LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

WABI v. ZANGINA (2021)

WABI v. ZANGINA

(2021)LCN/15869(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(GOMBE JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, January 25, 2021

CA/G/419/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uzo Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALHAJI ZANNA YERIMA HAMMA WABI APPELANT(S)

And

ALHAJI MUKKADDAS ZANGINA RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE A RESPONDENT INTENDS TO CHALLANGE ANY ISSUE OR GROUND CANVASSED FOR DETERMINATION BY THE APPELLANT

Yet the law is settled that where a Respondent intends to challenge any issue or ground canvassed for determination by the Appellant, and there are other grounds and issues to sustain the Appeal, the Respondent must file a motion on notice seeking to strike out such grounds and issues.
​In the instant Appeal, the contention of the Respondent is that the sole issue for determination distilled from the two Grounds of Appeal is incompetent, having not arisen from the grounds. If this contention is subsequently upheld and the sole issue for determination is struck out, it would result in peremptorily terminating the Appeal, as there would be no other issue(s) and ground(s) to sustain the Appeal. Thus, the Respondent was obliged to have filed a Notice of preliminary objection so as to put the Appellant on notice and so that it would have been taken in limine. See Bell Atlantic Telecommunications Ltd V Ndon (2018) LPELR-44431(CA) 11-12, C-A, per Saulawa, JCA (as he then was); Umanah Jnr. V NIDC (2016) LPELR-42556(SC) 7-8, E-D, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Isah V INEC (2014) 1-2 SC (Pt. iv) 101; Sani V Okene LG Traditional Council (2008) LPELR-3003(SC) 9-10, E-B, per Tobi, JSC; Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo V Joseph (2017) LPELR-44021(CA) 8-12, C-D, per Sankey, JCA; Nanle V FRN(2018) LPELR-44457)CA) 7, A-B, per Yahaya, JCA. PER SANKEY, J.C.A.

THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN ADJUDICATION

Again, in another decision of the apex Court, FHA V Kalejaiye (2010) LPELR-1267(SC) 27, A-D, Onnoghen, JSC (later CJN) further elaborated the position of the law as follows –
“It must be pointed out that the role of the Court in adjudication is to maintain a level playing field for the parties by offering them equal opportunity to present their case or grievances, if they so wish. Once the opportunity is offered, it is the duty of a party to litigation or his counsel to utilize same in accordance with the rules of procedure and substantive law. Where, however, he or his counsel fails or neglects to utilize the opportunity so offered, he cannot turn round to blame the Court for the loss of the opportunity as the Court will not allow a party to hold the opponent or the Court to ransom under the guise of the desire to protect the principles of fair hearing. To me, the right to fair hearing remains the right to opportunity to be heard on any matter affecting one’s right(s). Once the opportunity is offered, the duty of the Court ends there.”
In the case cited by Counsel for the Appellant himself in his brief of argument, SBN V Crown Star & Co. Ltd (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 815), it was held as follows –
“Fair hearing of a case implies each side to a dispute is entitled to know what case is being made against him and be given an opportunity to reply thereto.”
See also recent decisions of this Court in Stemco Ltd V Inyang (2018) LPELR-44303(CA) 13, E-F; Leaders & Co. Ltd V Kerrie-Dee Inds, Ltd (2018) LPELR-45352(CA) 29-30, F-A; Akpadiaha V Uko (2017) LPELR-42635(CA) 43, D-F; AG Rivers State V Ude (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 347) 598, 613, E-F. The Appellant was certainly given an opportunity to participate in the pre-trial conference of 23-02-17, but he chose not to.
PER SANKEY, J.C.A.

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Ruling of the High Court of Justice Borno State in Suit number BOHC/MG/CV/028/16 delivered on February 23, 2018, Coram Mussa, J.

The facts leading to the Appeal are briefly as follows: The Respondent, as Claimant before the lower Court, claimed from the Defendant, now Appellant, as per paragraph 15 of his statement of claim as follows:
a. “An order directing the defendant to collect the half of the total value of cost price of the said four (4) stores with office i.e. the sum of N2,216,502.00 so that the claimant shall become the sole owner of the said four (4) stores with the office situate at bolori store. In the alternative an order directing the defendant to pay the sum of N4,430,040.00 to the claimant being money for the value of the said four (sic) with the office.
b. Cost of the suit.”

