TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT (NIG.) LTD. & ORS. v. INTEGRITY CONCEPTS LTD. & ANOR
(2011)LCN/4275(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 3rd day of February, 2011
CA/A/56/2006
RATIO
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT: EFFECT OF THE RESPONDENTS’ FAILURE TO FILE A BRIEF OF ARGUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANTS’ BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
The import of the Respondents’ failure to file a brief of argument in response to the Appellants’ brief of argument is that they are deemed to have conceded to the issues raised and argued in the Appellants’ brief of argument. In ECHERE VS. EZIRIKE (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.323) 1597 AT 1608 paragraph A-B, the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen JSC said:- “It must be pointed out that the appeal is not contested particularly as the 7th set of Respondents who are the real opponents of the Appellants in the controversy regarding ownership of the land in dispute and who obtained judgment in their favour in the Court of Appeal, failed and or neglected to file any Respondents brief in this appeal, while the 2nd set of Respondents in their brief of argument file on 30/9/03 totally support the case of the Appellants as they have done all through the journey of the case from the trial court. In law therefore, the 7th set of Respondents are deemed not to contest the appeal of the Appellants and have therefore conceded the issues raised and argued in the Appellants brief of argument filed on 10/6/02.” In the same case at page 1610 paragraph G-H, His Lordship, Ogbuagu JSC said:- “It is no surprise to me that the 1st set of Defendants/Respondents, did not file any Respondents’ brief in opposition to this appeal, notwithstanding that they were only served with the relevant processes in this appeal including the Appellants’ brief. It is to be borne in mind and this also settled that, failure of a Respondent to file a Respondent’s brief is immaterial and of no moment. This is because, an Appellant, must succeed or fail in his own brief. In other words, that an Appellant, succeeds on the strength of his own case. It is not automatic that when once a Respondent fails to file his brief, that is it, the Appellant automatically, must win or succeed in the appeal. No.” See JOHNHOLT VENTURES VS OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT.470) 10. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
CERTIORARI: MEANING AND NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Certiorari is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as follows:- “A writ of common law origin issued by a superior to an inferior court requiring the latter to produce a certified record of a particular case tried therein. The writ is issued in order that the Court issuing the writ may inspect the proceedings and determine whether there have been irregularities” In LAWAL VS QUADRT (2004) 6 NWLR (PT.868) 1 this Court held as follows:- “The scope of an order of certiorari is limited, because certiorari will not be used where there is an equally competent and effective remedy like the process of an appeal. Therefore in exercising the discretion, a judicial officer will be judicious, and with not allow the prerogative order of certiorari to supplant the regular process of appeal to a higher court. However, where the lower court or tribunal adjudicated in excess of its jurisdiction, an aggrieved Party will successfully seek an order of certiorari even though he has a right of appeal. In the instant case, the error or bias alleged were not apparent on the face of record, the complaint made need to be tendered in Court and the evidence evaluated by the High Court which procedure is outside the scope of the hearing for certiorari.” Certiorari therefore is a writ issued out of the High court and directed to an inferior court of record asking that the record of proceedings before an inferior court in a particular cause or matter be transmitted to the High court in order that the High court may be satisfied that the proceedings of the inferior court are within the jurisdiction of that court. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
EX-PARTE ORDER: WHEN THE COURT WILL MAKE AN EX-PARTE ORDER
