OMOLU v. DAVID & ORS

CITATION: (2019) LPELR-47432(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Benin Judicial Division

Holden at Benin

ON MONDAY, 15TH APRIL, 2019Suit No: CA/B/123/2019

Before Their Lordships:

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice, Court of AppealPHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice, Court of AppealMOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenEZE OMOLU - Appellant(s)

And1. MR. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION3. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS

- Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

1. ELECTORAL MATTERS - POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Who can institute an action incourt to complain about the conduct of a political party primaries"To begin with, the Appellant asserts that the 1st Respondent had no locus standi toinstitute the action as plaintiff at the lower Court. The question here is whether the 1stRespondent has sufficient legal interest that is being threatened. To establish this fact, it istherefore pertinent to examine his statement of claim which in the present case is theaffidavit in support of the originating summons. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support ofthe originating summons it is clearly thus stated ...8. The names of those who participated in the primary election and their respective scoresare as follows:a. EMEKA OSSAI ....... 23 VOTESb. ADOH DUKE OGOCHUKWU DAVID .... 98 VOTESc. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID ..... 98 VOTESd. EZE OMOLU ........ 2 VOTESe. VOID VOTES ...... NILf. TOTAL VOTES CAST ....... 146 VOTES.It is clearly stated in paragraph 9, that the 1st Respondent polled the highest number ofvotes cast and was accordingly declared and returned as the winner of the primary election.The said hand written copy of the result was tendered as exhibit B. In the case ofEKHAGUERE V IGBINOMWANHIA (2010) LPELR this Court stated:"The term locus standi ..... has been defined as denoting legal capacity to institute actionsin a Court of law. It is not dependent on the success or merit of a case, it is a conditionprecedent to adjudication by a Court to determine a case on the merits."Going by the undisputed facts in the instant case at the lower Court, it generally borders onthe nomination of candidates and the duty of the 2nd Respondent (INEC) to accept or rejectthe candidate with the highest votes. If the 1st Respondent was an aspirant, rightly orwrongly then he has an interest to protect and thus has the locus standi to institute anaction whether or not he stands to win at the end."Per EKPE, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-13, Paras. D-B) -read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

2. ELECTORAL MATTERS - PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: Proper time to institute pre-electionmatters: how to determine the date of accrual of cause of action"S. 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thus provide:"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election mattershall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decisionor action complained of in the suit." By the words of the Constitution as aforestated, onecan only read the ordinary grammatical meaning to the said words. By a literalinterpretation to the above S. 285 (9) of the Constitution (as amended), it follows that everypre-election matter, case, cause or action ought to be filed within 14 days from the date ofthe occurrence of the action or event complained of. It follows therefore that in order todetermine whether a pre-election matter was filed within the stipulated 14 days as perSection 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the Court should examine theoriginating process of the claimant's suit to determine "the date of the event, the decisionor action complained of in the suit". In general legal parlance, an action shall not becommenced outside the time so prescribed by statute. In other words a suit must becommenced by an aggrieved party within the statutory period otherwise the said action willbe statute-barred. When an action is statute barred, the following legal consequences willfollow: to wit. 1. The party will lose the right of action 2. The Party would lose the right ofenforcement 3. The party would also irretrievably lose the right to judicial relief.See also the following authorities:SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 241; NIG. PORTS AUTHORITY PLC V. LOTUSPLASTICS LTD. & ANOR. (2005) 19 NWLR 158.The period of limitation in respect of any case runs from the date the cause of action occursand to determine such a date, one has to look at the writ of summons and the averment inthe claim as well as the evidence adduced in Court. The cause of action would occur when itbecomes complete, such that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his claim. See ITFV. NRC (2007) 3 NWLR (1020) 28.In the instant case, the 1st Respondent contended that the cause of action arose on the 6thday of October 2018 when the primary election to the House of Assembly for Ukwuani StateConstituency was conducted and in line with Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (4thAlteration) as amended and that thePlaintiff/Appellant had 14 days within which to file this suit. It is my view as well as that heldby the lower Court, that the 1st Respondent did not complain about the conduct of theprimary election for Ukwuani State Constituency but that he became aware of this on the10th day of November 2018 and thus he became a Plaintiff and time began to run fromthereon. In the case of WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 369 para A-C. Theapex Court clearly thus stated: "Time therefore begins to run when there is in existence aperson who can sue and another who can be sued and all facts have happened which arematerial to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed." From the above summation, the1st Respondent became aware of the omission of his name published by the 2ndRespondent on the 10/11/2018 i.e. the 10th day of November 2018 and the suit was filed onthe 21/11/2018. It follows therefore that the suit was filed within the limitation period andtherefore not statute barred. In other words, the action arose on the 10/11/2018 when the1st Respondent discovered that his name was not published by INEC as the candidate of the2nd Respondent/Appellant for the House of Assembly, Ukwuani State Constituency since thenomination form published did not carry his name as a candidate. See paras 12-15 of the1st Respondent's affidavit in support of the originating summons. I reiterate the fact thatSection 285(9) of the Constitution (4th Alteration No.21) of 2017 provides as follows:"Every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of theoccurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit."Per EKPE, J.C.A. (Pp.13-17, Paras. F-C) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the

