THE FED. CO-OP. COLLEGE, IBADAN & ORS. v. MISS ADENIRAN ADEYIOLA CHRISTIANA
(2012)LCN/5687(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 30th day of November, 2012
CA/I/226/08
RATIO
JURISDICTION: HOW IS THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF A COURT DETERMINED
I think it is meant to restate that the issue of jurisdiction of a court is determined by the reliefs sought before it see Barclays Bank v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 2 F.N.R. 129 at 135, Yalaju – Amaye v. A.R.E.C. Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 422 at 441, Oduko v. Government of Ebonyi State (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1147) 439, Abia State Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Quorum Consortium (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1145) 1. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: WHETHER AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION HAS THE POWERS TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT FOR EXAMINATION MALPRACTICE
In my respectful opinion, an academic institution has the primary powers to discipline a student for examination malpractice notwithstanding an element of criminality could be involved in the examination malpractice: Because it is specially equipped with the skilled manpower to manage issues of examination malpractice or academic dishonesty of a student. – see Esiaga v. University of Calabar (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt.872) 366, Magit v. University of Agriculture Makurdi and Ors. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt.959) 211, University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu and Ors. (No.2) (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1063) 248 at 266-267, University of Ilorin v. Adesina (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 331, Akintemi v. Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 68.
In the case of Federal Civil Service Commission and Ors. v. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.1O6) 652, 679 for instance, the Supreme Court modified the position of the law stated in Garba and Ors. v. University of Maiduguri and Ors. (supra) in these words (per Eso, JSC) –
“I would like to emphasise herein that the decision in Garba should not be taken as a prohibition of instituting disciplinary measures against civil servants (students) where there has been a criminal charge or accusation…”
See again University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu (No.2) (supra) at pages 264-267, where Ngwuta, J.C.A. (now J.S.C.) reviewed the relevant decisions both of the Supreme Court Garba (supra) and Esiaga (supra) and the Court of Appeal Oluwadare (supra) to hold that an academic institution may discipline a student for breaches of discipline regarding academic malpractice and cultism notwithstanding the accusation constitutes a criminal offence. However, in exercising the disciplinary powers, if the academic institution infringed the civil rights of a student jurisdiction of the court can at that stage be invoked under section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, for the purpose of remedying the wrong – see Akintemi and Ors. v. Onwumechili (supra) at 86 (letter B). PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
EVIDENCE: EFFECT OF A WEAK OR GENERAL DENIAL OF FACTS
The court below held aright, in my opinion, that the said weak or general denial amounted to an admission of the respondent’s deposition that she was not allowed to cross-examine the fellow students that gave destructive evidence against her at the sitting of the second panel of the Academic Board – see Olujimi v. E.S.H.A. (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 464 at 484 following Okeke v. Ejiofor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.434) 90, Uguanyi v. NICON Ins. Plc. (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt.897) 512. PER JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MONICA B. DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. THE FED. CO-OP. COLLEGE, IBADAN
2. THE PROVOST, FED. CO-OP. COLLEGE, IBADAN
3. THE DEPUTY PROVOST, FED. CO-OP. COLLEGE, IBADAN Appellant(s)
AND
MISS ADENIRAN ADEYIOLA CHRISTIANA Respondent(s)
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal emerged from a Ruling of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan (the court below). The proceedings behind the appeal were anchored on the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. The court below found for the respondents that the appellants had infringed her fundamental right to fair hearing. It also found that the appellants had no jurisdiction to discipline the respondent for alleged examination malpractice. Flowing from the said double – barrel findings, the court below declared the decision of the appellants to withhold the Ordinary National Diploma certificate of the respondent null and void and of no effect. It concluded its Ruling by directing the appellants to release the Ordinary National Diploma certificate (OND) of the respondent to her forthwith.
The relevant facts of the dispute between the appellants and the respondent may be stated in a nutshell as follows. The respondent was at all material times a student of the 1st appellant. In February, 2007, the respondent sat for English (GNS) course 201 examination. There were allegations of examination malpractice at the examination. Five of the students including the respondent were accused of master – minding the examination malpractice. Specifically, it was alleged that the respondent and the other four students were involved in the leakage of English (GNS 201) examination paper. A panel of the Academic Board of the 1st appellant was set to investigate the allegation. The respondent denied before the panel that she was involved in the alleged examination malpractice. Some of the other students, however, gave statements at the panel indicting the respondent.
