OYEDEPO v. FRN
(2020)LCN/15352(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020
CA/A/133C/2016
RATIO
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL: WHETHER AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURELY ON THE FACTS OR MIXED LAW AND FACTS REQUIRES LEAVES OF THE COURT FROM WHERE APPEAL LIES
It is trite law and constitutionally required that while appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Trial Court on the issue of law is as of right, an interlocutory appeal purely on the facts or mixed law and facts requires leaves of the Court from where appeal lies or the Court to which the appeal lies. As I had earlier stated, the decision of the Trial Court being appealed was not a final decision but interlocutory. Furthermore, it is not being undisputed that the Appellant neither sought nor obtained leave of either the Trial Court or that of this Court.
In the final analysis, the Appellant not having shown that leave of either the Trial Court, or this Court was duly obtained before the Notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Trial Court was filed, the said Notice of appeal was incompetent and deserves to be struck out. PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.
GROUND OF APPEAL: WHETHER ANY GROUND INVOLVING QUESTION OF MIXED LAW AND FACT OR OF FACT ALONE MAKES IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPELLANT TO OBTAIN LEAVE BEFORE FILING OR BRINGING AN APPEAL ON THAT GROUND
A ground of appeal other than one complaining or raising issue of law alone is not filed as of right. Any ground involving question of mixed law and fact or of fact alone makes it appropriate for the appellant to obtain Leave before filing or bringing an appeal on that ground. See the cases of – Chrome Air Services Ltd & Ors. v. Fidelity Bank (2017) LPELR – 43470 (SC), Global West Vessel Specialist (Nig.) Ltd v. Nigeria NLG Ltd & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 41987 (SC), Otti & Anor. v. Ogah & Ors. (2017) LPELR-41986 (SC).
Having carefully gone through the record of appeal and assessed the grounds of appeal in this matter, it is so clear that the appellant never sought the leave of the trial Court nor the leave of this Court to file this appeal. Leave of Court is a sine qua non to filing an interlocutory appeal. Failure to obtain leave of Court to file the appeal as required by the Constitution, is fatal in this case. See the cases of Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd v. Greenbay Investment & Securities (2019) LPELR – 46929 (SC), Akinyemi v. Odu’a & Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR – 8270 (SC), Umanah v. NDIC (2016) LPELR – 42556 (SC), Nweke v. FRN (2019) LPELR – 46946 (SC). This Court can only be competent and have jurisdiction to entertain any matter if the appeal comes before it upon fulfillment of any condition precedent. See Madukolu v.Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR – 24023 (SC), APGA v. Oye & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 45196 (SC). PER STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.
REPLY BRIEF: RELEVANCE OF A REPLY BRIEF
Ordinarily, a reply brief is a brief that responds to issues and arguments raised in the brief previously filed by one’s opponent. In other words, it is an appellant’s brief of argument in opposition. See: Musaconi Limited v. Mr. H. Aspinall (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1375) P. 35, (2013) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 380, (2013) 6 – 7 SC (Pt. 1), (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 70) 1275. A reply brief is only filed when an issue of law or arguments raised in the respondent’s brief call for a reply. The effect of failure of an appellant to file a rely brief was well captured elaborately by this Court in the case of Okeke & Anor. v. Obinabo (2018) LPELR – 44533 (CA), where Georgewill, JCA, address the issue as follows:
“My lords, curiously, the appellants’ counsel though duly served with the notice of preliminary objection and the Respondent’s brief incorporating the arguments thereon did not file a reply brief. The legal implication or purport on the failure of the appellants to file a reply brief is never too far to seek and it is that they have conceded to the arguments challenging the competence of their appeal. In Order 19 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, it is provided thus: “Where an Appellant fail to file his brief within the time provided for in Rules 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution. If the Respondent fails to file his brief, he will not be heard in oral argument. Where an appellant fail to file a reply brief within the time specified in Rule5, he shall be deemed to have conceded all the new points or issues arising from the Respondent’s brief”. It seems to me that the above legal effect as it relates to failure to file reply brief flows from the very clear provisions of Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Rules of this Court which provides thus: “The Appellant may also, if necessary, within fourteen days of the Service on him of the Respondent’s brief, file and serve or cause to be served on the Respondent a reply brief which shall seal with all new points arising from the Respondent’s brief”. My lords, while the filing of reply brief introduced in the rules of this Court by the use of the word ‘may’ denotes an optional responsibility on the party of an appellant, yet it is the only permissible way for an appellant to meet any new points arising from the Respondent’s brief and not covered by the arguments in the Appellant’s brief. In the case of preliminary objection to the competence of an appeal argued in a Respondent’s brief, the Appellant has only but only the means of a reply brief to counter and respond to it unless he concedes the point raised in the preliminary objection as he may not be heard inn oral argument in opposition to a preliminary objection duly argued in a Respondent’s brief.