Leading Judgment): This appeal emanates from the

decision of the Federal High Court Asaba, delivered on the

26th Day of February 2019.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Appellant, the 1st Respondent and other

members of the 3rd Respondent party contested the

primary election of the A.P.C. for the Ukwuani State

Constituency for the 2019 general elections into the

Delta State House of Assembly. The story line of the

Appellant is that he had emerged as winner of the

said elections and was consequently chosen by his

party the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the

constituency for the general elections into the Delta

State House of Assembly.

The 1st Respondent however filed an Originating

Summons at the Federal High Court, Asaba Division

claiming a number of reliefs which included a

declaration that having regards to Section 87(4) (c) of

the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the 1st

defendant acted illegally, improperly, unfair and

unjustly to have accepted from the 2nd defendant and

consequently published the nomination form filed by

the 3rd

1

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in

the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in

Ukwuani State Constituency.

The Appellant hereinafter filed a preliminary objection to

the suit. The said preliminary objection and the originating

summons were taken together by the lower Court and

Judgment was delivered on the 26th day of February, 2019.

A notice of Appeal was filed on the 6th day of March 2019

and the Appellant raised the following issues for

determination:

1. Whether the 1st respondent had the locus standi to

challenge the choice of candidate of the 3rd

respondent for Ukwuani State Constituency in the

2019 general election into Delta State House of

Assembly. GROUND 1, 4 and 5.

2. Whether the trial Court had the jurisdiction to

entertain the 1st respondent’s suit not being

justiceable. GROUND 2.

3. Whether the 1st respondent’s suit was not

statute barred. GROUND 3.

4. Whether exhibits B and D exhibited by the 1st

respondent do not contradict themselves and if they

do whether the effect is not to reject both. GROUND

7.

5. Whether exhibit B the hand written result by the

2

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

1st respondent is the result of the primary election

conducted by the 3rd respondent for Ukwuani State

Constituency. GROUND 6.

6. Whether the 1st respondent proved his case from

the evidence before the Court. GROUND 8 AND 9.

The 1st Respondent on his part also raised the following

issues for determination:

i. Whether the 1st Respondent had the locus standi to

institute the suit at the lower Court? (Grounds 1, 4

and 5)

ii. Whether in the circumstance of this case, the suit

of the 1st Respondent is justiciable (Ground 2)

iii. Whether the lower Court was right when it held

that the case of the 1st Respondent is not statute

barred (Ground 3)

iv. Whether the lower Court was right in the

circumstance of this case to rely on Exhibits B and D

exhibited by the 1st Respondent (Ground 7)

v. Whether from the totality of the circumstance of

the case, the lower Court was right to exercise its

discretion in favour of the 1st Respondent (Ground 6,

8 and 9).

