Martin Udechukwu & Ors. V. Sunday Ezemuo (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A
This is an appeal against the judgment of Onwuamaegbu J. of the High Court, Ekwuiobia in the Aguata Judicial Division of Anambra State in Suit No. AG/7A/2003 SUNDAY EZEMUO V. MARTIN UDECHUKWU & 2 ORS delivered on the 8th day of December 2005 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Customary Court Mbamisi in Suit No. CCM/61/97 delivered on the 30th March 1998. Briefly the facts culminating in this appeal are as follows –
The present Respondents in this appeal as plaintiffs in the Mbamisi Customary Court had claimed against the Appellants as defendants in that court as follows:
(a) A declaration of the court that the plaintiff is the person rightly entitled to the customary right of occupancy in and over the piece or parcel of land at Ifite Village Agulueze-Chukwu known as “Ana Ezemuo Obuako” whose annual rental value is N200.00.
(b) N200 general damages for trespass
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and privies from further trespass to the plaintiff’s land in dispute.
The Defendants in the said customary court suit did not counter claim.
The contention of the Respondent as plaintiff in the customary court is that his father gave him a place to live which in traditional parlance is referred to as “Ala Obi” which is close to the compound of the Defendant which said piece of land was also granted by the Plaintiff’s father to the Defendant’s father.
The Defendant trespassed into the land area of the plaintiff. There are no boundary marks between both portions of land and the Plaintiff did not know that the land has been the subject of earlier litigation in 1993 between the Plaintiff’s elder brother and the Defendant.
The Defendant in the customary court below now Appellant on the other hand contended that the land in dispute was granted to the defendant’s father by the plaintiff’s father and on their deaths, the defendant had performed customary rites of tenancy to the Plaintiff’s elder brother and had exercised acts of ownership on the land by reaping economic trees planted thereon by his father. This continued until 1993 when the plaintiff’s elder brother along with members of his family including the plaintiff destroyed some of the defendant’s belongings and felled trees which resulted in litigation that was settled out of court but the plaintiff had to take legal action in the High Court in 1995 when he saw the defendant again working on the land but the case was sent to the Customary Court for trial.
The Customary Court having inspected the land in dispute observed that there were no land marks showing the boundary of the disputed land and the rest of the land earlier disputed with the Plaintiff’s elder brother. The defendant had told the Customary Court that the area shown by the Plaintiff was part of the land he disputed with the Plaintiff’s elder brother in Suit No. CCM/59/97 which version was accepted by the Customary Court in its judgment which also held that the plan used by the Plaintiff was almost identical with the plan used by the Plaintiff’s elder brother in Suit No. CCM/59/97. The Customary Court then went on to hold that since the land in Suit No. CCM/61/97 is part of the land whose judgment was delivered in Suit No. CCM/59/97, the orders in the judgment of the said Suit No. CCM/59/97 be applied in Suit No. CCM/61/97.
The Plaintiffs who are Respondents in this appeal, being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Customary Court appealed to the High Court in Suit No. AG/7A/2003.The learned trial Judge resolved all three issues raised on appeal in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of his claim as earlier highlighted. The original defendant at the customary court, now appellant has appealed against the judgment of the High Court by filing eight grounds of appeal in his Notice and Grounds of Appeal. The said Grounds devoid of particulars are reproduced hereunder-
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
(1) GROUND ONE: Error in law
The Appellate High Court erred in law in holding that “the issue before the trial Customary Court was to determine the extent of the land granted to the plaintiff/appellant who in proof tendered as Exhibit “B” a Survey Plan No. US 10830/IND.11/97″.
(2) GROUND TWO: Error in law:
The lower court erred in law when it held as follows:
“It is strange that despite this the trial court was still able to hold:-
“It is quite untraditional and unbelievable that a man could show two persons dwelling places (ala obi) without demarcating it. The evidence of (P.W. 1) Augustine Nwosu and (P.W. 2) Paul Maduchukwu who told the Court that there were Ogilisi or and Otosi is never used as land mark because it alters its position”.
With due respect to the trial court, the admissibility in evidence of a Survey Plan of the land which plan is acceptable to both parties negates the necessity of demarcation or of boundary marks”.