The Appellant denied the claim in his statement of defence. Pleadings having been duly exchanged and issues joined, the case was set down for pre-trial conference on February 23, 2017. On the date slated for the said conference, the Appellant was not in Court and was not represented. At the onset of the proceedings of the day, the Registrar informed the Court that the Defendant’s Counsel was in Court on 07-02-17 when the case was adjourned to 23-02-17 while the Claimant’s Counsel stated that the Defendant had been served a hearing notice for that date. Based on this therefore, he applied to the Court to invoke Order 25 of the Rules of the High Court, 2012 and to enter Judgment for the Claimant. Consequently, the lower Court, by its Ruling of February 23, 2017, entered Judgment for the Claimant (now Respondent) in terms of his claim as follows:
“Court: in view of the submission of the Claimant’s learned counsel and viz-a-viz considering Order 25 of the Rules of this Court, 2012, I have no other option than to invoke the said Order.
I therefore hereby enter Judgment as per the Claimant’s writ of summons and Statement of claims, paragraphs 15(a).”

Dissatisfied with this turn of events, the Appellant with the leave of Court granted on July 26 2019, filed an Appeal to this Court in terms of his Notice of Appeal dated July 26, 2019, wherein he complained on two Grounds. At the hearing of the Appeal on 03-11-20, Auwal Idris Esq., learned Counsel for the Appellant, adopted the submissions in the Appellant’s Brief of argument filed on 14-01-20 but deemed duly filed on 17-09-20, as well as the Appellant’s Reply Brief of argument filed on 30-10-20, in urging the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment of the lower Court. In response, Usamatu Abubakar Esq., learned Counsel for the Respondent, adopted the arguments in the Respondent’s Brief of argument filed on 30-10-20 in urging the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the lower Court.

In his Brief of argument, the Appellant formulated one issue for the determination of the Court as follows:
“Whether the appellant was afforded fair hearing by the lower Court in its decision of 23/02/17.”

On his part, the Respondent in his Brief of argument, also distilled a lone issue for determination thus:
“Whether the appellant was not aware of the hearing date on which the lower Court enters (sic) judgment for the respondent of (sic) 23rd March, 2017.” Since the issue crafted by the Appellant comprehensively covers the range of complaints in his two Grounds of Appeal, it is adopted in the determination of the Appeal.

ARGUMENTS
Issue – Whether the appellant was afforded fair hearing by the lower Court in its decision of 23/02/17.

Under this issue, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that after the relisting of the Respondent/claimant’s claim on 09-01-17, it was not adjourned to any particular date. However, pleadings were filed and issues joined by the parties, and so the Claimant was to apply for the pre-trial conference in line with Order 25 Rule 1 of the Rules of the lower Court. That such an application was not made as it is not contained in the Record of Appeal. Thus, when the case came up before the lower Court on 23-02-17, there was no specific direction to Counsel either by the Judge or the Registrar of Court. Nonetheless, Counsel for the Claimant proceeded to apply for the invocation of Order 25 of the Rules of Court and based on that Rule, the lower Court entered Judgment for the Respondent.

Counsel refers to Order 25 Rule 6 of the said High Court Rules which deals with pre-trial conference and scheduling. He submits that the conditions precedent for the application of that Rule had not been fulfilled because there was no evidence of the substantial non-participation of the Appellant in the pre-trial or that he failed to obey a pre-trial or scheduling Order. Counsel also submits that by Rule 4 of Order 25, the trial Court is to complete the pre-trial conference/conferences within a maximum period of three months. Therefore, the proceedings of 23-02-17 is a flagrant breach of the Rules of the lower Court.

