Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 19888 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Lagos

Fri Mar 31, 2023

Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/71/2021

CORAM

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO

PARTIES

MOHAMMED FAROUK AUWALU.

APPELLANTS

TABA ALLWELL BROWN

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEALS, RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, LAND LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, COMMERCIAL LAW, JURISDICTION, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal probes into the correctness of the decision of the High Court of Lagos State (trial court). The Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC), the eighth defendant, originally owned Block 7 Flats 3 and 4, LSDPC Medium Cost, Housing Estate, Dolphin, Ikoyi, Lagos State (the property/premises). In 1993, the LSDPC allocated the property to the sixth and seventh defendants who, in turn, transferred and handed over vacant possession of the same to the respondent in 1995 upon an agreed consideration. The respondent exercised acts of ownership and possession by letting the property to rent paying tenants. In 2007, when she returned from her trip abroad, she discovered unknown person on the property. On enquiry, she discovered that the sixth and seventh defendants purportedly sold the property to Shona Enterprises Limited (the first defendant) which, in turn, sold the same to the appellants. The appellants and the first defendant continued the acts of trespass on the property despite repeated demand for its abatement. Sequel to that, the respondent beseeched the lower court, via a writ of summons filed on 23^rd February, 2009, wherein she tabled against the appellants and the defendants, jointly and severally. In reaction, the appellants, joined issues with the respondent and denied liability by filing a joint statement of defence.  Therein, they claimed, in the main, that to be the beneficial owners and bonafide purchaser of the property for value without notice from the first defendant which bought the same from the original allottees – the sixth and seventh defendants, in consequence, they counter-claimed. Tons of documentary evidence were tendered by the parties. At closure of the evidence, the parties, through their respective counsel, addressed the lower court in the manner required by law.  In a considered judgment, delivered on 24^th November, 2020, reflected at pages 311 – 331 of the record, the lower court granted the respondent’s claim and dismissed the appellants’ counter-claim. The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment hence

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, especially that of the Appellants respectively?

2. Whether from the totality of this case the trial Court was not wrong in

disregarding the rule as to the weight of evidence when it failed to properly evaluate both oral and documentary evidence specifically Exhibits 27A&B, 28A&B, 29A&B, 30, 31A-D, 32A&B, 33A-F, 34A&B, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, without any reason or reasons and for erroneously failing to also consider and evaluate the testimonies most especially that of the 4th and 8th Defendants?

3. Whether giving (sic) to the circumstances of this case, the Court was wrong there by err (sic) in law when it gave its judgment in favour of the Claimant/1st Respondent against the Appellants in this appeal without the Claimant proving her case beyond the preponderance of evidence to warrant the Court’s final decision in her favour the Appellants?

4. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the Claimant/Respondent has MADE OUT A CASE THEREBY PROVED HER TITLE TO THE SAID PROPERTY IN DISPUTE KNOWN AND DESCRIBED as Block 7 Flat 3 and Block 7 Flat 4 LSDPC Medium Cost Housing Estate, Dolphin Estate Ikoyi, Lagos?

5. Whether pursuant to the record and evidence led from the trial Court the Appellants are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of any prior transaction between the Claimant/1st Respondent and the Appellants?

6. Whether the trial Court ought to have declared the transfer of title from the 6th and 7th Defendants/now Respondents to the 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent and subsequent transfer of title from the 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent to the Appellants is (sic) illegal, null and void: the same allocation having been legally obtained with the consent of the 8th Defendant/respondent?

7. Whether an appellate court will interfere with the discretion of a trial with irregularity where the findings of the Trial Court is based on improper evaluation of evidence or such evaluation is perverse?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – WHAT A TRIAL COURT WILL CONSIDER IN ASCERTAINING THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

In ascertaining the weight of evidence, the trial court is enjoined, by law, to consider whether the evidence is admissible, relevant, credible, conclusive or more probable than that given by the other party, see Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 3 SC91; Anyaoke v. Adi (1986) 2 NSCC, Vol. 17, 799 at 806/(1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 731; Nwokidu v. Okanu (supra) (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 362; Akinlagun v. Oshoboja (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 60; Gov., Lagos State v. Adyiga (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) 291; Oyewole v. Akande (2009)15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 11; Agala v. Okusin (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1202) 412. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – MEANING OF EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

Instructively, evaluation of evidence connotes the appraisal/ assessment of evidence, both viva voce and documentary before a court, and ascription of probative value to them which results in finding of fact. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

