UNION BANK v. AIYELABOWO
(2020)LCN/15737(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, January 31, 2020
CA/IL/77/2019
Before Our Lordships:
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Shata Bdliya Justice of the Court of Appeal
Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC APPELANT(S)
And
MURITALA MUHAMMED AIYELABOWO RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE COMPETENCE OF THE RECORD OF APPEAL
The sustenance of preliminary objection as to the competence of the record of appeal on which this Court can rely on to determine the appeal, it follows therefore that the appeal is automatically terminated or brought to an end, as held in the case of SAP Ltd vs Ministry of Petroleum Resources supra. Where theappeal cannot be determined due to the incompleteness of the record of appeal, because vital materials have been omitted, or could not be found or traced at the lower Court, the only option available to this Court is to order for a retrial of the suit before the trial Court as propounded by the Apex Court in Okochi vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR Pt. 851 P.1 @ 23-24, the relevant part of which have been reproduced supra, in this judgment. IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.
RAISING OR FILING THE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The law is settled, where a respondent raised or filed Notice of Preliminary objection on any issue in the appeal same is to be taken and determined before proceeding to the merit of the appeal, if need be. The Notice of preliminary objection raised on page 1 of the respondent’s brief of argument is as follows:
“NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 10 RULE 1 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2016. IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.
TRASMISSION OF MATERIAL FACT AS OF NECESSITY
What then is a complete record of appeal? In the case of Chief Joshua Olorunyolemi& Anor vs Mrs Hellen Akhagbe (2010) 8 NWLR Pt. 1195 P. 48 @ 61-62, the ApexCourt, Per Onnoghen, JSC (As he then was) propounded that:
“It is settled law that every material fact, evidence or document tendered in the proceeding at the High Court and relevant to the determination of the issues in controversy between the parties on appeal, should be transmitted as of necessity, to the appellate Court as there can be no consideration of any appeal by an appellate Court, or an objection thereto unless and until there is before the Court a record of appeal duly prepare and transmitted by the registrar of the lower Court or by the appellant himself upon the leave of the Court being sought and obtained. The rationale is that though an appeal is a rehearing of the matter, the rehearing in this case is by considering the case based on the printed record before the appellate Court, which includes the exhibits tendered therein.” IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Kwara State, (the lower Court) in suit No. Kws/28/2009 delivered on the 28th day of October, 2009, by S.D Kawu, J (as he then was). A summation of the historical back ground of facts and events culminating to the institution of the aforesaid suit before the lower Court, and the appeal to this Court, is apt at this juncture, in order to fully comprehend the nature of the dispute between the parties. The appellant, Union Bank of Nigeria PLC, is a legal entity carrying on banking business with its branch office in Ilorin, Kwara State. The respondent, Muritala Muhammed Aiyelabowo, is a business man with offices in Ilorin Kwara State. Sometime in 1998 the appellant granted a loan facility of One Million and Nine Hundred Naira (N1,900,000.00) to the respondent. To convince the appellant that he was serious in repaying the loan, he surrendered title documents in respect of his properties situate in Ilorin to the appellant. However, a short-while thereafter, he claimed that the title documents were forcefully obtained from him; hence he filed an action before the lower Court seeking an order to release the title documents to him. The appellant filed statement of defence to the claim of the respondent incorporating a counter-claim of N4,625,172,79.00 being the sum of money owed to it.
The respondent did not prosecute the suit diligently. He did not file statement of defence to the appellant’s counter-claim. After several adjournments of the hearing of the suit, the lower Court entered a default judgment in respect of the counter-claim in favour of the appellant. The default judgment was however set aside upon an application by the respondent, and the Court ordered a retrial of the case before the same Court. After the rehearing of the suit, the lower Court granted the relief sought by the respondent and dismissed the counter-claim in a judgment delivered on the 28th day of October, 2009. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the appellant, with leave of this Court granted on the 31st of July, 2019, appealed against the said decision. The Notice of Appeal was filed on the 12th of February, 2019, which was amended and filed on the 20th of September 2019. The registrar of the lower Court did not compile and transmitted the record of appeal to this court within the prescribed period. The appellant then compiled and transmitted the record of appeal to this Court on the 22nd day of May, 2019, which was deemed properly filed on 27th of June, 2019.