Ex-parte Order is clearly not suitable in the circumstance in which it was made in favour of the Appellant by the Upper Area Court. Such Order is usually made when the circumstances are urgent and compelling such as to leave the court with no other alternative in preventing an anticipated injury of a grave nature. In GROUP DANONE & 1 OR VS. VOLTIC (NIG) LTD (2008) 7 NWLR (PT.637) at 674 paragraphs G-H, the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu JSC had this to say:- “An ex-parte injunction is expected to last for a very short time more so, as the procedure is likely to be abused by litigants. This is why the Order must be very sparingly made and only when the circumstances, are urgent and compelling such as to leave the Court with no other alternative in preventing an anticipated injury of a grave nature.’ See OGBONNA VS N.U.R.T. WORKERS & ORS (1990) 3 NWLR (PT.141) 696 at 709. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING : WHAT THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING ENTAILS; EFFECT OF THE DENIAL OF A PARTY THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING ON A COURT PROCEEDING
The cardinal principle of fair hearing as encapsulated in the Latin phrase “audi alteram paltem” is that let both parties to a case be heard. Fair hearing is in the procedure followed in the determination of a case and not in the correctness of the decision. Thus the question whether there has been a denial of fair hearing being one of substance and not of form will always be decided in the light of the realities of any particular case. See OJO VS FRN (2008) NWLR (PT.1099) 467 at 531 paragraphs A-C, UBN PLC VS IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR PT.648 223, RABIU Vs. STATE (2005) 7 NWLR (P7.925) 491; STATE VS ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 NWLR (PT.221) 33. The right to be heard is a fundamental and indispensable requirement of a valid judicial decision. Where a party should be heard and he is denied the right to be heard, a decision taken in such proceeding will be invalid. PER PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT (NIG.) LTD.
2. MEDHAT ADLY
3. ALEX NWOKO Appellant(s)
AND
1. INTEGRIRY CONCEPTS LTD.
2. MICHEAL SARUMI Respondent(s)
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal herein is against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, delivered on the 19th May, 2006 by Bage J. (as he then was). The 1st and 2nd Respondents in the instant appeal, who were the applicants at the lower court, by a motion on notice brought pursuant to the leave granted to them on the 21st of November, 2005 sought for the following orders:-
1. An order of certiorari to remove and bring before this Court the proceedings and decision and order of Hon. M.A, Yusuf presiding Judge, Upper Area Court Wuse, Abuja, Holden at Gudu District delivered on 20/10/2005 in case No.CV/74/2005 between Integrity Concepts Ltd & Anor Vs Tractor Equipment & Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors for the purpose of its being quashed.
2. An order of prohibition against the Respondents prohibiting them from proceeding or continuing with the proceedings in case NO.CV/74/2005 between Integrity Concepts Ltd & Anor Vs Tractor Equipment & Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors now pending before the Upper Area Court Wuse, Abuja, Holden at Gudu.
3. A declaration that the proceedings and decision and order of Hon. M.A. Yusuf presiding Judge, Upper Area Court Wuse, Abuja, Holden at Gudu District delivered on 20th October, 2005 in case NO.CV/74/2005 between Integrity Concepts Ltd & Anor Vs Tractor Equipment & Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors was in gross violation of the applicant’s constitutional right of fair hearing and therefore illegal invalid, null and void.
4. A declaration that the purported delivery to a purported buyer by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents of the 1st Applicant’s property i.e. the Caterpillar D & R Bulldozer with serial No. 9EMO 2352 valued as at January 2005 N93,576,520.00 (Ninety Three Million, Five Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Naira) pending the determination of the substantive suit is unlawful, illegal null and void.
5. An order of mandamus to the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents to deliver to the premises of this Court or to any other place whatsoever in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Court, the 1st Applicant’s property i.e. the Caterpillar D & R Bulldozer with serial No. 9EMO 2952 valued as at January 2005 N93,576,520.00 (Ninety Three Million, Five Hundred and Seventy Six Thousand, Five Hundred and Twenty Naira) pending the determination of the substantive suit.
6. An order that parties to case NO-CV/74/2005 between Integrity Concepts Ltd & Anor Vs Tractor Equipment & Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors be returned to status quo ante as at 7th October, 2005 before the Hon. M. A. Yusuf presiding Judge, Upper Area Court Wuse, Abuja, Holden at Gudu District made the orders dated 20th October, 2005.