EVIDENTIARY DUTY – THE PRIMARY EVIDENTIARY DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT

This primary evidentiary duty falls squarely within the exclusive preserve of a trial court. It enjoys this prerogative in that it has the singular advantage, which cannot be recaptured by an appellate court, to watch the witnesses, form impression on their demeanour and assess the credibility or otherwise of their evidence, see Okpa v. State (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1587) 1; Kekong v. State (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1596) 108; Ezeani v. FRN (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1686) 221; Young Shall Grow Motors Ltd. v. Onalaja (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1763) 300; Obi v. Uzoewulu (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1778) 352. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT – AN APPELLATE COURT IS DISROBED OF THE VIRES TO INTERFERE WITH A FINDING OF A TRIAL COURT

An appellate court is disrobed of the vires to interfere with a finding of a trial court anchored on demeanour and credibility of witnesses, see Adebanjo v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1688) 121; Tope v. State (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt.1695) 289. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT – DISCHARGE OF THE BOUNDEN DUTY

To discharge the bounden duty, a trial court must show how and why it arrived at its finding of fact and final determination of the issues before it. It must be cautious and understand the distinction between summary or restatement of evidence and evaluation of evidence which means assessment of evidence and giving them probative value. It has to appraise the evidence by constructing an imaginary scale of justice and putting the evidence of the parties on the two different pans of the scale. Then, it weighs them to determine which is heavier, not in terms of quantity, but quality of the evidence, see Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 3 SC 91; Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225; Oyewole v. Akande (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 11; Ayuya v. Yonrin (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 135; Adusei v. Adebayo (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1288) 534; Odutola v. Mabogunje (2013) 7 NWLR (P1355) 522; Ndulue v. Ojiakor (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 311; Okoro v. Okoro (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 506; D.M.V (Nig.) Ltd. v. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt.1652) 1635; Oguntade v. Oyelakin (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1719) 41. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – WHETHER OR NOT COURTS CAN EVALUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Interestingly, the case-law gives the courts the nod to evaluate documentary evidence, see Fagunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL TO EVALUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Admirably, the law, in order to foreclose any injustice, donates concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower court in evaluation of documentary evidence, see Gonzee (Nig.) Ltd. v. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 634; Olagungu v. Adesoye (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225; Ayuya v. Yorin (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1254) 135; Eyibio v. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1325) 51; Odutola v. Mabogunje (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354); CPC v. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) 66; UTC (Nig) Plc. v. Lawal (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1400) 221; Ogundalu v. Macjob (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1460) 96; Onwuzuraike v. Edoziem (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1508) 215; Ezechukwu v. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529, C.K. & W.M.C. Ltd. v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 487; Emeka v. Okafor (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1577); 410; Okoro v. Okoro (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 506; D.M.V (Nig) Ltd. v. NPA (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652); Olomoda v. Mustapha (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 36. I will harness from this co-ordinate jurisdiction in the appraisal of the sea of documentary evidence in the appeal. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

DOCUMENTS – THE LATITUDE OF THE COURT TO READ A DOCUMENT HOLISTICALLY

Nota bene, the law grants to the courts considerable latitude to read a document holistically so as to reach and garner harmonious results of its content, see Ojokolobo v. Aremu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 377/(1987) SCNJ 98; Unilife Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Adeshigbin (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; ACB v. Apubo (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 707) 482; Mbani v. Bosi (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 400; Bunge v. Gov. Rivers State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 573; Agbareh v. Minra (2008)2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378; Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt, 1188) 429; BFI Group v. BPE (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 209; Julius Berger Nig. PLC. v. T.R.C.B. Ltd. (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1665) 219. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

DOCUMENT – THE CANON OF INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE COURTS TO A DOCUMENT

In addition, in construing a document, the court is enjoined by law to apply the literal rule as a canon of interpretation, id est, to accord the words employed therein their ordinary grammatical meaning without any embellishments, see UBN v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385, UBN Ltd. v. Sax (Nig.) Ltd. (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt. 361) 150; Enilolobo v. N.P.D.C. Ltd. (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1703) 168. I will obey these legal commandment, on canons of interpretation of document, in order not to insult the law. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