The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on the 23rd day of August, 2019, wherein on page 4 thereof, three (3) issues for determination in the appeal, have been distilled from the grounds of appeal. The respondent filed brief of argument on the 18th day of October, 2019, containing a Notice of Preliminary objection to the competence of the record of appeal compiled and transmitted to this Court by the appellant. In the event, the preliminary objection is not sustained, four (4) issues have been distilled out of the grounds of appeal, on pages 5-6 thereof. The appellant, having been served with the respondent’s brief of argument, filed a reply brief on the 25th day of October, 2019, responding to the arguments on the preliminary objection, on pages 2-3 thereof and replied to the argument canvassed on the issues for determination in the respondent’s brief of argument accordingly.
The law is settled, where a respondent raised or filed Notice of Preliminary objection on any issue in the appeal same is to be taken and determined before proceeding to the merit of the appeal, if need be. The Notice of preliminary objection raised on page 1 of the respondent’s brief of argument is as follows:
“NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 10 RULE 1 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 2016.
TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent shall at or before the hearing contend by way of preliminary objection that this appeal in incompetent, and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same.
GROUNDS OF THE OBJECTION
1. The Record of Appeal compiled and transmitted to this honourable Court by the Appellant is incomplete, and the Court cannot speculate as to the contents of the missing portions which the Appellant has admitted in her brief as being the exhibits tendered, as well as the oral evidence of witnesses in the case.
2. Issues 1 and 2 submitted for determination by the Appellant are incompetent, both being based on the same grounds of appeal and thus amounting to proliferation of issues.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
3. Issue 3 is incompetent as it is based on no ground of appeal or a decision of the trial Court.”
Learned counsel to the respondent, M.A Bello Esq, did contend that the record of appeal compiled and transmitted to this Court, is incomplete not containing the evidence of the witnesses who testified before the lower Court as well as the documents which were admitted in evidence. It is learned counsel’s further submission that the main complaint of the appellant against the judgment of the lower Court is on the findings, the evaluation and the application of the evidence in arriving at a decision in the judgment of the lower Court. That in view of the foregoing adumbration, it is essential or necessary for this Court to examine the record of appeal in order to arrive at a decision as to whether the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence before it and did consider all the exhibits which were admitted during the proceedings of the lower Court. Without the documents admitted as exhibits before the lower Court, learned counsel submitted, it may not be possible for this Court to arrive at a just and fair decision in the determination of the appeal. Learned counsel cited and relied on the principles of law enunciated in the case of Enyinnaya Dick vs Our and Oil Co. Ltd (2018) 4 NWLR Pt. 1638 P.1, wherein, it was espoused that, once the record of appeal is incomplete, not containing all the materials which were part of the proceedings of the trial Court, an appellate Court cannot be seized of the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
For the appellant, Dr Shittu A. Bello Esq, of learned counsel, contended that it is not the correct position of the law as canvassed by learned counsel to the respondent, that once the record of appeal is incomplete, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It is learned counsel’s submission that, where the record of appeal complied and transmitted to the appellate Court is incomplete, either of the parties, especially one who is alleging the incompleteness of the record of appeal, to apply under Order 8 Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 to compile and transmit the missing part of the record. However, where both parties, the appellant and the respondent, cannot transmit a supplementary record of appeal due to non-availability of certain portion ofthe record, the only option available is for the Court to order for a retrial of the suit as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Okochi vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR Pt. 851 P.4.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the extant appeal, the proceedings of the lower Court regarding the evidence of the witnesses, the cross-examination of the witnesses and the documents admitted as exhibits were not transmitted to this Court because such were not available at the lower Court. In view of the foregoing, it is learned counsel’s submission that the only way out is for this Court to order for retrial of the case by the lower Court in order to do substantial justice to both parties as enunciated in the case of Okochi vs Animkwoi supra.
