PRINCE CLEMENT ADEGBOYE v. MR. OYELAYO SALAWU (2013)

PRINCE CLEMENT ADEGBOYE v. MR. OYELAYO SALAWU

(2013)LCN/6537(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 27th day of November, 2013

CA/EK/56/2013

JUSTICES:

PAUL ADMAU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

PRINCE CLEMENT ADEGBOYE – Appellant(s)

AND

MR. OYELAYO SALAWU – Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT PRELIMINARY OBJECTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED FIRST BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE SUBSTANTIVE SUIT

In my judgment in AKINBAMI v. OANDO PLC & ORS unreported, Case NO. CA/EK/33/2013, which was delivered on the 7th November 2013, I clearly stated at page 5 of that judgment that where a preliminary objection is issued against the competence of a procedural step or an appeal, such objection shall be determined first before the hearing of the substantive matter connected to the procedural step or the appeal.
See: AMOO v. ALABI (2003) 15 NSCQLR 133, ODU v. AGBOR – HEMESON (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 802) 624. PER GALINJE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A RESPONDENT MUST SEEK LEAVE OF COURT TO RAISE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE COMPETENCE OF AN APPEAL

WHETHER OR NOT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ARE PRESUMED CORRECT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED

The law is settled that the record of proceedings of a Court is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. A party who wishes to challenge the correctness or authenticity of the record of proceedings of the Court must swear to an affidavit setting out the facts or part of the proceedings omitted or wrongly stated in the record. Such affidavit must be served on the trial Judge and/or on the Registrar of the Court who would then if he desires to contest the affidavit swear to and file a counter affidavit.
In the instant case, such procedure for impeachment of the record of appeal has not been followed. I cannot on the basis of raising such issue in the Appellant’s brief of argument condemn the record of appeal as not being authentic.
See: AKWA v. C.O.P. (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 811) 461 at 492, EHIHIOYA v. C.O.P. BENDEL STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 57, SOMMER v. F.H.A. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 548, ODJE v. OVIEN (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 253) 309. PER GALINJE, J.C.A.

THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THE COURT

In NIGER CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. OKUGBEMI (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 787 at 795, Agbaje, JSC said:-
“The right of Counsel to address the Court is provided for by rules of Court, so there can be something in a complaint by counsel that the trial Court has deprived him of his right to address the court on behalf of his client at the close of the case for both sides, for any discretion possessed by a trial Judge must be exercised within the confines of the law.”
Still on the issue of Counsel address, Belgore, JSC, delivering the lead judgment in OBODO v. OLOMU (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 111 said at Page 120 thus:-
“The procedure whereby the parties to a case at the conclusion of evidence are to address the Court on the evidence before the court, enumerating the issues canvassed and adverting to the law governing the issues has taken such a root in our superior Courts that denial of it cannot be regarded as mere procedural irregularity.”
Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides as follows:-
“Every Court established under this constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final address and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with fully authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of delivery thereof.”
By the provision of the Constitution which above, I entirely agree with Mr. Abegunde that the hearing of addresses by every Court established by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a constitutional issue which must be complied with before judgment is delivered. See: UNION BANK PLC v. AJAGU (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 328, EKANEM v. AKPAN (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 211) 616, UGORJI v. ONWUKA (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 337) 226.
However, to present an address at the close of a case is a right that is constitutionally guaranteed to parties to litigation which right can be waived. A party, who complains that the rights available to him have been denied must first show evidence that he asked for such rights. When the learned trial Judge adjourned the case for judgment, learned Counsel for the Appellant was in Court and failed to ask the learned trial judge for an adjournment to file his written address. By his conduct he had consented that the case should progress to judgment on the evidence before the Court. Having waived that right and consequently sent a junior Counsel to take the judgment, he cannot be heard to complain. PER GALINJE, J.C.A.

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a writ of summons and a statement of claim both filed on the 9th of December, 2011, the Appellant herein who was the plaintiff at the High Court of Ekiti State sitting at Ikere-Ekiti; claimed the following reliefs:-

(a) The sum of Three Million and Thirty Thousand Naira being the balance sum of the sale agreement.
(b) 10% interest on the judgment sum until the defendant pays up. The statement of claim is accompanied with the claimant’s written statement on oath dated and filed on the same 9th of December 2011.

The Respondent filed a 24 paragraphs statement of defence on the 26th January 2012 in which he counter claimed as follows:
1. The sum of Four Million Eight Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Naira only (N4,845,000.00) as special damages being the sum the defendant paid to the claimant on the vehicle and other expenses on the vehicle while it was in his custody.

