NWANKWO & ORS v. NWEME & ANOR (2020)

NWANKWO & ORS v. NWEME & ANOR

(2020)LCN/14566(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, September 18, 2020

CA/E/241/2009

RATIO

PLEADINGS: FAIR HEARING

Fair hearing in a dispute relates to the way and manner the said dispute was heard and determined. To be fair, the hearing must have been even handed in a non-intimidating environment, with each party given equal opportunities to present their respective cases and cross-examine the witnesses of the opponent. See INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 425618, EGBUCHU VS. CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS (2016) LPELR-40053 (SC), BAMGBOYE VS. UNILORIN & ANOR (1999) LPELR-737 (SC) and ZENITH PLASTICS INDUSTRIES LTD VS. SAMOTECH LTD (2018) LPELR-44056(SC).

A perusal of the entire record of appeal covering the proceedings of the trial Customary Court did not disclose where any of the stated indices of fair hearing was violated. Both sides called witnesses and duly cross-examined the opposing witnesses without being intimidated by the trial Customary Court.

The allegation that the issue of ostracism was raised but ignored by the trial Customary Court and the Court below raises a fundamental point in adjudication however. To effectively do justice in matters before them, Courts have a duty to consider issues submitted by parties to the dispute otherwise justice would not be served. See DEC OIL & GAS LTD VS. SHELL NIG. GAS LTD (2019) LPELR-49347 (SC).

However, the only issue before the trial Customary Court was the ownership of the pieces of land stated in the claim of the Respondents. The Appellants did not counter-claim or make allegations against the Respondents on the issue of ostracism. In staking their claim to the said parcels of land, the Appellants gave a narration which included how their lineage became ostracized at some point in history and how this discrimination was overcome upon which they became entitled to the parcels of land in dispute. The trial Customary Court however rejected the evidence adduced in this regard as unsubstantiated and found Exhibit C to be of no value as it was unsigned, upon which it was expunged. As was well noted by the Court below, witnesses called by the Respondents included the Igwe of the community who could have been confronted with the issue under cross-examination but was not. In fact none of the witnesses for the Respondents was confronted with the so called issue of ostracization of the Appellants’ forebear. The said issue was never made out as an issue calling for the determination of the trial Customary Court and could not have been made an issue on appeal as it did not arise from the decision of the trial Court. See VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COCOA INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 425) 1667 at 1685, BALOGUN VS. ADEJOBI (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 376) 131, OLATUNJI VS. ADISA (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 376) 167 and AYINKE STORES LTD VS. ADEBOGUN (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1096) 612.

As noted earlier, there was no unfairness in the hearing of the dispute. The Appellants are only crying wolf where there was none.

Contrary to the story of ostracism, the trial Customary Court found as contained on the second paragraph of page 52 of the record of appeal thus:
(b) Court discovered that Eme Oru and Akwadiniru were brothers and had already shared their late father’s Oru Nevo’s assets before their death. The land shared include Ani Atulu, Ube Nwokolo, Asaja Nwankwo Ani, Achara Nwankwo Ani, Orji Ocha, NguIbe Ude, Azuaja, Ugbo Chita Ugbo Nwangene and Ugwuebo as agreed by both parties during proceedings. (c) Court believes that the 1st defendant Anthony Nwankwo is being misled by the enemies of the family while he himself is misleading other defendants by encouraging them to follow him dispute over the lands their late father, Akwadiniru Ory never any claim when he was alive. Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

RATIO

PLEADINGS: EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE; HEARSAY EVIDENCE.

Pursuant to Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011; “37 hearsay is a statement (a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding, or (b) contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of providing the truth of the matter stated in it.” Evidence must be direct as a witness would be disallowed from asserting the veracity of what he did not see, hear, perceive or have knowledge of directly. It is hearsay to assert the veracity of what a witness was told by some other person who had direct knowledge of the facts and hearsay evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Section 38 of the said Evidence Act (supra) unless covered by the exception provided in Section 39. See A.G. RIVERS STATE V A.G. AKWA-IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31, EDOSA & ANOR VS. OGIEMWANRE (2018) LPELR-46341 (SC), ASAKE VS NIG. ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR (2006) LPELR-5427 (CA) and OJO V. GHARORO & ORS (2006) LPELR-2383 (SC).

