MRS. TAMUNOTONYE E. OGAN & ORS V. MR. DEREFAMA OGAN
(2013)LCN/6021(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 13th day of March, 2013
CA/PH/2/2010
RATIO
“The primary duty of a trial court is to evaluate the evidence put forward and once this duty has been rightly carried out as in this case, an appellate court has no business interfering with it. See Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2011) 1 N.R.M page 1 at 17-18 lines 30-30. Issue one is hereby resolved against the Appellants.” Per FASANMI,J.C.A.
“The general rule is that all facts in issue or facts relevant to facts in issue must be established or proved in court by evidence. Such evidence may be oral, real or documentary. Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 Provides: “131 (1) whoever desires any court to give judgment to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” Per FASANMI, J.C.A.
“It is trite that an issue not covered by a ground of appeal is incompetent and should be ignored. See Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 18 N.W.L.R Part 1172 page 106 and Nwogu v. Fadipe (2012) 13 N.W.L.R part 1318 page 547 at 578 para.A.” Per FASANMI,J.C.A.
JUSTICES
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
(1) MRS. TAMUNOTONYE E. OGAN
(2) MISS IBINABO OGAN
(3) MISS BELEMA OGAN Appellant(s)
AND
MR. DEREFAMA OGAN Respondent(s)
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an Appeal against the judgment of the Rivers State High Court of Justice sitting at the Ahoada Judicial Division delivered on the 24th of March, 2009.
The suit was originally taken out by Late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan against the Respondent in 2002 when he claimed against the Respondent as follows:
(i) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property known as No.13 Niger Street, Port Harcourt.
(ii) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise all rights of ownership including deciding how to share the property among his children, the Defendant inclusive.
(iii) A declaration that the property is to be jointly inherited by all the Plaintiffs children as family property upon the demise of the Plaintiff.
(iv) A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from claiming exclusive ownership of the said property and from harassing or causing disturbance/annoyance to the other children of the plaintiff and their mothers.
The Appellants applied to be joined at the trial and they were all joined as Claimants. Following the death of Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan, the Appellants, as Claimants on the 19th of December 2005, prayed the court for the striking out of the name of Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan and his name was accordingly struck out of the suit.
On the 27th of Nov.2008 the Respondent who was the Defendant at the lower court filed a counter-claim where he counter-claimed as follows:
(i) A declaration that the Defendant is the bonafide owner in possession and holder of the statutory right of occupancy in and over Plot ‘G’ Block 12 Native Occupation lease municipally known and called No.13 Niger Street, Port Harcourt.
(ii) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Claimant, his servants, agents and privies from further challenging the Defendant’s legal estate in the property in dispute or interfering with his right of use, possession and control over same in any manner whatsoever.
The learned trial Judge heard the matter and delivered judgment on the 24th of March, 2009 in favour of the Respondent as per his amended statement of defence and dismissed the Appellants claim. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Appellant appealed to this Court. The notice of appeal dated 20th of May, 2009 but filed on 21st of May, 2009 contained eight grounds of appeal.
In compliance with the rules of this court, Appellant’s brief was filed on 17th May, 2010 but was deemed properly filed and served on the 5th of Feb, 2013. Appellant’s reply brief which was filed on 31st December, 2010 was deemed properly filed and served on the 5th of February, 2013. Learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr. West distilled three issues for determination from the eight grounds of appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellants adopts and relies on the arguments contained in the said briefs as their arguments in the appeal. He urged the court to set aside the decision of the lower court and allow the appeal.
Learned counsel for the Respondent filed the Respondent’s brief on the 21st of December, 2010 but it was deemed properly filed and served on the 5th of February, 2013. Learned counsel for the Respondent Mr. Graham-Douglas adopted the three issues formulated by the Appellant’s counsel in the Respondent’s brief of argument. He adopted and relied on the arguments contained in the brief as the Respondent’s arguments in the appeal. He urged the court to affirm the decision of the lower court and dismiss the appeal.
Appellants distilled the following issues for determination:
(i) Whether the learned trial Judge dispassionately analyzed and received the case of the Appellants before dismissing same.
(ii) Whether the subject matter of this appeal exclusively belongs to the Respondent through an advancement by the Late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan.
(iii) Whether the Respondent established in his evidence and pleadings that the subject matter was his exclusive property per his counter claim.