I therefore, take it that the Appellants had conceded to the arguments in support of the objection challenging the competence of the appeal. See Dr. Arthur Nwankwo & Ors. v. Alhaji Umar Yar’Adua & Ors. (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518, where the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, JSC, (as the then was, now CJN) had held inter alia thus: “It is settled law that where an opponent fails or neglect to counter any argument or issue validly raised in the brief of argument or during oral presentation, the issue is not so contested and is deemed conceded by the defaulting party.” PER STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Abdu Aboki Justice of the Court of Appeal
Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
H.B. OYEDEPO APPELANT(S)
And
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT(S)
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in Suit No: FCT/HC/CR/48/2008, delivered on the 31st day of July, 2008, Coram: Salisu Garba, J.
The appellant herein was charged together with 11 others before the trial Court on a 40 counts charge bothering on the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, forgery and dishonestly receiving stolen property, use as genuine forged documents contrary toSections 97, 315, 317 and 366 of the Penal Code respectively.
After pleading not guilty to the charge, the appellant together with the other accused persons in their separate applications before the trial Court prayed that the charges preferred against them be quashed.
The trial Court consolidated the applications and gave a single ruling on the various applications, wherein the trial Court declined to quash the said charges and subsequently struck out the applications.
Dissatisfied with the said ruling, the appellant appealed to this Court vide the Notice of Appeal filed on the 28th February, 2017. The record was transmitted to this Court on the 24th May, 2017.
In line with the rules of this Court, Chief Woye Adetoro, counsel for the Appellant in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on the 5th day of July, 2017, submitted two issues for the determination of this appeal. These two issues are:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right in his decision that the Appellant’s application to quash the charge, same having been brought after taking his plea, was belated and incompetent in law. (Ground 1).
2. Whether the learned trial judge dispassionately consider, in totality, the proofs of evidence particularly the Statements of all the witnesses, depositions and exhibits before arriving at the decision that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant to warrant his standing trial (Grounds 2 & 3).
In response, Sir Steve Ehi Odiase Esq., counsel for the respondent raised a Preliminary Objection (which is incorporated at pages 2 – 4 of the Respondent’s Brief) and thereafter formulated three issues for determination of this appeal, in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on the 20th day of May, 2020, thus:
1. Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondent’s (Prosecution) had made out in their Proof of Evidence and disclosed an offence known to law.
2. Whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondent (Prosecution) had made out evidence that linked the Appellant with the commission of the alleged offences.
3. Whether the ruling of the lower Court was a miscarriage of justice as to the Appellant’s application that was brought after his plea was taken.
Let me first consider the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent one way or the other before considering the appeal on its merit, if need be.
It is on record that on the 2nd June, 2020, when this appeal carne up for hearing, counsel for the respondent was not in Court to adopt his brief of argument, as a result his brief was deemed adopted together with the Preliminary Objection.
Preliminary Objection:
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the whole appeal as filed by the appellant on the ground that no leave of the lower Court and Court of Appeal was obtained by the appellant to appeal against the interlocutory decision of the trial Court overruling his application to quash the charge in Charge No: CR/48/2008.
The Respondent formulated the following issue for determination:
Whether the notice of appeal of the appellant against the ruling of the high Court of the FCT on the application to quash the charge without leave of the Court is competent?
Learned counsel for the Respondent relied on Section 242(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides circumstances or instances in which appeal will lie as of right from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and submitted that the decision appealed against was an interlocutory decision, it was not a final decision. It was also not a question of law alone in which case, leave would not have been necessary. The Notice of Appeal clearly shows that the ground and particulars are questions of facts, mixed law and facts. He cited the case of Akindipo v. The State (2008) 15 NWLR Pt.1111 560 P.568 para B-C.
