LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

OBA VICTOR ADESIMBO KILADEJO v. MR. HENRY MORAKINYO (2019)

OBA VICTOR ADESIMBO KILADEJO v. MR. HENRY MORAKINYO

(2019)LCN/13314(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 21st day of May, 2019

CA/AK/147/2016

JUSTICE

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

OBA VICTOR ADESIMBO KILADEJO
(THE OSEMAWE OF ONDO KINGDOM Appellant(s)

AND

MR. HENRY MORAKINYO Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGEMENT CULMINATING INTO A WARRANT OF POSSESSION IS BOTH A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM AND A JUDGMENT IN REM

The judgment culminating into the warrant of possession is both a judgment in personam and a judgment in rem. The lis is appropriated to the order. It is encumbered. It binds not only the parties thereto but all persons as relating to the ownership and possession of the subject property; in litigation. The principle of action pesonalis moritur cum personal is in applicable. The contention that a warrant of possession presupposes that the Appellant was in possession is an academic argument, as occupation or possession in that circumstance would be an adverse possession in law. It did not create a valid legal title or occupation. PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Ondo State, Ondo Judicial Division in Suit No. HOD/142/2014 delivered by his Lordship, Hon. Justice Aderemi Adegoroye on the 22nd day of March, 2016. The Suit was instituted by Mr. Henry Morakinyo as claimant. The Appellant was the 2nd Defendant in the originating summons. The Honourable Court awarded possession of the land in dispute to the claimant (now Respondent) against all persons inclusive of the 2nd Defendant (now Appellant). Please, see the judgment of the Honourable Court on pages 104 to 112 of the Records of Appeal.

The Appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Honourable Court below, brought this appeal by a Notice of Appeal dated 15th April, 2016 and filed on 19th of April, 2016. The Notice of Appeal was amended by an order of this noble Court on 15th November, 2018.

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT
A summons for possession under Order 53 Rule 2 of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 dated and filed on 1st day of December, 2014 was instituted by

1

the Respondent against persons unknown. The Respondent relied on an affidavit of 14 paragraphs and the Enrolment of Consent Judgment in Suit NO. HOD/129/1994. He also relied on a purported Order of the High Court of Ondo State dated 21st day of March, 2012 which substituted him for the judgment creditor who died before the enforcement of consent judgment. He equally relied on a purported warrant of possession dated 21st May, 2002. Please, see pages 1 9 and 65 to 70 of the Records of Appeal respectively.

The Appellant was joined as a party to the suit by an Order of the trial Court dated 8th December, 2015. Please, see pages 10 44 of the Records of Appeal for the application for joinder and pages 60 64 for the Ruling of the Court which allowed the Appellant to challenge the suit.

At the trial, the Appellant adopted the Appellants Brief of Argument filed on 24 1 2019 wherein he raised 3 (three) issues for determination and of course a point of preliminary objection vide Notice of preliminary objection given at page 3 of the said Brief of Argument and argued at pages 4 6 paragraphs 3-02 to 4.01 of

2

the said Brief of Argument on his part the Respondent also adopted the issues from the Ground of Appeal as framed by the Appellant.

The parties being in agreement as to the issues, the appeal herein will be a straight and clear one for determination as it will only be upon the mutually agreed issues settled by the parties.
I shall, however, proceed to the preliminary objection as raised.
The Grounds of the objection as raised and argued are that;
i. The issue 2 formulated in the Appellants Brief have no nexus and for are not married with Grounds of the Grounds of Appeal.
ii. The particulars of error in ground 2 of the grounds of appeal have no nexus with the ground to which the relate.
iii. Grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal are not complaint against the decision of the lower Court.

At the hearing of the appeal on the 27th February, 2019, the parties adopted their respective processes (i.e Briefs of Argument as filed). Accentuating the points of preliminary objection as indicated above, the learned counsel for the respondent had argued that the particulars to Ground 2 have no nexus to the said Ground of Appeal.<br< p=””>

</br<>

3

Contending that the Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal which questions the jurisdiction of the trial Court to grant the reliefs of the claimant/respondent seeking to enforce the judgment in suit HOD/129/1994 by way of summons for possession under Order 53 of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 has 8 particulars of Error none of which relates to any situation that questions or impinges on a jurisdictional contention. Refers to pages 117 118 of the Record of Appeal; contains the particulars of Error in Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal.

