Trojan News :: Real Time News

Judiciary

Chronicle Of How Taiwo Adegboye “LULE” As New Alawo By Court Of Appeal (2)

“It is relevant to observe that the plaintiff did not plead estoppel.
It was, therefore, not to 0pen to him to raise it, either in the Court
below or before us. Moreover, this point was never taken before the learned trial judge. This court has said over and over again that,
where a plaintiff did not set up estoppels in the court below as part
of his case, it would, in our opinion, be wrong for this court to
allow such an issue to be raised as one of the issue in the case f9or
the first time in this court.”

Thus, where a party desires to reply on estopple by matter of record (per rem judicatam) he must specifically plead the estopple he is going to rely on as estopple per rem judicatam – Ogunnaike Vs Ojayemi (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt 53) 760, Omotesho Vs Oloriegbe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt 87) 225, Achiakpa Vs Nduka (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt 734) 623, Tsokwa Oil & Marketing Co Vs UTC (Nig) Plc (202) 12 NWLR (Pt 782) 437, Odi Vs Iyala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt 875) 283. A plea of res judicata is not an issue of substantive jurisdiction that can be raised without it having been first specifically pleaded in the pleading of a party. It also does not come within the exception to the procedure in lieu of demurrer.

Advertisement

The third issue of law raised by the Ap0pellants on their notice of
preliminary objection was locus standi. The law is settle that a
defendant desirous of challenging the lous standi of a claimant must file a statement of defence and plead the fact of lack of locus
standi, before he can constitute into a motion, otherwise the motion will be incompetent – Lasisi Fadare & Ors Vs Attorney General, Oyo State (1982) All NLR 26, Dada Vs Ogunsanya (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt 232) 754, Disus Vs Ajilowura (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt 1000) 783, Wilson Vs Okeke (2011) LPELR 4536 (CA), Nwaiwa Vs Governor, Imo State (2013) LPELR 20690(CA), Adisa Vs Adisa (2015) LPELR 41660(CA). In Bakare Vs Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt 1403) 302at 353C-E, the Supreme Court explained the position thus:

“The issue of locus standi on doubts an issue of law. In this case, it
was raised by the Appellants pursuant to order 22 rules 2, 3 & 4 of
the High court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules. It was clear
that the objection on the summons was not lack of reasonable cause of action but lack of required locus standi. The law is clear that the point ought to have been raised in the statement of defence and may then be taken by the Court when properly moved to do so. In the instance case, it was clear from the record that the appellants had not filed their statement of defence to the respondent’s action when raised the issue of locus standi.”

A plea of lack of locus standi is not an issue of substantive
jurisdiction that can be raised without it having been first
specifically pleaded in the pleadings of a party. It too does not come within the exception to the procedure in lieu of demurrer.

The fourth issue raised by the Appellants on their notice of
preliminary objection was on the failure of the first of the fourth
Respondents to serve a pre-acati9on on the Respondent sued as the fifth defendant. The supreme Court and this Court have held many timer that non-service of pre-action notice is a matter of procedural irregularity, and not one of substantive jurisdiction, and, as stated earlier, being an issue of procedural jurisdiction, it must be raised by a party seeking to rely on it in his pleading and that where it is not so raised, the party will be deemed to have waived it. This is predicated on the principle that where pleadings are filed, a party relying on a condition precedent must plead it and if and it is not so pleaded, the party would by simple rules of pleadings be taken to have waived whatever rights he possesses on the point – Katsina Local Government Authority Vs Makudawa supra, Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited Vs Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency supra, F & F Farms (Nig) Ltd Vs Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation supra, NNPC Vs Zaria (2014) LPELR 22362(CA), Obasi Vs Fadeyi (2020) LPELR 51758(CA). Thus, again the plea of non-service of pre-action notice is not an issue of substantive jurisdiction that can be raised without it having been first specifically pleaded in the pleadings of a party. It too does not come within the exception to the procedure in lieu of demurrer.

