Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MINISTER OF F.C.T & ANOR v. FERTILE ACRESLTD & ANOR
CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45996(CA)
In the Court of AppealIn the Abuja Judicial Division
Holden at Abuja
ON FRIDAY, 20TH APRIL, 2018Suit No: CA/A/114/2014
Before Their Lordships:
ABDU ABOKI Justice, Court of AppealPETER OLABISI IGE Justice, Court of AppealTANI YUSUF HASSAN Justice, Court of Appeal
Between1. MIN. OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY2. FEDERAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant(s)
And1. FERTILE ACRES LIMITED2. ETHA VENTURES LIMITED - Respondent(s)
RATIO DECIDENDI1. APPEAL - ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Whether issue(s) for
determination must relate to the grounds of appeal filed"It is trite law that issues for determination must be based on the ground ofappeal and any issue or argument that does not relate to any ground ofappeal is incompetent."Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (P. 30, Paras. C-D) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
2. APPEAL - GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether ground(s) of appeal as well asissue(s) formulated therefrom must arise from the decision appealed againstand effect of failure thereof"On the Appellants' counsel contention that the action of the trial Court indismissing the Appellants' motion when the motion had not been movedviolated the Appellants' right to fair hearing. This complaint of the Appellantsis argued under issue three distilled from ground three of the Appellants'notice of appeal. The said ground three with its particulars is reproducedbelow;"GROUND THREEThe learned trial judge erred in law when he dismissed the motion of theAppellants' wherein they sought to bring in an additional witness anddocumentary evidence.PARTICULARSa. The essence of bringing in the additional witness and documentaryevidence was to clarify salient issues.b. The evidence adduced was not properly evaluated."Grounds of appeal are generally complaints by a party to an appellate Courtagainst the decision of a lower Court and so they must be in firma terra, thatis, arise from the said judgment. This is the precondition for the vesting of thejudicial power of the Constitution in the Courts. See the cases of;LIVESTOCK FOODS PLC VS. FUNTUA & ANOR. (2005) 17 NWLR (PT. 955) PG549.AMGBARE VS. SYLVA (2009) 1 NWLR (PT. 1121) AT 76-77.I have carefully perused the entire judgment of the trial Court, there isnothing in the said judgment to bear out the Appellants' claim of its motion tocall additional witness being dismissed as alleged. Therefore, the said groundthree is incompetent. Since ground three is incompetent, issue three fromwhich it has been raised is incompetent, the said issue three too cannot beconsidered and it is hereby accordingly struck out."Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (Pp.33-34, Paras. E-F) - read in context
3. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Whether a trial court has a duty to consider andpronounce on all issues raised before it"It is trite law that the trial Court not being the apex Court ought to considerall issues for determination properly brought before it and to refuse to do sois tantamount to a denial of fair hearing."Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (P. 26, Paras. D-E) -read in context
4. EVIDENCE - STANDARD OF PROOF: Standard of proof in a civil case; howcourt determines the preponderance or weight of evidence"In civil matters, the Court decides the case on the balance of probabilities, orpreponderance of evidence. This is done when a trial Court puts on animaginary scale the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties before it,before coming to a decision as to which of it, it accepts and which itrejects."Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (P. 26, Paras. C-D) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
5. EVIDENCE - EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Principles that the court musthave regard to in the process of evaluation of evidence"Evaluation means the assessment of evidence as to give value or quality toit. See the case of ONWUKA VS. EDIALA (1989) 1 NWLR PT. 96 PG 182. In theEvaluation of evidence, the trial Courts are guided by the following principlesnamely;a. Whether the evidence is admissible;b. Whether the evidence is relevant;c. Whether the evidence is credible;d. Whether the evidence is conclusive; ande. Whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party.See the case of MOGAJI VS. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91.Evaluation of evidence is primarily the function of the trial Court. It is onlywhere and when it fails to evaluate such evidence properly or at all, that anappellate Court can intervene and re-evaluate such evidence, otherwise theappellate Court has no business interfering with the finding of the trial Courton such evidence. See the case of ADEBAYO VS ADUSEI (2004) 4 NWLR PT.862 PG 44. In the instant case, I have carefully perused the judgment of thetrial Court, particularly its findings at pages 250 - 257 of the record of appeal,wherein the trial Court dealt with the issues of admission of Exhibits P1, P4 &P6, it is my view that the trial Court rightly admitted and unquestionablyevaluates the said exhibits. Therefore it is not the business of this Court tosubstitute its own views for the views of the trial Court."Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (Pp.27-28, Paras. B-C) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
6. LAND LAW - REVOCATION OF RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY: Purpose andmodes of delivery of notice of revocation; effect of revocation not carried outin accordance with law"On issue of proper service of revocation notice on the Respondents, learnedcounsel for the Appellants argued that there was a proper service of notice ofrevocation by post on the Respondents and the absence of date in thecertificate of delivery is not a conclusive proof of non service.Notice of revocation of a right of occupancy is indeed very important becauseit informs the holder of the steps taken to extinguish his right of occupancy.Thus the service of the notice of revocation is sine qua non and the mode ofservice of such notice is prescribed in Section 44 of the Land Use Act. SeeEKUNDAYO & ANOR VS. FCDA & ANOR (2015) LPELR-24512 CA. The keywitness on this issue is DW1 one Kumaiin Ikya a staff of the FCTA in histestimony under cross-examination he said;-He knows that the 1st Plaintiff was issued with a certificate of occupancy andthe address of the 1st Plaintiff in that certificate of occupancy is RuwanKanya, Rano, P.O. Box 2012, Kano, Nigeria. Exhibit D11, the purportedrevocation notice was address to Federal Archive Fertile Acres Ltd P. O. Box52, Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse 4, Abuja FCT. He also agreed that as per theaddress, the purported notice of revocation was address to any of thePlaintiffs. The trial Court in its judgment found thus;-"Firstly, there is no evidence that before the Court of the receipt of notice ofrevocation.... The Plaintiffs have denied knowledge of the address to which itwas posted i.e. Plot 52, Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse 4, Abuja FCT. That isneither the address of the 1st or 2nd Plaintiff. Further, under crossexamination, DW1 admitted that the address of the 1st Plaintiff is RuwanKanya, Rano, P.O. Box 2012, Kano, Nigeria. DW1 confirmed further undercross examination that the Defendants know the Plaintiffs' addresses. DW1finally agreed that he does not know whether Exhibit D11 was served. The neteffect of all this is that the Defendants cannot say for certain if the revocationnotice was ever served on the Plaintiffs' i, e 151- or 2nd."Section 44 (a), (b) and (c) of the Land Use Act which relates to the service ofnotice provides:- "Any notice required by this Act to be served on any personshall be effectively served on him-a. By delivering it to the person or who is to be serve, orb. By leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode orc. By sending it in a prepaid registered letter addresses to that person at hisusual or last known place of abode."From the evidence on record, I agree with the view of the trial Court that thepurported revocation conveyed by the letter of 8th February, 2010 is null andvoid and the acquisition fails having been vitiated by Defendant's failure toserve a notice of revocation. If any service was done at all it was done inviolation, again of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. The evidence onrecord shows that no compensation was paid to the Respondents."Per ABOKI,J.C.A. (Pp. 31-33, Paras. A-D) - read in context
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading
Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment of the
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (herein
after referred to as the trial Court) delivered on 11th day of
February, 2013 by L.H. Gummi J.
