NUHU v DIRECTOR OF STATE SECURITY SERVICE KWARA STATE COMMAND

NUHU v DIRECTOR OF STATE SECURITY SERVICE KWARA STATE COMMAND


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE ILORIN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ILORIN

ON THURSDAY, 4TH MAY, 2017


Appeal No: CA/IL/11/20 6
CITATION:

Before Their Lordships:

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.


BETWEEN

SADIQ NUHU

(APPELLANT)

AND

DIRECTOR OF STATE SECURITY SERVICE KWARA STATE COMMAND
(RESPONDENT)


PRONOUNCEMENTS


A. LEGAL SYSTEM
1. Judicial Precedents – Undue reliance on foreign case law to the detriment of Nigerian case law

“I go further to say that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct, when he complained about the trial judge’s reliance on foreign authorities to the detriment of our own case law. This much was asserted by the Apex Court in Araka vs. Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (pt. 848) 1, where Karibi Whyte JSC, emphasised that foreign authorities of the greatest learning cannot supplant our case law rightly decided on issues coming before our Courts. See also Nwakanma vs. Enyinnaya Abaribe (2008) LPELR 4639 (CA); Nafiu Rabiu vs Kano State (1950) 8-11 SC 130 @ 151 and Uyanne vs Asilu (1975) 4SC, where the Supreme Court made it clear that it is improper to refer or cite foreign authorities to construe our legislature, which are unique to our country, without showing the similarities between them. In other words, where it is clear that there are binding authorities or decisions by the Appellate Courts in Nigeria, by way of stare decisis, all lower Courts are bound to follow the decision, and the trial Court will rely on foreign authorities only where they are of persuasive nature. See the cases of Adetunji vs Adesokan (1994) 6SCNJ 123; Odua vs Talabi (1997) 7SCNJ 600 and Nigerian Breweries PLC vs Pabod Breweries Ltd & Anr. (2010) LPELR-4609 (CA). It is this blatant disregard for our case law in favour of foreign authorities that rightly to my mind raised grave concerns in the mind of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, having opined that the trial Court exhibited judicial rascality, judicial timidity and extraneous considerations. I understand his position. I accept as argued that the reasons advanced by the trial Court for holding that the affidavit in support of the ex – parte application for an order nisi falling short of the legal requirements was misconceived, and misapplied and thereby occasioned grave miscarriage of justice.” (para 22) Per BARKA, J.C.A. read in context

B. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
2. Garnishee Proceedings – What garnishee proceedings entail

“For the sake of clarity, Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap S6 of 2004, provides:

83 (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 and is within the state, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order together with the costs of the 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”.

In the case of UBN PLC vs Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd (2005) 13 NWLR (pt.943) 654 @ 666, Akintan JSC stated thus:

“Garnishee proceedings are a process of enforcing a money judgment by the seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor, which form part of his property available in execution… by this process, the Court has power to order a third party to pay direct to the judgment creditor the debt due from him to the judgment debtor or as much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment and the cost of the garnishee proceedings”.

The import of garnishee proceedings is that a judgment debtor is merely a nominal party whose money in the custody of the garnishee is being recovered by the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt he is owing to the judgment creditor. Thus as held in the case of Fidelity Bank Plc vs Okwuolu and Anor, (2012) LPELR-8497 (CA) per Ogunwumiju JCA, garnishee proceedings are sui generis, distinct from other proceedings for enforcement of judgment.” Per BARKA, J.C.A. (para 15 – 17) read in context

3. Garnishee Proceedings – Requirements for the institution of valid garnishee proceedings

“Let me now resort to the provisions of Order 37 R 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009. It reads as follows:-

An application for an Order under Rule 1 of this Order shall be made exparte supported by an affidavit:-

a. Stating the name and last known address of the judgment debtor.

