SOLE ADMINISTRATOR OFFA LGA V. DEACONESS V.I. ADEGBOYE
(2012)LCN/5725(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 10th day of December, 2012
CA/IL/M.58/2011
RATIO
APPEAL: REQUIREMENT FOR RAISING FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL AND ITS EXCEPTION
The general rule is that where a point was not raised and considered by the trial court in its judgment, such issue cannot be raised on appeal without the leave of the appellate court. See Aribo vs CBN (2011) All FWLR (Pt.554) 104 @ 116; Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (1996) 5 SCNJ 143; Hussani vs. Ogbuokiri (supra).
The only exception to the general rule is where the ground attack the trial court’s jurisdiction and competence it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal for the first time. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
APPEAL: NATURE OF A GROUND OF APPEAL
In the case of Aribo vs CBN (supra) which was cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent, My lord, Nwodo JCA at page 116 paragraph C referred to the decision in Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (supra) and Oredoyin vs Arowolo (supra)and said:-
“It is trite law that a ground of appeal is a complaint against the decision of a court. An appeal is usually against a ratio decidendi of judgment or ruling appealed against. Therefore an appeal presupposes the existence of some decisions of the court below appealed against. Once there is no decision on a point, then there cannot be an appeal against what has not been decided.”
In Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (supra) at page 154, the Supreme Court is so emphatic on the ground of appeal against an issue which was not decided at the lower court when it held thus:-
“The Appellant in his address at the trial court as well as both in his grounds of appeal and the brief before the court below vide pages 84, 99-103 and 109-110 respectively of the record, never raised the issue of the Respondent’s case supporting the Appellant’s at the trial court. Thus the point cannot be raised in this court for the first time as no leave of this court has been obtained.” PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: BURDEN OF PROOF IN CIVIL MATTERS
The law is very clear and accepts of no ambiguity in that civil matters are decided on the preponderance of evidence and not on the statement of claim and that courts are established for the purpose of deciding the rights of disputing parties in order to terminate their disputes once and for all. I do not think that the trial court made out a different case from the case upon which issues were settled by the parties. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
(PJ) Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE O.F. OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SOLE ADMINISTRATOR OFFA LGA Appellant(s)
AND
DEACONESS V.I. ADEGBOYE Respondent(s)
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Respondent herein is a holder of Oyun Local Government Customary Right of Occupancy No 1903 dated 11/7/1991 over a parcel of land lying and situate at Igbonna Road Offa, measuring 900 Sq metres. The present Offa Local Government was carved out of Oyun Local Government Area. On the 1st of December, 2004, the Appellant by a public notice published in the Herald Newspaper and Kwara State Radio and Television informed allotees of Residential plot along Igbonna and Ikotun roads Offa to develop such plots of land within one month from the date of publication of the notice or have their Customary Right of Occupancy revoked.
On the 12th of July, 2005, the Respondent was served with a letter of revocation of Customary Right of Occupancy from the Appellants’ office on the ground that she failed to develop the plot allocated to her. After the revocation, the Respondent’s land was allocated to another person as she was told that she was at liberty to apply for another plot of land on payment of an application fee of N35,000.00.
The Respondent made moves to recover her plot through several letters in which she sought for settlement out of court with the Appellant, without success. She therefore took out a writ of summons and a statement of claim both dated 28th August, 2006 and filed the same date in which she claimed for a declaration that Mr. Yusuf O.M’s letter dated 12/7/2006 is unauthorized, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and that the claimant’s Customary Right of Occupancy still subsists. This claim was frontloaded with the statement on oath of the Respondent and seven documents.
Mr. B.F Lawal, learned counsel for the Appellant filed a memorandum of appearance and an 11 paragraphs statement of defence. Attached to the statement of defence is a written statement on oath of AbdulAzeez Adebiyi and a list of documents to be used at the trial.
