MRS SHOLA BOSMA & ORS. v. ALHAJI MUSENDIKU AKINOLE & ORS. (2013)

MRS SHOLA BOSMA & ORS. v. ALHAJI MUSENDIKU AKINOLE & ORS.

(2013)LCN/5877(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Monday, the 28th day of January, 2013

CA/L/579/2010

RATIO

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: THE EFFECT OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BEING UPHELD

First of all, a preliminary objection is an objection that if upheld, would render further proceedings before a court impossible or unnecessary – see Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. The purpose of such objection is to terminate, stop or end the proceedings or some aspects of the proceedings in an action or appeal, if it succeeds, which is why it is expedient to hear and determine the objection first – see Eresia-Eke v. Orikoha (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1197) 421 and Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421, where the supreme court held –
“An objection in law portrays a formal opposition of an objector against the happenings of on event which has already taken place or is about to toke place now or in the future and the objector seeks the court’s immediate Ruling or intervention on the point. A preliminary objection seeks to provide an initial objection before the actual commencement to the thing being objected to” Per Muhammad, JSC.PER AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

PRELIMINARY OJECTION: WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO RAISE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

FINAL ADDRESSES: WHEN THE NEED FOR A FINAL ADDRESS CAN BE DISPENSED WITH
Yes, the importance of addresses from counsel cannot be over-emphasized as “a good address may provide a Judge a clear mental opinion to perceive either the tenuousness in what had appeared impregnable or to see through the veneer and discover the hard core of a party’s case” – see Ndu v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 550 SC where Akpata, JSC’, added that there are, however, occasions when address from counsel are a matter of formality – they may not diminish or add strength or weakness in a party’s case”‘. See also Niger Const. Ltd. v. Okugbene (1987) 2 NSCC 1258 where Oputa, JSC said –
Addresses are designed to assist the Court, When, as in this case, the facts are straight forward and in the main not in dispute, the trial Judge would be free to dispense with final addresses. cases are normally not decided on addresses but on credible evidence. No. amount of brilliance in a final speech can make up for lack of evidence to prove and establish or else disprove and demolish points in issue”‘PER AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

WRITTEN ADDRESS: PURPOSE OF WRITTEN ADDRESSES
In other words, written addresses assists the court in arriving at its decision, but it is not designed to take the place of credible evidence or provide the avenue to raise objections that should have been raised earlier on in the case.
As I did say earlier, the proper stage at which the Appellants should have raised their objection was at the very early stage – see Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. Unijos (1994) 1, NWLR (Pt.323) 631 SC where Ogundare, JSC, observed that –
Parties filed and exchanged their respective pleadings and subsequently amended same. The case eventually proceeded to trial and Plaintiff, after calling its witnesses, closed its case. The defence opened. It was at this stage that the Defendants brought their application praying the trial court to dismiss or strike out the action for lack of competence. – – The learned trial judge should not have entertained that application but should have proceeded with in trial to conclusion.- – The proper stage at which the Defendants ought to have raised objection – – was at the very carry stage. — To have waited up to the stage they raised their objection is a tactic employed to delay the conclusion of the trial and this – – – is an abuse of the process of the court. They should not have been allowed to use the court’s process to stultify the carry adjudication of the action. As it is now, the case will have to be remitted to the Court of first instance for the completion of the trial.”PER AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. MRS SHOLA BOSMA
2. MR TAIWO RANDLE
3. MRS TITILOLA AWOSUSI
4. MRS OMOLARA ADEMOSU
5. MR ABAYOMI WILLOUGHBY
6. DR ODUNBAKU RANDLE
7. MR WOLE RANDLE Appellant(s)