PROVING TITLE TO LAND – PRODUCTION OF TITLE DOCUMENTS AS MEANS OF PROVING TITLE TO LAND

Indisputably, production of duly authenticated document is one of the five recognised ways of proving title to land in our corpus juris. The apex court had sanctioned these modes in flood of judicial authorities, see Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9-10 SC 227; Ewo v. Ani (supra); Balogun v. Akanji (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 393; Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332; Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404; Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1270) 217; Dakolo v. Rewane-Dakolo (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1272) 22; Iseogbekun v. Adelakun (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1337) 140; Arum v. Nwobodo (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 374; Salisu v. Mobolaji (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1535) 242; Pada v. Galadima (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 436; Oyewusi v. Olagbami (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1639) 297; Anagbado v. Faruk (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 292; Ifediora v. Okafor (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 322; Gaba v. Tsoida (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1716)1; Regd. Trustees, ACC v. Reg. Trustees, GCC (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1801) 105; Edosa v. Ehimwenma (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 215. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

PURCHASE RECEIPT – DEFINITION OF A PURCHASE RECEIPT

A receipt is a document that formally acknowledges the giving and receipt of an item, see Bello v. State (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1710) 72. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

RECEIPT OF PAYMENT/POSSESSION – THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON OBTAINING A RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AND POSSESSION AFTER PAYMENT FOR LAND

The settled and current position of the law is that a person who pays for land, obtains a receipt of payment and granted possession by the seller acquires an equitable interest; an equitable interest that cannot be defeated by a legal title save for a purchaser for value without notice of the prior equity, see Ogunbambi v. Abowaba (supra); Nsiegbe v. Mgbemena (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 364; Agboola v. UBA Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 256; Goldmaria (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308) 291; Gbadamosi v. Akinloye (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1378) 455; Orianzi v. A. – G., Rivers State (2017) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1561) 224; Zaccala v. Edisa (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 528; Aderonpe v. Eleran (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1661) 141; Mohammed v. Farmers Supply Co. (KDS) Ltd. (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 187. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

POSSESSION – MEANING OF POSSESSION

To begin with, possession connotes the exercise of dominion over property, real or chattel, and the right under which one may exercise control over something to the exclusion of others.  It signifies an occupation or physical control of a parcel of land either personally or through an agent or servant, see NITEL Plc. v. Rockonoh Prop. Co. Ltd. (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 378) 473; Oke v. Oke (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008) 224; Okegbemi v. Akintola (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1076) 53.  It has been described as nine-tenth of the law. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

POSSESSION – THE RIGHT OF A PERSON IN EFFECTIVE POSSESSION TO SUE A TRESPASSER

A person in effective possession of land can sue anybody in the world for trespass except the owners, his lawful landlord, tenant or lessee. In Anyabunsi v. Ugwunze (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 401) 255 at 268, Iguh, JSC, incisively, opined:

A landlord who collects rents from his tenants in respect of his piece or parcel of land is clearly in de jure possession of such land even though he is not in physical occupation or de facto possession thereof.

See, also, Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NSCC 114/(1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 141/(1990)/SCNJ 104; Tanko v. Uchendu (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 253; Onwubuariri v. Igboasoiyi (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 357; Onovo v. Mba (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 391; Ehwrudje Warri L. G. (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1520) 337.  PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

 

DOCUMENT OF TITLE – WHETHER OR NOT A DOCUMENT OF TITLE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLES A PARTY TO THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

It cannot be gainsaid that a document of title does not automatically entitle a party, armed with it, to ownership of land.  A party’s production and reliance on such an instrument, inevitably, carries with it the necessity for the court to inquire into some number of questions, videlicet: (i) whether the document is genuine and valid; (ii) whether it has been duly executed, stamped and registered; (iii) whether the grantor had the authority and capacity to make the grant;  (iv) whether the grantor had in fact what he purported to grant; and (v) whether it has the effect claimed by its holder, see Agboola v. UBA Plc (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1258) 375; Romaine v. Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 238); Dabo v. Abdullahi (2005) 7 NWLR (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 181; Kyari v. Alkali (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 412; Jolasun v. Bamgboye (supra); Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 477; Edosa v. Ehimwenma (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 215. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

DOCUMENTARY ROOT OF TITLE -WHERE A DOCUMENTARY ROOT OF TITLE FAILS THE CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF DISPUTED LAND IS IMPOTENTTO VEST TITLE

Having confirmed, on the footing of the law, that the appellants’ documentary root of title failed, their claim of long possession of the disputed land is impotent to vest them with title over it because “when a root ceases to stand, the stem and branches will fall with the root.  In other words, where the radical title pleaded by a party is not proved, it is not permissible to support a non-existed root with acts of possession”. See Odofin v. Ayoola (1984) 11 SC 72 at 116, per Oputa, JSC; Ameem v. Amao (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1358) 159; Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