PARTICULARS OF DAMAGES
(a) The sum of money which the claimant borrowed the claimant to refund Seleke’s money which was later converted as deposit for the Lorry – N3,970,000.00
(b) The sum of money used to build the body of the vehicle by the defendant – N560,000.00
(c) Painting of the lorry by the defendant – N170,000.00
(d) Purchase of the Tyres – N100,000.00
(e) Purchase of spare parts.

2. 22% interest on the sum of N4,845,000.00 from ……. until judgment and 10% thereafter until the whole sum is liquidated.

3. The sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) as general damages for breach of contract and trust.

The counter claim is accompanied with the defendant’s written statement on oath and the written statements on oath of Mr. Jegede Kehinde and Mr. Babatunde Olajide, who are witnesses for the counter claimant. The Appellant filed a reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and claimant’s defence to counter claim on the 29th February 2012. This defence to counter claim was accompanied by a written statement on oath of the counter defendant dated 29th of February 2012.

Issues having been joined, the case proceeded to trial. During the trial, the Appellant gave evidence in support of his case, while the Respondent/Counter claimant gave evidence and called two additional witnesses. The interesting thing about the procedure adopted at the Lower Court is that after the testimony of DW3, Counsel were not called upon to address the Court. On the 29th June 2012, the matter was adjourned to the 4th July 2012 for judgment and the judgment was so delivered on the said date.

The Learned trial judgment dismissed the claim and granted the counter claim in full. He ordered the Appellant as counter defendant at the Lower Court to pay the sum of Four Million Eight Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Naira (N4,845,000.00) to the Respondent. In addition, the Learned trial Judge awarded Twenty Two Thousand Naira (N22,000.00) as general damages against the Claimant/Counter Respondent.

It is against this judgment that the Appellant has brought this appeal. His notice of appeal at page 90 of the record of this appeal, which was filed on the 28th February 2013, contains eight (8) grounds of appeal. In line with relevant rules of this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Mr. Babalola Abegunde, Learned Counsel for the Appellant formulated eight (8) issues from the eight (8) grounds of appeal, for determination of this appeal. These issues are hereunder reproduced as follows:-
(a) Whether the Trial Court, erred in law by jumping/rushing to judgment without allowing for counsel written address.
(b) Whether the Trial Court erred in law by jumping into and dancing in the arena.
(c) Whether the Trial Court erred in law by failing to write down vital part of the proceedings thereby leaving gap in the Record.
(d) Whether the Trial Court erred in law by making case for the Respondent.
(e) Whether the Trial Court erred in law by failing to look into the content of his file and make findings on vital documents therein.
(f) Whether the Trial Court erred in law by granting an unproved special damage charitably.
(g) Whether the Trial Court misdirected himself on the facts by holding that Appellant’s case is unreliable.
(h) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence.
These issues (a-h) were formulated from grounds (1-8) respectively.

Mr. A. A. Ojopagogo, Learned Counsel for the Respondent issued a notice of preliminary objection to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grounds of appeal at pages 4 and 5 of the Respondent’s brief of argument dated 6th June 2013 and filed on 7th June 2013. Learned Counsel thereafter formulated four (4) issues for determination of this appeal. These issues read as follows:-
1. Whether failure to address the court by both Counsel to the parties before delivery of judgment by the trial Court has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. Whether documents pleaded but not tendered in evidence by the appellant can be relied upon or considered by the Trial Court during judgment.
3. Whether the special damages in the Counter-claim required further proof same having been admitted by the claimants (sic) in his evidence at Trial Court.
4. Whether the Trial Judge properly reviewed the case of the parties before arriving at a decision.

Issues 1, 2 and 3 are said to be formulated from grounds 1, 5 and 6 respectively, while issue 4 is formulated from grounds 7 and 8.

It is also the law that where a preliminary objection to the competence of an appeal is raised either in the brief or separately, the Respondent raising such objection must seek the leave of the Court to argue same before the hearing of the appeal. Where that is not done, the preliminary objection is deemed waived and abandoned and it is liable to be struck out.
See: A.G. OF RIVERS STATE v. G. O. UDE (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 436 at 452 PARAGRAPHS G-H, NSIRIM v. NSIRIM (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 285 at 297, ONOCHIE v. ODOGWU (2006) 2 SCM 95; (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 65, OFORKIRE & ANOR. v. MADUIKE & ORS (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) 166. At the hearing of this appeal, Ojopagogo applied for adjournment to formerly file the preliminary objection as provided for by Order 10, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. Initially, Aduloju did not object to the application, but along the line he urged the Court to refuse the application because the preliminary objection is incompetent as it was not filed in line with Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011. This Court upheld the objection to the application on the ground that the appeal was listed for hearing and none of the parties can at that stage frustrate the hearing of the appeal. Since the preliminary objection was not filed as provided for by the rules of this court, same is incompetent. It was accordingly struck out.