(3) GROUND THREE: Error in law:
The lower court erred in law when it held as follows:-
“Had the trial Customary Court considered the Plaintiff/Appellant’s Plan of the land in dispute rather than relying on their personal knowledge of what is or is not used as land marks, the boundaries of the land granted to the Plaintiff/Appellant would be clear and I have no doubt that it would have come to a different conclusion”
(4) GROUND FOUR: Error in law
The lower court erred in law when it held as follows:-
“Although Customary Courts are not strictly bound by rules of procedure and evidence and their judges deemed to be well versed in the customary law and practices of their area, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that the trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it on the extent of the land granted to plaintiff/appellant before coming to the conclusion it did” .
(5) GROUND FIVE: Error in law
The lower court erred in law when it held as follow:-
“The trial customary court ought to have waited to be invited to consider the judgment in CCM/59/97 and to take judicial notice of same where it is tendered in evidence”.
(6) GROUND SIX: Error in law
The lower court erred in law when it held as follows:-
“… and I hold that the trial customary court used extraneous matter by way of Suit No. CCM/59/97 and Plan No. MU/D18/97 therein which were not in evidence in arriving at its decision.”
(7) GROUND SEVEN: Error in law
The lower court erred in law when it held that the trial; customary court granted to the Defendants reliefs which they did not ask.
(8) GROUND EIGHT
Judgment is against the weight of evidence as the trial Customary Court properly evaluated the evidence.
When this appeal came up for hearing on the 10th April 2008, Appellant’s Counsel Chief O. B. Onyali with him A. Onwuali adopted and relied on the Appellants Brief of Argument dated 29th June 2007 and filed on the 2nd July 2007 as well as the Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument dated 14th September 2007 and filed same day and urged this court to allow the appeal. Counsel for the Respondent Chief J.A. Ojiako also adopted and relied on the Respondents Brief of Argument dated the 13th August 2007 and filed on the 14th August 2007 and urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
Arising from the eight grounds of appeal contained in the Appellant’s Notice and Grounds of Appeal the Appellant has distilled the following five issues for the determination of this court and which are contained on pages 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument viz-
ISSUE 1 –
Whether the lower court was right in holding that the issue before the trial customary court was to determine the extent of the land granted to the Respondent who in proof tendered as Exhibit “B” a Survey Plan No. US 108330/AND/11/97
(GROUND 1)
ISSUE 2 –
Whether the admissibility in evidence of a survey plan of the land in dispute which plan is acceptable to both parties negates the necessity of demarcating or planting boundary marks between the lands granted to two different persons as was held by the appellate High Court in the circumstances of this case.
(GROUND 2 and 3)
ISSUE 3 –
Whether the Appellate High Court was right in holding that the trial customary court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it in the circumstances of this case.
(GROUNDS 4 AND 8)
ISSUE 4 –
Whether the lower court was right in holding that the trial customary court used extraneous matter by way of Suit No. CCM/59/97 and plan No. MU/D 18/97 therein in arriving at its decision when the Appellants specifically referred the trial Customary Court to the said suit.
(GROUNDS 5 and 6)
ISSUE NO. 5 –
Whether in the circumstances of the whole case, the High Court was right in setting aside the decision of the trial Customary Court on the basis that the trial court granted to the Appellants relief which they did not ask for.
(GROUND 7)
The Respondents at page 5 of their Brief of Argument have formulated the following five issues for determination by the court viz-
ISSUE 1 – Whether in the circumstances of this case and on the evidence, the decision of the Appellate High Court that plaintiff/Respondent proved his claim that his father Ezemuo Obuako granted him land in dispute as his home stead “Ana Obu” is right in law.
ISSUE 2 – Whether it is proved in this case that land in dispute was demarcated from that earlier granted to the appellant’s father by Ezemuo Obuako when he granted the disputed portion to his son Plaintiff Respondent.
ISSUES 3, 4, and 5 as formulated by the Appellants in their Brief of Argument were specifically adopted by the Respondents at page 5 of their Brief of Argument and need no repetition here.
