Chief John Anyimba V. Philiph Nwobodo Anyi Onovo (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A.
In the High Court of Enugu State, holden at Agbani, the Respondent as Plaintiff took out a writ of summons dated 11th January 2005 and filed same day against the Appellant as Defendant claiming as follows –
(a) A declaration that by virtue of the judgment of Mburubu Native Court (which judgment was delivered on or about the 10th June 1940) the Plaintiff is entitled to the customary right of Occupancy over the large portion of land located and situate at Obinagu, Nara in Nkanu West Local Government (survey plan of which to be filed later).
(b) A declaration that by virtue of the said judgment, the defendant is estopped from laying claim to the land, and/or from trespassing and/or entering the land to farm, build, sale (sic) or cut down economic trees, an act which the defendant and his agents have persisted in committing.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, and privies from trespassing into the said land howsoever.
(d) N500,000.00 damages for the acts of trespass aforesaid.
The Defendant/Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on the 14th February 2005 with a nine paragraph supporting affidavit in which he raised the following objections –
- Non fulfillment of the required condition precedent for commencing a representative action, leave of court to commence an action in a representative capacity.
- The land, the subject matter of this suit is a property situate at a non-urban area and to which this Honourable (sic) lacks the original jurisdiction to entertain
- The claim of the plaintiff is an abuse of court process since the judgment of Mburubu native court of 10th June 1940 upon which this action is based did not create any vested right in favour of the plaintiff and his family. It only created an expectation for the plaintiff’s father which turned out impossible.
- The suit is incompetent; the plaintiff and his family are estopped from laying claim to the land in dispute since this action are between privies to the judgment which was concluded by court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties by Mburubu native court in 1940.
Arguments were heard on the objection on the 22nd March 2005 and 2nd June 2005 and the learned trial Judge Obieze J. on the 2nd June 2005 overruled the preliminary objection. It is against this ruling that the present Appeal is predicated.
Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 4th May 2007 was adopted and relied upon by B.O. Alingele Esq., while Mrs S. Chibueze holding F. Chibueze’s brief adopted and relied on the Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated 2nd October 2007 and filed on the 4th October 2007. Mr. Alingele urged this court to allow the appeal just as Mrs Chibueze urged that the Ruling of the lower court be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
The Notice of Appeal as reproduced from pages 24 – 26 of the Record of Appeal is as follows –
NOTICE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKE NOTICE that the defendant/Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of Honourable Justice F.O. Obieze of Agbani High Court of Justice Enugu State contained in the ruling dated 2nd June 2005 do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the ground set out in paragraph 3 and will at the trial seek the relief set out in paragraph 4.
- PART OF THE DECISION COMPLAINED OF:
The whole decision
- GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND 1
The trial court erred in law by failure to dismiss or strike out the suit of the plaintiff/Respondent or abuse of court process.
(a) The defendant raised objection to the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that reliefs (a) and (b) endorsed or in the face of the plaintiffs writ of summons are unfounded in law and that other reliefs therein sought follow from the said reliefs (a) and (b)
(b) The said reliefs (a) and (b) by the plaintiff are wrong because,
(i) they have an implication, though not correct, that the plaintiff was adjudged the owner of the land now in dispute in 1940 by Mburumbu native court which court vested him with absolute title to the land to the exclusion of the defendant.
(ii) They are based on estoppel per rem judicata.
c. It is the law that a party who seeks a declaration must do so in clears terms and directly without
resort to implications. See AG Ondo state V AG Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR pt 743 pg 706 at ratios 17 and 18
d. The proper order for the court to make where it is satisfied that there is an abuse of court process by re-litigation of a cause of action, as in this case in order for dismissal. See the cases of Arubo V Aiyerebu (1993) 3 NWLR (pt 280) pg 126 at 146 and Udeze V Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR (pt 125) pg 141 at 157.
e. The plaintiff’s writ of summons and the defendants notice of preliminary objection, supported by unchallenged and uncontroverted affidavit with the proceeding and judgment of the Mburumbu native court of 1940 quoted in the writ annexed fixed all the points sufficient both in law and in fact to enable the trial court determine the issue raised by the defendant at the interlocutory stage about abuse of court process by the plaintiff.