AND

1. ALHAJI MUSENDIKU AKINOLE
2. CHIEF SEMIYU AKINOLE
3. CHIEF ADISA ABAYOMI OSHIUN AKINOLE Respondent(s)

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Respondents instituted an action against the Appellants at the High court of Lagos state wherein they claimed the sum of N100,000.00 as damages for trespass on their family land situate at Alausa Village, Ikeja, and prayed for an Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Appellants’ their assigns, servants, agents, etc., from entering or continuing to trespass on the said land. Pleadings were duly filed, and in paragraph 22 of their statement of claim, they claimed “as per their writ of summons”. They were later granted leave to amend their writ of summons and statement of claim, but they maintained in their amended pleadings that they claim- “as per their writ of summons”‘
The Appellants filed a statement of Defence, which they also amended. Written addresses were duly filed, and in the Appellants’ Written Address, they raised the issue of the Respondents claiming “as per their writ of summons”, and contended that the Respondents had no claim that the Lower Court could grant since they amended their writ of summons, and “the original writ of summons is no longer material before the court as to determine or define the live claim to be pronounced upon by this Honourable court”. The Respondents argued to the contrary in their written Address, and after the adoption of the addresses, the matter was adjourned to 23/3/2010 for Judgment. However, on the said 23/3/2010, the learned trial Judge, Hon. Justice A Olateru-Olagbegi, delivered what he referred to as “Judgment Directions”, wherein he reviewed the submissions of counsel regarding the Appellant’s objection, and held thus –
“I have no doubt at all in my mind that Mr. Ogunlesi [Appellants’ counsel] is correct on this issue. The implication of Chief Adegunle [Respondents’ counsel]’s submission is that the original pleadings remain valid for the purpose of determination of the suit before the court. If there was nothing wrong with the original pleadings why amend at all. In this regard, a party cannot approbate and reprobate. If the original pleading was suitable, stick to it, if amended, stick to the amended version.- – – Mr. Ogunlesi has urged this court to therefore dismiss this suit on the ground that there is no claim before the court. If there is no claim, then there is no dispute and the court has no jurisdiction – – This is a 1994 case i.e. 16 years old. It traversed three different Courts before getting here (Coram B. O. Martins, J., Manuwo J., and Abiru, J.) The parties here called witnesses and contested the issues on the amended writ of summons and the Defendants had been served with the Amended statement of claim since about April 2009. I have asked myself whether it would be right to gloss over the default of the Defendants notwithstanding its grave implications for the jurisdiction of this court. O. IRI(2) of the Rules provides that they be applied towards the achievement of a just efficient and speedy dispensation of justice. I have also asked myself if it would ensure towards the achievement of the said overriding objectives if our Rules stated in O.IRI (2) supra to dismiss this suit in the circumstances of this case? In the view of this Court the most appropriate order to make in the interest of justice is to direct the claimants to file an application for amendment of paragraph 24 of their Amended statement of claim dated 1-4-90 by inserting “Amended before “writ of summons” thereof. I so hold'”
Thereafter, the Lower Court stated as follows at page 82 of the Record –
This suit is for Judgment today. Judgment has been aborted by the default of the Claimants. The Defendants hove so to say come here today for judgment as scheduled. That Judgment has been put on hold – -“.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal in this court containing six Grounds of Appeal. They were, however, granted leave to argue a fresh ground of appeal, and their Amended Notice of Appeal contains seven Grounds of Appeal. They formulated four issues for Determination from the said 7 Grounds in their Amended Appellants’ Brief of Argument prepared by Lanre Ogunlesi, Esq., and the said issues for Determination are as follows –
A. whether the learned trial judge was right when he delivered what he referred to ‘Judgment Directions’ on the day of Judgment in respect of the Preliminary objection already argued in the Final Address of counsel and therein directed the Respondents to go and amend their pleadings.
B. whether the learned trial Judge was right to direct the Respondents to amend their pleadings after sustaining the preliminary objection raised by the Appellants in their Final written Address that there was no claim before the court”
c. whether having regard to the provisions of order 24 Rule 7 of the High court of Lagos state (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 the learned trial Judge was right to direct the Respondents to go and amend their pleadings in the course of delivering his Judgment
D. whether there was any competent amended statement of claim before the court upon which the Lower Court could determine this matter'”
The Respondents filed a Notice of preliminary objection and urged us to dismiss the appeal for being an abuse of court process on the Grounds that –
1. The suit commenced in 1994 sixteen years ago and it is at the terminal stage awaiting judgment.
2. The points and or issues involved in this interlocutory appeal are of such that could be taken together in an appeal against the final Judgment’
3. The appeal is frivolous and is aimed at delaying or frustrating the expeditious conclusion of the substantive suit.
4. The said Appellants’ appeal is intended to impede the administration of justice.
Both parties canvassed arguments on the objection in the Respondents’ Brief and the Appellants, Reply Brief, however, it is clear to me that the questions raised in the objection touch on issues to be determined in the appeal itself, and it would be foolhardy for this court to consider those issues at this stage.
The Respondents formulated three issues for Determination, however, before stating the Issues, they commented on the Appellants’ Issue A that was distilled from Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal, and argued as follows – ,
But a glance at the argument advanced on that issue vis-a-vis ground 7 of the notice of appeal read along with its particulars will show that the arguments are wide off the mark. The complaint deducible from ground 1 of the notice of appeal along with its particulars is the propriety of the order of the learned trial judge directing the claimants to bring an application to amend their statement of claim on the day fixed for Judgment. How come then the learned counsel for the appellant now made “Instalmental Judgment” the pivot of his argument on issue A? Allegation of complaint of a court giving judgment by instalments is so weighty that it ought to be specifically made a ground of appeal and on issue distilled therefrom. It cannot be a matter of mere address in a brief. We therefore urge your lordships to treat argument in the Appellant’s Brief of argument bordering on instalmental judgment for what it is – a parasitic mistletoe”‘