INVAID TITLE – LENGTH OF POSSESSION DOES NOT RIPEN AN INVALID TITLE TO A VALID OWNERSHIP TITLE

In the eye of the law, proof of ownership is tantamount to proof of possession, see Ayanwale v. Odusami (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 328; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (supra).  In fact, the law views the appellants’ possession of the disputed property as adverse in the face of an award of title to the respondent, see Wachukwu v. Owunwanne (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 1. In the mind of the law, even in the presence of copious evidence of possession, the length of possession does not ripen invalid title to a valid ownership title, see Yusuf v. Adegoke (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 332 at 369; per Aderemi, JSC; Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 1 at 37; Dagaci of Dere v. Dagaci of Ebwa (2006) 1 SCNJ 160; Okwarononi v. Mbadugha (2013) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 346. This legal exposition, with deference, exposes the poverty and emptiness of the learned appellants’ scintillating argument which ascribed long possession to the appellants. The appellants’ claim on long possession of the property is rendered an orphan as it is disrobed of any legal parentage or substratum to sit and enjoy any validity. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

CREDIBLE EVIDENCE – WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CREDIBLE

A piece of evidence is credible when it is worthy of belief, see Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 1; Dim v. Enemuo (2009) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1149) 353; Eta v. Dazie (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 248; A. J. Inv. Ltd. v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc. (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 380; Emeka v. Chuba-Ikeazu (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 345. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

EVIDENCE – WHEN IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVE

In the same vein, a piece of evidence is conclusive if it leads to a definite result, see Nruamah v. Ebuzoeme (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) 474. The lower court found, rightly in my view, that the evidence of the respondent, based on their qualitative nature, preponderated over those of the appellants’. The respondent proved her claim on the balance of probability as commanded by law. Per contra, evidence galore that the appellants failed woefully to prove their counter-claim. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

PROOF – MEANING OF PROOF IN LAW

Proof, in law, is a process by which the existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the court, see section 121 of the Evidence Act, 2011; Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 747; Awuse v. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt. 952) 416; Salau v. State (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1699) 399. (Pt. 1372) 474; APC v. Karfi (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 479; Ojobo v Moro (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1700) 166. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – MEANING OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

Miscarriage of justice, in law, denotes such a departure from th rules which pervades all judicial processes as to make what happened not, in the proper sense of the word, a judicial procedure, see Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 76. It signifies a decision or outcome of legal proceedings which is prejudicial or inconsistent with the substantial rights of a party. It implies a failure of justice and a reasonable probability of more favourable result of the case for a party alleging it, see Larmie v. DPM & Services (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 296) 775; Gbadamosi v. Dairo (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 282; Aigbobahi v. Aifuwa (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 270; Akpan v. Bob (supra); Afolabi V. W,S.W. Ltd (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 286; Abubakar V. Nasamu (No. 2) (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1332) 523; Oke V. Mimiko (No.2) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1338) 332; Fredrick v. Ibekwe (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 467; Tyonex (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pfizer Ltd. (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 125. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

VERDICT OF COURT – WHEN IS THE VERDICT OF COURT PERVERSE

A verdict of court is perverse when: it runs counter to the pleadings and evidence before it, a court takes into account matters it ought not to take into consideration, a court shuts its eyes to the evidence, a court takes irrelevant matters into account or it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, see Udengwu v. Uzuegbu (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 136; Nnorodim v. Ezeani (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 378) 448; Lagga v. Sarhuna NWLR (Pt.1114) 427; Onyekwelu v. Elf Pet (Nig.) Ltd. (2009) 5 BWKR (Pt. 1133) 181; Momoh v. Umoru (2011) 15 NWLR Pt. 1270) 217; Ihunwo v. Ihunwo (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1357) 550; Olaniyan v. Fatoki (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 477; Udum v. Umanah (No.1) (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179; Adeokin Records v. M.C.S.N. (Ltd.) / GTE) (supra); Mamonu v. Dikat (2019 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 495; MTN (Nig.) Comm. Ltd. v. Corporate Comm. Inv. Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 427; Offodile v. Offodile (2019) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1698) 189; Bi-Courtney Ltd. v. A-G, Fed. (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 112; Fredrick v. Ibekwe (019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 467; Uzodinma v. Eke Ihedioha (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) 529. PER – OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA JCA.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT