PETER EDAH DIKE v. OSAYANDE UHUNMWANGHO (2011)

PETER EDAH DIKE v. OSAYANDE UHUNMWANGHO

(2011)LCN/5036(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 14th day of April, 2011

CA/B/127/2005

RATIO

THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COURT

At pages 958 – 959 Supreme court continued and said that the law is also trite that although an appeal court should be wary of formulating or introducing new issues for determination in an appeal before it, where the issues presented by the parties are not appropriate or are inadequate having regards to the circumstances it can identify relevant issues taking extreme cautions not go outside the grounds of appeal filed or issues not canvassed by the parties in their respective brief of argument. Although, generally an appellate court will rely on the issues for determination of an appeal. Failure of the Court of Appeal or this court to be bound by the issues formulated by the parties where the court regard such issues as being inappropriate having regards to the grounds of appeal filed has been held not to amount to any injustice or denial of fair hearing. In the case of CHABASAYA V. ANWANSI (2010) 3 – 5 SC 208; the Supreme Court held that an appellate court is at liberty to choose which of the issues in the brief to treat first. It is not contradicted to treat issues the way they are set out in the Briefs of argument or in their chronological order. In fact the law permits an Appellate court to ignore some or all issues raised in the Briefs of argument and formulate its own issue from the grounds of appeal. See OPORA V. O.S. NIG. LTD (1995) 4 NWLR Pt. 390 440; BANKOLE V. PELU (1991) 11-12 SC 116. PER. GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

The action in this appeal is a declaration of title to land. There are five ways of proving title as given in IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 27; FASHARO V. BEYIOKU 1988 2 NWLR (PT.76) 263.
(a) by traditional evidence
(b) by production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed
(c) by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive ENOUGH as to warrant the inference of true ownership
(d) by act of long possession and enjoyment and
(e) by proof of possession of connected adjacent land in circumstance rendering it probable that the owner of said connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute. PER. GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THERE ARE TWO CLAIMANTS TO A PARCEL OF LAND

In a claim for title to land the onus lies on the Plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought before the court. The Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. If the onus is not discharged the weakness of the Defendant will not help the Plaintiff and the proper judgment is for the Defendant. The learned counsel to the Appellant in this case erroneously put the proof of establishment of plot 281 on the (defendant) Respondent. This is misconceived see KODILINYE V. ODU VOL. Appeals Courts Land Mark Cases Page 192. On resolving competing claims to a parcel of land the Supreme Court in ADOLE v. GWAR (2008) 11 NWLR (PT.1099) 562 held as follows “where there are two claimants to a parcel of land, declaration of title is made in favour of the party that proves better title. In the instant case, from the evidence adduced and the circumstance of this case the Respondent proved better title to the land in issue. The Respondent pleaded and proved that he was not only a holder of statutory right of occupancy but also that by traditional history and having possession he had a better title to land.” PER. GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

LAND LAW: WAYS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

LAND LAW: THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THERE ARE TWO CLAIMANTS TO A PARCEL OF LAND

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

The burden of proof in civil proceedings generally is on him who asserts or affirms and not on him who denies but where a party had adduced credible evidence in support of a particular fact, the burden then shift to the other party that the facts so produced could not on the preponderance of evidence result in judgment being given in favour of that party. See IMIAWA V. AKPABIO (2003) 17 NWLR pt.1116 226. PER. GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

THE TEST TO BE APPLIED WHERE THE FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE ON RECORD

The test to be applied where the findings of trial court are supported by evidence on Record was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of ODOFIN V. AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC 72 at 113 as follows: “The question at this stage will then be, was there any evidence no matter how slight to support the findings? If the answer is YES (as in this case, that concludes the findings and put on them a stop of finality. See LIONS BUILDING LTD V SHODIPE (1976) 12 SC 135 was applied”. PER. GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

Before Their Lordships

AMIRU SANUSIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEMEJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

PETER EDAH DIKEAppellant(s)

AND

OSAYANDE UHUNMWANGHORespondent(s)

GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of a Benin High Court delivered on 25/7/03 in favour of the Defendant now Respondent. The case of the Plaintiff now Appellant was dismissed.
The Plaintiff’s claim in the lower court is as shown in his amended statement of claim at pages 116 – 120. The relevant part shows thus:
a) a declaration that plaintiff is the owner and in lawful physical possession of that parcel of land lying and situate at the junction of Maria Goretti Road/Ugomoson Street, Idumwun-Ivbiotor Quarters, Benin City and more particularly delineated in Survey Plan No. JAA/ED/D10/97 of 1/12/97 filed along with this further amended statement of claim. Therefore, he is the only one entitled to apply for and be granted a certificate of occupancy in respect of the said parcel of land which now forms part of No. 7, Ugomoson Street, Benin City, undisputed property of the plaintiff.
b) a declaration that the invasion of the land and the destruction of part of his wall fence and some economic trees by the defendant is without lawful authority and therefore illegal.
c) The sum of N50,000 being damages for the trespass committed by the defendant.
d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by himself, his servants and/or agents from committing further acts of trespass on the land.
The facts of the case are that the Appellant claimed that he bought the land in dispute from one Albert Aigbiremwen, who acquired it in the name of his daughter Eunice Osemwegie through the ward 18H Plot Allotment Committee, Benin city under an application approved by the Oba of Benin in favour of Eunice Osemwegie. The approved application is Exhibit “P4” given to the Appellant.
The Appellant was given a Purchase Agreement signed by Eunice Osemwegie in respect of the said land in dispute. It is Exhibit “P3”.
The Appellant has never met, nor does he know the said Eunice Osemwegie and has never had any personal contact with her either before or after the purchase.
The land in dispute was shown to the Appellant by the said Albert Aigbiremwen and he took possession of the land until the events that gave rise to this action.
The Appellant did not call as a witness either Albert Aigbiremwen who sold the land in dispute to him or the said Eunice Osemwegie from whom he derived title, and no surviving member of the ward 18H Plot Allotment Committee was called to testify in support of his case in respect of the land in dispute.
On the part of the respondent, he said he applied to and acquired the land in dispute directly through the ward 18H plot Allotment committee, Benin City by an application approved by the Oba of Benin in his favour. The approved application is Exhibit “D1”.
The land was inspected and identified by the plot Allotment committee’s pointers one of whom was D.W.2 who showed the Respondent the land before it was recommended to the Oba for approval.
The Respondent has since been in possession with D.W.2 watching over the land in dispute for him until the event that gave rise to this suit. The Respondent has since 1993. Obtained a certificate of occupancy over the said land. The Certificate is Exhibit “D7”
The Respondent called the chairman of ward 18H plot Allotment committee (D.W.1) who signed Exhibit “D1” and one of the pointers (D.W.2) of the ward who identified and showed him the land in dispute before it was recommended to the Oba for approval, and his approved application is Exhibit “D1”.
The relevant part of the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s case is short and reads as follows:
“The case is very strange. The plaintiff said that one Albert Aigbirenmwen sold to him, Albert who acquired the land in Eunice’s name. The said Eunice was the daughter of Albert Aigbirenmwen now late. Exhibit P3 showed that Eunice transferred to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence that Eunice’s alive to confirm the sale. Exhibit P3 is a registable instrument, which was not registered. At best Exhibit p3 is evidence of transfer of money from the plaintiff. Plaintiff was honest enough to say that he did not see Eunice but she signed Exhibit P3, under cross- examination. Exhibit P3 was altered plaintiff said Albert Aigbirenmwen altered. It Law is trite trial the sale of land is not like other commodities. It is a registable instrument. Also, every land in Bini takes its root from the Oba. By Exhibit P4 the land was allocated to Eunice Osemwengie who took her root from the approval granted to her by the Oba of Benin,
There was no evidence that Albert Aigbirenmwen was authorized by Eunice to sell the land. Also, where is Eunice? Is she living or dead. There is no evidence to show that Eunice actually sold the land to the Plaintiff, Also whether Albert Aigbirenmwen is dead is irrelevant. There is even no evidence that Eunicewas the daughter of Albert Aigbirenmwen.
Eunice Osemwengie ought to have testified, but she did not. Nothing is known about her. It is my view that the court will be stretching the law too far to hold that plaintiff took his root from Eunice Osemwengie. There is no evidence to prove this, to prove that the said land was granted Albert Aigbirenwen who sold what he did not have.