And that “subject to the above, the issues for Determination” are as follows –
(i)Whether from facts and circumstances of this case the learned trial Judge was not right in directing the Claimants/Respondents to supply the word “amended’ before the words “writ of summons” in paragraph 24 of the amended statement of claim so as to enable the suit be determined on its merits’
(ii)Whether on a joint reading of order Rule 1(2)and order 24 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 the learned trial Judge was not in order in directing the Respondents to odd the word “amended” before the words “writ of summons” in paragraph 24 of the amended statement of claim.
(iii) Whether there was any competent Amended statement of claim before the court upon which the learned trial judge could determine the matter. This issue is said to be tied to the new issue raised in the Amended Notice of Appeal.
Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal with its particulars, complain as follows –
“The learned trial Judge erred in law when on the day fixed for Judgment after counsel had adopted their written Addresses he delivered d Ruling on the preliminary objection raised and incorporated in the Final written Address of the 2nd – 7th Defendants in order to enable the court save the suit of the claimants’
PARTICULARS
(i) Counsel for the parties concluded arguments on their Final written Address before the Court on the 26th January 2010 and Judgment was fixed for the 23rd of March 2010.
(ii) In the Final written Address of the 2nd – 7th Defendants a notice of preliminary Objection was raised and incorporated challenging the competency of the action as the Claimants claimed as per their Writ of Summons’ which had been amended.
(iii) In the 23rd March 2010 when the learned trial Judge delivered the Ruling, there was no previous application by way of Motion before the court over which the court delivered the Ruling ordering the Claimants to bring an application to amend their Statement of Claim”‘
I will reproduce the Appellants’ Issue ‘A’ distilled from the above Ground –
“Whether the learned trial judge was right when he delivered what he referred to as judgment Directions, on the day of Judgment in respect of the Preliminary objection already argued in the Final address of counsel and therein directed the Respondents to go and amend their pleadings”‘
The Appellants, contention is that what the lower court did is alien to our adversarial jurisprudence because “there is no complete judgment on which he could give directions”, and it “amounted to giving judgment in installments and this is not permitted under our law. It is unusual”. They argued that it is not allowed in our system of judicial jurisprudence, when counsel had agitated their different position, to give what the parties did not ask for; that having seen the position of the parties and having agreed with the submissions of their counsel, he was wrong to direct the Respondents to file an application for amendment and to refer to his pronouncement as “Judgment Directions”; that assuming that he could give, Judgment Directions”, there was no application filed by them to enable him exercise his discretion to direct them to amend their pleadings as the objection had already been argued; and that –
“What the learned trial Judge did – – was that he was delivering his judgment which unfortunately he could not conclude, because he would not want the suit to either be dismissed or struck out – – [He] had started reading the judgment but he had to temporarily abort it to enable the Respondents to do the amendment’ [He] commenced with the relevant pleadings of the parties before him’ – – identified the jurisdictional issue raised before him – – summarized the submissions of counsel argued in the Final written Address together with the authorities cited – – reviewed the submissions of counsel and – – he gave his decision on the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection was sustained. He complied with what a Judgment should, contain. See: Adeyeye v. Ajiboye (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 431– [He] had commenced the reading of his judgment and on the same day aborted it. …”
It was further argued that “to abort” a thing is to terminate it after the thing had been put in motion and to put something “on hold” is to temporarily stop a process that had been set in motion; that what the lower court did is unusual to our judicial system and means that it was delivering his Judgment in instalment or instalmentally – “it was a judgment being delivered piecemeal”; and that the Lower Court ought to have delivered the entire Judgment on that day instead of directing the Respondents to go and amend their pleadings so as to save the suit, citing NIIT Zaria v. Dange (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1091) 127.
Without much ado, I will say that contrary to the Respondents’ views, there is nothing “wide off the mark” about this issue vis-a-vis the said Ground. In fact, it is the key issue that will determine this appeal one way or the other. The Respondents focused their attention and almost all their arguments on the objection that led to the “Judgment Directions” delivered by the lower court. However, the crux of the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the Lower Court followed the right procedure in making the “Judgment Directions”, which is what the Appellants, issue ‘A’ is about, and it must be resolved first.
The Respondents, take on the Issue is that the “Ruling of the court” does not amount to instalmental Judgment and that the facts and circumstances of this case are different and distinct from those in NIIT Zaria v. Dange (supra). They submitted that the difference in this case is that the Lower Court had not made any pronouncement on any of the reliefs, and was yet to give Judgment, so, it is a misconception to argue that it had given Judgment in the matter.
What did the lower court do exactly that could be considered wrong? To find answers, we have to look at what preliminary objections are all about, and consider the import of counsel’s address vis-a-vis the Judgment of a court.
First of all, a preliminary objection is an objection that if upheld, would render further proceedings before a court impossible or unnecessary – see Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. The purpose of such objection is to terminate, stop or end the proceedings or some aspects of the proceedings in an action or appeal, if it succeeds, which is why it is expedient to hear and determine the objection first – see Eresia-Eke v. Orikoha (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt.1197) 421 and Akpan v. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 421, where the supreme court held –
“An objection in law portrays a formal opposition of an objector against the happenings of on event which has already taken place or is about to toke place now or in the future and the objector seeks the court’s immediate Ruling or intervention on the point. A preliminary objection seeks to provide an initial objection before the actual commencement to the thing being objected to” Per Muhammad, JSC.