Before I deal with the main appeal, I wish to deal with some preliminary issues as they affect some of the issues for the determination of the appeal. The Appellant’s issues (b) and (c) seem to question the correctness or otherwise of the record of appeal. Issue 6 complains that the learned trial Judge descended into the arena of contest. Learned Counsel did not point out the pages of the record of the appeal where, before the judgment, the Learned trial Judge took over the roles of the parties and what he said concerning the proceedings before him. On issue (b), the Appellant’s complaint is that the learned trial Judge failed to write down part of the proceedings and thereby left gaps in the record of appeal. Clearly, the Appellant’s complaints here tend to question the authenticity of the record of appeal. The law is settled that the record of proceedings of a Court is presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. A party who wishes to challenge the correctness or authenticity of the record of proceedings of the Court must swear to an affidavit setting out the facts or part of the proceedings omitted or wrongly stated in the record. Such affidavit must be served on the trial Judge and/or on the Registrar of the Court who would then if he desires to contest the affidavit swear to and file a counter affidavit.
In the instant case, such procedure for impeachment of the record of appeal has not been followed. I cannot on the basis of raising such issue in the Appellant’s brief of argument condemn the record of appeal as not being authentic.
See: AKWA v. C.O.P. (2003) 4 NWLR (Pt. 811) 461 at 492, EHIHIOYA v. C.O.P. BENDEL STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 57, SOMMER v. F.H.A. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 548, ODJE v. OVIEN (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 253) 309. I find the two issues inappropriate and they are accordingly struck out.

Now coming to the consideration of the issues raised for determination of this appeal, I prefer those issues formulated by the Respondent and I do adopt them for the purpose of determining this appeal, as they seem to have covered all the issues formulated by the Appellant.

On the issue of the failure of the trial Court to take Counsel address before proceeding to judgment, Mr. Abegunde, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that by the relevant rules of Ekiti State High Court, written addresses by parties to a suit are mandatory after the close of the case for the parties. Learned Counsel cited Order 13 Rule 13, Order 30 Rule 15 and Order 30 Rule 16 all of Ekiti State Civil Procedure Rules 2011 and the authority in O.I.R. LTD. v. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2011) 25 WRN 43. Learned Counsel surprisingly attacked the speed with which judgment was delivered in this case. I use the word ‘surprisingly’ because these days Judges are accused of not delivering judgment expeditiously as they would. It is therefore a situation where, whether head or tail, a Judge looses. In a further argument, Learned Counsel submitted that Address of Counsel forms part of the case before a Judge and failure to hear the Address of parties vitiates the trial. In aid, Learned Counsel cited PAM v. MOHAMMED (2008) 40 WRN and IHOM v. GAJI (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 536. Still in argument, Learned Counsel submitted that address of counsel after the close of case is constitutionally guaranteed to parties and failure to comply will render the subsequent judgment a nullity. In aid, Learned Counsel cited SECTION 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution and the authorities in ABUGUJA v. AZIFANKA (2007) 48 WRN, OBODO v. OLOMU (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 111 at 123 – 124

In his argument, Mr. Ojopagogo, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the trial Court asked whether the Parties’ Counsel wanted to address the Court but the Parties declined while the case was adjourned for judgment. Learned Counsel submitted that the failure of the Parties’ Counsel to deliver addresses at the close of evidence did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, since Counsel’s addresses cannot take the place of evidence. In aid, learned Counsel cited, CHRIST THE KING SEVEN DAY MISSION v. NJOKU (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 287) 938 at 941, ARO v. ARO (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 443 at 448, DALYOP v. ORADIEGWU (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 669) 421 at 423, OKON v. UBI (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 328) 717 at 723, OLUFOSOYE v. FAKOREDE (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 747.

On the issue of disobedience to the rule of the Lower Court, Learned Counsel submitted that non compliance with the provision of the rules of court will not necessarily result into judgment given in the case being set aside. In aid, Learned Counsel cited AGULGWUL v. AKPO (2001) FWLR (Pt. 57) 829. SEHINDEMI v. GOV. OF LAGOS STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 31) 1858 at 1862 RATIO 3.