Consequently, Counsel submits that his right to fair hearing was breached as he was not aware that the case was slated for 23-02-17. He contends that the Defendant’s Counsel was in Court on 09-01-17 when the case came up for the re-listing of the suit which had earlier been struck out. That after the suit was re-listed, it was not adjourned to any specific date. However, when the case came up on 23-02-17, the Registrar of Court misinformed the lower Court that the Defendant’s Counsel, A.A, Sani Esq., was present in Court on 07-02-17. In addition, the Claimant’s Counsel told the Court that the Defendant’s Counsel had been served against that date. Without ascertaining this information, the trial Judge proceeded to enter Judgment for the Claimant.

Counsel however submits that there was no evidence in the Record of Appeal that the Appellant was ever served a hearing notice to be in Court on 23-02-17; or even that the lower Court conducted any business on 07-02-17. He refers to Order 7 Rule 13(1) & (2) of the Rules of Court for the proof of service of Court processes. Counsel therefore submits that there is no evidence of proof of service on the Appellant in compliance with this Rule.

Counsel further submits that the failure of the lower Court to give notice of the proceedings to an opposing party where service is required, is a fundamental omission which renders the proceedings void – Wema Bank (Nig) Ltd V Odulaja (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 663) 1, 7, A-B. Consequently, the Appellant was not afforded fair hearing when the matter was heard on 23-02-17 and Judgment was entered in favour of the Respondent. He submits that the violation of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing vitiates the proceedings and renders them void – SBN V Crown Star & Co. Ltd (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 815); AG Rivers State V Ude (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 347) 598, 613. E-F, 618. Based on this, Counsel urges the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Ruling of the lower Court and order a re-trial of the suit before a different Judge of the High Court of Borno State.

In response, learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that the issue for determination formulated by the Appellant does not arise from the Grounds of Appeal. He submits that issues for determination must be derived from the Grounds of Appeal otherwise they would be incompetent and bound to be struck out – Agbakoba V INEC (2008) 12 SCNJ 619, 645-646. He submits that where no competent issue has been raised from a ground of appeal, it will be deemed abandoned and and will be discountenanced. Therefore, the Appellant’s issue for determination, having not been derived from his Grounds of Appeal, should be struck out and the Appeal dismissed.

On the substance of the Appeal, Counsel submits that the Appellant having engaged Counsel, he was duly served a hearing notice for the pre-trial conference on 23-02-17 at his Counsel’s address. His Counsel, A.A. Sani Esq., signed and dated the document in acknowledgement of service. Reference is made to the Additional Record of Appeal transmitted to this Court. He therefore submits that the Appellant was fully aware of the hearing date of 23-02-17, but chose not to take part.

Counsel submits that the lower Court awarded the cost of N10, 000.00 against the Appellant on 18-10-16 to encourage him to be diligent and to obey the Order made. Yet again on 22-11-16, the trial Court ordered that its order should be complied with before the next adjourned date. Thereafter, even when Judgment was entered for the Respondent on 23-02-17, the Appellant still did not timeously take any step to apply for the Judgment to be set aside in line with Order 25 of the Rules of the Court, until execution was levied on his movable properties and they were slated for auction by the lower Court.

Counsel therefore submits that where a party employs delay tactics, he is not aiming for a fair hearing. Rather, he is using the process of Court to defeat the course of justice. Therefore, the lower Court was bound to grant the application of the Respondent. He submits that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction and duty to ensure compliance with the Rules of Court, which rules are bound to be obeyed – Latisco Pet. (Nig) Ltd V Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 22, 54, A-H.

Furthermore, Counsel submits that contrary to the contention of the Appellant that he was not aware of the date for the pre-trial conference, the additional record of proceedings reveals that notwithstanding the fact that he was in Court on the last date, he was still served with a hearing notice which was acknowledged by his Counsel signing and dating same.

Counsel therefore submits that an appellate Court does not interfere with the discretion of the trial Court unless it is shown that it acted based on some wrong principles of law or a misapprehension of the facts or where the exercise of discretion was patently wrong. Thus, the Appellant has the onus to prove why this Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court when it invoked Order 25 Rule 6 of the Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 – Onward Ent. Ltd V MV “Matrix” (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1179) 530, 550, D-F. Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent and to dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit.