I shall adopt the issues as raised and couched by the

Appellant to be used in this discourse.

On Issue One, Whether the 1st respondent had the

locus

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

3

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

standi to challenge the choice of candidate of the 3rd

respondent for Ukwuani State Constituency in the

2019 general election into Delta State House of

Assembly. Ground 1, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the

Appellant argued that nobody including members of a

political party can challenge the choice of candidate of a

political party. He stated that the right granted by S. 87 (9)

of the Electoral Act 2011 specifies that the nomination of a

candidate is within the domestic affairs of that political

party. He cited the cases of:

1. UFOMBA VS INEC

2. FALEKE VS. INEC

That an aspirant under S. 87 (9) of the Electoral Act has the

right only to challenge the process of a primary election

only for the purpose of securing damages if any

wrongdoing against the party is proved.

Learned counsel for the Appellant further stressed the

point that the 1st Respondent did not participate in the said

primary election. That exhibit D bears the name David

Ochonogo as the participant while the 1st Respondent’s

name as shown in the suit is Mr. Chukwuka David. He

concluded that the 1st Respondent not being an aspirant in

4

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

the primary election lacks the locus standi to institute the

action.

On Issue Two, counsel submitted that the trial Court had no

jurisdiction to entertain any suit under S. 87(8) of the

Electoral Act for the purpose of delving into the choice of

candidates of the political party.

On Issue Three, whether the 1st respondent’s suit was

not statute barred. Ground 3. Learned counsel for the

Appellant opined that the suit of the 1st Respondent was

statute barred. That the cause of action in the suit arose

before the 15th October 2018 while the action of the 1st

Respondent was filed at least 37 days after the event

occurred.

On Issue 4, whether exhibits B and D exhibited by the

1st respondent do not contradict themselves and if

they do whether the effect is not to reject

both. Ground 7.

Learned counsel for the Appellant canvassed the main point

of argument by submitting that there are contradictions in

exhibit D between 140 delegates registered and 146 votes

cast as exhibited in Exhibit D.

On Issues 5 and 6:

5. Whether exhibit B the hand written result by the

1st respondent is the result of the primary

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

5

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

election conducted by the 3rd respondent for

Ukwuani State Constituency. Ground 6.

6. Whether the 1st respondent proved his case from

the evidence before the Court. Ground 8 and 9.

Learned counsel for the Appellant argued both Issues in

one fell swoop by first submitting that the only authentic

result of the election should emanate from the General

Onoja’s Committee. That the 1st Respondent merely

annexed exhibit B, a handwritten result which did not bear

any insignia of the A.P.C. party. That it was merely the

result of the Delta State Chapter of the 3rd Respondent

(APC). That as rightly held by the trial Court earlier, only

the National Executive Committee can conduct a party

primary and not a state chapter of a party. See ETIM V

AKPAN (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 451 Ratio 1.

Learned counsel then concluded that the so called decision

of the National Appeal Committee of APC nailed the case of

the 1st Respondent by first confirming that the suit was

filed not less than 30 days after the cause of action arose.

In reply, the 1st Respondent’s counsel argued that he had

sufficient legal

6

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

interest to institute this action. That from the affidavit in

support of the originating summons, the 1st respondent

detailed how he contended and won the primary elections

of the party (APC) but the forms published in respect of the

3rd Respondent’s candidate for Ukwuani State

Constituency was that of the appellant. That it is on record

that the 1st Respondent was an aspirant/candidate at the

primary election concluded by the 3rd Respondent in

respect of Ukwuani State Constituency. Learned

Respondent’s Counsel further argued that the name

“OCHONGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID" is one and the same

name as “DAVID OCHONOGOR” and that the institution of

the wrong name amounts to dwelling on technicality which

the Courts have long moved away from.

