NNAMAH & ORS v. ENEMUO & ORS
(2020)LCN/14823(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, December 17, 2020
CA/AW/165/2010
RATIO
APPEAL: ESSENCE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
It is trite law that the Notice of Appeal is the spinal cord of an appeal; it is the cynosure or fulcrum of an appeal. See ADERIBIGBE & ANOR v. ABIDOYE (2009) 4-5 S. C. (pt. III) 123 at 148. If the notice of appeal is defective, then all proceedings based on it becomes a nullity as it will deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeal. PER SANGA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR APPEALS FROM LOWER COURTS
It is common knowledge that this Court hears appeals from among others, the Federal High Court, State High Courts, National Industrial Court, Customary Court of Appeal, Sharia Court of Appeal, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Court Martial, etc. (see Sections 241, 243, 244, 245, 246 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). PER SANGA, J.C.A.
APPEAL: EFFECT OF A DEFECTIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL
While pronouncing on the effect of a defective notice of appeal the Supreme Court inTHE NIGERIA ARMY v. SGT. ASANU SAMUEL & ORS (2013 LPELR – 20931 (SC) per RHODES – VIVOUR JSC held thus:
“A Notice of Appeal is the process that initiates an appeal, so if it is defective, any proceedings taken on a defective Notice of Appeal becomes null and void as the Court would have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal commenced on such a defective process. The reasoning is simple. You cannot put something (appeal proceedings) on nothing (defective Notice of Appeal) and expect it to stand. It would crumble. It was held in MADUKOLU & ORS. v. NKEMDILIM 1962 2 NSCCP. 374 that a Court is competent when:- 1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; 2. The subject Matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
The Apex Court reiterated this position in MANESSEH JAPHET & ANOR v. THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 40003 (SC) when Court held thus:
“The notice of appeal is the foundation and substratum of any appeal. It must not be tainted with any defects as this will vitiate the appeal and deprive the appellate Court of its jurisdiction”. Per AKA’AHS, JSC.
See also:
1. ALHAJI POPOOLA OGUNDOYIN & ORS v. ADEBAYO FADAIRO EWENLA (2017) LPELR- 43218 (CA);
2. S. P. D. C. (NIG) LTD v. ANTHONY ONYIRIUKA & ORS (2016) LPELR – 41309 (CA).
3. BALA ABUBAKAR v. C.O.P. GOMBE STATE (2015) LPELR -40629 (CA). PER SANGA, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal
Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Bitrus Gyarazama Sanga Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
- PAUL NNAMAH 2. LAW CHINWUBA 3. CHIEF CHRISTOPHER ENEMUO 4. CHIEF PETER OBAGHA 5. PAUL C. IWOBA ENEMUO APPELANT(S)
And
- MIKE ENEMUO (ALIAS LEVENTIS) 2. ANTHONY OMATANYINYA OZEKWE 3. EMMA ODUKO 4. AUGUSTINE CHUKWUNWIKE EGINI 5. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 6. ASST. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ZONE 9, UMUAHIA 7. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ANAMBRA STATE 8. INSPECTOR JOSEPH OGBA 9. CSP. CHARLES CHIMA RESPONDENT(S)
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants as Applicants filed this suit No. OT/MISC.204/2009 on 6th July, 2009 before the High Court of Anambra State of Nigeria, Otuocha Judicial Division, J. I. Nweze J., presiding against the Respondents via a motion exparte seeking for leave to enforce their fundamental rights pursuant to Order 1 Rule 2 (3) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. On 9th July, 2009 the learned trial Judge granted the application and issued exparte Order accordingly. (Pages 1 to 3 and 39 – 40 of the Records). On 16th July, 2009 the Applicants filed an Originating Motion on Notice seeking for the following reliefs:
1. Declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicants at Police State C. I. D., Awka by the 5th to 9th respondents, at the instance of the 1st to 4th Respondents, on the 14th May, 2009, without any probable or justifiable cause, is illegal, ultra vires the power of the 5th to 9th Respondents; and the said arrest and detention infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of their human person, right to personal
1
liberty and freedom of movement of the applicants as guaranteed and enshrined in Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2. Declaration that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents’ threat by themselves and/or through the officers working under them to further arrest and detain the applicants at the instance of the 1st to the 4th Respondents, without trial and prosecution and without any offence allegedly committed by the applicants, amounts to an infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights to dignity of their human person, right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed and enshrined in Section 34, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
3. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents and officers working under them from further arresting and detaining the applicants at the instance of the 1st to the 4th Respondents, their agents, privies and/ or assigns.