The document admitted as Exhibit A at trial is titled “THE VERDICT PASSED BY NDIOWUGA FAMILY MEETING OVER THE LAND DISPUTE BETWEEN NWEME’S FAMILY AND AKWADINIRU’S FAMILY”. The said document was tendered as part of the Respondents’ case at trial by PW1, Pastor Julius Nweme. The said document has six signatories including Surv. Nwankwo Gilbert whose designation was Chairman Awkunanaw. PW4 at trial was the same Nwankwo Gilbert whose testimony is on pages 19-21 of the record of appeal. The evidence of this witness as to what he signed is direct evidence and cannot be considered hearsay. Exhibit A however contains proceedings of the meeting of Ndiowuga Family received at the meeting presided over by PW4 but at which family meeting PW4 did not participate. It would be hearsay for PW4 to testify of that family meeting in which he played no part. However, to the extent that he presided over the proceedings of Awkunanaw Village meeting and signed Exhibit A as the record of the meeting he presided over, his testimony in that regard was direct. Exhibit A was however only part of the evidence available to the trial Customary Court, it was not the sole evidence upon which the decision of that Court was based on.

The Appellants contended with the evaluation of evidence made by the trial Customary Court. Evaluation of evidence is the preserve of the trial Court which had the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing the demeanors of witnesses. An appellate Court would only interfere where such evaluation was perverse and resulted in miscarriage of justice. See ABISI & ORS VS. EKWEALOR & ANOR (1993) LPELR-44 (SC).

Civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities with the adduced evidence placed on an imaginary scale and judgment given in favour of the party with the more credible evidence. See ODOFIN VS. MOGAJI & ORS (1978) NSCC 275.
Pursuant to Section 133 of the Evidence Act, onus of proof in civil cases is never static, while onus of proof is on the party asserting the positive, a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must rely on the strength of his case and on discharging the onus would be entitled to judgment unless the defendant has a more credible case. The defendant who puts forward a narrative therefore has the duty of establishing the veracity thereof. See NASR VS. BERINI (BEIRUT-RIYAD) (NIG.) BANK LTD (1968) LPELR-25463 (SC), VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COCOA INDUSTRIES LTD. (2008) NWLR (PT. 1105) 486 and ERINLE & ORS VS. ALUKO & ORS (2013) LPELR-22157 (CA).

It needs be borne in mind that the appeal here took its roots from the judgment of a customary Court and that customary Courts basically function to dispense justice simply by going to the substance of disputes without inhibitive technical considerations. This much was captured by the provisions of Section 20 of the Customary Court Law, Cap 32, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004 which provides as follows:
No proceedings in a customary Court and no summons, warrant, order, decree or other processes issued or made by the Court shall be declared void or otherwise varied upon appeal, solely by reason of any defect in procedure or want of form, but every Court or authority exercising appellate jurisdiction by virtue of this law or any other law, shall decide all matters brought to it on appeal from a customary Court as substantial justice of the case may require. Furthermore, a guide for the consideration of judgments of the customary Courts was provided by the Supreme Court in AGBASI & ORS VS. OBI & ORS (1998) 1-2 SC 26 as follows:
1. “The Court must not place too strict emphasis on the form but must examine the entire proceedings in order to determine what the Native Court case is all about.”
2. It is equally settled that when dealing with judgments or matters from Native Courts, an Appellate Court is entitled to go beyond what appears on the face of the claim or wit and ascertain from the entire evidence before the Native Court what was really the nature of the dispute between the parties to the action and the land involved.”
3. The Native Courts are Courts of common sense and simplicity. They are never burdened by strict adherence to procedure. They are the Courts for quick and cheap manner of dispensation of justice. Most of the time, their decisions reflect the very justice and truth of the cases. It is because these Courts are not tied to technicality of procedure that the Appellate Court must look at the totality of the proceedings to find who were the parties before them, what were the issues before them and what have they decided.”

