UMARU v. MUHAMMAD & ORS
(2020)LCN/15731(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, June 25, 2020
CA/S/4S/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abubakar Mahmud Talba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ALHAJI UMARU APPELANT(S)
And
1. SAMA’ILA MUHAMMAD 2. SAMA’ILA BAWA 3. DAHIRU ISA RESPONDENT(S)
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal Sokoto delivered on the 11th day of May, 2018 in appeal No.: SCA/WR/41/2017.
At the hearing of this appeal on the 4th day of June, 2020 the appellant’s counsel applied to withdraw a motion on notice filed on 17th May, 2019. The motion is seeking for an order to amend the notice of appeal. The amended notice of appeal was filed separately on 17th May, 2019. The said motion having been withdrawn by the appellant’s counsel, it was accordingly struck out. Consequentially the amended notice of appeal filed separately becomes invalid. But curiously both the appellant’s as well as respondents’ brief of argument were predicated on the amended notice of appeal filed on the 17th May, 2019. They were each adopted and argued before us.
Now the question is what is the consequence of a brief of argument that is predicated on an invalid notice of appeal although the original notice of appeal is still valid. Will the Court of Appeal strike out the brief and dismiss the appeal or determine the appeal based on the defective brief. However, to dismiss the appeal will not only occasion miscarriage of Justice but also visit the sins of counsel on the preparation of the brief.
In OBIORA VS OSELE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 97) 279 @ 344, the apex Court held that it will be stretching the matter too far to regard a defective brief as no brief. It is a faulty brief which is faulty and one cannot close one`s eyes to the fact of its existence. It need not be struck out and the Court should make the best that it can out of it. See GBAFE VS GBAFE & ORS (1996) 6 NWLR (PT.455) 417 ALBERT AKPAN VS BOB (2010) 43 NSCQR 452-453.
Consequently, in the interest of justice and in order not to visit the sin’s of counsel on litigant, I shall consider the briefs filed and argued from the perspective of the original notice of appeal filed on the 23rd of July, 2019. The arguments on the issues raised therein are in substantial compliance with the sole ground of appeal.
The respondents initiated Suit No.: CV/7/2016 before the Lower Sharia Court Goronyo against the appellant, claiming compensation in the sum of ₦335, 750.00 (Three hundred and thirty five thousand, seven hundred and fifty naira) only, for damages caused by the appellant’s livestock on their farm produce. The appellant denied the claim. The respondents could not present evidence as they said, they are witnesses for themselves. The Lower Sharia Court conducted IZARI and made its findings as follows: –
“—- this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim through evidence of witnesses or through detailed explanation. Also the plaintiffs have stated that they are their own witnesses. By principles of Islamic Law, all claims which are not proved through evidence of witnesses who are matured and responsible would not be substantiated by swearing. See JAWAHIRUN IKILILI JUZU 2 PAGE 228.
In the same vein, the plaintiffs have failed to establish any dealings between them and the defendant, so no swearing is relevant here. By the principles of Islamic Law, no swearing would be administered except dealings have been established between the plaintiffs and the defendants or if there is substantive suspicious as it is in RISALA SAMANIDDANI Page 604—–”
After its findings the Lower Sharia Court Goronyo dismissed the case for want of evidence on the part of plaintiffs and no swearing has been administered.
Aggrieved by the decision of the lower sharia Court, the respondents appealed to the Upper Sharia Court Wurno on four grounds of appeal.
The Upper Sharia Court Wurno made its findings and conducted IZARI. It found as follows: –
“—- this is a case in which compensation for damages is being sought and if not lack of fairness nothing stops a Court from seeking the defendants to swear and if he failed it would revert the swearing on the plaintiff. It was an error for the Court to rule that there was no dealing that would guarantee a person to swear. The plaintiffs are farmers while the defendant is a cattle rearer who owns the cattle that may cause damages and this alone is sufficient dealing to cause a person to swear—–”
The Upper Sharia Court Wurno also found as follows: –
“— We are of the opinion that it is our discretion to enquire from the respondent before us if he is prepared to swear that “Billahillazi Lailaha illahuwa” my cattle were not responsible for the damages being claimed”
The appellant/respondent before the Upper Sharia Court was informed if he was prepared to swear and he said “No I would not swear”. The respondents/appellants were informed that the respondent had declined to swear and if they are prepared to swear that “Billahillazi Lailaha illahuwa” the cattle of Alhaji Umaru caused the damages on your farms. The appellants now respondents said they were prepared to swear.