The last issue raise by the appellants on their preliminary objective
is that the action of the first to the fourth Respondents did not
disclose a reasonable cause of action. This is an exception to the
procedure in lieu of demurer. It is a point that can be raised without
a defendant first having to file pleadings. It is the only issue that
the lower Court could have considered on the notice of preliminary
objective of the Appellants. The trial Court, having failed to
consider the merit if this issue, this Court will proceed to do so.

The phrase “cause of action” means simply a factual situation the
existence of which entitles one person to obtain a remedy against
another person. It is a fact or combination of facts which when proved would entitled a plaintiff to a remedy against a defendant. It
consists of every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgement of the
court. It consists of two elements, namely: (i) the wrongful act of
the defendant which gives the claimant his cause of complaint; and
(ii) the consequent damage – Sanda Vs Kukawa Local Government (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt 174) 379, Dantata Vs Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 664) 176, Charles Vs Governor of Ondo State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1338) 294, Uwazuruonye Vs Governor, Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt 1355) 28. A cause of action is constituted by either a single fact or a combination of facts averred by plaintiff in his pleading which the law will recognize as giving him a right to make a claim against a defendant for a remedy or relief in court. The factual situation disclosed by the facts in the plaintiff’s pleading on which he relies to support the claim made must be recognized as giving him the right capable of being claimed against the defendant – Egbe Vs Adefarasin (No 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt 47) 1, Seagull Oil Ltd Vs Moni Pulo Ltd (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt 1271) 525.

A reasonable cause of action is a cause of action which, when only the facts in the statement of claim are considered, has some chance of success. In determining whether a reasonable cause of actions is
disclosed in a suit, all the facts in the statement of claim are
deemed admitted, where pleadings are filed, and the court confines
itself to examining only the facts averred in the statement of claim
to see whether those facts standing alone disclose a cause of action
that has a chance of success. The court does not scrutinize or examine documents or affidavit evidence whether from the defendant or plaintiff for the purpose of ascertaining whether a reasonable cause of action is disclosed in a suit – Fumudoh Vs Aboro (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt 214) 210, Dantata Vs Mohammed supra, Ohaji Vs Unamka (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt 1236) 148, Ikenne Local Government Vs West African Portland Ltd supra, Charles Vs Governor of Ondo State supra, Uwazuruonye Vs Governor, Imo
State supra, National Assembly Vs Accord (2021) 18 NWLR (Pt 1808) 193 at 298C-D.

A statement of claim is said to disclose a reasonable cause of action
where the facts alleged therein raise some issues of law or fact
calling for a determination by the court. For a statement of claim to
be said to disclose no reasonable cause of action, it must be such
that no defendant can understand what claim he is required to meet and the case stated in it must be unsustainable, or unarguable or incontestably bad. The weakness or the strength of the case on the merits is an irrelevant consideration at this stage and a court would not bother itself with whether the cause will succeed on the merits – Bello Vs Attorney General, Oyo State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 828, Nicon Insurance Corporation Vs Olowofoyeku (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt 973) 244, Ikenne Local Government Vs West African Portland Cement Plc (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt 1261) 223, Seagull Oil Ltd Vs Moni Pulo Ltd supra.

The contention of the Appellants on the preliminary objection is that the action did not disclose a reasonable cause because the entire cause is about first to the fourth Respondents seeking for the
amendment of a Chieftaincy Declaration and that the Courts have held that this is not a judicial function and that a Court has no
jurisdiction to make such a declaration. This contention is a complete fallacy. The prayer pertaining to amendment of a chieftaincy declaration is only one out of the six reliefs sought by the first to the fourth Respondents. Even at that, the first to the fourth Respondents did pray this Court to amend the chieftaincy declaration in question. Rather they prayed the Court to direct the eight to the eleventh Respondents, who are the appropriate authorities on chieftaincy declarations, to amend the chieftaincy declaration in question in line with the several representations they had made to them since 1979 through the different Chieftaincy Commissions such as Babalakin Commission of Inquiry in 1992 and the Hon. Justice Abdul Kareem Chieftaincy Commission of Inquiry in 2016. This request is not unsustainable, or unarguable or incontestable bad. It is one that the lower Court can look into and determine whether to grant or not. There is no aspect of the case of the first to the fourth Respondents that does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The contention of the counsel to the Appellant is totally misconceived.

