MESSRS BODY MECHANICS PHYSIOTHERAPY & ANOR v. OFI
(2022)LCN/17115(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, November 18, 2022
CA/ABJ/CV/296/2022
Before Our Lordships:
Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal
Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
MESSRS BODY MECHANICS PHYSIOTHERAPY & ANOR APPELANT(S)
And
MR. DIRAN OFI RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW ON AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
It is trite law, that parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings, whenever it is appropriate to do so in order to bring into focus the real issues in controversy for the determination of the Court. In other words, where a proposed amendment raises issues in controversy which are already in evidence, the Court will in the circumstance allow such an amendment. This appears the state of the law. See, CGG (Nig) Ltd vs. idorenyin (2015) 13 NWLR (pt. 1475) 149, and Obijuru vs. Ozims (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 6) 167.
It is equally the position of the law rightly argued that an amendment, which can be made at any stage of the proceedings, once made takes effect from the commencement of the action or when the amended process was initially filed. See, NSE vs. Katchy (2017) 7 NWLR (pt. 1564) (CA), Okoye vs. Okonkwo (2006) LPELR – 11785 (CA).
In the same volume, it has been held severally that joining a party to an action is an act of uniting to the action all persons who have the same rights or against whom rights are claimed in order to be bound by the result of the action. See, Uku vs. Okumagba (1974) 3SC 35, Jadesimi vs. Ekotie- Eboh (1985) 2NWLR (pt. 10) 909. The lower Court by paragraph 9 of the amended statement of claim of the view that the paragraph was in support of the assertion that 1st defendant had offered to pay the 2nd Respondent’s outstanding debt. PER BARKA, J.C.A.
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A PARTY REFUSES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FAIR HEARING PROCESS CREATED BY THE COURT
That law has since crystalized, as stated in Bio vs. The State (2020) All FWLR (pt. 1039) 703, that:
“While it is the duty of the Court to create the atmosphere or environment for a fair hearing of a case, it is not the duty of the Court to make sure that a party takes advantage of the atmosphere by involving himself in the fair hearing of the case. A party who refuses to take advantage of the fair hearing process created by the Court cannot turn around to accuse the Court of denying him fair hearing. That is not fair to the Court and counsel must not instigate his client to accuse the Court of denying him fair trial”.
See also, Newswatch Communications Ltd vs. Atta (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 318) 580.
It does not make sense in my humble view for the Appellant, who had joined issues with the Respondent by filing an amended joint statement of defense, rendering evidence through the DW1, her Managing Director, and who had the opportunity of recalling any of the Respondent’s witnesses had she so desired to contend that she was denied fair hearing. It is not debatable that the effect of a breach of the right to fair hearing renders the affected proceedings and any judgment order or decision founded thereon null and void. See Umeano & Ors vs. Amaekwe & Anor (2022) LPELR-56855 (SC), Chitra Knitting & Weaving Manufacturing Ltd vs. Akingbade (2016) LPELR – 40437 (SC). PER BARKA, J.C.A.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The instant appeal arose as a result of the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit with No. FCT/HC/CV/114/2018, between Mr. Diran Ofi and Dr. Akintomi Ojetunde delivered on the 25th day of February, 2022. The lower Court in the judgment aforestated, held that:
“The first relief sought by the claimant is for possession of the demised premises. The claimant led evidence that following the expiration of the defendant’s tenancy for one year certain, he had served her the mandatory 7 days’ notice as required by Section 7 of the Recovery of Premises Act, but still, the defendant failed to deliver possession. In my view, he has met the requirements for the order sought. All the additional payments made by the defendant having come after service of the 7 days’ notice and filing of this case in Court, they had no power to convert the defendant’s expired one year certain tenancy into a yearly tenancy. In the final analysis, this action succeeds and I grant the following reliefs:”
In brief, the claimant before the lower Court, by paragraph 10 of the Amended statement of claim sought for the following reliefs:
i. The immediate vacant possession of the 5-bedroom detached duplex with two-bedroom guest chalet and a room boys’ quarter together with appurtenances situated and being at No. 4, Bawku Street, off Monrovia Street, Wuse 2 Abuja to be delivered to the claimant forthwith.
