2010) SC (Pt. iv) 75; Ogbechie & Ors. vs G. Onochie & Ors. (1986) 1 NSCC 443.

He maintains that Grounds 3 and 4 are grounds of law and submits further that the contention that some of the grounds of appeal do not comply with the rules of this Court amounts to a recourse to technicalities, which this Court has moved away from. He urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection and determine the appeal on its merits.

In the consideration of the preliminary objection, I propose to deal with the competence or otherwise of the grounds of appeal first. I shall consider the other grounds thereafter should the need arise.

The Notice and Grounds of Appeal constitute the originating process in any appeal. Where it is defective, the entire appeal collapses as the appellate Court would be deprived of the necessary jurisdiction to entertain it. See: Olowokere Vs African Newspapers (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 295) 583; Thor Ltd. vs F.C.M.B. 2002) 2 SC (Pt.1) 138; Daniel vs INEC (2015) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1463) 113.

It is also well settled that where all the grounds of a Notice of Appeal are incompetent, the Notice of Appeal is incompetent and incurably bad. See Global Transport Oceanico S.A. & Anor. Vs Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd. (2001) SC 154.

On the other hand, a Notice of Appeal can be sustained by a single competent ground of law. See: Erisi vs Idika & Ors. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 66) 503; Daniel Vs INEC (supra); Niger Construction Ltd. vs Okugbeni (1987) 2 NSCC (vol.18) 1258; Opuiyo vs Omoniwari (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 415 @ 413 E.

Section 233 (2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, provides thus:
“(2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases –
(a)Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decision in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.” (Emphasis mine)
Sub-paragraphs (b)-(f) set out other instances in which an appellant may appeal as of right. They are not applicable here. Section 233 (3) provides:
“Subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section, an appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court with leave of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.”

It is the appellant’s contention that all the grounds of appeal are grounds of law alone for which no leave is required. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that all the grounds are of fact or mixed law and facts, for which no leave was sought or obtained,

It has been observed by this Court in many cases, that the distinction between a ground of appeal which is law alone and a ground of appeal which is of mixed law and fact is not as straightforward as it may seem. However, the rule of thumb which the Courts have adopted is that if a ground of appeal reveals a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law or a misapplication of the law to proved or admitted facts, it would be a question of law. Where the ground questions the evaluation of facts before the application of the law, it is a question of mixed law and facts. See: Ogbechie vs Onochie (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 23) 484; Fasuyi & Ors. vs PDP & Ors. (2017) LPELR-43462 (SC) @ 32 B-D per Augie, JSC, (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt.1619) 426; Chrome Air Services Ltd Vs. Fidelity Bank (2017) 12 SC (Pt.111) 57; (2017) LPELR-43470 (SC) @ 19 B-E; Anukam vs Anukam (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1081) 455. It is equally well settled that the mere labeling of a ground of appeal as a ground of law or error in law, does not ipso facto make it so. The grounds of appeal when read along with their particulars must unequivocally point to an error in law. See: Chrome Air Services Ltd. Vs Fidelity Bank (supra); Tilbury Construction Co. Ltd. Vs Sunday Ogunniyi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 64.

