OKEBAYOWA ABORODE v. CHIEF AMUSA TORIOLA AFOLABI & ORS
(2014)LCN/7404(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 11th day of July, 2014
CA/I/164/2009
RATIO
EVIDENCE; BURDEN/ONUS OF PROOF; THE ONUS OF PROOF IN A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO A PARCEL OF LAND
In a claim for declaration of title to a parcel of land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the declaration which he has sought. He has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. See KODILINYE VS. ODU 2 WACA 136; ARE VS IPAYE (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.132) 298 AND UMEOJIOKO VS. EZENAMAO (1990) NWLR (PT.126) 253. per. ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.
COURT: INTERFERENCE: WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT WILL SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEWS FOR THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHERE THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT PERVERSE
The law is settled and well defined that where a Court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business of a Court of appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court. See ADEYEMO VS. POPOOLA (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 578. per. ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY; THE BEST WAY TO TEST CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY PERTAINING TO A LAND IN DISPUTE
The best way to test conflicting evidence of traditional history pertaining to a land in dispute, if there was any, is by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence in relation to the land. See GBEMISOLA VS. BOLARINWA (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1 at 25. per. ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: PROOF OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY; WHAT A PARTY WHO SEEKS TITLE TO LAND AND RELIES ON TRADITIONAL HISTORY MUST PLEAD AND PROVE TO SUCCEED
It is the law that a party who seeks title to land and relies on traditional history must, to succeed, plead and proof facts as to:
(a) Who founded the land
(b) How the land was founded
(c) Particulars of the ancestors through whom he claim by an unbroken evidential chain.
See the case of Christian Ewo & 3 Ors. V. Ogbodo Ani & 17 Ors. (2004) 1 SC 1, Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.242) 388, Alli v. Aleshinloye (2000) 4 SCNJ 264 and Onuoha Nwokorobia v. Uchechi Nwogu & 2 Ors. (2009) 4-5 (Pt.11) 144. Per. MUDASHIRU N. ONIYANGI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
OKEBAYOWA ABORODE – Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF AMUSA TORIOLA AFOLABI (OKOKI OF IKILAND)
2. CHIEF OLAOTAN EZEKIEL OLUGBADE (OTUN ONIKI OF IKILAND)
3. CHIEF RASHEED ODUTAYO (OSI ONIKI OF IKILAND)
4. CHIEF JOSEPH OLADEPO (ASIPA ONIKI OF IKILAND)
5. CHIEF RAMONI ABIOJE (SOBALOJU ONIKI OF IKILAND) (For themselves and on behalf of the entire members of ONIKI of IKILAND) – Respondent(s)
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Oyo State High Court sitting at Eruwa in the Ibarapa Judicial Division delivered on 24th January 2008 in Suit No. HER/22/06.
In a representative action brought on behalf of themselves and the entire members of Oniki of Iki land, Tapa in Ibarapa North Local Government of Oyo State, the Respondents herein, as the plaintiffs at the lower court, claimed for the following 3 reliefs, against the Appellant as the Defendant. The reliefs are as follows:-
1. “Declaration that the Plaintiffs are the persons entitled to Statutory/Customary Right of Occupancy in respect of the piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Abaafin- Odo Iki Omo, Iki, Tapa in Ibarapa North Local Government Area of Oyo State of Nigeria.
2. N10,000.00 being damages for trespass committed by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs’ land at Abaafin-Odo Iki Omo, Iki Area, Tapa.
3. Injunction (perpetual) restraining the Defendant by himself, his agents, privies or however from disturbing the plaintiffs enjoyment of its said land situate, lying and being at Abaafin-Odo Iki Omo, Iki, Tapa in Ibarapa North Local Government Area of Oyo State of Nigeria.”
In a statement of defence dated 4/12/06 but filed on 7/12/06, the Appellant joined issues with the Respondents, denied all the key and material averments in the statement of claim and put them to strictest proof of same, while urging the Court to dismiss the claim for being frivolous, speculative and a gold digging exercise. Issues having been duly joined, the matter went to trial.
At the trial, the Respondents relied on the oral testimonies of the 1st Respondent and one other witness as PW1 and PW2 respectively. Exhibits A and B were tendered and admitted in evidence through these respective witnesses. For the Appellant, 4 witnesses gave oral evidence, including himself as DW4. Exhibit C, a dispute survey plan, was also tendered and admitted in evidence through the Appellant. At the end of the evidence of the witnesses, respective learned counsel for the parties addressed the Court and made submissions and arguments. In its judgment, the lower Court upheld the claim of the Respondents and made the declaratory order as well the award of damages for trespass and ordered a perpetual injunction in terms and as sought by the Respondents.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed to this court in a notice of appeal dated 21/04/08. This notice of appeal contains a single ground of appeal with 2 particulars. The ground and the advertised particulars are as follows:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he gave judgment to the plaintiff to the effect that they are entitled to the Statutory/Customary Right of Occupancy in respect of the land in dispute.