Learned counsel submitted that the Appellant required the leave of Court before appealing against the decision of the application to quash the charge. Having not obtained leave before appealing, the issues formulated by the appellant which were distilled from the three grounds of appeal are incompetent and liable to be struck out. He cited the cases of Agip v. Agip (2010) 2 SC at P.1 para 4; Bona v. ATM Plc (2013) 2 NWLR (PT 1338) 357 SC, where the Court held that failure to comply with provisions of the laws as to commencement of an action renders the proceedings incompetent. The Court further held and defined ‘leave of Court’ as permission to obtain from a Court to take some action or steps.
Furthermore, on the issue of preliminary objection to an appeal, if same succeeds there is no need to consider the arguments in respect of the issues in appeal. He cited the case of B.A.S.F. Nig. Ltd v. Faith Ent. Ltd. (2010) 1 SCM at page 41, para 1, 2, 5, 6 & 8. A Court is only competent when a case comes before it by due process and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Counsel submitted that the Notice of Appeal also filed before a Court must be in substantial compliance with the prescribed laws/rules. He cited the case of TideX Nigeria Limited v. Joyt Maskew & Anor (1997) NWLR (Pt.453).
Counsel stated that, it is a trite law that where the Rules of Court provides the time within which certain steps must be taken, failure to take those steps within the time specified is fundamental irregularity which cannot be waived as a mere irregularity. Also, a party cannot extend or abridge the time of doing an act without leave of Court. Therefore, the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant in this suit fell short of the requirements of the Rules of Court and the Notice of Appeal is invalid and defective.
Counsel submitted that the notice of Appeal filed before this Court is ab initio defective and he urged the Court to set aside the Notice of Appeal for Non-compliance with the rules. He relied on the case of Aqua Ltd v. Ondo State Sports Council (1988) NWLR 622.
There is one significant feature in this objection as argued by the parties. The Respondent raised the Preliminary Objection as to the competence of the appeal. This no doubt is normally the toast of many respondents. It is so because a preliminary objection is a pre-emptive strike and its success is dependent on the nature of the claim filed.
I have gone through the record and the notice of appeal before us and if the appeal is to be considered on merit, the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal are nothing but adventure in technicality. The charge before the trial Court to which the appellant pleaded to is a proper charge. The issue of whether there is a prima facie case can only come when the Court is given the opportunity to hear the case of the prosecution. In any event, there is a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal.
In the instant case, the appellant did not file any reply brief to counter the preliminary objection raised. Ordinarily, a reply brief is a brief that responds to issues and arguments raised in the brief previously filed by one’s opponent. In other words, it is an appellant’s brief of argument in opposition. See: Musaconi Limited v. Mr. H. Aspinall (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1375) P. 35, (2013) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 380, (2013) 6 – 7 SC (Pt. 1), (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 70) 1275. A reply brief is only filed when an issue of law or arguments raised in the respondent’s brief call for a reply. The effect of failure of an appellant to file a rely brief was well captured elaborately by this Court in the case of Okeke & Anor. v. Obinabo (2018) LPELR – 44533 (CA), where Georgewill, JCA, address the issue as follows:
“My lords, curiously, the appellants’ counsel though duly served with the notice of preliminary objection and the Respondent’s brief incorporating the arguments thereon did not file a reply brief. The legal implication or purport on the failure of the appellants to file a reply brief is never too far to seek and it is that they have conceded to the arguments challenging the competence of their appeal. In Order 19 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, it is provided thus: “Where an Appellant fail to file his brief within the time provided for in Rules 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution. If the Respondent fails to file his brief, he will not be heard in oral argument. Where an appellant fail to file a reply brief within the time specified in Rule5, he shall be deemed to have conceded all the new points or issues arising from the Respondent’s brief”. It seems to me that the above legal effect as it relates to failure to file reply brief flows from the very clear provisions of Order 19 Rules 5 (1) of the Rules of this Court which provides thus: “The Appellant may also, if necessary, within fourteen days of the Service on him of the Respondent’s brief, file and serve or cause to be served on the Respondent a reply brief which shall seal with all new points arising from the Respondent’s brief”. My lords, while the filing of reply brief introduced in the rules of this Court by the use of the word ‘may’ denotes an optional responsibility on the party of an appellant, yet it is the only permissible way for an appellant to meet any new points arising from the Respondent’s brief and not covered by the arguments in the Appellant’s brief. In the case of preliminary objection to the competence of an appeal argued in a Respondent’s brief, the Appellant has only but only the means of a reply brief to counter and respond to it unless he concedes the point raised in the preliminary objection as he may not be heard inn oral argument in opposition to a preliminary objection duly argued in a Respondent’s brief.