A second panel of the Academic Board was constituted. It heard the respondent. The second panel was not satisfied with her defence. It recommended the withholding of the respondent’s Ordinary National Diploma Certificate (OND) for one semester as punishment for the examination malpractice. The appellants accepted the recommendation and gave effect to it. The court below faulted the appellants’ handling of the matter on grounds of denial of fair hearing and for want of jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the Ruling, the appellants filed a joint notice of appeal which was subsequently amended and filed on 28.11,08, but deemed properly filed on 14.1.09, conveying four grounds of appeal.
In a brief of argument filed on 28.11.08, but deemed properly filed on 14.1.09, the appellants identified two issues for determination on the appeal without tying them to the grounds of appeal to wit –
“1. Whether the Applicant’s suit as brought and constituted is competent to give jurisdiction to the lower court.
2. Whether given the facts and circumstances of this case, Applicant’s right to fair hearing was breached and whether Appellant can punish the Applicant for act of misconduct.”
The crux of the argument on the first issue for determination was that the principal reliefs sought by the respondent had no bearing on the enforcement of fundamental right under chapter iv of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended (1999 Constitution), as the question of alleged denial of fair hearing was ancillary to the principal reliefs and the action as constituted should have been taken or instituted by writ of summons and, having failed to so do the court below was deprived of the jurisdiction to entertain the action rendering its decision thereon a nullity citing in support the cases of University of Ilorin v. Adeniran (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1031) 498 at 529, Afribank (Nig.) Plc. v. Bonik Ind. Ltd. (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.973) 3OO at 314, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1952) 2 SCNLR 341, Owena Bank (Nig) Plc. v. Adeojo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt.848) 174 at 191 and 195, Oloruntoba – Oju v. Dopamu (2008) 4 M.J.S.C. 1 at 5, Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State Vol.3 Appellate court Landmark cases 274 at305, W.A.E,C. v. Adeyanju (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1092) 270 at 295-296, W.A.E.C. v. Akinkunmi (1998) 4 SC 1 at 18-20.
The gist of the arguments on the second issue for determination hinged on the premise that the to appellant, an academic institution, had the powers to discipline an erring student for examination malpractice in the same way a master may discipline a servant for misconduct as held in the case of Olanrewaju v. Afribank (Nig) Plc. (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.731) 691 at 714-715 and; by paragraphs 9-12 and 16 of the respondent’s affidavit in support of her application at the court below she admitted been accorded fair hearing by the appellants and the said admission should be taken as an admission against interest following the cases of Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.376) 167 at 181, Anyambunsi v. Ugwunze (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.401) 225 at 201(?); that paragraph 22 of the respondent’s affidavit upon which the court below relied to hold that the respondent was denied fair hearing could not have established the denial of fair hearing having regard to the other paragraphs of the respondent’s affidavit (supra) that she appeared before the disciplinary panel where she denied the allegation of examination malpractice brought against her vide the cases of Fagbenro v. Orogun (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.284) 662 at 571, Dangote(?) v. C.S.C, Plateau (2001) FWLR (Pt.50) 1639 at 1673-1674; that the respondent did not exhibit the proceedings of the disciplinary panel to her affidavit for the court below to have the benefit of knowing the witnesses that were not made available to her by the panel to cross-examine therefore the said complaint is at large and the appeal should be allowed.
The respondent’s brief filed on 5.2.09, ear-marked two issues for determination thus –
“1) Whether the panel set up by the appellants to investigate the issue of examination malpractice is bound to comply with the principle of natural justice.
2) Whether the Appellants can punish the Respondent by withholding her certificate for a semester given the facts and circumstances of this case.”
The sum total of the respondent’s arguments on the first issue anchored on the appellants’ refusal to allow the respondent to cross-examine a fellow student that gave damaging evidence against her which the disciplinary panel utilised against the respondent when the said evidence was hearsay lacking probative value and was contrary to the principle of fair hearing or fair play and amended to the appellants acting on suspicion to nail the respondent to the accusation of examination malpractice contrary to the decisions in the cases of Head of the Federal Military Government v. Military Governor of Mid-west Ex parte Obiyan (1973) 12 SC 23, Udofe and Ors. v. Aquisisua (1973) SC 119, Orugbo v. Una and Ors. (2002) 9-11 SCNJ 12 at 22, Kasa v. State (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt.325) 152-153, Olutayo v. F.U.T. Minna and Ors (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt.1051) 274 at 295, Ahamba v. State (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.242) 250.
