Zenith Bank of Nigeria V. Emmanuel Ohaja (2016)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.
This appeal is against the Decision of the Honourable Justice I. N. Akomas sitting at the High Court of Abia State No. 1, Osisioma Division which decision was delivered on the 29th day of June, 2010 in Suit No. HOS/110/2003. It would be recalled that the Respondent as Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor/Applicant initiated Garnishee proceedings against the Osisioma Local Government, the First Bank of Nigeria PLC. (Ariaria Branch); Zenith Bank of Nigeria PLC (Osisioma Branch) and Intercontinental Bank of Nigeria, PLC (Osisioma Branch) as the Defendant/Judgment Debtor, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Garnishees respectively. The present Appellant was the 3rd Garnishee and by the Motion Ex-parte dated the 19th day of May, 2010 but filed on the 21st day of May, 2010, the Respondent sought for the following Orders.
1. Leave to the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor/Applicant to apply for an Order Nisi against the Garnishees First Bank of Nigeria PLC (Ariaria Branch), Zenith Bank of Nigeria PLC (Osisioma Branch), Intercontinental Bank PLC; attaching the money in the Account of the
1
Defendant/Judgment-Debtor kept with the Garnishee Banks respectively in order to satisfy the total judgment debt of N7,200,000.00 (Seven Million, Two Hundred Thousand Naira) delivered by this Court on the 24th day of January, 2005 in favour of Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor.
2. Leave to the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor/Applicant to serve the Motion On Notice and Order Nisi together with the Garnishee Order as contained in Form 26 upon the Garnishee and on the Defendant/Judgment Debtor.
3. Order fixing the Return Date AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER or other Orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
The motion was supported by an Affidavit of sixteen (16) paragraphs with five documents marked Exhibits EO1 to EO5. See pages 1 – 9, of the Records. On the 24th day of May, 2010, the Application was granted as prayed and so ordered. On Tuesday, the 29th day of June 2010, the Motion on Notice for Garnishee Order absolute was moved and granted as prayed. The trial Court then ordered as follows:
ORDER: (1) That the Order Nisi made on 24/5/2010 is hereby made absolute:
(2) That the
2
money in the account of the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor Osisioma Ngwa Local Government Council in the Garnishee Banks namely Zenith Bank of Nigeria PLC (Osisioma Branch) and Inter-Continental Bank (Osisioma Branch) be is hereby attached and to be paid to the Court Administrator of this Court for onward transmission to the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor/Applicant forthwith.?
(see page 17 of the Records).
Dissatisfied by the order as made above the Garnishee Bank in a motion filed on the 31st day of May, 2011 sought extension of time from the High Court of Abia State of Nigeria, Osisioma Judicial Division within which to seek leave to appeal against the Ruling of the Court granting the order of Garnishee Absolute; Leave to appeal out of time, against the said Ruling of the Court made on 29th day of June, 2010; Extension of time to file her Notice and Grounds of Appeal in Suit No. HOS/110/2003;Deeming the Notice of Appeal already filed as properly so filed in the Registry of the Court; And for such Order or further Oder as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case. The motion was supported by a fifteen paragraph
3
Affidavit deposed to by one Emmanuel Dimkpa, the Law Clerk in Firm of Messrs C.N. Amadi & Co, 50 Brass Street, Aba; a Written Address by Counsel, Statement of Account of the Judgment-Debtor with the Garnishee Bank marked Exhibit ?1?, the Record of Proceedings of 29th day of June 2010 when the Garnishee Order was made and the Notice and Grounds of Appeal.
It does not appear that the said motion was moved and granted in the High Court as the Garnishee Bank filed a similar Application in the Court of Appeal on the 30th day of January, 2013 which was duly granted on the 16th day of May, 2013. The Notice of Appeal was subsequently filed in the Lower Court on the 20th of May 2013. Reproduced below are the two Grounds of Appeal as filed by the Garnishee Bank (now Appellant).
?GROUNDS OF APPEAL
?GROUND ONE:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he made the Garnishee Order Nisi absolute notwithstanding non-service of the Motion on Notice at the Registered Office of the Third Garnishee, Zenith Bank of Nigeria, PLC.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. That Affidavit of service relied on by the Learned Trial Judge showed
4
that service was effected on Security Guard at the gate of the Third Garnishee.
ii. The mode of service of Court process on a Corporate body is as stipulated in the Companies and Allied Matters Act as amended.
iii. At the time of service of the Court processes on the said Security man at the gate of the Third Garnishees Branch Office at Osisioma, the Branch was shut down indefinitely to the knowledge of all Residents of Osisioma District following a deadly armed robbery operation at the Branch Office.
iv. The Motion on Notice was not brought to the knowledge of the Principal Officers of the Third Garnishee hence the Third Garnishee was not aware of the Garnishee Application.
