MUSTAPHA v. FRN & ANOR (2020)

MUSTAPHA v. FRN & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14413(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020

CA/YL/223CN/19

Before Our Lordships:

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

SHEHU MUSTAPHA APPELANT(S)

And

1. FEDERAL REPUBLC OF NIGERIA 2. BINANU RUNDE ESTHON RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

It is trite that the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over a case can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal and should be determined first before a consideration and determination of other issues in the case on the merit if need be. The reason is that any defect in the jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over a case would result in a nullity of any decision arrived at no matter how well conducted. See, the popular case of MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SC NLR, 341; (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587. Therefore, it is expedient to resolve any challenge to jurisdiction first before proceeding to resolve any other issue. See,OLORIODE VS. OYEBI (1984) 1 SC NLR 390; EZOMO VS. OYAKHIRE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 2) 195; SOFEKUN VS. AKINYEMI (1980) 5 – 7 SC 1; A – G OF ANAMBRA STATE VS. A .G. FED. (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 302) 692, UGO – NGADI VS. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR – 43903 (SC) PP. 7 – 8, PARAS. E – B and NNONYE VS. ANYICHIE & ORS (2005) LPELR – 20161 (SC) P. 30, PARAS. A – C. His lordship Ngwuta, JSC in ORIORIO & ORS VS. OSAIN & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7809 (SC) P. 19, PARAS. C – E summed up the position of the law thus:
“Appellants’ issue three is on jurisdiction and being a threshold matter, it will be resolved before any more step is taken in the appeal. This is because jurisdiction is the spinal cord of every litigation and once raised, it must be resolved before further step is taken in the matter. See, CHARLES CHINWENDU ODEDO VS. INEC & ANOR (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1117) 554 at 595.” PER UWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT

Further, this Court as an appellate Court can rightly raise the issue of jurisdiction provided that the parties are given the opportunity to address the Court on the issue, it could be raised and argued orally by the parties. See, BUREMOH VS. AKANDE (2017) LPELR – 41565 (SC) P. 44, PARAS. A – D. In the case of OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) LPELR – 2583 (SC) PP. 17 – 18, PARAS. F – D his lordship Obaseki, JSC held that:
“The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Courts. This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court, it is the duty of the judge or justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see, ODIASE VS. AGHO (supra). There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.”
See, also ESABUNOR & ANOR VS. FAWEYA & ORS (2019) LPELR – 46961 (SC) PP. 38 – 41, PARA. F. PER UWA, J.C.A.

THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

It is trite that by the common law tradition, the doctrine of judicial precedent dictates that all subordinate Courts are bound to follow the decision of a superior Court where the ratio decidendi of the latter govern the determination of the matter before them. It would be an unpardonable judicial affront if this Court being aware of the decision on an issue (Judicial precedent) of a Superior Court closes its eyes to such decision and holds otherwise. This Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot rightly fail to do so in a bid “to do justice to the case” as urged by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent. In NIGERIA – ARAB BANK LTD VS. BARRI ENGINEERING (NIG) LTD (1995) LPELR – 2007 (SC) PP. 47 – 48, PARAS. G – B, his lordship Ogundare, JSC held that:
“The doctrine of judicial precedent (otherwise called stare decisis) requires all subordinate Courts to follow decisions of Superior Courts even where these decisions are obviously wrong having been based upon a false premise; this is the foundation on which the consistency of our judicial decision is based – see: NGWO VS. MONYE (1970) 1 ALL NLR 911100.”
See also OYEWUNMI & ANOR VS. OGUNESAN (1990) LPELR – 2880 (SC) P. 61, PARAS. E – F, PDP VS. ORANEZI & ORS. (2017) LPELR – 43471 (SC) PP. 9 – 10, PARAS. E – A and 7 – UP BOTTLING COMPANY LTD & ORS VS. ABIOLA and SONS (NIG) LTD (1995) LPELR – 2 (SC) PP. 20 – 21, PARAS. F – A. The Court of Appeal and other Lower Courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. See, OSHO VS. FOREIGN FINANCE CORPORATION (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 184) 157. PER UWA, J.C.A.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): At the Federal High Court Yola Division, the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent were tried for conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence and stealing. They pleaded not guilty.