GROUND2
The trial court erred in law by overruling the defendant objection challenging the courts original jurisdiction to entertain the suit over the land in the non-urban area which title thereto has been adjudicated upon by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
PARTICULARS
(a) Native court is the same as customary court see the case of Ogunike v Ojayemi (1997) 1 NSCC (pt 1) page 332 at 333
(b) A customary court is a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with a high court for the purpose of land suits in non urban area. See the case of Omosule Olisa V Olowodara Asojo (2002) 1 NWLR (pt 747) page 13 at page 18 ratio 1.
(c) The defendant/Appellant’s challenge to the original jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the subject matter of the nature described in the writ of summons rested on reliefs (a) and (b) claimed by the plaintiff in the face of the writ.
(d) It is the law that when considering the jurisdiction of a court to entertain subject matter of a suit, all the surrounding circumstances are considered and any element of the subject matter which exclude the jurisdiction of the court is a relevant consideration.
See the cases of Madukolo V Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR page 587 Ogunsanya V Dada (1990) 6 NWLR (pt 156) page 357
(e) The Plaintiff is estopped from denying the fact that
(i) his claim is founded on estopped per rem judicata.
(ii) The land now in dispute is one of which final, valid and subsisting judgment has been given by a court of competent jurisdiction for the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendant/Appellant
who are privies to the said judgment
(iii) The land now in dispute is located in the non urban area.
(f) The court is entitled to look at its own records to satisfy itself on any issue whether main or collateral that is placed before it. See the case of Agbaife V Ebikorafe (1997) 4 NWLR Pt 502 page 630 at 633 ratio 1.
(g) Issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any state of judicial proceedings.
GROUND3
The Trial court erred in law when it held that the estoppel which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim “is not used as a sword but as a shield.”
PARTICULARS
(a) The relief’s (a) and (b) claimed on the writ by the plaintiff are estoppel by records as he seeks declaration by virtue of a judgment of a court.
(b) The plaintiff is estopped from denying his claim is founded on estoppel per rem judicata.
(c) Estoppel is always used in law as a shield not as a sword unless estoppel by convention. See Okafor Adene & 2 ors Vs Ozo Gabriel Ikebudu 7 & 5 ors (2001) 8 NSCQR pg 174 at 178 ratio 6
(d) A plaintiff who seeks relief from the court in an action is not expected to raise the self-defeating plea, as was done by the plaintiff/respondent in this case, that the same cause of action has been conclusively determined and has merged in the judgment in a previous action see Okafor Adene & 2 ors Vs Ozo Gabriel Ikebudu 7 & 5 ors (2001) 8 NSCOR pg 174 at 178 ratio 6
GROUND4
The trial court erred in law when it held that the case of the plaintiff is incapable of re-opening the issue of title to the land in dispute which has been laid to rest by the judgment of Mburumbu native court in 1940 between privies to the said judgment.
PARTICULARS
(a) The plaintiff and the defendant are privies to the judgment of Mburumbu native court of 1940 and the defendant is estopped from denying that fact.
(b) The said court delivered a final judgment though conditional one in the said case in 1940
(c) Where damages are claimed, as in this case, the court must take evidence before quantifying the damages entitled by the plaintiff on the claim.
(d) The survey plan referred in relief (a) of the plaintiff’s writ contemplates a dispute plan
GROUND 5
Further grounds of appeal shall be filed upon the receipt of the records
- RELIEF SOUGHT
Set aside the decision of the High Court and dismiss or strike out the suit of the plaintiff
- PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE APPEAL AND
THEIR ADDRESSES
MR. PHILIP NWOBODO ANYI ONOVO: C/O His Counsel
B.O. Alingele (ESQ)
PP: Alingele & Asso.
14 Boardman Str.
Uwani Enugu
MR. JOHN ANYIMBA: C/O His Counsel
Fidel Chibueze (ESQ)
PP: Fidel Chibueze& Asso.