PARTICULARS
(i) The Respondents did not give an accurate traditional evidence as to how they came to own the land.
(ii) More grounds shall be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.
To argue the appeal, learned counsel to the Appellant, Mr. O. Uwawah filed a brief of argument dated 10/5/2010 on 11/5/2010 and same was deemed properly filed and served on 28/03/11. In a response, learned counsel Mr. M. O. Achugbue, on behalf of the Respondents, filed a brief of argument dated 22/9/2011 in 26/9/11 and same was deemed properly filed and served on 29/3/12.
From the single ground of appeal, learned counsel Mr. Uwawah formulated and argued a lone issue for the determination of this appeal. It is:
“Whether or not the Respondents as Plaintiffs by their pleadings and evidence gave a cogent, accurate and conclusive evidence of traditional history as to entitle them to the judgment of the court.”
On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Achugbue, rather very clumsily and so inelegantly, formulated and argued the following issue. It is thus:-
“Whether or not the Respondents as plaintiffs by their pleadings and evidence gave cogent, accurate and conclusive evidence of traditional history as to entitle them to the judgment of the court, Defendant (Appellant herein) having not contradicted the plaintiffs history that Oniki Omilese was the 1st to own the land in dispute transcribed to the fact that the Respondents have given cogent, accurate and conclusive evidence of history that entitles them to the judgment herein under Appeal.”
Learned counsel to the Respondent had raised and argued a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the transmitted record of appeal and the notice of appeal. It was argued in paragraphs 1,01 to 1.11 at pages 3 and 4 of the brief of argument.
At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel Mr. Uwawah appeared in Court, while Mr. Achugbue, for the Respondents was absent, though duly served with hearing notice. Against this scenario, Mr. Uwawah, of Counsel urged on the Court to invoke Order 18 r. 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 and proceed to hear this appeal by deeming the appeal as duly argued on behalf of the Respondents on their filed and served brief of argument. Having been fully satisfied that learned Counsel Mr. Achugbue had been duly served with the requisite hearing notice on behalf of the Respondents, this Court proceeded to hear this appeal pursuant to Order 18 r. 9(4) (supra). In arguing the appeal, learned Counsel Mr. Uwawah urged on the Court to dismiss the notice of preliminary objection both for having been abandoned and also for incompetence and lacking in merit and urged that this appeal be allowed and the judgment of the lower
Court delivered on 24/01/2008 be set aside.
For completeness and whatever may be relevant or necessary, I wish to deal with the notice of preliminary objection in this appeal. Like it was pointed out herein above, it seeks to impeach the record of appeal for being incompetent and not properly compiled. Learned counsel maintained that it was not certified and issued as a true copy as required by the Rules of this Court, because not all the pages were certified. Learned counsel identified a total number of 47 pages out of its 70 pages as uncertified. Added to this, learned counsel also argued that the notice of appeal, apart from the record of appeal, also must be separately transmitted to this Court from the Registry of the lower Court. He maintained that because the Appellant had failed to separately transmit the notice of appeal, this Court totally lacked jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. He referred to the case of MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 6 SCNLR 341 and urged on the Court to dismiss this appeal for being incompetent and want of jurisdiction to entertain same.
Apart from making the submissions he did, learned counsel did not specifically refer to any provisions in the Court of Appeal, Rules, 2011, other principles of practice or decided cases that stipulate or otherwise make it mandatory for a notice of appeal to be transmitted separately from the record of appeal or for every page of an authenticated record of appeal to certified as a true copy.
With respect to the facts and circumstances in this appeal, a very careful perusal of the transmitted record of appeal will clearly show that its cover page has the certification stamp and signature of the Senior Registrar, Appeal section of the Oyo State High Court. Apart from that, from page 1 right to page 63 of the record has accordingly been so certified. Though page 64 does not have the same certification stamp, the notice of appeal at pages 65 to 67 has been duly so certified as a true copy.