For ease of reference, the appellant’s grounds of appeal along with their particulars are reproduced hereunder:
GROUND 1
The learned Justices of the lower Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by erroneously setting aside the judgment or decision of the trial Court and substituting same with dismissal on wrongful ground that the Appellant was notable to prove or establish any of his claim during hearing before the trial Court.
PARTICULARS
(a) The Appellant’s claim against the Respondent at the trial Court was for; (i) a declaratory relief (ii) an order for specific performance and (iii) payment of damages
(b) The Appellant’s 1st prayer was outrightly admitted by the Respondent in her statement of defence thereby requiring no proof.
(c) The Appellant’s prayer being contingent and dependent on the 1st, is also uncontestable but the Respondent’s denial of same was a mere refusal of fact full of speculations.
(d) The Respondent not only failed to establish the issuance of the statement of account and/or receipt of same by or through any documentary evidence but also refused and neglected to throughout the hearing of the case, tender any copy of the alleged issued statement of the account.
(e) The learned trial Court Judge in awarding N500,000.00 as damages to the appellant was very specific and emphatic that same was a general damage against the respondent for her refusal to issue the Appellant with his statement of Account.
GROUND 2
The learned Justices of the lower Court erred in law when their lordships wrongfully abdicated their duty of reviewing the reason upon which the trial Judge based his decision and instead dabbled into re-hearing and/or weighing the credibility of the witnesses evidence without any material or equipment necessary for accomplishing that task particularly at their disposal throughout the hearing of the appeal.
PARTICULARS
(a) The learned trial Judge apart from hearing evidence of the witness on both sides based on their pleadings also had the singular opportunity or privilege of seeing these witnesses and their demeanours in the box during hearing.
(b) The decision of the learned trial Judge was obviously the combined effect and/or result of his consideration and reasoning over the available materials or equipments at the hearing such as the pleaded facts, evidence adduced, documents tendered, the gesture and the demeanours of the witnesses etc.
(c) At the hearing of the Respondent’s appeal by the learned justice’s (sic) of the lower Court the only available materials before their Lordships was the record of proceedings containing second-hand information of what took place at the hearing.
(d) Their Lordships erroneously faulted the due reasoning of the trial Court Judge and as well substituted it with their own view with little or no regard to some salient points or facts upon which he based same.
GROUND 3
The learned justices of the lower Court misdirected themselves having erroneously found that the Appellant failed to have pleaded or given particulars of the fraud and negligence alleged by him against the respondent.
PARTICULARS
(a) The Appellant in his amended statement of claim did not actually give particulars of fraud or negligence as done in his old statement.
(b) The Appellant however upon requisition by the Respondent’s counsel, later filed and submitted to the Respondent the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation before the commencement of hearing thereby killing the error or default (if any) in the amended statement of claim.
(c) The Respondent merely refuted the Appellant’s allegation of fraud against her by pointing out the alleged erasure and/or alterations on the said tellers but failed and neglected to tender her own supposed correct copy or copies of the hoarded statement of account.
(d) Their Lordships in total disregard to the facts contained in the said particulars of fraud and misrepresentation as well as the evidence adduced in support of same erroneously held that the Appellant had failed to either plead and/or prove same thus setting aside the sound judgment of the trial Court which was partly based on same.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

GROUND 4
PARTICULARS
The learned justices of the lower Court erred in law by having hastily heard and decided the Respondent’s appeal without receiving the completed Record from the registrar of the trial Court.
(a) A complete Record of proceedings of a trial Court must necessarily contain or go together with the actual documents tendered as Exhibits before the Court during trial or hearing.
(b) According to their Lordships as stated in their decision no original Exhibits or even any documents tendered before the lower at the trial was either sent by the trial Court’s registrar or received and examined by their Lordships before setting aside the trial Court’s judgment in their decision on the appeal.
(c) There is no way their Lordships could have been able to adequately understand and/or perceive some intricacies contained in the evidence before the trial Court, particularly such as erasure and/or alterations on some Exhibits without seeing the actual tendered copy or its original.
GROUND 5
The lower Courts decision is outrightly erroneous and unsustainable as same is clearly against the weight of facts before it and can not as well be supported by the provisions of our laws.

With regard to Ground 1, it is the appellant’s contention that the ground complains of the misapplication of the law to undisputed facts and is therefore an error of law. It was his contention that there was an admission by the respondent that it failed to issue statements of account to the appellant as and when due.

Earlier in this judgment, I reproduced the issues distilled by the appellant for determination at the Court below, Issue 3 questions the finding of the learned trial Judge that the defendant (respondent) failed to provide the plaintiff (appellant) with his statements of account and therefore acted negligently. The respondent herein, who was the appellant at the Court below contended that the finding was not supported by the evidence before the trial Court. In resolving the issue, the Court below held at page 212 of the record:
“I observed that in spite of the fact that the respondent is a very old customer of the bank, he has failed to tender any document in support of his claim that his request for his bank statements was not honoured by the bank.”

​Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal challenges this finding. It would not therefore be correct to say that the ground of appeal challenges a misapplication of the law to undisputed facts. Particulars (c) and (d) are issues of fact. Grounds 2 and 3, along with their particulars, challenge the evaluation of evidence by the Court below. They are clearly issues of fact or at best, mixed law and facts. Ground 4, which complains that the learned Justices of the Court below utilised an incomplete record in reaching their decision also challenges the evaluation of evidence i.e. whether the lower Court carried out its function correctly in the absence of a complete record. A determination of the issue would depend upon an examination of the record and an appraisal of the findings made by the Court thereon. In other words, whether the findings of fact made by the lower Court could be supported by the record of appeal before it. Again, this in my humble view, raises an issue of fact or at best an issue of mixed law and facts.
​Ground 5, without a doubt, is an omnibus ground of appeal complaining that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. It is quite well settled that a ground of appeal complaining that the judgment is against the weight of evidence is a ground of pure fact. See: Ogbechie Vs Onochie (supra); Nwadike Vs Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718; Teriba vs Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1211) 243; N.N.P.C. vs Famfa Oil Ltd. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 535) 204; Umanah vs NDIC (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1533) 458.
The net effect of all that I have been saying above is that all the grounds of appeal contained in the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 13/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021 are of facts or mixed law and facts, for which no leave was sought or obtained. The appeal is therefore incompetent. This ground alone is sufficient to sustain the objection. It is accordingly upheld.

The appeal is hereby struck out for incompetence. The parties shall bear their respective costs in the appeal.

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, JSC and to underscore the support I have in the reasonings that brought that decision about, I shall make some comments.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division or Court below or lower Court, Coram: Baba Alkali Ba’aba, J.J. Umoren and A.A. Jega JJCA. The lower Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and substituting the order of dismissal in place of the judgment given in favour of the appellant at the High Court, stated as follows.-
“Having regard to the aforesaid, I hold that this is an appropriate case for this Court to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of the trial Court, delivered on the 10th day of November, 1999 by the Learned Trial Judge, Mika’ilu J. (as he then was) is hereby set aside and substituted by an order of dismissal of suit No. SS/95/9/96 …”

It is against this judgment of the learned Justices that the Appellant filed 4 (four grounds of Appeal) culminating in this appeal proper.

FACTS OF THE CASE
From the record of appeal before this Court, the following facts emerged;
a) The claims maintained by the Appellant are (1) a declaration that the plaintiff being the holder of account No.7862 with the Defendant is entitled to his statement of account 7862 for the period 1982-1990, (2) An order directing the Defendant to issue the Plaintiff with the statement of accounts No. 7862 for the period covering 1982-1990 and (3) N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) being damages for fraud and refusal to issue the Plaintiff with his statement of account as and when due.
b) The Respondent, who was the Defendant at the High Court did not specifically deny reliefs 1 & 2 of the amended statement of claim but said that it has complied with sending statement of account to the Appellant.

The issue was not the denial of owing a duty to render account to the appellant but that the said duty has been rendered, yet there exist no evidence to that effect by the respondent on record.

The trial Court gave judgment in favour of the appellant which the Court below set aside.

On the 20/9/2021 date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, A.S. Abdulkadir, Esq adopted the appellant’s amended brief of argument, filed on 13/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021. Also adopted is the Reply brief filed on 13/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021

​Appellant distilled three issues for determination, viz:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

1. (Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right to have set aside the judgment of the trial Court?) This issue is distilled from grounds 1, 3 and 5 of the grounds of Appeal.
2. (Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the Appellant did not provide particulars of negligence as required by law?) This issue is distilled from ground 2 of the grounds of Appeal.
3. (Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal without seeing the Exhibit in this case, have properly come to a just decision?) This issue is distilled from ground 4 of the grounds of appeal.

Dr. K.U.K. Ekwueme, learned counsel for the respondent adopted the brief of argument filed on 16/9/2021 and deemed filed on 20/9/2021. In the brief was argued respondent’s Preliminary Objection, which if it failed the Court was to consider the merit of the appeal on the three issues framed by the respondent as follows:-
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the Appellant did not particularise the allegation of fraud and negligence (distilled from ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal);
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court (distilled from grounds 1 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal); and
3. Whether in considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeal can be impeached on the allegation of incomplete record (distilled from ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal).