Issues having been joined the case was set down for hearing. The Respondent adopted her statement and tendered some documents which were admitted in evidence. The sole witness for the Appellant also adopted his statement on oath and tendered in evidence some documents which were admitted as Exhibits. Learned counsel for the parties addressed the court. Thereafter, in a reserved and considered judgment which was delivered on the 3rd February, 2009, Kawu J held thus:
“I am satisfied from the evidence before me that the defendant did not act within the letter and spirit of the Land Use Act when it purported to revoke the claimant’s Right of Occupancy No.1903. I hereby accordingly declare the said revocation to be invalid, null and void.”
The Appellant herein is dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court. Being aggrieved it has brought this appeal. Its notice of appeal dated and filed on the 27th April, 2009 contains three grounds qf appeal. However, by a motion dated and filed on the 27/2/2012, the Appellant applied for and was granted leave to file and argue one additional ground of appeal.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Appellant formulated two issues for determination of this appeal. They read as follows:-
1. “Whether having regard to the totality of the evidence before the lower court and the documents tendered as Exhibits a different case had not been made for the parties by the lower court in arriving at the decision reached.
2. Whether non-compliance with the provision of Order 33 of the Kwara State High Court divest the trial court of its competence/jurisdiction.”
Issue one is said to arise from ground 1, 2 and 3, while issue two from the additional ground of appeal.
For the Respondent’s notice of preliminary objection to the competence of the additional ground of appeal dated and filed on the 5/7/2012 was issued and same was argued in the Respondent’s brief of argument dated and filed on the 23/5/2012. Thereafter the Respondent formulated two issues for determination of the appeal. These issues are hereunder reproduced as follows:-
1. “Whether having request to the totality of the evidence before the lower court different case had not been made for the parties by the lower court in arriving at the decision reached.
2. Whether non-compliance with the provision of Order 33 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules divest the trial court of its competence/jurisdiction.”
The Appellant filed a reply brief on the 18/6/2012.
The issues formulated for determination of this appeal by the Appellant and those formulated by the Respondent are the same, I will therefore adopt the issues formulated by the Appellant in determination of this appeal. However, before delving into the argument and resolution of those issues, it is pertinent to consider the preliminary objection issued by the Respondent first.
The grounds of objection to the competence of the additional ground of appeal as set out by the Respondent are as follows:-
I. The said ground of appeal was not an issue raised before the lower court and it did not arise from or form part of the judgment appealed against.
II. No leave of court was sought and granted to raise the said ground of appeal as a fresh issue.
III. The time within which to appeal against the issue raised in the said ground of appeal has lapsed and no leave for extension of time was sought and granted to appeal thereon.
In his argument on the preliminary objection, Mr. Akin Akintoye, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the issue complained of in the additional ground of appeal was never raised and considered before and during the trial at the lower court, as such there cannot be an appeal against what was not raised and decided at the trial court. In aid learned counsel cited Aribo vs. CBN (2011) All FWLR (Pt.554) 104 @ 116; Ogunbiyi vs. Ishola (1996) 5 SCNJ 143.
In a further argument, learned counsel submitted that the additional ground of appeal is a fresh issue before this court which requires the leave of the court before raising it. It is the contention of counsel that since no leave was sought and obtained before raising it, same is incompetent and ought to be struck out. In aid learned counsel cited Husssain vs Ogbuokiri (2003) 34 WRN 83; Shamu Vs Afribank PLC (2002) 6 SCNJ 454 @ 470.
Still in argument, learned counsel submitted that the issue that gave rise to the ground of appeal is interlocutory and it is deemed to have arisen after the close of pleadings on 6/4/2007 or 12/3/2007 when hearing in the case commenced. According to the learned counsel, the Appellant should have appealed within 14 days in accordance with section 24(24)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant has lost its right to appeal against the decision to go ahead with the hearing of the case in absence of the pre-trial conference as it can only appeal if it is granted an extension of time to do so.
Finally learned counsel submitted that the issue of pre-trial conference is not a jurisdictional one which can rob the court of its competence to adjudicate thereon.