GROUND TWO:
The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in making the Order Nisi, Absolute notwithstanding that a period of 14 days did not elapse from the date of service of the Motion on Notice along with the Order Nisi (on 16/6/2010) and the date the order was made absolute (on 29/6/2010) in clear breach of Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. By virtue of the mandatory provisions of Section 83(2) of the
5
Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, a period of 14 days must elapse from the date of service of Order Nisi (served along with the Motion on Notice) on 16/6/2010 and the date of hearing which was on 29/6/2010.
ii. From the date of service of the Motion on Notice along with the Order Nisi on 16/6/2010 counting from 17/6/2010 to 29/6/2010 the 14 days stipulated by Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act would have elapsed on 30/6/2010.
iii. That at the time the Learned Trial Judge made the Order absolute; the Lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to make such pronouncement because the matter was not ripe for hearing.
RELIEF SOUGHT:
?Order setting aside the Garnishee Order absolute made on 29/6/2010.?
?Upon transmission of the Records and entry of the Appeal from the Lower Court hereto, the Appellant through his Learned Counsel B.N. ONUOHA, ESQ. filed his Brief of Argument dated the 23rd day of May, 2013 on the 28th of May, 2013 and inspite of the fact that the Respondent was duly served with same including Hearing Notices on all subsequent adjourned dates prior to the hearing of this Appeal, the Respondent never filed any
6
Respondent?s Brief nor show appearance. Accordingly, on the 24th day of February, 2016 when this Appeal was heard and after satisfying ourselves that the Respondent was duly served with Hearing Notice, we proceeded to hear the Appeal solely on the Learned Counsel for the Appellant?s Brief.
In the said Appellant?s Brief, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant by way of introduction had stated the case of Appellant as being that the Garnishee Order Absolute made on the 29th day of June, 2010 was made without jurisdiction as the 14 days stipulated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S.6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; had not elapsed from the date of service of the Garnishee Order Nisi on 16th June, 2010 to the date the Order was made absolute on the 29th day of June, 2010.
It is pertinent to note that from the Two Grounds of Appeal filed, the Learned Counsel distilled a Sole Issue for determination couched as reproduced below:
?SOLE ISSUE:
QUESTION: Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute made on the 29th day of June, 2010 is competent in view of non compliance with Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil
7
Process Act?
ANSWER: The Garnishee Order Absolute made on the 29th day of June, 2010 is incompetent for non compliance with Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
SUCCINCT ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER. In his argument, the Learned Counsel to the Appellant quoted Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and submitted that it is not in doubt that the Garnishee Order Nisi was made on the 24th day of May, 2010 (page 16 of the Records refers) and that it is also not in further doubt that service of the Order Nisi was effected on the Appellant on the 16th of June, 2010 (page 36 of the Records refers), nor is it in doubt that the Garnishee Order Absolute was made on the 29th day of June, 2010.
He pointed out that after the Order Nisi was made on 24th day of May, 2010; the matter was adjourned to the 7th day of June, 2010 and on that day nothing happened in Court because the Order Nisi was not served on the 16th day of June, 2010 (Affidavit of service at page 36 of the Records refers). The matter, he further pointed out was eventually heard on the 29th day of June, 2010 and the Lower Court made the Order Nisi Absolute on
8
that day (page 37 of the Records refers). From the foregoing facts as highlighted, he submitted that the Lower Court lacked the competence to make the Order Nisi Absolute on that 29th day of June, 2010 for the simple reason that Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is a mandatory provision which must be complied with before any Order Absolute can be made.
The Learned Counsel reminded us of the trite position of the law that where a Statute has prescribed the mode of doing an act, such act cannot be competently done without complying with the statutory provision. For this submission we were referred SLB Consortium Ltd v. N.N.P.C. (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) page 317 at 332 Para. E; Agboola v. Aghodemu (2009) 37 WRN 59. Auchi v. Okuoghae (2005) 28 WRN 177; Corporate Affairs Commission v. Ayedun (2005) 44 WRN 97 and Gbadamosi v. Nigeria Railway Corporation (2007) 8 WRN 87.