I therefore, take it that the Appellants had conceded to the arguments in support of the objection challenging the competence of the appeal. See Dr. Arthur Nwankwo & Ors. v. Alhaji Umar Yar’Adua & Ors. (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518, where the Supreme Court per Onnoghen, JSC, (as the then was, now CJN) had held inter alia thus: “It is settled law that where an opponent fails or neglect to counter any argument or issue validly raised in the brief of argument or during oral presentation, the issue is not so contested and is deemed conceded by the defaulting party.”
The fact that the appellant did not file a reply brief to join issues with the Respondent notwithstanding, it is the bounden duty of this Court to look at the substance of the preliminary objection. I want to get into the crux of the preliminary objection now.
The objection is more of an issue of law. The issue of Leave to appeal is both constitutional and an issue of law. By Section 241 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, an appeal shall lie from the decisions of the trial/lower Court to this Court where those decisions are final decisions or where the ground of appeal involved is a question of law alone. Other instances therein laid are not relevant to this appeal. Section 242 of the same Constitution created appeals that can be filed only with the Leave of this Court/or the lower Court, Section 242 of the Constitution provides as follows:
“242 – (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 241 of this Constitution, an appeal shall lie from decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court or that High Court or the Court of Appeal.
(2) The Court of Appeal may dispose of any application for leave to appeal from any decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court in respect of any civil or criminal proceedings in which an appeal has been brought to the Federal High Court or a High Court from any other Court after consideration of the record of the proceedings, if the Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the interests of justice do not require an oral hearing of the application.”
Furthermore, Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act requires that Leave be secured before an interlocutory appeal is filed.
In the instant case, the appeal is an interlocutory appeal from the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The issue of whether leave is a prerequisite for the appeal can only be addressed by a review of the record and the notice of appeal before the Court as filed by the appellant. The notice of appeal is at pages 1086 to 1090. There are three grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal are laid out as follows:
Ground 1: Error in Law:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his Lordship held that my application of 2/5/2008 to quash the charge against me is belated and incompetent.
Particulars of Errors:
i. In his Ruling, the learned trial Judge held as follows:
“It is trite that where the charge on which an accused person is brought to Court is defective, an objection must be raised to the defect before pleading. See Obakpolor vs. The State (1991) 1 NWLR Part 165 Page 113.
ii. Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act (C.P.A) upon which Obakpolor vs. The State (supra) was based has no identical or comparative provision under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which is applicable to me as my case was tried at the High Court of the FCT where the CPC is the applicable law.
iii. Section 187 of the CPC is completely different from 167 of the CPA in that under Section 187 of the CPC an accused person must first plead one way or the other on the charge against him before raising any objection to such charge.
iv. I am legally entitled to raise the application for quashing the charge against me at any stage of the criminal proceedings.
Ground 2: Error in Law:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when his Lordship held that counts 1 to 38 & 42 were all laid out and thus disclosed a prima facie case against me with the findings as follows:
“From the statements of the witnesses and proof of evidence, there seems to be an alleged fraud committed by the 1st to 11th Accused persons involving fraud of the Federal Ministry of Health in December, 2007. It is equally alleged that the sum involved in all the alleged fraud was shared by the accused persons and other staff of the Federal Ministry of Justice… in the circumstances, and based on the proof of evidence and witness statement and various documents attached to the charge in support of this charge and various documents attached to the charge in support of the charge and the decision in the case of Abacha vs. State, I am of the view that there seem to be prima facie case established against the accused persons”.
Particulars of Error:
i. The learned trial Judge misapplied the decision in Abacha vs. State to my case.
ii. The lower Court would have held that no prima facie case was made out against me in respect of the offence in counts 1 to 42 if the trial Court had painstakingly gone through all the depositions, Statements of all the witnesses and the proof of evidence.
iii. No witness vide his/her Statement gave evidence that sufficiently linked me to any of the offences with which I was charged.
Ground 3: Misdirection in Law:
The learned trial Court misdirected itself when his Lordship failed to dispassionately examine the Statements of all the witnesses, depositions and argument of my counsel before arriving at the decision that a prima facie case was made against me.
Particulars of Error:
i. The learned trial Judge should have read, with thorough understanding, and analyzed all the various statements and depositions of al! the witnesses and not just few of such statements before arriving at the decision that a prima facie case was made against me.
ii. The learned trial Judge did not apply the legal meaning of “prima facie” case before reaching the conclusion that I have a case to answer.
iii. The ingredients of the offences with which I was charged in the information are not supported both by the depositions and Statements of the witnesses.