7. An order that case NO.CV/74/2005 between Integrity Concepts Ltd & Anor Vs Tractor Equipment & Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors transferred from Upper Area Court Wuse, Abuja, Holden at Gudu District, to a Court of competent jurisdiction
8. The sum of N20 Million damages against the Respondents in favour of the Applicants for loss of profit and goodwill.
This application was heard on the 20th of March, 2006. In a reserved and considered ruling, the learned trial judge granted prayers 1 to 7 and reserved the award of damages pending the determination of the pending application in the Upper Area Court. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the Appellants who were 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents at the lower court brought this appeal. Their notice of appeal dated 30th day of May, 2006 and filed on the 17/07/06 contains three grounds of appeal which I reproduce hereunder without their particulars as follows:-
I. The learned judge of the lower court erred in law when he held that the delivery of the Caterpillar D & R Bulldozer with serial No- 9EMO 2352 belonging to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and valued as at January, 2005, at N193,576,520.00, by the Appellants to a third party, is unlawful, illegal, null and void.
II.. The learned judge of the lower court misdirected himself when he held that the Appellants should deliver to the premises of the Honourable Court the property in question, pending the determination of the substantive suit.
III. The learned judge of the lower court erred in law in holding that the proceedings and decisions made by Honourable M. A. Yusuf presiding Judge, Upper Area Court, delivered on 20th October, 2005, was in gross violation of the Respondents constitutional right to fair hearing.
The Appellants’ brief of argument in this appeal is dated 1st of November, 2006 and filed on the 17/11/06, but deemed filed on the 12/6/07. The Respondent did not file any brief of argument. At page 6 paragraph 3.01 (i) and (ii), two issues have been formulated for determination of this appeal. These issues read as follows:-
i. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Honourable Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the delivery to a third Party by the Appellants of the Caterpillar D & R Bulldozer with serial No. 9EMO 2352 belonging to the Respondents is unlawful, illegal, null and void. (Grounds I and II)
ii. Whether given the circumstances of this case, the Honourable Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the proceedings and decisions made by the Honourable M.A. Yusuf Presiding Judge, Upper Area Court, delivered on 26th October, 2005 was in gross violation of the Respondents constitutional right of fair hearing’ (Ground III)
The import of the Respondents’ failure to file a brief of argument in response to the Appellants’ brief of argument is that they are deemed to have conceded to the issues raised and argued in the Appellants’ brief of argument. In ECHERE VS. EZIRIKE (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.323) 1597 AT 1608 paragraph A-B, the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen JSC said:-
“It must be pointed out that the appeal is not contested particularly as the 7th set of Respondents who are the real opponents of the Appellants in the controversy regarding ownership of the land in dispute and who obtained judgment in their favour in the Court of Appeal, failed and or neglected to file any Respondents brief in this appeal, while the 2nd set of Respondents in their brief of argument file on 30/9/03 totally support the case of the Appellants as they have done all through the journey of the case from the trial court. In law therefore, the 7th set of Respondents are deemed not to contest the appeal of the Appellants and have therefore conceded the issues raised and argued in the Appellants brief of argument filed on 10/6/02.”
In the same case at page 1610 paragraph G-H, His Lordship, Ogbuagu JSC said:-
“It is no surprise to me that the 1st set of Defendants/Respondents, did not file any Respondents’ brief in opposition to this appeal, notwithstanding that they were only served with the relevant processes in this appeal including the Appellants’ brief. It is to be borne in mind and this also settled that, failure of a Respondent to file a Respondent’s brief is immaterial and of no moment. This is because, an Appellant, must succeed or fail in his own brief. In other words, that an Appellant, succeeds on the strength of his own case. It is not automatic that when once a Respondent fails to file his brief, that is it, the Appellant automatically, must win or succeed in the appeal. No.”
See JOHNHOLT VENTURES VS OPUTA (1996) 9 NWLR (PT.470) 10.