233 Agbani Road
Enugu
Dated at Enugu this 16th day of June 2005
B.O. Alingele (ESQ)
PP: Alingele & Ass.
14 Boardman Str.
UWANI ENUGU
Counsel for the Appellant
FORSERVICE ON:
Mr. John Anyimba
C/O His Counsel
Fidel Chibueze (ESQ)
PP: Fidel Chibueze & Asso.
233 Agbani Road
Enugu
From the five Grounds of Appeal contained in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant has at page 1 of his Brief of Argument formulated the following three issues for the determination of this court-
- Whether the Plaintiff’s writ, on its face, does not rob the court below of jurisdiction.
- Whether the action in the court below is different from the suit in Mburumbu native court.
- Whether the principle of Res judicata is in applicable in this case.
The Respondent has on page 3 paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument distilled the following two issues for the determination of this court-
3.1 Whether or not the court below is right in law when it ruled that a state High Court has the competence to exercise original jurisdiction over land situate in Non-urban area like the one constituting the subject matter of this action.
3.2 Whether on the face of the Respondent’s claim and having regards to the conditional judgment of Mburumbu native court of 1940, the principles of “res judicata” applies to this case as to estop the Respondent from bringing the action as constituted.
I have carefully considered the issues formulated by the Appellant and Respondent and I think the sole issue for the determination of this appeal is whether the principle of “Res Judicata” applies to estop the Respondent from bringing this action. This singular issue permeates all the arguments canvassed in both Briefs of Argument. Put in some other words, does the High Court have the original jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s claim as constituted? The Appellant has submitted that jurisdiction is the backbone of court and without jurisdiction the court will not act. It was further submitted that if any feature of a case prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction the court is incompetent to entertain such a matter and that jurisdiction is determined by a plaintiff’s claim. The following cases were relied upon – MADUKOLU V. NKEMDIUM (1962) 1 All NLR 587; OGUNSANYA V DADA (1990) 6 NWLR PART 156 page 357; OSAFILE V 0001 (1990) 3 NWLR PART 137 page 130; AGU & ANOR. V. UDOFFIN (1992) 9 LRCN page 667; UNITED AGRO VENTURE LTD V. FIRST CITY MERCHANT BANK LTD (1998) 4 NWLR PART 547 page 550; IZENKWE V. NNADOZIE 14 WACA 361 at 363. The Appellant has submitted that the Respondent’s claims are on the face of the writ and claims (a) and (b) are unfounded in law and have an implication though not correct that the Respondent was adjudged the owner of the land now in dispute by the 1940 judgment of the Mburumbu Native Court. According to the Appellant, the Respondent’s claim raises the self defeating plea that the same cause of action has been conclusively determined and has emerged in the judgment in a previous action. Appellant went on to submit further that a Native or Customary court has a concurrent jurisdiction with a State High Court over question of title to land located in the non urban area and so the court below has no jurisdiction. It is the submission of the Appellant that a claim for restoration of properties as in the present case put before the Native Court is the same as a claim for title to property put before a High Court and that the land in question at the Mburumbu Native Court is one and the same property whose claim to title the Respondent had made in the court below. The Appellant further contended that it is common ground that the subject matter in the court below is the same as that in Mburumbu Native Court of 1940 and that the same piece of land for which judgment was given by Mburumbu Native Court in 1940 is being re-litigated upon in the High Court. According to the Appellant it is trite law that where the following pre conditions exist or are established, the principle of estoppel per rem judicata will apply namely:
(a) That the parties or their privies involved in both the previous and present proceedings are the same
(b) That the claim or issues in dispute in both proceedings are the same
(c) That the res or the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases is the same.
(d) That the decision relied upon to support the plea is valid subsisting and final.
(e) That the court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea is a court of competent jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed on BALOGUN V. ALHAJI SHIFAWU ODE (2007) All FWLR (Part 358) page 1050 at page 1052.
It is the Appellant’s contention that all of these conditions have been met in the application of the principle of “Res Judicata” and that the learned trial Judge was wrong in his finding.