b. Identifying the judgment or order to be enforced and stating the amount of the judgment or order and the amount remaining unpaid under it as at the time of the application;

c. Stating that to the best of the information or belief of the deponent the garnishee (naming him) is within the jurisdiction and is indebted to the judgment debtor and stating the sources of the deponents information or the grounds of his belief; and

d. Stating where the garnishee is a deposit taking institution having more than one place of business, the name and address of the branch at which the judgment debtors account is believed to be held and the number of that account or if it be the case, that all or part of this information is not known to the deponent.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent is right having asserted in line with the decision of Effiong vs. Ebong (2007) 28 WRN 71 @83, that once a particular procedure is provided by the law or rules for how a thing or procedure ought to be done, same must be strictly followed and complied with in line with the rules or procedure provided. He is equally correct having stated the law in that where words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous the Court in interpreting such provision of the statute or rules, must ascribe to the words their ordinary plain meaning, so that the import of such a statute must be understood within the context of the ordinary meaning of the clear and unambiguous words. The decisions of Egbe vs Belgore (2004) 8 NWLR (pt 875) 336, AG Anambra vs AG Federation (2007) 8 MJSC 54 are apposite. I also agree with the Learned Counsel that by the use of the word ‘shall’, a mandatory compliance is imputed on the Appellant. I however disagree with the Learned Counsel and the lower Court that the affidavit in support of the exparte application, failed to comply or that it did not meet the stipulations of O37 R2 (a) – (d) of the Rules under consideration. This is because once an applicant satisfies the conditions enumerated under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure ) Rules 2009, it is incumbent upon the judge to grant order Nisi, and thereafter to proceed in accordance with the law as to whether to grant an order absolute or not. See, National Insurance Commission vs Mrs Modupe Oyepero Oyefesobi & Ors (2013) LPELR 20660 (CA).” Per BARKA, J.C.A. (para 19 – 20) read in context

4. Garnishee Proceedings – Whether stating of the judgment debtor’s account with the garnishee is a prerequisite in garnishee proceedings

“Furthermore, with regards to whether the applicant must state the judgment debtors account with the garnishee as a precondition, this Court in the case of Oceanic Bank Plc vs Michael Olusegun Oladepo & Anor, (2012) LPELR 19670 (CA) per Mbaba JCA, held that:-
“I have already stated in this judgment that the relevant particulars required by Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, for the purpose of garnishee proceedings, had been satisfied by the 1st Respondent and that the application at the lower Court was not speculative, simply because the account number and the exact amount to the credit of the judgment debtor were not stated by the 1st Respondent. Of course, the information as to the account number and the exact amount in the account were information within the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, and by banking confidentiality divulges on of such information is not permitted to a third party.” Per BARKA, J.C.A. (para 21) read in context


LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY BARKA, J.C.A.


1. This appeal is against the decision of A. O. Faji of the Federal High Court Ilorin in suit No: FHC/IL/CS/6/2012, delivered on the 8th of December, 2015; wherein the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellants application brought by way of a motion exparte, filed on the 27th of November, 2015.

2. The facts generating the instant appeal do not appear to be in dispute. It is on record that the Appellant as applicant in suit No: FHC/IL/CS/6/2012, before the lower Court, initially applied for the enforcement of his fundamental Rights, and the records show that Appellant’s action before the trial Court succeeded wherefore, Appellant was awarded damages of N2, 000,000 by the trial Court.

3. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Respondent herein appealed to this Court, and the appeal with appeal No: CA/IL/35/ 13, partly succeeded in favour of the Appellant in that, the costs of N2,000,000 was considered excessive, and reduced to N320,000 with N75,000 as costs.

4. The Appellants efforts in seeing to it that the judgment debt is settled by the Respondents proved abortive, consequent upon which Appellants by way an exparte application brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, Order 37 Rule 1 and 2 of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court sought for the following Orders:-

”1. ORDER NISI against all the accounts of the Department of State Security (The Judgment Debtor), maintained by the judgment Debtor with the Garnishees, that the account be attached to satisfy the judgment sum of N320, 000.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira only) and N25, 000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand Naira Only) being cost awarded against the judgment Debtor by the Lower Trial Court on the 25th day of January, 2013.

2. Fifty Thousand Naira (N50, 000.00) as cost of this proceedings.

3. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.”

5. The application was heard on the 2nd of December, 2015 and six days later, being the 8th of December, 2015, the learned trial judge delivered the vexed ruling to the effect that:

“It is pertinent to state that the deponent has no personal knowledge of the facts but relied on information supplied to her by the judgment Creditor.

