MR. DOUGLAS IYEKE v. MR. LUCKY ABU
(2015)LCN/8020(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 10th day of November, 2015
CA/B/34/2014
RATIO
EVIDENCE: ADMISSION; WHAT CONSTITUTE ADMISSION IN LAW
The question that comes to mind is what constitutes an admission in law? Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition at page 48 defines “Admission” as “A voluntary acknowledgment of the existence of fact relevant to an adversary’s case.” Section 20 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines an admission as a statement, oral or documentary or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the circumstances mentioned in the Act. In Anasan Farms Ltd Vs. NAL MERCHANT BANK (1994) 3 NWLR part 331 page 241 at 252 paragraphs B – C, An admission was defined as “a statement oral or written by a party or his agent to legal proceedings and which statement is adverse to his case. See also the following cases:-
– Ogunnaike Vs. Ojayemi (1987) NWLR part 53 page 760.
– Osunbor Vs. Oshiomole (2009) All FWLR part 463 page 1366 at 1370.
– Osemwingie Vs. Osemwingie (2014) All FWLR part 710 page 1322 at 1324, 1340 – 1341 paragraphs G – A. per. JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF COURTS; THE DUTY OF TRIAL COURT TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE AND ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO SUCH EVIDENCE
It is trite law that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of a court of trial which saw, heard and duly assessed the witnesses. per. JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF COURTS; THE DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT COULD HAVE ACTED
Where a trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably assesses the facts, the duty of the Court of Appeal is to find out whether there is evidence on record on which the trial court could have acted. per. JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. DOUGLAS IYEKE Appellant(s)
AND
MR. LUCKY ABU Respondent(s)
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of High Court of Justice, Edo State of Nigeria, Benin Judicial Division in Suit No: B/36/2011, MR LUCKY ABU VS. DOUGLAS IYEKE, delivered on the 28th day of October 2013, in which the court gave Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent.
?The facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/Respondent instituted an action at the Lower Court vide a Writ of Summons and claimed against the Defendant/Appellant as follows:-
(a) The sum of (N1,550,000.00) One million, five hundred and fifty thousand Naira) being the balance of money being the value of the product (AGO) deposited in the Defendant’s underground tank by the Plaintiff which product the Defendant converted to himself without the consent nor approval of the Plaintiff.
(b) Interest on the said sum at 21% from the 30th day of November 2010 when the instalmental payment of the balance N1,550,000 (One million, five hundred and fifty thousand) was supposed to commence based on the agreement dated 8/10/2010 till Judgment is delivered and thereafter 10% until the said amount is fully paid.
?At the
?1
conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge awarded the sum of (N1,550,000.00) One million, five hundred and fifty thousand Naira being the value of the balance of 1,550 litres of AGO deposited by the Plaintiff/Respondent in the Defendant/Appellant’s underground tank which the Defendant/Appellant was not able to produce for the Plaintiff/Respondent. The claim for interest was dismissed and a cost of (N10,000.00) Ten thousand Naira only was awarded.
Dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the Appellant appealed to this court vide the Notice of Appeal filed on the 19th November, 2013.
The learned counsel for the Appellant formulated four issues for the determination of the Appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the purported oral agreement between the Respondent and the Appellant rather than Exhibit “A” which is the contract sought to be enforced by the Respondent.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent who is in breach of Exhibit “A” sought to be enforced against the
2
Appellant.
(3) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the evidence of the Claimant’s witness No. 1 – Chief M.I. Ukpebor whose evidence was not permissible by law.
(4) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the unreliable evidence of the Respondent before court.
The learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand formulated two issues for the determination of the Appeal. The issues are reproduced as follows:
(1) Whether the Lower Court was not right when it held that there were both an oral and written contracts between the Respondent and Appellant to warrant Judgment in favour of Respondent when it was discovered that Appellant breached same after due consideration.
(2) Whether the Lower Court did not properly evaluate the evidence led before it including the evidence of the Claimant witness – No. 1 Chief M.I. Ukpebor and whether same is against Section 192 of the Evidence Act 2004 .
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant stated that the Judgment appealed against was delivered on 28/10/13 and
3
the Notice of Appeal against the said Judgment was filed on 19/1/2013. He stated further that the Appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 25/2/14 while the Appellant’s reply brief was filed on 15/5/2014.
