CHUKS-OKONTA v. CHUKS-OKONTA & ORS (2022)

CHUKS-OKONTA v. CHUKS-OKONTA & ORS

(2022)LCN/16275(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, July 01, 2022

CA/AS/609/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Eyo Ekanem Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

GEORGE ONYEKWE CHUKS-OKONTA APPELANT(S)

And

1. DR. AZUKA CHUKS-OKONTA 2. UKADIKE AUGUTINE CHUKS-OKONTA 3. OZOEMEZIA VERONICA CHUKS-OKONTA 4. OBIAGELI PATRICIA CHUKS-OKONTA 5. MITCHELLI KWENTUA CHUKS-OKONTA 6. OKWUDILI FREDRICK CHUKS-OKONTA RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO:

EVERY ORIGINATING PROCESS PREPARED BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER MUST BE SIGNED BY THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER

However, it is settled principle of law that every Court process including an originating process prepared by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner.
Form 1 is an issuance of writ of summons prepared and filed by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner in addition to endorsing his name or name of firm and his business address within the jurisdiction and the claimant’s address must sign the application.
It is the signature of the legal practitioner that authenticates the fact that the application was prepared by the practitioner, while it is the Registrar’s signature that converts the application to an order of the Court commanding the defendant to enter appearance to the suit. ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

EVERY COURT PROCESS PREPARED BY A LEGAL PRACTITIONER MUST BE PROPERLY SIGNED BY THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER

Since the settled principle of law is that every Court process prepared by a legal practitioner must be properly signed by the legal practitioner, an application for issuance of writ of summons such as in form 1 must be signed by the legal practitioner whether the Rule of the Court says so or not. See; UGBOMAH V ALLANAH & ORS (SUPRA); BRAITHWAITE V SKYE BANK PLC (2012) LPELR- 15532 (SC) AT 17 HELD;
“The rules of a Court must be subject to the applicable Law – Legal Practitioners Act; Section 2(1) and 24, which mandate that processes filed in Court must be signed by a Legal Practitioner enrolled in this Court. Rule of Court must bow before the Legal Practitioners Act duly passed by the National Assembly. See OKAFOR V NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1043) 521 AT 534’’.
per FABIYI, JSC (P. 17, PARAS. C-E) ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

A SUIT IS ACADEMIC ONCE THE SUIT NO LONGER HAS LIVE ISSUES

Having resolved that the writ is void and the lower Court lacks jurisdiction, this has rendered the Respondents issue 3 academic. See; INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V MR EYITAYO OLAYINKA 2021) LPELR- 54938 (CA). On the definition of the phrase held thus;
“A suit or an issue is stated to be academic exercise where a decision rendered in resolving it will not confer any right or benefit on the person in whose favour it is resolved.”
See; HALLMARK BANK V OBASANJO (2014) 4 NWLR (PT 1397) 209; EZEREBO V EHIDERO (2009) 10 NWLR (PT. 1143) 166 AT 177; ODEDO V INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 117) 554; PDP & ANOR V JARIGBE & ANOR (2021) LPELR-55936 (SC).
In PLATEAU STATE V A.G FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 967) 346. The Apex Court stated that;
“A suit is academic where it is thereby theoretical and makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiffs even if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity’’. Therefore, once a suit no longer has live issues for determination, such a suit is academic and a Court should on no account spend judicial time or engage in academic issues. ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State sitting in Asaba Judicial Division coram HON. JUSTICE M.O. OMOVIE delivered on 18th June, 2019. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 30th day of July, 2019.

