MR EMMANUEL OCHEDI V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. (2012)

MR EMMANUEL OCHEDI V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.

(2012)LCN/5414(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 25th day of May, 2012

CA/J/218/2009

RATIO

PROCEDURE: NATURE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

A Preliminary Objection generally is an impediment which the court must clear before going into the nitty gritty of the appeal itself. The law is settled that whenever a preliminary objection is properly raised attacking the competence of a ground of appeal or the appeal itself, it should be considered and determined or resolved first by the appellate Court at the preliminary or initial stage before going into the merits of the appeal. See N.N.B. Plc. Vs Imonike (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt.760) 294 and Nigerian Navy Vs Garrick (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.969) 69. PER MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: WHETHER AN ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FROM AN OMNIBUS GROUND OF APPEAL

It is firmly settled that an appeal predicated on Omnibus/general ground is not at large. It cannot be used to raise an issue or issues of law. Such issue of law must be raised as a separate ground of appeal and not an adjunct to the Omnibus/general ground. See Calabar East Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. & 3 Ors. vs. Etime Ikot (1999) 12 S,C.N.J. 321 @ 338. PER MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

APPEAL: WHAT IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

An issue for determination, raised from one or more grounds of appeal, is usually a question or a proposition of law or of facts in dispute between the parties necessary for determination by the Court and the determination of which will normally affect the result of the appeal. See Imonikhe Vs A.G. Bendel State (1992) 7 S.C.N.J. 1…7. PER MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

RELIEF: REQUIREMENT FOR GRANTING DECLARATORY RELIEF

It is settled that a declaratory relief cannot be granted without oral evidence, even where the claim is admitted. See Dumez Nigeria Ltd Vs. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361 @ 376, paragraph A-E, where the Supreme Court held thus:-

“the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that, such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. In other words declarations of rights as sought by the plaintiffs/appellants in his reliefs against the defendant/respondent in the present case cannot be made on admission or in default of pleadings by the defendant, not to talk of reliance on the evidence of the defendant’s witness, See Wallerstainer vs Moir (1974) 3 ALL E.R. 217 @ 251 where Buckey, L.J. said:

“it has always been my experience and I believe it to be a practice of long standihg, that the Court does not make a declaration of right either on admission or in default of pleading but only if the court was satisfied by evidence”

The above statement of the law was adopted and applied by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. See Motunwase Vs Sorungbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt 90) 90 @ 102. PER MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

JUDGMENT: WHEN IS AN ORDER OF NON-SUIT MADE

The order of non-suit is made where there is no satisfactory evidence before the court entitling either the plaintiff or defendant to the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff may bring the same action again thus making the defendant answerable to it once more. An order of dismissal puts an end to the claim while an order for non-suit or striking out keeps the claim alive. See Ogbechie Vs Onochie (1988) 1 NWLR 370 @ 395, a non- suit is a final decision which decides that none of the parties won but preserve the plaintiff’s right of another action on the same subject matter and the same issues. To this extent non-suit is in the plaintiff’s favour. See Okpala & Ors. vs. Ibeme & Ors. (1989) 1 NSCC 567 @ 577.

The power to order a non-suit must be statutorily conferred on the courts by the rules. See Omoregbe vs Lawani (1980) 3 – 4 S.C. 108. In the Benue State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007, Order 34 Rule 1 provides for an order of non-suit.

“It is the law that a non-suit order should not be made unless two elements are present in the aborted trial, namely:

(a) It must appear on the record of the case taken as a whole that the plaintiff has not failed in toto,

and,

(b) That in any case, the defendant would not be entitled to the judgment of the court”

From the above guiding principles, a non-suit may be appropriate where there is no satisfactory evidence enabling the court to give judgment to either of the parties and wronging neither. See Adeyola Vs Akinsan (1939) 15 NLR 10. In Chief Dada Vs Ogunremi (1967) NMLR 181, the Apex Court held:

“where neither of the parties before the court is entitled to judgment, the court is entitled to enter a non-suit instead of dismissal”

The decision to non suit necessarily involves consideration of the evidence adduced, its assessment and evaluation in order to determine whether it is just to Order non-suit than dismiss the action. See Omoregbe Vs Lawani (supra)

The power to order non-suit should be carefully and very sparingly used, otherwise, the Court will create a situation where there no longer can be any finality to litigation.