The plaintiff’s case s very spurious and is not supported by evidence. His case is bound to fail. The plaintiff has not proved his case. All the other reliefs (b) (c) (d) hinge on relief (a). Since the plaintiff has failed to proved his title to the disputed land all the other reliefs must fail.
The grounds of appeal without particulars are as follows:
1) The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held as follows:
“The plaintiffs case is very spurious and is not supported by evidence. His case is bound to fail. The plaintiff has not proved his case…”
2) The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to review the evidence led before her and not making any finding of fact on the crucial aspects of the case.
3) The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held as follows:-
“Eunice Osemwengie ought to have testified but she did not nothing is known about her. It is my view that the court will be stretching the law too fact to hold that Plaintiff took his root from Eunice Osemwengie. There is no evidence to prove this, to prove that the said land was granted Albert Aigbirenmwen who sold what he do not have.”
“The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”
In line with the Rules of this court parties exchanged briefs. When the case came up for hearing on 8/2/11 Osifo Esq identified his brief dated 20/6/05 filed same day and his reply brief dated 8/5/06 filed on 10/5/06. He adopted and relied on them as his argument in favour of the appeal and urged the court to allow the appeal.
Uhunmwagho for the Respondent adopted and relied on the Respondent’s brief of argument dated 14/12/05 filed on 15/12/05 in his argument that the appeal be dismissed.
The Appellant in his brief formulated 3 issues as follows:
(1) Did the learned trial Judge understand the nature of the case brought to court by Plaintiff Grounds, 1, 2 & 5.
(2) Did the learned trial Judge properly evaluate the evidence of the parties at all Grounds, 2 & 4
(3) Was its necessary far Eunice Osemwengie to have testified in this case before the Plaintiff could be said to have proved his case, Grounds 1, 2 & 5.
From the above it can be seen that Issues 1 & 3 are married to Grounds 12 & 5 of the grounds of appeal. While Issue 2 is also married to grounds 2 & 4.
There is no doubt that the arrangement above offends the rules of law in the formulation of Issues from grounds of appeal. While an issue could cover more than one ground of appeal. Grounds of appeal can not cover more than one issue, therefore the issue as distilled by the Appellant can not be said to be proper and ought to be discountenanced. In the case of DUWIN V. FENEKS (2003) 2 SCNJ 1 at page 13. Issues formulated for determination must not out number the grounds of appeal, for each issue is supposed to have its base and source from a ground or grounds of appeal. See OYEKAN AKIN RUNMI (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt.459) 128.
Once issues exceed the ground of appeal there is danger that some of the issues are outside the grounds of appeal and therefore not related to each other. Grounds of appeal can not be subsumed from main ground to accommodate issues. That is why ideally an issue must be distilled from a ground or grounds of appeal. The position of the law is that an issue must derive its source from a ground of appeal and an issue not so related will not be tolerated.
Whereas the converse situation is allowed i.e. an issue can cover more than a ground of appeal the present situation has no place in our legal system. Proliferation of issue are discouraged. The Respondent in his brief observed that the issue for determination as formulated by the Appellant’s counsel in this appeal are misconceived and therefore went ahead to formulate the following two issues.
(i) whether the Appellant who sought a declaration of title under Bini Native Law and Custom established his claim to the land in dispute.
(ii) whether the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Appellant’s case.
In the case of JOEL OKUNRINBOYE EXPERT COMPANY V. SKYE BANK PLC (2009) 2 NMLR Page 42. The supreme court held that it is not in all cases that a court must inevitably accept the issues framed by the Appellant as though they are immutable particularly when the issues formulated by the Respondent addresses the points in issue much more squarely.
The issue formulated by the Appellant as I have said is confusing.
From the above and from the record of proceedings this is a situation when an Appellate court can formulate issues in an appeal before it.
The Supreme Court in the case of LASISI ASALU V. SULE DEKAN 26 NSCQR pt 95 at 958 held that it is now well settled that issues for determination formulated in an appeal must be related to or arise not only from the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant but also must be traced to the judgment or decision being appealed against.