The learned counsel submitted that the particulars of the Grounds of Appeal should show at least one of the conditions laid down in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNR 341 to ground lack of jurisdiction in a Court.

That having done otherwise is a non sequittor and the ground should be struck out and the particulars discountenanced.

He relies on Honika Sawmill (Nig.) Ltd v. Hoff (1994) 2 NWLR (pt. 326) SC 252 at 262 A D to contend that the particulars are totally unconnected to the Ground No. 2.

The learned counsel furthering on the objection submitted that issue 2 of the

4

Appellants Brief has no nexus with the Ground 3; that none of the argument in issue 2 relate to the particulars of the Ground 3. That the issues not been confined to the Grounds and particulars of appeal from whence, it derives its existence should be jettisoned. Egbujo v. Mbagwu (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 429) 569 at 585 par A C referred.

It is also contended that issue 2 having been formulated from Grounds 2 and 3, is also incompetent as it is not the business of the Court to sever incompetent Grounds from the competent ground Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 7; Korede v. Adedokun (2001) FWLR (pt. 65) 421; Folami v. Okege (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 416), 1895, at 1910.

That issues formulated either from incompetent Grounds or a combination of competent and incompetent Grounds are liable to be struck out for being incompetent.
The case of Ogundipe v. Adenuga (2006) ALL FWLR 330 at relied on.

That Grounds 2 and 3 and issue 2 be struck out on the authority of Aqua Agro Industries Ltd v. Sagrani (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 590) 190 and Calabar East Co-operative v. Ikot (1999) 14 NWLR (pt. 638) 225.

The learned counsel proceeded to

5

contend that whilst an appeal should be against the decision of the trial Court, the Ground 1 of the Grounds of Appeal does not relate to the decision of the Court. That there was no frontal attack for challenge to the decision, rather an attack against the mere review of Exhibit A of the supporting Affidavit of the claimant/Respondents application. That the opinion of the Court based on its review of the Exhibit was not the decision of the Court. That a non frontal challenge of the ratio of the decision rendered an appeal baseless. Xtoudus Service Nigeria Ltd v. Taisei (W.A.) Ltd (2006) 6SC 200.

On the Ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal on the refusal to call oral evidence, the learned counsel for the Respondent, submitted that the decision does not show where any party applied for and was refused to call oral evidence. That the Ground of Appeal not emanating from the ratio decidendi of the judgment should be declared incompetent and so should we do for Ground 4.

I shall take the Appellants response to the preliminary objection just argued aforesaid and then proceed to the substantive appeal as argued.

6

In response, the Appellant, by his Appellants Reply Brief submitted in concession that an appeal must be against the ratio decidenti of the judgment; but added however that where an orbiter dictum or remark of a judge is so closely linked with the ratio as to be deemed to have radically influenced the ratio, it is appealable. Counsel cites Eneh v. Ozor (2016) NWLR (pt. 1538) 219; 233 234 and Ndulue v. Ojiakor (2013) 8 NWLR (pt. 1356) 311.

Counsel contends that issue 2 relates to jurisdiction as to absence of proper party before the Court and duty of the Court to peruse all documents tendered and to pronounce on them as a matter of law. That the absence of proper party before the Court was inferable from the Ground of Appeal and that the first ground of objection be held to be of no moment.

It was also contended that failure to call for oral evidence can only be seen after the judgment and that it is therefrom, that a ground of appeal raising same may be raised.

It was contended that once a Notice of Appeal by its Ground is not vague and gives sufficient Notice of complaint to the Respondent, they are in consonance with form and may

7

be acted upon. Aderounmu v. Olowu (2000) (supra); that the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on call of oral Evidence was mandatory; Imoh v. Imoh (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 659) pp. 1114 at 1135.