In the instant appeal, the argument proffered by the Appellant shall be given due consideration even though the Respondents have failed to file a Respondents’ brief of argument. Before doing so, I wish to set out briefly the facts that led to this appeal. The 1st Respondent herein is a Company Registered in Nigeria, while the 2nd Respondent is the Managing Director of the 1st Respondent. Sometimes in July 2004, Abuja Environmental Protection Board awarded a contract for the supply of one unit of Caterpillar D & R Bulldozer at a cost of N92, 070,040.00.
The contract paper is at page 6 of the printed record of this appeal. The 1st Respondent negotiated with the manufacturers of the Caterpillar abroad and made part payment of N15,000,000. However the delivery of the Bulldozer was to be made through the 1st Appellant a sole agent of the manufacturing company. The Bulldozer arrived at Lagos by sea. After initial delay in the delivery the bulldozer was finally conveyed to the Abuja office of the Appellant who failed and/or refused to deliver same to Abuja Environmental Protection Board. When the 2nd Respondent got information that the Appellant was making arrangement to remove the bulldozer out of Abuja with a view to selling it, he instructed his lawyer to institute a case at the Upper area court Wuse Abuja and apply for an order restraining the Appellants from removing the machines out of Abuja. The application was so filed and the order restraining the Appellants from removing the machine out of Abuja and selling same was so obtained on the 7th of October, 2005. This order is at page II of the record of appeal. The Appellants on the 11th and 14th October, 2005 filed motions on notice praying the upper Area court to set aside its orders made on the 7th of October, 2005 for lack of jurisdiction. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a counter affidavit and the motion was fixed for hearing on the 19th of October, 2005. On the said 19th of October, 2005, parties were ordered to file written address to be adopted on the return date which was fixed on the 10/11/05. However on the 25th of October, 2005, the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel was served with an order of the Upper Area Court made exparte discharging the Order of 7th October, 2005 which contained substantially the same prayers as those in the motion that was adjourned to 10th of November 2005. A copy of the order and the motion ex-parte are at pages 29 and 30 respectively of the record of this appeal. It was on the basis of the facts above that the 1st and 2nd Respondents approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and sought for the reliefs set out in the motion, the ruling which is subject of this appeal.
On issue one, Miss Dero Daniels, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in an application for judicial review, what is to be resolved is the question of jurisdiction, glaring mistake or error and unfair hearing on the face of the record of the inferior court upon which the legal search light is being focused, According to the learned counsel, the temptation by a Superior Court to make a consequential order which gives the impression that the matter which is the subject matter of an application before it has been heard and determined by the Superior court with only supervisory jurisdiction must be avoided, In aid learned counsel cited EZENWA VS BESTWAY ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD (1999) 8 NWLR (PT.613) 61 at 84 paragraphs F-H. Learned counsel set out the principles that would guide a Court in its consideration of whether or not an order of certiorari should be issued, as enunciated in the case of the STATE VS BOUNDRY SETTLEMENT COMMTSSIONER & 2 ORS (1985) 3 NWLR (PT.12) 335 at 350. Paragraphs A-B and contended that the High Court should have been more careful not to determine ownership of the property, the Caterpillar which is the subject matter of the suit at the Upper area Court. In a further argument, learned counsel submitted that the supervisory jurisdiction of the superior court is not directed at the acts or omissions of the parties but at the inferior court or tribunal, as such the superior court cannot validly make a direct order touching on the acts or rights of the parties or even the properties in issue as the High Court has done in this particular case. In aid learned counsel cited R VS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT. EX-PARTE BRWD (1991) 1 AC 696, 762 G, 767 G where it was held that in a judicial review, the Court must not stray into the realms of Appellate jurisdiction for that would involve the Court in a wrongful usurpation of power. Also cited in aid is ASSOCTATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD VS WEDNESDAY CORPORATION (1948) 1 K.B. 223 at 234.
