STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LIMITED v. DANJUMA AMEH
(2014)LCN/7116(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 11th day of April, 2014
CA/A/277/M/2013
RATIO
WHETHER A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT MAY BE OF NECESSITY WHERE APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION IS SELF CONTRADICTORY
A counter-affidavit is not needed where applicant’s affidavit in support of an application is useless, self contradictory, or lacking in credibility: See Royal Exchange Assurance vs. Aswani iles Industries Ltd. (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt.2) 346 and Bank of Baroda vs. Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 233 at 240 and 242. PER JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH TINE TUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE A.A. ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LIMITED Appellant(s)
AND
DANJUMA AMEH Respondent(s)
JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): Danjuma Ameh whom I shall call “the Respondent/Applicant” was on 15th day of April, 2004 offered appointment by Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Limited as a Direct Sales Executive, Wealth Management in the Consumer Banking Unit and posted to her branch office in Abuja. Having served his employer for some years the respondent decided to try his luck at Lona Global Resources Ltd. where he was wanted as General Manager, Lagos and Southern Operations. The arrangement could not immediately sail through because the respondent/applicant was confronted with two letters from his former employer whom I shall call “the appellant” which according to the respondent/applicant, was libelous. The respondent proceeded to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and instituted a suit against the appellant on 21st May, 2008, founding his claims on libel and aggravated damages. The learned trial Judge heard evidence and entered judgment in favour of the respondent/applicant on 5th January, 2013, holding at page 421 of the printed record as follows:
“Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant.
The sum of twenty Million Naira is awarded as aggravated damages for libel in addition to publishing of letter of apology by judgment-debtor to the judgment-creditor in order (sic) obviate the negative impact of the defamatory words.”
Aggrieved, the appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal against the judgment on 6th February, 2013. On 20th January, 2014 the appellant was granted 7 days to amend the Notice of Appeal to include additional grounds of appeal. On the 8th October, 2013 the respondent brought an application dated 6th October, 2013 seeking the following prayers:
“(i) Extending the time within which the RESPONDENT/APPLICANT should file the RESPONDENI’S NOTICE, for contending that the decision of the Court below should be affirmed on grounds other than those retied upon by that Court.
(ii) Deeming as duly filed and served the Respondent’s Notice which has been separately filed in the Registry of this Honourable Court, the appropriate filing fees having been paid.
AND for such further Order or other Orders which this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.
Upon the hearing of this application Counsel to the RESPONDENT/APPLICANT will rely on the affidavit of AKIN AYODELE which said affidavit is attached to this motion paper.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH APPLICATION IS BROUGHT:
1. The Respondent is desirous of contending that the decision of the Court below should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by that Court.
2. The time for filing the Respondent’s Notice has lapsed.
3. The delay in filing the Respondent’s Notice within the time stipulated by the rules of this Court is as a result of inadvertence of Counsel.
4. The Respondent/Applicant requires an Order of Court to file the Respondent’s Notice out of time.”
The application is supported by a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by AKIN AYODELE, ESQ.,one of the Counsel representing the respondent/applicant in the Court below. Accompanying the affidavit is the Notice of Appeal (Exhibit “1”) and the judgment of the Court below (Exhibit “2”). Exhibit “3” is the Respondent’s Notice to contend that the decision of the Court below should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the Court below.
As objection was taken by the learned silk appearing for the appellant to the respondent’s application, the Court ordered written addresses. The respondent filed a written address on 27th November, 2013. The appellant’s written address was filed on 5th December, 2013. Upon service the respondent filed a reply on 12th December, 2013. Learned Counsel adopted their respective addresses on 20th January, 2014 when the application came up for hearing.
The learned Counsel representing the respondent identified only one issue for determination, namely:
“Whether in the circumstances of this case time should be extended to enable the respondent file the Respondent s Notice in this case.”