I observe that issues two and three are the same but differently couched. To avoid repetition, the appeal will be determined on issues 1 and 2 while issue 3 will be subsumed in issue 2.
Issue One
Whether the learned trial Judge dispassionately analyzed and reviewed the case of the Appellants before dismissing same.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the plank of the Appellant’s case is that the subject matter of this appeal belongs to the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan. He submitted that Appellants in their pleadings and evidence stated that after the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan secured the property; he paid the purchase price and appointed a caretaker to manage the building and collect rents for him since his eldest child was still a minor. When the Respondent came of age, the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan appointed him as the caretaker and introduced him to the tenants. The Respondent was also entrusted with the title documents of the subject matter to enable him evict recalcitrant tenants. He submitted that the intention of late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan, to wit: purchasing the property for his family was shown in the evidence of P.W.1 when she recounted instances in which the Respondent, pursuant to his claim of exclusive ownership of the subject-matter made frantic moves to eject the children of late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan and same, was resisted by the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan.
He submitted further that the learned trial Judge hinged his findings on the purported inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 and part of the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that P.W.1 did not establish in her evidence the fact that ballots were done in several names. The learned trial judge further found that P.w.2 gave evidence to the effect that rents were paid to Chief Ogan contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that rents were paid to the Respondent who transmitted same to the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended further that the purported contradiction as to who collects rents from the tenants in the property does not and cannot in any way resolve the intention of chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan who admittedly paid the purchase price of the property in full.
Learned counsel for the Appellants argued further that the trial Judge erred when he referred to P.W.2 as a tainted witness and rejected her evidence. He submitted that a witness does not become tainted because he was a defendant in an earlier action instituted by the person against whom he is now testifying. He referred to the case of Basil Ikwunne & Ors v.The State (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. part 658 page 550 at 566 paras G-H.
Submitted further that assuming without conceding that the rejection of the evidence of P.W.2 in its entirety by the learned trial Judge is proper and valid, the lone evidence of P.W.1 if properly analyzed and reviewed by this court wilt no doubt establish the case of the Appellants. The Respondent having expressly admitted that the purchase price of the subject matter was fully paid by Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan,the onus shifts on him to establish that the property belongs to him through an advancement. In other words, that the rate chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan, paid the purchase price for him as the exclusive owner.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the findings of a trial court as in this appeal are not sacrosanct especially where the conclusions or inferences are not drawn from the evidence. He urged the court to re-appraise the evidence of the Appellants and set aside the decision of the trial court. He relied on Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act Cap C36, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and on the case of Joseph Oyewore v. Karimu Akande & Ors (2009) 15 N.W.L.R. part 1163 page 119 at 143 paras F-G where the Supreme Court had this to say:
“… It must be stated without equivocation that where the trial court jettisoned vital and unchallenged evidence as in the matter herein, the appellate court should not abdicate its function of appraising such facts”.
He urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the Appellants.
Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that every case has its own peculiarity and circumstances. In the instant case, P.W.2 told the court that she was not happy that the Respondent took her husband to court as shown in exhibit D7. The Appellants are her friends who she visits and spends 2-3 days with on occasions. He submitted that she had a purpose of her own to serve. Her testimony was a pay back time for the Respondent for undertaking the proceedings in exhibit D7 which she fought fruitlessly to suppress. Exhibit D7 shows so much bad blood between P.W.2 and the Respondent. He submitted that P.W.1’s evidence cannot corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 on her failure to tender a receipt. Neither does it concern what she was out to serve.
He submitted that contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 on the appointment of caretaker, the Respondents evidence showed that he took over his property in 1984 after allowing his late father to recoup his purse from 1977 -1983. In the circumstance, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that Appellants reliance on the cases of Omotola v. The State (2009) 7 N.W.L.R part 1139 page 148 and Adekunle v. The State (1989) 5 N.W.L.R. part 123 page 505 and Section 77 a-c of the Evidence Act cannot avail them. He submitted that the learned trial court rightly found in favour of the Respondent. Appellants have not shown that the finding of facts is perverse. He urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
The general rule is that all facts in issue or facts relevant to facts in issue must be established or proved in court by evidence.