ii. Mesne profit at the monthly rate of N666,666.67 (Six Hundred and Sixty-six thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-six Naira, Sixty-seven kobo) commencing from the 14th day of March, 2018 until vacant possession of the property is delivered to the Claimant.
iii. The claimant also claims the sum of N267,800.00 (Two Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Naira) being the total cost of putting the property into its original state, due to the willful, illegal, malicious and unauthorized damages done to the property by the Defendant in his bid to alter the original structure of the property in the pretext of doing same to suit his business.
iv. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being damages for the malicious, willful, unauthorized alterations done to the property in question without the express or written consent of the landlord through his authorized agent (the claimant).
v. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being the cost of prosecuting this action.
In the Amended joint statement of defense filed, defendants denied all the material allegations contained in the claimant’s statement of claim, urging the Court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
The background facts giving life to the instant action emanated from a tenancy relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent in respect of a 5-bedroom detached duplex with a two-bedroom quest chalet and a room boys’ quarters located at No. 4 Bawku Street, off Monrovia Street, Wuse 2 Abuja. According to the Appellant, a tenancy agreement was entered into with regards to the renovation of the building as well as the rent payable, wherefore Appellant paid the sum of N8,800,000.00 to cover the rent and other professional services, but contrary to the contractual obligations and undertaking therein, Respondent reneged in carrying out the much-needed renovation. Appellant also states that with the tacit approval of the Respondent, he carried out the specified renovations, the cost of which was to be recovered from the landlord. This undertaking according to the Appellant is backed by a letter dated the 3rd of February, 2017, but that notwithstanding, the Landlord failed to repay the money expended on the repairs rather claimed damages before the trial Court.
Appellant further stated that the Respondent in proof of his case called a sole witness and closed his case, but before the Defendant, could open his defense, the claimant by way of a motion filed sought for leave of Court to amend the writ and statement of claim, to enable him join the Body Mechanic Physiotherapy and Wellness Centre Ltd as a second defendant, which though stoutly opposed was granted by the Court, and the witness earlier discharged recalled to give evidence without any order of Court, tendering one document in that regard before closing his case the second time. Consequently, the defendant called his witness, closed his case leading to the judgment now being appealed against.
Slightly and differently stated, the Respondent while admitting that there exists a tenancy agreement between him and the Appellant, went on to state that Appellant went about several destructive alteration, restricting, redesigning and damaging works unilaterally, without the written permission of the Landlord or his authorized agent. That the tenancy between the parties having lapsed by effluxion of time, and Appellant having failed to pay any rent in spite of the demand made in a letter of August 2018, and having remained and failed to vacate the premises to the Respondent or to yield up possession, and at the expiry of the tenancy agreement, the Respondent instructed a legal firm to serve the Appellant with a notice of intention to recover possession and another engineering firm to carry out a detailed inspection of the property with the view of knowing how much it will take putting the property to the state it was before the unauthorized alteration.
Displeased with the vexed judgment, Appellant on the 2nd of March, 2022 filed a Notice of Appeal predicated on seven grounds of appeal. The appeal having been entered to this Court on the 22nd day of March, 2022, Appellant filed a brief of argument on the 29th of April, 2022, settled by Anthony N. Ayaogu, the learned counsel representing the Appellant, wherein the following issues were identified for resolution.
i. To what extent does Order 13 Rules 20 of the Rules of the High Court of the FCT (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case viz-a-viz the joinder of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant who was joined as a party after the claimant had concluded evidence and closed his case.
ii. Whether the heavy reliance on the case of Oyede & Ors Vs. Alakija, Okoye vs. Okonkwo (2006) LPELR 11785 (CA), Mahmuda vs. The State (2019) LPELR 479 74 (CA) by the trial Court did not operate in breach of the appellants’ fundamental right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
iii. From the totality of the evidence adduced at trial and the correspondences exchanged between the parties as exhibited to the Court, was the trial Court right in its conclusion that consent was not given to the appellant to undertake the renovation of the demised premises.
iv. Was the trial Court right in granting reliefs contained in the statement of claim in favour of the Respondent?