What all the above statements of the law translate to is that it was
Counsel to the Appellant that suffered from serious misconceptions and who, this Court does not have to sweat to say, goofed in the way and manner he filled the notice of preliminary objections to raise matters of defence as issues of law and supported them with prolix affidavits of facts; matters and facts that should have been pleaded in a statement of defence. It is trite law, as rightly pointed out by the lower Court, that where a notice of preliminary objections raises issues that a defendant ought to have developed into a defence to an action, the preliminary objections should be over ruled – Delta State Government Vs Okon (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt 752) 665 and Akat Nigeria Ltd Vs Unity Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2016) LPELR 40198(CA). The lower Court was thus correct when it overruled and struck out the preliminary objection of the Appellants and directed them to file pleadings.

Before concluding this appeal, there is a pertinent point deserves
consideration. Counsel to the first to the fourth Respondents,
referring to this appeal, stated in Paragraph 4.07 of his brief of
arguments thus.

“…it is appeal brought as a gap to waste the precious judicial time of my Lords as the Appellants used the opportunity of the period of
preparation and transmission of records to intensify their lobby on
the 8th to 11th Respondents to install 2nd Appellant at all costs as
the new Alawo of Awo whilst this appeal is still pending. Indeed, the
Appellants succeeded in convincing the 8th Respondent and who, on the ill-advice of the Honorable Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice who is the 11th Respondent in the appeal, proceeded and installed the 2nd Appellant as the new monarch on the 13th of September, 2021.

Counsel to the Appellants did not respond to these assertions in the Reply brief of arguments. Counsel did not contend against, deny or refute the assertions. The natural effect is that the Appellants are deemed to have admitted the facts as stated – Unity Bank Plc Vs Ahmed(2019) LPELR 47395(SC), First Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Amanyi (2020) LPELR 49946(CA), Akinyemi Vs Omodara (2021) LPELR 54567(CA). In fact, the records of the Court show that on the 17th of September, 2021 the first to the fourth Respondents filled a motion on notice praying for mandatory restorative orders and they deposed to the facts of the nomination, approval and installation of the second Appellant as the Alawo on the 13th of September, 2021 by the eighth to eleventh Respondents, in flagrant disregard of the pending appeal. The Appellants filed a counter affidavit in response and it was deposed to by their Counsel on the 6th of October, 2021 wherein they admitted these facts and suggested that they took those steps because there was
no pending preservative order made by the Court. This Court possess power to look at and utilize documents in its file in arriving at a just decision – Gajimi Vs First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2018) LPELR
43996(CA), NDCA & Gaspa Project Management Engineering LTD Vs Gaspa Project Management Group Ltd (2019) LPELR 47607(CA).

The claims of the first to the fourth Respondents before the lower
Court are to the effect that the appellants and the fifth to the
seventh Respondents are not entitled to aspire to and occupy the stool of Alawo of Awo and they sought for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Appellants and the fifth to the seventh Respondents from presenting themselves for nomination or from contesting for stool of Alawo of Awo. After aware of the proceeding and fully participated in it and being conscious that the action was still pending, and not concluded, the Appellants not only put the second Appellant forward for nomination and to contest for the stool, but they also lobbied the eight to the eleventh Respondents to install the second Appellant as Alawo of Awo and he was so installed as Alawo of Awo on the 13th of September, 2021. This appeal that the Appellants filed, and which is a continuation of the matter in the Lower Court, was pending in this Court at the time.