At pages 958 – 959 Supreme court continued and said that the law is also trite that although an appeal court should be wary of formulating or introducing new issues for determination in an appeal before it, where the issues presented by the parties are not appropriate or are inadequate having regards to the circumstances it can identify relevant issues taking extreme cautions not go outside the grounds of appeal filed or issues not canvassed by the parties in their respective brief of argument.
Although, generally an appellate court will rely on the issues for determination of an appeal. Failure of the Court of Appeal or this court to be bound by the issues formulated by the parties where the court regard such issues as being inappropriate having regards to the grounds of appeal filed has been held not to amount to any injustice or denial of fair hearing.
In the case of CHABASAYA V. ANWANSI (2010) 3 – 5 SC 208; the Supreme Court held that an appellate court is at liberty to choose which of the issues in the brief to treat first. It is not contradicted to treat issues the way they are set out in the Briefs of argument or in their chronological order. In fact the law permits an Appellate court to ignore some or all issues raised in the Briefs of argument and formulate its own issue from the grounds of appeal. See OPORA V. O.S. NIG. LTD (1995) 4 NWLR Pt. 390 440; BANKOLE V. PELU (1991) 11-12 SC 116.

The dispute between the parties is a claim for declaration of title to land and this claim is based on evidence therefore it will be appropriate to ask (i) whether the Appellant who sought a declaration of title to land established his claim to the land in Dispute and (ii) whether the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Appellant’s case.
The Appellant’s brief of argument to me did not address the issue at hand as to whether the Appellant who sought a declaration of title to land established his case. In his brief the Appellant seems to take it as if he is asked to readdress the court as he has done in the trial court. He quoted from the evidence of parties and mostly he referred to Appellant’s exhibits as tendered in the trial court. He argued that the failure of Appellant to call Eunice Osemwengie who is said to own the piece of land was not necessary and that the trial Judge was wrong to have said that her evidence was vital to the case of the Appellant.
He argued that this position is untenable in law as it would amount to pleading a third party interest. He referred to ADELEKUN v. ISOGBEKUN (2003) 7 NWLR Pt. 8lg 295 at 311 and JIWAL V. DIMILORE (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt.824) 154. He submitted that from the pleading of the Defendant the onus is on him to prove that plot 281 either did not exist or was never granted to Albert Aigbirenmwen in the name of his daughter Eunice Osemwengie. He then said that if the learned trial Judge had properly directed her mind to the testimony of the Defendant and his witness the court would have discovered that the Defendant and his witnesses were not witnesses of truth.
The Appellant again quoted and referred to the evidence of witnesses in the trial court. He submitted that neither the Defendant nor any of his witnesses told the court which of the plots 299,300 subsumed plot 281 sold to the Appellant. He submitted that the trial Judge completely misunderstood the case before her and therefore the decision is perverse. He referred to IROLO 2 & ORS V. UKA & ANOR (2002) 14 NWLR Part 786) 195.
He submitted that the Defendant and DW1 & DW2 did not prove the averments in his pleadings. Refer to TEWOGBADE V. AKINDE 1968 NWLR 404-408. He submitted that the burden to prove the facts averred in paragraph 18 & 19 of the amended statement of defence vested squarely on the Defendant. He did not discharge the burden he argued. He therefore urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant. On evaluation of the evidence adduced in the case by the Appellant, he said the trial Judge did not evaluate but summarized the evidence. He relied on ODUWALE V. AINA (2001) 17 NWLR Pt 741; AKINTOLA V. BALOGUN (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 532; OYIEKOLA V. AJIBODE (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt.902) 356 at 375 where it was held that a summary or restatement of evidence is not the same thing as evaluation of evidence.
Evaluation of evidence entails the assessment of evidence as to give it value or quality.
In his reply brief he said the Respondent gave the impression that it is established in law that a purchase of land from an original grantee of the land from the Oba Benin must seek another approval by the Oba before he can obtain good title to the land he purchased from the original grantee who himself had a valid Oba’s approved document. He said all the cases cited by the Respondent do not apply to the principle. He then went on a voyage of the review of the said cases.
He said there is no where it is required that a purchase of land from an original grantee of land by the Oba of Benin to go back to the Oba for consent without which his title to the land will be inchoate. He urged the court to discountenance the argument of the Respondent.
The Respondent argued that from the pleading of the Appellant he has a duty to prove his title through credible evidence in that the Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case. The Appellant needed to prove the title of his predecessor-in-title and that he complied with Benin Native Law and Custom. He said at the later hour he brought an amendment to his pleadings that Albert Aigbirenmwen who sold the land to him was dead. He said no member of the Ward Plot Allotment Committee came to testify for the Appellant to prove that he complied with Benin Native Law and Custom.
He submitted that both parties have joined issues once issue are joined and if party fails or refuses to submit the issue he has raised in his pleadings for trial by giving evidence in support the trial Judge must unless there are other legal reasons to the contrary resolve the case against the defending party.
He relied on ADELAJA V. ALADE 1992 6 NWLR (Part 245) 116. He argued that the Appellant who sought a declaration of title in respect of the so called plot 281 on a discredited layout plan must prove. He who asserts must prove. He also referred to the trial Judge reference to the whereabout of Eunice who is supposed to be the owner of Plot 281. He submitted that the unresolved aspect concerning the proof of title entitled the trial Judge to dismiss the case of the Appellant without any difficulty.
He submitted that a purchase of a land from any valid acquisition by an original grantee before the Land Use Act will also need the approval of the Oba under the Benin Native Law and Custom. He referred to AGBONIFOR V. AIWERIOBA 1998 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 235,326 327 and other decided cases. He submitted that the totality of Appellant’s argument and submission on issues formulated and cases cited in support are misconceived and inapplicable having regard to the circumstance and facts of this case. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit.
The action in this appeal is a declaration of title to land. There are five ways of proving title as given in IDUNDUN V. OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 27; FASHARO V. BEYIOKU 1988 2 NWLR (PT.76) 263.
(a) by traditional evidence
(b) by production of documents of title duly authenticated and executed
(c) by acts of ownership extending over a sufficient length of time numerous and positive ENOUGH as to warrant the inference of true ownership
(d) by act of long possession and enjoyment and
(e) by proof of possession of connected adjacent land in circumstance rendering it probable that the owner of said connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in dispute.