The Respondents were the Plaintiffs at the trial Court while
the Appellants were the Defendants.
The Respondents as Plaintiffs at the trial Court claim
against the Appellants as follows;
I. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a Statutory
Right of Occupancy in respect of Plot Number 309,
Cadastral Zone E08, Abuja, FCT with old file No. 4166 and
new file No. 57787, now measuring approximately 30
Hectares (then 35 Hectares), covered by Certificate of
Occupancy No. FCT/ABU/MISC: 4166 dated 3rd day of
March, 1999, registered as No. FC100 at page 100 In
Volume 89 in the land registry office at Abuja and bound by
beacons Nos. PS.3390, PB.3391, P5.3392, PS.3393, PB.
3394, P5.3395, PS. 3396, PB. 3397 and P8.3398.
II. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be issued
with a new (recertified) Certificate of Occupancy by the
1
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Defendants in respect of Plot No. 309, Cadastral Zone E08,
Abuja, FCT with old file No. 4166 and new file No. 57787,
now measuring approximately 30 Hectares (then 35
Hectares), covered by old Certificate of Occupancy No.
FCT/ABU/MISC; 4166 dated 3rd day of March, 1999,
registered as No. FC100 at page 100 In Volume 89 in the
land registry office at Abuja and bound by beacons Nos.
P5.3390, P8.3391, P5.3392, P8.3393, PS.3394, P5.3395,
PB.3396, PB. 3397 and PB. 3398.
iii. An order of Court demanding the Defendants to issue
the Plaintiffs with a new (recertified) certificate of
occupancy in respect of Plot No. 309, Cadastral Zone E08,
Abuja, FCT with old file No. 4166 and new file No. 57787,
now measuring approximately 30 Hectares (then 35
Hectares), Covered by old Certificate of Occupancy No.
FCT/ABU/MISC: 4166 dated 3rd day of March, 1999,
registered as No. FC100 at page 100 in volume 89 in the
Land Registry Office at Abuja and bound by beacons Nos.
P8.3390, P6.3391, P5.3392, PB.3393, PB.3394, P8.3395,
PB.3396, PS. 3397 and PS.3398.
The trial Court in its judgment granted the reliefs sought by
the Respondents.
2
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court the
Appellants filed their notice of appeal dated 2nd May, 2013
on 6th May, 2013.
Briefs of arguments were in accordance with the relevant
rules of this Court duly filed and exchanged and at the
hearing of the appeal the parties adopted and relied on
their respective briefs of argument.
The Appellants' brief of argument dated 20th day of March,
2017 was filed on the same date; it was settled by PETER
ERIVWODE, ESQ. The Respondents' brief of argument
dated 27th April, 2017 was filed on the same date, it was
settled by UCHENNA UCHE ESQ. while the Appellants'
reply brief was dated and filed on 10th day of May, 2017.
Three issues were distilled by the Appellants from the three
grounds of Appeal as follows;
1. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law when he
granted the reliefs sought by the Respondents without
evaluating and taking into consideration all the evidence
placed before him.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that
there was no proper service of revocation notice on the
Respondents.
3. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and which
error occasioned a miscarriage of justice when
3
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
he refused the Appellants leave to call additional witnesses
and adduce documentary evidence.
The Respondents' counsel on the other hand distilled a lone
issue for determination in this appeal as follows;
1. Whether the Court below was right when it entered
judgment in favor of the Respondents thereby affirming the
subsisting interest of the Respondent in the property in
dispute.
The three issues as distilled by the Appellant are adopted
and will be taken together in the determination of this
appeal.
ISSUES ONE, TWO &THREE (TAKEN TOGETHER)
Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he
granted the reliefs sought by the Respondent without
evaluating and taking into consideration all the evidence
placed before him;
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that
there was no proper service of revocation notice on the
Respondents.
AND
Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and which
error occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he refused
the Appellants leave to call additional witnesses and
adduce documentary evidence.
4
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial
Court not being the apex Court ought to consider all the
issues presented to it for determination, and to refuse to do
so is tantamount to a denial of fair hearing. He referred the
Court to the cases of;
FCDA VS. SULE (1994) 3 NWLR PT. 332.