The first ground upon which the preliminary objection has been predicated is that the record of appeal compiled and transmitted to this Court by the appellant is incomplete which this Court cannot rely on to determine the appeal justly and fairly. What then is a complete record of appeal? In the case of Chief Joshua Olorunyolemi & Anor vs Mrs Hellen Akhagbe (2010) 8 NWLR Pt. 1195 P. 48 @ 61-62, the Apex Court, Per Onnoghen, JSC (As he then was) propounded that:
“It is settled law that every material fact, evidence or document tendered in the proceeding at the High Court and relevant to the determination of the issues in controversy between the parties on appeal, should be transmitted as of necessity, to the appellate Court as there can be no consideration of any appeal by an appellate Court, or an objection thereto unless and until there is before the Court a record of appeal duly prepare and transmitted by the registrar of the lower Court or by the appellant himself upon the leave of the Court being sought and obtained. The rationale is that though an appeal is a rehearing of the matter, the rehearing in this case is by considering the case based on the printed record before the appellate Court, which includes the exhibits tendered therein.”
The registrar of the lower Court failed or neglected to compile and transmit the record of appeal in suit Kws/28/2009 to this Court. The appellant, in accordance with the Rules of this Court, compiled and transmitted the record of appeal on the 23rd day of May 2019, out of time, which with leave of Court, was deemed transmitted on the 27th day of June 2019. The contents of the record of appeal have been summarized as indicated in the INDEX thereof, which is hereunder reproduced for easy comprehension.
“INDEX
S/N PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Writ of summons dated 13/12/2001 1-2
2. Statement of claim dated 16/10/2002 3-5
3. Statement of Defence/Counter-claim 6-7
4. Judgment dated 25/04/2005 by Hon. Justice M.O Adewara 8-13
5. Motion on Notice dated 02/08/2005 & Filed on 04/08/2005 14-19
6. Counter-Affidavit dated 17/03/2006 & Filed on 17/03/2006 20-22
7. Motion on Notice dated 08/07/2008 & Filed on 09/07/2008 by Claimant 23-42
8. Amended statement of claim dated 05/08/2008 with Annextures 43-45
9. Pre-trial conference 46-50
10. Motion on Notice by Defendant dated 16/03/2009 & Filed on 17/03/2009 51-71
11. Motion dated 22/06/2009 and Filed 22/06/2009 with the Final Address by Defendant counsel attached thereto 72-79
12. Final Address by Claimant dated 27/07/2009 & Filed on 27/07/2009 80-87
13. Reply dated 30/07/2009 & Filed on 31/07/2009 by Defendant to Claimant’s Address 88-89
14. Judgment by Hon. Justice S.D Kawu dated 28/10/2009 90-108
15. Order of Court of Appeal dated 31/01/2019 109
16. Notice of Appeal dated 12/02/2019 & Filed on 12/02/2019
A careful perusal of the entire record of appeal transmitted to this Court clearly reveals that not all materials facts, evidence or documents (exhibits) before the lower Court have been included in the record of appeal. I have read and examined the whole record of appeal. I have not been able to find the evidence of the witnesses; the cross-examination of the witnesses and the Exhibits admitted during the proceedings before the lower Court. Can an appeal be heard and determined on an incomplete record of appeal? As an appellate Court hears an appeal on the records before it, it must ensure that the record is complete as settled by the parties. An appellate Court must be wary to hear an appeal on incomplete record and must not hear an appeal on incomplete record unless the parties by consent, agree that the appeal should be so heard. And such a consent which will be a basis of a successful defence of waiver in the event of a retraction on the part of any of the parties, must be recorded by the appellate Court.
There could be a situation where an appeal could be heard when the records are incomplete. Such a situation will be where the missing part of the record, in the view or opinion of the Court, is so immaterial, clearly so immaterial that it cannot affect the decision and an appellate Court can only take it in very obvious and clear circumstances. Where there is doubt in the mind of the Court as to the materiality or otherwise of the missing record, the doubt must be resolved against hearing the appeal in the interest of justice. In such a situation, other efforts should be made to procure the missing portion of the record, if possible.