He adopted the said two briefs in urging that the appeal be allowed and the Judgment of the Lower Court set aside.
The learned counsel for the Respondent in his own case, referred to the Respondent’s brief of argument filed on 26/3/2015.
He adopted the said Respondent’s brief of argument as his argument in urging that the appeal be dismissed and uphold the Judgment of the Lower Court.
I have carefully examined the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal by counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the issues are similar. The issues as formulated on behalf of the Appellant would take care of the issues in controversy between the parties, I will therefore rely on the said issues.
?ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL
ISSUES 1 and 2 (Taken Together)
– Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on a purported oral agreement between the Respondent and
4
the Appellant rather than Exhibit “A” which is the contract sought to be enforced by the Respondent.
– Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent who was in breach of Exhibit “A” sought to be enforced against the Appellant.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that both heads of the Respondent’s claim at the Lower Court are interrelated and interest on the sum being claimed is at 21% from 30th day of November 2010 when the instalmental payment of the balance of N1,550,000 was supposed to commence based on the agreement dated 8/10/2010 till Judgment is delivered and thereafter at 10% until the amount is fully paid.
He went further in his submission that the Respondent’s claim is for breach of contract as contained in “Exhibit A” and not any purported oral agreement between the parties. To buttress the point, he referred to the evidence of Claimant’s witness – No. 1 Chief M.I. Ukpebor whose evidence touches only on Exhibit “A”.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned trial Judge erred in law when he entered Judgment in favour of Defendant based on a purported
?5
oral agreement between parties rather than Exhibit “A” which amounts to granting a prayer not sought for by the Respondent. He relied on the following cases of: –
– INEC Vs Atuma & 2 others (2013) 5 – 7 MJSC Part 1 page 29 at 33 ratio 3.
– Intercontinental Bank Ltd Vs. Brifina Ltd (2012) 5 – 7 MJSC Part II page 37 at 50 Ratio 6.
He finally urged that Issue No. 1 be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
On Issue No. 2, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge failed in his duty to enforce and interprete the contractual terms as contained in Exhibit “A”. He went further that under the agreement, the Appellant was to pay to the Respondent N200,000.00 at the end of every month with effect from November 2010 while the Respondent’s obligation was to withdraw the complaint against the Appellant touching and pertaining to the diesel (AGO) at the office of the Assistant Inspector General of Police Zone 5, Benin City.
?Learned counsel for the Appellant therefore submitted that the Respondent was in breach of Exhibit A and that the learned trial Judge erred in law in entering Judgment in favour of the
?6
Respondent.
He relied on the case of:-
– Chabasaya Vs. Anwasi (2010) 184 LRCN page 1 at page 6 ratio 2.
He finally urged that Issue No. 2 be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
The learned counsel for the Respondent in response to the submission of counsel for the Appellant submitted that he who asserts the existence of a fact has the onus to prove it.
He relied on – Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 and
Jolasun Vs. Bamigboye (2011) All FWLR Part 595 page 203 at 205 page 222 paragraphs A – C and 219 paragraphs F – G.
The learned counsel for the Respondent went further in his submission that there was an oral agreement between the parties in this appeal as well as a written agreement.
?He went further that the Appellant was in breach of both the oral agreement entered into with the Respondent in April 2010 when he could not account for the balance of 15,000 litres of AGO kept in his possession as well as the written agreement dated 8/10/10 when he failed to fulfill his obligation of keeping faith with the instalmental payment of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand Naira) monthly to defray the sum of (N1,550,000.00) One
?7
million, five hundred and fifty thousand Naira being the cost of the 15,000 litres of diesel of the Respondent.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Respondent never breached the agreement i.e. Exhibit “A”.
Learned counsel for the Respondent finally urged this court to resolve Issues 1 and 2 in his favour and dismiss the Appeal.
The learned counsel for the Appellant in his reply brief of argument stated that the claim of the Respondent is as contained on pages 2 and 3 of the Record of Appeal. The claim was dated 18/1/2011. He submitted that the only agreement which is the subject matter of the claim is Exhibit “A”.