Further reference was made to Order 10 Rule 1 (a) of the Abia State of Nigeria High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 which makes it obvious that time does not start running against the Appellant until the 17th day of June, 2010 and there can therefore be no doubt that
9
as at the 29th day of June, 2010 when the Lower Court made the Order Absolute, it lacked the jurisdiction to so do. We then in the light of the above were urged to allow the Appeal and set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute made by Lower Court on the 29th of June, 2010.
RESOLUTION OF SOLE ISSUE:
In the resolution of this Sole Issue as nominated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant our task is to resort to the provisions of Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. S.6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which the Learned Counsel alleges the Court below had breached. Part V of the Act captioned “Attachment of debts by garnishee Order” provides thus:
“83. Debts may be garnished
(1) The Court may, upon the ex-parte application of any person who is entitled to the benefit of a judgment for the recovery or payment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor liable under such judgment and upon affidavit by the applicant or his legal practitioner that judgment has been recovered and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that any other person is indebted to such debtor
10
and is within the State, order that debts owing from such person third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor, shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order, together with costs of garnishee proceedings and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the Court to show cause why he should not pay to the person who has obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order together with costs aforesaid.?
By Subsection (2) thereof which is now the bone of contention, it is emphatic that:
?(2) At least fourteen days before the day of hearing, a copy of the order nisi shall be served upon the garnishee and on the judgment debtor.?
It would be recalled that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant in the course of his argument had alluded to Order 10 Rule 1 (a) of the Abia State of Nigeria, High Court Procedure Rules, 2009 which was not made available to us. However, I was availed of Orders 22 and 44 of the 2001 and 2014 Rules which are in pari materia with the said Order 10 Rule
11
1 (a) and provides as follows: COMPUTATION OF TIME
1. Whereby any Written Law or any special order made by the Court in the course of any proceedings, any limited time from or after which any date or event is appointed or allowed for the doing of any act or the taking of any proceeding, and such time is not limited by hours, the following rules shall apply-
(a) The limited time does not include the day of the date or of the happening of the event, but commences at the beginning of the day next following that day. (Order 22 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2001 refers).
On the other hand ORDER 44 of the Abia State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014 which came into effect on 24th day of July, 2014 which revised all the previous Rules of then Eastern Nigeria, 1963 High Court Law (Amendment Edict, 1988) of the Old Imo State also provides in similar terms thus: ORDER 44
1. Whereby any law or Order made by a Judge a time is appointed or limited for the doing of any act, the period shall be reckoned:
(a) As excluding the day on which the Order is made or on which the event
12
occurs.”
It is also at this juncture necessary to refer to the Interpretation Law, CAP. 105 Laws of Abia State, 2005 which stipulates in Section 6(a) that:
“6. In computing time for purposes of any law for the doing of any act, unless the contrary intention appears-
(a) A period reckoned by days from the happening of an event or doing of any act or thing shall be deemed to be exclusive of the day in which the event happens or the act or thing is done.”
The above provisions of the Rules and Interpretation Law of Abia State are in pari materia with Section 15(2)(a) of the Interpretation Act, Laws of the Federation 2004 which also provides that reference in an enactment to a period of days shall be construed –
(a) Where the period is reckoned from a particular event the day on which the event occurred shall be excluded, and was given judicial imprimatur in terms of its interpretation in a plethora of cases amongst which is Ezeigwe v. Nwawulu & Ors. (2010) LPELR -2008 (S.C) at 39 paras. E – G. per Onoghen, JSC; that:
The law is now settled that in calculating or computing time
13
stipulated by statute, generally the first day of the period will be excluded from reckoning while the last day will be included except, where the last day is a public holiday in which case the end of the following day, which is not a public holiday, will be included. See Section 15(2) of the Interpretation Act and Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1985 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 787 at 794.
See Akume v. Lin (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 114) 490, NJC v. Agumagu & Ors. [2015] 4 C.AR 353 at 385 Paras. C D; Estako West L.G.C. v. Christopher (2014) 14 NWLR )Pt. 426) 73.
From the line of authorities above cited, it indubitable that although the computation of time within which to do certain things or acts as provided by Statutes is normally dictated by the wordings of the Statute and the intention of the Legislature, as rightly decided in the above cases, the general rule is now settled beyond per adventure that the date of occurrence of event is normally excluded from calculation but the last day normally is included. See per Iguh JSC in Auto Import Export v. I.J.A Adebayo & 2 Ors. (2002) LPELR – 643 (SC) at P. 12 Paras. G D;
Now, a look at
14
page 16 of the Record of Appeal would reveal that the Order Nisi was made on the 24th day of May, 2010 and the Motion on Notice was adjourned to 7th June, 2010 for continuation of hearing. As rightly observed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, nothing happened on the said 7th of June, 2010 and hearing continued on the 29th of June, 2010. On that day, when the case was called, the Appellant/Garnishee Bank was absent along with the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor.The
Claimant/Applicant/Garnishee was represented by Chief E.T.O. Njoku with I.N. Cosmos (Miss), Ike Oguneme Esq, for the Defendant with him M.U. Uzoma Esq, while K.C. Ehiogu, Esq, appeared for 1st Bank of Nigeria PLC Garnishee Bank. The 3rd and 4th Garnishee Banks were not however represented by Counsel.