For a non-suit to be ordered on appeal, the appellant’s complaints against the judgment of the lower court must have been first upheld, See Dawodu Vs Gumez (1947) 13 WACA 151 @ 152. PER MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MR EMMANUEL OCHEDI Appellant(s)

AND

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. Respondent(s)

MOHAMMED LADAN TSAMIYA, J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice, (herein referred to as the Trial Court) sitting in Makurdi, the capital of Benue State, dismissing the claim of the plaintiff (herein referred to as the appellant) in favour of the defendant (herein referred to as the respondent) on 14/01/2009.
The brief facts of the matter according to the statement of claim is that, the appellant was employed by the respondent in May, 1989 and eventually rose to the rank of officer (ii), until sometime on 30th August, 2005 when he was invited by the police for investigation on an alleged fraud at the Makurdi Branch of the respondent. The appellant was promptly suspended from work without pay contrary.
In the course of investigation, one Audu Adah (the cashier of Makurdi Local Government Pensions Board) confessed to embezzling N3.3 Million. Further sums were recovered from the two other staff of the respondent Bank and returned the sum to the said pension Board.
There after these other staff were released by the police while the appellant remained in detention till 03/04/2006. Notwithstanding that the police had concluded investigations and exonerated allegedly the appellant, respondent, the bank did not lift the suspension nor release his car, neither was he permitted to operate his account with the respondent Bank. All his written complaints to the branch manager of the respondent’s bank or the Head office to do so failed and hence the appellant filed this action on 20/08/2007, wherein, some reliefs were claimed as per paragraph 28 of the statement of claim on pages 3 – 8 of the record.
It should be noted that after serving the respondent Bank with the writs and the statement of claim, the respondent Bank did not file any statement of defence. In accordance with the rules of the trial Court, the appellant was told before judgment in his favour that he must prove that he is entitled to judgment on the pleaded fact. After trial, owing to the Appellants’ failure to prove his case, the trial Court dismissed the suit.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant on 26/02/2009 filed his appeal on two (2) grounds of appeal as contained on pages 68 – 70 of the record. In accordance with the Rules of this Court both counsel to the parties filed their respective briefs, The appellant filed his appellant’s brief on 07/10/2009 while the respondent’s brief was filed on 09/11/2009 after receiving the appellant’s brief,
On 23/04/2012 when this appeal came up for hearing the respondent drew the attention of this court to his Preliminary Objection raised. His argument on the objection is at pages 6 – 7 of his brief, He adopted and relied on same and urged this court to uphold it.
The appellant’s attention thereafter was drawn to the Preliminary Objection which he stated that he was aware but does not reply and in fact did not reply. On the substantive appeal, the appellant filed his brief which contained two issues for determination while the respondent formulated one issue and adopted the appellant’s second issue. Both Counsel adopted and relied upon their respective arguments to be their respective submissions.
The Preliminary Objection is to the competence of ground (1) of the appellant’s ground of appeal, and the respondent urged this Court to strike out the said ground. The contents of the Preliminary Objection as stated at pages 6 – 7 of the brief are as follows:
Ground 1: That this ground of appeal is incompetent and incurably defective. He contended that this ground complained about ought to be omnibus ground but couched in a manner that violates the mandatory provisions of Order 6(3) of this Court Rules.
Ground 2: that being an issue of law it cannot be argued under the omnibus ground of appeal when such issues of law ought to have been raised as a separate ground of appeal, he refers us to the particular of Error which states that.
“The decision of the court is against the weight of the evidence”
In his argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent referred us to the case of Federal Ministry of Health & Anor Vs Comet Shipping Agencies Ltd (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.483) 1260 @ 1263 and 1272, and the case of Aderibigbe & Anor vs. Abidoye (2009) 4 SCNJ 259 2 262 & 279. On the whole, the learned counsel submitted that any ground of appeal or any part thereof not permitted under the Rules of this Court and the Law, stands to be struck out, He urged this Court to strike out this ground of appeal.
On his part the appellant did not bother to reply the objection for reason best known to him. A Preliminary Objection generally is an impediment which the court must clear before going into the nitty gritty of the appeal itself. The law is settled that whenever a preliminary objection is properly raised attacking the competence of a ground of appeal or the appeal itself, it should be considered and determined or resolved first by the appellate Court at the preliminary or initial stage before going into the merits of the appeal. See N.N.B. Plc. Vs Imonike (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt.760) 294 and Nigerian Navy Vs Garrick (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.969) 69.