While the Respondents through credible evidence duly established their entitlement to the parcels of land in dispute, the case of the Appellants did not attract such credibility. Crucial to the Appellants’ narrative was the alleged ostracization of their forbear and it was essential that the said narrative be established with credible evidence. The evaluation made by the trial Customary Court could not be justifiably said to have misplaced the burden of proof. Per JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. ANTHONY NWANKWO 2. JULIUS NWANKWO 3. CYRIL NWANKWO (FOR THEMSELVES AND REPRESENTING AKWADINIRU FAMILY) APPELANT(S)

And

1. PASTOR JULIUS NWEME 2. NWEME MOSES O. (FOR THEMSELVES AND REPRESENTING NWEME FAMILY) RESPONDENT(S)

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Enugu State, Awgu Judicial Division sitting in an appellate capacity, delivered on the 23rd October, 2008 by NWOBODO, J.

The parties who are members of the same clan of Ndiowuga in Awkunanaw in Mbanabo North Local Government Development Council of Enugu State had a dispute over some parcels of land which proved intractable to the community leadership. Eventually, the Respondents initiated an action against the Appellants at the Customary Court holden at Ihe which was transferred by the Hon. Chief Judge of Enugu State to the Customary Court of Owelli where it was eventually heard. Therein, the Respondents sought the following reliefs:
1. Court declaration of title to a Customary right of occupancy of “Uwurugu”, “Ofi Aowuga”, two lands at “Onuebe” (Home wards), Isinka and Ururo.
2. Injunction restraining the Defendants, servants, agents or privies from entering or doing any work on the said Lands.
3. Any other order as the Court may deem fit to make in the present circumstances.

At trial, the Respondents testified and called witnesses in support of their claims while the Appellants testified but could not get any outside witnesses to corroborate their version of events. The trial Customary Court then embarked on a visit to the locus in quo at the end of which they gave judgment in favour of the Respondents.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Enugu State, hereinafter referred to as the Court below, but were again unsuccessful as their appeal was dismissed as unmeritorious while the judgment of the trial Customary Court was affirmed.

Still dissatisfied, the Appellants further appealed to this Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 23rd January, 2009 which was subsequently amended via the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 6th March, 2019 containing four grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Onuoma adopted the Appellants’ brief as well as the Amended Appellants’ Reply brief both filed on the 6th March, 2019 and both deemed properly filed and served on the 23rd June, 2020 as the arguments of the Appellants in furtherance of this appeal.

For the Respondents, Mr. Akaraiwe adopted the Respondents’ Amended brief filed on the 8th May, 2019 but equally deemed properly filed and served on the 23rd June, 2020 as the arguments of the Respondents in contesting the appeal.

The Appellants distilled the following issues for determination:
1. Whether in view of the fact that defendants raised the issue of discrimination contrary to Section 42(2) of the 1999 Constitution at the trial Court which issue was not considered, the learned appellate Judge was right in not considering whether or not the defendant was afforded a fair hearing.- Ground 2.
2. Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence of the parties and whether the said evaluation showed that plaintiffs proved their case (Ground 1)
3. Whether the appellate Court was right in holding that Exhibit A (the written report of the deliberations of Ndi Owuga Family) was admissible when he had agreed that the oral evidence of PW4 seeking to give direct evidence of the deliberations of the Ndi Owuga Family was hearsay.- Ground 3.
4. Whether the appellate Court was right in not considering the issue of

ostracism of the 1st Defendant and his wife when it was properly raised and canvassed at the trial Court. Grounds 4 & omnibus ground.

The Respondents adopted the above issues and in addition formulated what appears to be an all-encompassing issue thus:
Whether upon the totality of the evidence given assent to by the High Court sitting in appellate capacity, the Respondents are not entitled to have the two concurrent judgments in their favour at the two lower Courts confirmed by this Honourable Court of Appeal.