It needs no saying that the Preliminary Objection would be first tackled so as to settle the validity or otherwise of the appeal.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Learned counsel for the respondent/objector contended that the appeal is incompetent. That the writ of summons and statement of claim were unsigned and therefore the defect is incurable as it is a fundamental defect. He cited SLB Consortium Limited v NNPC (2011) LPELR-3074 (SC); Kida v. Ogunmola (2006) LPELR-1690 (SC) 15.

He contended that the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit that led to this appeal which suit should be struck out.

That the law is settled that an unsigned writ of Summons is outrightly void and no amendment can cure such a fundamental defect. He cited Nzom & Anor v Jinadu (1987) 2 SC 205; Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR 581 at 589-590; Lado v CPC (2011) LPELR -8254 (SC) 25-26.

That, it is only a legal practitioner and not a law firm as happened in this instance whose name is on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria that can sign and file processes in Court. He referred to Okafor v. Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (pt. 1043) 521 at 531 etc.

Learned counsel for the objector further raised the fact that Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the appellant’s Notice of Appeal are incompetent being grounds of mixed law and facts and leave of Court was not obtained before the appeal was initiated thus offending Section 233(3) of the Constitution of the Federation 1999. He cited Chrome Air Services Ltd & Ors v. Fidelity Bank (2017) LPELR-43470 (SC) 19; Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 718 at 742.

​Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the arguments of the respondent by saying that it is not the duty of a party or legal practitioner to issue writs of summons as that is the role of the Registrar of Court and so it suffices where the legal practitioner endorsed his name or firm and business address. He cited Broad Bank Nigeria Ltd v Alhaji Olayinola & Com Ltd (2005) All FWLR (pt.251) 238 at 262; Adegoke Motor Ltd v Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) 250 at 270; Order 5 Rule 1(1) and 12 (1) of the Sokoto State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987.

That Grounds 2, 3, 4 are grounds of law and the Court should discountenance the submissions of the Objector that they are grounds of mixed law and facts.

It is common ground that by the decision of the Supreme Court in SLB Consortium Limited v NNPC (2011) LPELR- 3074 SC 12-13, that the respondent can raise the issue of competence of the appeal for the first time before this Court.