Mr. Oguneme reported to Court that they had not been served with the Motion on Notice and at that juncture the Court informed Oguneme Esq, that there was Affidavit of Service of the Motion on Notice on Defendant/Judgment-Debtor through its Head of Service on 4/6/2010. Chief Njoku at that stage then applied that the Court make Garnishee Order against the 3rd and 4th Garnishee Banks praying
15
the Motion on Notice dated 20/5/2010 to be granted.
Upon the above application, the Court then remarked:
?Court: 3rd and 4th Garnishee Banks were served with the Motion on Notices on 16th June, 2010. They are not in Court and not represented by Counsel. They did not equally file any process. In the circumstance the Application is granted.
ORDER: (1) That the Order Nisi made on 24/5/2010 is hereby made absolute.
(2) That the money in the account of the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor Osisioma Ngwa Local Government Council in the Garnishee Banks namely Zenith Bank of Nigeria PLC (Osisioma) Branch and Intercontinental Bank Osisioma Branch be and is hereby attached and to be paid to the Court Administrator of this Court for onward transmission to the Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor/Applicant forthwith.?
?From the above reproduced decision of the Learned Trial Judge, it is clear that the Appellant was served on the 16th of June, 2010 while the Order Nisi was made on the 24th day of June, 2010. The pertinent question to be answered herein is whether the fourteen days stipulated under Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act,
16
2004 for service of the processes was exhausted before the Court set down the Motion for hearing and if not what is the necessary legal implication. Taking into consideration the provisions of Order 10 Rule 1(a), 22(1)(a) and 44 Rule 1(a) of the Abia State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, 2001 and 2014 as well as Sections 6(1)(a) and 15(2)(a) of Abia State Interpretation Law and Act of the Laws of the Federation on the computation of time, the time for purposes of computing the fourteen days stipulated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (Section 83(2) thereof) shall start to run from the 17th day of June, 2010, for the Motion on Notice for the Order Absolute to be set down for hearing.
In the light of the foregoing the Learned Counsel for the Appellant was right to have submitted that the Court below lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Motion on Notice and therefore the Order Absolute was a nullity since it was made in breach of the Appellants right to fair hearing (particularly under the maxim Audi Alteram Partem, which is one of the twin pillars of natural justice and as entrenched in Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federation of
17
Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
From the Order Absolute made on the 29th of June, 2010, the Appellant was short-changed by one day in breach of the provision of Section 83(2) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, 2004 which provision is clear and unambiguous and ought to be given its simple, grammatical and natural interpretation without resort to any external aid or embellishment. See Johnson v. Bamgboye (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285; Olley v. Tunji (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 275; Uwazurike v. A.G Fed. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) 1 and Nobis Elendu v. INEC (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1485) 197 at 224 Paras. E ? F where M.D. Muhammad, JSC re-emphasized the time honoured principle of our jurisprudence that:
.?.Courts must interpret the law within the con of its constitutive words and refrain from seeking meaning of the statute outside the clear words employed by the Legislators. See Senator Dalir Bako Gassol v. Alhaji Abubakar Umar Tutare & Ors. (2013) 3 SCNJ 6, (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1374) 221 and Mr. Ugochukwu Duru v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) 2 SCNJ 377, (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 441.?
?In the instant case, the
18
Court below must have given Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act a skewed conual approach in its interpretation thereby departing from the purposive intention of the Law makers on the need to afford the Garnishee nay the Judgment-Debtor at least fourteen clear days after service of the Order Nisi before setting down the motion for the order absolute. This is because the Act as well as the Courts are conscious of the fact that once a Garnishee Order Nisi has been made in respect of the Judgment-Debtor’s money in the Garnishee’s possession, the Garnishee shall mandatorily refrain from dealing in any way with the money until it has shown cause legally and until the order is made absolute.