With due respect to Mr. Akaraiwe, the learned counsel for the Respondents, having adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant, his additional issue appears tautological as it would be answered by the logical outcome of the adopted issues. I shall therefore discountenance the additional issue of the Respondents and take the mutually agreed issues in accordance with their affinity by first taking issues 1 and 4 together and subsequently, issues 2 and 3 together as well.

The first two issues are:
Whether in view of the fact that defendants raised the issue of discrimination contrary to S.42(2) of the 1999 Constitution at the

trial Court which issue was not considered the learned appellate Judge was right in not considering whether or not the defendant was afforded a fair hearing. And
Whether the appellate Court was right in not considering the issue of ostracism of the 1st Defendant and his wife when it was properly raised and canvassed at the trial Court.

In arguing these issues, the Appellants submitted that the issues were raised at trial through the testimony of their witnesses but that the trial Customary Court as well as the Court below failed to consider the said issue. He referred to Section 42(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which is hereinafter referred to simply as the Constitution and also referred to TOLANI VS. KWARA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS (2009) LPELR-8375(CA), VINCENT U. EGHAREVBA VS. DR OROBOR OSAGIE (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1173), AG LEVENTIS NIG.PLC. VS. CHRISTIAN AKPU (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1063) 416, SABRUE MOTORS NIG. LTD. VS. RAJAB ENT. NIG LTD. (2002) 4 SCNJ 370 @ 382, OWODUNNI VS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CELESTIAL CHURCH OF CHRIST & 3 ORS. (2000) 6 S.C. (PT. 11) 60, and IFEANYI CHUKWU (OSONDU) LTD. VS SOLEH BONEH LTD. (2000) 3 S.C. 42.

It was further submitted for the Appellants that they were not afforded the opportunity to fairly put forward their case at trial as their witnesses were threatened with ostracization by the community thereby impeding their right to fair hearing. Learned counsel referred to ADEYINKA AJAYI VS. KAYODE IDOWU & ORS. (2010) LPELR – 3673 (CA).

Finally on these issues, Mr. Onuoma submitted that the appellate Court had a duty to consider whether or not the Appellants were afforded a fair hearing at the trial Court. He referred to SHELL B.P PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LTD. VS. HIS HIGHNESS PERE COLE & ORS. (1978) 3 SC 194.

Contrariwise, Mr. Akaraiwe submitted for the Respondents that it is the duty of the party who alleges that his right to fair hearing was breached to prove to the Court how said right was taken away from him. He submitted that from the evidence adduced, the Appellants’ right to fair hearing was never breached and that the issue of alleged discrimination did not arise nor was it substantiated by the Appellants at the trial Court. He referred to ELIKE VS. NWAKWOALA & ORS (1984) ANLR 305 and UGWU & ORS VS. ATTAH & ORS (2016 – Court of Appeal).

It was further submitted that the document which purported to raise the issue of discrimination earlier erroneously admitted as Exhibit C was found to be unsigned and worthless and accordingly expunged from the records. Learned counsel submitted that an unsigned document is worthless and carries no weight and referred to B.M.N.L VS OLA ILEMOBOLA LTD (2007) ALL FLWR (PT. 379) at 1368, OMEGA BANK VS. O.B.C LTD (2005) 1 SCNJ 150, GARUBA VS. KWARA INVESTMENT CO. LTD (2005) NWLR (PT. 917) 160, NWOSU NORTH AND SOUTH INT’L LTD & ANOR VS. NIGERIA INT’L TRADING AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD (2014) LPELR – 23425 (CA) and AFOLABI VS ALAREMU (2011) LPELR – 8894 (CA).