Learned Counsel referred to Order 9 rules 4(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 read together with the authorities of Aminu Akindele Ajayi Odunsi & 2 Ors. vs. Lasisi Ajibola Odunsi (1964) NMLR 12 at 15; Tunji Bowaje vs. Moses Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 95 at 97; N.A. Williams & Ors. vs. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society 11982) 2 SC 145 at 152-153 and University of Lagos & Anor. vs. M.I. Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 143 at 149 as having laid down the principles for extension of time for the doing of any thing under Statutes or rules of Court. Learned Counsel’s argument is that to oppose this application is to deny the applicant the opportunity of presenting his case before this Court. That the refusal of the application will result into shutting out the respondent’s case from being heard. Counsel urged that this application should be granted.
The learned Counsel to the appellant formulated two issues for determination namely:
“(i) Whether paragraphs 2, 9, 10, and 11 of the Affidavit in Support of the motion on Notice dated 6th October, 2013 are liable to be struck out for failure to comply with the requirements of Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
(ii) Whether the Affidavit in Support of the motion on Notice dated 6th October, 2013 contains cogent and verifiable reasons to merit the exercise of the Court’s discretion to extend the time within which to file the Respondents Notice.”
Learned Counsel submitted on issue one that paragraphs 2, 9, 10 and 16 of the Affidavit in Support of the motion on Notice violated Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides that:
“115(1) Every affidavit used in the Court shall contain only a statement of facts and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.”
It was contended that the said paragraphs did not contain the grounds of the deponent’s belief and the name and full particulars of the deponent’s information, citing Josien Holdings Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lornamead Ltd. & Anor. (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.371) 254 at 265; Banque L’Afrique Occidental vs. Alhaji Baba Sharfadi (1963) NNLR 21; Richard vs. Horn (1963) 2 All NLR 41; NIDB & Anor. vs. Fembo (Nig.) Ltd. (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt.489) 543 at 561. Learned Counsel urged the Court not to attach weight to the paragraphs of the affidavit that contravenes Section 115(3) and (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011, citing in addition the authority of T.M. Ltd. vs. S. Engr. Ltd. (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1136) 1.
Learned Counsel’s further argument is that where the dates, times and the events that occurred are not stated in the affidavit, the Court should presume that no such facts actually exist or occurred. Learned Counsel urged that paragraphs 2, 9, 10 and 16 of the affidavit sworn to by Mr. Akin Ayodele, Esq. in support of the application should be struck out.
In arguing issue two learned Counsel referred to Order 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007 (sic) which according to Counsel stipulates that a Respondent’s Notice be served within 30 days of service of the Notice of Appeal on the respondent; that rules of Court are meant to be obeyed, citing Afribank (Nig.) Plc vs. Akwara (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.974) 619; E.B.N. Ltd. vs. Halilco (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 568; Nuga Hotels International South Africa vs. NICON Hilton Hotels Ltd. & 5 Ors. (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt.1032) 86. Counsel conceded to the fact that Order 7 rule 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 vests in this Court the discretion to enlarge the time for the doing of any act under the rules. However, Counsel submitted that no sufficient reasons have been set out in the affidavit to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretion in granting the application. That the Court has to verify the value or merit of the affidavit which is lacking in this application. Learned Counsel referred to E.S.V.S.T. vs. I.J.M.E. Ltd. (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt.1205) 318 paragraphs “A” – “B” it was held that a trial Court has the power to appraise the depositions in an affidavit and to decide on their merit even if there was no counter affidavit. Learned Counsel contended that an application for extension of time is not granted as a matter of course. The reasons for the delay in complying with the rules of the Court must be clearly established by the applicant, citing Isiaka vs. Ogundimu (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.997) 401; Alagbe vs. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC 39; Ojora vs. Bakare (1976) 1 SC 47; Ifelodun Local Government vs. Bello (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt.1289) 17. Learned Counsel referred to the facts in paragraphs 2, 9, 10 and 16 in support of the application as not disclosing good and substantial reasons for granting this application. Counsel urged this Court to refuse this application.