The background facts are that at the trial, the 1st Respondent (prosecution) called eleven (11) witnesses who testified as the PW1 – PW11 and tendered Exhibits PW1 – PW11F. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the Appellant made a no case submission which was overruled.

The appellant in defence called the DW1 – DW5. The trial Court in its judgment delivered on 26th September, 2019 convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to three (3) years imprisonment on count three (3) and two (2) years on count (1), the sentences were to run concurrently and an order of restitution was ordered in the sum of N67,154,252.00 in favour of the judgment creditors. The Appellant who was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court appealed against same. The appellant filed twelve (12) grounds of appeal from which he formulated nine (9) issues for the determination of the appeal. In the brief of argument

filed by the Appellant, issue nine (9) was abandoned. The Appellant’s issues are as follows:
(i) “Whether the Trial Court occasioned a miscarriage of Justice by its failure to deliver Judgment in respect of charge number FHC/YL/103C/2015 within the statutory period provided for by law. (Distilled from Ground two of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(ii) Whether the Trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the Appellant in respect of an offence under the Criminal Code notwithstanding the operation of the Penal Code in the Northern part of Nigeria. (Distilled from Ground ten of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(iii) Whether it was mandatory for the Appellant to tender a record of payment of the sum of N11,000,000.00 before the Trial Court in the face of non-denial and existence of evidence. (Distilled from Ground 8 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(iv) Whether from the totality of evidence before the Trial Court, intent to defraud the judgment creditors of the judgment sum from the beginning or at any other time was established against the Appellant. (Distilled from Ground 6 of the

Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(v) Whether from the totality of evidence before the Trial Court, the Trial Court was right when it convicted and sentenced the Appellant for the offence of fraudulent conversion contrary to Section 383(2) of the Criminal Code. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 4, 5 and 7 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(vi) Whether the Trial Court was right when it held that the sum of N9,714,251,23 (Nine Million Seven Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty One Naira Twenty Three Kobo) only and N44,440,000.00 (Forty Four Million Four Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) only were lodged into the Appellant’s account and were not released to the Judgment Creditors. (Distilled from Ground 3 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(vii) Whether the Trial Court was right when it ordered the refund of the sum of N62,154,252 (Sixty Two Million One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Fifty Two Naira) only by the Appellant. (Distilled from Ground 11 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(viii) Whether from the totality of evidence elicited before the Trial Court, the Trial Court was right in convicting

and sentencing the Appellant for the offence of conspiracy contrary to Section 518 (6) of the Criminal Code. (Distilled from Ground 9 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).
(ix) Whether the learned Trial Court Judge was right when he presided over charge number FHC/YL/103C/15 at the Federal High Court even after elevation to the Court of Appeal. (Distilled from Ground 12 of the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal).

The 1st Respondent on her part distilled six (6) issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
1. “Whether based on the facts, evidence and circumstances of this case, the 1st Respondent has proved its case of stealing beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant to warrant the conviction and findings of the lower Court. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).
2. Whether based on the facts, evidence and circumstances of this case, the offence of conspiracy is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant to warrant the conviction and findings of the lower Court. (Distilled from Ground 9 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).
3. Whether based on the facts and

circumstances of this case, documentary evidence is important to prove monetary transactions and claims. (Distilled from Ground 8 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).
4. Whether the Criminal Code Act Cap C38, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004 being Federal Legislation is limited to be applicable only in the Southern Nigeria. (Distilled from Ground 10 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).
5. Whether in view of the conviction of the Appellant, the lower Court was right to have ordered for restitution in favour of the victims of the crime against the Appellant. (Distilled from Ground 11 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).
6. Whether the delay in delivering the judgment outside the statutory 90 days by the trial Court has occasioned miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.” (Distilled from Ground 2 of the Appellant Grounds of Appeal).

The 2nd Respondent did not file any brief of argument and had nothing to urge.