4. For such Further Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to make in circumstances.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE
2
APPLICATION BROUGHT:
(a) The Applicants are entitled to enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of human person as enshrined in Section 34, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution and can only be deprived of same or have same interfered with, if they have committed any known criminal offence or reasonably suspected to have committed any criminal offence.
(b) The Applicants are entitled to the protection of their fundamental rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of human persons.
(c) The Applicants are respectable citizens of Nigeria and the full description of the Applicants have been given in clause 1 above.
(d) The 5th Respondent is the Inspector General of Police; the 6th to the 9th Respondents are police officers who work under the Inspector General of Police; and 8th and 9th Respondents are attached to the Anambra State Police command Awka within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.
(e) The Anambra State Government through the Ministry of Local Government Chieftaincy Matters on 24th November 2008 addressed a letter to Okebu John who is the
3
principal technical works, Anambra State Local Government System requesting that Eziagulu – Out should set up works committee that would comprise the following:
(i) The Traditional Ruler or his representative
(ii) The President – General
(iii) Representatives of two prominent religious bodies in the community as may be nominated by their Priests
(iv) Representative of the Government.
(v) Head of Security in the Community;
Copy of the said letter would be relied upon at the hearing
(f) Two committees were set up sequel to the letter referred to in paragraph (e) above. The two Committees are:
(i) Committee on palliative works on Ezeagulu – Out Road and works Committee; documents relating to the setting up of the above committees are attached.
(j) The palliative works Committee after delibration submitted it’s report to the Head of Local Government Administration on 11th March, 2009; the said report would be relied upon at the hearing of this Suit.
(k) Prior to the letter referred to in paragraph (e) above, the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent had imposed
4
themselves respectively as the President General, Secretary General and Publicity Secretary of the Ezeagulu – Out Town union. Letter dated 13th March, 2008 relating to the above was addressed to the Special Adviser to the Governor Ministry of Public Utility Government House Awka; the said letter shall be relied upon at the hearing of this suit.
(l) The Permanent Secretary Ministry of Local Government & Chieftaincy Matters Government House Awka; wrote a Letter on 11th May, 2008 to the President General Enugwu-Otu Community to the effect that the purported election referred to in the letter written on 13th March, 2008 was not recognized.
(m) The imposition was challenged vide the letter the 4th Applicant addressed to Honorable Commissioner for Local Government town Union & Chieftaincy Matters Government House Awka; the said letter would be relied upon at the hearing.
(n) Police in a letter written on 22nd of May, 2009 enquired from the Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government & Chieftaincy Matters Government House Awka whether the 1st Respondent is the President General of Eziagulu – Out Town Union. The Ministry of Local
5
Government & Chieftaincy Matters, Government House Awka under the hand of Permanent Secretary wrote a letter dated 18th June, 2009 to state that the 1st Respondent was not the President General of Eziagulu – Out Town Union; the two letters reffered to above would be relied upon at the hearing of this suit.
(o) Notwithstanding that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents including the 4th Respondent do not represent Ezeagulu – Out Town in any capacity, they caused petition to be written to the commissioner of Police Anambra State alleging that the Applicants embezzled the sum of #2.5 million Naira belonging to Ezeagulu – Out Town. The 1st – 9th respondents at the instance of the 1st 4th respondents caused the Applicants to be arrested and detained on the 14 May, 2009 on the colour of investigating the alleged fraud and embezzlement.
(p) The 5th – 9th Respondent had since concluded with their investigation on the alleged fraud and embezzlement and gave a clean bill to the applicants.
(q) Police at the instance of the 1st to the 4th Respondents do not want to prosecute the Applicants or drop the allegation made against
6
them; rather they chose to re-arrest and further detain the Applicants without trial contrary to the rights of the Applicants itemized in clause 2 above.
(r) The 5th to the 9th Respondents will re-arrest and detain the Applicants at the instance of the 1st to the 4th Respondents their agents, assigns and those they represent anytime from now unless restrained by the Honourable Court the 8th respondent has been calling the applicants on phone (08064097775) to appear at Anambra State CID Awka for further arrest and detention at Umuahia Police Zonal Command Umuahia, that they have secured signal from Zone 9.
(s) That the subject matter of this suit arose from the grant the Anambra State government made to Eziagulu – Out Town which the 1st to the 4th Respondents alleged that the Applicants embezzled; the Applicants shall contend at the hearing of this Application that the subject matter of the application having arisen from the same transaction involving citizen of the same town, the Applicants can bring joint application to enforce their Fundamental Rights.