In a brief Reply on point of law, Counsel submits that the Respondent seems to have raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the Appeal contending that the lone issue the Appellant formulated for determination was not distilled from the two Grounds of Appeal. He submits that in so doing, the Respondent did not comply with Order 10 of the Rules of this Court. It should therefore be discountenanced.

In respect of the contention that the Appellant was served to appear in Court on 23-02-17 for the pre-trial conference when Judgment was subsequently entered and the reference to the Additional Record of Appeal in proof of this, Counsel submits that the document therein was not an exhibit before the lower Court. While the document is proof of service on the Appellant against the 23-02-17, nevertheless the document does not satisfy the requirements under Order 7 Rule 13(1) of the Rules of the lower Court which requires that the proof of service of Court process is an affidavit of service.

FINDINGS
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has purported to attack the sole issue formulated by the Appellant in his Brief of argument on the ground that it does not arise from the two Grounds of Appeal. He has however failed to file a motion on notice or a Notice of preliminary objection raising such an issue in limine in line with Order 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and the law.
Also, since the Respondent’s objection attacks the sole issue for determination formulated by the Appellant, it does not attack the competence of the Appeal itself to warrant the filing of a Notice of preliminary objection. Yet the law is settled that where a Respondent intends to challenge any issue or ground canvassed for determination by the Appellant, and there are other grounds and issues to sustain the Appeal, the Respondent must file a motion on notice seeking to strike out such grounds and issues.
​In the instant Appeal, the contention of the Respondent is that the sole issue for determination distilled from the two Grounds of Appeal is incompetent, having not arisen from the grounds. If this contention is subsequently upheld and the sole issue for determination is struck out, it would result in peremptorily terminating the Appeal, as there would be no other issue(s) and ground(s) to sustain the Appeal. Thus, the Respondent was obliged to have filed a Notice of preliminary objection so as to put the Appellant on notice and so that it would have been taken in limine. See Bell Atlantic Telecommunications Ltd V Ndon (2018) LPELR-44431(CA) 11-12, C-A, per Saulawa, JCA (as he then was); Umanah Jnr. V NIDC (2016) LPELR-42556(SC) 7-8, E-D, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Isah V INEC (2014) 1-2 SC (Pt. iv) 101; Sani V Okene LG Traditional Council (2008) LPELR-3003(SC) 9-10, E-B, per Tobi, JSC; Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo V Joseph (2017) LPELR-44021(CA) 8-12, C-D, per Sankey, JCA; Nanle V FRN(2018) LPELR-44457)CA) 7, A-B, per Yahaya, JCA.
Having not done so, the Respondent has approached the Court improperly by merely stating his objection as an aside under his sole issue for determination in his Brief of argument. Without mounting a proper challenge to the issue and putting the Appellant on notice, the submissions purporting to object to the Appellant’s issue for determination is discountenanced. This is more so that the point argued is baseless in view of the two Grounds of Appeal. The issue for determination framed by the Appellant is undoubtedly competent.