That the award of possession was wrongly done and hence that the Ground one was against the said award of possession and therefrom a competent Ground.

On the whole, we have been urged to dismiss the preliminary objection to Ground 4 and the issue therefrom and to proceed to hear the appeal on its merit. University Press Ltd v. IK Martins Press Ltd (2000) FWLR (pt. 5) 722 at 736.

On the merit of the Appeal, the Appellants learned counsel adopted his clients Brief of Argument and urged on the 3 issues formulated that the appeal allowed.
The issues are these;
1. Whether the learned trial judge was not wrong to grant possession to the Respondent based on the judgment in Suit No. HOD/129/1994 when the Respondent was not a party to the suit. (Issue distilled from ground one of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the trial Court did not lack jurisdiction or legal vires to adjudicate in the suit when the claimant did not show

8

any authority to administer the purported Estate of Late Pa Osunmakinde coupled with the failure of the Court to look at all processes before it and pronounce on them. Issue distilled from grounds two and three of the Notice of Appeal.
3. Whether the trial judge did not err in law when he failed to invite oral evidence to clarify conflicting affidavit evidence on the vexed issue of the time when the Respondent came to the knowledge of the existence of the Appellant on the land in dispute.

On the issue Number One, it was contended that the Respondent could not be made to benefit from the judgment entered in favour of his predecessor in title as against a third party i.e the Appellant herein who was not a party at the trial Court. That the judgment could not rightly be amended to bind the Appellant herein and to confer a right on the Respondent as done by the trial Court.

That the trial Court had accomplished its task or duty in respect of Suit. No HOD/129/1994 in the life time of late Pa Ola Osun Makinde and therefrom lacked the vires or potency to revisit or review anything that may come up after the judgment in relation to the parties

9

in the suit.

The learned counsel relies on the case of First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. TSA Industry Ltd (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 537) 633 at 671 672 and AIC Ltd v. Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (2005) ALL FWLR (pt. 270) 1945 at 1975. That on the aforesaid, it was erroneous to have post humously in 2012 granted an order substituting the Respondent for the original claimant, which for all intent and purposes was an amendment of the judgment after 17 years. That the Court was functus officio and could not substitute after judgment had been entered. That it was unfortunate that Suit No. HOD/142/2014 was brought in furtherance of the order of the Court granting possession to a Respondent who was not a party to the earlier Suit No HOD/129/1994; learned counsel refers to the said order of joinder as Noxious.

Counsel referred to Plateau State v. Attorney General, Federation (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 305) 590 at 649 where the apex Court held that it is only parties to an action that can claim relief flowing from the action. A person who is not a party to an action cannot claim relief therefrom. He lacks the locus standi to do so.”

10

That the Appellants predecessor in title was known to the Respondent who chose to sue a different person; that the decision cannot bind the Appellant; refers to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the Appellant on page 71 of the Records and Babatola v. Aladejana (2001) FWLR (pt. 61) 1670 at 1683. That this was particularly so in the case of the predecessor in office of the Appellant who had no opportunity of interfering or knowing what was passing or decided to stand by or allow his battle fought by somebody else. Etim v. Etta (2014) ALL FWLR (pt. 712) 1808 at 1820.

That a subsequent suit and counter claim in HOD/113/2002 having both failed the further action in HOD/142/2014 seeking possession was wrong. That it was a judicial aberration for the High Court to have amended the judgment by substituting another person for the judgment creditor after about 17 years and after the judgment creditors was dead.

On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that the warrant of possession in favour of the Respondents predecessor in title had expired and could not be executed against anybody. It was also contended that it was a

11

personal action and cause of action had died with the claimant on the principle of the maxim Actio ‘personalis’ moritur cum personae.

That is was a suit under taken on personal capacity. Oyeyemi v. Commissioner Local Government Kwara State (1992) 2 NWLR (pt. 226) 661 at 675; Okunzua v. Doherty (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 528) 929 at 931; NPA v. Lotus Plastics Ltd (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 297) 1023 at 1049 1050.