The Respondent for its part has submitted that by the provisions of Section 272 (1) of the 1999 Constitution the High Court has original appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over all matters subject to the limitation placed on it by Section 251 of the Constitution and is therefore competent to exercise original jurisdiction over land situate in non urban areas like the one constituting the subject matter of this action and that although the Supreme Court in the case of OYENIRAN V. EGBETOLA (1997) 5 SCNJ 94 had held that the High Court had no such original jurisdiction in respect of land subject to customary right of occupancy since such proceedings are within the original jurisdiction of a customary court, it had in ADISA V OYINWOLA (2000) 10 NWLR PART 674 overruled itself in that regard. The Respondent went on to submit that the claim of the Respondent as plaintiff at the court below is founded on the judgment of the Mburumbu Native Court of 1940 which awarded the land in dispute to the Plaintiff/Respondent on condition that the defendant/Appellant’s late father failed to swear to an oath that he was not in custody of any of the plaintiff’s Respondent’s land and that it does appear that the Defendant/Appellant’s late father failed to fulfill the condition of Mburumbu Native Court Judgment by failing to swear to an oath but continues to lay claim over the land. According to the Respondent, the purport of the judgment of the Mburumbu Native Court of 1940 is that if the Appellant’s father swore to an oath the land would be his but if he failed to swear to the oath, the land would become that of the Respondent’s father. This conditional act of swearing or not swearing to an oath is a clear question of fact that would be resolved by evidence. Either party therefore has the legal choice of going back to court to establish the fulfillment or non fulfillment of the condition of the judgment and estops the other from laying adverse claim. It therefore follows, Respondent submitted that the Judgment of the Mburumbu Native Court of 1940 did conclusively determine the right of the parties over the land and to this end the principles of “res judicata” did not apply to this case as to estop the Respondent from bringing the action as constituted to prove the non fulfillment of the judgment of the Mburubu Native Court of 1940, and estop the Appellant from further laying claim to the land. Respondent therefore submitted that for the principles of “res judicata” to apply the issues in the previous proceedings must have been terminated to finality to the extent that parties will have nothing left to ask from the Court even in future except if on appeal. Reliance was placed on PRINCE EMMANUEL EYOISHIE V. OFFIONG MOWANSO (2003) 13 NWLR PART 684 pages 281 – 282. Respondent went on to contend that in the instant case, either party still has the opportunity of proving the fulfillment or non fulfillment of the condition of the judgment and thereby ask the court to conclusively award the land to him. And this can only be done in a court exercising original jurisdiction to establish that fact and not on appeal. The Respondent has gone on to submit that the Respondent only filed his claim at the High Court below and that the Appellant did not wait for him to file his statement of claim to know the grounds upon which he intends to sustain the claim. He went on to say that it is from the statement of claim that the Appellant could have known whether the Respondent’s grounds for the claim would have been on proving the fact of non swearing to an oath by the Appellant in line with the judgment or for mere interpretation of the judgment or for reopening of the entire case. The Mburubu Native Court, the Respondent said, gave a Conditional Judgment which is subsisting. Both parties are relying on the judgment to lay conflicting claims over the land and none of the parties can legally claim exclusive usage of the land based on adverse possession the Respondent stated. Respondent submitted that the court is properly constituted and urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
The importance of jurisdiction to a court proceeding cannot be over emphasized. I would infact go on to say that jurisdiction is the very foundation upon which the entirety of a court process or proceeding is built and without which the process or proceeding collapses. It is the bedrock upon which a process is placed and takes its form until completion. It is a fundamental principle of law that jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s claim. The Respondent has submitted that for jurisdiction of a court over a matter to be ascertained, recourse must be had to the statement of claim. It has to be explained that a statement of claim as its name connotes is only a fuller account of what is contained in the writ or claim. When a statement of claim is filed it supersedes the writ or claim. Until such a filing of the statement of claim is done the writ or claim is the document which embodies the complaint of and relief sought by the plaintiff and if it is of sufficient content and clarity can disclose the course of action and whether a court is competent or has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is perhaps necessary to have a second look at the claim which is restated below –
(a) A declaration that by virtue of the judgment of Mburubu Native Court (which judgment was delivered on or about the 10th day of June 1940) the plaintiff is entitled to the customary right of occupancy over the large portion of land located and situate at Obinagu Nara in Nkanu West LGA (Survey plan of which to be filed later).