6. Order 37 Rule 2(C) provides that the deponent shall provide his or her source of information or the grounds for belief. Paragraph 3 (j) and (k) deposed to fact provided to the deponent by the judgment Creditor and stated that judgment debtor has account with 5 named banks who are indebted to judgment Debtor. There is no source of how he came about this information, it is mandatory for the source of information or ground of belief to be stated by the deponent. If the judgment Creditor has no information or no means of obtaining it he may apply for the appointment of a receiver instead of taking out garnishee proceedings. See Halsbury’s Laws of England Fourth Edition Vol. 17 pages 332-333 Paragraph 534 foot-note 4. Furthermore, an order nisi does not attach the balance of an account at a bank unless it correctly sets forth the name of the account as it stands in the books of the bank. See Encyclopedia of the Practice and Procedure of the Federal High Court of Nigeria 2nd Edition 2010 by Sir T. A. Nwamara page 6555 paragraph 2. The affidavit therefore falls short of the legal requirements. The motion cannot therefore succeed. It is accordingly hereby dismissed”.

7. The Appellant felt dissatisfied with the said ruling, and thereby approached the Court yet again vide a notice of appeal filed on the 18th day of December, 2015 predicated upon six grounds of appeal. The records having been compiled and transmitted to this Court on the 16th February 2016, the Appellant filed in his brief of argument on the 31st day of March, 2016.

8. The Respondents filed in their brief on the 7/2/17 with leave of Court and deemed duly filed on the 14/2/17. Upon receipt of the Respondent`s brief filed, Appellant filed Appellants reply brief on the 27/2/2017.

9. It needs to be stated that the Zenith Bank Plc, United Bank for Africa Plc, Diamond Bank Plc, First Bank Plc and Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (herein after called the garnishees), though named as Respondents, did not file any process. The respective briefs were identified and adopted by the respective parties on the 28/2/2017, being the scheduled hearing date.

10. In the Appellant`s brief settled by A. S. Jimoh, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, a total of six issues were identified for this Courts resolution. The six issues listed at pages 1-3 of the Appellant’s, brief reads as follows:-

”1. Whether the ruling/judgment of the trial/lower Court delivered on the 8th of December, 2015 requiring the informant of a deponent in an affidavit evidence to also state his source of information is extraneous.

2. Whether the ruling/judgment of the trial/lower Court delivered on the 8th of December, 2015 refusing to enforce its own judgment by dismissing the Appellant’s/Applicant’s application for order nisi constituted judicial timidity an affront to Section 5, 6(6)(a) and 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and tantamount to taking back/away what the trial/lower Court had previously given to the Appellant/judgment Creditor/Applicant.

3. Whether the ruling/judgment of the trial/lower Court delivered on the 8th December, 2015 was an affront and or disregard to the Court of Appeal cases of Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (Nimasa) vs. Stephen Odey (2012) 52 W.R.N. page 108 and Oceanic Bank Plc. Vs. Michael Oladepo (2013) 8 WRN, page 157 at page 170, Lines 5-25. Cited and on record for the trial/lower Court’s failure to act on same but in preference opted and acted on a foreign legislation/law, consequently descended into the arena of the matter by suggesting on record how the Appellant/Applicant is to enforce his judgment.

4. Whether the trial/lower Court’s ruling/judgment of 8th of December, 2015 was a judicial rascality, considering it failure to abide by the principles enunciated in the superior Court cases (Court of Appeal) commended to it despite the subsistence of the well settled and binding hallowed doctrine of judicial precedence.

5. Whether there’s a duty on the Appellant/Judgment Creditor/Applicant to set forth the name of the account as it stands in the book of the bank.

6. Whether the enforcement of a valid, subsisting and extant judgment can be dismissed by any Court, particularly the Court that gave the judgment sought to be enforced.”

11. The Respondent on the other hand at page 3 of the brief settled by Abubakar B. Nuhu, ACSC, Kwara State Ministry of Justice, identified two issues which are as follows:

”1. Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s application based on the provision of Order 37 Rule 2 of the trial Court’s Rules (Distilled from ground 1, 3 and 5).

2. Whether the act of the trial Court in citing foreign authorities in support of its rules of Court in deciding the Appellant’s case can be regarded as an affront and total disregard of local authorities. (Distilled from ground 2, 4 and 6).”

12. I have studiously perused the records of appeal and the submissions of the Learned Counsel in their respective briefs of argument; I have also given serious consideration to the issues enumerated for resolution. My humble position is that the issue calling for this Courts resolution is indeed narrow. To me the appeal calls for the examination of the trial Courts discretion in refusing to grant the Appellants application brought exparte, and thereby the application of Section 83 (1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act (2004), as well as Order 37 Rule 6 and 2 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009. With that attitude in mind, I intend to be guided by a single issue which I now formulate as follows:-

13. Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the Appellant`s application in view of the provision of Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and Order 37 Rule 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.