In a claim for title to land the onus lies on the Plaintiff to satisfy the court that he is entitled on the evidence brought before the court. The Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. If the onus is not discharged the weakness of the Defendant will not help the Plaintiff and the proper judgment is for the Defendant.
The learned counsel to the Appellant in this case erroneously put the proof of establishment of plot 281 on the (defendant) Respondent. This is misconceived see KODILINYE V. ODU VOL. Appeals Courts Land Mark Cases Page 192.
On resolving competing claims to a parcel of land the Supreme Court in ADOLE v. GWAR (2008) 11 NWLR (PT.1099) 562 held as follows
“where there are two claimants to a parcel of land, declaration of title is made in favour of the party that proves better title. In the instant case, from the evidence adduced and the circumstance of this case the Respondent proved better title to the land in issue. The Respondent pleaded and proved that he was not only a holder of statutory right of occupancy but also that by traditional history and having possession he had a better title to land.”

The above quoted portion of the case cited is applicable to this case.
The Appellant did not satisfy the standard of proof required. The title of his successor in-title is not established.
Exhibit P3 is mutilated and the said exhibit which is a registable instrument is not registered like what the trial Judge said it is nothing but a mere receipt of money by one Eunice Osemwengie.
Once a party pleads and traces his root of title to a particular source and the title is challenged in order for him to succeed, the party must not only establish his title to the land in issue he must also satisfy the court as to the title of the source from when he claims. See ADOLE V. GWAR (Supra).

There is no doubt that there is no rule of law or practice that says a particular number of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. The observation of the trial Judge that Eunice Osemwengie did not give evidence is borne out of the fact that the Appellant relied on the purchase of land from her. Will she not have thrown more light on the case of the Appellant. However the observation did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The principle having been established that the appeal court will not interfere with the verdict of the Judge below unless such verdict is shown to be perverse or not the result of a proper exercise of his judicial discretion.
In this case the trial Judge has performed his duty of evaluation of the evidence adduced before him. The primary role of the Judge is to evaluate evidence and ascribe probative value to the evidence before it, the finding of fact made by it is entitled to respect by appellate court. It is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own view. See OMOTAYO v. COOP SUPPLY ASSOCTATE (2010) 5-7 SC pt.11, 60.

The test to be applied where the findings of trial court are supported by evidence on Record was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of ODOFIN V. AYOOLA (1984) 11 SC 72 at 113 as follows:
“The question at this stage will then be, was there any evidence no matter how slight to support the findings? If the answer is YES (as in this case, that concludes the findings and put on them a stop of finality. See LIONS BUILDING LTD V SHODIPE (1976) 12 SC 135 was applied”.

The Appellant has failed woefully to proof his case before the lower court and the consequence is a dismissal.
I therefore hold that –
(i) The evidence adduced by the Appellant in the lower court is not sufficient enough to enable him obtain a judgment by his claims.
(ii) The case ought to be dismissed as rightly done by the trial Judge.
I therefore hold that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the lower court delivered on 25/7/03 is affirmed.
I assess cost at of N30,000 in favour of the Respondent.

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading before now the judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother Shoremi, JCA. His Lordship had ably and painstakingly addressed all the salient issues canvassed by learned counsel to the parties before arriving to a conclusion which is agreeable to me that the appeal lacks merit. I too hereby dismiss the appeal with similar cost as awarded in the lead judgment.

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D) J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, SHOREMI JCA and I agree that the appeal is devoid of merit and I have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal.
It is indeed strange that the Appellant did not deem it fit to call Eunice Osemwengie said to have transferred the land to him as per Exhibit P3. Apart from Exhibits P3 and P4, the Appellant was silent as to whether the said Eunice was dead or alive. The Appellant at the lower court erroneously put the Proof of Ownership of Plot 281 on the Respondent. He failed to satisfy the standard of proof required to establish the title of his successor in-title. The Supreme Court case of ADOLE V. GWAR (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt.1099) 562 brings this principle of law to the fore and is most applicable in this appeal on the standard of proof required by law.
I also dismiss this appeal, affirm the Judgment of the lower court and award N30,000 to the Respondent.

Appearances

I. Osifo Esq with him Mrs. Tessy AkenborFor Appellant

AND

A. I. Uhunmwagho Esq. with him Miss Joyce AigboeghianFor Respondent