MR MIKE NNACHI V. SIR CYRIL ONUORAH & ANOR (2011)

MR MIKE NNACHI V. SIR CYRIL ONUORAH & ANOR

(2011)LCN/4260(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 27th day of January, 2011

CA/A/275/2008

RATIO

FORMULATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL: POSITION OF THE ON THE CONTENT OF A VALID GROUND OF APPEAL

In the case of ABUBAKAR V. WAZIRI (2008) 35 NSCQR 333 at 373, it was held that a ground of appeal should consist of an error in law or fact alleged by the Appellant on the basis of which he challenges a decision and relies on to urge the appellate court to set aside the decision appealed against. In other words, a ground of appeal is to contain the attack or challenge against the ratio of the decision appealed against showing clearly the defect by way of an error either in law or facts relied on by an appellant. That is the requirement of order 6, Rules 2(2) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007. In law, the position is that simply and merely quoting, repeating and setting out passages or portions of judgment as a ground of appeal in a notice of appeal has been held not to comply with the provisions of order 3, Rules 2(2) and 3 of the court of Appeal Rules, 1982, which are in pari material with order 6, Rules 2(2) and 3 of the court of Appeal Rules, 2007. See: ALADE V. OGUNDOKUN (1992) 5 NWLR (239) 42 at 52, AMADIJEOGU V. ONONAKU (1988) 2 NWLR (78) 614, ANYAOKE V. AD (1986) 3 NWLR (31) 731. A passage, extract or portion of a judgment would not contain a complaint, attack or challenge to the ratio decidendi of a decision but rather a restatement of the decision in general terms without distinctly alleging any specific error or misdirection by the trial court. Such a style or manner of draft setting out grounds of appeal is vague and in complete disregard of the Rules of court on the formulation or drafting of the grounds of appeal thereby rending such extracts or passages of the judgment as invalid and incompetent grounds. PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

RULES OF COURT: PURPOSE OF THE RULES OF THE COURT

The law is settled that the Rules of Court bind both the Court and more especially the parties in the preparation of processes to be filed in the Court. The Rules of Court are not intended or made to merely adorn the pages on which they were printed and to decorate the shelves or libraries of the Court, but meant to be complied with since they regulate the practice and procedure in the exercise of the Court’s powers and jurisdiction over matters that come before them. Because our courts are courts of law, their powers and jurisdiction conferred by the law should or must be exercised in compliance or adherence with the rules of practice and procedure provided by or pursuant to the law. The primary duty of the courts is to do justice in cases that come before them, in accordance with the Rules of the court provided to guide the procedure for the attainment of such justice which is to be justice according to the law applied to the peculiarities of a given case. Aniagolu, JSC in the case of BAKARE v. APENA (1986) 6 SC 467 at 468 had beautifully and succinctly stated that position when he held that:- “A judge will not adopt a method of adjudication alien to procedural rules of justice, upon a plea that he is actuated by the noblest of intention and an impassionate zeal, for justice, which propels him into bizarre methods of arriving at justice, holding as it were, as a justifying Machiavellian principle, that the end justifies the means. The court as the last resort will indeed do justice by the procedure laid down by law and the Constitution. The moment s court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and the procedure laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular court to become a Kangaroo court.” Very recently, the Supreme Court had in the case of OWNERS v. INSURANCE (2008) 5 SCNJ, 109 restated the law that the parties who approach the court by the invocation of their statutory jurisdiction are bound by and to comply with the Rules of Court provided for by the statutes. This is what the apex Court said:- “Rules of Court ore not mere rules but they partake of the nature of the subsidiary legislations by virtue of section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act and therefore have the force of law. Rules of Court must be obeyed. This is because when there is non-compliance with the Rules of Court, the Court should not remain passive and helpless. There must be sanction, otherwise, the purpose of the rules will be defeated Rules of Court are not only meant to be obeyed, they are also binding on all the parties before the Court.” PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE : WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER EVERY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE IT ON THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE ARRIVING AT ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THEM IN A CASE