The respondent filed a reply address on 12th December, 2013 drawing attention to Section 115(3) and (4)of the Evidence Act, 2011 and paragraphs 2, 9, 10 and 16 of the affidavit sworn to by Akinyele Ayodele, Esq.. Counsel argued that there is nothing in these paragraphs to show that the witness derived any of the facts he swore in the affidavit from any other sources than his personal knowledge, being one of the learned Counsel to the applicant/respondent from the inception of the case in the Court below.
It was contended on issue two, citing N.A. Williams & Ors. vs. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (supra) that non-compliance with the rules of Court do not prima facie invalidate proceedings unless reasons are not advanced to the Court, and in addition, the party in breach fails to put before the Court sufficient materials upon which the Court may exercise her discretion. Learned Counsel referred to Long John & Ors. vs. Crawford N. Blakk & Ors. (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.72) 649 at 655 to show that each application that requires the exercise of a judicial discretion should be considered on its peculiar circumstances: that no one interlocutory order in such application is precedent for another. Learned Counsel urged that this application should be granted.
I shall in the consideration of this application have regard to the case of Okafor vs. Bendel Newspapers Corporation & Anor. (1991) 9-10 SCNJ 107. In that case the plaintiff founded his cause of action against the defendant in libel coupled with damages. The defendant raised the plea inter alia that the suit should be dismissed, being caught by the Public Officer’s Protection Law of Bendel State, and secondly, that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed in the statement of claim. The learned trial Judge heard argument before dismissing the application. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The parties filed and exchanged briefs. But before the hearing the defendant/appellant filed a motion supported by affidavit under Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap.75 and Order 3 rules 4(1) and 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap.62, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. The prayers were couched as follows:
“(a) An order enlarging time within which the respondent/applicant could filed a “Respondent’s Notice of Contention that the judgment (sic) should be affirmed on other grounds.
(b) An order deeming the Respondent’s Notice exhibited and marked Exhibit “A” in the affidavit in support hereof as having been duly filed and served..
(c) AND for such further order or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit.”
The affidavit in support of the application read as follows:
“2. That upon the service of the Notice of Appeal in this matter on me, I immediately took it to A.N. Okunna, Esq. of Counsel and instructed him to conduct my case for me.
3. That the said Counsel then completely took over the conduct of the case and received all processes served on me.
4. That I am unacquainted with Appeal Court procedure.
5. That it was only after my said Counsel had settled my Brief of Argument that I briefed Chief Chiemezie Ikeazor, SAN, to lead the said A.N. Okunna of Counsel in conducting my said case on appeal for me.
6. That Chief Chiemezie Ikeazor, SAN, after going through the appeal papers which I made available to him advised me and I verify believed him that I need to file a “Respondents Notice of intention to affirm judgment on other grounds” so as to enable the Court of Appeal adjudicate upon and settle once and for all times all the issues in controversy in this appeal.
7. That the said Counsel also informed me and I verily believe him that time within which I could validly file the said “Respondent’s Notice” had long since expired and that only an application like this can remedy the default.
8. That my default in filing same within time was due to the inadvertence of my said former Counsel.
9. That I exhibit marked “A” a copy of my said “Respondent’s Notice of Contention that the trial Court’s judgment should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the Court below.
10. That I verily believe that Exhibit “A” (supra) discloses substantial points of law which would be of great assistance not only in the determination of this appeal, but also in the interest of development of law.”
The Court of Appeal heard argument before dismissing the application without giving thought to the unchallenged affidavit evidence in support of the application. Having heard argument from learned Counsel the Supreme Court held at page 114 to 115 of the judgment on appeal as follows:
“Now Order 3 rule 4(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules Cap.62 under which the appellant’s application was brought in the Court below, reads:
4(1) The Court may enlarge the time provided by these Rules for the doing of anything to which these Rules apply.”