In arguing the appeal, the learned counsel to the Appellant M.P. Atsev Esq. adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 17/2/19 but, deemed properly filed on 9/3/2020 and a reply brief filed on

7/2/2020 as his argument in this appeal in urging us to resolve all the issues in favour of the appellant, allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court, discharge and acquit the Appellant. Before adumberating the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief of argument, the Court asked the learned counsel to the Appellant to address the Court on the jurisdiction of the trial Court to have entertained the matter. The learned counsel then informed the Court that he had raised it in his issue nine in his brief of argument which he later abandoned but, prayed to be allowed to resuscitate the issue nine and argue same orally since it borders on jurisdiction. The learned counsel withdrew the abandonment and argued the issue on jurisdiction of the trial Court orally.

The learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively did not oppose the issue of jurisdiction being argued orally. The learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the trial Federal High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to have delivered judgment in this matter in that as at 26/9/19, when the judgment was delivered, B.B. Aliyu, JCA had taken an oath of office and

sworn in as a Justice of the Court of Appeal and sitting in Ilorin. Reference was made to the case of UDE JAMES UDEOGU VS. FRN & 2 ORS DELIVERED ON 8/5/2020 BY THE SUPREME COURT, IN CASE NO: 622C/2019 in which it was held to the effect that with the elevation of B.B. Aliyu, JCA to the Court of Appeal, the Court lacked the capacity to sit as a judge of the Federal High Court, in the said judgment above, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of M. Idris, JCA. It was submitted that the trial judge in the present case lacked the jurisdiction to have entertained the matter having been elevated to the Court of Appeal. It was concluded that the Administration of Criminal Justice Act is inferior to the Constitution. We were urged to declare the judgment leading to this appeal a nullity.

In response, the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent Abubakar Aliyu Esq., relied on his brief of argument filed on 4/2/2020 but, deemed properly filed and served on 9/3/2020. The six issues that were distilled were adopted as his argument in the appeal in urging us to dismiss the appeal.

On the issue of jurisdiction, learned counsel referred to the additional

authority filed by the learned counsel to the Appellant, a decision of this Court in Appeal No: CA/YL/194CN/2019 BINANU RUNDE ESTHON VS. FEDERRAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 1 OR DELIVERED ON 22/4/2020 and the Supreme Court authority, UDE JONES UDEOGU (supra). It was argued that the additional authority defeats the Appellant’s issue seven, in that the Court of Appeal ordered a refund of the money to the Appellant’s clients, therefore the Appellant in this case should refund the sum retained by him. Further, that in the Supreme Court decision relied upon, Ude Jones Udeogu was not discharged and acquitted, also that this Court does not have to go by the decision of the Supreme Court but, should be judicious. We were urged to do justice to the case.
The learned counsel to the 2nd Respondent submitted that he did not file any process and had nothing to urge.

Before going into the arguments in respect of the issues raised, it is necessary to first look into and resolve the issue of jurisdiction as raised and argued by the learned counsel to the appellant to the effect that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to have entertained the matter in the

High Court having been elevated to the Court of Appeal. It is trite that the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over a case can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal and should be determined first before a consideration and determination of other issues in the case on the merit if need be. The reason is that any defect in the jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate over a case would result in a nullity of any decision arrived at no matter how well conducted. See, the popular case of MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SC NLR, 341; (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587. Therefore, it is expedient to resolve any challenge to jurisdiction first before proceeding to resolve any other issue. See,OLORIODE VS. OYEBI (1984) 1 SC NLR 390; EZOMO VS. OYAKHIRE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 2) 195; SOFEKUN VS. AKINYEMI (1980) 5 – 7 SC 1; A – G OF ANAMBRA STATE VS. A .G. FED. (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 302) 692, UGO – NGADI VS. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR – 43903 (SC) PP. 7 – 8, PARAS. E – B and NNONYE VS. ANYICHIE & ORS (2005) LPELR – 20161 (SC) P. 30, PARAS. A – C. His lordship Ngwuta, JSC in ORIORIO & ORS VS. OSAIN & ORS (2012)

LPELR – 7809 (SC) P. 19, PARAS. C – E summed up the position of the law thus:
“Appellants’ issue three is on jurisdiction and being a threshold matter, it will be resolved before any more step is taken in the appeal. This is because jurisdiction is the spinal cord of every litigation and once raised, it must be resolved before further step is taken in the matter. See, CHARLES CHINWENDU ODEDO VS. INEC & ANOR (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1117) 554 at 595.”

itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court, it is the duty of the judge or justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see, ODIASE VS. AGHO (supra). There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.”
See, also ESABUNOR & ANOR VS. FAWEYA & ORS (2019) LPELR – 46961 (SC) PP. 38 – 41, PARA. F.