Now the conclusion of the evidence of DW3, who was the last defence witness is at Pages 58 – 59. I will reproduce same to justify what I will say next.
“DW 111:- Goes into the witness box. Swears on the Holy Bible and says:
My names are Oyelayo Salau. I live at No. 12, of Mosudi, Oyelayo Lane, Off Mosudi Road, Ikere. I am a business man. I would …………. I know the account. I know why I am in Court. I made statement on Oath. I filed statement of defence. I adopt my statement on oath as my evidence.
Counsel:- That is all for him.
CROSS EXAMINATION:- NIL
COURT:- Case is adjourned to 4th July 2012 for judgment.”

At Page 10 Paragraph 5.03 lines 7-11 of the Respondent’s brief of argument, learned Counsel for the Respondent made the following submission:-
“The respondent only listed three witnesses to be called and prepared also three statements on oath for them and having exhausted the witnesses, the trial court asked whether the parties Counsel wanted to address the Court but the parties declined while the thereafter (sic) adjourned the case for judgment.”

I have combed through the proceedings, including the last one before the case was adjourned for judgment and I have not seen where the lower court asked the parties in this case to either file a written address as provided for by Order 13 Rule 13 of the Ekiti State Civil Procedure Rules 2011 or address it orally. Learned Counsel for the Respondent as a minister in the temple of justice has a heavy responsibility to correctly assist the court to do justice according to law. He has no business in fabricating lies in order to win a case at all cost. Such an attitude has the capacity to earn Learned Counsel certain measures of discipline that will ultimately be unpleasant to him.

From the proceedings of the Court, the learned trial Judge did not ask the parties to file written addresses. Order 13 Rule 13 of Ekiti State Civil Procedure Rules 2011 provides as follows:
“When the party beginning has concluded his evidence, the judge shall ask the other party if he intends to call evidence. If the other party does not intend to call evidence the party beginning shall within 21 days after close of evidence file a written address. Upon being served with the written address the other party shall within twenty one days file his written address.”
Order 30 Rule 14 of the same rules deals with a situation where both parties call evidence. So are Orders 30 Rule 15 and 30 Rule 16 in OKOEBOR v. POLICE COUNCIL (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 at 479 PARAGRAPH A-C, Tobi, JSC said:-
“Issue No.4 is in respect of the learned trial Judge giving judgment without the address of the Appellant. At the close of the case for the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court asks the parties to address it. This is a duty which the Court must perform. A Court of law cannot adjourn a matter for judgment without asking the parties to address it. If a case is not defended, as in the instant case, the trial judge must ask the plaintiff to address him. And I should add that the duty of the Court is more compelling where the plaintiff is not represented by Counsel.”

A Counsel, by virtue of his training and expertise has an unflinching obligation to forcefully defend his client’s case within the ambit of the law and the decorum with which the profession is known for. He should not acquiesce at unfair proceeding that is capable of doing harm to the case of his client. For that is the reason why lawyers are employed to handle matters in Court so as to excel where laymen would be unable to cope.

The only area where the failure of addressing the Lower Court can be looked into in the instant case is whether such failure to so address the Court has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. This takes me to the award of damages in the counter claim of the parties. Could there have been a change of decision in award of special damages of N4,845,000.00 and N22,000.00 general damages if the parties had addressed the Court at the close of their respective cases.

The Respondent’s Counter claim is set out at Paragraph 36 of his statement of defence/counter claim. I have already set out the Counterclaim elsewhere in this judgment. At Paragraph 12-17 of the Claimant’s/Defence to Counter claim, the Appellants denied the counter claim in the following words:-
“12. The Claimant/Counter defendants deny the averment contained in paragraph 36 of the counterclaim. The claimant counter defendant at no time instructed or had a hand in the further development or refurbishment of the Lorry Truck after selling same to the defendant/counter claimant.
13. The defendant counter claimant reserved the right to put the Man – Diesel Lorry Truck into proper shape for his convenience for usage that is his personal liability after purchase.
14. The claimant/counter defendant has no agreement oral or written with the defendant/counter claimant to work on the lorry Truck in terms of any improvement as claimed under particulars of damages in the counter claim.
15. The defendant/counter claimant cannot be asking for any counter claim as he is only being smart to have the Lorry Truck for use for over a year before refusing to pay his balance.
16. The claimant counter defendant only collected the sum of 1.4 million Naira from Seleke and not N3,970,000.00 so defendant/counter claimant has not explained his benevolent.
17. The defendant/counter claimant had in the cause of using the Truck arrested Mr. Kehinde Jegede and the driver of the Truck Mr. Babatunde Olajide for embezzling the proceed made from the Truck which they diverted to their private pocket. The record of the police at Ikere Ekiti Division is there against them.”