Learned Respondent’s counsel surmised that by virtue of S.

87 (9) of the Electoral Act, the 1st Respondent who

complained that he polled the highest votes in the primary

election and was not recognized as the lawful candidate of

the Political Party by the 2nd Respondent can maintain a

justiciable suit in the High Court. To buttress this

assertion,

7

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

the case of AGHEDO V ADENOMO (2019) 13 NWLR

(Pt. 1636) 264.

On the issue of the suit being statute barred, the 1st

Respondent’s counsel further submitted that it is settled

law that in determining whether a suit is statute barred,

the only process open to the Court’s consideration is the

plaintiff’s originating process and the affidavit in

support. That the time limited by virtue of S. 285 (9) of the

4th Alteration to the Constitution is 14 days. That the

evaluation of evidence on this issue is the exclusive

preserve of the trial Court and the appellate Court can only

interfere where the decision of the trial Court is seen to be

perverse.

On the issue of Exhibits B and D being contradictory,

learned counsel opined that the lower Court had evaluated

the evidence and found that the number of votes allotted to

the candidates both on Exhibits B and D tally, and therefore

relied on same. That the contradictions should only be on

material facts for the Court to doubt such evidence.

He concluded that the lower Court was right to rely and

ascribe evidential weight to the said exhibits B & D.

8

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

On the issue of the Court’s exercise of discretion in favour

of the 1st Respondent, learned counsel for the 1st

Respondent submitted that a party claiming a declaration

of a right must provide ample evidence. See BELLO V

EWEKA (1981) NSCC (Vol. 12) 48. That the claim of the

1st Respondent before the lower Court was that he polled

the highest scores at the primary of the 3rd Respondent but

that the appellant was in his stead recognized. That to

prove the above assertion, the 1st Respondent then

rendered exhibit B which is the handwritten result of the

primary election. See pages 9 & 10 of the record. 1st

Respondent further argued that of all the aspirants, the 1st

Respondent scored the highest votes and won the primary

of the 3rd Respondent thus producing Exhibit H which is

the report of 3rd Respondent’s appeal committee, declaring

1st Respondent winner of the said election.

Learned Respondent’s counsel then concluded that a party

asking for a declaratory relief should succeed on the

strength of his case and the burden then shifts to the other

party to disprove the case of the plaintiff. He further

concluded that the appellant as the

9

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

defendant at the lower Court failed to discharge that

burden and urge the Court to dismiss the appeal.

RESOLUTION:

The 1st Respondent as plaintiff in the lower Court prayed

for the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION that having regards to Section 87

(4) (c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the

Plaintiff is the lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant

in the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in

Ukwuani State Constituency.

2. A DECLARATION that having regards to Sections

87 (4) (c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the

1st Defendant acted illegally, improperly, unfairly and

unjustly to have accepted from the 2nd Defendant and

Consequently published the nomination form filled by

the 3rd Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd

Defendant in the forthcoming House of Assembly

Elections in Ukwuani State Constituency.

3. AN ORDER DIRECTING AND COMPELLING the 1st

Defendant either by herself, agents, servants, privies,

surrogates, staff or any person acting through the

Defendant to recognize forthwith the Plaintiff as the

lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the

forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in Ukwuani

State Constituency.

10

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

The gravamen of the case of the appellant is that having

regards to S.87(4) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as

amended) the 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent acted illegally

and unjustly to have accepted and published the

nomination form filed by the 1st Respondent/2nd Defendant

in the forth coming House of Assembly Elections in

Ukwuani State Constituency. The Appellant then prays for

an order directing and compelling the 1st Defendant/2nd

Respondent to recognize forthwith the Plaintiff/Appellant as

the lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant/3rd Respondent

in the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in the

Ukwuani State Constituency.