I think that the issues formulated by the Appellants in their Brief of Argument and substantially adopted by the Respondents in their Brief of Argument are broad based and adequately cover all the eight grounds contained in the Appellants Notice and Grounds of Appeal and I propose to adopt and rely on them in my treatment of this appeal. I shall treat issues 1 and 2 together as they can be conveniently dealt with together and they are as follows –
ISSUE 1 – Whether the lower court was right in holding that the issue before the trial customary court was to determine the extent of the land granted to the Respondent who in proof tendered as Exhibit “B” a survey plan No. US 10830/AND 11/97
(GROUND 1)
ISSUE 2 – Whether the admissibility in evidence of a survey plan of the land in dispute which plan is acceptable to both parties negates the necessity of demarcating or planting boundary marks between the lands granted to different persons as was held by the Appellate High Court in the circumstances of this case.
(GROUNDS 2 and 3)
Appellant has submitted that from the claim and evidence placed before the customary court, the issue before it was to determine whether the Respondent’s father granted the area in dispute to the Respondent as claimed by the Respondent and that the burden of proving this rests with the Respondent. Reliance was placed on Section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act and on the case of OGIALE V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. NIG. LTD. (1997) 1 NWLR (part 480), Page 148 Appellant went on to submit that it was the misconception of the issue placed before the trial Customary Court by the Appellate High Court that made t he Appellate High Court reach a decision which was perverse. This is so, Appellant submitted, because a perverse decision of a court will arise where the court misconceived the issue presented before it. Reliance was placed on UDENGWU V. UZUEGBU (2003) 13 NWLR (PART 836), 136.
On whether the admissibility in evidence of a survey plan of the land in dispute which plan is acceptable to both parties negates the necessity of demarcating or planting boundary marks between the lands granted to two different people, it is instructive to reproduce the submission of the Appellant in its entirety at page 8 and part of page 9 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument. The Appellant had said this, “It is a well established principle of law that a plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land must prove clearly the area of land to which his claim relates. See: OLISA V. ASAJO (2002) 1 NWLR (PART 747) 13. Such a plaintiff must describe the land with certainty as to entitle him to the declaration of title and injunction. See: ONWUKA V. EDIALE (1989) 1 NWLR (PART 96) 183.
In order to describe the land with certainty to entitle him to the declaration of title sought, such a plaintiff can file a survey plan reflecting all the features of the land and showing clearly the precise boundaries thereof.
See: AGBEJE V. AJIBOLA (2002) 2 NWLR (part 750) 127. This was exactly what the Respondent did during the trial before the customary court when he tendered his survey plan and as such the quantity, identity and location of the land in dispute was not in issue. It is therefore my contention that since the Appellants agreed with the Respondent’s survey Plan, it means that the said plan accurately represented the correct position of the features on the land in dispute or that the land in dispute was correctly delineated and there is no need to file a counter claim.
See OBI V. OZOR (1991) 9 NWLR (PART 213) 94 at page 105 ratio 8. The Appellant then went on to submit that since this is the position of a survey plan which is acceptable to both parties, the Appellate High Court was in grave error when it held that such a plan negates the necessity of demarcating or planting boundary marks between the lands granted to two different persons. The admissions made by the Appellant highlighted so far and elsewhere in the Appellants’ Brief of Argument which support the Respondents position are such that I had to satisfy myself that I was not actually reading the Respondent’s Brief of Argument. The Appellant had gone on to submit in paragraphs 4.20; 4.21; 4.22; 4.23 of their Brief of Argument that the Customary Court had affirmed from that Court’s visit to the locus in quo that there were indeed no boundary marks on the two lands and that this position was agreed upon by the Respondent in his evidence before the trial court but that the Respondents PW 1 and PW 2 had testified that Ogilisi and Otosi trees were at their boundary and that these specific finding of facts as made by the Customary Court and the Appellate High Court were based on the case as presented by the parties before the trial customary court and that it was based on this case as was presented by the parties that led the trial customary court to hold after evaluation of the evidence that, “It is quite untraditional and unbelievable that a man could show two persons dwelling places (Ala Obi) on a piece of land without demarcating it. The evidence of (PW 1) Augustine Nwosu and (PW 2) Paul Maduchukwu who told court that there were Ogilisi or and Otosi is never used as land mark because it alters its position.” Appellant then went on to submit that it is this holding that the appellate High Court was quarrelling with and misconceived the necessity for demarcating the lands if actually they were granted to the appellants and the Respondent with the need to identify the boundaries of the land in dispute and that this misconception led the appellate High Court to hold as follows:-