In opposition to the appeal, and in the brief settled by Taiwo Abe, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, the following issues were also listed for the resolution of the appeal.
i. Whether there is any clause in the provisions of Order 32, Order 13 and Order 25 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 that is against the amendment of pleadings or joinder of a party after the close of a party’s case?
ii. Whether there was breach of the principles of fair hearing against the appellant at the trial Court?
iii. Whether there was any form of consent emanating from the Respondent to the Appellant to carryout structural amendments on the building which is occupied by the Appellant?
iv. Whether the trial Court was right in granting the reliefs contained in the Statement of Claim in favour of the Respondents?
Upon a calm examination of the issues proffered by the parties, it seems clear to me that the issues are not altogether in conflict. To that end, I intend to approach the appeal from those issues formulated by the Appellant, which in any case are not altogether different from those formulated by the learned counsel for the Respondent.
ISSUE ONE
To what extent does Order 13 Rules 20 of the Rules of High Court of the FCT (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018 applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case viz-a viz the joinder of the 2nd Defendant/Appellant who was joined as a party after the claimant had concluded evidence and closed his case.
This issue is in tandem with the Respondent’s issue one similarly questioning the named provisions of the High Court of the FCT (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2018 with respect to amendment or joinder of a party.
It was submitted by learned counsel that the lower Court wrongly assumed that to serve an amended originating process on the newly joined defendant in the circumstance of the case without more suffices to prove the case against such a defendant whereas, the claim must be proved against a defendant while being such a defendant. He alluded to the provisions of Order 13, Order 25 and Order 32 Rules 12 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Civil Procedure Rules opining that the Claimant having applied to join a new party and amend the originating process after he had closed his case pursuant to Order 13 Rules 4 & 18, was wrong, and the Court equally wrong to have relied on Order 13 Rule 20 and to hold that the party so joined is bound by the evidence and testimonies elicited before being joined as a party. He argued that the Claimant was unable to prove his case against the Appellant, maintaining that all allegations in the amended Statement of Claim were not proved and cited the case of CGC (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Idorenyin (2015) 13 NWLR (pt. 1475) 149, to contend that two conditions are by law established for allowing an amendment. Firstly, to bring the issues in controversy before the Court and secondly to bring the pleadings in line with the evidence already on record.
Learned Counsel now posed the question whether the evidence already led by the claimant before applying to join the 2nd defendant now Appellant operated to prove the allegations contained in the amended statement of claim. He questioned the basis of the holding of the trial Court at pages 359 – 360 of the record based on the foregoing and urged the Court to resolve the issue in favor of the Appellant.
Responding to the issue, the learned counsel for the Respondent, stoutly maintained that there is nothing in the provisions of Order 32, Order 13 and Order 25 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 disallowing and or is the amendment of pleadings or joinder of a party. Learned counsel relying on the case of Okezie Vs. Central Bank of Nigeria (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1050) 535 argued that strict compliance with the rules of Court makes for quicker administration of justice and rules of Court meant to be obeyed and complied with, and posited that all the trial did was to follow the rules of Court.
On the issue of allowing the claimant to amend and join the Appellant after the Respondent had closed his case, learned counsel was of the view that an amendment or joinder can be done any time in the proceedings for the effectual determination of the action. He cited on this a host of cases including, Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. J. B. Olandeen International (2010) 12 SCNJ 494, Associated Discount House Limited Vs. The Hon. Minister of the FCT (2013) 8 NWLR (pt. 1357) 493, Green vs. Green (2001) 45 WRN 90 AT 109 and Okwu & Anor v. Chief Victor Umeh & Ors. (2015) LPELR- 26042.
He concluded by stating that the joinder of the Appellant became necessary to enable a wholesome determination of the issues in controversy and thereby urged the Court to resolve the issue against the Appellant.