FAAN VS. GREENSTONE LTD (2009) 10 NWLR PT.
1150 PG 650.
T.A. ORM & ANOR. VS. PDP & ORS (2009) 14 NWLR
PT. 1161 PG 408.
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH & ANOR. VS.
COMET SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD (2009) 9 NWLR
PT.1145 PG 220-221.
ADETAYO VS. BAMIDELE (2007) VOL.35 PG 1 AT 15.
He contended that at the trial Court several issues raised
by the Appellants were not considered and several
documents tendered before the trial Court were
inadmissible or wrongly relied upon and some were either
not considered or improperly considered.
He argued that pre-action counseling is a mandatory
condition precedent and the 2nd Plaintiff cannot possibly
be counseled for the purpose of the 1st Plaintiff as held by
the trial Court. He referred the Court to Order 4 Rule 17 of
the High Court Civil procedure Rules 2004 and the cases
of;
ABIODUN VS. A.G FEDERATION (2007) 15 NWLR PT.
1057 PG 339 AT 396.
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
5
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
ONOCHIE VS. ODOGWU (2006) 6 NWLR PT. 975 PG.
65 AT 89.
BALOGUN VS. UNIVERSITY OF ABUJA (2002) 13
NWLR PT. 783 PG 42.
Learned counsel also submitted that the Power of Attorney
donated to the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent
(Exhibit P6) which the trial Court relied upon to award title
to the 2nd Respondent is not a title document and same did
not confer any title on it. He referred the Court to the cases
of;
UDE VS. NWARA (1993) 2 NWLR W. 278 N 647.
CHIME VS. CHIME (2001) 3 NWLR PT.7O1 AT 527.
OLORUNFEMI VS. NIGERIA EDUCATIONAL BANK
LTD (2003) NWLR PT.812 AT 1.
He contended that Exhibit P6 being an unregistered Power
of Attorney is not a valid document in the eyes of the law to
elicit admissibility; and in the unlikely event it is admitted
as in the instant case, the Court ought not to ascribed any
probative value to it. He referred the Court to the cases of;
KACHALLA VS. BANKI (2001) FWLR PT. 73.
AKINDURO VS. ALAYA & OSSAI VS. NWAJIDE (1975)
4 SC 207.
Learned counsel argued that the 2nd Respondent does not
have locus standi in this suit and cannot be entitled to any
relief. He referred the Court to the cases of;
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
6
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
ABRAHAM ADESANYA VS. PRESIDENT OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (1981) 5 SC 112.
PFIZER SPECIALTIES LTD VS. CHYZOB PHARMACY
LTD (2006) LPELR-11780 CA.
IKPEAZU VS. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD
(1965) NMLR PG 384 AT 379.
He maintained that in the instant case the Respondents did
not tendered any evidence before the trial Court in proof of
the title of the 1st Respondent. However, the trial Court
proceeded on the assumption to hold that a certificate of
occupancy is capable of vesting title on persons, which on
the contrary it does not. He insisted that the trial Court was
in error when it awarded title to the land to the
Respondents. He referred the Court to the cases of;
ADOLE VS. GWAR (2008) 11 NWLR PT.1099 562 AT
590. JAMES SONGO VS. AKURE (2014) LPELR-22636.
Learned counsel for the Appellants also submitted that the
2nd Respondent is an incompetent party by virtue of the
fact that it did not disclose on the face of the writ that it
was suing as Attorney to the 1ST Respondent. He referred
the Court to the case of OFIA VS. EJEM (2006) 11 NWLR
PT. 652 SC.
He argued that the trial Court erred in law when it failed to
properly evaluate
7
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
the evidence adduced, before reaching conclusion on
salient issues submitted to it for determination and this is
manifest in the way and manner exhibit PL, P4 & P6 were
admitted and relied upon by the trial Court in upholding
the Respondents' claims.
He maintained that the trial Court did not consider the
issue of overriding public interest as the ground for the
revocation of the Plaintiffs/Respondents' title and also the
issue of breach of terms of Grant was not resolved by the
trial Court. He referred the Court to Section 86 (2), (3) and
102 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the cases of;
OGBORU VS. UDUAGHAN (2011) 2 NWLR PT. 232 PG
538;
ANOZIE VS. OBICHERE (2006) 8 NWLR PT. 921 PG
140 AT 155;
FCDA VS. SULE (SUPRA); OVUNWO vs. WOKO (2011)
VOL 46 PT.1 PG 517 AT 540;
UZUDA vs. EBIGAH (2009) ALL FWLR PT. 493 PG
L224 AT 1247;
A.G LEVENTIS NIG. PLC VS. AKPU (2007) 17 NWLR
PG. 416 AT 446.
Learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court ought
to expunged Exhibits P1, P4 and P6 since there was no
proof of service on the Appellants. He invited this Court to
expunge these exhibits and uphold the Appellants'
submissions.
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
8
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On the issue of service of revocation notice on the
Respondents, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted
that there was a proper service of notice of revocation on
the 1st Respondent.
He maintained that there was evidence vides Exhibits D11
and D12 that notice of revocation was served by post on the
Respondents and the reason for the revocation was duly
stated.
Learned counsel contended that it is not the case of the
Respondents that there was no notice of revocation serve
on them all. He referred the Court to Section 44 (c) of the
Land Use Act.
He argued that the absence of a date in the certificate of
posting is not a conclusive proof of non service or sufficient
to vitiate the notice of revocation, at best, the trial Court
would have called for oral evidence to ascertain if there
was service and delivery of notice of revocation to the
Respondents. More so, it is not the requirement of Section
44 of the Land Use Act that certificate of posting on
revocation notice be dated.
He insisted that the absence of date on the certificate of
posting is immaterial and same is not sufficient to vitiate
service of revocation. He urged the Court to so hold.