“Had the trial customary court considered the plaintiff/Appellant’s plan of the land in dispute rather than relying on their personal knowledge of what is or is not used as land marks, the boundaries of the land granted to the plaintiff/Appellant would be clear and I have no doubt that it would have come to a different conclusion.” It is rather unfortunate that learned Counsel for the Appellant has failed to appreciate what the Appellate High Court put very clearly. The Appellate High Court by that statement is not per se quarrelling with the idea of demarcation or installation of boundary marks on the land in dispute but that in this modern day and age, where there is a piece of land which is known by both parties and there is a survey plan of the land which has been filed and tendered in evidence and which survey plan is not disputed by both parties, such a survey plan would be more acceptable than a resort to traditional modes of land identification and delineation. More light is shed on this at page 80 of the Record of Appeal lines 23 – 26 where the Appellate High Court had this to say-
“A survey plan more accurately delineates and describes a piece of land and being of a technological delineation as opposed to the traditional rough estimate/assessment should and ought to take preference over other modes of identifying a piece of land in dispute. I cannot agree more with the appellate High Court and I hereby resolve issues 1 and 2 in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants.
Issue No.3 is as to whether the appellate High Court was right in holding that the trial customary court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it in the circumstances of this case.
Appellant has submitted that it is settled law by virtue of Sections 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act that he who asserts must prove and in proof of his claim at the Customary Court, the Plaintiff now Respondent should succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. Reliance was placed on the following cases – OGBUANYINYA V. OKUDO (No.2) (1990) 4 NWLR (PART 64) 551 at 572. U.B.N. LTD. V. OSEZUAH (1997) 2 NWLR (PART 485) 28 at 42. KODILINYE V. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336. OLOHUNDE V. ADEYOJU (2000) 10 NWLR (PART 676) 562 at 580.
The Appellant submitted that the trial Customary Court who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and watching their demeanor properly evaluated whatever evidence was placed before it and the appellate High Court ought to have attached the greatest weight to its finding and should not have disturbed the said finding of the trial Customary Court which has a better appreciation and grounding on customary matters and it is only where the question involves scrutinizing of documents or affidavit evidence or relates to proper inference to be drawn from credible evidence particularly affidavit EBBA v. OGODO (1984) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 392. AKINRIBOYA V. AKINSOLE (1998) 3 NWLR (PART 540) 101 at page 114 ratio 4.
Appellant went further to submit that where the trial Customary Court fails to carry out its traditional duty of evaluating the evidence elicited at the trial the appellate court is entitled to set aside the judgment but that is not the position in this case where the trial customary court properly evaluated the evidence placed before it. Appellant went further to submit that the customary court Judges and members must be taken as having the customary law and practices of their locality in the bosom and relied on EZEDIGWE V. NDICHIE (2001) 12 NWLR (PART 726) 37 at page 65 ratio 10 for that legal proposition. According to the Appellant where a court of trial unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views for those of the trial court. Reliance was placed on WOLUCHEM V. GUDI (1981) 5 S.C. 291; AGBEJE V. AJIBOLA (2002) 93 LRCN 1 at page 17 ratio 10.
The Respondent has submitted that the issue being argued here is whether or not evidence adduced by the plaintiff at the customary court now Respondent is in proof of his claim that his father gave him the disputed land near the defendant’s now Appellant’s dwelling place. Respondent went further to submit that in law, the totality of a party’s case is to be considered as a whole in order to discover the precise nature and the subject matter in controversy between the parties. Reliance was placed on DEDI V. ARBBA (1995) 9 SCNJ 232 at 238 ratio 2 where the supreme Court said as follows –
“What is essential in examining the trial in a customary court is to look into the entire evidence in the proceedings in order to discover precise nature and subject matter in controversy between the parties.”
Applying this principle to the matter now being considered, Respondent has submitted that the crux of the controversy in this case is whether there are land marks between the two pieces of land to which the answer is in the negative.