Also now well settled is that the non-compliance with the provision of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act Cap L11, Laws of the Federation, 2004 is an incurable defect which renders the originating process incompetent and which defect cannot be waived. See Ajibode v. Gbadamosi (2021) 7 NWLR (pt. 1776) 475; JVC, P.P (UK) Ltd v Famuyide (2020) 13 NWLR (pt.1744) 334; Yusuf v Mobil Oil (Nig) Plc (2020) 3 NWLR (pt. 1710) 1.​The implication of the above stated principles of law is that an unsigned Writ of Summons renders the trial Court without jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) suit and consequently leads to the striking out of the suit along with the current appeal. This is because an unsigned writ of summons raises a fundamental question which impacts on the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. See Kida v Ogunmola (2006) LPELR-1690 (SC) 15.
The law is settled that an unsigned Writs Summons is out-rightly void and not even a subsequent amended writ could cure such fundamental defect. Such a writ is void and remains void and nothing can be added to it. See Nzom & Anor v. Jinadu (1987) 2 SC 205.
The result of a void Writ of summons is that the case it has acted as an initiating/originating process remains incompetent and this deprives the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain same. This is because, among other things, for a case to be competent it has to be initiated by due process of law as a condition precedent without which the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction. See Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) ANLR 581 at 589-590; and Lado v CPC (2011) LPELR-8254. (SC) 25-26, paras F-B.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
It is no longer a matter for debate that it is only a legal practitioner (and not a law firm) whose name is on Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria that can sign and file processes in Court. See Okafor v Nweke (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 521 at 531, paras B-E; SPDC v Sam Royal Nig Ltd (2016) LPELR-40062 (SC), 17-22, paras C-B.
In First Bank of Nigeria Plc & Anor v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1 348) 444, this Court was invited to overrule the decision in Okafor v. Nweke (Supra) and in First Bank of Nigeria Plc & Anor v. Maiwada (Supra), this Court firmly shut the door to appeals such as this by unanimously refusing to depart from the decision in Okafor v. Nweke (Supra), 488, paras B-D, in the following terms:
“…if the decision of the Supreme Court in Okafor v Nweke (Supra) is revisited as urged more confusion will be created. The decision is not in any respect wrong in law and a real likelihood of injustice is not perpetrated … I see no valid reason why the decision should be revisited. The decision has come to stay and legal practitioners should reframe their minds to live by it for due accountability and responsibility on their part and for the due protection of the legal profession.”
It needs no saying that the writ of summons filed by the appellant as plaintiff at the trial Court is void as the writ was unsigned as it was prepared and filed by a law firm of Adamu Umar & Co. instead of a legal practitioner whose name is on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.
Consequently, the appeal is incompetent and liable to be struck out.
For the purpose of completeness, I shall delve into the issue of the incompetent grounds of Appeal. I shall for clarity quote the said grounds as follows:-
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1ST GROUND
1. The learned Justices of the lower Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by erroneously setting aside the judgment or decision of the trial Court and substituting same with dismissal or wrongful ground that the Appellant was not able to prove or establish any of his claim during hearing before the trial Court.
PARTICULARS
(a) The Appellant’s claim against the Respondent at the trial Court was for: (i) a declaration relief (ii) an order for specific performance and (iii) payment of damages.
(b) The Appellant’s 1st prayer of defence thereby requiring no proof.
(c) The Appellant’s 2nd prayer being contingent and dependent on the 1st, is also incontestable but the Respondent’s denial of same was a mere refusal of fact full of speculations.
(d) The Respondent not only failed to establish the issuance of the statement of account and/or receipt of same by or through any documentary evidence but also refused and neglected to throughout the hearing of the case, tender any copy of the alleged issued statement of the account.
(e) The learned trial Court Judge in awarding N500,000.00 as damages to the Appellant was very specific and emphatic that same was a general damages against the Respondent for her refusal to issue the Appellant with his statement of account.
2ND GROUND
2. The learned Justices of the lower Court erred in law when their lordship wrongfully abdicated their duty or reviewing the reason upon which the trial Judge based his decision and instead dabbled into re-hearing and/or weighing the credibility of the witnesses evidence without any material or equipment necessary for accomplishing that task particularly at their disposal throughout the hearing of the appeal.
(a) The learned trial Court Judge apart from hearing evidence of the witness on both sides based on their pleading also had the singular opportunity or privilege of seeking these witnesses and their demeanours in the box during hearing.
(b) The decision of the learned trial Judge was obviously the combined effect and/or result of his consideration and reasoning over the available materials or equipment’s at the hearing such as the pleaded facts, evidence adduced, documents tendered, the gesture and the demeanours of the witnesses etc.
(c) At the hearing of the Respondent’s appeal by the learned justices of the lower Court the only available material before their lordships was the record of proceedings containing second-hand information of what took place at the hearing.
(d) Their Lordships erroneously faulted the due reasoning of the trial Court Judge and as well substitute it with their own view with little or no regard to some salient points or facts upon which he based same.
3RD GROUND
3. The learned Justices of the lower Court misdirected themselves having erroneously found that the Appellant failed to have pleaded or given particulars of the fraud and negligence alleged by him against the Respondent.
PARTICULARS
(a) The Appellant in his amended statement of claim did not actually give particulars of fraud or negligence as done in his old statement.
(b) The appellant however upon requisition by the Respondent’s counsel, later filed and submitted to the Respondent the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation before the commencement of hearing thereby killing the error or default (if any) in the amended statement of claim.
(c) The Respondent merely refuted the Appellant’s allegation of fraud against her by pointing out the alleged erasure and/or alterations on the said tellers but failed and neglected to tender her own supposed correct copy or copies of the hoarded statement of account.
(d) Their Lordships in total disregard to the facts contained in the said particulars of fraud and misrepresentation as well as the evidence adduced in support of same erroneously held that the Appellant had failed to either plead and/or prove same thus setting aside the sound judgment of the trial Court which was party based on same.
4TH GROUND
4. The learned Justices of the lower Court erred in law by having hastily heard and decided the Respondent’s appeal without receiving the completed records from the registrar of the trial Court.
(a) A complete Record of proceedings of a trial Court must necessarily contain or go together with the actual documents tendered as Exhibits before the Court during trial or hearing,
(b) According to their Lordships as stated in their decision no original Exhibits or even any documents tendered before the lower Court at the trial was either sent by the trial Court’s registrar or received and examined by their lordships before setting aside the trial Court’s judgment in their decision on the appeal.
(c) There is no way their lordships could have been able to adequately understand and/or perceive some intricacies contained in the evidence before the trial Court particularly which as erasure and/or alterations on some Exhibits without seeking the actual tendered copy of its original.
5TH GROUND
5. The lower Court decision is outrightly erroneous and unsustainable as same is clearly against the weight of facts before it and cannot as well be supported by the provisions of our laws. ”