That it was absurd for the Respondent to seek to enforce the judgment in Suit No. HOD/29/1994 by an originating process which has led to this appeal.

It is also submitted that the suit for a warrant of possession was caught by the statute of limitation as per Section 6(2) of the Limitation Law Cap 83 Volume II, Laws of Ondo State, which limits the period of action to 12 years upon accrual to the claimant/person through whom he claims, whichever occurs first. PN Udoh Trading Company Ltd v. Abere (2001) FWLR (pt. 57) 900 (SC) where Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, of the Federation, 1966 applicable to Rivers State was invoked by the Court. See also Egbe v. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 47) 1.

That the Appellant did

12

indicate that he was in possession since 1994 and no execution was levied against him as per his counter affidavit paragraph 16 thereof on page 73 of the Record of Appeal. That the Respondent had not shown at the trial Court that he was granted a letter of Administration or was an Executor appointed to act and sue for and on behalf of the estate of the deceased. That his Suit No. HOD/142/2014 brought to enforce the consent judgment was without authority. It was argued that the Court had a duty to evaluate the documentary evidence before her and that it did not do so in respect of the consent judgment. That the trial judge wrongly perceived the Appellant as asking it to set aside the consent judgment and that from the wrong premise the decision was unjustified.

That the Respondent implicitly acquiesced in the person unknown nomenclature and who could be expunged by the Court pursuant to Order 13 Rule 5 of the Ondo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2012, as a judgment cannot be enforced against a person known.

In issue 3 distilled from Ground 4 on this issue, it is submitted that, it was not resolved when the Appellant was

13

in effective occupation of the land as averred to be in 1994 and when the respondents purported discovery of squatters on the land was made.

That a resolution of the said issue 3 would show that the appeal had merit and the action was statute barred just as the warrant of possession had become stale and unenforceable.

On the merit of the appeal and in response, the Respondent submitted that the order of substitution is a pending subsisting order of the trial Court which had not been appealed and remained valid. That it has not been set aside by the trial Court either and remains binding; Arugu v. R. S. I. E. C. (2011) ALL FLWR (pt. 602) 1706 at 1723 was relied upon.

That the cases cited on the fact of non parties and non binding effect of decision on them were inapplicable therefore.

On the contention that the Appellants predecessor in office was in possession of the land to the knowledge of the Respondent, it is debunked and urged that parties are bound by the record of appeal and in the instant appeal, there is no such facts in the record of appeal which record alone binds the parties; the case of

14

Government of Cross River State v. Assam (2008) FWLR (pt.418) 351 at 359 360 relied upon, for the proposition.

That what is more, the Appellants counter affidavit on pages 71 73 of the Record did not deny the averment that the Ondo local Government encroached on a part of the land and was sued. That the Appellants predecessor in office was aware of the suit; was a party and had denied the claims and had an order made against him. That pages 83 85 of the record of appeal, Exhibits B and D attached to the further affidavit and at pages 88 and 92 respectively puts it beyond doubt that Appellants predecessor in office was a party on the issue relating to the warrant of possession that was issued and served. Exhibit B was a direct order on the said predecessor in office to deliver the land to the Respondent.

That where there was conflict in affidavit evidence the Court can resolve it by reliance on the documents that was authentic which supports one against the other side. The case of HO v. Abubakar (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 649) 118 at 1206 relied upon. Reference is made to Exhibit

15

D being the order (Ruling) refusing to set aside Exhibit B. See page 92 of the Record. Exhibit B ie the subsisting order. In Exhibit B is to deliver possession to Pa, Ola Osunmakinde.

Referring to the definition of an order of court in Akaniyene v. Etim (2013) ALL FWLR (pt. 709 at 1167 at 1178 as one directing a party to a case to do something in relation of the case that the Appellants predecessor in office was directed and was inclusive of the Appellant now a party in the case.
That the issue number one be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

On the issue 2, it was submitted that the appellant had been substituted as a Biological person and judgment can be enforced against him; that even then there was no ground of appeal with particulars challenging a decision on the basis of persons unknown; that the appeal was argued on the basis of person unknown Grounds go to no issue. Victabio Ventures Ltd v. Van Der Zwan & Z. N. B. V. (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 490) p. 756; at 785; that in any case the Respondent

16

can have the decision enforced against him as a Biological person.