What evidence was there to be evaluated by the trial customary court? It was the evidence of the present Respondent on appeal, then plaintiff in the customary court that his father granted him a piece of land “ala obi” near that of the Appellant then defendant. Incidentally it was the Respondent’s father that gave the Appellant’s father the portion of land where he dwelt peacefully with the Respondent. Subsequently the Appellant trespassed into the Respondent’s portion of land which is now in dispute. On the other hand the Appellant contended that the land in dispute is part of the portion of land granted to the Appellant’s father by the Respondent’s father in their life time for which the Appellants perform customary rites of tenancy. The issue which the customary court became saddled with was this “what was the extent of the land granted to the Respondent by his father? If this could be determined somehow then there would be no confusion as to the land holding of the two land contestants. What was clear from evidence adduced was that there were no boundary marks between the portion of land given by the Respondent’s father to him and that given by the Respondent’s father to the Appellant’s father. Quite apart from evidence adduced in court, the court itself had on a visit ascertained that no boundary marks existed between the two parcels of land. The Respondent in proof of his claim of ownership of the disputed land tendered a survey plan No. US 10830/AND 11/97 which was admitted by the court as exhibit “B”. Interestingly and this is crucial, the Appellant agreed with the plan! Ordinarily the customary court should have refered the end of the contest with the Respondent clearly the victor, but the customary court thought otherwise and went on to make this observation.” It is quite untraditional and unbelievable that a man could show two persons dwelling places (ala obi) without demarcating it. The evidence of (PW 1) Augustine Nwosu and (PW 2) Paul Maduchukwu who told the court that there were Ogilisi or and Otosi is never used as land mark because it alters its position.”
This assertion of the customary court is as unfounded as it is unfortunate in the light of the fact that-
(a) The land in question is well known to the parties
(b) There are no boundary marks between the land granted to the Respondent by his (Respondent’s father) and the land granted to the Appellant’s father by the Respondent’s father.
(c) The Respondent tendered a survey Plan No. US 10830/AND 11/97 in substantiation of his claim to ownership of the disputed land which the Appellant agreed with.
The learned trial Judge was stating the correct position of the law when he said at page 79 of the Record of Appeal as follows –
“It is a well established principle that a plaintiff who claims a declaration of title to land must prove clearly the area of land to which his claim relates and the boundaries thereof. See KWADZO V. ADJEI (1944) 10 WACA 274; IBEZUE V. ICHU (1992) 2 NWLR (PART 591) 437; OLISA V. ASOJO (2002) 1 NWLR (PART 743) 13. Such a plaintiff must describe the land with certainty as to entitle him to declaration of title and injunction – ONWUKA V. EDIALE (1989) 1 NWLR (PART 96) 183; UDEZE V. CHIKEBE (1990) 1 NWLR (PART 125) 194.”
The customary court in its evaluation of available evidence was faced with two choices.
(1) To rely on traditional modes and methods of land estimation and assessment which involve personal knowledge of what is or is not normally used as land marks in the demarcation of boundaries to land and;
(2) Resort to the more scientific and technological method of land demarcation, delineation and ascertainment that a survey plan provides.
The learned trial Judge was right in his observation that faced with these two choices in its evaluation, the customary court made a poor choice. See AGBAJE V. AJIBOLA (2002) 2 NWLR (PART 750) 127. Therefore resolve Issue No.3 in favour of the Respondent.
Issue No 4 is, “Whether the lower court was right in holding that the trial customary court used extraneous matter by way of Suit No. CCM/59/97 and Plan No. MU/D18/97 therein in arriving at its decision when the appellants specifically referred the trial court to the Suit.”