They performed ablution and they were sworn in the presence of the respondent now appellant. The Upper Sharia Court Wurno entered judgment by overturning the judgment of Lower Sharia Court Goronyo. The respondent now appellant was ordered to pay compensation of ₦335, 750.00 for the damages which his cattle caused on the appellants now respondents farms.
The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno he appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal Sokoto vide Appeal No.: SCA/WR/41/2017 on five grounds of appeal. The Sharia Court of Appeal (herein after referred to as the Lower Court) caused further estimates to be made in the presence of witnesses. After examining the parties, it made its findings and conducted IZARI. The Lower Court delivered its judgment affirming the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno, and dismissing the appeal.
Upon being further aggrieved by the decision of the Lower Court, the appellant appealed to this Court vide the original notice of appeal filed on the 23rd of July, 2018. The notice of appeal contain one ground of appeal which reads: –
“GROUND 1:
The Court below erred in law, when it affirmed the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court, Wurno, Sokoto State which was made in contravention of the mandatory principle of nukool under Islamic Law
PARTICULARS OF ERROR:
a. Whereas under Islamic Law, a claimant is bound to call witnesses to prove his claim, and where however, he is unable to do so, defendant shall be called upon to subscribe to an oath of rebuttal, and once he does so, judgment will be given in his favour;
b. Where defendant refuses to subscribe to the oath, in such circumstances, the principle of Nukool arises, and claimant would be called upon to subscribe to the oath, and once he does so, judgment would be in his favour;
c. However, under the principle of Nukool, before judgment is given against the defendant, the Court must explain to him the implication and consequences of refusal to take such oath. Under Islamic Law, it is mandatory, for the Court to explain to the party who declines taking oath, the implication of such refusal, otherwise any decision taken against him is a nullity;
d. In this appeal, the Upper Sharia Court, Wurno has set aside the decision of the trial Court and offered an oath of rebuttal to the Appellant, who declined to take such an oath;
e. However, without explaining to the Appellant, the consequences and implications of his refusal to take an oath, the appellate Upper Sharia Court and subscribed such oath to respondents and gave judgment in their favour;
f. That upon further appeal, the Court below affirmed the decision of the appellate Upper Sharia Court, Wurno;
g. The decisions of the Court below and appellant Upper Sharia Court, Wurno in this appeal are in violation of the principle of Nukool under Islamic Law;
h. The failure to explain to the Appellant, the implications and consequences of his refusal to take oath of rebuttal is in contravention of the principle of Nukool under Islamic Law and fatal to any decision taking against him;
i. That none compliance with the principle Nukool where applicable is fatal to any decision taking against such party.”
Arguing this appeal on the 4th day of June, 2020 Jafar Abubakar of counsel for the appellant adopted the appellant’s brief filed on the 17th May, 2019 and the appellant’s reply brief filed on the 20th February, 2020 but deemed properly filed and served on the 12th March, 2020. He urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Lower Court.
Ibrahim Abdullahi of counsel for the respondents adopted the respondents’ brief filed on the 17th January, 2020 but deemed properly filed and serve on the 27th January, 2020. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the Lower Court.
From the sole ground of appeal, the appellant distilled a lone issue for determination, thus: –
“Whether under Islamic Law where a defendant has refused to subscribe to an oath of denial offered to him, it is compulsory for the Court to explain to him the implication and consequences of such refusal before giving judgment against him”
The respondent equally formulated a lone issue for determination thus: –
“Was the decision of the Court below affirming the administration of oath on the respondent after the refusal of the appellant to subscribe to same correct in Law?”
Although the two issues are similar except for the manner in which they are couched, I shall adopt the issue formulated by the appellant for a proper and judicious determination of this appeal.