(b) A declaration that by virtue of the said judgment the defendant is estopped from laying claim to the land and/or from trespassing and/or entering the land to farm, build, sale (sic) or cut down economic trees, an act which the defendant and his agents have persisted in committing.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, and privies from trespassing into the said land howsoever.
(d) N500,000.00 damages for the act of trespass aforesaid.
This claim refers to the judgment of the Mburubu Native Court of 1940. Does the principle of “Res judicata” apply to estop the Respondent from instituting this claim? In RAPHAEL EGWUONWU NKWO & 3 ORS V S.A. UCHENDU AND ANOR (1996) 3 NWLR (PART 434) page 1 the Supreme Court outlined the conditions for the successful plea of Estopel per rem judicatam as follows –
(a) That the parties or their privies in the previous and the present suits are the same.
(b) That the claim and the issue in both cases are the same
(c) That the subject matter of litigation in the previous and present suits is identical.
See also the following cases – INTERCITY BANK PLC V. FAISAL TRAVEL AGENCY LTD (2006) 4 NWLR (PART 971) page 504 at page 508. Thus where an issue has been canvassed and
adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction between two parties, it is binding in a subsequent suit between the same parties. See FADIORA V. GBADEBO (1978) 3 S.C. 219; EZEWANI V. ONWORD (1986) 4 NWLR (PART 33) PAGE 27.
It is also important that the previous decision adjudicated upon must have finally decided the issues between the parties.
See ANAEGBUE AGBASI & ORS V. JOSEPH OBI & ORS (1998) 1 SCNJ 31 at page 38; (1998) 12 NWLR (PART 536) 1; ALHAJI HARUNA USMAN V. UMAR GARBA KUSFA (1997) 1 SCNJ 133; (1997) 1 NWLR (PART 483) 525; AMBROSE EKENNIAV. BENEDICT NKPAKARA & 7 ORS (1997) 5 SCNJ 70 at page 73; (1997) 5 NWLR (PART 504) 152.
I shall now proceed to examine these requirements vis a vis the claim in the High Court below and the claim in the Mburubu Native Court. The parties in the High Court claim are as follows-
CHIEF JOHN ANYIMBA PLAINTIFF
For himself and on behalf of the family of late Anyi Mbanyi of Umuovo Nara in Nkanu West
Local Government Area of Enugu State)
AND
PHILIP NWOBODO ANYI ONOVO DEFENDANT
For himself and on behalf of the Family of late Nwobodo Anyi Onovo Also of Nara
DEFENDANT
The parties in the Mburubu Native Court in 39/40 which can be found on page 6 of the Record of Appeal are as follows –
ANYI MBANYI OF UMU OVO NARA
vs.
NWOBODO ANY ONOVO (M)
GHUFU ANYI ONOVO (M)
OSHIOME NWATA
What is clear from a cursory look at the claims is that the High Court claim was prosecuted and defended by representatives of the original parties before the Mburubu Native Court in representative capacities. Even the Briefs of Argument of both parties attest to this fact as a brief introduction to the facts or history of the case will show. On page 1 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument the Appellant had said, “The Plaintiff’s father Anyi Mba commenced an action for restoration by the defendant’s parents of land now in dispute in 1940 at Mburubu Native Court. He claimed that the defendant’s father was entrusted with the land by his father for the said Anyi Mba’s beneficiary interest. …. ” In the introduction to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument at page 1, the Respondent had stated as follows, “The plaintiff/respondent’s late father took out action in 1940 against the defendant/Appellant’s late father at Mburubu Native Court for a restoration of a large portion of land located and situate at Obinagu Nara in Nkanu LGA which their father gave him for safe keeping as a trustee ….. ”
Interestingly this would also appear to satisfy the other requirements not only as to t he parties or their privies in the previous suit and the present suit being the same, but also as to the claim, issues and subject mater in the previous and present suit being the same. Reading through the totality of the history of the case as contained in both Briefs of Argument I do not think that there is any cause to doubt this finding. For a clearer picture, this is what the Appellant said at page 1 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, “The court (Mburubu Native Court) entered a conditional judgment for the parties to the effect that the land in dispute would belong to the plaintiff’s father unless the defendant’s father took an oath of innocence over the land. The plaintiff in this case maintains that his father took the oath of innocence in 1940 and continued in possession of the land in dispute till date.” Apparently reacting to that the Respondent also at page 1 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument had this to say,
“It does appear that the Defendant/Appellant’s late father failed to fulfill the condition of Mburubu Native Court Judgment by failing to swear to an oath but continues to lay claim over the land.”