The Respondent’s claim at the lower Court is;
A. A DECLARATION THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT A SON OF LATE GEORGE CHUKS–OKONTA OF UMUOBIODOGWU FAMILY, ISIEKE VILLAGE, UGBOMANTA QUARTERS, ASABA AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED UNDER ASABA NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM TO INHERIT ANY PROPERTY OF THE SAID LATE GEORGE CHUKS-OKONTA.
B. A DECLARATION THAT THE DEFENDANT’S CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF A FLAT IN THE STOREY BUILDING AT NO. 9 PARKINSON STREET, ASABA AND COLLECTION OF RENTS FROM TENANTS IN THE OTHER FLATS OF THE SAID HOUSE, PROPERTY OF THE SAID LATE GEORGE CHUKS-OKONKA ARE UNLAWFUL.
C. AN ORDER DIRECTING THE DEFENDANT TO RENDER FULL ACCOUNTS TO THE CLAIMANTS OF ALL THE RENTS HE HAS COLLECTED FROM THE TENANTS AT THE SAID HOUSE NO. 9 PARKINSON STREET, ASABA FROM MAY 2007 TILL DATE OF JUDGMENT.
D. AN ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT, HIS AGENTS, PRIVIES, ASSIGNS OR SUCCESSORS-IN-TITLE TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE NO. 9 PARKINSON STREET, ASABA.
E. THE SUM OF N2,000,000.00 (TWO MILLION NAIRA) BEING DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS IN THAT SOMETIME IN MAY, 2007, THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CLAIMANTS DULY SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AND WITH THE AID OF THUGS, FORCEFULLY BROKE AND ENTERED INTO THE STOREY BUILDING AT NO 9 PARKINSON STREET, ASABA PROPERTY OF LATE GEORGE CHUKS-OKONTA.
F. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT, HIS AGENTS, PRIVIES, ASSIGNS OR SUCCESSORS-IN-TITLE FROM INTERFERING WITH THE HOUSE AT NO. 9, PARKINSON STREET ASABA OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY OF LATE GEORGE CHUCKS-OKONTA.”

COUNTER-CLAIM
a. A DECLARATION that the Defendant/Counterclaimant and his siblings are children of late George Chuks-Okonta of Umuobiodogwu Isieke family/village, Ugbomanta Quarters, Asaba.
b. A DECLARATION that the Claimants/Defendants to Counter Claim are not the children of the late George Chuks-Okonta and are not by virtue of Asaba Native Law and Custom entitled to a share of his interstate Estate.
c. A DECLARATION that where a man who had several women and who had several male children dies interstate all his unshared landed properties are shared as per gates or Akwukwa by Akwukwa according to the member of the said women who had male children for him.
d. AN ORDER of Court directing the Claimants/Defendants to Counter Claim to refund all the monies collected or received from late George Chuks-Okonta’s building situate at :
i. No. 10, Parkinson Street, Asaba.
ii. Church premises at No. 10a Parkinson Street, Asaba.
iii. Other properties of late George Chuks-Okonta been occupied by them.
e. ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Claimants/Defendants to counterclaim from claiming, laying claim to occupying, collecting rents from, or in ANY MANNER whatsoever, intermeddling with any of his intestate Estate.
f. AN ORDER setting aside any purported sale of late George Chuks-Okonta’s landed properties situate at:
i. Ohuiyi layout, Umuagu family, beside F.M.C. Asaba.
ii. Plot at Onochie Lane West-end, Asaba.
iii. Plot at Across Express behind Ibusa Road, Asaba.

FACTS
The Respondent filed an action via writ of summons wherein he sought for a declaration that the 1st Respondent is not a son of late George Chuks – Okonta (Alias Bissimillahi).

While the Respondent filed a counterclaim which was dismissed.
The parties exchanged briefs, the Appellant’s brief filed on 12/2/2021 deemed 30/9/21 settled by E.C IKENWE ESQ, OF E.C. IKENWE & CO.

Two issues were settled;
1) Whether the writ of summons dated and filed on the 10th day July 2014 i.e. Originating Process contained which initiated the substantive suit at the lower Court is not fundamentally defective?
2) Whether the lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the substantive action since the writ of summons i.e. Originating process that initiated the substantive suit at the lower Court is fundamentally and incurably defective?