The appellant’s counsel argued that where a defendant has refused to subscribe to an oath of denial offered to him it is compulsory under Islamic Law for the Court to explain to him the implication and consequences of such refusal before giving judgment against him. He submitted that the Lower Court has erred and acted wrongly when it affirmed the erroneous decision of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno. It is trite law under Islamic Law, the burden of proof lies on he who asserts.
Translation.
The claimant should produce witnesses (to substantiate his claim) in it’s entirely. See also IHKAMUL AHKAM PAGE 12.
He submitted further that under Islamic Law, just like under Common Law a claimant is bound to call witnesses to prove his claim. However, under Islamic Law, a party to a suit is not allowed to serve as witness in his own case and his statement is never taking the place of evidence. And this is a departure from the Common Law, in which a party is allowed to be a witness in his own case. See Bayi Matan Gobir Vs Danjuma Rimi (2006)3 SLR (Pt. 1)212 and the book IHKAMUL AHKAM page 34.
Learned counsel submitted further that under Islamic Law, where a claimant is unable to call evidence to prove his claim, a defendant who denies the claim would be called upon to subscribe to an oath of rebuttal. If he agrees and takes the oath, the claim against him would be dismissed. But if he refuses to take the oath the principle of NUKOOL would set in and in such circumstance, the claimant would be called upon to subscribe to an oath of confirmation. If he agrees and take the oath, judgment will be given in his favour and against the defendant. But before judgment is given against the defendant, the principle of NUKOOL requires that the Court must explain to him the implication and consequences of his refusal to take such oath. And that it is a mandatory requirement to explain the implication and consequences of a refusal to take oath otherwise any decision taken against the defendant is a nullity. The learned counsel submitted that the principle was expounded in the Book of KHASHIYATUL DASUKI VOL. 4 PAGE 232 and it was judicially elucidated in ADAMU DAKASAYE Vs MUSA DAKASAYE (2006)3 SLR (Pt. 1) PAGE 66 AT 69, as thus:-
“It is mandatory for the Court to explain the consequences of refusing to subscribe to an oath offered to parties —-
—- It is a fundamental in Islamic Law of procedure that there has to be an explanation on the implication of refusing to subscribe to an oath (Nukool) which if not conducted can vitiate proceedings”
The learned counsel submitted that the Upper Sharia Court did not take steps to explain to the appellant the consequences and implications of his refusal to take oath as required under Islamic Law, instead it went ahead and administered oath of confirmation to the respondents and gave judgment in their favour. Which is a fundamental error that rendered the entire proceeding a nullity. It is a clear violation of the principle of Nukool, that has occasioned miscarriage of justice to the defendant. Learned counsel relied on the case of ADAMU DAKASAYE Vs MUSA DAKASAYE (SUPRA)
Where this Court held thus: –
“—- It is true as reflected in the record of proceedings that the trial Court has offered oath to the appellant, but he refused to subscribe to the oath. It is equally true that throughout the proceedings of the trial Court there was nowhere that the Court explained to the appellant the legal consequences of his failure to subscribe to that oath. This is very important issue. It is very painful lapses on the part of the trial Court. That Court was silent on what would happen to the appellant if he declines to take that oath, he would have had a second thought.”
The learned counsel submitted that the Lower Court was in error when it affirmed the wrong decision of the Upper Sharia Court and the entire decision of the Upper Sharia Court, affirmed by the Lower Court is a nullity. He relied on the case of HADA Vs MALUMFASHI (1993)7 NWLR (Pt. 303)1. And the books of MUKHTASIR KHALIL AND KHASHITUL DASUKI. Learned counsel urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the appellant against the respondents.
The learned respondent counsel contended that the argument of the appellant at pages 6 and 7 of the appellant’s brief of argument to the effect that the Lower Court erred in affirming the decision of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno for failure to explain to the appellant the implication and consequences of his refusal to take oath of rebuttal vitiates the decision of the Court and a fortiori that it affected the decision of the Court below is wrong in Law. This is because the issue was never raised and or canvassed at the Court below. It was not an issue that was canvassed before the Court below so as to give the Court below the opportunity to make a pronouncement on.