9
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On whether the trial Court erred in law and that error
occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it refused the
Appellants' leave to call additional witnesses and adduce
documentary evidence, learned counsel for the Appellants
submitted that once motion is filed, the Court is duty bound
to look at it no matter how frivolous such application may
appear to be.
He contended that the Appellants' motion to call additional
witness and adduce evidence had not been moved. What
counsel sought was leave to move the motion, but the lower
Court dismissed it. He referred the Court to the case of
ODEDO VS. PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR - 24738 SC.
Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the
action of the trial Court in dismissing the Appellants'
motion when the motion had not been moved violated the
Appellants' right to fair hearing. He referred the Court to
the cases of;
ODEDO VS. PDP & ORS (SUPRA);
GENERAL COMPANY VS. AKANDE & ORS (2010)
LPELR-809 SC;
ULEKE & ANOR VS. KAKWA & ANOR (2013)
LPELR-20819 CA. ESSEIN VS. EDET (2004) 5 NWLR
PT. 867 PG 519;
OTAPO VS. SUNMONU (1987) 2 NWLR PT.58 PG 587;
10
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
OKORO VS. OKORO (1998) 3 NWLR PT. 540 PG 65;
S.C. ENGINEERING VS. NWOSU (2008) 3 NWLR PT.
1074 PG 288 AT 307-308;
He argued that assuming without conceding that the
Appellants' motion was heard, the refusal of same is also a
breach of the Appellants' right to fair hearing. He referred
the Court to the case of FIRST BANK PLC VS. MAY
MEDICAL CLINICS (Citation not provided).
On the effect of the denial of fair hearing learned counsel
referred the Court to the cases of;
TSOKWA MOTORS NIG. LTD VS. UNITED BANK FOR
AFRICA PLC (2008) 2 NWLR PT. 1071 PG 347;
OGUNDOYI & ANOR VS. ADEYEMI (2001) 13 NWLR
PT. 730 PG 403;
DR. EZENWAJI VS. UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA (UNN)
& ORS. (2006) 3 NWLR PT. 967 PG 325;
ODEDO VS. PDP (SUPRA).
He opined that, had the trial Court thoroughly examined
the Appellants' motion it would not have come to the
conclusion that it did.
He urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favor of the
Appellants, uphold this appeal and set aside the judgment
of the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the Respondents in their brief of
arguments referred the Court to the pleadings of the
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
parties
11
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
trial Court, as well as Exhibits PL, P2, P6, P7 & D1 and
submitted that the Respondents denial of the equitable
interest of the 2nd Respondent is tenuous and impotent.
He maintained that in the light of all the evidence before
the trial Court, the interest/locus of the Respondents
cannot be questioned by the Appellants; The Appellants'
contention that Exhibit P2 is impugned and defensible by
reason of the subsisting interest of the 1st Respondent in
the land in dispute as at the time of the issuance of Exhibit
P2 is self-defeatist. Because, assuming that the issuance of
Exhibit P2 was wrong on the 1st Respondent only the 1st
Respondent itself would be entitled to complain. More so,
the Appellants are not as it were permitted to weep more
than the bereaved. He referred the Court to the cases of;
SOLANKE VS. ABED & ANOR (1962) ALL NLR PT. 1
PG 230 AT 234;
UGOCHUKWU VS. CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE
BANK NIG. LTD (1996) 6 NWLR PT.456 PG 524 AT
540-542;
ABACHA VS. EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) 7 NWLR PT.
1139 PG 97 AT 132.
Learned counsel contended that by an irrevocable Power of
Attorney (i.e. Exhibit P6)
12
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
it is clear that the 2nd Respondent appointed the 1st
Respondent as lawful Attorney over the res. In law, this
presupposes and operates as notice to all, including the
Appellants that the res still resides in the donor. He
referred the Court to the cases of;
EZEIGWE VS. AWUDU (2008) 11 NWLR PT. 1097 PG
158 AT 163;
UDE VS. NWARA (1993) 2 NWLR PT. 278 PG 638 AT
651;
He maintained that the 2nd Respondent notwithstanding
the Exhibit P6, is not forbidden in law from maintaining the
res, nor does it lack the locus standi to prosecute the suit,
for same is inherent in the Power of Attorney. He referred
the Court to the findings of the trial Court at pages
256,-259 of the record of appeal and the cases of;
UNITED NIGERIA COMPANY LTD VS. NAHMAN
(2000) 9 NWLR PT. 671 AT 188;
VULCAN GASES LTD VS. G.F IND. A.G (2001) 9 NWLR
PT.719 PG 610;
DABO VS. ABDULLAHI (2005) 7 NWLR PT. 923 PG
181 AT 206;
ISERU VS. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF WARRI DIOCESE
(1997) 3 NWLR PT. 495 PG 517 AT 529.
Learned counsel submitted that for as much as those
findings and the Defendants' grant of right of occupancy
over the property in dispute to the 2nd Respondent
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
13
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
remain extant, it is puerile for the Appellants to pretend to
buck the trial Court declaring title to the Appellants.
He argued that, as rightly found by the trial Court, that
grant was no where revoked by the Defendants, the trial
Court found that the purported revocation (Exhibit D11)
was not made out because the said notice was not served.
He referred the Court to the cases of;
ONONUJU & ANOR. VS. A.G ANAMBRA STATE & ORS.
(2009) 10 NWLR PT. 1148 AT 221;
ADOLE VS. GWAR (SUPRA); ADMIN/EXECUTORS OF
ESTATE OF ABACHA VS. EKE-SPIFF & ORS (SUPRA)
C.S.S BOOKSHOP LTD VS. THE REGISTERED
TRUSTEES OF MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN RIVERS
STATE & ORS (2006) 11 NWLR PT. 992 AT 577.
NIGERIAN ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS. DENAP
LTD & ANOR (2001) 18 NWLR PT.746 AT 757.