In conclusion learned counsel urged this court to hold that the additional ground of appeal which relates to the non-conduct of the pre-trial conference is incompetent and same should be struck out.
In reply to the submission on the preliminary objection, Mr. B.F Lawal, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the additional ground of appeal which was not opposed to by the Respondent/Applicant by the time leave of court was sought to add same is competent in law in that it touches on the jurisdiction of the lower court as such it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal. In aid learned counsel cited Gongola Hope vs Smurfit (2007) 30 NSCQR 53 @ 550-551. According to the learned counsel, no leave is required to raise jurisdictional issue for the first time on appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent’s/Applicant’s contention that the additional ground of appeal is an interlocutory one is a total misconception of the law in that what the said ground is attacking is the foundation of the case itself which touches on the substantive procedural point of law and it is never out of time that will require extension of time. Finally learned counsel submitted that interlocutory appeals can wait and be filed together with the main and substantive appeal to this court, assuming that the issue in the additional ground of appeal is interlocutory. In aid learned counsel cited Ogige & 3 Ors vs Obiyan (1997) 10 SCNJ 1; Okobia vs Madam Ajanya (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt.554) 348 @ 364-365. In conclusion, learned counsel urged this court to overrule the objection.
The additional ground of appeal is complaining of the non-conduct of pre-trial conference provided for under Order 33 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2005. Both the Appellant’s and the Respondent’s counsel are in agreement that this issue of non-conduct of pre-trial conference was never raised and considered in the judgment against which this appeal lies. The general rule is that where a point was not raised and considered by the trial court in its judgment, such issue cannot be raised on appeal without the leave of the appellate court. See Aribo vs CBN (2011) All FWLR (Pt.554) 104 @ 116; Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (1996) 5 SCNJ 143; Hussani vs. Ogbuokiri (supra).
The only exception to the general rule is where the ground attack the trial court’s jurisdiction and competence it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal for the first time.
The jurisdiction of the Kwara State High Court is donated by section 272 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and sections 13 and 14 of the High Court, law of Kwara State. None compliance with Order 33 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2005 is a mere irregularity which does not impinge on the jurisdiction of the lower court, it is therefore not a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time. Order 4 Rule 1 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules provides as follows:-
“Where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceedings, or at any stage in the course of or in connection with and proceedings, there has by reason of anything done or left undone, been (sic) a failure to comply with the requirements of these Rules, whether in respect of time, place, manner, form or content or in any other respect, the failure may be treated as an irregularity and, if so treated, will not nullify the proceedings or any document judgment or Order therein.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant herein is the counsel that handled the Appellant’s case at the lower court. He was aware that the lower court did not conduct a pre-trial conference when the case was set down for trial. He did not raise any objection to the conduct of the trial and indeed went on to call a witness who testified on behalf of the Appellant, can he now raise as ground of appeal against an issue that was not raised and considered by the lower court without the leave of this court. I do not think so. In the case of Aribo vs CBN (supra) which was cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent, My lord, Nwodo JCA at page 116 paragraph C referred to the decision in Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (supra) and Oredoyin vs Arowolo (supra)and said:-
“It is trite law that a ground of appeal is a complaint against the decision of a court. An appeal is usually against a ratio decidendi of judgment or ruling appealed against. Therefore an appeal presupposes the existence of some decisions of the court below appealed against. Once there is no decision on a point, then there cannot be an appeal against what has not been decided.”
In Ogunbiyi vs Ishola (supra) at page 154, the Supreme Court is so emphatic on the ground of appeal against an issue which was not decided at the lower court when it held thus:-
“The Appellant in his address at the trial court as well as both in his grounds of appeal and the brief before the court below vide pages 84, 99-103 and 109-110 respectively of the record, never raised the issue of the Respondent’s case supporting the Appellant’s at the trial court. Thus the point cannot be raised in this court for the first time as no leave of this court has been obtained.”