The second issue referred to section 1 of the Examination Malpractices Act Cap. E, 15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and the cases of Olutayo v. F.U.T. Minna (supra), Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 SC 128 at 166-167, Denloye v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (1968) 1 All NLR 306 and Sofekun v. Akinyemi (1980) 5-7 SC. 1 at 18-19 to canvass that the appellants acted outside their jurisdiction by entertaining the criminal complaint of examination malpractice reserved for the law courts.
It was also canvassed that the reliefs sought by the respondent in the application were declaratory and properly constituted for adjudication under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure in vindication of the rights guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, as amended, as held by the cases of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 25 SCNLR 341 on proper composition of the action, Olutayo v. F.U.T. Minna (supra) on the requirements of fair hearing, F.R.N. v. Ifegwu on giving latitude to the accommodation of claims like declaratory reliefs under the fundamental rights enforcement rules, and Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abule (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt.936) 369 at 388-392, Director S.S.S. v. Agbakoba (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.595) 314; and that the appellants who alleged the respondent committed examination malpractice had the duty to produce in evidence the record of proceedings of the panel as the respondent has no onus to prove her innocence, consequently the appeal should be dismissed.
Contrary to established practice, the appellants did not relate their two issues for determination to the grounds of appeal thus making their brief inelegant and in breach of procedural requirements of brief writing, but in the absence of objection by the respondent to the brief it may still be tolerated and used by the court see Chinwe v. Masi (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.97) 265, Onyekwe v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.72) 565, A.C.M.E, Builders v. K.S.W.B. (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt.590) 288, The respondent did not fare better as she did not relate her issues to the grounds of appeal. Be that as it may, the issues drafted by the appellants cover the respondent’s issues and are appropriate for the determination of the appeal. Notwithstanding the said issues are not linked to the grounds of appeal, I am inclined to toe the line of substantial justice and consider them seriatim in the course of the discussion – see Anyegwu v. Onuche (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1129) 659 at 678, Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt.1311) 357 at 381, University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu and Ors. (No.1) (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1063) 225 at 246.
I think it is meant to restate that the issue of jurisdiction of a court is determined by the reliefs sought before it see Barclays Bank v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 2 F.N.R. 129 at 135, Yalaju – Amaye v. A.R.E.C. Ltd. (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 422 at 441, Oduko v. Government of Ebonyi State (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1147) 439, Abia State Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Quorum Consortium (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt.1145) 1.The reliefs sought by the respondent at the court below are reflected on page 2 of the record of appeal (the record) thus –
“1. An order of court declaring the purported withholding of the Ordinary National Diploma (OND) certificate of the applicant by the Respondents for a semester as illegal, null and void for failure to afford her a fair hearing and for being issued in bad faith.
2. An order of court directing the Respondent to release the Ordinary National Diploma (OND) certificate of the applicant to her forthwith.
3. An award of N1,000.000.00 (one million Naira only) general damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for anguish, distress, embarrassment and inability to process her admission to the University, the applicant had suffered as a result of the unlawful and illegal withholding of her Ordinary National Diploma Certificate for a semester by the Respondents.” (my emphasis).
It is clear from the reliefs (supra) that the gravamen of the action was to recover the respondent’s Ordinary National Diploma (OND) Certificate from the appellants who were in alleged wrongful retention or detention of it which sounded in tort. See W.A.E.C. v. Kotoye (1977) 2 S.C. 45 at 50, Okoli v. Morecab Finance, (Nig) Ltd. (2001) FWLR (Pt.60) 1599, A.C.B. v. Neka (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.444) 564, Odumosu v. A.C.B. (1976) 11 S.C. 55. The issue of denial of fair hearing was incidental and/or annexed appended to the two principal reliefs of recovery of the certificate or chattel and general damages for its wrongful retention by appellants.
I agree with the appellants that the action was wrongly commenced under the fundamental rights enforcement procedure rules because withholding a student’s certificate by an academic institution which was the backbone of the action is not listed or catalogued under fundamental rights in chapter iv of the 1999 Constitution.