?He urged that the issues be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
Claim (a) of the Respondent as set out earlier in this Judgment is for “The sum of (N1,550,000.00) One million, five hundred and fifty thousand Naira only being the balance of money, the value of (AGO) product deposited in the defendant’s underground tank by the Plaintiff which product the Defendant converted to himself without the consent nor approval of the Plaintiff.
(b)
?8
..”
The summary of the evidence of the Respondent i.e. the Claimant at the Lower Court is that he is a businessman and that in April 2010, one Friday Sylvester introduced him to the Defendant as the owner of a filling station known as Dugma Petrol Station located at Sapele Road, Kilometer 20, Benin City. He negotiated with the Defendant to store 30,000 litres of diesel in his underground tank at Sapele Road, Benin City and he agreed, charging him the sum of N110,000. He said he paid the money in two instalments. He said that the 30,000 litres was valued at N3,600,000 as at that time and diesel was N120 per litre in the market. The Claimant said that he evacuated 15,000 litres and left a balance of 15,000 litres in the Defendant’s underground tank.
?When he went to evacuate the balance of 15,000 litres he said that the Defendant had converted the diesel and sold it without his consent. He said that he reported the matter at the office of AIG, Zone 5 Headquarters, Benin City and the Defendant was invited to the
?9
Station. He went further that the Defendant, after pleading with him, undertook to pay him N1, 650,000 instalmentally for the 15,000 litres and he agreed. The undertaking was reduced into writing on 8/12/2010. He stated that the Defendant/Appellant paid a deposit of N100,000.00 on that day leaving a balance of N1,550,000, but that the Appellant have refused to pay him despite demands.
?The summary of part of the evidence of the Respondent showed that there were both oral and written contract between the Respondent and the Appellant.
The evidence of the Appellant at pages 64 – 65 line 25 of the record of appeal supports the above contention where the Appellant under cross-examination stated thus:-
Yes, I know the Claimant i.e. Respondent well. It was 29,000 litres and not 30,000 litres that was delivered to my filling station. No, I did not charge him for depositing in my underground tank. I just told him that he should take care of my boys which he did. He gave them (N20,000.00) Twenty thousand Naira. He told me to assist him because his truck broke down. Yes, the boys are working under me.
?It is my view that the answer of the Appellant
?10
reproduced above constitutes an admission that there was an oral agreement between the Respondent and the Appellant.
The learned trial Judge on page 91 of the Record of Appeal held in his Judgment as follows amongst others:-
I have taken notice of the fact that there was an agreement both oral and written, which have both been admitted. It is my view that since there is an admission there is no need for the Claimant to prove it again.
The question that comes to mind is what constitutes an admission in law? Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition at page 48 defines “Admission” as “A voluntary acknowledgment of the existence of fact relevant to an adversary’s case.” Section 20 of the Evidence Act 2011 defines an admission as a statement, oral or documentary or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the circumstances mentioned in the Act. In Anasan Farms Ltd Vs. NAL MERCHANT BANK (1994) 3 NWLR part 331 page 241 at 252 paragraphs B – C, An admission was defined as “a statement oral or written by a party or his agent to legal proceedings and which statement is adverse
11
to his case. See also the following cases:-
– Ogunnaike Vs. Ojayemi (1987) NWLR part 53 page 760.
– Osunbor Vs. Oshiomole (2009) All FWLR part 463 page 1366 at 1370.
– Osemwingie Vs. Osemwingie (2014) All FWLR part 710 page 1322 at 1324, 1340 – 1341 paragraphs G – A.
The findings of the Lower Court on the fact that there were both oral and written agreement between the Respondent and the Appellant is unassailable.
It has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent breached the agreement between the parties and that the agreement can only be enforced by a party who has performed his obligation under the contract.
But contrary to the above contention, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that it was the Appellant that was in breach of both oral agreement entered into with the Respondent in April 2010 when he could not account for the balance of 15,000 litres of A.G.O. kept in his possession as well as written agreement dated 8/10/2010 when he failed to fulfill his obligation of keeping faith with the instalmental payment of (N200,000.00) Two hundred thousand Naira monthly to defray the sum of
12
(N1,550,000.00) One million, five hundred and fifty thousand Naira being the cost of the 15,000 litres of diesel of the Respondent. And I agree with that submission.