I therefore agree with Mr. Akin Akintoye, learned counsel for the Respondent that the additional ground of appeal has raised fresh issue for which the Appellant is required to seek and obtain leave before raising such ground of appeal. Appellant’s failure to obtain leave has rendered the additional ground incompetent and it is liable to be struck out. On the reason I have adduced herein, the preliminary objection is upheld and the additional ground of appeal, alone with the 2nd issue formulated therefrom by the Appellant and all the argument canvassed therein are hereby struck out.
Having struck out the 2nd issue for determination, I am left with the 1st issue formulated by the appellant upon which this appeal will be determined.
In arguing this issue, Mr. B.F Lawal, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that a different case other than the one presented by the parties had been made for the parties by the trial judge. Learned counsel reproduced the claim of the Respondent at the lower court and submitted that the Respondent failed to prove how Exhibit p1 was not authorized by the person who is not a party to the action. In a further argument, learned counsel submitted that unless it is proved by the Respondent that the letter Exhibit P1 was unauthorized and same held by the court to be so and therefore null and void, that it can then be said that Exhibit P2 is valid going by the claim of the Respondent before the lower court. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial judge was wrong when he made a different case for the parties without calling for further addresses. In aid learned counsel cited Adebayo vs Brown (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.141) 661 @ 675; Ishola vs Union Bank (2005) 21 NSCQR 167 @ 179.
Finally, learned counsel urged this court to allow the appeal.
For the Respondent, Mr. Akin Akintoye, of counsel submitted that the Respondent in the main challenged the revocation of the Customary Right of Occupancy No 1903 and the issue of whether the said letter of revocation (Exhibit P1) was authorized or not is one of the many reasons why the revocation was challenged. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial judge was right to have invalidated the revocation of the Claimant’s/Respondent’s Right of Occupancy. Finally learned counsel urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the respondent.
The Respondent’s claim at the lower court, as endorsed in her statement of claim is as follows:
“Wherefore the claimant claims from the defendant a declaration that Mr. Yusuf O.M’s letter dated 12/7/2006 is unauthorized, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and that the claimant’s Customary Right of Occupancy still subsists.”
For a declaration of a claim upon which the parties joined issues the relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim must be wholly looked at and not just a paragraph. The relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim in the instant case are paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10. I hereby reproduce the said paragraphs hereunder as follows:-
1. The claimant is the holder of Oyun L.G Customary Right of Occupancy No.1903, commencing from 11/7/1991, which the claimant hereby pleads.
2. The claimant heard a radio announcement which led her to write a letter to the Chairman, Offa L.G. Offa, dated 9/11/2004, which the claimant hereby pleads.
3. Early in April, 2006 the claimant visited her said plot and saw that her plot and building had been enclosed in another person’s plot and fenced round without her consent and on 21/4/2006 she wrote an application to the Chairman, Offa Local Government, Offa and enclosed her documents, which letter the claimant hereby pleads.
4. On 1/5/2006 the claimant wrote another letter to the Chairman, Offa L.G. Offa titled “Re: Recovery of my land and Building under construction,” which the claimant hereby pleads.
9. The Kwara State Government removed the Chairman Offa and Oyun Local Government on 26/6/2006 and replaced them with Sole Administrator.
10. That as at 12/7/2006 when Mr. Yusuf O.M. wrote his letter to the claimant, which the claimant hereby pleads the defendant had no Chairman, the office having been abolished since 26/6/2006 hence this suit filed on 28/6/2006.