The time within which a respondent’s notice must be served on an appellant is prescribed by Order 3 rule 14(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules. It is 15 days in the case of appeal against an interlocutory order and one month in any other case. In the present case the respondent’s appeal to the Court below was based on an interlocutory ruling of the High Court.
By Order 3 rule 4(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Cap.62:- “Every application for an enlargement of time in which to appeal shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period, and by grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. When time is so enlarged a copy of the order granting such enlargement shall be annexed to the notice of appeal.”
These provisions which are the same as those of Order 7 Rule 4(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1977 (since repealed) have been interpreted in the case of Ibodo & Ors. ys. Enarofia & Ors. (supra) per Aniagolu, JSC to mean. ‘There must therefore be:
(i) good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within the period prescribed, and
(ii) grounds of appeal which pima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.”
However, it is significant to note that the provisions of Order 3 rule 4(1) and those of Order 3 rule 4(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules are intended to serve different purposes. Order 3 rule 4(1) is a general provision enabling the Court of Appeal to enlarge time in departure to the provisions of the Rules. But the provisions of Order 3 rule 4(2) are specific and limited to applications for enlargement of time in which to appeal, Hence the two provisions are not the same and cannot, in my opinion, be given the same interpretation. Whereas Order 3 rule 4(2) prescribes the conditions to be satisfied before an application for enlargement of time in which to appeal can be granted, Order 3 rule 4(1) does not prescribed any condition on which an application for an extension of time simpliciter should be granted. It is left to the Court to use its discretion as it deems fit This implies that in considering an application under Order 3 rule 4(1) the justices of the Court of Appeal are obliged to exercise their discretion judicially.
The question that now arises in this appeal is: did the learned justices of the Court of Appeal properly consider the application, by the appellant, for enlargement of time to file respondent’s notice? In other words, did they exercise their discretion judicially in refusing to grant the application? It is clear from the excerpts above that in considering the application, the Court of Appeal went into the merits of the respondent’s notice which the appellant had intended to file if his application were granted. In my respectful opinion, the Court of Appeal was in error when it did so. It could not rightly be concerned with the merits of the proposed respondent’s notice at the stage, for it would be pre-judging the merits of the respondent’s notice. What the learned justices should have concerned themselves with, since the application was brought under Order 3 rule 4(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, was the content of the affidavit in support of the application to see whether the delay in filing the respondent’s notice had sufficiently been explained and that the delay had not been inordinate or without reasonable excuse.
For in the exercise of discretion by Court to grant application for extension of time, the length of the delay as well as the sufficiency of the explanation proffered for the delay must be taken into consideration by the Court, before the discretion could be regarded as having been judicially exercised. See -Agbeyegbe vs. Ikomi, 12 WACA 383 at pages 385 – 386. This is what the learned justices of the Court of Appeal omitted to do in the present case.”
Learned Counsel to the appellant has proffered almost verbatim argument in resisting this application, which the Supreme Court rejected in Okafor vs. Bendel Newspapers (supra).
All that Order 7 rule (1) and 10(1) of the Rules read together require is an application supported by affidavit setting forth the “ground for the relief sought.” The reason or point that supports a claim, argument or the basis for bringing an application for enlargement of time to do anything is what the rule maker considers to constitute the “ground for the relief sought.” See Order 7 rule (1) of the Rules (supra). In Blacks Law Dictionary (supra) page 772, the word “ground” is interpreted inter alia as “1. To provide a basis for (something, such as a legal claim or argument)… 2. To base (something, such as a legal principle or judicial decision) on…”
The grounds for bringing this application were set out in the affidavit sworn by Akinyedele Ayodele, Esq. as follows:
“1. I am one of the Counsel representing the Respondent/Applicant in this suit in the Court below and as such I am conversant with the facts of this case
2. I have the authority and consent of the Respondent and my colleagues the other counsel representing him in this suit, to depose to this affidavit from facts within my knowledge and information received by me which I verily believe to be true and correct.