Learned counsel submitted that the law is trite that an Appellate Court cannot go outside the records of appeal in search of evidence favourable to any of the parties. Like pleadings which bind parties at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, Appellate Courts are clearly bound by the records of appeal. In other words, records of proceedings or appeal bind the parties and the Court until the contrary is proved. He said this is because there is a strong presumption of the genuineness of the record which is rebuttable. He referred to the following cases: SOMMER Vs F.H.A (1992)1 NWLR (Pt. 219)548, TEXACO PANAMA INC. OF NIG. LTD Vs SHELL PETRO DEV. CO. (NIG.) LTD (2002)5 NWLR (Pt. 759) 209, OGOLO Vs FUBARA (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 931) 231, NUHU Vs OGELE (2003)18 NWLR (Pt. 852)251.
Learned counsel submitted further that since there is no decision of the Court below relating to the issue of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno purported failure to explain to the appellant the implications and consequences of his refusal to take oath, then this Honourable Court lacks the vires to consider same in this appeal.
The learned counsel contended that the Court ought not to allow parties to raise fresh issues on appeal without the leave of the Court. He relied on the case of ONYEAMAIZU Vs OJIAKO (2010)4 NWLR (Pt. 1185)504 and U.B.A Vs AGBOOLA (2011)11 NWLR (Pt. 1258)375.
Learned counsel submitted that logic and common sense would reveal that if the implication of refusal to swear had been drawn to the appellant’s attention at the Upper Sharia Court Wurno before the oath was turned over to the respondent, he would not have decline to swear when invited to do so by being smart by half. He relied on the case of SAYA–SAYA Vs SAYA–SAYA (1990)7 NWLR (Pt. 164)652 at 657 Para H where Mohammad JCA stated thus:
“I also agree that if the implication of refusal to swear had been drawn to the respondent’s attention at the Area Court before the oath was turned over to the appellant he would not have declined to swear when invited to do so. In the end this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Sharia Court of Appeal Kano is hereby affirmed”
The learned counsel concluded that the argument of the appellant on this issue is bereft of any substance and ought to be dismissed. He urged the Court to resolve the issue against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
In his reply brief the appellant’s counsel submitted that the respondents’ argument that the appellant’s ground of appeal was a fresh issue that was never canvassed at the Court below is not only misleading but also misconception of Law and fact. This is because a careful perusal of the record of appeal will clearly reveal that the sole ground of appeal and the issue for determination distilled therein was not only raised and canvassed by the appellant but the Court below had opportunity to make pronouncement on same. He submitted that when the appellant was offered oath of denial by the Upper Sharia Court and he rejected to take the oath. Without taking steps to explain to the appellant the implications and consequences of his refusal to take oath as required under Islamic Law, the Court offered and administered oath to the respondent and gave judgment in his favour. Consequently the appellant filed five (5) grounds of appeal at the Court below against the decision of the Upper Sharia Court which inter-alia reads:-
“The Court was not fair to me by making the respondent to swear (Sic) an irrelevant oath” See page 17 of the record.
“The Upper Sharia Court did not conduct any in-depth investigation but went ahead to make them swear and ordered me to pay for damages which my cows did not cause” See page 17 of the record.
“Upper Sharia Court Wurno was not fair by causing them to swear for it was not proper (Sic)” page 31 of the record.
The learned counsel submitted that the appellant challenged the act of administering oath to the respondent and one of the grievances or complaint of the appellant at the Court below was improper administering of oath to the respondents by the Upper Sharia Court. Therefore the respondents’ contention that the appellant’s sole ground of appeal is a fresh issue that was never canvassed at the Court below is unfounded. Learned counsel submitted that the aforementioned ground of appeal is sufficient to show that the appellant has effectively raised and challenged the propriety of administering oath of Nukool to the respondent without satisfying the condition precedent of explaining to him the effect and consequences of his refusal to take such oath.