The Respondent’s brief was filed on 28/3/21 deemed on 4/4/22 was settled by H. U UMUKORO, R.O NWANZE ESQ, D.C BAKWUNYE ESQ, N.C OKONJI ESQ, O.J NWOSE ESQ, K. NWEZE ESQ, M.O ONYEMA ESQ, B. OFFIAH ESQ OF REUBEN IZEZE & PARTNERS and raised 3 issues for determination;
a. Whether or not a writ of summons not signed by a legal practitioner can rob the Court of its Jurisdiction.
b. Whether or not the judgment of the lower Court can be sacrificed on the altar of technicality.
c. Whether the trial Court was in the face of the evidence on record right in granting the claims of the Respondents and dismissing the appellant’s counterclaim.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT
Arguing the two issues together, the Appellant argued that it is trite that for a document to have any worth value in any Court it must be signed at the foot or other relevant portion by the maker or producer of such document, this is so because it obviates any doubt as to who made or produced the document, he relied on; A. AWOJOLU v ODEYEMI (2013) 14 WRN, 28; NIGERIAN ARMY V SAMUEL (2013) 39, WRN, PAGE 39 AT 44 RATIO 5; FBN PLC V MAIWADA (2013) 32, WRN, PAGE 31 AT 47-48; ITC, LTD V AG OGUN STATE (2013) 35 WRN, PAGE 164 AT 176; AG, ABIA STATE V AGHARANYA (1999) 6 NWLR (PT 607) AT PAGE 362; FASEHUN V AG FEDERATION (2006) 6 NWLR (PT 975) PG 141 AT 157, PARAGRAPH E; AIKI V IDOWU (2006) 9 NWLR (PT 984) 47 AT 65 PARA. G; MINISTRY OF WORKS & TRANSP. ADAMAWA STATE V YAKUBU (2013) 24, WRN 1 AT PAGE 7 RATIO 5; ALIYU TECHNICAL V FBN & ORS (2018) LPELR-44663 (CA); M.W.T ADAMAWA STATE V YAKUBU (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 135) PAGE 481 at 587 (PARAS. C-D); FASEHUN V AG, FEDERATION (SUPRA).
He relied on the FIDELIS NWADIALO IN CIVIL PROCEDURE IN NIGERIA 2ND EDITION AT 229, Section 2 (1) and 24 of Legal Practitioners Act , Section 83 (4) as amended, AG, ABIA STATE V AGHARANYA (199) 6 NWLR (975) PG 141 AT 157.

That the writ of summons was not signed by any legal practitioner or the litigant or their agent.

The Appellant referred to the writ of summons dated 10/7/2014 and submits that it is not initiated by due process of law, or which is incompetent he urged that the Court strikes out the suit and relied on STATE V ONAGORUWA (1992) 2 SCNJ PT 1 AT 308.

On issue 3, Appellant submitted that on a balance of probabilities, where a party who the onus to prove falls on fails to do so, his case fails with him. See; NWAGA V REGISTRAR TRUSTEES RECREATION CLUB (2004) FWLR (PT 190) 1360; UKEJE V UKEJE (2014) 11 NWLR (PT 1418) 384; SECTION 63 (1) A OF CHILDS ACT LFN (2010)
AKU NMECHA TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD ANOR V D ATOLOYE (1993) 6 NWLR (PT 298); FOLORUNSO & ANOR V SHALOUB (1994) 3 NWLR (PT 333) PG 413.

He submitted that the Appellant tendered Exhibit T and T and U1 to U4 all documents and sworn affidavit made by the said KANAYO REGINAL OKONTA before the lower Court to effect that the Appellant is his brother from same father. That the lower Court failed to properly weigh the evidence before him. He drew attention to the similarity in the names and that he was taken to the village by his late father to perform the Igba Mkpisi ceremony to formally introduce him to his age grades in the village and Asaba community. Also, Respondent did not call any of the extended family on the paternity.