Can the extant appeal No: Kws/28/2009, be determined justly and fairly by this Court in the absence of the materials on which the lower Court relied on in arriving at the decision in the judgment delivered on the 28th day of October, 2019? The evidence of DW1 who testified as witness to the respondent and Pw2 who testified for the claimant as well as their responses to questions under cross-examination, have not been included inthe record of appeal transmitted to this Court. Furthermore, some of the documents admitted in evidence, such as Exhibits A, B, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 on which the lower Court relied on in arriving at its decision have not been included in the record of appeal now before this Court.
In order to appreciate the materiality of the missing portions of the proceedings before the lower court, which are vital to the determination of the appeal, I consider it pertinent to reproduce the reasoning and the decision arrived at by the lower Court as contained on pages 105 to 108 of the record of appeal, which are thus:
“In a bid to prove the indebtedness of the claimant, the defendant tendered statement of his account from 23rd March, 1998 to 31st March 2009 as exhibits D3, D4, D5 and D6 respectively. These statements of account of the claimant i.e. D3, D4, D5 and D6 were tendered through D1 who admitted under cross-examination that she joined the defendant bank in 2006 and that her written statement on oath was based on her observations of the record. Flowing from this is the fact that Dw1 did not and could not shed light or give explanations on theinformation contained in the statement of account. The defendant just dumped the statements of account on the Court expecting it to fish and find out information from them. This Court with respect cannot wade through the statements of account for information. It is the duty of the defendant’s witness to tie the information in the statements of account with specific averments in the statement of defence and counterclaim. See Awuse vs Odili (2005) 16 NWLR Pt. 952 P.416 @487. See also Section 38 of the Evidence Act, referred to by counsel to the claimant and which provides
‘38 Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability’.
It is necessary to have some other evidence which tend to establish the liability of the claimant, either oral or documentary in addition to the mere entries in the statement of account. I have found no such evidence in the case under consideration.
I now come to a consideration of the following two land title deedswhich the defendant claimed, the claimant deposited as collateral for the loan and over draft of N1,900.000.00K. These are: –
1. Ilorin East Customary Right of Occupancy No 652 on property located at Gaa-Akanbi Area of Ilorin.
2. Ilorin South Local Government Customary Right of occupancy No 006 on property located at Gaa-Akanbi Area of Ilorin.
The claimant said the two title deeds were forcibly taken away from him by officials of the defendant bank. He said he immediately contacted his Solicitor who wrote a letter to the defendant to return them. That letter is exhibit P2.
Paragraph 1 of exhibit P1 which the defendant relied upon as evidence of the facility taken by the claimant states as follows: –
‘All documents required to perfect our security must be in place before drawdown is allowed’
Under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the bank does not compromise on the conditions in exhibit P1.
There is evidence before the Court that the alleged loan was granted on 12th August, 1998. There is also the uncontradicted evidence of the claimant that the two title deeds of his landed properties were seized by the defendant from him on 3rd August, 2001. Why did it take the defendant a period of almost three (3) years to get title deeds of the landed properties of the claimant which the defendant herself said was one of the conditions for drawdown of the facility?
In the absence of any explanation by the defendant. I am inclined to believe and accept the evidence of the claimant that there was never a drawdown of the facility granted in exhibit P1 and that the two land title deeds were forcibly taken away from him.
In the course of this trial, the following questions have seriously agitated my mind
(1) If the claimant requested from the defendant a banking facility of N 1.9 Million as claimed by the defendant in paragraph 3 of the statement of defence, was the request in writing or made orally? If it was made in writing, why did the defendant fail to tender such written request for loan and if request the request for a loan facility of N1.9 Million was made by the claimant orally, to whom did he make the request, and was it a standard banking practice that customers make oral and unwritten request for a loan as high as N1.9 Million?