Having gone thus far, what about the last requirement that the previous decision of the court, in this case Mburubu Native Court Judgment of 1940 must have finally decided the issues between the parties? As has just been noted, the Respondent’s position is that the Appellant’s father failed to meet the requirement of the Mburubu Native Court Judgment of 1940 by swearing to an oath which would have made the disputed land his and therefore there was still something hanging andundecided which made the Mburubu Native Court judgment of 1940 not a final judgment. When is a judgment said to be final?
A judgment will be said to be final when it completely and totally determines the rights, obligations, commitments, duties, interests, assets and liabilities of the parties. A final judgment should not create any doubts as to the interpretation of what it is intended to achieve. At page 9 of the Record of Appeal is the judgment of the President of the Mburubu Native Court and it reads,
“Judgment for the plaintiffs for the following:-
1 Native plate, 1 door, 1 cow head, 5/- and 1 piece of land unless the defendants swear over that 1 piece of land.” Does this amount to a final judgment of the Mburubu Native Court? The parties have taken a different stand on this question. Difficulties arise over the phrase, “unless the defendants swear over that 1 piece of land” as contained in the judgment. Could the process of swearing over the land involve reopening the case and hearing witnesses as to whether the Appellant’s father had complied with that aspect of the judgment or was there a separate system of determining this issue devoid of relitigation? If the court had expected the parties to reappear before it to proffer more evidence as to whether indeed any swearing to an oath had taken place or not which would have the effect of robbing the judgment of its finality, that court would have further adjourned the matter to a further date in the future but it did not. Moreover part of the judgment presumably by one of the members of the Native Court was to the effect that no witnesses were alive. That in itself is a pointer to the fact that there was no way this matter would be open to relitigation and that the judgment of that court was final, and that the determination of whether swearing to an oath had taken place or not was devoid of the court system and to be determined by the customs and usages of the community.
I shall now proceed to say a word or two about the concurrence of Jurisdiction as between the High Court and Customary Court over question of title to land located in non urban arrears. The Court of Appeal, Benin Division in OMOSULE OLISA V. CHIEF OLOWODARA ASOJO (2002) 1 NWLR (PART 747) page 13 at 24 referred to and followed the Supreme Court decision in ADISA V. OYINWOLA (2000) 10 NWLR PART (674) 116 to the effect that the State High Court now exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Area and Customary Courts to decide land matters subject to customary right of occupancy granted by a local government thus over ruling the decision in OYENIRAN V. EGBETOLA (1997) 5 NWLR (PART 504) 122. Heavy weather appears to have been made over this question by the Respondent in his Brief of Argument. What does this concurrence of jurisdiction portend for the High Court? Does it grant the High Court the power or jurisdiction to reopen and relitigate at first instance a question over title to land located in a non urban area which has been litigated upon to finality by a Native or Customary Court? I think not. That is what the claim of the Respondent before the Agbani High Court appears to want to do and that is wrong.
The sole issue for determination must therefore be and is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant. The Appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. In the circumstance the ruling of Obieze J in Suit No. HA GB/1/2005 – Chief John Anyimba V. Phillip Nwobodo Anyi Onovo delivered on the 2nd June 2005 overruling the Preliminary Objection of the Appellant is hereby set aside.
There shall be N30,000.00 (Thirty thousand Naira) cost in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent.
Other Citations: (2008)LCN/2854(CA)