That the lower Court failed to give effect to the affidavit of facts of Ikechukwu Felix Okonta 85 years old brother, and 70 years old sister of the late George Chuks-Okonta attesting that he knew the Appellant as one of the sons of the late George.

He submitted that the late George habitually disowned and disclaimed his children at the slightest provocation, he referred to Exhibit H and even disowned both parties at a point.

On the title to land, he referred to paragraphs 2, 4, 5, & 6 of the pleadings and submitted that they are tied to the land. He referred to IDUNDUN V OKUMAGBA (1976) 9-10 SC 227 on ways of proving title to land and submitted that none of the ways had been proved by the Respondents and are therefore not entitled to any injunctive relief. He again claimed that he had been in possession and occupation of No 9, Parkinson Street, Asaba and therefore cannot maintain an action for trespass; he cited; ADEBAYO V IGHODALO (1996) 5 NWLR (PT 450) PG 507; AHMADU ALAO V ALHAJI OBA ALABI (PT 508) 351 CA.

He posits that Exhibit B a Certified True Copy of a statement made at SCID was not made there but at the High Court. He submitted that Section 104 of Evidence Act 2011, provides that the proper and legal authority to certify the said Exhibit B, same being in their custody, is the SCID and not the High Court Registry, Asaba. He urged the Court to expunge Exhibit B as it is inadmissible in law. He also tendered Exhibits D and E which are single pages from different newspaper publication respectively, that they tendered the single page, and no proper foundation has been laid. He referred to Order 3 of Delta State High Court 2009. He relied on NIDB V OLALOMI INDUSTRIES LTD (2002) 5 NWLR (PT 761) and Section 102 (b) of Evidence Act 2011.

RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
The Respondents arguing the issues together submitted that the grounds on which the Appellant wants this Honourable Court to set aside the judgments of the lower is that the writ of summons was not signed by a legal practitioner, that it bothers on practice and procedure; he cited CLEMENT V IWUANYANWU (1989) 4 SC (PT2); KOWA V MUSA (2005) AFWLR (PT 290) 1413; WILLIAMS V HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY SOCIETY (1982) 1 ALL NLR (PT 1). That the Delta State High Court Rules 2009 applied, Order 3 Rule 1 of the Delta State High Court 2009 Rules, provides for mode of commencement.

He contended that the said Order 3 Rule 1 provides that a writ must be signed by the Registrar of Court or other officer authorized to do so, and Civil Form 1 as annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules 2009 has no provision for signing by a legal practitioner of a claimant and the only responsibility on the legal practitioner with respect to the writ of summons is to insert his name and address and this is sufficient to identify him and no more, he likened it to form 48 of Sheriff and Civil Procedure Rule.

Respondents CITED; FBN V MAIWADA (2013) 32 WRN 31; OKAFOR & ORS V NWEKE & ORS (2007) LPELR-2412 (SC); AIKI V IDOWU (2006) 9 NWLR PT 984; AG ABIA STATE & ORS V AGHARANYA; DAVID V JOLAYEMI (2011) AFWLR (PT 571) 1545, 1568 C-F; INTEGRATED MERCHANTS LTD V OSUN STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2011) LPELR 8803.

To the effect that in the absence of the signature of counsel on the writ of summons, it does not invalidate the writ.

In the alternative, he submitted that any issues of omission to do a thing as it relates to procedure touches on the procedural jurisdiction of the trial Court and not the subject matter jurisdiction.

He submitted that procedure irregularities do not affect the jurisdiction of the Court, See; SHUAIBU V MUAZU (2007) NWLR (PT 1033) 271; FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC NEKEDE, OWERRI & ANOR V NWAOZOR (2014) LPELR-24289 (CA) 25; ANYANWOKO V OKOYE (2010) AFWLR (PT 515) 214; NDAYAKO V DANTORO (2004) AFWLR (PT 216) 390; CLEMENT V IWUANYANWU.