The proper stage at which a Defendant should raise a preliminary objection to the plaintiff’s suit should be at the inception or early stage of the proceedings – see Odive v. Obor (1974) 2 SC 23 at 31 where Elias, C.J.N., held as follows –
“The learned trial Judge was clearly in the wrong when he decided to up hold the preliminary objection of counsel for the Defendants at the particular stage in the proceedings when the Statement of Defence had already been filed and the issues joined between the two parties. The learned trial judge should have pointed out to counsel for the Defendants that the preliminary objection should have been made after the delivery to him of the statement of claim and before filing his statement of Defence.– Once issues had been joined between the parties—it was wrong to entertain a preliminary objection without any further evidence on the merits”.In this case, parties are not disputing the fact that the Appellants did not object to the Respondents, claim “as per their writ of summons” until their counsel raised it in his written address. The Lower Court also made that clear, it said –
“In their written address, learned counsel for the Defendants, Mr. Ogunlesi observed that the claimants amended their writ of summons and statement of claim but had in the said Amended statement of claim claimed as “per their writ of summons” simpliciter instead of as per their Amended writ of summons”.
Yes, the importance of addresses from counsel cannot be over-emphasized as “a good address may provide a Judge a clear mental opinion to perceive either the tenuousness in what had appeared impregnable or to see through the veneer and discover the hard core of a party’s case” – see Ndu v. The State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.164) 550 SC where Akpata, JSC’, added that there are, however, occasions when address from counsel are a matter of formality – they may not diminish or add strength or weakness in a party’s case”‘. See also Niger Const. Ltd. v. Okugbene (1987) 2 NSCC 1258 where Oputa, JSC said –
Addresses are designed to assist the Court, When, as in this case, the facts are straight forward and in the main not in dispute, the trial Judge would be free to dispense with final addresses. cases are normally not decided on addresses but on credible evidence. No. amount of brilliance in a final speech can make up for lack of evidence to prove and establish or else disprove and demolish points in issue”‘
In other words, written addresses assists the court in arriving at its decision, but it is not designed to take the place of credible evidence or provide the avenue to raise objections that should have been raised earlier on in the case.
As I did say earlier, the proper stage at which the Appellants should have raised their objection was at the very early stage – see Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. Unijos (1994) 1, NWLR (Pt.323) 631 SC where Ogundare, JSC, observed that –
Parties filed and exchanged their respective pleadings and subsequently amended same. The case eventually proceeded to trial and Plaintiff, after calling its witnesses, closed its case. The defence opened. It was at this stage that the Defendants brought their application praying the trial court to dismiss or strike out the action for lack of competence. – – The learned trial judge should not have entertained that application but should have proceeded with in trial to conclusion.- – The proper stage at which the Defendants ought to have raised objection – – was at the very carry stage. — To have waited up to the stage they raised their objection is a tactic employed to delay the conclusion of the trial and this – – – is an abuse of the process of the court. They should not have been allowed to use the court’s process to stultify the carry adjudication of the action. As it is now, the case will have to be remitted to the Court of first instance for the completion of the trial.”
In this case, there is nothing earthshaking about the Respondents claiming – “as per their writ of Simmons” instead of ‘as per their Amended writ of summons” to make the rower court “abort” it’s Judgment. It should simply have said that it is too late to consider the objection at that stage after parties had closed their respective cases, adopted their respective written addresses’ and the matter adjourned for Judgment. After all, both parties conducted the trial with the word “Amended” missing from “as per their writ of summons”‘
Even if the missing word was so momentous as to affect its jurisdiction’ the Lower Court ought to have recalled parties to address it on the objection before it took the calamitous step of aborting is Judgment or putting it on hold. There is no limit on the power of a court to invite counsel to address it further on a point so that justice wit be done – see Sodipo v. Lemminhaimen (1985) 7 SC 492, where the supreme court per Aniagoru, JSC, observed as follows –