In the instant appeal the respondent’s objection relates to the competence of the appellant’s grounds No.1 as contained in the Notice of appeal which according to respondent is contrary to Order 6(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007. A cursory reference is essential to be made to ground 1.
Specifically, ground 1 is a complaint “that the decision of the Court is against the weight of evidence”
The particulars read:-
a. The suit of the appellant was not defended by the respondent and the averments in the plaintiff’s statement of claim were not challenged or traversed.
b. The sworn statement of the plaintiff was in agreement with the statement of claim upon which the plaintiff applied in accordance with the Rules applicable in Benue State High Court for judgment.
c. Both the statement of claim and the facts contained in the sworn deposition of the plaintiff were verified by the affidavit in support of the motion for judgment.
d. The Honourable Court however in the light of the unchallenged averments of the plaintiff, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Truly, Ground No.1 was framed and concluded in an Omnibus/General ground of appeal, because it complains that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. Consequently, it is an attack on the finding of facts and involves questions of examination of facts. By it, this Court is invited to examine and determine on what Grounds of facts, apart from miss-direction, the judgment appealed against can be supported. See Finnih Vs Imade (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.–) 511 @ 543. It also implies that there is no evidence which if accepted would support the finding of the trial judge. See Ogbode Vs Actelugba (1971)1 ALL N LR. 86 @ 71 and Alogaii & Ors Vs Odofin & Ors (1978) 4 S.C. 91 @ 93.
The complaint, questions the appraisal and evaluation of all the evidence adduced and not the weight to be attached to any particular piece of evidence. It was once the law, that an appellant who called no evidence at the hearing which was the subject of the appeal could not avail himself of this general ground of appeal. See Odufunack v. Rossek (1962) 1 ALL NLR 98.
For what I said, I am of the view that ground No1 of the appellant’s grounds of appeal is couched in an Omnibus/general manner. By the appellants’ brief, the appellant’s issue raised from it reads! “Whether the plaintiff/appellant proved his case on the balance of probability as to entitle him to judgment”
With this issue in view, the respondent contended that it is an issue of law raised from the above Omnibus/general ground of appeal. It is firmly settled that an appeal predicated on Omnibus/general ground is not at large. It cannot be used to raise an issue or issues of law. Such issue of law must be raised as a separate ground of appeal and not an adjunct to the Omnibus/general ground. See Calabar East Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. & 3 Ors. vs. Etime Ikot (1999) 12 S,C.N.J. 321 @ 338.

Applying the definition of the word “issue” for determination in the appeal, issue no 1 raised by the appellant in his brief of argument, in my view, cannot be said to be on law rather it is on fact, because it raises the question as to whether his version of facts should not be more parables than his opponent’s. The preliminary objection, in my view lacks merit and is over-ruled and discountenanced.
Having over-ruled the preliminary objection, I now consider the appeal on its merit, In doing so, I have read and compared the issues formulated by the parties as quoted above and also have resolved to examine, consider and determine this appeal on the issues formulated by the appellant which I believe to be more apt and apposite.