…the general principle of law that it is the duty of a trial court to consider by way of evaluation or assessment, every material evidence adduced before it on the issues in controversy between the parties before arriving at its findings and conclusions on them in a case. The decision of a court of law is supposed to be entirely based or predicated on the totality of the relevant evidence placed before it in proof of the facts relied on by the parties in a case. See: IZUAGIE v. AMUDA (2006) ALL FWLR (294) 493. UNICAL v. ESSIEN (1996) 10 NWLR (477) 255.
UBN v. EDAMKUE (2004) 4 NWLR (864) 221. PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

DUTY OF THE COURT: WHETHER A COURT IS PERMITTED TO PICK ONLY EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS OR VINDICATES ONE OF THE PARTIES AND IGNORED OR FAILED TO CONSIDER OR TAKE IN TO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE IT BY ALL THE PARTIES

Except in situations permitted by law, a court cannot pick and choose portions of a piece of evidence and ignore others. In particular, the court cannot consider the evidence in chief of a witness and refuse to consider or ignore the evidence of the same witness given under cross examination. In addition, a court is not permitted to pick only evidence that supports or vindicates the claimant’s case while dumping that favourable to the defendant. In ODI v. IYALA (2004) 4 SC (1) 20 at 34 Tobi, JSC had stated the law thus:- “A trial Judge, in the judicial process, in his role which is generally likened to the unbiased umpire, is not entitled to pick only evidence that vindicates the case of the plaintiff and dump the evidence that is favourable to the defendant. A trial Judge has the duty to place the evidence in the imaginary scale of justice and see where the pendulum tilts in the measuring process.” Where it is demonstrated that a court in arriving at its decision used, considered and relied on the evidence favourable to one of the parties and ignored or failed to consider or take in to account the totality of the evidence placed before it by all the parties, such a decision would not do justice according to law but cloistered justice by a court that had descended into the arena and taken side in the legal contest. Such a decision would not be on the merit of the cases presented by the parties but on the whims and caprices of the Judge which defies the known principles of the practice and procedure provided by the law. It is the duty of an appellate court to interfere with such a decision and set it aside. PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

MR MIKE NNACHI Appellant(s)