No doubt the Honourable Justice B.B. Aliyu was elevated to the Court of Appeal in June, 2018 as a Justice of the Court of Appeal and shortly after took his oath as a Justice of the Court of Appeal, by so doing ceased to be a judge of the Federal High Court. The jurisdiction of the trial judge was not challenged at the trial but, raised on appeal. It is also not in doubt that as at 26th day of September, 2019 when the judgment from which the appeal arose was delivered, the trial judge was a Justice of the Court of Appeal. In OGBUNYIYA & ORS. VS. OKUDO & ORS. (1979) NSCC 77 and

OUR LINE LTD VS. S.C.C. NIGERIA LTD & ORS. (2009) 17 NWLR (PT. 1170) 383 the Supreme Court clearly stated the position of the law as to the powers of the judge when elevated to a higher Court to determine matters in the lower Court. It was held that a judge of the High Court having been elevated to the Federal Court of Appeal (preceding the Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court respectively ceased to be a judge and Chief Judge respectively of the State High Court and therefore deprived of the jurisdiction to conclude the hearing and ultimate determination of the cases they were each handling before their elevations. The Supreme Court decided that each of their decisions, after their elevations were a nullity having been decided without jurisdiction. In the case of UDE JONES UDEOGU (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel to the Appellant, the Supreme Court per his lordship Ejembi Eko, JSC clearly stated the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal at pages 21 – 22 of the above judgment thus:
“The Court of Appeal is ordinarily established to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, etc; by virtue of Section 240 of the Constitution. The exception to its

being exclusively an appellate Court is provided in Section 239 of the Constitution by which it is constituted to “have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of President or Vice – President and/or whether such offices have ceased or become vacant.”
Hon. Justice B.B. Aliyu having been elevated as a Justice of the Court of Appeal by deciding the matter at the trial Court after his elevation did so outside the Constitutional functions of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has not been vested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine criminal causes or matters at first instance, therefore the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to have heard the matter that led to this appeal. In Ude Jones Udeogu’s Case, his lordship Ejembi Eko, JSC at pages 24 – 25 further held thus:
“I must point out, right away, that by the tenor of Section 253 of the Constitution, the Federal High Court is not duly constituted by Judge(s) who had ceased to be judge(s) of that Court by the fact of his elevation to the Court of Appeal or otherwise. Upon his

elevation to the Court of Appeal, the Honourable, M.B. Idris, JCA had ceased to be a judge of the Federal High Court: OGBUNYIYA VS. OKUDO(supra): OUR LINE LTD VS. SCC NIG LTD (supra). I do not think that it is reasonable to construe Section 252(2) of the Constitution together with Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 to mean or to have the effect of extending the tenure of office of a judge of the Federal High Court who had been elevated to the Court of Appeal and whose tenure had ceased by the fact of the elevation.”
On the workings of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, his lordship Ejembi Eko, JSC at pages 26 – 27 further held that:
“For as long as the judge remains the judge of the Federal High Court only the Chief Judge has the vires and powers to issue fiat directing him to conclude part – heard matters pending in that Court. He cannot grant a fiat to a justice of the Court of Appeal to conclude part-heard criminal matters pending before the Federal High Court at the time of the latter’s elevation to the Court of Appeal. Section 19(3) & (4) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap F 12 LFN 2010 clearly consign the

prerogative of assigning any judicial function to any Judge of the Federal High Court in respect of a particular cause or matter to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. The President of the Court of Appeal is not empowered to share that statutory function with the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.”
In the same judgment, his lordship Eko, JSC held that:
“The Honourable, M.B. Idris, JCA, having been elevated to the Court of Appeal, had ceased to be a Judge of the Federal High Court. Accordingly, he had been deprived of whatever jurisdiction he has as a judge of the Federal High Court to proceed in the case “to conclude the hearing and ultimate determination” of the part – heard criminal case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/56/07 – between FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA VS. ORJI UZOR KALU & ORS. (in which the Appellant herein was the 2nd Defendant) which was pending at the Federal High Court, Lagos at the time the said Honourable, M.B. Idris, JCA was elevated to the Court of Appeal.”
The facts leading to a justice of the Court of Appeal stepping down to conclude a matter in the Federal High Court after