14. The Appellant’s submissions on the issue can be seen from pages 3-18 of his brief. The Respondent equally responded to the Appellant’s submission from pages 3-13 of his brief. There is the Appellants reply brief, contained in the Appellant`s un-paginated brief, argued under Paragraphs 1.00 to 3. 5. I intend to rely on the arguments contained in the above listed documents in the resolution of the appeal.

15. For the sake of clarity, Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, Cap S6 of 2004, provides:

83 (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 and is within the state, order that debts owing from such third person, hereinafter called the garnishee, to such debtor shall be attached to satisfy the judgment or order together with the costs of the 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”.

16. In the case of UBN PLC vs Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd (2005) 13 NWLR (pt. 943) 654 @ 666, Akintan JSC stated thus:

“Garnishee proceedings are a process of enforcing a money judgment by the seizure or attachment of the debts due or accruing to the judgment debtor, which form part of his property available in execution…by this process, the Court has power to order a third party to pay direct to the judgment creditor the debt due from him to the judgment debtor or as much of it as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment and the cost of the garnishee proceedings”.

17. The import of garnishee proceedings is that a judgment debtor is merely a nominal party whose money in the custody of the garnishee is being recovered by the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment debt he is owing to the judgment creditor. Thus as held in the case of Fidelity Bank Plc vs Okwuolu and Anor, (2012) LPELR-8497 (CA) per Ogunwumiju JCA, garnishee proceedings are sui generis, distinct from other proceedings for enforcement of judgment. I have before now, reproduced the ruling of the lower Court refusing the application primarily on the basis that the deponent in the affidavit supporting the application failed to state the name of his informant, or his grounds of belief, and further that the affidavit did not set forth the name of the account as it stands in the books of the bank.

18. The Appellant from his brief of argument is utterly dissatisfied with the decision, contending amongst others that, the ruling of the trial Court was extraneous, that the decision was and or constituted judicial timidity, that it exhibited what he termed judicial rascality etc. He further argued that the trial Court failed to countenance the affidavit evidence of the Appellant before it, despite compliance with the subsisting position of the law, i.e. by the deponent disclosing her source, time, place and circumstance of disclosure of the information, but rather demanding the disclosure of the source of the information of the informant of the deponent, thus misapplying the law. Counsel goes on to argue that the deponent, Medinat Saliu disclosed by mentioning the Appellant /Judgment Creditor, as her source of information, and further stated the circumstance, date, time and place of disclosure.

19. Let me now resort to the provisions of Order 37 R 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009. It reads as follows:-

An application for an Order under Rule 1 of this Order shall be made exparte supported by an affidavit:-

a. Stating the name and last known address of the judgment debtor.

b. Identifying the judgment or order to be enforced and stating the amount of the judgment or order and the amount remaining unpaid under it as at the time of the application;

c. Stating that to the best of the information or belief of the deponent the garnishee (naming him) is within the jurisdiction and is indebted to the judgment debtor and stating the sources of the deponents information or the grounds of his belief; and

d. Stating where the garnishee is a deposit taking institution having more than one place of business, the name and address of the branch at which the judgment debtors account is believed to be held and the number of that account or if it be the case, that all or part of this information is not known to the deponent.

20. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent is right having asserted in line with the decision of Effiong vs. Ebong (2007) 28 WRN 71 @83, that once a particular procedure is provided by the law or rules for how a thing or procedure ought to be done, same must be strictly followed and complied with in line with the rules or procedure provided. He is equally correct having stated the law in that where words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous the Court in interpreting such provision of the statute or rules, must ascribe to the words their ordinary plain meaning, so that the import of such a statute must be understood within the context of the ordinary meaning of the clear and unambiguous words. The decisions of Egbe vs Belgore (2004) 8 NWLR (pt 875) 336, AG Anambra vs AG Federation (2007) 8 MJSC 54 are apposite. I also agree with the Learned Counsel that by the use of the word ‘shall’, a mandatory compliance is imputed on the Appellant. I however disagree with the Learned Counsel and the lower Court that the affidavit in support of the exparte application, failed to comply or that it did not meet the stipulations of O37 R2 (a) – (d) of the Rules under consideration. This is because once an applicant satisfies the conditions enumerated under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure ) Rules 2009, it is incumbent upon the judge to grant order Nisi, and thereafter to proceed in accordance with the law as to whether to grant an order absolute or not. See, National Insurance Commission vs Mrs Modupe Oyepero Oyefesobi & Ors (2013) LPELR 20660 (CA). In the instant case, the trial Court queried the deposition by the deponent with regards to Paragraphs 3(j) and 3(k), on account of the judgment debtor having accounts with the garnishees. He equally had problems with the affidavit in support, because the balance of the account standing in the books of account were not stated. Let me reproduce Paragraph 3 of the applicant’s affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte, it reads:-