AND

1. SIR CYRIL ONUORAH
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, FCT Respondent(s)

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff had taken out a writ of summons from the Registry of the FCT High Court, (to be called High Court after now) against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent on which were endorsed, the following claims:-
“(a) The sum of N1 million Naira for unlawful arrest, defamation of character and false imprisonment.
(b) An unreserved letter of apology to him and copied to the following:
i. Knight of St John International Commandry 472 und 507.
ii. Police officers Mess Abuja.
iii. Igbo Traditional Council Yola and Abuja-
(c) The sum of N150,000 being legal fees for the prosecution of this suit.”
The above claims were repeated at paragraph 29 of the statement of claim (s/claim) at pages 9-10 of the record of appeal.
After the service of the above processes on the Appellant, he caused a statement of defence to the claims by the 1st Respondent to be filed on the 2/3/02.
Though the record of the appeal indicate that the 2nd Respondent was duly served with all the processes of the case before the High Court, the record does not show that the 2nd Respondent had filed any process or appeared or was represented throughout the trial.
The 1st Respondent testified in support of his claims and also called two (2) other witnesses after whose evidence his case was closed.
The Appellant elected to make a no case submission and not to call evidence in support of the defence filed. Eventually after a consideration of the written addresses on the no case submission and the evidence called by the 1st Respondent, the High court decided in the judgment appealed against, that a case had been made out against the Appellant and awarded damages against him and the 2nd Respondent jointly and severally. The Appellant was in addition ordered in the said judgment delivered on 26/1/07, to write a letter of apology to the 1st Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the decision, a notice of appeal containing six (6) grounds was filed on the 1/2/07 for the Appellant to challenge it in this Court. It is expedient that I set out the grounds of the appeal without their respective particulars and they are as follows:-
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL
(1) The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
(2) The learned trial judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“In addition to what I stated above, it is also clear from the evidence of PW1 that the defamatory words were published to the 3rd party in this case the PW2 and the policemen. This piece of evidence was neither challenged nor contradicted by the defendants. In the circumstance, I hold the view that the 1st defendant defamed the plaintiff.”
(3) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that:-
“From the evidence before the Court, it was the 1st defendant that brought police to arrest the plaintiff on the allegation of kidnapping of the 1st defendant’s child and the information given to the police by the 1st defendant turned out to be false as no thug was seen in the plaintiff s house and the child alleged to have been kidnapped by the plaintiff was seen in Enugu with officers of the 2nd defendant together with her mother. As rightly pointed out by the learned plaintiffs counsel where the information given to the police is false as in this case, the person making the report would be liable.”
(4) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that:-
“Taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the opinion that an award of N500,000 damages is a fair award. In the circumstance, judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally id the sum of N500, 000 damages.”
(5) The learned trial Judge erred in law by failing to consider the answers obtained from the cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW1 which it considered would have defeated his claim.
(6) The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:-
“In addition to that I order the defendants to write a letter of apology to the plaintiff within 7 days from the date of this judgment.”
In line with the requirements of the Rules of Court, learned Counsel for the parties to the appeal filed briefs of argument in support of their respective positions in the appeal. The Appellant’s brief settled by Dr. J.Y. Musa, was filed on 26/9/08 and that of the 1st Respondent was filed on the 3/11/09 but deemed on the 11/3/10 when the application for enlargement of time to file it was granted by the court. There is no record that the 2nd Respondent had filed a brief of argument in the appeal though served with all the relevant processes thereof.
On the 13/12/10 when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Appellant and the 1st Respondent adopted the aforementioned briefs of argument as their submissions in the appeal. There was no appearance for the 2nd Respondent who was duly served with a hearing notice of the appeal on that day.
Before I delve into a review of the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel in their respective briefs of argument, I have observed that the grounds of appeal 2, 3, 4 and 6 set out above are mere extracts or quotations of portions of the judgment of the High court appealed against.

Perhaps I should point out that even though the competence of the grounds was raised by the Court, the need to invite address from the learned Counsel on the issue would be unnecessary in view of the position of the Rules of Court and the judicial authorities cited above.

The law is settled that the Rules of Court bind both the Court and more especially the parties in the preparation of processes to be filed in the Court. The Rules of Court are not intended or made to merely adorn the pages on which they were printed and to decorate the shelves or libraries of the Court, but meant to be complied with since they regulate the practice and procedure in the exercise of the Court’s powers and jurisdiction over matters that come before them.
Because our courts are courts of law, their powers and jurisdiction conferred by the law should or must be exercised in compliance or adherence with the rules of practice and procedure provided by or pursuant to the law.The primary duty of the courts is to do justice in cases that come before them, in accordance with the Rules of the court provided to guide the procedure for the attainment of such justice which is to be justice according to the law applied to the peculiarities of a given case. Aniagolu, JSC in the case of BAKARE v. APENA (1986) 6 SC 467 at 468 had beautifully and succinctly stated that position when he held that:-
“A judge will not adopt a method of adjudication alien to procedural rules of justice, upon a plea that he is actuated by the noblest of intention and an impassionate zeal, for justice, which propels him into bizarre methods of arriving at justice, holding as it were, as a justifying Machiavellian principle, that the end justifies the means. The court as the last resort will indeed do justice by the procedure laid down by law and the Constitution. The moment s court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and the procedure laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular court to become a Kangaroo court.”
Very recently, the Supreme Court had in the case of OWNERS v. INSURANCE (2008) 5 SCNJ, 109 restated the law that the parties who approach the court by the invocation of their statutory jurisdiction are bound by and to comply with the Rules of Court provided for by the statutes. This is what the apex Court said:-
“Rules of Court ore not mere rules but they partake of the nature of the subsidiary legislations by virtue of section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act and therefore have the force of law. Rules of Court must be obeyed. This is because when there is non-compliance with the Rules of Court, the Court should not remain passive and helpless. There must be sanction, otherwise, the purpose of the rules will be defeated Rules of Court are not only meant to be obeyed, they are also binding on all the parties before the Court.”