From the paragraphs of the Claimant’s/Defence to counter claim, the Appellant clearly denied the counter claims. The Three Million Nine Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (N3,970,000.00) alluded to in the Appellants statement in support of the claimant/counter claim is part-payment for the Lorry Truck which the Appellant said he sold to the claimant. It was therefore left for the counter claimant to lead evidence to the contrary since the counter claim is a separate action from the claims of the Appellant. The award of special damages amounted to Four Million Eight Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Naira (N4,845,000.00) and not the amount the counter claimant said was admitted by the Appellant. What the Respondent claimed in his counter claim are special damages. The law is firmly established that special damage must be pleaded with distinct particularity and strictly proved. A court is not entitled to make an award of special damages based on some fluid and speculative estimate of alleged loss sustained by a party. It must act strictly on hard facts presented before it which is acceptable as establishing the amount awarded.
See: OSUJI v. ISIOCHA (1989) 6 S.C. (Pt. 11) 158; NEKA B.B.B. MANAUFACTURING CO. LTD. v. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 32.

It is trite law that where a claimant specifically alleges that he suffered special damages he must perforce prove it. The method of such proof is to lay before the court concrete evidence demonstrating in no uncertain terms easily cognizable the loss of damages he has suffered so that the opposing party and the court as an umpire would readily see and appreciate the nature of the special damage suffered and being claimed. In the instant case, the Appellant’s allegation was that he sold a vehicle to the Respondent and he used same for over a year and thereby made some money from running the Lorry Truck. It follows therefore that evidence must be adduced by the counter claimant, in order to allow the Appellant to render his defence. I therefore do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondent who submitted that the Appellant had unequivocally admitted both in the statement of claim and reply to statement of defence and counterclaim that he took the sum of Three Million Nine Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (N3,970,000.00). The Respondent throughout the hearing of the case at the Lower Court did not lead evidence in proof of his counter claim. I am of the firm belief that if the parties had addressed the court, this issues would have been clearly laid before the learned trial Judge, and the error in the judgment which led to the award of Four Million Eight Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Naira (N4,845,000.00) special damages would have not occurred. Since there was no evidence in proof of the counter claim, same was therefore abandoned.

A counterclaim being a separate action reference to the alleged admission of liability by the claimant in the statement of claim cannot support the counter claim of the Respondent. The learned trial Judge’s failure to call for final address has led to miscarriage of justice, in that a counter claim that was abandoned was nonetheless awarded.

I find merit in this appeal which I hereby allow. The decision of the Lower Court is hereby set aside and quashed. In its place, I find the counterclaim abandoned and same is hereby struck out.

I make no order as to cost.

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading before now the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Paul Adamu Galinje, JCA, I fully agree with him on his reasoning and the conclusion that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, I also allow the appeal as the same has merit, I abide by the consequential orders made therein with regard to the counter-claim and costs.

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JCA.
The appeal is against the judgment of Ekiti High Court sitting at Ikere-Ekiti delivered on the 9th of December, 2011.
The procedure adopted at the lower Court after the defendant closed his case, was not the usual one. The parties were not called upon to address the Court, before the matter was adjourned for judgment.
The learned trial Judge dismissed the claim and granted the Counter Claim in full.
Mr. A. A. Ojopagogo, learned counsel for the Respondent issued a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grounds of appeal. Where a Preliminary Objection is issued against the competence of a procedural step or an appeal, such objection shall be determined first before the hearing of the substantive matter connected to the procedural step or the appeal.
It is also the law that where a Preliminary Objection to the competence of an appeal is raised either in the Brief or separately. The Respondent raising such objection must seek the Leave of the Court to argue same before the hearing of the appeal.
The issues raised in the appeal were comprehensively dealt with by my Learned Brother in the lead judgment. I am in total agreement with his reasoning and conclusion.
I also find merit in this appeal which I hereby allow.
The decision of the lower Court is hereby set aside and quashed.
The abandoned Counter-Claim is hereby struck out.
I make no order as to costs.

Appearances

MR. ADEKUNLE ADULOJU For Appellant

AND

PRINCE A. A. OJOPAGOGO with MR. I. I. BEWAJI For Respondent