In the resolution of this issue, I am convinced that the meat of the Appellants’ complaint, pertains to his being joined as a party by the trial Court after the Respondent had closed its case. This to me appears the crux of the matter. Whereas it is common ground that amendments can be granted at any stage of the proceedings so as to bring the issues in contention before the Court for resolution and also to have as a party every person who will be affected by the decision of the Court, Appellant faulted the lower Court, complaining that at the stage at which the application was made and granted, the lower Court acted wrongly in granting the application in the circumstance.
Indeed, the record shows that the claimant in an effort at proving his case called three witnesses and closed his case. Thereafter, the claimant filed a notice on motion praying that it be allowed to amend the writ and statement of claim, which was granted, even though objected. It is consequent upon the grant of the application that the claimant called an additional witness, who then tendered exhibit P6.
The lower Court dutifully appraised the arguments of the parties from pages 359 – 361, and came to the conclusion that the Court can rely on the exhibits tendered before joining the 2nd defendant, and thereby refused the Appellants’ contention on the issue.
It is trite law, that parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings, whenever it is appropriate to do so in order to bring into focus the real issues in controversy for the determination of the Court. In other words, where a proposed amendment raises issues in controversy which are already in evidence, the Court will in the circumstance allow such an amendment. This appears the state of the law. See, CGG (Nig) Ltd vs. idorenyin (2015) 13 NWLR (pt. 1475) 149, and Obijuru vs. Ozims (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 6) 167.
It is equally the position of the law rightly argued that an amendment, which can be made at any stage of the proceedings, once made takes effect from the commencement of the action or when the amended process was initially filed. See, NSE vs. Katchy (2017) 7 NWLR (pt. 1564) (CA), Okoye vs. Okonkwo (2006) LPELR – 11785 (CA).
In the same volume, it has been held severally that joining a party to an action is an act of uniting to the action all persons who have the same rights or against whom rights are claimed in order to be bound by the result of the action. See, Uku vs. Okumagba (1974) 3SC 35, Jadesimi vs. Ekotie- Eboh (1985) 2NWLR (pt. 10) 909. The lower Court by paragraph 9 of the amended statement of claim of the view that the paragraph was in support of the assertion that 1st defendant had offered to pay the 2nd Respondent’s outstanding debt.
Appellant’s complaint is based on the ground that all the material allegations in the amended statement of claim must be proved anew from when he became a party to the suit. I refer to the case of Mahmuda vs. The State (2019) LPELR-47974 (CA), where this Court held that:
“the amendment relates back to the date of the original, and all steps taken in the proceedings stand and are not nullified.. there was no obligation on the respondent to call any fresh or further evidence after the amendment of the charge against the appellant.”
From the foregoing state of the law therefore, the complaint by the Appellant on this score is without basis and the issue accordingly resolved against the Appellant.
Issue Two.
Whether the heavy reliance on the case of Oyede & Ors Vs. Alakija, Okoye vs. Okonkwo (2006) LPELR 11785 (CA), Mahmuda vs. The State (2019) LPELR 479 74 (CA) by the trial Court did not operate in breach of the Appellants’ fundamental right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
The submissions of learned counsel on this issue can be seen from pages 9 – 15 of the brief, wherein Appellant complained that the cases of Okoye & Anor vs. Okonkwo & Ors heavily relied upon by the lower Court in resolving the suit before him are irrelevant. He submits that the cases cited dealt with amendment of pleadings as against joinder of parties. Counsel submits further that the trial was a nullity having been in breach of Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent is of the view that there was no breach of the principles of fair hearing in the matter. He referred to pages of the record to show that Appellant joined issues with the Respondent, adduced evidence and further that the learned counsel for the Appellant cross-examined witnesses called by the Respondent.
That law has since crystalized, as stated in Bio vs. The State (2020) All FWLR (pt. 1039) 703, that:
“While it is the duty of the Court to create the atmosphere or environment for a fair hearing of a case, it is not the duty of the Court to make sure that a party takes advantage of the atmosphere by involving himself in the fair hearing of the case. A party who refuses to take advantage of the fair hearing process created by the Court cannot turn around to accuse the Court of denying him fair hearing. That is not fair to the Court and counsel must not instigate his client to accuse the Court of denying him fair trial”.