618, EGBUCHU VS. CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS (2016) LPELR-40053 (SC), BAMGBOYE VS. UNILORIN & ANOR (1999) LPELR-737 (SC) and ZENITH PLASTICS INDUSTRIES LTD VS. SAMOTECH LTD (2018) LPELR-44056(SC).

ostracism. In staking their claim to the said parcels of land, the Appellants gave a narration which included how their lineage became ostracized at some point in history and how this discrimination was overcome upon which they became entitled to the parcels of land in dispute. The trial Customary Court however rejected the evidence adduced in this regard as unsubstantiated and found Exhibit C to be of no value as it was unsigned, upon which it was expunged. As was well noted by the Court below, witnesses called by the Respondents included the Igwe of the community who could have been confronted with the issue under cross-examination but was not. In fact none of the witnesses for the Respondents was confronted with the so called issue of ostracization of the Appellants’ forebear. The said issue was never made out as an issue calling for the determination of the trial Customary Court and could not have been made an issue on appeal as it did not arise from the decision of the trial Court. See VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COCOA INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 425) 1667 at 1685, BALOGUN VS. ADEJOBI (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 376) 131, OLATUNJI VS. ADISA

(1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 376) 167 and AYINKE STORES LTD VS. ADEBOGUN (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1096) 612.

As noted earlier, there was no unfairness in the hearing of the dispute. The Appellants are only crying wolf where there was none.

I therefore resolve these issues against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents.

The remaining issues are:
Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence of the parties and whether the said evaluation showed that plaintiffs proved their case. And
Whether the appellate Court was right in holding that Exhibit A (the written report of the deliberations of Ndi Owuga Family) was admissible when he had agreed that the oral evidence of PW4 seeking to give direct evidence of the deliberations of the Ndi Owuga Family was hearsay.

Mr. Onuoma argued that in land matters, the Plaintiff should succeed on the strength of his case and not the weakness of the Defendants’ case and noted that the trial Court placed the onus of proof on the Appellants when it relied on the weakness of their case rather than objectively deciding whether the respondents had proved their case. He referred to OLALEYE VS. TRUSTEES OF ECWA (2010) LPELR.

He further argued that Exhibit A constitutes hearsay since it was tendered to establish the truth of what was contained it, and as such should have been expunged by the Appellate Court. He referred to JAMB VS NKEIRUKA (No. 1) (2007) AFLWR (PT. 381) 1763, OLAYINKA VS STATE (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 561 and SHITTU VS FASHAWE (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 946).<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The response of Mr. Akaraiwe was that the case of the Respondents which established through their witnesses was that according to custom, inherited land is only shared once and that any land acquired after the initial sharing is not liable to be shared amongst family members again. He submitted that it is the duty of the party claiming a relief against his opponent to prove what he asserts and provide good and credible evidence to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him by the law and that in this case, the Respondents provided overwhelming and credible evidence, which the Court properly evaluated and relied on rather than the weakness of the defence. He referred to EZEMBA VS IBENEME & ANOR (2004) LPELR – 1205 (S.C) and OKORIE VS. UNAKALAMBA & ORS (2013) LPELR – 22508 (CA).

He concluded by submitting with regards to Exhibit A, that the Court below was right in holding that the said Exhibit A was not hearsay since PW4 who had personal knowledge of the content and signed it had testified thereon.

In his Reply arguments, Mr. Onuoma reiterated that it is the duty of the Respondents as plaintiffs to prove their case since the

Appellants were the defendants at the Customary Court and had no duty or obligation to prove the case. He noted that the recurring misallocation of the burden of proof by the lower Courts has led to a miscarriage of justice and referred to EMENIKE VS PDP & ORS (2012) LPELR 7802 (SC).

He further submitted with regards to the submission of his colleague for the Respondents that the submission of counsel should not be substituted for evidence not led at trial nor shown in the records of appeal and referred to NWAESEH & ANOR. VS NWAESEH (1999) LPELR -8112 (CA) and JULIUS B. NIG PLC VS NWAGWU (2007) WRN (VOL. 9) 102 at 122 LINES 15-30 (CA).