By paragraph 1, it is clearly shown that the Customary Right of Occupancy No.1903 belonged to the Respondent and by paragraph 4 the Respondent’s desire to recover her land was communicated through a letter to the chairman of Offa Local Government Council. Even though at paragraph 9 and 10 it is stated that Offa-Local Government had no chairman at the time O.M Yusuf wrote the letter of 12/7/2006 to the Respondent and that the said letter was not authorized, the main thrust of the Respondent’s case is the recovery of her land. This is evidenced by the documents attached to the statement of claim which were admitted in evidence at the lower court. In the letter dated 1st May, 2006 addressed to the Chairman Offa Local Government, by the Respondent, it was clearly stated as follows:-
“RE: RECOVERY OF MY LAND AND BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
Subsequent to my last interview with the constituted Local Government plot complaint committee of last Wednesday 26th April, 2006 in one of the rooms at the Local Gouernment Office over the above topic. I am writing again to appeal for the recovery of my land and building under construction. The land is genuinely mine and I had started the development of the land even before we were told to develop it. I have all my documents intact as I have written in my last letter to you. (24/4/2006).
Sir, among all the lands that were fenced round, my land is the only developed one. I shall be very grateful if the Local Government can allocate another land for the person who has fenced round my land. He should therefore please leave my land and building under construction. The Local Government should be aware of land litigation and should seriously look into this matter and give me back my land. I don’t know whether the committee in charge of this matter has visited the site as they promised to do and to contact me hence my writing.
Sir, expedite action on this and kindly order that my land and developed building under construction be given back to me. I have spent all my life long savings on it as a widow and retired pensioner. I believe I am not going to be cheated just because I am a woman. Kindly do all that is within your reach and good office to help me.
Thanks for your co-operation and good understanding. God bless.
Yours faithfully,
Signed.
Dns V.I. Adegboye”
Even though the language used at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of claim may not be very clear as to what the learned counsel for the Respondent wanted, subsequent evidence before the court clearly expressed the claim of the Respondent. It would have been a wasteful exercise for the trial court to embark on the exercise of discovering whether the letter of 12/7/2006 conveying the revocation of the Customary Right of Occupancy No. 1903 to the Respondent was not authorized by the chairman of Offa Local Government and therefore was null and void.
The learned trial judge was right when he proceeded to determine the real issues in controversy between the parties as disclosed by evidence instead of undertaking a piece meal approach to the case. The trial court’s finding in the circumstance is supported by the pleading and the evidence adduced before it. The law is very clear and accepts of no ambiguity in that civil matters are decided on the preponderance of evidence and not on the statement of claim and that courts are established for the purpose of deciding the rights of disputing parties in order to terminate their disputes once and for all. I do not think that the trial court made out a different case from the case upon which issues were settled by the parties.
For all I have said, the sole issue considered by me is resolved against the Appellant and the grounds upon which it was formulated are hereby dismissed. The Respondent is entitled to the cost of this appeal which I assess at N30,000.00 against the Appellant.
ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading the lead judgment, just delivered, by my learned brother Paul A. Galinje JCA (PJ) and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion completely on the preliminary objection and the appeal.
There is no evidence that the Appellant had lawfully divested the Respondent of her right of occupancy over the land in dispute. We have held in several appeals in this Court that even the Governor of a State, who has the power to revoke the right of occupancy of an occupant, cannot do so, without full compliance with the law, and showing that the revocation was for the reason of overriding public interest, as per Section 28 of the Land Use Act.
In the case of ALHAJI JIMOH AJADI SUU VS. JOBAK NIG. LTD. an unreported decision of this Court in CA/IL/76/2010, delivered on 26/4/2012, we said as follows, on what a valid notice of revocation of a right of Occupancy should be:
“Section 28 of the Land Use Act provides for how a certificate or right of occupancy can be revoked and by who Section 28(1) says:
“It shall be lawful for the Governor to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interest.”
Subsection 2 of that section gives the meaning of the term “overriding public interest” for which a right of occupancy may be revoked. Sub-section 5 stipulates the grounds on which a right of occupancy may be revoked, while sub-sections 6 and 7 state as follows:
“(6) The revocation of a right of occupancy shall be signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Governor and notice thereof shall be given to the holder.