The record of appeal was duly served on the Respondents. Learned counsel proceeded to prepare their brief of argument on its contents. Out of all the pages learned counsel claimed were certified as true copies, he did not go further to show that they were either incorrect in their contents or did not form or could not have formed part of the true record of the Court below in the case on appeal. After having read and considered the entire provisions of Order 6 and Order 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, being the most relevant provisions dealing with notices of appeal in civil appeals before this Court and respectively on the compilation and transmission of record of appeal from lower Courts to this Court, I am unable to see any provisions that require that a notice of appeal filed at the Registry of, for example, a Federal or State High Court, is required to be separately transmitted to this Court outside the authenticated record of appeal. Also, there would appear to be no strict requirement that every page of the record of appeal must be certified as a true copy if sufficient number of pages of it and its cover page had been properly so certified.
Therefore, apart from having strictly speaking been abandoned in the circumstance, the notice of preliminary objection is totally breft of any substance or merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
In arguing the lone issue for the determination of this appeal, learned counsel began by explaining that the case on appeal is predicated and anchored on evidence of traditional history and acts of ownership. Against this explanation he went on to add that where evidence of traditional history as pleaded remains unproved it will be totally unnecessary to consider evidence of acts of ownerships. He cited the case of OYADARE VS. KEJI (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.247) 1583 at 1598 to 1599 G-A in support of this explanation.
In paragraphs 4.03 to 4.05 at pages 5 to 7,learned counsel referred to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the pleadings of the Respondents together with what he considered to be the oral evidence of traditional history in support. Learned counsel also referred to the findings of the learned trial judge at page 57 of the record of appeal. Having laid this foundation, learned counsel underlined and attacked the finding and belief of the lower Court that the evidence of the traditional history in the testimonies of both PW1 and PW2 was more cogent, credible, plausible and believable. He maintained and strongly suggested that this crucial finding cannot be sustained upon a proper and calm consideration of the pleadings and the evidence of PW1 and PW2.
While referring to the decisions in OYADIJI VS. OLANIYI (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.288) 1083 at 1093 A-C and ELEGUSHI VS. OSENI (2005) ALL FWLR (282) 1837 at 1852 E-F,learned counsel pointed out that it is the law that a party relying on evidence of traditional history in a claim for declaration of title to land must do so by conclusive evidence eloquently pleaded and fully supported with respect to :-
(a) Who founded the land in dispute;
(b) How it was founded;
(c) Particulars of the intervening owners through whom the parties claim; and
(d) The person or persons on whom the title in respect of the devolved since its founding,
Against this foundation and background, learned counsel argued that the Respondents failed for plead and give cogent and credible evidence of who the founder of the land in dispute was. According to learned counsel, in their pleadings, the Respondents averred that Omilese was the founder of the land in dispute, being the first person that settled on it. He added further that by paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the Respondents described the land in dispute as Abaafin, Odo Iki Omo, Iki Tapa and had averred that Omilese emerged at Igbo Ile Iki where he was so named. Learned counsel then observed and sought to find out who were the persons who named their ancestor Omilese at the place he purportedly founded the land in dispute after his mythical transmutation to a python and immediate disappearance, Learned counsel insisted that there was no adequate evidence on the pleadings to warrant and support the findings of the learned trial judge on evidence of traditional history. He referred to page 25 of the record of appeal, particularly lines 7 and 8 where PW1 testified that Omilese settled on a virgin land against what he stated later at lines 12 to 15 that it was Kikiola that settled on the land. He argued and submitted that this evidence is contradictory and at variance with the pleadings and cannot therefore be cogent or credible enough to support the findings of the Court below.
In a further effort, learned counsel referred to 2 decisions of the Supreme Court where it emphasized the necessity of adequate pleadings and the need for same to be lucid and vivid and the strict requirement of proof of pleadings by cogent and credible evidence – (ADEBAYO VS. SHOGO (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 253) 739 and ODI VS. IYALA (2004) FWLR (Pt. 207) 5). Against his argument that PW1 and PW2 adduced inconsistent and contradictory oral testimonies, learned counsel referred to this Court in UNIPETROL (NIG) PLC. VS. ADIREJE LTD (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt.231) 1238 at 1277 E in support of the principle of law that where witnesses gave inconsistent or contradictory evidence on material facts, that evidence on the point must be regarded as unreliable and must be rejected and expunged from the record. He further referred to KODE VS. YUSUF (2001) FWLR (Pt.4), 727 and urged on the Court to so hold and resolve this issue against the Respondents.