elevation to the Court of Appeal in the above case are similar to the facts leading to the present appeal. The trial Court was purportedly granted a fiat to conclude the matter leading to this appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) 2015 which vested a Justice of the Court of Appeal the requisite power to sit and conclude part heard matters at the Federal High Court contrary to the provisions of Section 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, also Section 1(3) of the Constitution. In respect of the validity of Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015, the Supreme Court in Ude Jones Udeogu’s case held that:
“The enactment of Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 is an attempt by the National Assembly, in view of this Court’s interpretation of Section 254(1) of the 1979 Constitution which is reproduced as the substantial part of Section 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution, to whittle down the operation of the said provisions of the Constitution. Ab initio Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 was set out to frontally contract and challenge the letters, substance and

spirit of Section 290(1) of the 1999 Constitution. To that extent Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015 is inconsistent with the constitution, particularly Section 290(1) thereof. Therefore, by operation of Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Section 396(7) of the ACJA, 2015, to the extent of its inconsistency with Section 290(1) of the Constitution, is void.”
In the same vein, Honourable Justice B.B. Aliyu, JCA having been elevated to the Court of Appeal had ceased to be a judge of the Federal High Court and had no power or jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and acted contrary to Sections 1(2)(a) and 19(3) & (4) of the Federal High Court Act. The resultant effect is that the entire proceedings, decision and orders made therein are a nullity and are hereby set aside.
The learned counsel to the 1st Respondent had submitted that this Court should not go by the decision in Udeogu’s Supreme Court decision but, to be judicious and do justice to this case since the Appellant in that case was not discharged and acquitted. It is trite that by the common law tradition, the doctrine of judicial precedent dictates that all subordinate Courts are bound

to follow the decision of a superior Court where the ratio decidendi of the latter govern the determination of the matter before them. It would be an unpardonable judicial affront if this Court being aware of the decision on an issue (Judicial precedent) of a Superior Court closes its eyes to such decision and holds otherwise. This Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot rightly fail to do so in a bid “to do justice to the case” as urged by the learned counsel to the 1st Respondent. In NIGERIA – ARAB BANK LTD VS. BARRI ENGINEERING (NIG) LTD (1995) LPELR – 2007 (SC) PP. 47 – 48, PARAS. G – B, his lordship Ogundare, JSC held that:
“The doctrine of judicial precedent (otherwise called stare decisis) requires all subordinate Courts to follow decisions of Superior Courts even where these decisions are obviously wrong having been based upon a false premise; this is the foundation on which the consistency of our judicial decision is based – see: NGWO VS. MONYE (1970) 1 ALL NLR 911100.”
See also OYEWUNMI & ANOR VS. OGUNESAN (1990) LPELR – 2880 (SC) P. 61, PARAS. E –

F, PDP VS. ORANEZI & ORS. (2017) LPELR – 43471 (SC) PP. 9 – 10, PARAS. E – A and 7 – UP BOTTLING COMPANY LTD & ORS VS. ABIOLA and SONS (NIG) LTD (1995) LPELR – 2 (SC) PP. 20 – 21, PARAS. F – A. The Court of Appeal and other Lower Courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. See, OSHO VS. FOREIGN FINANCE CORPORATION (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 184) 157.
The learned trial judge was wrong to have heard and determined case No. FHC/YL/103C/2015 in respect of the Appellant and as it affects him as 1st defendant at the trial Court. The appeal is allowed, on the challenge of the jurisdiction of the trial Court, there would be no need to examine issues formulated by the parties. The case is remitted back to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment to a judge of the Federal High Court for trial de novo.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

M.P. Atsev, Esq., with him, M.G. Seuduktere, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Abubakar Aliyu, Esq. – for the 1st Respondent

V.G. Abasiodiong, Esq., with him, H. Omeh, Esq., and Bobgah Samuel, Esq. – for the 2nd Respondent For Respondent(s)