YADIS NIG. LTD VS. G.N.I.O LTD (2007) 14 NWLR PT.
1055 PG 584 AT 607;
NLEWEDIM VS. UDUMA (1995) 6 NWLR PT. 402
PG.383 AT 394.
On the reason for the purported revocation, learned
counsel referred the Court to Exhibit D11 and submitted
that the Appellants gave reason for the revocation as
"Overriding public interest" devoid of the particular
purpose, and this
14
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
makes the notice of revocation, even if it has been served,
incurably bad. There is no evidence that appropriate
monetary compensation was paid to the Respondents prior
to the purported revocation. He referred the Court to
Section 29 of the Land Use Act and the case of ADOLE VS.
GWAR (SUPRA).
He argued that the purported public purpose alluded to by
the Appellants as being the reason for the purported
revocation of the Respondents' right in the res was so as
"to cater for the needs of the Nigerian Army Defence
Headquarters", while the res was allotted to retired
Military personnel as private Housing Estate.
He maintained that catering for the needs of the Nigerian
Army defence Headquarters is not included in the public
purpose as listed in Section 51 of the Land Use Act. The
purpose, depose to by the Appellants under reference is
also not within the contemplation of Section 28 of the Land
Use Act and this makes the purported revocation
ineffectual and void. He referred the Court to case of C.S.S
BOOKSHOP LTD VS. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF
MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN RIVERS STATE & ORS
(SUPRA) AT 565.
15
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On the Appellants' contention that Exhibit P6 is not a
document o f t i t le and be ing an unregis tered
registrable instrument is inadmissible, therefore, the trial
Court was wrong to give judgment to the 2nd Respondent
on the strength of the said Exhibit P6, learned counsel for
the Respondents submitted that the Appellants' contention
is misconceived.
He argued that an unregistered registrable instrument is
admissible in evidence to prove not only payment of
purchase price but also prove equitable interest. In other
words, the non registration of registrable land instrument
affects only the legal title, not the equitable one. More so,
the trial Court did not give judgment to the Respondents
solely on the strength of Exhibit P6. He referred the Court
to the cases of;
MONKOM VS. ODILI (2010) 2 NWLR PT. 1179 AT
426.
OKOYE VS. DUMEZ NIG LTD (1985) 1 NWLR PT. 4 AT
791.
Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the
Appellants' issue one for determination distilled from
ground one of the notice of appeal filed is too wide and not
capable of being distilled from that ground. He referred the
Court to the cases of;
IDIKA VS ERISI (1988) 2 NWLR PT. 78 PG 563 AT
566.
WESTERN STEEL WORKS VS. IRON & STEEL
WORKERS UNION 1987 1 NWLR PT. 49 AT 284.
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
16
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
He maintained that the Appellants' ground one of appeal
cannot be a basis for the issue one as formulated by the
Appellants, because the particulars attached to it is of no
assistance. He referred the Court to the said ground one
and its particulars.
He argued that the said ground of appeal couched in
general terms, as it were and without meaningful
particulars to elucidate it, is vague, incompetent and not
capable of sustaining issue one distilled from it. He
referred the Court to the cases of;
HANI AKAR ENTERPRISES LTD VS. INDO NIGERIA
MERCHANT BANK LTD (2011) 1 NWLR PT. 1228 AT
324;
OKE VS. DR. MIMIKO (2014) 1 NWLR PT. 1388 AT
380-381.
Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the
Appellants' counsel has sought to disparage Exhibit P2 and
the pre-eminence accorded it by the trial Court. He
submitted that the Appellants' counsel argument in this
regard amounts to nothing, because assuming without
conceding that the trial Court was wrong in ascribing value
to the said Exhibit P2, the judgment would still not be
impeachable on account of that error and that there are
17
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
extant facts and findings of the trial Court to support the
judgment. He referred the Court to the cases of;
UZOCHUKWU VS. ERI (1997) 7 NWLR PT.584 AT 551.
INTERNATIONAL MESSENGER NIG. LTD VS.
PEGOFOR INDUSTRIES LTD (2000) 4 NWLR PT.652
AT 249.
He maintained also that the Appellants' arguments in
paragraphs 4.02-4.18 of their brief of argument are of no
moment, because that argument pretends to challenge
specific findings of the trial Court not appealed against.
They thus remain admitted by the Appellants, and binding
on the appellate Court. He referred the Court to pages
245-246, 263 & 265 of the record of appeal and the cases
of;
KOYA VS. UBA LTD (1997) 1 NWLR PT. 481 AT 266.
NDIWE VS. OKOCHA (1992) 7 NWLR PT. 252 AT 129.
GAMBORUMA VS. BORNU (1997) 3 NWLR PT. 495 AT
545.
Learned counsel argued also that the argument relating to
deficiency in the Respondents' signing of the pre-action
counseling certificate amount to, at best a complaint of
non-compliance with form which is treated as an
irregularity and is no longer permitted to nullify
proceedings. He referred the Court to Order 2 Rule 1 (1) &
Order 2 Rule 2 (b) of the High Court of the FCT Civil
procedure Rules, 2004.
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
18
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On the submissions made by the Appellants' in paragraphs
4.45, 4.50, 4.52, 4.66-4.69 of their brief of argument,
Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that those
issues are not covered by any of the three grounds of
appeal filed. He referred the Court to the cases of;
KOYA VS. UBA LTD (SUPRA)
ISERU VS. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF WARRI DIOCESES
(SUPRA) NDIWE VS. OKOCHA (SUPRA)
GAMBORUMA VS. BORNU (SUPRA)
On the Appellants' counsel submission in paragraphs 4.37 -
4.41 of the Appellants' brief of argument. Learned counsel
for the Respondents also contended that there is no ground
in the notice of appeal where the issue of title of the 1st
Respondent was raised. Secondly the certificate of
occupancy of the 1st Respondent is in evidence before the
Court which was tendered by the Respondents and the
Appellants themselves as Exhibits P7 and D1 respectively.