Such evidence may be oral, real or documentary. Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 Provides:
“131 (1) whoever desires any court to give judgment to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”
From the evidence on record, P.W.2 did not tender a single receipt of direct payment to late Chief Ogan after the supposed appointment of the Respondent as the caretaker in 1984. Exhibit D7 which contains a claim for possession made by the Respondent constituted a great challenge to the assertion that they were paying rents and collecting receipts as claimed. The Appellants and P.W.2 did not say why the P.W.2 and her husband did not call the attention of their landlord Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan to the pending suit no. PMC/596/95 (exhibit 7) which lasted for two years from 1995- 1997. Chief Ogan too did not intervene to save his tenants if they were indeed paying rents to him. In exhibit D.6 Alhaji Idris the husband of P.W.2 reported the Respondent to the Rent Tribunal. If they knew that the late Chief Ogan was still their landlord, why didn’t they report to him?
P.W.2 Mrs. Binta Idris at page 145 of the record had this to say:
“I do not know how many more people the Defendant took to court. I was only told yesterday that I will come and give evidence in this matter. I did not know about this court case before then. I was not happy when the Defendant took my husband Idris to court”.
Besides, P.W.2 is a friend to the Appellants. She visits and spends 2-3 days with then on some occasions, I am on one with the learned trial judge that P.W.2 is a tainted witness because she had her own purpose to serve. At page 180 of the record, the learned trial Judge had this to say:
“I listened and watched, this witness and do not believe her.
She said the Defendant was introduced to them as caretaker after Opudim Kalio yet she claims rents were paid to Chief Ogan and that they sent the keys to Chief Ogan in the village. This is contrary to the evidence of the Claimants to the effect that the Defendant collected rents and transmitted same to Chief Ogan. She also said Chief Ogan gave them receipts on payment of rents, yet no receipts were tendered. She denied that they were evicted from the property yet exhibit D.7 showed the contrary. I found that this witness is a tainted witness. She admitted being upset over the case against her husband in exhibit D.7. She also admitted visiting the Claimants and spending 2-3 days with them’ this shows that they are friends”.
Again, the learned trial Judge found at page 180 thus:
“On the whole, I find that the evidence put forward by the Claimant is not credible enough to rebut the presumption that the property in dispute belongs to the Defendant through an advancement as enunciated in the case of Ughutevbe v. Shonowo supra”.
The requirement that a trial Judge should in case of tainted witness warn himself as one would in the case of accomplice is one dictated by prudence not by law, and failure of a Judge to do so in a case does not necessarily vitiate a conviction. See Adelunle v. State (1989) 5 N.W.L.R Part 123 page 505 at 514 paras D-E. See also Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hecter (1972) 3 All E.R page 1056 at 1072. Nnamani J.S.C in paras E-F of the case of Adekunle v. The State Supra had this to say:
”Admittedly in the present case, the learned trial Judge did not warn himself, but I never suggested anywhere that such failure in every case must be fatal. The central point is that the learned trial Judge must be wary in such circumstances. In other words, he must be fully satisfied with such evidence before convicting on it.
From the passage I set down above, the learned trial Judge had no doubt about the truth of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4″.
Applying the above to the instant case, the learned trial Judge found that the evidence put forward by the Claimants is not credible enough to rebut the presumption that the property in dispute belongs to the Respondent through an advancement. His findings cannot be vitiated and as such, the judgment cannot be set aside.
The primary duty of a trial court is to evaluate the evidence put forward and once this duty has been rightly carried out as in this case, an appellate court has no business interfering with it.
See Okonkwo v. Okonkwo (2011) 1 N.R.M page 1 at 17-18 lines 30-30. Issue one is hereby resolved against the Appellants.
Issue Two
Whether the subject matter of this appeal exclusively belongs to the Respondent through an advancement by Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is not in dispute that the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan purchased the subject matter of this appeal, when he paid the purchase price in the name of the Respondent. The fact in dispute is whether the late chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan intended the property for the advancement of his family or the Respondent exclusively. He submitted that the writ and other processes in the matter were taken out against the Respondent by the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan wherein he deposed to the affidavit of verification. He submitted that the Respondent made an attempt to eject the 2nd and 3rd Appellants when he claimed ownership of the house. This was resisted ‘and the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan disagreed with the Respondent over his claim of exclusive ownership of the house. The late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan proceeded to court when the Respondent caused exhibits C and D to be served on the 2nd and 3rd Appellants.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted further that where one person provides the purchase money for land and another obtains a conveyance as in this case, there is a resulting trust which arises by operation of law in favour of the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan who provided the purchase money. He referred to the case of Alhaji Muhammed I. Atta v. Miss Chinyere A. M. Ezeamah (2000) II N.W.L.R Part 678 page 962 at 383 – 384 paras H-A. He urged the court to hold that the subject matter belongs to late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan who provided the money with which the subject matter was purchased notwithstanding that the name of the Respondent appeared on the title documents and that the subject matter belongs to the family of the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan inclusive of the Appellants.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted further that where the presumptions of ownership has been rebutted as in this case where the parties have all agreed that the fund for purchasing the property was provided by the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan, the trial Court has to examine all evidence adduced and the surrounding circumstances in order to find out why the rebuttal was raised. Reliance was placed on the case of Dr. Beltram Madu v. Grace Madu (2002) 13 N.W.L.R. Part 784 page 231 at 248 paras E-F. He urged the court to hold that the late Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan intended the property to be inherited by his family and not as an advancement to the Respondent. He urged the court to resolve issue two in favour of the Appellants.
Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellants did not plead neither did they lead evidence to show how the property in dispute became family property. Submitted that family property can be created by purchasing a property as such declaring it to be family property in a will and by owner dying intestate. He referred to the cases of Nelson v. Nelson (1951) 13 W.A.C.A page 248 and Olowosago v. Adebanjo (1988) 4 N.W.L.R part 88 page 275. There is no document of conduct in existence prior to the institution of the case tendering to show the family property characterization of the property in dispute. The onus placed on the Appellants to prove that the property in dispute is family property was therefore not discharged. Late chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan died before he could give evidence at the resumed trial of the court that decided the case. His intention was therefore not known. He submitted that there is nothing on exhibits D.9-D.13 connecting the fate chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan to the property. There is no evidence that he applied to purchase the property. The only fact provided is the Respondent’s confirmation that his late father actually came to his rescue when he did not have the money to pay the purchase price of N2,800.00. He has refunded the money by allowing him to collect rents from 1977-1983. He submitted that the case of Attah v. Ezeamah supra cited by the Appellants is not applicable to the present case.
He submitted further that the issue of “Resulting Trust’ raised by the Appellants is a new issue, and that Appellants cannot raise this issue without the leave of court. It was not pleaded in their statement of claim and reply to statement of Defence which also embodied defence to counter-claim. He submitted that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot be permitted to put up a case different from their pleadings. This is what the Appellants have attempted to do here. They cannot spring a surprise on the Respondent on appeal. He referred to the case of Ojiogu v. Ojiogu (2010) AII F.W.L.R. Part 538 page 840 at 853 paras C-D. Learned counsel for the Respondent urged the court to resolve issue two against the Appellants and dismiss the appeal.
From the evidence on record, Appellants assertion that the property in issue is family property is based on the followings:
(i) The Respondent expressly admitted that the purchase price of the property was fully paid by chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan.
(ii) The Respondent failed to show that the payment was for him as the exclusive owner.
(iii) The Respondent failed to show that the payment was an advancement to him.
While the Respondent in contending that the property exclusively belongs to him is based on:
(i) He testified that his father who paid N2,800.00 for the property had collected N4,560.00 by collecting N10,000.00 per room per month from 1977 – 1983 before handing over the property to the Respondent in 1984.
(ii) The Respondent’s late father handed over the title documents to the Respondent and also introduced him to the tenants in 1984.
(iii) The Respondents father did not take any action to rebut or challenge him when he took tenants to court in exhibits D.7 and D.8.
(iv) There is nothing on exhibits D.9-D.13 connecting the rate father to the property at plot G Block 12, Layout-
Township at no. 13 Niger Street, Port Harcourt.
(v) Respondent tendered exhibit D.1 being an undertaking by the Appellants to be of good behaviour not to disturb the lawful tenants in the property. The undertaking was witnessed by late Chief E. I, S. Ogan who the Appellants claimed own the property.
(vi) In exhibit D.6 Alhaji Idris the husband of P.W.2 reported the Respondent to the Rent Tribunal as early as 2nd Jan. 1985. If they knew that the late Chief Ogan was still their landlord, why didn’t they report to him?
At page 182 of the record, the learned trial Judge had this to say:
“The acts of ownership exercised by the Defendant are numerous and positive enough to lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Defendant is the owner of the property. The acts are as follows:
(1) He collected rents from tenants in the property such as D.W.1.
(2) He took tenants to court vide exhibits D.7 and D.8.