Thus the issue to be determined in this Appeal is whether, by hearing the case and entering Judgment on 23-02-17 in the absence of the Appellant, the trial Court deprived the Appellant of his right to fair hearing as enshrined in and guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The position of the Appellant is that he was totally unaware that a date had been set for the pre-trial conference; while the Respondent advocates the converse position, that the Appellant was duly placed on notice of the date for the pre-trial conference on 23-02-17. This was also the position of the Respondent when the case came up before the lower Court for the pre-trial conference. It was therefore based on this, i.e. service on the Appellant’s Counsel against that date, that the trial Court proceeded to enter judgment for the Respondent in line with Order 25 Rule 6 of the Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012.
In support of his position contending that the Appellant’s Counsel was duly served a hearing notice for the pre-trial conference, the Respondent’s Counsel caused the Registrar of the lower Court to compile and transmit to this Court an Additional Record of Appeal, which Record was deemed duly compiled and transmitted on 17-09-20.
An examination of this Additional Record of Appeal reveals that a document titled “Form 17 HEARING NOTICE FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE (ORDER 25 RULE 1)” dated 21-11-16 was served on “Aminu Sani & Co., Chambers to attend Court on 13-12-16. In the succeeding pages, another hearing notice was issued in long hand in respect of Suit number BOHC/MG/CV/28/16 dated 07-02-17 and served on A. A. Sani Esq., of Amana Chambers. Counsel accepted service by signing the process on the same date, 07-02-17.
From the contents of these documents, it is evident and manifest that the Appellant was duly served a hearing notice for the pre-trial conference through his Counsel, A. A. Sani Esq., before the initial hearing date of 13-12-16. Subsequently, the Appellant was again served through the same Counsel on 07-02-17 notifying him of the hearing date for the pre-trial conference on 23-02-17. The Appellant has admitted as much in his Brief of argument. That being the case, the bottom has fallen out of the Appellant’s Appeal as there was due compliance with Order 25 Rule 6 (b) of the Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. The Rule states as follows –
“If a party or his legal practitioner fails to attend the pre-trial order or is substantially unprepared to participate in the conference or fails to participate in good faith the judge shall:-
(b) in the case of a defendant enter final judgment against him.”
This should ordinarily be the end of the Appeal. However, I am mindful of the Appellant’s additional submission that the processes for service duly endorsed by his Counsel receiving same do not fulfill the requirement in Order 7 Rule 13 (1) and (2) of the Rules of the lower Court which require that in addition, an affidavit of service be filed to confirm the service of all processes of Court. Certainly, the purpose of such an affidavit is to ensure that a party is put on notice of the pending litigation – Rivers State Govt. V Specialist Konsult (2005) 5 MJSC 19, 44, G. Thus, in the instant Appeal where the Respondent has established that due service of hearing notices were effected on the Appellant through his Counsel, A. A. Sani Esq., as contained in the Additional Record of Appeal, the further filing of an affidavit of service as required in Order 7 Rule 13(1) of the Rules of Court, while desirable, its absence becomes a technical matter of procedure.
It has long been the position of Courts that substantial justice must rule over technicality. Thus, where there is ample documentary proof contained in the Court file transmitted by the Registrar of the lower Court, Idriss I. Garndawa AC1 (Appeal), to this Court, it becomes superfluous to insist that without a formal affidavit of service, service of a hearing notice on a party, i.e. the Appellant, has not been established. This is clearly more technical than substantial and will not address the justice of the case. The days of technicality in the application of Law and the Rules of Court are spent. Technical justice has been replaced by substantial justice in our Courts.
In the case of FRN V Dairo (2015) LPELR-24303(SC) 30-32, F-E, Nweze, JSC roundly expounded the law in these words – ​ “Citing Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 8 Rule 1 of the Rules of the lower Court, … learned senior counsel for the appellant urged the Court to invalidate the first Respondent’s Notice of Appeal filed at the lower Court. With due respect, this entreaty to invalidate the said Notice of Appeal is an invitation to enthrone technicality over the substance of justice… We are therefore compelled to re-iterate the point that this Court, and indeed, any other Court for that matter, will not brook the practice where technical justice is accorded such free rein that is capable of overwhelming the substance of justice… Simply put, the wheels of justice must be at liberty, just like the chariot of juggernaut, to coast on their course, unbridled by such disingenuous manoeuvres deliberately programmed to clog their majestic movement.”
See also Obasi V Mikson Establishment Inds. Ltd (2016) LPELR-40704(SC) 27, E, per Ngwuta, JSC; Abubakar V Yar‘Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 465, 511, per Tobi, JSC; Bello V AG Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 528, 886, per Oputa, JSC.
​Indeed, such is precisely the reason for the provision in the Rules of the lower Court for a period of time where a party is given an opportunity to apply to set aside the judgment of the Court for good reason where he was unable and/or failed to attend Court. However, the Appellant failed to avail himself of this second opportunity to be heard and instead, waited until execution was levied on his property after more than one year later, to challenge the decision of the trial Court. Such an argument is belated and amounts to nothing but grasping at straws.
In view of this, it is apparent from the Record of Appeal that Counsel for the Appellant was duly served with both a hearing notice for the pre-trial conference on 21-11-16 and a subsequent hearing notice again for the pre-trial conference on 07-02-17 which was slated for hearing on 23-02-17. However, both the Appellant and his Counsel failed to appear in Court. Upon the trial Court being duly notified of due service of hearing notice on the Appellant and the subsequent application for judgment made by the Respondent, it rightly entered Judgment for the Respondent pursuant to Order 25 Rule 6 (b) of the Rules of that Court. This cannot be faulted.