Respondents submitted that the Appellant waited until after judgment before raising it and therefore has waived his right to complain. He cited NOIBI V FIKOLATI (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 52) 619 AT 632; NASCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD V A.N AMAKU TRANSPORT LTD (1999) 1 NWLR (PT588) 576; IBEANU V OGBEIDE (1994) 7 NWLR (PT 369); ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD V ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 109) 250.

Respondents submitted that the litigation was for 5 years that to void the proceedings because counsel did not sign the writ of summons will amount to punishing litigants for the sin and omission of counsel and it will amount to sacrificing a sound judgment on the altar of technicality.

He termed it a mere technical procedural irregularity that occasioned no miscarriage of justice; he cited; FAMFA OIL LTD V A. G FEDERATION OF NIGERIA (2003) 18 NWLR (PT 852) 453; CONSORTIUM MC V NEPA (1992) 6 NWLR (PT 246) 132; BELLO V AG OYO STATE (1986) 6 NWLR (PT 45) 828; OKONJO V DR ODJE (1985) 10 SC 267; FALOBI V FALOBI (1976) NMLR 169.

On issue 3, it deals with the counterclaim which is the opposite of the claims of the Respondents as reproduced earlier in this judgment.

In proof of their case, the Respondents tendered Exhibit A to H. The main case bothered on ‘if the late George Chuks Okonta is the father of the Appellant and Respondents’ while the Appellant is saying that the Respondents are not the children of the late George Chuks Okonta and are not entitled to inheriting his properties.

Respondent submitted that the trial Court did the evaluation of evidence perfectly, he considered exhibits B, C, D, R & R 1. He posits that in the light of denial by late GEORGE CHUKS OKONTA in his lifetime that Appellant was his son, the affidavit sworn to by Ikechukwu Felix Okonta and testimony of Theresa Eboziem Okonta lacks probative value.

Respondents contended that from the documents, the late GEORGE CHUKS OKONTA acknowledged in his lifetime that the Respondents are his children and documents are more credible and speak for themselves.
He cited; EGHAREVBA V OSAGIE (2009) 18 NWLR (PT 1173) 299; SHITTU V IKERE L.G & ORS (2019) LPELR-49351 (CA).

Respondents contended that having failed to establish that the Appellant is the son of the late George Chuks Okonta, reliefs a, e, and f of the counterclaim automatically fails as he is deemed to be an interloper in a family he does not belong to.

Respondents posit that the evaluation was properly done therefore, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Court. He cited; VICTOR & ORS V ZANE (2020) LPELR-52811 (CA); NGADIUKWU V MOGHALU & ORS (2014) LPELR-24366 (CA) 75.

RESOLUTION
I have examined the issues of both parties and find that they are similar except the 3rd issue of the Respondents which dwells on the evaluation of the case at the lower Court.

Therefore, I shall dwell on the Appellant’s issues but argue issues 1 and 2 together which bothers on the jurisdiction of the Court if it does not succeed. This Court will resolve issue 3.

ISSUES 1& 2
The action at the lower Court was commenced via writ of summons form 1 see page 1 of the records of appeal wherein it was signed by the Assist. Chief Registrar. At page 2 of the said writ, it was said to be issued by ‘E.S. OKOFU ESQ of EMEKA UWAFILI AND ASSOCIATES ….’ it was not signed at the end, same is the position at page 5 of the records, the last page of the writ was also not signed by the Registrar of Court, but the Statement of Claim was signed by Claimant’s counsel.