For the above reasons, the grounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Appellant’s notice of appeal for non-compliance with Order 6, Rules 2(2) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007, are incompetent and invalid grounds of appeal. They are struck out. As a consequence, the issues distilled from the said incompetent grounds; i.e. Issues (a), (b), (c) and (e) have been infested by the terminal defect of incompetence and so are rendered incompetent. See: JOHN HOLT VENTURES V. OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (470) 101, OGUNDIPE V. ADENUGA (2006) ALL FWLR (336) 226. The arguments on the issues contained in the Appellant’s brief on the incompetent issues would receive no further attention in the determination of the appeal henceforth.
With grounds 2, 3, 4 and 6 on the notice of appeal gone, grounds 1 and 5 are now left along with the issues (d) and (f) distilled from them.
The appeal would now be decided on those grounds and issues.
The issues (d) and (f) formulated from grounds 1 and 5 by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are as follows:-
“(d) Whether the learned trial Judge could omit/refuse to consider the evidence elicited from the Plaintiff and his witnesses under cross examination which cast doubt on the Plaintiff’s case simply because the defendants called no evidence.
(f) Whether, from the totality of evidence adduced by the Plaintiff he was entitled to the judgment as given by the learned trial Judge.”
The submissions by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on his issue (d) is that the High Court had ignored the evidence elicited from the Respondent’s witnesses under cross examination and that if that court had adverted its mind to that evidence, particularly from the 1st Respondent, it would not have reached the decision appealed against. He said a court of law cannot select between evidence in chief and cross examination, rely on one part and ignore the other but consider it as a whole.
His submissions on the issue (f) or (vi) as set out in the brief are that the 1st Respondent was not entitled to any of the reliefs from the totality of evidence adduced by him at the trial. Learned counsel said that whether or not the Appellant called evidence was inconsequential if the 1st Respondent did not prove his case as he had nothing to defend relying on the statement of Uwaifo, JSC in the case of JOLAYEMI v. ALAOT (2004) ALL FWLR (217) 584 at 610.
All the issues formulated in the Appellant’s brief were adopted and repeated in the 1st Respondent’s brief as the ones calling for determination in the appeal and so would review the 1st Respondent’s arguments on the above two issues left live for decision.
For the 1st Respondent, it was submitted on Issue (d) that the High Court had considered the totality of the evidence before arriving at it decision and that where there has been a proper appraisal of evidence by a trial Court, this Court ought not to embark on fresh appraisal in order to merely arrive at a different conclusion. The cases of OWIE v. IGHIWI (2005) 5 NWLR (917) 198 and NWANKPU v. EWULU (1995) 7 NWLR (407) 296 were cited as authorities for the position.
On the issue (f) or 6 as indicated in the brief, it was the submission by the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that from the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, the 1st Respondent had proved his case on preponderance of evidence which was not challenged nor controverted in any material particular by the Appellant. He said the law is settled that where a party rest his case on that of the other by electing not to call evidence, he is bound by the evidence adduced as it stands, placing reliance on MOBIL PROD. (NIG.) UNLIMITED V. MONOKPO (2003) 8 NWLR (852) 358-9 and NEPA v. OLAGUNJU (2005) NWLR (913) 613 – 14.
I would say as a restatement of the general principle of law that it is the duty of a trial court to consider by way of evaluation or assessment, every material evidence adduced before it on the issues in controversy between the parties before arriving at its findings and conclusions on them in a case. The decision of a court of law is supposed to be entirely based or predicated on the totality of the relevant evidence placed before it in proof of the facts relied on by the parties in a case. See:
IZUAGIE v. AMUDA (2006) ALL FWLR (294) 493.
UNICAL v. ESSIEN (1996) 10 NWLR (477) 255.
UBN v. EDAMKUE (2004) 4 NWLR (864) 221.