ISSUE NO.1: The question here is whether the appellant proved his case on the balance of probability as to entitle him to judgment. This issue is distilled from ground No1 of the appellants’ grounds of appeal. On his argument as contained in the brief of argument, the appellant contended that, on the basis of the materials before the trial Court, judgment ought to have been entered in terms of the appellant’s claim. He itemised the materials before the trial Court as, statement of claim which was affirmed on Oath by the appellant himself, to be the appellants’ statement on Oath. This statement has been supported by 10 annexure all detailing the facts of this case.
Another document before the trial Court was the motion for judgment in default of defence which motion was accompanied by the appellant’s written address. The defence has not filed any defence. Considering these documents before the trial Court, in the appellant’s view, he discharged the onus of proof. He relied on some legal authorities to support his contention that the judgment ought to have been given having discharged his claims on minimum of proof. He urges this Court to resolve this issue in his favour.
The respondent held a contrary view by contending that, within the circumstances of this case, and having regards to the reliefs claimed, appellant does not merit judgment not withstanding that no defence came from the respondent. He relied on some cases including Maftchem Industries Nigeria Ltd Vs M.F. Kent West African Ltd (2005) 5 S.C.N.J. 235 @ 237 and 243.
The respondent also contended that the appellant’s claims being declaratory reliefs, such can only be awarded upon proof by the plaintiff (appellant in this case) but not even on admission of the defendant. Among the cases relied herein, are the cases of Dumez Nigeria Ltd Vs Nnakhobo & Ors (2009) All FWLR (Pt.461) 842 @ 845 – 846 and 850. It was further contended that the evidence forwarded by the appellant before the trial was not good enough to warrant the judgment in favour of the appellant.

ISSUE NO:2: The question here is whether the trial court should not have entered non-suit for the appellant rather than dismiss the suit.
In his argument, appellant contended that the trial court ought to have entered non-suit, instead of dismissing his action, He further contended that in the circumstance of this case the trial Court was wrong in its decision.
He finally urged this court to allow the appeal and remit the case for re-trial before another judge.
The response of the respondent is that the appellant’s case was dismissed because he failed to prove it according to law, and re-trial order in this circumstance is in-appropriate.
He finally urged this court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the trial court.
The above is the brief submissions of the parties in this appeal.
From the record of proceedings, the appellant, as plaintiff before the trial Court, claims as per paragraph 28 of his statement of claim, the following reliefs:-
1. Declaration that his indefinite suspension without pay for an allegation he has been cleared of is wrong and is contrary to the terms of his contract (collective agreement) with the respondent.
2. An order directing the respondent to lift its suspension on him (the appellant) forthwith and to pay to him all his salaries and entitlement with effect from the date of his suspension,
3. Declaration that the freezing of his (appellant) account and seizure of his car for about one year by the respondent without just-cause is wrong and is in breach of the appellant’s right and occasioned injuries to his person.
4. An order directing the respondent to de-freeze the appellant’s account and render to him a comprehensive statements of account forthwith.
5. General damages of N50,000.00 for injuries, embarrassment and harassment caused to the appellant by the action of the respondent.
6. Costs of prosecuting this suit,
From the above reliefs sought by the appellant, reliefs 1 and 3 are declaratory while reliefs 2, 4, 5 and 6 are consequential orders which are dependent upon grant of prayers 1 and 3. It is settled that a declaratory relief cannot be granted without oral evidence, even where the claim is admitted. See Dumez Nigeria Ltd Vs. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361 @ 376, paragraph A-E, where the Supreme Court held thus:-
“the burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the Court is quite heavy in the sense that, such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence. In other words declarations of rights as sought by the plaintiffs/appellants in his reliefs against the defendant/respondent in the present case cannot be made on admission or in default of pleadings by the defendant, not to talk of reliance on the evidence of the defendant’s witness, See Wallerstainer vs Moir (1974) 3 ALL E.R. 217 @ 251 where Buckey, L.J. said:
“it has always been my experience and I believe it to be a practice of long standihg, that the Court does not make a declaration of right either on admission or in default of pleading but only if the court was satisfied by evidence”
The above statement of the law was adopted and applied by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. See Motunwase Vs Sorungbe (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt 90) 90 @ 102.