“In the course of a trial of a civil action’ issues will continue to arise on which the parties will necessarily address the court for as many times as is necessary. – – A situation can easily present itself – – in which a trial judge may, after adjourning the case for judgment, encounter a serious problem, on a question of law or fact, which he is unable to resolve and will need the assistance of counsel to re-argue the point before he con make up his mind on it. In that case, the Trial Judge reconvenes the parties and their counsel for them to argue the problematic point – -“‘
The Supreme Court also observed in Sodipo v. Lemminhaimen (supra) that –
“Final addresses ore addresses that can lead to a final Judgment and a final Judgment has been defined as a Judgment obtained in on action by which a previous existing liability of the Defendant to the plaintiff is ascertained and established’ or where the question whether there was a pre-existing right of the Plaintiff against the Defendant is finally determined in favour of either the plaintiff or the Defendant”‘
In the case, the parties adopted their Final written Addresses on 26/1/2010, and the rower court then adjourned the matter to 23/03/2010 for Judgment. But on that day, instead of a final Judgment in which the dispute that led to the action is finally determined in favour of either the Appellants or Respondents, the rower court delivered what it called “Judgment Directions” wherein it set out the claims, referred to the written addresses, and then stated as follows –
“A preliminary issue, which holds jurisdictional implications, was put before the court by the Defendants in which they contended that there was no claim before the court. If indeed there is no claim before the court, then the court has no jurisdiction”.
The lower court did not categorically say that it had no jurisdiction since there was no claim before it; rather it skirted around the issue, and held as follows –
This is a 1994 case i.e. 76 years old. It traversed three different courts before getting here (Coram B. O. Martins, J., Manuwa, J., and Abiru, J.) The parties here called witnesses and contested the issues on the amended writ of summons and the Defendants had been served with the Amended statement of claim since about April 2009. I have asked myself whether it would be right to gloss over the default of the Defendants notwithstanding its grave implications for the jurisdiction of this court. O. 1 R 1(2) of the Rules provides that they be applied towards the achievement of a just efficient and speedy dispensation of justice. I have also asked myself if it would ensure towards the achievement of the said overriding objectives of our Rules stated in O.1 R 1 (2) supra to dismiss this suit in the circumstances of this case? In the view of this court the most appropriate order b make in the interest of justice is to direct the claimants to file an application for amendment of paragraph 24 of their Amended statement of claim – – – by inserting “Amended before “writ of Summons” thereof”‘
As the Lower Court itself said, parties called witnesses and contested the issues on the Amended writ of summons, and the Appellants had been served with the Amended statement of claim since about April 2009. From April 2009 until 26th January 2010, the Appellants never objected to the said missing word – “Amended” from “as per the writ the summons” and still, the Lower Court took it so seriously that it aborted its Judgment to make such an unusual order.
There are so many options open to a Court faced with such a situation – as I said, it could call the parties to address it before taking such a drastic step; it could discountenance the objection because it was raised too late in the day; it could uphold the objection and still deliver Judgment on the merits so that an appellate Court will have the benefit of seeing its firsthand findings of facts; or it could uphold the objection and dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
What it cannot do, however, is to deliver its Judgment piecemeal, which is what the Lower Court did in this case. It was to deliver a final Judgment, instead it ruled on an objection that was not even backed by any application, and had no business at all being raised at that stage in a final written address.
This is most unusual and unheard of; the Lower Court, more or less, upheld the objection, which says that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and which in turn means that it had become functus officio after it upheld it. The question now is – what order to make in the circumstances? It would appear that in trying to save this case that was filed in 1994, the Lower Court has caused more delay, even if inadvertently, because the matter cannot be sent back for the rest of the Judgment. The waters are too muddied for that. It is unfortunate, and really saddening to do this, but the matter has to be sent back to the High Court of Lagos State for a fresh trial before another Judge.
The Appeal is allowed in part. The “Judgment Direction” delivered by the Lower Court on the 23rd of March 2010 is set aside, and the matter is sent back for hearing before another judge. There will be no order as to costs.