I agree with learned counsel for the respondent/objector that the grounds of the Notice of Appeal which are grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are incompetent because they are not grounds of law which could be brought without leave of this Court.
On the authority of Shittu v P.A.N. Ltd (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1642) 195 at 209/210 paras. H-B this Court can only hear appeals where the grounds fall within any of the sub- head in Section 233(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (CFRN). This Court, on account of the amendment of the Constitution by First, Second and Third Alterations, no longer has jurisdiction to hear grounds of mixed law and facts without leave of Court first sought and obtained.
​Assuming, that this Court still has jurisdiction to hear appeals involving questions of mixed law and facts having regard to the fact that this appeal was filed before the alterations, the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are still incompetent because the Appellant did not obtain leave as required by Section 233 (2) of the CFRN.

By virtue of Section 233(2) (a) of the CFRN, an appellant will be entitled to appeal as of right from the Court of Appeal to this honourable Court where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone.

Although the difference between a ground of law and a ground of mixed law and facts is narrow, there is however a thin line of distinction between a ground of law on, one hand, a ground of fact and a ground of mixed law and fact on the other hand.
Whereas, a ground of law attacks the understanding or misapplication of the law by the Court below to established or admitted facts. A ground of mixed law and facts questions the evaluation of facts before application of law by the Court below. Finally, a ground of fact questions the evaluation of facts by the lower Court. See Chrome Air Services Ltd & Ors v Fidelity Bank (2017) LPELR- 43470 (SC) 19.

As this Court held in Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718 at 742, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on a ground of fact and mixed law and fact unless leave has been obtained. See also Metal Constrution (W.A) Ltd v Migliore: In re Ogundare (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 299-327 at 320, para G.

GROUND 1
For ease of reference, Ground 1 (devoid of its particulars) provides:
“The learned justices of the lower Court erred in law and misdirected themselves by erroneously setting aside the judgment or decision of the trial Court and substituting same with dismissal on wrongful ground that the Appellant was not able to prove or establish any of his claim during hearing before the trial Court”.

Ground 1 is not a ground of law because it does not question the misunderstanding or misapplication of the law to admitted facts by the lower Court. Rather, as borne out by Particulars 3.10 and (d) of Ground 1 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, the ground requires this Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeal on whether or not the Respondent established the issuance of the statement of account or tendered copies of the documents.

Clearly, that ground requires this Court to evaluate the evidence reviewed by the lower Court and inference drawn thereof.

GROUND 2
The Appellant’s Ground 2 is also not a ground of law as it does not question the misunderstanding or misapplication of the law to admitted facts by the lower Court. Rather, the ground will require this Court to review/reassess the decision of the lower Court on the complaints that it re-heard the matter and weighed the credibility of the witnesses before the lower Court.

The appellant’s Ground 2 without its particulars states thus-
“The learned justices of the lower Court erred in law when their lordships wrongfully abdicated their duty of reviewing the reason upon which the trial Judge based his decision and instead dabbled into re-hearing and/or weighing the credibility of the witnesses evidence without any material or equipment necessary for accomplishing that task particularly at their disposal throughout the hearing of the appeal”.