See Central Bank of Nigeria v. Kraus Thompson Organization Ltd. (2002) 7 NWLR (pt. 765) 139, U.B.A v. Ekanem (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 207 at 221 – 222 paras. H – A; Standard Trust Bank Ltd . v. Contract Resources Nig. Ltd (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 208) 115 at 123 – 124 Paras. H – B. and Ekiti State Government v. Ashaolu [2011] 15 WRN 112 at 131 – 132 lines 10 – 25 per Nweze, JCA (as he then was) citing Union Bank
19
of Nigeria Plc. v. Boney Marcus Industries (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt 943) 654, (2005) 7 S.C. (Pt. 11) 662 at 664 – 665.
On another score Learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly cited the Supreme Court case of SLB consortium v. N.N.P.C. [2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317 at 332 ; Paragraph E where Onnoghen, JSC, posited that non-compliance with the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 which is a matter of substantive law as well Order 26 Rule 4(3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules which provisions are mandatory and not discretionary will render the proceedings conducted in breach of the provisions of the Law and Rules, a nullity as the Court would be bereft of jurisdiction to make any order in favour of the culprit of such non-compliance.
Again, in Agboola v. Agbodenu (2009) 37 WRN 59; a decision of the Ilorin Division of this Honourable Court which I was privileged to have partaken in the hearing of the Appeal, Sankey, JCA, with whom my humble self and C.C. Nweze, (now JSC) concurred; held on the need for a condition precedent to be complied with by parties where a Statute or Rule of Court prescribes a condition precedent to the assumption of
20
jurisdiction; relying on the authorities of Ezegbu v. FATB Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 216) 197; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (2001) 47 WRN 1; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 at 348; that:
It is trite law that where a Statute or Rules prescribe a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction, that condition must be first fulfilled before there is jurisdiction. A case must therefore come before the Court only when initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of such jurisdiction.
In the instant case, where the Statute governing the initiation of Garnishee proceedings stipulates the condition precedent to the grant of an Order Absolute, the law is settled that unless and until the Garnishee was/is afforded the 14 days period of service any attempt at setting down the Motion on Notice for hearing would tantamount to non-compliance as the said Section 83(2) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act stipulates in mandatory terms that : At least four days before the day of hearing, a copy of the Order Nisi shall be served upon the Garnishee and on the Judgment-Debtor. In such circumstance, as I had
21
earlier held, the trial Court in this case acted without jurisdiction yet, to emphasize the point on the need for compliance with the mode of doing an act as prescribed by Statute, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant also sought umbrage in the case of Auchi v. Okuoghae [2005] 28 WRN 177 at 189; where Amaizu, JCA in line 15 thereof restated the position of the law thus:
It is now settled that where an Act prescribes a particular method of exercising a statutory power, any other method of exercise of it is excluded. Isaac Ogunlaja v. A-G of Rivers State Anor (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 508) 209.
On the need for statutory provisions to be interpreted by following their simple, grammatical and ordinary meanings as I had earlier highlighted; Peter Odili, JCA (now JSC) also reemphasized this cardinal rule of interpretation of Statutes in the case of Corporate Affairs Commission v. Ayedun (2005) 44 WRN 97 at 11 lines 15 30; ably cited by the Learned Counsel also. See, still on this point African News Papers (Nig.) Ltd. v. FRN (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 137, Salami v. Chairman LEDB (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 125) 539, Ogonna v. A-G. Imo State (1992) 1
22
NWLR (Pt. 320) 647 and Ugwu v. Ararume (2008) CCLR 215 at 262 Paras. 2526; (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367 at 437 Paras. C D, per Tobi, JSC.
Finally, on this point the Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the case of Gbadamosi v. Nigerian Railway Corporation (2007) 8 WRN 87, in finally submitting as I had held in total agreement with him that time did not start to run until the 17th day of June, 2010 and therefore as at the 29th of June, 2010 when the Lower Court made the Order Absolute, the hearing of the Motion on Notice for that purpose was premature and accordingly it lacked jurisdiction to so do.
On the whole, this Appeal is meritorious and hereby succeeds and accordingly allowed. The Order Absolute made by the Honourable Justice I.N. AKOMAS, J. on the 29th day of June 2010 in respect of the Garnishee Proceedings between the parties is hereby set aside for want of jurisdiction with N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) Costs in favour of the Appellant.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.CA.: I had the privilege of reading the lead judgment of my learned brother I. I. Agube JCA in this appeal and I agree with his
23
reasoning and conclusion and also allow the appeal. I abide by his consequential orders in the lead judgment.
Other Citations: (2016)LCN/8682(CA)