Reliefs Sought from the Court of Appeal:
i. An Order setting aside the Ruling of Honourable Justice Salisu Garba delivered on 31st July, 2008 in so far as it affects me.
ii. AND ORDER quashing all the counts framed against me on the ground that the proof of evidence does not disclose any prima facie case against me to warrant my being put on trial.
The grounds of appeal in this case are all grounds of mixed law and facts. None is essentially a ground of law. A ground of appeal other than one complaining or raising issue of law alone is not filed as of right. Any ground involving question of mixed law and fact or of fact alone makes it appropriate for the appellant to obtain Leave before filing or bringing an appeal on that ground. See the cases of – Chrome Air Services Ltd & Ors. v. Fidelity Bank (2017) LPELR – 43470 (SC), Global West Vessel Specialist (Nig.) Ltd v. Nigeria NLG Ltd & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 41987 (SC), Otti & Anor. v. Ogah & Ors. (2017) LPELR-41986 (SC).
Having carefully gone through the record of appeal and assessed the grounds of appeal in this matter, it is so clear that the appellant never sought the leave of the trial Court nor the leave of this Court to file this appeal. Leave of Court is a sine qua non to filing an interlocutory appeal. Failure to obtain leave of Court to file the appeal as required by the Constitution, is fatal in this case. See the cases of Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd v. Greenbay Investment & Securities (2019) LPELR – 46929 (SC), Akinyemi v. Odu’a & Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR – 8270 (SC), Umanah v. NDIC (2016) LPELR – 42556 (SC), Nweke v. FRN (2019) LPELR – 46946 (SC). This Court can only be competent and have jurisdiction to entertain any matter if the appeal comes before it upon fulfillment of any condition precedent. See Madukolu v.Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR – 24023 (SC), APGA v. Oye & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 45196 (SC).
From the foregoing, it is without doubt that failure of the appellant in this appeal to obtain leave of Court in this interlocutory appeal has rendered this appeal incompetent. The preliminary objection of the Respondent accordingly succeeds. This appeal is incompetent. It is hereby struck out.
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.: I have read before now, a draft of the lead judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA. I agree that the appeal is incompetent and should be struck out.
His Lordship has admirably dissected the grounds of appeal and arrived at the conclusion that the appeal ought to be struck out, since the grounds in the Notice of Appeal were grounds of mixed law and fact and leave was required before the appeal could become competent. Since leave was not sought either in the Trial Court or this Court, the appeal was incompetent and liable to be struck out. I entirely agree.
Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, Customary Court of Appeal of a State and from decision of a Court Martial or other Tribunal as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. See: Section 240 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
However, with regard to appeals as of right from the Federal or State High Courts, Section 241 provides inter alia, as follows:
Section 241(1)
An appeal shall He from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases:-
a. Final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance;
b. where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings;
c. Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution; Yet by law, appeals against interlocutory decisions of a High Court require the leave of the High Court or that of the Court of Appeal to be first sought and obtained before the filing of the Notice of Appeal, in particular, where the grounds are not based on grounds of law alone. See:
Section 242(1) of the CFRN 1999, (as amended)
Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004.
In the instant matter, certain facts are not in dispute and are very clear from doubt, on the records. They are the fact that the appeal in question to the Court below was an interlocutory decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and the Appellant neither sought nor obtained any leave of either the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, or of this Court, before the Notice of appeal was filed.
It is trite law and constitutionally required that while appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Trial Court on the issue of law is as of right, an interlocutory appeal purely on the facts or mixed law and facts requires leaves of the Court from where appeal lies or the Court to which the appeal lies. As I had earlier stated, the decision of the Trial Court being appealed was not a final decision but interlocutory. Furthermore, it is not being undisputed that the Appellant neither sought nor obtained leave of either the Trial Court or that of this Court.
In the final analysis, the Appellant not having shown that leave of either the Trial Court, or this Court was duly obtained before the Notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Trial Court was filed, the said Notice of appeal was incompetent and deserves to be struck out.
It is for this reason and the more detailed reasons given by my Learned Brother STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA that I also find that this appeal is incompetent, and ought to be struck out. It is accordingly struck out by me.
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached. I do not have anything useful to add. I abide by all the orders made therein.
Appearances:
CHIEF WOYE ADETORO, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
Respondent served, but not represented in Court For Respondent(s)