See also, Newswatch Communications Ltd vs. Atta (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 318) 580.
It does not make sense in my humble view for the Appellant, who had joined issues with the Respondent by filing an amended joint statement of defense, rendering evidence through the DW1, her Managing Director, and who had the opportunity of recalling any of the Respondent’s witnesses had she so desired to contend that she was denied fair hearing. It is not debatable that the effect of a breach of the right to fair hearing renders the affected proceedings and any judgment order or decision founded thereon null and void. See Umeano & Ors vs. Amaekwe & Anor (2022) LPELR-56855 (SC), Chitra Knitting & Weaving Manufacturing Ltd vs. Akingbade (2016) LPELR – 40437 (SC). That situation applies where the constitutional right to fair hearing has been breached. That right owing to the facts just alluded to, cannot be available to the Appellant. This is because the lower Court created the space and the atmosphere which Appellant failed to take advantage of. This issue is also resolved in favor of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
Issue Three.
From the totality of the evidence adduced at trial and the correspondences exchanged between the parties as exhibited to the Court, was the trial Court right in its conclusion that consent was not given to the Appellant to undertake the renovation of the demised premises.
Appellant’s complaint herein relates to the Respondent’s relief 3, wherein the plaintiff before the lower Court claimed the sum of N267,800.00 being the total cost of putting the rented premises to its original state owing to the unauthorized damages done to the property in an effort to suit its business. Learned counsel accused the lower Court of failing to proper analyze the documentary evidence placed before it in reaching the erroneous conclusion at page 366 of the record. The Respondent on the other hand denied ever granting Appellant the consent to undertake the repairs in question. On the issue in contention, the lower Court at page 366 of the record found that:
“on these facts, I hold that the refusal of consent was in no way unreasonable. I am also of the considered view that having unilaterally and without due consent carried out extensive structural alterations complained of, the defendant has a duty to restore the property to its original design layout/structure on exiting the tenancy, or bear the cost of putting the premises back in shape. In this regard, I accept the unchallenged estimate of the cost of restoring the property to its original state as contained in exhibit P4.” It should be noted that the Appellant does not dispute the fact that structural adjustments were made to the property, rather insisting that the landlord consented to the alterations made for which he (Appellant) was to be reimbursed.
In discerning the intentions of the parties, the contract agreement remains the principal document to be examined. I have on that score been referred to paragraph 2 (e) of the tenancy agreement entered between the parties at pages 166 – 170 of the record. I have also referred to the testimony of the Respondent’s witness Ofi Oladiran at pages 321 – 323. In particular, I have been referred to paragraph e, of paragraph 2 which reads;
“…not to make or permit to be made structural alteration or in addition to the demised premises or any part thereof without previous consent in writing of the landlord and such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits in line with the case of Oyewole vs. Akande & Anor (2009) LPELR – 2879 (SC) that the lower Court had a duty to look at all the documents placed before it in arriving at facts, He drew the Court’s attention to exhibits P1 – P6, D1 – D7 all in the record as well as exhibit D9 contending that these are the exhibits exhibited by the parties in support of their case. He then referred to exhibit D1 and D2 as being the documents relaying the consent by the Respondent to the renovation of the property. He urged the Court to be influenced by the entirety of the documents and to eschew sentiment, contending that the lower Court was wrong to have overlooked the specific consent to renovate granted by the landlord in the last but one paragraph of exhibit D9, and urged the Court to resolve the issue in its favor.