In the determination of this issue, perhaps the first question one should ask at the outset is whether the Appellants as defendants in the customary court made any references or adduced any evidence with respect to Suit No. CCM/59/97 and Plan No. MU/D.10197. The answer is in the negative. Admittedly in the course of the trial in Suit No CCM/61/97 reference was made to a 1993 Suit where the present Appellants had to sue the Respondent’s elder brother and 13 Ors following some damage done to their properties but the Suit number of that case and the names of the parties were not disclosed in evidence neither was any attempt made to tender the proceedings of that case in evidence and so Suit No. CCM/59/97 and plan No. MU/D10/97 are strangers to Suit No. CCM/61/97 and therefore extraneous to it. The argument of the Appellant that customary courts are not bound by procedure or the provisions of the Evidence Act and can on their own search their old files to get to and make use of an earlier judgment is ludicrous because the impression could be created that having already taken a stand favourable to them they have come up with some old judgment to back up that stand. It would therefore be incumbent on the Appellant to produce a certified copy of the judgment and ask the court to take notice or even rely on it. This was not done. This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant.
Issue NO.5 is, “Whether in the circumstances of the whole case the High Court was right in setting aside the decision of the trial court on the basis that the trial customary court granted to the Appellants reliefs which they did not ask for.” In this issue the Appellant has inter alia raised the plea of “estoppel per rem judicatem”
Contending that the land in dispute was part of the land that the Appellant was disputing with the Respondent’s elder brother in Suit No. CCM/59/97. This point has been dealt with while treating issue No.4 when it was pointed out that no evidence was adduced by the Appellant with respect to Suit No. CCM/59/97. Proceedings with respect to Suit No. CCM/59/97 were never tendered for use in Suit No. CCM/61/97 and neither the parties nor the subject matter nor even the Suit number itself (CCM/59/97 were specifically referred to while Suit No. CCM/61/97 was being litigated upon and for “estoppel per rem judicatem” to be pleaded and relied upon the following conditions must be satisfied –
(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
(d) that the issues in both suits were finally settled in the previous suit.
See the following cases on this subject matter-
INTERCITY BANK PLC V. FAISAL TRAVEL AGENCY LTD (2006) 4 NWLR (PART 971) page 504 at 525; NWANERI V. ORIAWU (1959) SCNLR 316; OKE V. ATOLOYE (NO.2) (1986) 1 NWLR (PART 15) page 241. None of these conditions has been satisfied. The point that is being made here for the umpteenth time is that Suit No. CCM//59/97 never cropped up in CCM/61/97 as reference to an earlier case between the Appellant and the Respondent’s elder brother in 1993 never revealed the suit number, parties, or subject matter of the said suit. Nevertheless the Customary Court held “that the disputed land in Suit No. CCM/61/97 is part of the land awarded to the 1st defendant Martin Udechukwu in Suit No. CCM/59/97.” The Appellants did not counterclaim and yet the Customary Court held the Appellants not liable to the claim of the Respondent in Suit No. CCM/61/97 and went on to grant relief that were not asked for by the Appellants which are that, “since the said land in CCM/61/97 whose judgment was delivered in the Suit No. CCM/59/97, the court hereby declares the orders in the Judgment of the Suit No. CCM/59/97 be applied to the Suit No. CCM/61/97 as follows:-
(A) That the disputed land in Suit No. CCM/61/97 is part of the land awarded to the 1st defendant martin Udechukwu in Suit No. CCM/59/97.
(B) That the 1st defendant is holding the said land as a customary tenant of the elder brother of the Plaintiff Fabian Ezemuo in accordance with Aguluezechukwu land tenancy Custom and tradition.
(C) That an injunction is hereby ordered restraining the Plaintiff Sunday Ezemuo, his servant and or privies from interfering with the 1st defendant’s right of possessing the use of the inherited land/compound and the properties therein.
In the absence of a counter claim the Customary Court turn itself to a Father Christmas to grant reliefs to the Appellant which it could not have done. See OKOLIE V. ONYEJULUWA (2000) 10 NWLR (PART 676) 450; IFEBUIYI V. ADENIYI (2000) 5 SCNJ 1 at 8. I again resolve issue NO.5 in favour of the Respondent.
All five issues having been resolved in favour of the Respondent, the Appeal fails and is dismissed and the Judgment of Ijem Onwuamegbu J. of the High Court of Justice Ekwulobia in Suit No. AG/7A/2003 delivered on the 8th December 2005 is hereby accordingly upheld.
There shall be N30,000.00 (Thirty thousand Naira) cost in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant.
Other Citations: (2008)LCN/2846(CA)