Thus in order to prove his claim in paragraph 28(1) and (3) of his statement of claim, the appellant must lead oral evidence in support of his pleadings.
However, I would like to point out that the High Court of Benue State (civil procedure) Rules 2007 illustrate the new approach to civil Procedure,
The rules introduce inter-alia, the concept of front-loading and pre-trial conference for the purpose of achieving a just, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice, See Order 1 Rule 1 (2).
In Order 2 Rule 2(1) and (2) it is provided that:
“2(1) All civil proceedings commenced by writ of Summons shall be accompanied by:-
a. Statement of claim,
b. List of witnesses to be called at the trial.
c. Written statements on Oath of the witnesses,
and
d. Copies of every document to be relied upon at the trial.
(2) when a plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 2 (1) above, his originating process shall not be accepted for filing by the registry”
By Order 17 Rule 1 it is provided that:
“The statement of defence shall be a statement in summary, form and shall be accompanied by copies of documentary evidence, list of witnesses and their written statements on Oaths.”
In Order 32 Rule 1 it is stated that;
“Subject to these rules and to any enactment relation to evidence any fact required to be proved at the trial of any action shall be proved by written disposition and oral examination of witnesses in open court.”
(2) All agreed documents or other exhibits shall be tendered from bar or by the party where he is not represented by a legal practitioner.
(3) the oral examination of a witness during his evidence-in-chief shall be limited to confirming his written deposition and tendering in evidence all disputed documents or other exhibits referred to in the deposition,
(4) Real evidence shall be tendered during the trial (italics mine for emphasis).
The above provisions to be noted are clear and unambiguous and by the rules of interpretation, must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. That order 1 Rule 2(2) mentioned above underscores the importance of the new provisions. It provides that where a party desires to prove any fact, he shall be put in the witness box to confirm and adopt his written deposition and to tender any disputed documents.
In the present case, I examined the record of appeal and I am not able to see where this provision of Rule 2(2) of Order 1 (supra) was complied with, by the appellant. In short, no where in the record that the appellant confirmed and adopted his written deposition or statement of claim. It is only when that has been done that the written deposition/statement of claim, becomes the appellant’s evidence -in- chief in the case. The fact that he did so, does not mean that he was being called upon to repeat the averments therein, but merely to identify the statement/deposition and adopt it as his evidence in the case. After adopting his statement, the opposing party has the option either to cross-examine him (witness) if he so desires or decline to do so. It is important to appreciate that the purpose of the new civil procedure rules is not to dispense with oral evidence entirely but to expedite the process of giving evidence -in- chief, which in the past was often a mere rehash of pleadings. Under the new procedure, instead of repeating the pleadings on Oath, a witness merely adopts his sworn deposition, This significantly speeds up trial, as valuable time is saved and the adverse party who is already seised of the evidence -in- chief can prepare questions for cross-examination in advance. The law is that pleadings do not constitute evidence. See Newbreed Org Ltd vs Erhomosele (2006) 5 NWLR (974) 499 @ 545 paragraphs C – E.

Having stated the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not adopt his statement on oath to be his evidence in proof of the claim before the trial court and his failure to do so meant that he proffered no evidence in support of his claim for declaratory reliefs. Accordingly, this issue is resolved against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