As espoused by this Court in B.A.S.F Nigeria v Faith Enterprises (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 104 at Appellant’s Ground 2, which complains about fact finding and the evaluation of fact is not a ground of law but fact or at best mixed law and fact.

Accordingly, the Appellant’s Ground 2 is incompetent without leave.

GROUND 3
At first brush, it is easy to contend that the Appellant’s Ground 3 is a ground of law and accordingly does not require leave; however, a thorough examination of the particulars of the Ground, especially particulars 3.3(c) and 3.3(d) above, together with the Ground, leaves no one in doubt that the ground is not a ground of law.

Paragraph 3.3(d) clearly refers this Court to “evidence adduced” by the Appellant and faults the findings made by the Court of Appeal on the evidence adduced by the parties. This is further bolstered by paragraph 3.3(c) of the Particulars to Ground 3 which invites this Court to engage in fact finding, to ascertain facts alleged by the Appellant which are undisputed.

It is trite that where a ground of appeal includes particulars which are competent without leave and other particulars which are incompetent, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to undertake a surgical operation to strike out the defective particulars in order to convert the said ground into a ground of law. See Nwadike v. Ibekwe (Supra) at 747.

As earlier indicated, where a ground relates to the investigation of the evidence and the proper inference to be drawn therefrom, it is a ground of law. I refer to the case of Metal Construction (W.A) Ltd v. Migliore. In re Ogundare (supra) P.320.
Therefore Ground 3 is incompetent.

GROUND 4
The Appellant’s Ground 4 as framed is clearly one involving matters, circumstances, acts and events. For a just determination of this ground, this Court is invited to determine by way of evidence, whether the Court of Appeal did indeed hastily determine the appeal without receiving the records, as alleged by the Appellant.

The Appellant’s Ground (devoid of its particulars) states:
“The learned justices of the lower Court erred in law by having hastily heard and decided the Respondent’s appeal without receiving the completed Records from the Registrar of the trial Court”.

Essentially a ground of appeal which involves matters, circumstances, acts and events which in legal controversy are determined by admissions or by evidence in contradiction from matters of law which are determined by authority and argument, are not a ground of law.
It is clear that ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal as framed, is not one that can be determined by authority or argument to satisfy the definition of a ground of law as enunciated in B.A.S.F Nigeria v Faith Enterprises (Supra) 132, para G.H. On the contrary, the question whether or not the Court of Appeal hastily decided the Appellant’s appeal or whether or not the Court of Appeal did or did not receive the completed records from the registrar of the trial Court is not a question which has to be answered in accordance with a principle of law, not one which calls for argument and determination of what the true position of the law is. Rather, the Court is invited to make an enquiry into strict matters of evidence, which the Appellant, without leave, is barred from bringing before this Court.

GROUND 5
Ground 5 is a curious amalgam. It is trite that the omnibus ground of appeal which alleges that a decision of a trial Court is against the weight of evidence is, by its inherent nature, not a ground of law and failure to seek leave renders such ground incompetent. See Nwadike v Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 718 at 743, para H and 744, para A; Teriba v. Adeyemo (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1211) 243 at 267, para H.

The position of the law is that where all the grounds of appeal are incompetent, the Notice of Appeal is a nullity. See Nsirim v. Nsirim (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.138) 285 at 296. This Court would not hesitate in striking out the Notice of Appeal because the Appellant’s grounds are not grounds of law alone. See Shittu vs. P.A.N Ltd (supra). In any event, the Appellant has failed to seek and obtain the leave of Court before filing grounds of appeal that involve fact and mixed law and facts.