Consequently, since the Appellant was given ample opportunity to participate in the pre-trial conference and he failed to appear in Court, either in person or through his Counsel, he cannot now be heard to complain that his right to fair hearing was breached. He has been unable to establish how this right was breached by the trial Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Chami V UBA Plc (2010) LPELR-841(SC) 23, D-E, per Onnoghen, JSC (later CJN), held thus – “Fair hearing is based on opportunity to meet the case of the other party. Where a party decides not to utilize the opportunity so offered, he cannot later be heard to complain of lack of fair hearing as in the instant case.”
Again, in another decision of the apex Court, FHA V Kalejaiye (2010) LPELR-1267(SC) 27, A-D, Onnoghen, JSC (later CJN) further elaborated the position of the law as follows –
“It must be pointed out that the role of the Court in adjudication is to maintain a level playing field for the parties by offering them equal opportunity to present their case or grievances, if they so wish. Once the opportunity is offered, it is the duty of a party to litigation or his counsel to utilize same in accordance with the rules of procedure and substantive law. Where, however, he or his counsel fails or neglects to utilize the opportunity so offered, he cannot turn round to blame the Court for the loss of the opportunity as the Court will not allow a party to hold the opponent or the Court to ransom under the guise of the desire to protect the principles of fair hearing. To me, the right to fair hearing remains the right to opportunity to be heard on any matter affecting one’s right(s). Once the opportunity is offered, the duty of the Court ends there.”
In the case cited by Counsel for the Appellant himself in his brief of argument, SBN V Crown Star & Co. Ltd (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 815), it was held as follows –
“Fair hearing of a case implies each side to a dispute is entitled to know what case is being made against him and be given an opportunity to reply thereto.”
See also recent decisions of this Court in Stemco Ltd V Inyang (2018) LPELR-44303(CA) 13, E-F; Leaders & Co. Ltd V Kerrie-Dee Inds, Ltd (2018) LPELR-45352(CA) 29-30, F-A; Akpadiaha V Uko (2017) LPELR-42635(CA) 43, D-F; AG Rivers State V Ude (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 347) 598, 613, E-F. The Appellant was certainly given an opportunity to participate in the pre-trial conference of 23-02-17, but he chose not to.

Consequently, based on all the above, I resolve the lone issue for determination against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
In the result, I find no merit in the Appeal. It fails and is dismissed.
Accordingly, I affirm the Judgment of the High Court of Justice Borno State in Suit number BOHC/MG/CV/028/16 delivered on February 23, 2018, by A.Z. Mussa, J.
I award the cost of this action assessed at N50,000.00 to the Respondent against the Appellant.

UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft form the judgment just delivered by my learned brother SANKEY JCA. I agree totally with his reasoning and final conclusions. I have nothing more useful to add. This appeal is devoid of merit. It is dismissed. I abide by all other orders contained in the lead judgment including that as to cost.

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA. He has in the judgment comprehensively dealt with the germane issues in the appeal with conclusion that cannot be faulted. He has indeed left no room for any useful addition.

Therefore, I adopt in whole his Lordship’s resultant finding on the issues, that there is no merit in the appeal, and the dismissal of same. In the result, I too affirm the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 23rd February, 2018.
I abide by his Lordship’s order as to cost.

Appearances:

AUWAL IDRIS, ESQ., holding the brief of A.A. SANI, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

USAMATU ABUBAKAR, ESQ., holding the brief of M.S. ABUBAKAR, ESQ. For Respondent(s)