The learned counsel for the Appellant also contended that the Respondent’s obligation was to withdraw the complaint against the Appellant touching and pertaining to the diesel (AGO) at the office of the Assistant Inspector General Zone 5 Benin City.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant was charged to the Federal High Court for adulteration of petroleum product. And the said adulterated product for which the Appellant was charged was never the subject matter of both the oral and written contract between the parties.
I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent because a careful reading of Exhibit “A” on pages 16 – 17 of the record of appeal would reveal that the issue of adulteration of diesel (AGO) was not part of the oral or written contract between the parties and the issue of adulteration of diesel was not in the claim of the Respondent at the Lower Court.
Furthermore, the interpretation that could be
13given to the said Exhibit “A” is that after the Appellant has paid the N1,550,000.00 which is the cost of 15,000 litres of diesel appropriated by the Appellant, the Respondent will then withdraw his letter of complaint from the office of the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 5, Benin City.
Therefore, I am of the view that the Respondent cannot be held responsible for the prosecution of the Appellant for being in possession of adulterated diesel at the Federal High Court. This is because the adulterated diesel for which the Appellant was charged to court was not the subject matter of the contract between the Respondent and the Appellant and the issue was not in the claim before the Lower Court.
It is trite law that courts of law are bound by the prayers or claims sought before them, it cannot grant a prayer not sought. And any such claim or prayer granted without being prayed for by the parties is invalid.
?In view of the foregoing, the learned trial Judge was right to have relied on the claim before the Lower Court.
See – Akinrimisi v. Maersk Nig. Ltd (2014) All FWLR part 713 page 1931 at 1932, 1938 – 1939 paragraphs H – A.
?14In the circumstance, Issues 1 and 2 are hereby resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
ISSUES 3 and 4 (Taken together)
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the evidence of Claimant’s witness No. 1 – Chief M.I. Okpebor whose evidence was not permissible by law.
– Whether the learned trial Judge was right in entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the unreliable evidence of the Respondent before court.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the evidence of Claimant witness No. 1 – Chief M.I. Ukpebor who prepared Exhibit “A” at the instance of the Appellant. He argued that the witness ought to have obtained the express consent of the Appellant before he testified against the Appellant in line with Section 192 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap E. 14 LFN, 2011.
?It was submitted further on behalf of the Appellant that the evidence of the witness did not fall under any of the exceptions in (a) and (b) of Section 192 (1) and
?15
therefore that it is inadmissible. He relied on the case of – Onwubuariri Vs. Igboasoyi (2011) 192 LRCN page 1 of page 10 ratio 7.
On Issue 4, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge misdirected himself and erred in law when he entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the unreliable evidence of both parties before the court.
He relied on the following cases:-
– Omoregie Vs. The State (2009) 171 LRCN page 168 at 173 ratio 6.
– Oguanuhu & others Vs. Chiegbola (2013) 221 LRCN part 2 page 111 at 118 Ratio 50.
?He finally urged this court to uphold the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial court.
The learned counsel for the Respondent in his response submitted that the Lower Court properly evaluated the evidence led before it and it came to the right conclusion when it held that the Respondent has proved his case.
He relied on the following cases:-
– Umoru Vs. Ijumu LGC (2010) NWLR part 1192 page 22.
– Adejola Vs. Bolarinwa (2011) 12 NWLR 12 part 1261 page 380 at 390 – 399 paragraph G – C.
– Woluchem Vs. Gudi (2004) 2 WLR page 20 at 52 – 53.
The
16 learned counsel for the Respondent stated that PW1 acted for both the Appellant and the Respondent in the preparation of Exhibit “A”.
It was submitted further on behalf of the Respondent that the evidence of the Respondent which was not discredited during cross-examination was rightly relied upon by the trial Judge.
He finally urged that Issues 3 and 4 be resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
In his reply brief of argument, the learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it reached the decision appealed against, he urged this court to interfere with the finding of the Lower Court.
He relied on the following cases:-
– Gbileve & another Vs. Adding & another (2014) 1 MJSC part II page 84 at 107 paragraphs F – G.
– Adisa Vs. Oyinwola – Suit No SC/304/91.