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft, the lead Judgment of his Lordship, HON. JUSTICE A. A. AUGIE (JCA), just delivered. I am in complete agreement with the said Judgment. The appeal is also allowed by me in part. The “Judgment Direction” delivered by the Lower Court on the 23rd of March 2010 is also set aside by me. I do also agree the matter be sent back for hearing before another Judge.
I abide by the order as to costs contained in the lead Judgment.

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I have read in draft, the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother AMINA ADAMU AUGIE ICA, and I am in agreement with her opinion and conclusions.
I must say that I find it ludicrous that it is at this juncture (at the Appellate Court), that the Appellants are bringing up the issue of the missing word “amended” from “as per the Writ of Summons”, when they did not, all the way before now object to it.
Does the omission of the word “amended” go to jurisdiction? The answer is no. The Court, regrettably played along with the Appellants.
It is also regrettable that the learned trial Judge, after upholding the Preliminary Objection, which says he had no Jurisdiction to hear the case, thereafter did a somersault. He was wrong to have done that, and this amounted to miscarriage of Justice.
For this, and for the fuller reasons given in the lead Judgment. I also allow the Appeal in part. The “Judgment Direction” which is novel to our adjectival law in this Country, delivered by the learned trial Judge on the 23rd of March 2010 is set aside by me.
I abide by the consequential order made that there shall be no order as to costs.

Appearances

Lanre Ogunlesi (SAN) with A Adegbenro, Esq., and O. A. Oshodi-Clover, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Chief Bisi Adegunle with Miss I. A. AbinaFor Respondent