In his reply to the foregoing arguments and submissions, Mr. Achugbue, of counsel was quick to point out that the Appellant had failed to controvert or contradict the evidence of the Respondents that their ancestor, Omilese settled on the land in dispute. Learned counsel further referred to the pleadings and evidence of the Appellant that his ancestor Odunbaku co-founded the land in dispute with Omilese. He added that the evidence of the Appellant fall short of being credible. Apart from having failed to establish co-settlement the Appellant, according to Mr. Achugbue, of counsel, admitted evidence of settlement by Omilese. While referring to the cases of KOJO VS. BONSIE and ALADE VS. LAWRENCE AWO (1975) 4 SC 215 where it was held that where traditional history is contradictory or inconclusive the facts are to be tested against facts of recent history to enable the Court decide which of the various assertions is more probable as well as proof of facts constituting acts of ownership. He then referred to Exhibits B1 to B17 which show evidence of allotment of parts of the land in dispute to members of the community who applied for it for farming or residential purposes. Learned counsel then submitted that it is right for the lower Court to hold as it did. He therefore urged on the Court to resolve the lone issue for determination against the Appellant.
In resolving the lone issue in this appeal, I think it is important to restate that respective learned counsel are ad idem that the basis of the claim in this appeal and defence of the action are anchored on evidence of traditional history and acts of ownership. Each of the parties gave evidence of traditional history by tracing the root of his alleged title to the land at Abaafin-Odo, Iki Omo, Iki, Tapa, or the right to occupy it.
In a claim for declaration of title to a parcel of land, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the declaration which he has sought. He has to succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. See KODILINYE VS. ODU 2 WACA 136; ARE VS IPAYE (1990) 2 NWLR (PT.132) 298 AND UMEOJIOKO VS. EZENAMAO (1990) NWLR (PT.126) 253.
Each of the parties herein led oral evidence on traditional evidence before the learned trial judge by tracing the root of his or their alleged title to the land in dispute. According to the Appellant the founder of the land in dispute was one Odunbaku. He identified Odunbaku as his ancestor and he traced his root of title through him. However, according to the Respondents, the founder of the land in dispute was the mythical Omilese who they identified as the first occupant of the land in dispute. He was also identified as the ancestor of the Respondents, who through successive generations have been holding the land in dispute and other adjoining Iki lands in trust for their entire community. It is against this assertion of communal and trusteeship holding of land that the Appellant vehemently maintained that the land in dispute was held and used by Odunbaku as an individual and did not form part of the Iki communal land. All these remain in order and perfectly alright as one of the ways which ownership of land may be proved is by means of traditional evidence. See IDUNDUN VS. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227 at 246. The question then is what use did the learned trial judge make of the traditional evidence led by each of the parties before him and what was his conclusion.
After reviewing the evidence before him, on this point, the learned trial judge said inter alia, as follows:-
“I have considered this traditional history and contrasted same with the evidence of the Defendant and placing same on an imaginary scale and having weighted same I seemed to be swayed and titled to the side of the Plaintiffs. Although the case of the Plaintiffs must stand on its own strength and not on the weakness of the defence, I find the traditional evidence of the Plaintiff as given by the PW1 and PW2 cogent credible and plausible and I believe same. The reasons for such belief are as follows: the Defendant did not generally controvert or contradict the history of settlement of Omilese, the ancestor of the Plaintiffs on vast portion of land which includes the land in dispute. The Defendant agreed to this history but their contention is that their own ancestor Odunbaku co-founded the town and found the disputed land.
Even if I hold that the assertion of the Defendant has provided a controverting historical fact, and I am therefore expected to resolve the conflict as laid down in the Rule in Kojo V Bonsie [1957] 1 WLR 1223. ie to test the traditional history by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of the two competing histories is the more probable, the grant of the land on which the tobacco growers planted their tobacco by Oniki Meagbo which the Defendant also admitted affords me such evidence. Secondly by the Exhibit B series which are land agreements in Yoruba. They were interpreted by the producer and they are in my view admissible to prove the various land transactions by the Oniki to individuals. These are facts in recent history constituting acts of ownership on the part of Oniki.
Furthermore as stated above although a case of the Plaintiff must stand on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defence a consideration of the case of the defence will reveal a lot of inconsistencies that makes their story less plausible or credible far below that of the Plaintiff.
(One) (1) Although the Defendant pleaded first settlement, they invariably admitted the settlement of Omilese and have to prove their co-settlement. They therefore have the duty to call cogent and satisfactory evidence of the co-settlement. Having admitted co-settlement with Omilese, their proof by the Plaintiff is achieved on minimal standard which the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the documents satisfied. However the evidence of the defence has not satisfied me in anyway co-settlement..