To begin with, the Appellant asserts that the 1st

Respondent had no locus standi to institute the action as

plaintiff at the lower Court. The question here is whether

the 1st Respondent has sufficient legal interest that is

being threatened. To establish this fact, it is therefore

pertinent to examine his statement of claim which in the

present case is the affidavit in support of the originating

summons.

In paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating

summons it is clearly thus stated …..

11

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

8. The names of those who participated in the primary

election and their respective scores are as follows:

a. EMEKA OSSAI ……. 23 VOTES

b. ADOH DUKE OGOCHUKWU DAVID …. 98 VOTES

c. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID ….. 98 VOTES

d. EZE OMOLU …….. 2 VOTES

e. VOID VOTES …… NIL

f. TOTAL VOTES CAST ……. 146 VOTES.

It is clearly stated in paragraph 9, that the 1st Respondent

polled the highest number of votes cast and was

accordingly declared and returned as the winner of the

primary election. The said hand written copy of the result

was tendered as exhibit B. In the case of EKHAGUERE V

IGBINOMWANHIA (2010) LPELR this Court stated:

“The term locus standi ….. has been defined as

denoting legal capacity to institute actions in a Court

of law. It is not dependent on the success or merit of

a case, it is a condition precedent to adjudication by a

Court to determine a case on the merits.”

Going by the undisputed facts in the instant case at the

lower Court, it generally

12

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

borders on the nomination of candidates and the duty of

the 2nd Respondent (INEC) to accept or reject the

candidate with the highest votes. If the 1st Respondent was

an aspirant, rightly or wrongly then he has an interest to

protect and thus has the locus standi to institute an action

whether or not he stands to win at the end.

The next point to be considered is whether the trial Court

had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the 1st

Respondent. There is no gainsaying the fact that the lower

Court is indeed clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain

the suit at the lower Court being an election petition ……

resolved by an Election Tribunal manned by either the

State High Court or the Federal High Court.

Again, the Appellant argued that the suit of the Plaintiff/1st

Respondent at the lower Court is statute barred. I have

indeed ploughed through the record of appeal and the

briefs of the various parties also paying specific attention to

the legal authorities cited by the contending parties. S. 285

(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

(as amended) thus provides:

13

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this

Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed

not later than 14 days from the date of the

occurrence of the event, decision or action

complained of in the suit."

By the words of the Constitution as aforestated, one can

only read the ordinary grammatical meaning to the said

words. By a literal interpretation to the above S. 285 (9) of

the Constitution (as amended), it follows that every pre-

election matter, case, cause or action ought to be filed

within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the

action or event complained of. It follows therefore that in

order to determine whether a pre-election matter was filed

within the stipulated 14 days as per Section 285 (9) of the

1999 Constitution (as amended) the Court should examine

the originating process of the claimant’s suit to determine

“the date of the event, the decision or action

complained of in the suit”. In general legal parlance, an

action shall not be commenced outside the time so

prescribed by statute. In other words a suit must be

commenced by an aggrieved party within the statutory

period otherwise the said action will be statute-barred.

14

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

When an action is statute barred, the following legal

consequences will follow: to wit.

1. The party will lose the right of action

2. The Party would lose the right of enforcement

3. The party would also irretrievably lose the right to

judicial relief.

See also the following authorities:

SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 241;

NIG. PORTS AUTHORITY PLC V. LOTUS PLASTICS

LTD. & ANOR. (2005) 19 NWLR 158.

The period of limitation in respect of any case runs from

the date the cause of action occurs and to determine such a

date, one has to look at the writ of summons and the

averment in the claim as well as the evidence adduced in

Court. The cause of action would occur when it becomes

complete, such that the aggrieved party can begin and

maintain his claim. See ITF V. NRC (2007) 3 NWLR

(1020) 28.