Learned counsel referred to page 32 of the record where the Court below made pronouncement concerning the issue of impropriety of administering oath to the respondent by the Upper Sharia Court it reads thus:-
“The 1st ground of appeal is not worthy of consideration in Islamic Law for on page 12 of the copies of Upper Sharia Court, Wurno you were required to swear, but you declined but the 3 respondents swore and this is consistent with Sawahikud Dawani Vol. 11 PAGE 220. Therefore Upper Sharia Court Wurno was fair so we reject this ground of appeal”
The learned counsel submitted that the argument of the respondents that the appellant’s sole ground of appeal is a fresh issue that was never canvassed at the Court below is fallacious. He urged the Court to discountenance with the submission of the respondents that the sole ground of appeal was never raised and canvassed at the Court below.
Without much ado let me deal with the issue whether or not the sole ground of appeal was raised, canvassed and pronounced upon at the Lower Court.
It is trite that under Islamic Law, a Court is duly accorded with an unfettered discretion to consider facts and circumstances of the case before it and do justice to the respective parties devoid of technicalities. The Courts look at the substance rather than the form. Thus a Court under Islamic Law is not restricted to the issues raised by the parties for determination in the case or appeal, provided there are sufficient materials upon which a just decision can be reached by the Court. The grounds of appeal or issues raised before a Court under Islamic Law need not to be framed in a technical manner or legal phraseology. A critical examination of the grounds of appeal before the Lower Court reveals that the issue of Nukool was raised and the Lower Court made a pronouncement in its findings at page 32 of the record. Same already reproduced in this judgment. The issue of Nukool is therefore not a fresh issue that require leave before it could be raised. The submission of the respondents’ counsel that the sole ground of appeal was never raised, canvassed and pronounced upon by at the Lower Court is without any substance and same is hereby discountenanced.
The substratum of this appeal is the contention of the appellant that the Upper Sharia Court Wurno did not explain the implication and consequences of the rejection to take oath to clear himself.
Oath under Islamic Law is in form of evidence or rather a substitute for evidences according to the Maxim: AL-BAYYINAT ALAL MUDDAI WAL YAMINU ALA MAN ANKARA meaning the onus of proving an allegation is upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff fails to prove the allegation by calling credible evidence, then the defendant will take the oath to clear himself. This type of oath is called oath of rebuttal or denial of liability or “NUKUL”. As a principle of Islamic Law, oath occurs to dispel a claim or an allegation in the absence of evidence. “AL YAMIN INDA AJZI ANIL SHAHADA” However it is mandatory that oath shall only become due when a transaction “HULDHA” Is established or when there is a strong suspicion of a transaction or accusation. See SODA Vs KWINGA (1992)8 NWLR (Pt. 261)632. Before any person is called upon to take an oath under Islamic Law, the Court is bound to explain to him the implication of his refusal to take such oath. See SAYA-SAYA Vs SAYA-SAYA (SUPRA).
One important feature of Islamic Law of procedure is that a dispute can be resolved on the basis of denial “NUKUL” of either of the parties i.e. the plaintiff or the defendant, to subscribe to an oath when confronted. In this instant case the respondents could not discharge the burden on them to prove their claim by credible witnesses. The appellant who denied the claim was informed if he was prepared to take oath and he declined. The oath reverted to the respondents who were informed if they are prepared to take oath and they agreed. They took oath and judgment was given in their favour. This is in compliance with the maxim “AL-NUKUL BA’ADAL NUKULI TASDAIQI LI NAKILI AWAL” which means if the defendant declined to swear to clear himself, the oath could be given to the plaintiff and if the plaintiff takes the oath, he gets judgment in his favour but if he declines as did the defendant, his claim is dismissed as his refusal confirms the position of the defendant.