Furthermore, I find as a fact that the Defendant was never on this land, that he got to start farming on the portion granted to the tobacco growers only after that left. The evidence of the DW2 is clear on this he agreed that the Defendant took over and started farming on the land after the tobacco growers left the land.” (see pages 59 to 60 of the record of appeal)
The learned trial judge not only reviewed the evidence accurately he also evaluated it, placed the evidence led by the parties on an imaginary scale before he came to the conclusions that the evidence led on behalf of the Respondents was superior to that led by the Appellant, Indeed, the record of appeal showed that the evidence led on the point by the Respondents was overwhelming and uncontradicted whereas the evidence of the Appellant and DW3 was not cogent or credible.
The law is settled and well defined that where a Court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is not the business of a Court of appeal to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court. See ADEYEMO VS. POPOOLA (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 578.
The best way to test conflicting evidence of traditional history pertaining to a land in dispute, if there was any, is by reference to facts in recent years as established by evidence in relation to the land. See GBEMISOLA VS. BOLARINWA (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1411) 1 at 25. In this case, the learned trial judge assumed, though without fully conceding, that even if there was conflicting evidence of traditional history the transactions in Exhibits B1 to B17 were enough proof of acts of ownership by the Respondents to support a claim for a declaration of title.
The documents in Exhibits B1 to B17 were tendered and admitted in evidence without any objection at pages 30 to 31 of the record of appeal.
The learned trial judge was therefore fully entitled to refer to and anchor any findings he deemed fit and necessary in the circumstance on them. Added to that there is no appeal against the finding of the learned trial judge, that Exhibits B1 to B17 had probative value in the circumstances of this matter. There is therefore no serious challenge to the most crucial findings at the root of the decision and judgment of the lower Court. I therefore see no reason to interfere with any of these findings of the learned trial judge on the credibility of evidence and witnesses and the relevance, admissibility and what probative value to ascribe to Exhibits B1 to B17. This issue must therefore be and is hereby resolved against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents.
Having resolved the lone issue for the determination of this appeal against the Appellant, this appeal is hereby dismissed for being devoid of any merit. The judgment of the Oyo State High Court delivered on 24th January, 2008 in suit number HEN/22/06 is hereby affirmed I order for N30,000 costs in favour of the Respondents against the Appellant.
M.B. DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel JCA.
The respondent raised a curious preliminary objection which they abandoned. My learned brother nonetheless masterly addressed the issue which turned out to be a wild goose chase. The record book compiled and transmitted to this court was so done in substantial compliance with the rules of court. The affirmation of the senior Registrar of the appeal section of the Oyo State High Court and the stamp of certification on all except a few pages of the record put all doubt to rest.
Especially as found by my learned brother in the lead judgment, that pages not certified were not shown to be alien to the records of the trial court. I too hereby dismiss the preliminary objection.
On the main appeal, both parties laid claim to founding the land in dispute by their ancestors as first and co-settlers. The undisputed presence of tobacco farmers on the portion of the land in dispute pales the traditional evidence of the Appellant to insignificance. The reason is that it was not disputed that the Appellant was an employee of the tobacco farmers who elected to stay behind after the tobacco farmers had left the land. Without the tobacco farmers, there was no Odunbaku. The traditional evidence of the respondent about the mythical Omilese therefore stands solid, pointing to the founder of the land in dispute. The Learned trial judge so found upon a competent evaluation of the evidence adduced before the Court. The lead judgment has affirmed this fact. I agree entirely that this Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I humbly adopt the order as to cost made in the lead judgment.
MUDASHIRU N. ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I have read before now the read judgment of my learned brother Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, J.C.A.
The case in hand is fought and determined based on the traditional evidence placed before the court below.
It is the law that a party who seeks title to land and relies on traditional history must, to succeed, plead and proof facts as to:
(a) Who founded the land
(b) How the land was founded
(c) Particulars of the ancestors through whom he claim by an unbroken evidential chain.
See the case of Christian Ewo & 3 Ors. V. Ogbodo Ani & 17 Ors. (2004) 1 SC 1, Anyanwu v. Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.242) 388, Alli v. Aleshinloye (2000) 4 SCNJ 264 and Onuoha Nwokorobia v. Uchechi Nwogu & 2 Ors. (2009) 4-5 (Pt.11) 144.
The combine evidence of the respondent and his witness and coupled with the documents in Exhibits B1-B17 satisfies the conditions herein before enumerated.
I agree entirely with the read judgment and have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal for lacking in merit. In consequence I also affirm the judgment of Oyo State High Court delivered by Hon. Justice M.L. Abimbola on the 24th day of January 2008 in Suit Number HER/22/06.
I adopt the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Appearances
Mr. Oritshuwa Uwawah For Appellant
AND
Mr. Martin O. Achugbue For Respondent