On issue 3, it was argued that the Appellants contention was not supported by the record of appeal in that the Exhibit B showed that neither the Appellant nor his predecessor was in occupation and there was therefore no further necessity of calling witnesses to resolve any conflict in affidavit evidence of the parties as there was indeed no conflict. It is also the learned counsels view that even if there was any conflict, pleadings could be ordered and the hearing proceed on evidence, and not by merely callings evidence of witnesses as thought by the Appellant.

The learned counsel submitted that where documents were submitted or attached to the Affidavit they can be conveniently used to resolve the seeming or any alleged conflict. Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) ALL FWLR (pt. 747) at 749 at 777 par. B referred to. That Exhibit B in any case had been used to resolve any perceived conflict and showed that neither the Appellant nor his predecessor in title were in occupation of the land as they had been directed to deliver possession to Pa Ola

17

Osunmakinde.

We have been urged to resolve this issue against the Appellant and to uphold the judgment of the trial Court and to dismiss the appeal.

The Appellant in his Reply Brief, re-iterated his argument that the appeal should succeed.

I have read the record of appeal and also the Briefs of Argument and do not doubt that the preliminary objection raised should succeed on all the grounds raised and argued.

I adopt the grounds which are deemed reproduced alongside all the arguments for the respective parties as already reproduced supra in this judgment and hold that the Grounds of Appeal are not accentuated by the particulars thereof as pleaded and that the Grounds are at variance and in departure from the ratio of the judgment; what is more, I find a duplicitous and incompetent issues for determination in the nature of an issue framed from incompetent Ground of Appeal and in the instance of a vague Ground of Appeal as argued, rightly by the Respondents learned counsel.
Indeed the issue 2 raised on Grounds 2 and 3 is incompetent as it has no bearing with Grounds 3 and more so the Ground 2 is incompetent on its own. Ground 2

18

seemingly raises a jurisdictional challenge; however, the particulars do not pigeon hole it to a jurisdictional challenge.

I have also looked at Grounds 1 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal they did not arise from the judgment of the Court they are academic and hypothetical points of law discussed at large. A Court is not an academic institution.
The preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal is declared incompetent and struck out. However, if I must consider the merit of the appeal, I would still dismiss same as being academic and not imbued with merit.

The Action commenced by originating summons against person unknown subsequently had the Appellants predecessor intitle joined as a party upon his own application and a judgment granting relief of occupation or possession by the Respondent against the Appellants predecessor in title; by fact of this joinder, which is epitomized by a warrant of possession. Exhibit B the title of the Respondent over every other person or adverse claim was settled. A successor in title is bound by the order against his predecessor in title and

19

therefore, is a privy in estate in the Res and also in the choice of action; both parties are privies to the suit/judgment so also is the Appellants predecessor a party by his specific mention. It was not merely a personal action that died on the principle of actio moritur causa.

The judgment culminating into the warrant of possession is both a judgment in personam and a judgment in rem. The lis is appropriated to the order. It is encumbered. It binds not only the parties thereto but all persons as relating to the ownership and possession of the subject property; in litigation. The principle of action pesonalis moritur cum personal is in applicable. The contention that a warrant of possession presupposes that the Appellant was in possession is an academic argument, as occupation or possession in that circumstance would be an adverse possession in law. It did not create a valid legal title or occupation.

In the same token, the argument that the Respondents suit was statute barred coming after 12 years, contrary to the limitation law of Ondo State does not avail the Appellant, as adverse possession cannot be a basis for

20

prescriptive title or confer a right to valid possession. This is more so that there was no acquiescence or waiver nor laches proved at the trial Court.