Also to the said Grounds 1, 2, and 5 of the Notice of Appeal are still liable to be struck out because they offend the provisions of Order 8 Rule 2(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 (As Amended) (“SC Rules”)
Grounds 1 and 2 offend the provisions of Order 8 Rule 2(4) of the SC Rules, a ground of appeal must be concise, precise, and unequivocal and must directly attack the validity of the ratio decidendi of the decision appealed against. According to this Court in Oloruntoba-Oju & Ors v Abdul-Raheem & Ors (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 at 122, paras B-C, a vague ground of appeal includes an ambiguous complaint, i.e. “a complaint which is not defined in relation to the subject-matter” attacked.
​Where a ground of appeal is vague or imprecise, ambiguous or unequivocal, so that no clear complaint from the decision of the lower Court can be discerned from it, the ground shall be struck out by the Court. See Sosonya v. Onadeko (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.926) 216 A-C.
Furthermore, pursuant to Order 8 Rule 2 (2) of the SC Rules, where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated. See Nwadike v. Ibekwe (Supra).
Ground 1 is incompetent because it combines an error of law and misdirection and no clear and explicit complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeal is formulated therefrom. See Hambe v. Hueze (2001) FWLR (Pt.42) 1 at 16, paras C-E; Aderounmu v. Olowu (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 253 at 265 paras H-B.
GROUND TWO
Ground 2 is incompetent because it is imprecise, vague and equivocal and does not identify any complaint against the decision of the lower Court. Indeed the Appellant is unable to articulate what part of the decision of the Court of Appeal his Ground 2 actually attacks in his Brief of Argument.
GROUND FIVE
Ground 5 of the Appellant’s Notice of appeal states, to wit:
“the Court of Appeal’s decision is outrightly erroneous and unsustainable as same is clearly against the weight of facts before it and cannot as well be supported by the provisions of our laws”
In the case of Innih v Ferado A & C (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 153) 604 at 614, the ground of law which was before the consideration of the Court was: “the decision of the learned trial Judge is wrong in law and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.” The Court held that it is objectionable to tag the general ground of appeal which deals with weight of evidence with a ground of appeal which complains of error in law.
On the strength of the foregoing authority, Court will strike out the Appellant’s Ground 5 as same is defective in form and does not disclose any reasonable ground of appeal. Also, the appellant incorporated a complaint that the Court of Appeal erred in law, the Appellant ought to have set out the particulars of said error, and the failure to set out the particulars and nature of the error in compliance with Order 8 Rule 2 (2) of the SC Rules renders this ground wholly incompetent. See Anadi v. Okoli (1977) 11 NSCC 117 at 120.
​Clearly, the grounds of the appeal being incompetent, it follows that the appeal itself is incompetent.

Therefore from whichever angle, this appeal is looked at, whether from the unsigned Writ of Summons or from these incompetent grounds of appeal, the appeal is incompetent and there is no saying it in spite of the forceful arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently the appeal, liable to be struck out, is hereby struck out along with the Writ of Summons.

Appeal struck out. I abide by the consequential orders made.

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.: I have read a draft of lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC, and I completely agree that all the grounds of the appeal are of mixed law and facts, which, as a condition precedent for their validity, require the prior leave of either the Court below or this Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 233 (3) of the Constitution, as clearly demonstrated in the lead Judgment.
​The absence of such leave constituted failure to fulfil a condition precedent to the validity and competence of the grounds on the Notice of Appeal which in consequence, deprives the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate over the appeal. See Opuiyo v. Omoniwari (2007) 16 NWLR (pt. 1060) 415 at 443-444 (SC), Akinyemi v. Odu’a Invest. Co. Ltd. (2012) 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 209 (SC), Yaro v. Arewa Constr. Ltd. (2007) 6 SC (pt. 11) 149, Ojemen v. Momodu II (1983) 3 SC, 179.

I adopt the reasons set out in the lead judgment and join in striking out the grounds/Notice of Appeal for being incompetent.

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.: I concur with the reasoning expressed in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, the Hon. Justice KMO. Kekere-Ekun, JSC, to the conclusive effect that the present appeal is incompetent, thus ought to be struck out.

Hence, having adopted the reasoning and conclusion in question as mine, I too hereby strike out the appeal for incompetence.

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.: I had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, Lord Justice, KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, conclusion, decisions, and orders therein.

Appearances:

A.S. ABDULKADIR, ESQ., WITH HIM, A.O. YUSUF, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

DR. K.U.K. EKWUEME, ESQ., WITH HIM, BABATUNDE IGE, ESQ. For Respondent(s)