One of the derivative principles from the concept of “rule of law” is
that it is not permissible for any person whether he be a party in a
court proceeding or not, to engage in a conduct that is calculated to bring the authority and the administrative of justice system into
disrespect or disregard. Thus, where a matter is before a Court of
law, whether or not a preservative order has been made, none of the parties can legally or lawfully take any unilateral action that will
prejudice or tend to prejudice the hearing or adjudication of the
matter in Court. In other words, none of the parties in litigation
before a Court of law is allowed to take the law into his own hands
and foist upon the Court a fait accompli thereby rendering it
impossible for the Court to arrive at a decision it may make nugatory or futile – Agbai Vs Okogbue (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt 204) 391, Abiodun Vs Chief Judge, Kwara State (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt 1065) 109, Bass & Matt Enterprises (Nig) Ltd Vs Keystone Bank Ltd (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt 1441) 609, Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd Vs Cutra International Ltd (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt 1735) 302, Governor, Kwara State Vs Adeniyi (2021) 12 NWLR (Pt 1790) 305.

In Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church Vs Olowoleni (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt 158) at 537-538, Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, explained the law thus:

“… once parties have turned their dispute over to the courts for
determination, the right to resort to self-help ends. So, it is not
permissible for one of the parties to take any step during the
pendency of the suit which may have the effect of foisting upon the
court a situation of complete helplessness, or which may give the
impression that the court is being used as a mere subterfuge, to tie
the hands of one party while the other party helps himself
extra-judicially. Both parties are expected to await the result of the
litigations and the appropriate order of court before acting further… in The Military Governor of Lagos State v Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu…, the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to the principle, inter alia, that once the court is seized of the matter, no party has the right to take the matter into its own hands….

The same principle applies in the case, mutatis mutandis,
notwithstanding the fact that the offending party in this case is a
church organization. They are subject to the rule of law, and are
expected to obey the law. Once they submitted the dispute to the
court, they ought not to have done nothing which gave the impression that they are trying to pre-empt the decision of the court. They could no longer, pending the determination of the suit, resort to self-help by erecting the fence wall without an order of Court. To have done so amounted to lawlessness…”

In Ezegbu Vs First African Trust Bank Ltd (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt 220) 699, Niki Tobi, JCA, (as he then was) reiterated the position at page
725A-F thus: “Parties who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court are under a legal duty not to do anything to frustrate or make nonsense a possible court order. They must, whether they like it or not, wait for the court order. They must, whether they like it or not, wait for the court to take decision one way or the other. The procedure at arriving at a decision may be slow. It may even be sluggish. But the parties cannot jump the gun and do their own thing in their way. That will be tantamount to undermining the integrity of the Court. What I am in effect saying is that a party who has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court is not entitled to resort to self-help. That will be chaos and distability of the social equilibrium if the opposing party reacts. The Supreme Court clearly held in Governor of Lagos State v Ojukwu…that parties should not embark upon self-help will certainly render a subsequent successful decision nugatory, parties must refrain from it at all times. Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not given a specific injunctive order, the parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process. They should, on no account resort to self-help”

The Appellants in the instant appeal resorted to self-help while this
appeal was pending before this Court. It is settled law that every
Court of law has a duty to and must guard jealously its judicial
powers and should not allow matters already properly before it for
determination to be taken away by any of the parties to be settled in ways inimical to the due process of law or to just steal a match on the other party and to present the Court with a fait accompli –
Confitrust (Nig) Ltd Vs Emmax Motors Ltd (2016) LPELR 41428(CA) All Progressive Congress Vs Karfi (2017) LPELR 47024(SC). Niki Tobi, JCA, (as he then was) similarly made this point in Ezegbu Vs First African Trust Bank Ltd supra at page 725-726 thus:

“In my humble view, Judges by the nature of their delicate office of
Judicial Officers, have a duty to protect themselves from being
abused, disparaged, or ridiculed by any of the parties or any other
persons. Judges should stand firmly in defence of their own court
processes. If they do not, nobody will come to their aid. … And so
when a Judge is made to understand that his orders are physically
disobeyed or in the process of being disobeyed, he must take firm,
decisive and adequate action and steps to arrest the situation. Where this is not done, litigation will be more of a game of chess where litigants can take chances at altercating or deliberately annoying the court with view of testing its true legal strengths as to how far it can accept punches here and there from litigants. That is not right. That is not correct. Let us rise up to defend our own integrity as the third arm of government and the traditionally acclaimed watchdog of the rights of the common man…”