The practice is for the judge to announce to the litigant thus:-
“I will offer you oath unless you take it I shall give judgment against you” The judge shall make the pronouncement three times for the litigant to respond by saying “I cannot swear” to each of the offers. Repeating the pronouncement three times is to ensure that the offer is well understood and clear to the litigant. It is a condition precedent to a valid judgment. Therefore, if the offer is pronounced once or twice and the judge proceeds to give judgment his is liable to be set aside. And if a litigant is offered an oath and he seeks for time he shall be given three days within, which to take a decision. And if a litigant is offered an oath three times and he maintained silence on each of the three occasions, it shall be recorded against him as he has declined the oath. That shall be after the judge has ascertained the mental or physical condition of the litigant i.e. whether he has any hearing infirmity or ailment which could prevent him from hearing. See MUEEN EL-HUKAM by Aalal Deen Abil Hassan Ali bin Khalil pages 188-189. This practice under Islamic Law is in compliance with the principle that judicial pronouncements should be clear, transparent leaving doubt or ambiguity. See NAZAMUL KALA’I Page 259. Now in order to ascertain whether or not the Upper Sharia Court Wurno had complied with the condition precedent by explaining to the appellant the implication and consequences of “NUKUL” oath of rebuttal, it is necessary to look at the records of proceedings of the Upper Sharia Court.
An Appellate Court relies on the record of appeal to find out, among other things, how proceedings were conducted in the Courts below. See OMOKUWAJO Vs F.R.N (2013)9 NWLR (Pt. 359)300. In other words the record of appeal is a very important document which is relied upon by appellate judges when deciding appeals and in finding out what transpired in the trial Court. See NITEL LTD Vs IKPI (2007)8 NWLR (Pt. 1035)96.
In this instant case I have critically examined the records of appeal particularly pages 6 – 15, which contain the proceedings of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno. For a better appreciation I shall reproduce the proceedings in page 14 line 25 – 30 and page 15 lines 1 – 11.
“— Based on our discretion to make amendments in the judgment of the first Court and to upheld or overturn the judgment, we are of the opinion that it is our discretion to enquire from the respondent before us if he is prepared to swear that “Billahillazi lailaha illahuwa” my cattle were not responsible for the damages being claimed.
Court: – Respondent, you have heard what this Court seeks of you. Are you prepared to swear?
Respondent: – No I would not swear.
Court: – Appellants, you have heard the respondent decline to swear. Are you prepared to swear that “Billahillazi lailaha illahuwa” the cattle of Alhaji Umaru caused the damages on your farms?
Alhaji Samaila, Samaila Bawa, Dahiru Isah: – We are prepared to swear.
Court: – Appellants go and perform ablution and come back each to swear as above.
Each of the appellants have sworn in the foregoing manner in the presence of the respondent.”
From the above proceedings it is crystal clear that the Upper Sharia Court Wurno failed to comply with the condition precedent. The Upper Sharia Court neglected or failed to explain to the appellant the implication and consequences of rejecting the oath of rebuttal. And to that extent the Upper Sharia Court acted without jurisdiction when it proceeded to give judgment against the appellant. It is settled that a Court will lack jurisdiction if there is no fulfilment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Abbas Vs Tera (2013)2 NWLR (Pt. 1338)284, Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962)2 SCNLR 341, Rossek Vs A.C.B Ltd (1993)5 NWLR (Pt. 312)352 and Apadi Vs Banuso (2008)13 NWLR (Pt. 1103)204.
It is mandatory for the Upper Sharia Court to explain the consequences of refusing to subscribe to an oath offered to the appellant. It is a fundamental procedure under Islamic Law which if not followed it can vitiate the entire proceedings. See Daka Saye Vs Daka Saye (Supra).
The proceedings conducted by the Upper Sharia Court Wurno is a nullity and the Lower Court was in error to have affirmed the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court.
The lone issue is resolved in favour of the appellant. The appeal is meritorious and it is allowed.
The judgment of the Lower Court delivered on the 11th day of May, 2018 which affirm the judgment of the Upper Sharia Court Wurno in Appeal No.: SCA/WR/41/2017 is hereby set aside.
No order for cost.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother Talba, JCA. I fully agree with his reasonings and conclusion that this appeal is meritorious. I also allow the appeal and abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment, including the order on cost.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned Brother, ABUBAKAR M. TALBA JCA and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions in allowing the Appeal as meritorious. I subscribe to the consequential orders made thereto.
Appearances:
Sani Abubakar, Esq For Appellant(s)
Ibrahim Abdullahi Esq., FRHD For Respondent(s)