Accordingly, I have meticulously studied the exhibits alluded to by the learned counsel. In particular, I took pains to look out for the sections counsel referred to in argument. My humble view is that a single question disposes of the various contentions being made by the parties. It is whether the Appellant pursuant to paragraph 2 (e) of exhibit P1, the tenancy agreement obtained the landlord’s consent in writing to effect the structural adjustments allegedly made on the property. I agree with the Respondent’s counsel that in order to give meaning to the contents of written documents, recourse must be made to the clear language used by the parties in understanding the intention of the parties. See, NNPC vs. Mamman Aminu (2013) LPELR – 21395 (CA). In plain language, Appellant wants the Court to believe that upon a holistic understanding of exhibits D1 and D2, consent was given to the Appellant to restructure the property in issue to suit its purpose. I have not seen such consent, and do hold that no such consent exists. In any case, there is a wide difference between the renovation of premises contained in exhibit D2, and structural adjustments made. The lower Court and the learned counsel for the Respondent are to my mind on a strong wicket contending that no such consent was availed the Appellant. I resolve the issue against the Appellant.
Issue Four.
Was the trial Court right in granting reliefs contained in the statement of claim in favor of the Respondent?
By this issue, learned counsel seeks to question the rationale for the grant of the reliefs sought, on the contention that the findings of the lower Court at page 366 pointed otherwise. Appellant leveraged on the finding of the lower Court at page 366 to submit that the finding reached by the lower Court does not support the reliefs granted, especially the order for immediate possession of the demised property. He further leveraged on documents received later in time to argue that the conduct exhibited shows that a second tenancy was created and thereby urged the Court to hold that although the 1st tenancy had expired due to effusion of time, a second tenancy had been entered to as found by the trial Court.
Mr. Abe for the Respondent opposes the argument on the basis that the Respondent never asked for such a relief. Incidentally, it is obvious that Respondents did not cross-appeal that finding and conclusion by the lower Court. It is the position of the law that where a Respondent seeks a complete reversal of a crucial and fundamental finding in the judgment of a lower Court, he can only do so by way of a cross-appeal. See, Oke vs. Kaja (2014) NWLR (pt. 1394) 374. The finding of the lower Court to the effect that:
“Lastly, did the defendant pay rent on the premises beyond initial rent of N8 Million paid for the 2017 to 2018 tenancy year? The burden of proof on this is on the defendant. At the trial, the defendant tendered documents to show that between January 2020 and March 2021, she had made payments to the landlord totaling about 8.1 million. DW1 maintained that they had paid the rent fully for the tenancy periods 2017 – 2018 and 2018 – 2019 and that they had made part payment for the tenancy year 2019 – 2020. His evidence in this regard is cogent and consistent and not at all dented under cross-examination. Even though most of the documents tendered to show these payments were rejected on technical grounds for non-compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, I am inclined to accept the defendant’s version of the matter as more preferable to the general denial made by the claimant in his reply to the statement of defense. The alternative would be to confer an unjust benefit or double portion of the rent on the claimant.
The import of this finding is that as at the year 2017 – 2018 and 2018 – 2019, the rent had been paid, with the rent for 2019 – 2020 partly paid. This finding not having been appealed against, that finding stands, regardless of the Respondent’s denial. I however do not see how that finding made in the year 2022 can be said to result into countering the order for immediate possession of the demised property, the time for the payment having equally lapsed. The net result is that even though the lower Court found that payments were made up to the first half of the year 2020, the order made on the 25th of February, 2022, in terms of the reliefs granted cannot be said to be unsupportive of the reliefs granted. I equally resolve the issue against the Appellant.
Hence all issues having been resolved against the Appellant, this appeal must fail for lack of merit. In the event, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed by me. The judgment of Justice A.O. Ebong of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja delivered on the 25th of February, 2022 is hereby affirmed.
Costs of N100,000 awarded to the Respondent.
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Hamma Akawu Barka, JCA. I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion made therein.
I therefore also find the appeal lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed. I affirm the judgment of Justice A. O. Ebong of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja delivered on the 25th of February, 2022.
I make no order as to costs.
DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now, the draft judgment of my learned brother, HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, JCA just delivered and I agree with the reasoning and finding reached therein that this appeal lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it as well.
Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/114/2018 delivered on the 25th day of February, 2022 by Justice A. O. EBONG is hereby affirmed.
Appearances:
Anthony N. Ayaog For Appellant(s)
Taiwo Abe For Respondent(s)