Therefore, whenever it is brought to the attention of the Court that
one of the parties is taking or has taken steps to foist a fait
accompoli in respect of a matter pending before it, the Court has duty to act swiftly and decisively to deal with the party – Registered
Trustees, Apostolic Church Vs Olowoleni supra. In Ezegbu Vs First
African Trust Bank Ltd supra; Niki Tobi, JCA, (as he then was)
continued thus:

“Whenever such a situation arises, the Court must invoke its
disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of a recalcitrant
party. That was the essence of the application made to this court… in the case of Chief Okoya and others v Santili and others… In that case, this is what I said… in respect of the disciplinary jurisdiction of a court: “The jurisdiction inheres in the court as adjudicator qua judex. The power is designed for the maintenance of the dignity and integrity of the court. Unless the court exercises its disciplinary jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances, it will lose its dignity and integrity in the judicial process. The institution of the Court which the law has placed in an exalted and sacred position surrounded by all aura of legalism and sanctity, will be reduced to toothless dog which can bark but cannot bite.”

The actions of the Appellants, in conjunction with the eight to the
eleventh Respondents, were in total disregard for this Court and they are contemptuous. This is a proper case for this Court to invoke its disciplinary powers against the Appellants. Now, what is this Court to do in the circumstances? In answering this question, Kalgo, JCA, (as he then was) stated in the case of Ezegbu Vs First African Trust Bank Ltd supra at page 736C-E thus:
“What then is the remedy of the Court where it finds itself in this
situation? I have earlier said that any court found in the same
situation would frown against it. I also add that the Court must in
addition take positive and mandatory step in order to instill judicial
discipline in the erring party and in order to maintain, restore and
preserve the dignity and respect of the Court. This includes the
undoing of what has been done by the erring party irrespective of what the Court will decide on the merits, when the matter is properly heard…”

In other words, this Court has the power to undo what the Appellants did in abuse of the process of the Court in an attempt to overreach and present the Court with a fait accompli – Vaswani Trading Co Ltd Vs Savalakh & Co (1972) 12 SC 77, Ivory Merchant Bank Ltd Vs Partnership Investment Ltd (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt 448) 362, Uniperol (Nig) Plc Vs Abubakar (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt 509) 470, Effiom Vs Keystone Bank Ltd supra, All Progressive Congress Vs Karfi supra. This Court will make consequential orders in this appeal to do exactly this and these are orders that this Court can make without the first to the fourth Respondents having formally asked for them. They are aimed at punishing the contemptuous actions of the Appellants, aided by the eight to the eleventh Respondents – Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church Vs Olowoleni supra at 538-539G-B.

This Court notes that the Appellants could not have acted as they did without the advice, support, and active connivance of their Counsel. This fact is obvious from the attitude displayed by Counsel in deposing a counter affidavit to admit the assertions of the facts made by Counsel to the first to fourth Respondents and in continuing to represent the Appellants without any obvious discomfiture at their actions. Perhaps more preposterous is the participation of the eleventh Respondent, the Attorney General of Osun State, the supposed Chief Legal Adviser of the State, in the whole saga. This is not right. Is it unexplainable and cannot engender public confidence in our justice system. We must never lose sight of the fact that justice is rooted in public confidence and the moment members of the society lose confidence in the system of administration of justice, a descent to anarchy begins.

Lawyers as operators of the administration of justice system owe a
duty, to the society that nurtured them and made them what they are, to ensure that they conduct their activities in a manner that edifies and brings honor, respect and belief to the justice system. They should not allow themselves to be used by litigants to bring the justice system into disrepute. It is pertinent that this Court reminds Counsel of the eternal words of a great jurist J Wesley McWilliams who writing in an American Bar Association Journal in January 1955 (41 ABA 18) wrote in an article he titled “The Law as a Dynamic Profession” thus:

“We belong to an ancient, to a great, to an honored profession. The
practice of Law is worthy calling. It has rewarded us with financial
success and with prestige and leadership in our communities. It has
given us much happiness and the good life. From it we have received the gratitude and respect of our friends and neighbors whom we have served. Our word affords intellectual pleasure with dignity and independence, in competition with our fellow Lawyers with whom we have cemented warm friendships and enjoyed happy companionships. For these blessings, we cannot but have a sense of gratitude and obligation. The most productive, unselfish and wholly satisfying repayment of the obligation is constructive work to increase the effectiveness of our judicial system and the welfare of the profession.”