Still in argument, learned counsel submitted that the High Court did not exercise its power judiciously and judicially when it made order in relation to the ownership of the caterpillar as such order is clearly against the weight of evidence placed before the court, which is that the ownership of the caterpillar is still the subject matter of the suit before the Upper Area Court and same is yet to be determined.
Finally on this issue, learned counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal on the ground that the order of the Court was premature. Certiorari is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as follows:-
“A writ of common law origin issued by a superior to an inferior court requiring the latter to produce a certified record of a particular case tried therein. The writ is issued in order that the Court issuing the writ may inspect the proceedings and determine whether there have been irregularities”
In LAWAL VS QUADRT (2004) 6 NWLR (PT.868) 1 this Court held as follows:-
“The scope of an order of certiorari is limited, because certiorari will not be used where there is an equally competent and effective remedy like the process of an appeal. Therefore in exercising the discretion, a judicial officer will be judicious, and with not allow the prerogative order of certiorari to supplant the regular process of appeal to a higher court. However, where the lower court or tribunal adjudicated in excess of its jurisdiction, an aggrieved Party will successfully seek an order of certiorari even though he has a right of appeal. In the instant case, the error or bias alleged were not apparent on the face of record, the complaint made need to be tendered in Court and the evidence evaluated by the High Court which procedure is outside the scope of the hearing for certiorari.”
Certiorari therefore is a writ issued out of the High court and directed to an inferior court of record asking that the record of proceedings before an inferior court in a particular cause or matter be transmitted to the High court in order that the High court may be satisfied that the proceedings of the inferior court are within the jurisdiction of that court.
I do agree that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant represent the position of the law on certiorari. However what the learned trial judge did was to redress a fraudulent act bordering on dishonesty which was within his view. The Appellant was aware of the pending motion on notice challenging the order of the Upper Area court in which the ruling of 7th of October, 2005 was set aside, Written addresses which were to be adopted on the 11th November, 2005 had been filed. The ex-parte application by the Appellant which was granted on the 20th October, 2005 before the adoption of the written addresses on practically the same relief was a fraudulent act. Every Court of record has an inherent power to address a dishonest act being committed in a proceeding before it. Learned counsel’s submission that a superior court cannot validly make a direct order as touching on the acts or right of parties in an order of certiorari is a sound and fury signifying nothing as the Appellants cannot eat their cake and still have it. It is because of the fraudulent order obtained behind the Respondents that the bulldozer subject matter of litigation before the Upper Area Court disappeared. This is bad.
The application that gave birth to the ruling against which this appeal lies contained eight prayers. It is only prayer one that sought for an order of certiorari, which was properly granted by the learned trial judge, since the Appellant acted dishonestly and the Upper Area Court agreed to be part of the fraud which deprived the Respondents the opportunity of being heard, The other orders which the Appellant is vehemently opposing arose from other prayers which are enumerated on the motion paper and which I have painstakingly reproduced elsewhere in this judgment. Having perused the proceedings at the lower court, I am of the firm view that the learned trial judge acted
judiciously and judicially in his conclusion. consequently this issue is resolved against the Appellant and grounds (i) and (ii) from which the issue is distilled are hereby dismissed.
The second issue is whether the lower court was right in holding that the proceedings and decisions made by the Upper Area Court on the 20th October, 2005 was a gross violation of the Respondents constitutional right of fair hearing. In his argument on this issue, learned counsel for the Appellant dwelt so much on the propriety of the ruling delivered by the Upper area Court on the 7th of October, 2005 without a corresponding application on notice by the Appellant. Learned counsel also posed a question whether the Appellants had a right to seek a discharge of the orders by way of an ex-parte application. The issues raised herein upon which extensive submissions were made are irrelevant, since there was no appeal against the ruling of the Upper Area Court, which was delivered on the 7th of October, 2005. The ruling of the 7th October, 2005 had restrained the Appellants from selling the bulldozer. It was the Appellants who brought an application by motion on notice seeking for an order to set aside that order. This motion was still pending, and indeed the parties were asked to file written addresses which were to be adopted on the 11/11/2005.