3. The Court below, entered judgment in favour of the Respondent in this suit on the 5th of February, 2013.
4. On the 6th of February, 2013 the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in the Registry of the Court below.
5. A Certified True Copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant is shown to me attached to this affidavit and marked Exhibit “1”.
6. The judgment of the Court below which was delivered on the 5th of February, 2013 is shown to me attached to this affidavit and marked Exhibit “2”.
7. The Appellant served the Notice of Appeal on Counsel to the Respondent/Applicant on the 6th of February, 2013.
8. In accordance with the provisions of the Rules of this Honourable Court, the Respondent had a period of 30 days thereafter to file a Respondent’s Notice, asking this Honourable Court to affirm the decision of the Court below on grounds other than those stated in the judgment of the Court below.
9. The leading Counsel to the Respondent/Applicant prepared the Notice in draft form and forwarded the same to our office for perusal, comments, connection and filing in the Registry of the Court below.
10. The said Respondent’s Notice prepared by the leading Counsel to the Respondent/Applicant was inadvertently put away by the Litigation Secretary in our office and Counsel inadvertently forgot to file the same in the Registry of the Court below within the time stipulated by the Rules of this Honourable Court.
11. There is now need for the Respondent/Applicant to ask this Honourable Court for extension of time within which the said Respondent’s Notice should be filed in the Registry of the Court below.
12. The Appellant/Respondent will not in any way be prejudice, if this Honourable Court grants this application.
13. The Appellant/Respondent has now compiled the Record of Proceedings of the lower Court and the same was deemed properly filed on the 19th of September, 2013.
14. The Respondent’s Notice can now be conveniently attached to the Record of Proceedings filed in this Court on the 19th of September, 2013.
15. The Respondent’s Notice is shown to me, attached to his affidavit and marked Exhibit “3”.
16. The failure of the Respondent to file the Respondent’s Notice within the time stipulated by the Rules of this Honourable Court was due to the inadvertence of Counsel.
17. The Respondent has separately filed in the Registry of this Honourable Court, the said Respondent’s Notice. The receipt for filing is shown to me attached to this affidavit and marked Exhibit “4”.
18. The grounds contained in the Respondent’s Notice are not frivolous in any way.
19. The Respondent’s Notice will still meet up with the Record of Proceedings that have already been compiled by the Appellant and transmitted to the Registry of this Honourable Court.
20. I depose to this affidavit conscientiously believing the facts deposed to herein by me to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in accordance with the Oaths Act.”
There is no affidavit to counter these facts. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the sworn affidavit shows that the deponent is among other Counsel that represented the respondent/applicant in the Court below; that he was conversant with the facts of this case. The deponent also had the authority and consent of his other colleagues and the respondent to depose to this affidavit. These facts were sworn to within his knowledge and information received in the course of his briefing. The deponent believed these facts to be true and correct. I do not therefore see how paragraphs 2, 6, 9, 10 and 16 of the affidavit in support of this application offends any of the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
A counter-affidavit is not needed where applicant’s affidavit in support of an application is useless, self contradictory, or lacking in credibility: See Royal Exchange Assurance vs. Aswani iles Industries Ltd. (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt.2) 346 and Bank of Baroda vs. Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 233 at 240 and 242.
Evidence however not countered nor discredited ought to be believed and acted upon by a Court of justice. See in Re Odutola (2002) FWLR (Pt.119) 1624 at 1633; Iyamo vs. FMBN (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.634) 178 at 188.