(2) If the defendant paid or credited any money as loan facility into the account of the claimant, when was this done?
(3) If the claimant utilized the loan facility, why did the defendant fail to tender chaques showing such withdrawals and utilization by the claimant?
(4) Why did the defendant fail to tender in evidence the title deeds or any document showing that the claimant created a mortgage on them?
After carefully weighing the evidence of the claimant alongside that of the defendant, I am of the view that the scale of justice tilts in favour of the claimant. Accordingly, I declare that the forcible seizure of title deeds to the claimant’s two houses situate at Gaa-Akanbi Area and Danialu Village, Ilorin on the 3rd day of August, 2001 at the instance of the defendant was wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional.”
As earlier pointed out in this judgment every material facts, evidence or documents tendered in the proceedings at the trial and relevant to the determination of the issues in controversy between the parties on appeal should be transmitted as of necessity to the appellate Court as there can be no consideration of any appeal until there is before the Court, a complete record of appeal duly compiled and transmitted by the registrar of the lower Court or by the appellant.
As herein before alluded to in this judgment, the registrar of the lower Court failed to compile and transmit the record of appeal. The appellant did so when it transmitted same to this Court on the 22nd of May 2019, out of time and by an order of Court, same was deemed properly transmitted on the 27th of June, 2019. Both the appellant and the respondent are at one that the record of appeal compiled and transmitted to this Court is incomplete, that is certain portions of the proceedings before the lower Court, were not found or traced at the lower Court. The incompleteness of the record of appeal transmitted to this Court is therefore not in contention.
Where all diligent efforts to procure the missing part of the record fails, the Court should take the most painful decision of ordering a retrial in the matter if the missing portion of the record is material to the appeal. This must be a decision of last resort which must be taken after all efforts at locating the missing portion of the record fails. Although the decision to order a retrial will protract the litigation, an appellate Court has no option in the matter. It is a better evil for the litigation to protract and do justice at the end of the day than doing injustice by hearing an appeal on incomplete record.
On the principles of law enunciated supra, the Apex Court in the case of Okochi vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR Pt. 851 P.1 @ 23, Per Tobi JSC (of blessed memory) had this to say:
“As an appellate Court hears an appeal on the records before it, it must ensure that the records are complete as settled by the parties. An appellate Court must be wary to hear an appeal on incomplete records and must not hear an appeal on incomplete record unless the parties by consent, agree that the appeal should be so heard. And such a consent which will be a basis of a successful defence of waiver in the event of a retraction on the part of any of the parties, must be recorded by the appellate Court. There could however be another situation where an appeal could be heard when the records are incomplete. Such a situation will be where the missing part of the record, in the view or opinion of the Court,is so immaterial, clearly so immaterial that it cannot affect the decision and an appellate Court can only take it in very obvious and clear circumstances. Where there is doubt in the mind of the Court as to the materiality or otherwise of the missing record, the doubt must be resolved against hearing the appeal in the interest of justice. In such a situation, other efforts should be made to procure the missing portion of the record. Where all diligent efforts to procure the missing part of the record fails, the Court should take the most painful decision of ordering a retrial in the matter if the missing portion of the record is material to the appeal. This must be a decision of last resort which must be taken after all efforts at locating the missing portion of the record fails. Although the decision to order a retrial will protract the litigation, an appellate Court has no option in the matter. It is a better evil, if I may use that expression unguardedly, for the litigation to protract and do justice at the end of the day than doing injustice by hearing an appeal on incomplete record”.