(7) The title of the holder of a right of occupancy shall be extinguished on receipt by him of a notice given under subsection 6 of this Section or on such later date as may be stated in the notice.:”
The Respondent had relied on Exhibit D6 (Certified true Copy of Public Notice contained in the Nigerian Heralds of Tuesday 15/06/19812), Exhibit D1 (letter by Ministry of Lands, dated 31/07/1985, informing the Respondents – that he had been granted statutory right of occupancy in respect of Plot 4A Block 16 on TPO 158A for commercial purpose), Exhibit, D2 (Another letter of allocation by Government dated 12/3/1987 of a substitute plot addressed to the DW3; Respondent’s M/D) and Exhibit D3 (a letter from the Government addressed to the Respondent, conveying “Approval for the grant of a Right of Occupancy in respect of Plots Nos. 4 and 4A Block 16 on TPO 158a”, to justify the said Exhibit D5 (Certificate of Occupancy), issued to it by the Government.
But none of those documents (Exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6) explained how/why the Government seized the Appellant’s land to give it to the Respondent, nor the requirement of due notice to the Appellant as the holder/occupier of the land before the seizure, Exhibit D6, said to have been a public notice, published in the newspaper in 1982, would not satisfy the requirement of Section 28(6)(7) of the Land Use Act, 1978, which requires the notice of revocation to be personally, served on the land holder, before “The title of the holder of the right of occupancy shall be extinguished.”
See also the case of Alhaji Mogaji Abudu Lateju vs. Dr. Olufabayo (an unreported decision of this Court) CA/IL/29/2009, delivered on 17/11/2011, where we held on pages 17 – 18 thus:
“It is legally impossible for the above letter to pass for a revocation of the Respondents Statutory right of occupancy under Section 28(6)(7) of the Land Use Act, even if the Respondent’s land is adjudged to be part of the land purportedly released…by Exhibit D2. Apart from the absence of evidence that the alleged released the land (Exhibit D2) was done “signified under the hand of a public officer duly authorized in the behalf by the Governor;” evidence shows that no notice of sale was given to the holder of the land (Respondent) …It is even absurd for the Appellant to place such reliance on Exhibit D2 and claim same to have been evidence of revocation of the Respondent’s right of occupancy, Exhibit P1 on the land…”
In the case cited above, the Respondent was the holder of the certificate of occupancy (Exhibit P1) but the Land’s department as agents of Government wrote a letter (Exhibit D2) to Appellant informing them that the land (the subject matter of Exhibit P1) had been released to them (Appellant’s family). The Appellant thereupon took steps to recover the land from the Respondent. This was disallowed by law.
Appellant’s publication in the newspaper, radio and television as well as Exhibit P1 in this appeal can be likened to the Exhibit D6 in the case above, which was said to be public Notice of acquisition of lands by Government for development of industrial layout. The Notice was said to have been published in the newspaper and addressed to no one in particular, and it affected a large expense of land “stretching west wards for about 1.2km then south wards for about 1.5km and then eastwards for about 1.5km to join new Afon road and following new Afon road to Ajase Ipo/Ilorin Road and then along the road north wards to the starting point.” In the same way, Exhibit P1 allegedly revoked the Respondent’s right of occupancy, without due process.
Certainly, that cannot be a valid notice to revoke the rights of the Appellant over her land, and the same allegedly allocated to another person! It fall far short of the provisions of Section 28(1)(2)(5) and (6) of the Land Use Act.
With this and other reasons in the lead judgment I, too dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential order therein.
OBANDE OGBUINYA, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading, in draft, the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Paul Galinje, JCA. I am in, complete, agreement with his reasons and conclusions. My noble Lord, tackled, frontally, all the knotty points in the singular issue for determination of the appeal. The appeal is totally, drained of any jot of merit. I, too, dismiss it and abide by the consequential orders contained in the leading judgment.
Appearances
Appellant not representedFor Appellant
AND
Mr. Akin Akintoye
Olufunke Adeyemi
Josiah Adebayo Esq.For Respondent