(t) The Honourable Court has the competent to grant the reliefs the Applicants are
7
seeking in this suit.
(u) The Applicants would attend Court to stand trial if they are charged for any criminal offence and would be ready to defend any civil suit brought against them by all or any of the Respondents instead of tormenting them from one Police location to another at the instance of the 1st – 4th Respondents.
A verifying affidavit deposed to by the 1st Applicant containing 12 paragraph also accompanied the application (pages 12 – 15 of the Records) photocopies of several documents were also attached to the application (pages 16- 33 of the Records). A written address at pages 34 – 38 of the Records also accompanied the application.
Upon being served with the Applicants originating processes the 1st to 4th Respondents filed a counter affidavit deposed to by the 1st Respondent on 12th April, 2010 containing 50 paragraphs (pages 106 – 114 of the Records). The deponent averred, inter alia, as follows:
45. i. That the Anambra State Government under His Excellency Mr. Peter Obi, the Governor of Anambra State, started paying monetary grants to Town/Communities in Anambra State for security and road
8
maintenance.
ii. That Eziagulu – Out community was among the 177 Communities that benefitted from the 2007 grant of #1,000,000.00 to each community.
iii. That the State Government increased this grant to #2,5000,000.00 in 2008.
xii. That the 2nd Applicant without the authority of Eziagulu – Out Community signed and collected the cheque of #2,500,000.00 being 2008 monetary grant meant for our community, and with the active connivance of the 1st Applicant who is the Onitsha Branch Manager of the Fidelity Bank PLC and other Applicants cleared this cheque and embezzled the money.
xiii. That none of the Applicants was authorized to act for Eziagulu – Out community in collection of the cheque or at all.
xviii. That the criminal activities of the Applicants, and the inaction of the Government to both letter occasioned by the undue influence of the 2nd Applicant compelled us to complain to the Commissioner of Police, Anambra State against the Applicants vide our petition dated 13/02/09. Exhibited and marked “Q” is a photocopy of our said petition.
Xix. That notwithstanding several invitations issued to the
9
Applicants by the Police, the Applicants only honoured the invitation requiring them to report to the Police on 14th May, 2009.
xx. That the Applicants were released on that same 14th May, 2009 after the Police had obtained their Statements.
47. That in answer to paragraph (s) of the Grounds, I aver that the Applicants who have no authority of Eziagulu – Out town to collect the monetary grant meant for Eziagulu – Out indeed embezzled the grant.
In response to the depositions by the 1st to 4th Respondents in their counter affidavit, the Applicants filed a Further Affidavit containing 5 paragraphs on 19/4/2010 wherein they deposited, inter alia, as follows:
3. vi. That I hereby deny all the other averments as contained in the counter affidavit as false since we never embezzled the community’s funds as alleged by the 1st Respondents. We attach and mark as Exhibit PN2 copy of letter dated 7th July, 2009 from the office of Honourable Commissioner, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters Anambra State which totally vindicated us.
4. That we are advised by Obi Anizoba, Esq. and verily believed that the Court in
10
granting leave to us never stayed all action and matters relating to the complaint and the order was duly served on the Respondents, particularly 5th – 9th Respondent; yet no charge has been preferred against us till date. (pages 152-153 of the Records).
Attached to the further affidavit of the Applicants are copies of documents and a Written address. (pages 154-157 off the Records). The 1st-4th Respondents filed a Further Counter Affidavit on 23/4/2010 containing 14 paragraphs. They deposed at paragraph 10: vi as follows:
That our said counsel Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN informed me and I verily believe him that the Applicants Exhibit PN2 does not exonerate the 2nd Applicant or other Applicants from their criminal liability in embezzling the community fund. (Pages 158-161 of the Records).
Attached to the 1st-4th Respondent’s further counter affidavit is a written address at pages 162-164 of the Records.
Hearing commenced on 9th July, 2009 wherein the learned trial Judge granted the ex parte application by the applicants. Thereafter learned counsel moved their applications and on 10/5/2010 the learned trial Judge adjourned to
11
2/6/2010 for judgment.