The more Counsel imbibe and abide these admonitions, the better the justice delivery system becomes and the more fulfilling the sacrifice put in by the stakeholders in the system is. It is hoped that Counsel to the Appellants and the eleventh Respondent ill learn from this and not make themselves willing tools in the hands of all and every type of people in future.

In conclusion, this Court finds and holds that this appeal lacks merit
and is totally misconceived. It is hereby dismissed and the decision
of the High Court of Osun State in Suit No HOS/84/2020 contained in the Ruling delivered by Honorable Justice O. A. Ayoola on the 13th of January, 2021 is affirmed. This Court further orders as follows:
i. An order is hereby made setting aside the selection, the
appointment, the approval and the installation of the second
Appellant, Honorable Adegboye Taiwo Rasaq, as the Alawo of Awo, some of which acts were carried out by the eight to the eleventh
Respondents, and they were carried out after this appeal had been
entered on the 25th of June 2021 and was pending before this Court and the second Appellant is directed to vacate the stool forthwith.

ii. The second Appellant, Honorable Adegboye Taiwo Rasaq, is hereby restrained from parading himself as or performing any of the functions of the Alawo of Awo or wearing or displaying any insignia of the Office of Alawo of Awo, including beads, crowns and all other paraphernalia of the stool pending the final determination of this action by the lower Court.

The Appellants are directed to file their pleading within twenty-one
days of today and the case file is remitted to the lower Court for the continuation of proceedings in the matter. The lower Court is enjoined to accord the matter an accelerated hearing. The first to the fourth Respondents are each awarded the cost of this frivolous mischievous and vexatious appeal assessed at N200,000.00 against the Appellants. These shall be the orders of this Court.

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
Olamiposi Egbedini for the Appellants
Kehinde Adesiyan with A. L. Idris for the 1st – 4th Respondents
Ambali Adisa, Dir. PD&CR, MoJ Osun State for the 8th -11th Respondents
No appearance for the 5th to the 7th Respondents

APPEAL NO. CA/AK/58/2021
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, JCA
I have read in draft the leading judgment prepared by my learned
brother. Habeeb Adewale P. Abiru, JCA; in this appeal.
I agree with the conclusion reached. I also abide by the consequential
orders made therein.

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

APPEAL NO: CA/AK/58/2021
YUSUF A. BASHIR – JCA
My leaned brother HABEEB ADEWALE O. ABIRU JCA. Has graciously availed
me a draft copy of this judgment, His Lordship has dealt with the
issues involved in this appeal admirably well in a judicious and
scholarly manner, I am very much at home with the resolution of the
said issues.

I agree with my learned brother that once parties submit their
dispute to the court of law for adjudication, they are under an
abiding obligation not to carry out any act that will frustrate the
effort of the court as will undermine the outcome of the litigation.
In other words, while a matter is pending in court the parties have no right to resort to self help. In this case proceeding to install the
2nd appellant into the contention stool of the ALAWO OF AWO, during the pendency of this appeal which revolves squarely around the said stool, to the knowledge of all, is not only contemptuous but an affront to the authority of this court. The effect of which in the least is to render the coronation and all other activities associated thereto null and void.

For that and the more comprehensive reasons contained in the leading judgment, I too hold that this appeal lack merit and it is hereby dismissed.

I fully abide by the orders contained in the leading judgment made by his lordship ADEWALE O. ABIRU JCA as though they were made by me, Including the order that the action be remitted back to the lower court for hearing as well as the sum of N100,000.00 awarded as cost to the 1st – 4th respondents.
Yusuf A. Bashir
Justice, Court of Appeal

About The Author