ISSUE NO:2 This takes me to the next issue which is issue no:2 Under this issue the appellant was contending that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court ought to have ordered a non-suit instead of dismissing the suit but the respondent was contending that the appellant has not made out any case justifying an order of non-suit or re-trial within the circumstances of this case.
Normally, a judgment is either given for the plaintiff or for the defendant. In the former case, the court grants the plaintiff’s claim while in the latter, that claim is dismissed. In addition to these two forms of judgment, there is also a third one known as an order of non-suit. By that order, the plaintiff’s claim is neither allowed nor dismissed. The order of non-suit is made where there is no satisfactory evidence before the court entitling either the plaintiff or defendant to the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff may bring the same action again thus making the defendant answerable to it once more. An order of dismissal puts an end to the claim while an order for non-suit or striking out keeps the claim alive. See Ogbechie Vs Onochie (1988) 1 NWLR 370 @ 395, a non- suit is a final decision which decides that none of the parties won but preserve the plaintiff’s right of another action on the same subject matter and the same issues. To this extent non-suit is in the plaintiff’s favour. See Okpala & Ors. vs. Ibeme & Ors. (1989) 1 NSCC 567 @ 577.

The power to order a non-suit must be statutorily conferred on the courts by the rules. See Omoregbe vs
Lawani (1980) 3 – 4 S.C. 108. In the Benue State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007, Order 34 Rule 1 provides for an order of non-suit.

The choice for Order of non-suit, to be noted, is discretionary, which must, however, be exercised judiciously. But some of the guiding principles are discernible from the following judicial pronouncements in the case of African Continental Bank Vs Yesufu (1980) 1 – 2 S.C. 49. Per Irikefe (J.S.C.) (as he then was):
“It is the law that a non-suit order should not be made unless two elements are present in the aborted trial, namely:
(a) It must appear on the record of the case taken as a whole that the plaintiff has not failed in toto,
and,
(b) That in any case, the defendant would not be entitled to the judgment of the court”
From the above guiding principles, a non-suit may be appropriate where there is no satisfactory evidence enabling the court to give judgment to either of the parties and wronging neither. See Adeyola Vs Akinsan (1939) 15 NLR 10. In Chief Dada Vs Ogunremi (1967) NMLR 181, the Apex Court held:
“where neither of the parties before the court is entitled to judgment, the court is entitled to enter a non-suit instead of dismissal”

It is important to note that an order of non-suit cannot be made where the plaintiff has failed to establish the case put forward in his pleadings, in such a situation the proper order is that of dismissal. See Egonu Vs Egonu (1978) 11 – 12 S.C. 111. A non-suit also should not be made only for the purpose of allowing a plaintiff who had failed to prove his case to have another opportunity of doing so. See Mandilas Karaberis Vs Oridota (1972) 2 S.C. 47.
The decision to non suit necessarily involves consideration of the evidence adduced, its assessment and evaluation in order to determine whether it is just to Order non-suit than dismiss the action. See Omoregbe Vs Lawani (supra)
The power to order non-suit should be carefully and very sparingly used, otherwise, the Court will create a situation where there no longer can be any finality to litigation.
For a non-suit to be ordered on appeal, the appellant’s complaints against the judgment of the lower court must have been first upheld, See Dawodu Vs Gumez (1947) 13 WACA 151 @ 152.

Having discussed what a non-suit is, when it may be ordered and its effect, the question now is, can this court at this stage order for a non-suit? My answer is in the negative for the simple reason that for a non-suit to be ordered at this stage of the appeal the appellant’s complaint against the judgment appealed against must be upheld and in this appeal the appellant’s complaint against the judgment failed.
For what I have stated above, this Issue No:2 therefore is resolved in favour of the respondent, and against the appellant.
In the final analysis, and for resolving all the two issues in favour of the respondent and against the appellant, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the appellant’s suit No: MHC/223/2007 on 26/02/2009 is affirmed. No costs ordered.

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I agree.

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I have read before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Mohammed Ladan Tsamiya, JCA. I agree that this appeal ought to be dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.
The judgment of the trial court, dismissing the appellant’s suit No. MHC/223/2007 on 26/02/2009 is hereby affirmed.
I abide by the order as to cost.

Appearances

Godswill N. Iwuajoku (Esq.)For Appellant

AND

C.O. Alechenu (Esq),
E.R. Terngu (Mrs)For Respondent