He referred the Court to page 239 of the record of appeal
and the cases of;
DIPCHARIMA VS. ALI (1974) ALL NLR PG 908.
OKOYA & ORS VS. SANTILLI (1994) 4 NWLR PT. 338
AT 304.
19
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Learned counsel for the Respondents maintained that
paragraphs 4.26 - 4.29 of their brief of arguments disclose
that ground three of the notice of appeal is also
incompetent and liable to be discountenanced and struck
out, because it does not arise from the judgment of the trial
Court the subject of this appeal.
He submitted that a valid ground of appeal must be a
complaint against the judgment appealed against and must
arise from it. He referred the Court to the cases of;
LIVESTOCK FOODS PLC VS. FUNTUA & ANOR (2005)
17 NWLR PT. 955 AT 562;
OBATOYINBO & ANOR VS. OSHATOBA & ANOR
(1996) 5 NWLR PT. 450 AT 549.
He maintained that for the reason that ground of appeal
three does not arise from the judgment appealed against,
all argument canvassed by the Appellants in paragraphs
6.01 - 6.19 of the Appellants' brief is of no moment no
matter how meritorious it may be.
He argued that all argument on issues founded on
incompetent grounds of appeal are liable to be struck out.
He referred the Court to the cases of;
OKON VS. THE STATE (1995) 1 NWLR PT. 372 AT
389.
ADEGBENRO VS. AKINTILO (2010) 3 NWLR PT. 1182
PG 541; APGA VS. OHAKIM (2009) 4 NWLR PT. 1130
PG 116 AT 130.
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
20
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
He maintained that another reason why ground three of the
notice of appeal is untenable is that it complains of the
dismissal by the trial Court of the Appellants' motion to call
additional witness and documentary evidence. However,
there is nothing in the record of appeal to bear out the
Appellants' claim of the motion being dismissed, for all the
Respondents know, the said motion may as well have been
abandoned by the Appellants at the trial Court. He referred
the Court to the cases of;
ONAGORUWA VS. STATE (1993) 7 NWLR PT. 303 AT
95;
INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC VS. ONWUKA (2009) 8
NWLR PT.1144 AT 471;
OGOLO VS. FUBARA (2003) 11 NWLR PT. 831 PG 231
AT 240; BRITTANIA - U NIG. LTD VS. SEPLAT
PETROLEUM DEV. CO. LTD (2016) 4 NWLR PT. 1503
PG 541 AT 557.
In the Appellants' reply brief, the Appellants' counsel at
paragraphs 2.00, 2.03, 2.05 and 2.08 of the said reply brief
referred the Court to some arguments/points raised in the
Appellants' brief of arguments which he contended that the
Respondents in their brief did not offer any response on the
said arguments thereby conceding same.
21
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
In reply to the issues raised by the Respondents in
paragraphs 4.1-4.2 of their brief of argument, the
Appellants' counsel submitted that the position of the
Respondents is unknown to law. He maintained that the
mere appointment of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st
Respondent without compliance with the statutory
requirements confers no right be it legal or equitable on
the 2nd Respondent, and the cases of:-
SOLANKE VS. ABED & ANOR (SUPRA);
UGOCHUKWU VS COOPERATIVE & COMMERCE
BANK NIG LTD (SUPRA) and ABACHA VS EKE SPIFF
& ANOR (SUPRA) which he said are not helpful to the
case of the Respondents.
He also maintained that the cases of EZEIGWE VS.
AWUDU (SUPRA); UDE VS. NWARA (SUPRA); and
UNITED NIGERIA CO. LTD VS. NAHMAN (SUPRA)
could not help the case of the Respondents, because in all
the cases the donor of the power of Attorney is not a party
to the suits. He submitted that in those cases there is no
joint action when the power has been donated.
On the Respondents' submission in paragraph 4.5 of their
brief of argument, the Appellants contended that the claim
before the trial Court is a joint claim of title and not
equitable interest and the trial Court is not
22
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
permitted to grant what is not sought. He referred the
Court to the reliefs sought by the Respondents at the trial
Court and the case of BHOJSONS PLC VS. GEOFFREY K.
DANIEL-KALIO (2006) 5 NWLR PT. 973 AT 359.
He maintained that appeal as lodged in ground one is
against the finding on Exhibit P2 granted to the 2nd
Respondent. He referred the Court to the case of
FIDELITY BANK PLC VS. OGIRI (2013) 1 NWLR PT.
1337 AT 200.
On the issue of service of notice of revocation, the
Appellants submitted that the Respondents in their brief
avoided the issues raised by the Appellant in their brief of
argument, and it is not the duty of the Appellants' witness
to establish service of notice of revocation as the document
evidencing service speaks for itself.
On the failure of the Appellants to state the overriding
public interest where a right of occupancy is stated to be
revoked for public purpose, the Appellants' counsel
contended that the Appellants are not bound to state the
public purpose, and the authority of CSS BOOKSHOP VS.
THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE MUSLIM
COMMUNITY OF RIVERS STATE (SUPRA) cited by the
Respondents' counsel is permissive and not compelling.
23
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On the admissibility of non-registration of land registrable
instrument argued by the Respondents in paragraph 4.14 of
their brief, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted
that the Respondent cannot abandon their claim for legal
title to now seek equitable interest and the decision of the
Supreme Court in MONKOM VS. ODILI (SUPRA) is not
helpful to their case.
On the effect of failure by only the chairman of the 2nd
Respondent to sign pre-action counseling certificate,
learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that signing
certificate of pre-action counseling by a party is a condition
precedent to commencing an action and failure to sign
same by a party is fatal and same cannot be waived nor
term a mere irregularity. He referred the Court to the case
of BALOGUN VS. UNIVERSITY OF ABUJA (2002) 13
NWLR PT.783 PG 42 AT 59.