Finally, he reiterated his submissions that Exhibit A was hearsay as PW4 was not part of the deliberations of the Ndi Owuga family and referred to ONWUGBELU VS MEZEBUO & ORS (2013) LPELR -20401 (CA).

evidence for the purpose of providing the truth of the matter stated in it.” Evidence must be direct as a witness would be disallowed from asserting the veracity of what he did not see, hear, perceive or have knowledge of directly. It is hearsay to assert the veracity of what a witness was told by some other person who had direct knowledge of the facts and hearsay evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Section 38 of the said Evidence Act (supra) unless covered by the exception provided in Section 39. See A.G. RIVERS STATE V A.G. AKWA-IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (PT. 1248) 31, EDOSA & ANOR VS. OGIEMWANRE (2018) LPELR-46341 (SC), ASAKE VS NIG. ARMY COUNCIL & ANOR (2006) LPELR-5427 (CA) and OJO V. GHARORO & ORS (2006) LPELR-2383 (SC).

trial was the same Nwankwo Gilbert whose testimony is on pages 19-21 of the record of appeal. The evidence of this witness as to what he signed is direct evidence and cannot be considered hearsay. Exhibit A however contains proceedings of the meeting of Ndiowuga Family received at the meeting presided over by PW4 but at which family meeting PW4 did not participate. It would be hearsay for PW4 to testify of that family meeting in which he played no part. However, to the extent that he presided over the proceedings of Awkunanaw Village meeting and signed Exhibit A as the record of the meeting he presided over, his testimony in that regard was direct. Exhibit A was however only part of the evidence available to the trial Customary Court, it was not the sole evidence upon which the decision of that Court was based on.

The Appellants contended with the evaluation of evidence made by the trial Customary Court. Evaluation of evidence is the preserve of the trial Court which had the opportunity of seeing, hearing and observing the demeanors of witnesses. An appellate Court would only interfere where such evaluation was perverse and resulted in miscarriage of

justice. See ABISI & ORS VS. EKWEALOR & ANOR (1993) LPELR-44 (SC).

of disputes without inhibitive technical considerations. This much was captured by the provisions of Section 20 of the Customary Court Law, Cap 32, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004 which provides as follows:
No proceedings in a customary Court and no summons, warrant, order, decree or other processes issued or made by the Court shall be declared void or otherwise varied upon appeal, solely by reason of any defect in procedure or want of form, but every Court or authority exercising appellate jurisdiction by virtue of this law or any other law, shall decide all matters brought to it on appeal from a customary Court as substantial justice of the case may require. Furthermore, a guide for the consideration of judgments of the customary Courts was provided by the Supreme Court in AGBASI & ORS VS. OBI & ORS (1998) 1-2 SC 26 as follows:
1. “The Court must not place too strict emphasis on the form but must examine the entire proceedings in order to determine what the Native Court case is all about.”
2. It is equally settled that when dealing with judgments or matters from Native Courts, an Appellate Court is entitled to go beyond what

appears on the face of the claim or wit and ascertain from the entire evidence before the Native Court what was really the nature of the dispute between the parties to the action and the land involved.”
3. The Native Courts are Courts of common sense and simplicity. They are never burdened by strict adherence to procedure. They are the Courts for quick and cheap manner of dispensation of justice. Most of the time, their decisions reflect the very justice and truth of the cases. It is because these Courts are not tied to technicality of procedure that the Appellate Court must look at the totality of the proceedings to find who were the parties before them, what were the issues before them and what have they decided.”

I therefore resolve these issues as well against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents.
In totality, I find no merit in this appeal and I hereby dismiss it.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I agree and adopt as mine, the lead judgment of my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA. The facts and the law applicable have been exhaustively articulated by my noble Lord in the lead judgment.
The appeal is lacking in merit and same is hereby dismissed by me.

Appearances:

Mr. I. Onuoma with him, Mr. N. C. Nwadugwu For Appellant(s)

Mr. I. A. Akaraiwe with him, Mr. O. F. Udu, O. R. Ajibade and M. C. Godwin For Respondent(s)