The purpose or essence of filing a notice of preliminaryobjection in an appeal is to bring to an end, the hearing of the appeal without delving into the merit or otherwise of the appeal. This is intended to save the time of the Court and the parties in hearing an appeal which will be of no benefit to the parties, if the preliminary objection is sustained. That is to say, the Court would not in vain, conduct the hearing of an appeal, if at the end, none of the parties will benefit therefrom. On the essence or purpose of hearing and determining a notice of preliminary objection in an appeal first before delving into the appeal itself, the Apex Court, per Augie JSC, enunciated in the case of SAP Ltd vs Ministry of Petroleum Resources (2018) 6 NWLR Pt. 1616 P. 391 @ 404, that:
“A preliminary objection seeks to provide an initial objection before the actual commencement of the thing being objected to, see Chief Akpan vs Senator Effiong Bob (2010) 17 NWLR Pt. 1223 P.421 SC. In other words, the primary purpose of every preliminary objection is to determine the proceeding in limine, and thereby dispense with the need to go into the suit, appeal or application before the Court. See Yaro vs Arewa Construction Ltd(2007) 17 NWLR Pt. 1063 P. 333 and Efet vs INEC (2011) 7 NWLR Pt. 1247 P. 423 @ 444, para A, where this Court held:
“The aim/essence of a preliminary objection is to terminate at infancy, or as it were, to nip it at the bud without dissipating unnecessary energies in considering an unworthy or fruitless matter in a court’s proceedings. It, in other words, forecloses hearing of the matter in order to save time”.
Thus, where a preliminary objection is entertained and ultimately upheld by the Court, the appeal is deemed aborted or terminated in limine without necessarily determining the rights of the parties thereto, one way or the other, on the merits. See Odunze vs Nwosu (2007) 13 NWLR Pt. 1050 P.1; ANPP vs REC Akwa-Ibom State (2008) 18 NWLR Pt. 1090 P.453.
In the extant appeal, both the registrar of the lower Court and the appellant could not compile and transmit a complete record of appeal containing all the materials that could enable this Court to hear and determine the appeal fairly and justly. The materials required for the just decision of the appeal are, the proceedings before the lower Court wherein the evidence of the witnesses, their response to questions under cross-examination, and all the documents admitted in evidence as Exhibits. All the vital materials could not be located or found at the lower Court. As earlier pointed out in this judgment, the reasoning and the decision of the lower Court in the judgment delivered on 28th day of October, 2009 which could be located on pages 105 to 108 of the record of appeal transmitted to this Court on the 27th of July, 2019, are based on the evidence of the witnesses and the exhibits. This Court cannot determine the issue raised in the appeal without the aforelisted vital materials. It is for this reason that the preliminary objection raised and argued in the respondent brief of argument must be sustained being meritorious. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent is hereby upheld or sustained accordingly.
The sustenance of preliminary objection as to the competence of the record of appeal on which this Court can rely on to determine the appeal, it follows therefore that the appeal is automatically terminated or brought to an end, as held in the case of SAP Ltd vs Ministry of Petroleum Resources supra. Where the appeal cannot be determined due to the incompleteness of the record of appeal, because vital materials have been omitted, or could not be found or traced at the lower Court, the only option available to this Court is to order for a retrial of the suit before the trial Court as propounded by the Apex Court in Okochi vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR Pt. 851 P.1 @ 23-24, the relevant part of which have been reproduced supra, in this judgment.
In the final analysis, having sustained the preliminary objection for the reasons adumbrated supra, the hearing of appeal No: CA/IL/77/2019 is hereby terminated, and in consequence, pursuant to the inherent powers of this Court, the judgment of the lower Court delivered in Suit No: Kws/28/2009, is hereby set aside. I make an order remitting the said suit to the lower Court for retrial de novo, by a judge of that Court other than Hon. Justice S.D Kawu J (as he then was) now Hon. Chief Judge of Kwara State. I make no order as to costs.
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: I agree
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.: I have had the preview of the judgment of my learned brother Ibrahim Shata Bdliya, JCA just delivered. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached in upholding the preliminary objection of the respondent based on incomplete record of appeal.
I adopt the reasoning and conclusion reached that the hearing of the appeal upon an incomplete record of appeal must be terminated.
I also set aside the judgment of the trial Court and hereby order that the suit must be heard de-novo by a different judge in the interest of justice.
Appearances:
BisiAtolagbe, Esq.For Appellant(s)
A.M Mohammed, Esq. and Y.O AbdulganiyuFor Respondent(s)