On reliance by the trial Court on Exhibit P2, learned
counsel for the Appellants contended that Exhibit P2 is not
a title document. The Appellant never conceded that title is
vested on the 2nd Respondent and the same Exhibit P2 is
one of the several exhibits complained against in ground
one of the Appellants' notice of appeal.
24
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
On the Respondents' contention that the issue of failure of
the trial Court to consider the issue of the Respondents'
breach of the terms of grant was not challenged in any of
the three grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the
Appellants submitted that ground one raises that complaint
and the failure of the trial Court to determine the issue on
the reason which the Appellants gave is failure to evaluate
evidence before it. He referred the Court to the case of
CHIEF T.A. ORJI & ANOR VS PDP & ORS (2009) 14
NWLR PT.1161 PG 408.
On the failure to hear the Appellants, motion to call
additional witness and documentary evidence, learned
counsel for the Appellants, contended that the law and
practice direction of this Court permits an Appellant to
challenge an issue which arose in the cause of the
proceedings alongside the final judgment and the Appellant
need not raise a ground of appeal on the issue.
He submitted that motions are integral part of every
proceeding and once filed, the Court must consider same
and pronounce on it. When a motion so filed is not
considered the Appellants are entitled to raise such issue
in appeal.
25
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
He referred the Court to the cases of; FIRST ALL STATE
SECURITIES LTD & ANOR VS ADESOYE HOLDINGS
LTD (2013) 16 NWLR PT. 1381 AT 494;
UGOCHUKWU DURU VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA (2013) 6 NWLR PT. 1351 AT 461-462.
Learned counsel for the Appellants finally urged the Court
to discountenance the arguments of the Respondents,
uphold this appeal and accordingly set aside the judgment
of the lower Court.
In civil matters, the Court decides the case on the balance
of probabilities, or preponderance of evidence. This is done
when a trial Court puts on an imaginary scale the totality of
the evidence adduced by the parties before it, before
coming to a decision as to which of it, it accepts and which
it rejects.
It is trite law that the trial Court not being the apex Court
ought to consider all issues for determination properly
brought before it and to refuse to do so is tantamount to a
denial of fair hearing. In the instant case, the Appellants
contended that the trial Court erred in law in granting the
reliefs sought by the Respondents without evaluating and
taking into consideration all the evidence placed before it.
26
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
The Appellants’ counsel submitted further in paragraph
4.45 of their brief of argument that the failure of the trial
Court to evaluate the adduced evidence before it, is
manifest in the way Exhibits P1, P4 & P6 were admitted
into the record of the trial Court.
Evaluation means the assessment of evidence as to give
value or quality to it. See the case of ONWUKA VS.
EDIALA (1989) 1 NWLR PT. 96 PG 182.
In the Evaluation of evidence, the trial Courts are guided by
the following principles namely;
a. Whether the evidence is admissible;
b. Whether the evidence is relevant;
c. Whether the evidence is credible;
d. Whether the evidence is conclusive; and
e. Whether the evidence is more probable than that given
by the other party.
See the case of MOGAJI VS. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91.
Evaluation of evidence is primarily the function of the trial
Court. It is only where and when it fails to evaluate such
evidence properly or at all, that an appellate Court can
intervene and re-evaluate such evidence, otherwise the
appellate Court has no business interfering with the finding
of the trial Court on such evidence.
27
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
See the case of ADEBAYO VS ADUSEI (2004) 4 NWLR
PT. 862 PG 44. In the instant case, I have carefully
perused the judgment of the trial Court, particularly its
findings at pages 250 - 257 of the record of appeal, wherein
the trial Court dealt with the issues of admission of Exhibits
P1, P4 & P6, it is my view that the trial Court rightly
admitted and unquestionably evaluates the said exhibits.
Therefore it is not the business of this Court to substitute
its own views for the views of the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the Appellants also contended that
several issues were raised at the trial Court but were not
considered. He argued further, that the trial Court failed to
consider in its judgment the issue of overriding public
interest as the ground for the revocation of the
Respondents’ title, and the issue of the breach of the 1st
Respondent's right of occupancy over plot 2775.
The trial Court in paragraph 3 of its judgment at pages 265
of the record of appeal found thus;
In the final stretch, I will determine as a prelude, the
disputed revocation of the 1st Respondent's title. The
evidence in support of this tendered by the Defendants are
28
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Exhibits D11 & D12. Exhibit D11 is a notice of revocation of
right of occupancy, reference file No. MISC 57787. It is
dated 8th February, 2010 and signed by one Dr. James
Agbonhense, Deed Registrar for the Minister (FCT). It
states that the land was revoked due to overriding public
interest. Even without looking at the reason for which the
land is revoked, the law is that effective service of a notice
of revocation is a sine qua non to any valid acquisition of
land by any government be it Federal, State or Local.... The
question is now whether notice was served in this case
either on the 1st Plaintiff or on the 2nd? From the totality
of evidence before me, it is difficult to hold that such notice
was served... Non service of notice of revocation is an acid
that eats up completely any case where revocation is
alleged and denied. In this case, I find and hold that the
purported revocation conveyed by the letter of 8th
February, 2010 is null and void and the acquisition fails
having been vitiated by the Defendant's failure to serve a
notice of revocation as prescribed by law."
Now can it be said that the trial Court failed in its judgment
to consider the issue of
29
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
overriding public interest as the ground for the revocation.
I do not think so. I have also carefully gone through the
Appellants' final written address filed before the lower
Court, it is my view that there is nowhere in the said final
address wherein the Appellants' argued the issue of the
breach of the 1st Respondent's right of occupancy over plot
2775 for the trial Court to resolve it in its judgment.