Except in situations permitted by law, a court cannot pick and choose portions of a piece of evidence and ignore others. In particular, the court cannot consider the evidence in chief of a witness and refuse to consider or ignore the evidence of the same witness given under cross examination. In addition, a court is not permitted to pick only evidence that supports or vindicates the claimant’s case while dumping that favourable to the defendant. In ODI v. IYALA (2004) 4 SC (1) 20 at 34 Tobi, JSC had stated the law thus:-
“A trial Judge, in the judicial process, in his role which is generally likened to the unbiased umpire, is not entitled to pick only evidence that vindicates the case of the plaintiff and dump the evidence that is favourable to the defendant. A trial Judge has the duty to place the evidence in the imaginary scale of justice and see where the pendulum tilts in the measuring process.”
Where it is demonstrated that a court in arriving at its decision used, considered and relied on the evidence favourable to one of the parties and ignored or failed to consider or take in to account the totality of the evidence placed before it by all the parties, such a decision would not do justice according to law but cloistered justice by a court that had descended into the arena and taken side in the legal contest. Such a decision would not be on the merit of the cases presented by the parties but on the whims and caprices of the Judge which defies the known principles of the practice and procedure provided by the law.It is the duty of an appellate court to interfere with such a decision and set it aside.

In this appeal, has the learned Counsel for the Appellant shown that the High Court omitted or refused to consider the evidence elicited from the 1st Respondent under cross examination in arriving at the decision appealed against?
The learned Counsel had not specifically identified and referred to the evidence given by the 1st Respondent under cross examination which would have made the High Court not to have reached the conclusion that the Appellant had proved his claims. It is not enough for learned counsel to make a general submission on the failure or refusal of a trial court to consider a particular piece of evidence in its decision without reference to that piece of evidence and its supposed effect on the evidence relied on by the court in arriving at the decision complained about. From the record of the appeal the cross examination of 1st Respondent as PW1 by the learned Counsel for the Appellant runs from pages 47 to 50 and contains general affirmations of what was contained in the evidence in chief of the witness.

It is not the business of this Court to undertake another assessment or evaluation on the printed record of appeal, of that evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the credibility of PW1 and the weight and effect of that piece of evidence on the evidence given by him during examination in chief. The duty lies on the Appellant who alleges that the evidence under cross examination had any effect to show how and what the effect is on the proof of the claims by the 1st Respondent at the trial.

The learned Counsel had not even attempted to do so here and so, this Court has no factual basis for disturbing the conclusion by the High Court that on the totality of the evidence placed before it, the 1st Respondent had proved his claims on the preponderance of evidence. I have no hesitation in the above circumstances to resolve this issue against the Appellant.
The other issue is whether from the totality of the evidence the 1st Respondent as Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as given by the High Court.
I would readily agree with the learned Counsel for the Appellant, for he is right, that in law, a plaintiff who bears the initial burden of proof in civil cases, has to make out a prima facie case on the evidence adduced before the issue of a defence on the part of a defendant would arise. So until a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case from the evidence he produces and places before a trial court in support of the claim/s he makes against a defendant, there will be and the latter has nothing to defend. See:
JOLAYEMI v. ALAOY (supra).
ARCHBONG v. ITA (2004) 1 SC (1) 108
OKONKWO V. OKONKWO (1998) 2 A.L.R. 1 at 11
AGU v. NNADI (2002) 18 NWLR (798) 103 at 128.
O.A.A.C.G.F.S. V. N.A.C.B. (1999) 2 NWLR (590) 234 at 243-4