In my humble opinion, the action should have been brought by way of writ of summons, not by the fundamental rights enforcement procedure rules see W.A.E.C. v. Adeyanju (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1092) 270, Tukur (supra) W.A.E.C. v. Akinkunmi (1998) 4 SC 1 at 18-20 cited by the appellants and Sea Trucks (Nig) Ltd. v. Anigboro (2001) 1 S.C. 45 at 60, 64-55, Egbuonu v. Borno Radio Television Corp. (1997) 12 NWLR 29. The action ought to have been struck out on ground of incompetence by the court below see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (supra), W.A.E.C. v. Adeyanju (supra). There is substance in the first issue. I resolve it in favour of the appellants.
The resolution of the first issue in favour of the appellants should have put an end to the appeal. But for the sake of extra caution/fallibility and for the fact that this is not the final Court, I will proceed to treat the remaining complaints – see Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Ltd. v. Soleh Boneh Ltd. (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt.656) 322 at 351.
In my respectful opinion, an academic institution has the primary powers to discipline a student for examination malpractice notwithstanding an element of criminality could be involved in the examination malpractice: Because it is specially equipped with the skilled manpower to manage issues of examination malpractice or academic dishonesty of a student. – see Esiaga v. University of Calabar (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt.872) 366, Magit v. University of Agriculture Makurdi and Ors. (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt.959) 211, University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu and Ors. (No.2) (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1063) 248 at 266-267, University of Ilorin v. Adesina (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 331, Akintemi v. Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 68.
In the case of Federal Civil Service Commission and Ors. v. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.1O6) 652, 679 for instance, the Supreme Court modified the position of the law stated in Garba and Ors. v. University of Maiduguri and Ors. (supra) in these words (per Eso, JSC) –
“I would like to emphasise herein that the decision in Garba should not be taken as a prohibition of instituting disciplinary measures against civil servants (students) where there has been a criminal charge or accusation…”
See again University of Calabar v. Ugochukwu (No.2) (supra) at pages 264-267, where Ngwuta, J.C.A. (now J.S.C.) reviewed the relevant decisions both of the Supreme Court Garba (supra) and Esiaga (supra) and the Court of Appeal Oluwadare (supra) to hold that an academic institution may discipline a student for breaches of discipline regarding academic malpractice and cultism notwithstanding the accusation constitutes a criminal offence. However, in exercising the disciplinary powers, if the academic institution infringed the civil rights of a student jurisdiction of the court can at that stage be invoked under section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, for the purpose of remedying the wrong – see Akintemi and Ors. v. Onwumechili (supra) at 86 (letter B).
In the instant case, the Academic Board of the 1st appellant sat to determine whether the respondent was involved in the leakage of an examination paper. It was not shown that the Academic Board of the appellants sat to try the respondent on criminal charges in the way Denloye v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (1968) 1 All NLR 306 and Sofekun v. Akinyemi (1980) 5-7 SC 1 held the disciplinary proceedings on criminal charges drafted like in a regular court or Tribunal. I think the court below was, with full deference, wrong to hold that an academic institution such as the 1st appellant lacked the powers to investigate and discipline an erring student for examination malpractice which may also constitute a criminal offence.
The germane complaint of the respondent was that she was not allowed to cross-examine a fellow student that gave damning evidence against her at the disciplinary hearing of the second panel of the Academic Board of the 1st appellant heavily relied upon to sustain the allegation of examination malpractice against the respondent. Paragraphs 9-12 and 16 of the respondent’s affidavit at the court below read together did not admit that the appellants gave the respondent the opportunity to challenge the evidence the fellow students tendered against her.
The respondent was frontal in paragraph 22 of her affidavit evidence on page 6 of the record that the fellow students were not made available to her for cross-examination at the sitting of the second panel. The appellants did not produce in evidence the record of proceedings of the panel to prove otherwise. They had the record. They should have produced it to clear the air. The court below held that the appellants made a weak denial of the respondent’s affidavit on the issue in their paragraph 3(b) (viii) of the counter affidavit on page 17 of the record. I think the court below was right in so holding.
The court below held aright, in my opinion, that the said weak or general denial amounted to an admission of the respondent’s deposition that she was not allowed to cross-examine the fellow students that gave destructive evidence against her at the sitting of the second panel of the Academic Board – see Olujimi v. E.S.H.A. (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 464 at 484 following Okeke v. Ejiofor (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.434) 90, Uguanyi v. NICON Ins. Plc. (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt.897) 512.