On the Respondents' contention that issue one is too wide
and not capable of being distilled from ground three. It is
trite law that issues for determination must be based on the
ground of appeal and any issue or argument that does not
relate to any ground of appeal is incompetent. In the
instant appeal, a careful perusal of ground one of the
Appellants' grounds of appeal shows that the complaints of
the Appellants on the signing of pre-action counseling
certificate, whether Exhibit P6 is a title document which
confers title on the 2nd Respondent, whether a power of
Attorney constitute a legal title, whether a certificate of
occupancy does not confer title and the failure of the 2nd
Respondent to disclose on the face of the writ to disclose
that it was
30
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
suing as Attorney to the 1st Respondent are not covered by
their issue one. Therefore, goes to no issue.
On issue of proper service of revocation notice on the
Respondents, learned counsel for the Appellants argued
that there was a proper service of notice of revocation by
post on the Respondents and the absence of date in the
certificate of delivery is not a conclusive proof of non
service.
Notice of revocation of a right of occupancy is indeed very
important because it informs the holder of the steps taken
to extinguish his right of occupancy. Thus the service of the
notice of revocation is sine qua non and the mode of service
of such notice is prescribed in Section 44 of the Land Use
Act. See EKUNDAYO & ANOR VS. FCDA & ANOR
(2015) LPELR-24512 CA.
The key witness on this issue is DW1 one Kumaiin Ikya a
staff of the FCTA in his testimony under cross-examination
he said;-
He knows that the 1st Plaintiff was issued with a certificate
of occupancy and the address of the 1st Plaintiff in that
certificate of occupancy is Ruwan Kanya, Rano, P.O. Box
2012, Kano, Nigeria. Exhibit D11, the purported revocation
notice was address to
31
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Federal Archive Fertile Acres Ltd P. O. Box 52, Addis
Ababa Crescent, Wuse 4, Abuja FCT. He also agreed that as
per the address, the purported notice of revocation was
address to any of the Plaintiffs.
The trial Court in its judgment found thus;-
"Firstly, there is no evidence that before the Court of the
receipt of notice of revocation.... The Plaintiffs have denied
knowledge of the address to which it was posted i.e. Plot
52, Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse 4, Abuja FCT. That is
neither the address of the 1st or 2nd Plaintiff. Further,
under cross examination, DW1 admitted that the address of
the 1st Plaintiff is Ruwan Kanya, Rano, P.O. Box 2012,
Kano, Nigeria. DW1 confirmed further under cross
examination that the Defendants know the Plaintiffs'
addresses. DW1 finally agreed that he does not know
whether Exhibit D11 was served. The net effect of all this is
that the Defendants cannot say for certain if the revocation
notice was ever served on the Plaintiffs' i, e 151- or 2nd."
Section 44 (a), (b) and (c) of the Land Use Act which relates
to the service of notice provides;-
32
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
"Any notice required by this Act to be served on any person
shall be effectively served on him-
a. By delivering it to the person or who is to be serve, or
b. By leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode or
c. By sending it in a prepaid registered letter addresses to
that person at his usual or last known place of abode."
From the evidence on record, I agree with the view of the
trial Court that the purported revocation conveyed by the
letter of 8th February, 2010 is null and void and the
acquisition fails having been vitiated by Defendant's failure
to serve a notice of revocation. If any service was done at
all it was done in violation, again of the provisions of
Section 28 of the Act. The evidence on record shows that
no compensation was paid to the Respondents.
On the Appellants' counsel contention that the action of the
trial Court in dismissing the Appellants' motion when the
motion had not been moved violated the Appellants' right to
fair hearing. This complaint of the Appellants is argued
under issue three distilled from ground three of the
Appellants' notice of appeal. The said ground three with its
particulars is reproduced below;
33
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
"GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law when he dismissed the
motion of the Appellants' wherein they sought to bring in
an additional witness and documentary evidence.
PARTICULARS
a. The essence of bringing in the additional witness and
documentary evidence was to clarify salient issues.
b. The evidence adduced was not properly evaluated."
Grounds of appeal are generally complaints by a party to an
appellate Court against the decision of a lower Court and
so they must be in firma terra, that is, arise from the said
judgment. This is the precondition for the vesting of the
judicial power of the Constitution in the Courts. See the
cases of;
LIVESTOCK FOODS PLC VS. FUNTUA & ANOR. (2005)
17 NWLR (PT. 955) PG 549.
AMGBARE VS. SYLVA (2009) 1 NWLR (PT. 1121) AT
76-77.
I have carefully perused the entire judgment of the trial
Court, there is nothing in the said judgment to bear out the
Appellants' claim of its motion to call additional witness
being dismissed as alleged. Therefore, the said ground
three is incompetent. Since ground three is incompetent,
issue three from which it has been raised is incompetent,
the said issue three too cannot be considered and it is
hereby accordingly struck out.
34
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
From all what I have said above, all the three issues for
determination in this appeal are resolved against the
Appellants and in favor of the Respondents.
There is no merit in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the trial Court is hereby affirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree.
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of
reading before now, the judgment just delivered by my
learned brother, Hon Justice Abdu Aboki, PJCA.
My brother has thoroughly resolved the issues in this
appeal. I have nothing useful to add. I also dismiss the
appeal for lacking in merit.
35
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)
Appearances:
Peter Erivwode Esq,with him S.Q Agbor Esq,Wunuola Omonuwa Esq., and Ajuwas ShadrackEsq. For Appellant(s)
A.B. Anachebe SAN with him A.O Okpalah Esq,F.C. Anachebe Esq, Charles Jibuaku Esq.,Uchenna Uche Esq., Chinalo Ekwe Esq. andRebella Anachebe Esq. For Respondent(s)
(201
8) LP
ELR-45
996(
CA)