The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant is that the learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent based on the evidence of the Claimant witness No. 1 – Chief M.I. Ukpebor.
?It is trite law that evaluation of evidence
17
and ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary function of a court of trial which saw, heard and duly assessed the witnesses.
Where a trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably assesses the facts, the duty of the Court of Appeal is to find out whether there is evidence on record on which the trial court could have acted.
?Once there is sufficient evidence on record from which the trial court arrives at its findings of facts, the Court of Appeal cannot interfere.
See the following cases:-
– Umoru Vs Ijumu (2010) NWLR part 1192 page 22 paragraphs A – E.
– Adejola Vs Bolarinwa (Supra).
– Woluchem Vs Gudi (Supra).
It is on record that PW1 – Chief M.I. Ukpebor acted for both the Appellant and the Respondent. This was confirmed by both the Appellant and the Respondent. The agreement i.e. Exhibit “A” dated 8/10/2010 was prepared for both the Appellant and the Respondent.
The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondent’s witness No. 1 – Chief M.I. Ukpebor is the solicitor to the Appellant and that the said witness testified at the Lower Court without the express
?18
consent of the Appellant and therefore that it is in contravention of Section 192 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Section 192 (1) of the said Evidence Act 2011 provides thus:-
192. – (1) No legal practitioner shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such legal practitioner by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment:
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure –
(a) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose; or
(b) any fact observed by any legal practitioner in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.
(2) It is immaterial whether the attention of such legal practitioner was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of
?19
his client.
(3) The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased.
A careful reading of Section 192(1) (2) and (3) set out above would reveal that what was envisaged by the Section is disclosure of communication to a third party who is not a party to the purported transaction between the legal practitioner and his client.
In this appeal under consideration, it is clear from the evidence that Chief M.I. Ukpebor (i.e – the witness number 1 of the Respondent at the Lower Court) acted for both the Appellant and the Respondent in the preparation and execution of Exhibit “A”. Therefore the said Chief M.I. Ukpebor did not contravene Section 192 of the Evidence Act 2011. His evidence is admissible.
?Another interesting part of this appeal is that the Appellant who said that Chief M.I. Ukpebor was his solicitor and that he did not obtain his express consent before testifying against him i.e. the Appellant in this case suddenly turned around to say
“That Chief M. I. Ukpebor the lawyer who prepared the agreement is also the lawyer to the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) which I am a
20member and not my personal lawyer.”
(See the witness deposition of the Appellant paragraph 8, on page 46 of the record of appeal)
The Appellant was blowing hot and cold at the same time in order to escape liability from both the oral and written contract he had with the Respondent by invoking Section 192 of the Evidence Act 2011.
It is my view that a person like the Appellant who has taken benefit from a contract cannot turn around to evade obligations on bases of a purported illegality. See the following cases: –
– Chidoka & 1 other Vs First City Finance Company Ltd (2013) 5 NWLR part 1346 page 144 at 149.
– Garba Vs. Galadima (1993) 4 NWLR part 285 page 72 at 84 paragraphs B – C.
Consequent upon the foregoing, it is my view that the learned trial Judge properly analysed the testimonies of the parties and their witnesses before entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent.
Issues 3 and 4 are therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
In the result, with the resolution of issues 1, 2, 3, & 4 in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant, it is my view that this appeal
21 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
There shall be (N50,000.00) Fifty thousand Naira costs in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my brother JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.
Having also studied the records and fully digested the briefs of Learned Counsel, I am fully satisfied with the reasoning and final conclusion reached in the lead judgment.
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA. I agree with the lucid reasons therein advanced to arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.
Having also read the Records of Appeal and the Briefs of Argument filed and exchanged by the parties, I equally dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Lower Court in Suit No.B/36/2011 delivered on 28th October 2013 is hereby affirmed. I endorse the orders made in the lead judgment, inclusive of the order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
?APPEARANCES:
MR. G.E
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?For the Appellant
MR EBOSELE OKHIOFOH with him
D.G.KUR ESQ
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? For the Respondent.
?22
Appearances
Mr. G. E. EwahFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Ebosele Okhifoh with him is D. G. Kur Esq.For Respondent