The taking of an action even against persons unknown in the first place is provided for under the relevant Ondo State, High Court Civil Procedure Rules. Order 53 thereof, as pointed out by the Respondents counsel; and occupation or possession before such a suit and by unknown and unidentified persons cannot defeat the claimant/Respondent action to recover possession from squatters or strangers or third parties.

The subsequent decisions and counter claims decided as relating to the subject matter of the claim (land) that has led to this appeal did not confer any right in favour of the Appellant nor did they erode the subsistence and legal efficacy of the Ruling or order that formed the basis of the judgment being affected herein. A study of the Appellants Brief of Argument shows largely, a re-argument of the suit as filed vide the originating summons at the trial Court and which had been settled upon the Affidavit and Documentary Evidence in support.

21

Appellant had sought to argue that the respondent had not proved that he was a personal representative or granted a letter of administration or was an executor of a will of his predecessor in title to be entitled to sue in respect of the subject property of predecessor in title.
This contention is, a new issue of law! It is raised without leave sought or granted by this Court; it did not also arise at the trial Court and if it did, there is no specific appeal thereon. This Court cannot, therefore, consider same as it will be unjust and unfair to the other side.
What is more, parties inclusive of their privies must be consistent both at the trial stage and on appeal; they cannot be allowed to raise and argue different issues and to constitute a surprise and ambush of their opponent.
That will not be a game of chess, seeking to under or outsmart the opponent. Justice is the search for truth as much as human capacity can earnestly and fairly go. The argument on time limitation has not considered the fact that the issuance of a possession warrant or its enforcement is not the same thing as originating an action for declaration of title which is

22

limited by the statute of limitation. To the contrary, the Execution of the writ of possession which though has a life span or duration and a leeway for extension of time by renewal upon application, that is not the character and purport of the originating summons and the decision appealed against. The trial Court correctly resolved that it had been executed. The order for the substitution of the Respondent as made on 21-4-2014 for the deceased judgment creditor in Suit No. HOD/129/1994; 17 years after judgment, it was contended, was wrong and null and void and that the subject of this appeal i.e, Suit No. HOD/142/2014 based on HOD/129/1994 was incompetent.

Implicit in this contention, is the fact forgotten that there is before this Court no appeal lodged against the order of joinder of parties. To that extent, the argument relating to same is without anchor and is disregarded.

What is more, the order of joinder of parties, being an interlocutory order had a limited period for an aggrieved party to appeal against same; that is even if it was issued after a long time after the suit in which a person was joined, as in this case where it is

23

said to be after 17 years! Just as the Appellant was joined on his application at the trial Court, he could have appealed against the order of warrant of possession upon leave as an interested person; not having done that as the trial judge rightly pointed out, he had long lost every vires to complain in respect of the warrant of possession issued and nay the subsequent suit and judgment built there upon.

In conclusion, I do hold that the trial Court was not in error in its decision. I affirm the decision and the order rendered in Suit No. HOD/142/2014, between the parties herein as delivered on the 22nd day of March, 2016 by Honourable Justice A. Adegoroye.

The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the parties to bear their respective costs in the spirit of communal comrendee.

RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: I enjoyed the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment just read by my learned brother, Mohammed A. Danjuma, JCA.

Having carefully perused the lead judgment, found same convincing in reasoning and conclusion. I therefore agreed that the preliminary objection succeeds and the appeal declared incompetent and

24

struck out. Also abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment.

PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA, JCA just delivered.

I am in complete agreement with him that there is no merit in this appeal. My learned brother has meticulously and efficiently dealt with all the salient issues submitted to this Court for determination by the parties.

I adopt both the reasoning and the conclusion in the lead judgment. I have nothing more to add. I also affirm the decision the order made by Hon. Justice A. Adegoroye in Suit No. HOD/142/2014 and on the 22nd March, 2016.
I dismiss this appeal and make no order as to costs.

25

Appearances:

Steve Adebowale, Esq.For Appellant(s)

A. O. Oyibo, Esq.For Respondent(s)

>

 

Appearances

Steve Adebowale, Esq.For Appellant

 

AND

A. O. Oyibo, Esq.For Respondent