The Appellants went behind and filed an ex-parte application seeking for the same reliefs as contained in their motion on notice which the Court heard and granted. The motion ex-parte obviously was an abuse of Court process and its hearing without putting the Respondents on notice was a gross violation of the Respondents constitutional right of fair hearing. The Order of injunction which was granted on the 7/10/2005 was so granted because there was apprehension that the Appellants were going to sell the bulldozer. Such apprehension was not there when the Appellants’ motion ex-parte was granted, since the bulldozer was in possession of the Appellants. The Respondents were therefore entitled to be heard.
Ex-parte Order is clearly not suitable in the circumstance in which it was made in favour of the Appellant by the Upper Area Court. Such Order is usually made when the circumstances are urgent and compelling such as to leave the court with no other alternative in preventing an anticipated injury of a grave nature. In GROUP DANONE & 1 OR VS. VOLTIC (NIG) LTD (2008) 7 NWLR (PT.637) at 674 paragraphs G-H, the Supreme Court, per Ogbuagu JSC had this to say:-
“An ex-parte injunction is expected to last for a very short time more so, as the procedure is likely to be abused by litigants. This is why the Order must be very sparingly made and only when the circumstances, are urgent and compelling such as to leave the Court with no other alternative in preventing an anticipated injury of a grave nature.’
See OGBONNA VS N.U.R.T. WORKERS & ORS (1990) 3 NWLR (PT.141) 696 at 709.
Failure to give the Respondents an opportunity to be heard was fatal and the lower court was right to have held that the ex-parte order which was granted on the 20th October, 2005 after hearing the Appellants only was a gross violation of the Respondents constitutional right of fair hearing. The cardinal principle of fair hearing as encapsulated in the Latin phrase “audi alteram paltem” is that let both parties to a case be heard. Fair hearing is in the procedure followed in the determination of a case and not in the correctness of the decision. Thus the question whether there has been a denial of fair hearing being one of substance and not of form will always be decided in the light of the realities of any particular case. See OJO VS FRN (2008) NWLR (PT.1099) 467 at 531 paragraphs A-C, UBN PLC VS IKWEN (2000) 3 NWLR PT.648 223, RABIU Vs. STATE (2005) 7 NWLR (P7.925) 491; STATE VS ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 NWLR (PT.221) 33.
The right to be heard is a fundamental and indispensable requirement of a valid judicial decision. Where a party should be heard and he is denied the right to be heard, a decision taken in such proceeding will be invalid.
For all I have said, I am in total agreement with the lower court that the Respondents herein were denied the right of fair hearing in the proceedings leading up to the order of 20th October, 2005. The 2nd issue is also resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellant. The ground of appeal from which this issue was formulated is hereby dismissed.
Having resolved the two issues submitted for the determination of this appeal against the appellants, this appeal shall be, and it is hereby dismissed.
I make no order as to cost.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the lead judgment written by my learned brother GALINJE, JCA before now and for all the reasons set out therein which I adopt, the appeal for lacking merit, is dismissed by me.
Parties to bear their respective costs of the appeal.
REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the Judgment of my learned brother Galinje JCA. I agree with the reasons contained therein and I adopt same.
It is trite law that once there is a breach of fair hearing, the whole proceedings in the course of which the breach arose and the decision arrived thereat becomes a nullity.
The true test of fair hearing is what will be the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial and made observations. One of the attributes of fair hearing is that the court shall hear both sides in all applications and material issues raised in a case before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to the other party. The court below rightly held that the Respondents were denied the right of fair hearing in the proceedings leading up to order of 20th October, 2005. The Appellant by the exparte application acquired undue advantage over the Respondent when the order was made.
This Appeal is devoid of merit and I also dismiss the appeal. I make no order as to cost.
Appearances
Mrs. A. AkeredoluFor Appellant
AND
Respondents absentFor Respondent