In the instant case, the 1st Respondent contended that the

cause of action arose on the 6th day of October 2018 when

the primary election to the House of Assembly for Ukwuani

State Constituency was conducted and in line with Section

285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (4th Alteration) as

amended and that the

15

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

Plaintiff/Appellant had 14 days within which to file this

suit. It is my view as well as that held by the lower Court,

that the 1st Respondent did not complain about the conduct

of the primary election for Ukwuani State Constituency but

that he became aware of this on the 10th day of November

2018 and thus he became a Plaintiff and time began to run

from thereon. In the case ofWILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS

(2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 369 para A-C. The apex

Court clearly thus stated:

“Time therefore begins to run when there is in

existence a person who can sue and another who can

be sued and all facts have happened which are

material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to

succeed.”

From the above summation, the 1st Respondent became

aware of the omission of his name published by the 2nd

Respondent on the 10/11/2018 i.e. the 10th day of

November 2018 and the suit was filed on the 21/11/2018. It

follows therefore that the suit was filed within the

limitation period and therefore not statute barred. In other

words, the action arose on the 10/11/2018 when the 1st

Respondent discovered that his name was not published by

INEC as the candidate

16

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

of the 2nd Respondent/Appellant for the House of

Assembly, Ukwuani State Constituency since the

nomination form published did not carry his name as a

candidate. See paras 12-15 of the 1st Respondent’s

affidavit in support of the originating summons. I reiterate

the fact that Section 285(9) of the Constitution (4th

Alteration No.21) of 2017 provides as follows:

“Every pre-election matter shall be filed not later

than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the

event, decision or action complained of in the suit.”

The next point to be considered is whether Exhibits B and

D exhibited by the 1st Respondent do not contradict

themselves and ought to have been rejected. To begin this

discourse, Exhibit B is the hand written result of the

primary election given to the 1st Respondent by his agent.

(See page 9 & 10 of the record). Also Exhibit B is the report

of INEC (2nd Respondent) of the primary election. No

doubt the Appellant herein has made heavy weather of the

fact that the above named exhibits are contradictory and

ought to have been jettisoned by the lower Court.

It is on record that the lower Court went

17

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

through the gamut of evaluating the entire evidence before

it and arrived at the conclusion that the discrepancies in

the two pieces of exhibits are not material as alleged. In

fact the lower Court held that both exhibits tally and that

the facts therein are not material enough to be discarded or

jettisoned.

It is noteworthy that the 1st Respondent polled the highest

votes at the said primary election and also the fact that 2nd

Respondent (INEC) monitored the said elections of the

Appellant and 1st Respondent. It is my humble view

therefore that the lower Court was right to rely and ascribe

evidential weight to Exhibit B and D as evidence

admissible, relevant and credible. We cannot therefore

gloss over the report of INEC who monitored the elections

and produced the result as well as the report of the Appeals

panel of the Gen. Onoje.

In the final analysis, and from the totality of all of the above

summation, I hold the view that the Appellant has failed to

prove his case to sway the mind of the Court in his favour.

This appeal has no scintilla of merit, it fails and is hereby

dismissed. Accordingly the Judgment of the lower Court

18

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

delivered on the 28th Day of February 2019 by Justice T.B.

ADEGOKE in Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/95/2018 is hereby

affirmed.

Cost of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) is

awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent against the

Appellant.

Appeal Dismissed.

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME. J.C.A.: I read in

draft the judgment of my learned brother P. M EKPE, JCA

just delivered.

My learned brother has comprehensively dealt with the

issues identified for determination in this appeal. I agreed

with his reasoning and conclusion.

For the reasons advanced in my learned brother's lead

judgment, I also dismiss this appeal and affirm the

judgment of the trial Court.

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read

before now the Judgment of my learned brother,

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, JCA, just delivered. I agree that

the appeal lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it.

I abide by the order as to costs.

19

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)

Appearances:

F. A. Onuzulike, Esq. with him, C.U. Igwe ForAppellant(s)

Habeeb Lawal and Izuchukwu Anyadike ForRespondent(s)

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

432(

CA)