In his judgment (pages 171-176 of the Records) the learned trial Judge held inter alia as follows:
“The 1st to 4th Respondents admit that they lodged a complaint to the police against the applicants. I have found that the police are yet to conclude investigation into the matter. Until that is done it will not be possible to determine whether the allegations are true or false. There are several issue which a lawful police investigation will disclose. Those include how the money got into the hands of the applicants. How were they able to clear the cheques when they are not signatories to the account of the community? Do they have the authority to the account of the community to deal with the money? If they had no such authority, it is material that they accounted for the money. There is therefore a lot which a thorough police investigation into this matter will resolve. My advice is that the police should empanel a team of God fearing investigators to look into this matter.
This suit is no more than an attempt to ensure that the police investigation into the matter is truncated. This Court will not lend its support to
12
such a scheme. See A. G. ANAMBRA STATE v. CHRIS UBA (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 947) 44.
I should say that the most civilized manner the police had conducted the investigation without arresting or detaining the applicants should be encouraged. The police are not to arrest before they get evidence that a crime has been committed.
In the light of the foregoing, this application completely lacks merit and it fails. The police are directed to conclude with dispatch, the investigation into the allegations against the applicants. This suit is dismissed with cost of #50,000.00 against the applicants in favour of the 1st to 4th respondents.”
The applicants were aggrieved with this decision by the lower Court. They filed a Notice of Appeal containing 7 grounds of appeal dated 9th June, 2010 filed on 10/6/2010. The Appellants’ brief was filed on 13/9/2010. It was prepared by B. S. Nwankwo Esq. Learned counsel formulated two issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge’s failure to call or take oral evidence to resolve the material conflicts in the affidavits of the parties was proper and a fortiori whether same
13
occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice?
2 Whether the learned trial Judge duly evaluated the evidence of the parties in his judgment and whether his failure occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice?
I have noted the Notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1st to 4th Respondents on 25/11/2010 which was argued by them in their brief of argument as issue 1 (pages 6 to 7 of the said brief).
The 1st to 4th Respondents’ brief was filed, with leave of this Court, on 30/6/2016. It was settled by S. O. Nworie Esq. Learned counsel raised 3 issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the Notice of Appeal is not incompetent.
2. Whether the Appellants established before the trial Court that there was a breach of their fundamental rights and whether the institution of this case was not to truncate police investigation.
3. Whether the trial Court properly evaluated the evidence placed before it.
The appellants did not file a reply brief. I will consider the preliminary objection by the 1st to 4th Respondents which they argued as issue 1.
Issue 1 of the 1st to 4th Respondents is:
14
Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant is not incompetent.
The main grouse of the 1st to 4th Respondents is that the notice of appeal filed by the Appellants is incompetent because at page 177 of the Records the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal reads thus:
“TAKE NOTICE that the Applicants/Appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment of His Lordship Hon. Justice J. I. Nweze delivered on 2nd June, 2020 do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division on the Grounds set out in paragraph 3 of this Notice and shall at the hearing seek the Relief set out in paragraph 4 hereunder.”
Learned counsel submitted that from the notice given by the Appellants of their appeal as reproduced above it is evident that the State High Court from which the appeal emanated was not disclosed; neither was the Suit number in respect to which judgment is being appealed stated. Cited Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007. That it is incumbent on the Appellants in the instant appeal to state distinctly and clearly in their Notice of Appeal the Suit number and the State High Court from which the appeal emanated. That failure to state so
15
is a material defect that goes to the root of the appeal because it is trite law that a notice of appeal is the foundation and substratum of every appeal, any defect therein rendered the whole appeal incompetent. Cited: CLEV JOSH LTD. v. TOKIMI (2008) 13 NWLR (pt. 1104) 442; ADEGOROYE v. OMEGA BANK PLC (2004) AII FWLR (pt. 239) 871; and EJIOGU v. IRONA (2008) AII FWLR (pt. 442) 1066.
That the conspicuous missing from the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal of the suit number and the name of the State High Court from which the appeal is coming rendered the notice of appeal defective and thus incompetent. That there is no cognizable and competent appeal before this Court. He urged the Court to invoke its power pursuant to Order 6 Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 and strike out this appeal.
FINDING ON ISSUE 1
I have carefully considered the submission by learned counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents while attacking the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants at page 177 of the Records. I am at a loss as to why the appellants did not consider it necessary to file a Reply brief in answer to this weighty submission by the Respondents. Be that
16
as it may, I will consider the submission by learned counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents on its merit vis-à-vis the provision of the law and decided judicial and statutory authorities. It is trite law that the Notice of Appeal is the spinal cord of an appeal; it is the cynosure or fulcrum of an appeal. See ADERIBIGBE & ANOR v. ABIDOYE (2009) 4-5 S. C. (pt. III) 123 at 148. If the notice of appeal is defective, then all proceedings based on it becomes a nullity as it will deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeal. In the instant Notice of Appeal, the Appellants, either by inadvertence or negligence omitted or forgot to state the name of the Court from which the appeal emanated. It is common knowledge that this Court hears appeals from among others, the Federal High Court, State High Courts, National Industrial Court, Customary Court of Appeal, Sharia Court of Appeal, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Court Martial, etc. (see Sections 241, 243, 244, 245, 246 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The appellants in their notice of appeal made no mention of the Court that delivered the
17
judgment they are appealing against.
To further compound the omission, the appellants also failed to state the suit number of the suit that led to the judgment they are appealing against and the names of the parties. All they did is to mention the name of the Judge that delivered the judgment. As the popular Nigeria aphorism States “soldier come, soldier go but barracks remain”. Judges deliver their judgments and after a while retire, are retired or even die while serving on the bench but the Court as a citadel of Justice remains. Therefore, merely mentioning the name of a judge that delivered a judgment without the name of the Court he was presiding over goes to no issue as it cannot invoke the authority of the Court. It is my finding therefore that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants on 10th June, 2010 at pages 177 to 181 of the record of appeal is patently defective for failing to state the name of the Court that delivered the judgment that gave rise to this appeal. The Notice of appeal did not also mentioned the suit number and the names of the parties to the suit. While pronouncing on the effect of a defective notice of appeal
18
the Supreme Court inTHE NIGERIA ARMY v. SGT. ASANU SAMUEL & ORS (2013 LPELR – 20931 (SC) per RHODES – VIVOUR JSC held thus:
“A Notice of Appeal is the process that initiates an appeal, so if it is defective, any proceedings taken on a defective Notice of Appeal becomes null and void as the Court would have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal commenced on such a defective process. The reasoning is simple. You cannot put something (appeal proceedings) on nothing (defective Notice of Appeal) and expect it to stand. It would crumble. It was held in MADUKOLU & ORS. v. NKEMDILIM 1962 2 NSCCP. 374 that a Court is competent when:- 1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; 2. The subject Matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
The Apex Court reiterated this position in
19
MANESSEH JAPHET & ANOR v. THE STATE (2014) LPELR – 40003 (SC) when Court held thus:
“The notice of appeal is the foundation and substratum of any appeal. It must not be tainted with any defects as this will vitiate the appeal and deprive the appellate Court of its jurisdiction”. Per AKA’AHS, JSC.
See also:
1. ALHAJI POPOOLA OGUNDOYIN & ORS v. ADEBAYO FADAIRO EWENLA (2017) LPELR- 43218 (CA);
2. S. P. D. C. (NIG) LTD v. ANTHONY ONYIRIUKA & ORS (2016) LPELR – 41309 (CA).
3. BALA ABUBAKAR v. C.O.P. GOMBE STATE (2015) LPELR -40629 (CA).
Upon considering the submission by learned counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents while attacking the competence of the notice of appeal and after considering the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court on a defective notice of appeal, it is obvious that the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 25th November, 2010 by the 1st to 4th Respondents and argued as issue one in their brief of argument filed on 30th June, 2016 is meritorious.
The said objection is hereby upheld by me. Sequel to this finding and considering that this decision touches on
20
the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this appeal No. CA/AW/165/2010 it becomes unnecessary for me to consider the two issues argued by learned counsel in their respective briefs. Therefore, the judgment of this Court is that this appeal lacks merit because it was filed based on a defective notice of appeal. This appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment delivered by the High Court of Anambra State, Anambra Judicial Division, Holden at Otuocha delivered on 2nd day of June, 2010 by J. I. Nweze J, abides. I make no order as to cost.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead Judgment of B. G. SANGA, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
The Judgment Nweze, J, of the Otuocha division of the Anambra State High Court delivered on the 2nd day of June, 2010 is hereby affirmed.
I also make no order as to costs.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.: I had read before now the lead judgment just delivered by my brother BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, JCA.
21
I agree entirely with his opinion and conclusion.
I also uphold the objection I dismiss the Appeal.
The Judgment of the Anambra State High Court holden at Otuocha is hereby affirmed.
22
Appearances:
S. NWANKWO Esq. For Appellant(s)
O. NWORIE Esq., with him, P. O. ONYEKWECHI Esq. – for the 1st – 4th Respondent. For Respondent(s)