Paragraph 16 of the affidavit in support of this application relies on the “inadvertence of Counsel” in not filing the Respondent’s Notice within the stipulated time prescribed by the Rules. “inadvertence” simply means “An accidental oversight; a result of carelessness.” See Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th edition, page 927. Inadvertence, mistake, the fault of Counsel, etc, in failing to comply with rules of practice and procedure in doing anything have been excused, and time is usually extended for the thing to be done so that the proceedings will be heard on the merit. See Doherty vs. Doherty (1964) NMLR 144 at 145-146; Ibodo vs. Enarofia (1980) 5 – 7 SC 42 at 53; Akinyede vs. The Appraiser (1971) 1 All NLR 162; Ahmadu vs. Salawu (19741) 1 All NLR (Pt.2) 318 and Bowaje vs. Adediwura (1976) 6 SC 143. The exercise of such discretion is limited to procedural irregularities only. See Bello Akanbi & 3 Ors. vs. Mamuda Alao & Anor. (1989) All NLR 424 at 440 and Bamaiyi vs. The State (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt.842) 47 at 64. But where the fault is that of the party rather than Counsel, different considerations apply. See Jayi vs. Oweregbe (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.301) 512 at 528.
Order 9 rules 1-7 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011 provides as follows:
“1. A respondent who not having appealed from the decision of the Court below, desires to contend on the appeal that the decision of that Court should be varied, either in any event or in the event of the appeal being allowed in whole or on part, must give notice to that effect, specifying the grounds of that contention and the precise form of the order which he proposes to ask the Court to make, or to make in that event, as the case may be.
2. A respondent who desires to contend on the appeal that the decision of he Court below should be affirmed on grounds, other than those relied upon by that Court, must give notice to that effect specifying the grounds of that contention.
3. Except with the leave of the Court, a respondent shall not be entitled on the hearing of the appeal to contend that the decision of the court below should be varied upon grounds not specified in a notice given under this rule, to apply for any relief not so specified or to support the decision of the Court below upon any grounds not relied upon by that Court or specified in such a notice.
4. Any notice given by a respondent under this Order must be served on the appellant and on all parties to the proceedings in the Court below who are directly affected by the contentions of the respondent and must be served-
(a) in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory order, within fifteen days; and
(b) in any other case within thirty days, after the service of the notice of appeal on the respondent.
5. A party by whom a respondent’s notice is given shall file with the registry twenty copies of such notice of which one shall be included in the record and the other copies provided for the use of the Justices.
6. Omission to give such notice shall not diminish any powers of the Court but may in the discretion of the Court be a ground for postponement or adjournment of the appeal upon such terms as to cost or otherwise as may be just.
7. A notice of appeal or Respondent’s notice may be amended by or with the leave of the Court at any time.”
The law maker has recognized the fact that the respondent may omit to file and serve the Respondent’s Notice within the stipulated time as prescribed in Order 9 rule 6 (supra). But the result is only to postpone the hearing of the appeal upon such terms as to cost or otherwise as the Court might consider to be just. Had the learned Counsel to the appellant considered the entire provisions of Order 9 rules 1-7 of the Rules (supra), perhaps, learned Counsel would not have raised this objection, causing delay to the speedy hearing of this appeal on the merit.
Accordingly, this objection fails. Time is extended from today for the respondent to file the Respondent’s Notice. The Respondent’s Notice filed 8th day of October, 2013 is deemed properly filed and served on the appellant.
I award N50,000.00 costs against the appellant in favour of the respondent.
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.: I have read in advance, the Ruling of my learned brother Tur JCA just delivered and I agree. The appeal fails and it is dismissed. I abide by the Orders made in the lead ruling.
MOORE A. A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the ruling of my learned brother – Joseph Tine Tur, JCA just delivered.
I agree that this appeal lacks merit and it should be dismissed. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
I also award N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira only) as costs in favour of the respondent against the appellant.
Appearances
Mark Mordi, Esq. with O. Aliyu, Esq. and C. Caleb, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Olajide Ayodele, SAN with Ayodele Akin, Esq.; Bola Ayodele, Esq.; John Opeyemi, Esq. and C. IdokoFor Respondent