The provisions of Order 3 Rule 6 of the Delta State Civil Procedure Rules state thus;
“6. A writ of summons shall be issued by the Registrar or officer of Court empowered to issue summons on application.
The application shall ordinarily be made in writing by the claimant’s solicitor by completing form 1 in the appendix to these rules; but the registrar or other officer as aforesaid, where the applicant for a writ of summons is illiterate, or has no solicitor, may dispense with a written application and instead himself record full particulars of an oral application made and on that record, a writ of summons may be prepared, signed and issued’’
It is therefore a correct interpretation that from the above rule of Court, when a suit is to be commenced in the High Court of Delta State by writ of summons, an application shall be made to the Registrar of Court by the Claimant’s solicitor by completing FORM 1 in the appendix to the Rules of Court. Where the claimant is an illiterate and has no solicitor, the claimant may make an oral application to the Registrar and the Registrar shall record the oral application, prepare, sign, and issue a writ of summons.
There is no specific provision in the Order 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) of Delta State 2009 requiring the signature of the solicitor or claimant.
However, it is settled principle of law that every Court process including an originating process prepared by a legal practitioner must be signed by the legal practitioner.
Form 1 is an issuance of writ of summons prepared and filed by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner in addition to endorsing his name or name of firm and his business address within the jurisdiction and the claimant’s address must sign the application.
It is the signature of the legal practitioner that authenticates the fact that the application was prepared by the practitioner, while it is the Registrar’s signature that converts the application to an order of the Court commanding the defendant to enter appearance to the suit.
Since the settled principle of law is that every Court process prepared by a legal practitioner must be properly signed by the legal practitioner, an application for issuance of writ of summons such as in form 1 must be signed by the legal practitioner whether the Rule of the Court says so or not. See; UGBOMAH V ALLANAH & ORS (SUPRA); BRAITHWAITE V SKYE BANK PLC (2012) LPELR- 15532 (SC) AT 17 HELD;
“The rules of a Court must be subject to the applicable Law – Legal Practitioners Act; Section 2(1) and 24, which mandate that processes filed in Court must be signed by a Legal Practitioner enrolled in this Court. Rule of Court must bow before the Legal Practitioners Act duly passed by the National Assembly. See OKAFOR V NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1043) 521 AT 534’’.
per FABIYI, JSC (P. 17, PARAS. C-E)
In this appeal, the Appellant has contended that the writ of summons dated and filed on 10th July, 2014 was not signed by any legal practitioner or litigant or agent, and this puts the authenticity of the document in doubt.
The Respondent has contended that it is a procedural irregularity, I beg to disagree! This is a jurisdictional issue and deals with the commencement of an originating summons. See; NKEMDILIM V MADUKOLU 1963 1 ANIR 1; FASEHUN V AG FEDERATION (2006 NWLR (PT975) PG 142 AT 157 PARA E.
This Court has ruled on a number of occasions on this scenario concerning the interpretation of the Delta State Civil Procedure Rules in Order 3 Rule 6, 2009 Rules that it cannot be waived, and it is not negotiable. The provisions of the Legal Practitioner’s Act in Sections 2(1) & 24 therein supersedes it and applies even where there is a provision or not in the rules of Court for legal practitioners to sign. See; APPEAL NO CA/AS/245/2014 CASTRO ISITUA EGBUNIKE V FABIAN CHIDOZIE AKAEZE delivered on 1st June 2022 by BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA.
It therefore stands that the rules of Court must be subject to the applicable law. I therefore bow to this principle and hold that the writ is void for not being signed and the lower Court lacked requisite jurisdiction.
I resolve issue 1 & 2 in favour of the Appellant.

The appeal is meritorious and is allowed. The judgment of Hon Justice M. O. Omovie delivered on 18th June, 2019 together with proceedings in SUIT NO.A/157/2014 is hereby set aside and struck out.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read in advance, the judgment of my learned brother, Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal has merit. The writ of summons not having been signed by the legal practitioner that prepared and filed it as required by Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, it is invalid. The implication is that the jurisdiction of the Court was not activated by due process of law.
I too allow the appeal. I abide the consequential orders made therein.

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: I read in advance, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, which has just been delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein that the appeal has merit. I adopt the same in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and striking out the suit.

Appearances:

E. C. Ikenwe, with him, F. N. Amasi For Appellant(s)

O. J. Nwosu For Respondent(s)