I have at the beginning of this judgment set out the claims by the 1st Respondent in the case before the High court against the Appellant and 2nd Respondent.
The evidence given by the 1st Respondent at the trial was in line with the claims that the Appellant had met him and accused him of harbouring thugs used to kidnap the Appellant’s daughter, that Appellant had threatened to and indeed and fact, led the police to arrest the 1st Respondent and detained him. That the accusation against the 1st Respondent was false as the Appellant’s daughter was taken by her mother to Enugu where she lives without the knowledge of the 1st Respondent. Learned counsel for the Appellant did not even suggest in this appeal that the evidence is not in line with the facts in the 1st Respondent’s pleadings but only attempted to dispute the facts in his address. It may be recalled that the Appellant had made a no case submission and elected not to call evidence at the trial.
The legal consequence of the choice not to call evidence by a defendant and resting his case on that of the plaintiff is that though success in a civil case depends upon the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, a trial Judge has little or no choice in accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiff unless it has been thoroughly discredited under cross examination.
The defendant in such a situation would obviously be taking enormous risk in proceeding on a course of not adducing evidence to counter balance the evidence by the plaintiff and would be bound by that evidence.

Where only one party to a case calls evidence in a case though the trial judge is still under a duty to evaluate such evidence and be satisfied that it is sufficient and credible enough to support the claims made, minimal proof is required in such a situation. See:
NEPA V. ALLI (1992) 8 NWLR (259) 279,
EGBUNIKE v. ACB (1995) 2 SCNJ 58 at 78.
ADEWUYI V. ODUKWE (2005) ALL FWLR (278) 1100 at 1112
AJERO v. UGORJI (1999) 7 SC (I) 58 at 76. In the present appeal, the record of the High Court judgment shows that the totality of the evidence placed before it, which was one sided, was placed on the imaginary scale of justice and because, there was no evidence at all to be placed on the other side, the evidence tilted the scale on the side and in favour of the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court in the case of ADEWUYI V. ODUKWE (2005) 7 SC (II) 1 at 13 restated the position of the law when it held that:-
“It is now settled law that where there is no evidence to put on one side of the imaginary scale in civil case, minimum evidence on the other side satisfied the requirement of proof.”

The evidence adduced by the 1st Respondent at the trial before the High Court in proof of his claims against the Appellant has met the required standard and burden of proof by preponderance and minimal evidence.
In the result, from the totality of that evidence, he was entitled to succeed on the claims and the judgment entered in his favour by the High Court. I answer the issue in the affirmative and against the Appellant.
In the final result, with the resolution of the two issues against the Appellant, the appeal for wanting in merit, fails and I dismiss it accordingly.
There shall be costs assessed at N30, 000 in favour of the 1st Respondent to be paid by the Appellant.

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A: I have read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Garba, JCA and I entirely agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat.
For the reasons ably articulated in the lead judgment which I adopt as mine, I dismiss the appeal and endorse all the consequential Orders therein inclusive of the Order on Cost.

REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A: I was privileged to read in advance the judgment of my learned brother GARBA, JCA just delivered. I agree with his reasoning in all the issues considered and the conclusion arrived thereat.

Parties in civil suits must prove their cases on preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. A party that filed a suit must prove its case on credible evidence of its witnesses and is not at liberty in law to make a case or rely on the weakness of its opposite party in order to succeed. See AGBI v. OGBEH (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 990) 65 SC.

The 1st Respondent from the totality of the evidence adduced established his case on the preponderance of evidence. He has discharged the onus of proof on him. The learned trial Judge rightly gave judgment in his favour.
The Appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. I abide by the order as to cost in the lead judgment.

Appearances

Dr. J.Y. Musa, E.E. Eko, J.O. Musa
S. OmaleFor Appellant

AND

E.I. EsemeFor Respondent