The court below was, also, right to hold that the appellants infringed the respondent’s right to fair hearing by blocking her access to cross-examine the fellow students that testified against her at the sitting of the second panel of the Academic Board – see Aiyetan v. NIFOR (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.59) 48 at 59 – 61, Olatunbosun v. NISER Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.80) 25. The failure of the appellants to give the respondent the opportunity to cross-examine the fellow students in question when the allegation of examination malpractice stigmatised her character violated the respondent’s right to fair hearing and nullified the result arrived at by the appellants that the respondent was culpable of the examination malpractice.I fully endorse the Ruling of the court below on pages 44-45 of the record that –
“The fact that the applicant was not able to see the fellow students who gave evidence against her at the panel to cross-examine them is enough… she could not be said to have been given fair hearing when such fellow students were not made available for her to confront. This is enough to render the entire proceedings null and void. I therefore hold that the applicant was denied fair hearing by the respondents before taking the decision to withhold her certificate for a semester.”
I resolve the issue of fair hearing against the appellants.
It is hoped that the appellants complied with the one semester deadline they gave for withholding the respondent’s certificate (made in 2007), which had long expired, by making good their own side of the bargain by returning the respondent’s said certificate to her before now.
Be that as it may, the threshold issue of competence of the action in the first issue for determination (supra) having been resolved in favour of the appellants, I would allow the appeal on that issue and set aside the Ruling of the court below. I enter an order striking out the action of the respondent at the court below. No order on costs.
MONICA B. DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead judgment prepared by my learned brother IKYEGH JCA.
I have always held the humble opinion that the fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules 1979 were put in place as some kind of judicial intensive care unit (I.C.U) for the quick intervention of the judiciary where the liberty and life of a citizen of Nigeria or any human being within the territories of Nigeria is endangered.
Attempts by parties to water down the potency of those rules have continued to be resisted by the Courts and rightly so.
Although the act of withholding the certificate of qualification of a person constitutes some form of urgency, it is not the type of urgency contemplated by the Fundamental Right Enforcement Rules put in place by the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria.
Under the circumstances of this appeal, if the Respondent desired summary trial, there exist provisions of the law and Rules of Procedure which could render the requisite remedy desired, but not the fundamental right Enforcement Rules.
Similarly, situations have been held to be more appropriately initiated by the writ of summons (see W.A.E.C v. Adeyaniu (2008) 9 NWLR (PT.1092) 270, Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State Vol.3
Appellate court Landmark cases 274 @ 305, WA.E.C. v. Akinkunmi (1998) 4 SC 7 @ 78-20 cited by the Appellant and Sea Trucks (NIG) Ltd. v. Anigboro (2001) 1 S.C 45 @ 60, 64-65, Egbuonu v. Borno Radio Television Corp.(1997) 12 NWLR 29.
I too strike out the action of the Respondent as incompetent.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I have read before now the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JCA, I agree with the reasons therein advanced to arrive at the conclusion allowing the appeal and the order striking out the action of the respondent in the lower court.
From the reliefs sought by the respondent in the lower court (as plaintiff) as set out at page 2 of the printed records of appeal, challenged the withholding of the Ordinary National Diploma (OND) certificate of the respondent for a semester as illegal, an order that same be returned to her and a claim for general damages for deprivation and inability to utilize her certificate for a semester to seek admission into a university. The respondent’s action before the lower court was by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules instead of an ordinary action by writ of summons.
For actions under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979, the plaintiff must ensure that the main reliefs and consequential reliefs point directly to a fundamental right under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution and there must be a clear deprivation of same by the defendant. By filing the action vide a writ of summons, pleadings would be filed. This way issues would have been joined between the parties on why the OND certificate was withheld amongst other things to be resolved.
Whereas, Fundamental rights are rights guaranteed in the Nigerian Constitution and are therefore entrenched in chapter IV of the Constitution. The present action obviously does not fall under this category, it was wrongly commenced, see, MADUKOLUM VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; TUKUR VS. VOGERNMENT OF TARABA STATE (1997) 6 NWLR (pt.510) 549 AND W.A.E.C. VS. ADEYANJU (2008) 9 NWLR (pt.1092) 270.
The action having been wrongly commenced, it is incompetent and ought not to have been entertained by the lower court. The Ruling of the lower court is also set aside by me. The action in the lower court is struck out. I abide by the order awarding no cost.
Appearances
Mr. F. J. EdemaFor Appellant
AND
Mrs. O. O. OgunkanmiFor Respondent