“That Sadiq Nuhu did tell me the following on the 23rd day of November, 2015 in the course of official briefing I had with him (as a Clerk) in the company of A.S. Jimoh in our office i.e. No. 10 Venerable Adefila Road, off Lajorin road, Ilorin, by 4.00 pm and I verily believed him as follows”.

21. Furthermore, with regards to whether the applicant must state the judgment debtors account with the garnishee as a precondition, this Court in the case of Oceanic Bank Plc vs Michael Olusegun Oladepo & Anor, (2012) LPELR 19670 (CA) per Mbaba JCA, held that:-

“I have already stated in this judgment that the relevant particulars required by Section 83(1) of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, for the purpose of garnishee proceedings, had been satisfied by the 1st Respondent and that the application at the lower Court was not speculative, simply because the account number and the exact amount to the credit of the judgment debtor were not stated by the 1st Respondent. Of course, the information as to the account number and the exact amount in the account were information within the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent, and by banking confidentiality divulges on of such information is not permitted to a third party”.

22. Had the trial Court adverted its mind to this direction by this Court, which is binding on it, the conclusion the Court ought to have arrived at, would have required no further input to sustain and to justify the garnishee order nisi, and thereby calling upon the garnishees to show cause. The trial Court in the face of this glaring misconception of the law, erred in dismissing the Appellants application. I go further to say that the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is correct, when he complained about the trial judge`s reliance on foreign authorities to the detriment of our own case law. This much was asserted by the Apex Court in Araka vs. Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (pt. 848) 1, where Karibi Whyte JSC, emphasised that foreign authorities of the greatest learning cannot supplant our case law rightly decided on issues coming before our Courts. See also Nwakanma vs. Enyinnaya Abaribe (2008) LPELR 4639 (CA); Nafiu Rabiu vs Kano State (1950) 8-11 SC 130 @ 151 and Uyanne vs Asilu (1975) 4SC, where the Supreme Court made it clear that it is improper to refer or cite foreign authorities to construe our legislature, which are unique to our country, without showing the similarities between them. In other words, where it is clear that there are binding authorities or decisions by the Appellate Courts in Nigeria, by way of stare decisis, all lower Courts are bound to follow the decision, and the trial Court will rely on foreign authorities only where they are of persuasive nature. See the cases of Adetunji vs Adesokan (1994) 6SCNJ 123; Odua vs Talabi (1997) 7SCNJ 600 and Nigerian Breweries LC vs Pabod Breweries Ltd & Anr. (2010) LPE R-4609 (CA). It is this blatant disregard for our case law in favour of foreign authorities that rightly to my mind raised grave concerns in the mind of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, having opined that the trial Court exhibited judicial rascality, judicial timidity and extraneous considerations. I understand his position. I accept as argued that the reasons advanced by the trial Court for holding that the affidavit in support of the ex-parte application for an order nisi falling short of the legal requirements was misconceived, and misapplied and thereby occasioned grave miscarriage of justice. I see immense merit in the instant appeal, and for the reasons deduced herein, allow this appeal, and set aside the ruling of the trial lower Court delivered on the 8th of December, 2015.

23. Mr A. S. Jimoh has asked this Court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. He however failed to show how that power of the Court can be invoked in the instant, in view of the fact that this Court`s jurisdiction can only be invoked in its Appellate capacity. I rather hold the view, that the ends of justice will be better met, where the application earlier dismissed is remitted to the lower Court to proceed with the hearing of the application, pursuant to the decision on the issue canvassed in this judgment. Costs of N50, 000.00 are hereby awarded to the Appellant.

OWOADE, J.C.A.

1. I read in advance the Judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother Barka J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion. I also allow the Appeal.

2. I abide by the consequential Orders.

UGO, J.C.A.

1. I had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment pronounced by my learned brother the Honourable Justice Hamma Akawu Barka J.C.A. and I completely agree with the very impressive and concise manner His Lordship dealt with the issues canvassed in the appeal. I adopt His Lordship’s reasoning and hereby also allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Federal High Court.

2. I also abide by the consequential orders made therein including costs.