(3) He made applications for approval for renovation vide exhibits D.3, D.4, and D.5.
(4) He actually carried out the renovation.
This fact is admitted by the Claimants even though they say it is Chief Ogan who authorized and paid for the said renovation. I however do not find any evidence of that fact.
I found that the Defendant has established that the property in dispute is his bonafide property and not family property”.
The findings of the learned trial Judge are quite apt and unassailable. Respondent has proved his title to the property at no. 13, Niger Street, Port Harcourt by the requirements of the law laid down in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 S.C.at page 227. By no stretch of imagination could the P.W.1’s testimony be said to have met the requirements of the law to establish title of the late Chief Ogan to the property in dispute. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the Appellants that the lone evidence of P.W.1 has established the case of the Appellants.
Appellants did not plead the issue of “Resulting Trust” in their statement of claim and reply to the statement of Defence. They did not obtain the leave of court. To consider the issue will therefore be over reaching on the Respondent. The new issue of “Resulting Trust” is not covered by any of the grounds of appeal.
It is trite that an issue not covered by a ground of appeal is incompetent and should be ignored. See Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 18 N.W.L.R Part 1172 page 106 and Nwogu v. Fadipe (2012) 13 N.W.L.R part 1318 page 547 at 578 para. A.
In civil case such as this, the burden of proof is on the balance of probability and the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the claims of the Appellants for want of evidence and rightly entered Judgment for the Respondent in his counter claim. It is not the function of an appellate court to interfere with the findings of the trial court unless it is shown that the findings are perverse. See Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) II S.C page 72 and Oshe V. Okin Biscuits Ltd (2010) II N.W.L.R Part 1206 at 482. The findings are supported by the evidence on record. Issue two is hereby resolved against the Appellants.
Finally the appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on the 24th of March, 2009 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their respective costs.
EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A.: My Learned brother, MODUPE FASANMI, JCA had, before now, availed me the draft of the judgment just delivered. I read the draft.
This appeal was fought on two issues, namely:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge dispassionately analysed and reviewed the case of the Appellants before dismissing them.
2. Whether the subject matter of this appeal exclusively belongs to the respondent through advancement by Chief Ezekiel Ibigoka Sobo Ogan.
These are all issues, the resolutions of which depend largely on the findings fact made by the learned trial judge.
The trite rule is that the trial judge who had the privilege of watching and hearing the witnesses testify before him is in a better position to appraise their testimonies. The presumption, though rebuttable, is therefore that the trial judge is a better judge of the facts than his colleagues in the appellate court. Applying this presumption the Supreme Court in a number of cases had consistently held that it is not the function of an appellate court to make findings of fact where this has been done by the trial court, and to reopen issues of fact finally determined by the trial court. It is not permitted to do so even if it would have come to a different finding if it were to do so. See KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC said so in WAHABI AIGBOTOSHO OLANREWAJU & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS V. GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS (1992) NWLR (Pt.265) 335. See also OLAFOSOYE V. OLORUNFEMI (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.95) 26. Like every rule, there are exceptions to this rule. When the decision is perverse, or where the trial judge failed to take advantage of the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing the witness, or to exercise his discretion properly, or where the findings of fact cannot be regarded as resulting from the evidence, the appellate court will be at liberty to make his own findings of fact from such evidence. See OLAREWAJU v. GOV. OF OYO STATE (supra).
Having perused the record of appeal, particularly the pleadings and the printed evidence viz-a-viz the findings of fact made by the Learned trial Judge, after thorough and proper evaluations of the facts, I am of the firm view that those findings of fact made by the trial judge are unassailable. They are not perverse. I have, therefore, no cause to disturb then.
All I have labored to say in this appeal is that, I am completely in agreement with the judgment of my learned brother, MODUPE FASANMI, JCA, just delivered. I also agree that there is no substance in this appeal, which I hereby dismiss. The judgment of the Rivers State High court in the suit No. PHC/896/2002 on 24th March, 2009 is hereby affirmed.
CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MODUPE FASANMI, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at. The learned trial judge was right in dismissing the claims of the Appellants for want of evidence. I have, no reason also to interfere with the said decision. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. I also make no order as to costs.
Appearances
I.C. West Esq. holds the briefs of A.R. GeorgeFor Appellant
AND
T.I. Graham Douglas with I.D. Daffe (Miss)For Respondent
