IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA

IN THE SOKOTO DIVISION

HOLDEN AT SOKOTO

SUIT NO: SCA/KB/I/29/2017

BETWEEN APPEAL NO. KB/CAS/28/2021

ISHAKA DANHURU - - - APPELLANT/APPEALANT

AND

AHMADU ADAMU - - - -RESPONDENT

APPELLANT BRIEF

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is an appeal against the judgment of High Court of Justice, Birnin KEbbi
Judicial Division, in its original jurisdiction in case No. KB/HC/29/2017 delivered
by Honorable Justice Faruk H. Bunza on the 8 th day of July, 2021 consequent upon
which a notice of appeal against the decision was filled on the 14 th day of March,
2022.

1.2 The Appellant (Defendant) before the trial Court being aggrieved by the
Judgment of the trial court appealed to this Honourable Court in appeal No.
KB/CAS/28/2021. The prayers are for;

(i) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court allowing the appeal setting aside the
Decision/Judgment and orders of the trial lower Court, High Court of Kebbi State
delivered on 8th day of July, 2021 in Suit No. KB/HC/29/2017.

1
(ii) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court directing a retrial of the matter before
another Court presided by another Judge.

(iii) AND FOR ANY ORDER OR FURTHER ORDER(S) that this Honorable
Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

2.0 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACT

2.01 The Appellant (as defendant) before the trial Court, High Court of Justice,
Birnin Kebbi while the Respondent is the plaintiff. The claim is for the declaration
of title of Land in dispute. The Suit was commenced by the plaintiff of a writ of
summon. The Respondent/plaintiff is claiming ownership of the Land in
possession of the Appellant/Defendant the rightful owner.

2.02 The Suit was initially filed before Upper Shari’a Court which decided the
matter before the same Judgment was nullified by an order of cerciorari issued by a
High Court Argungu. Later the case was transferred to High Court of Justice
Birnin Kebbi, judicial Division by the Honorable Chief Judge for unknown reason.
The case was commened De novo.

2.03 Both Appellant and the Respondent lived in Mangoro area where the Land in
dispute is situated which had a building erected on it by the Appellant and is
adjacent to his house being part of his land which he inherited and in possession. In
the same vain the Respondent testified to have planted a Mango tree contrary to
DW 3’s deposition on oath and evidence of Appellant witnesses.

2.04 The Respondent claimed to have inherited the Land in dispute through Late
Shehi Liman being his grandfather and some testimony made by his father who
also did not disclose how Shehi Liman (grandfather) acquired the Land and
claimed the same as family Land to the extent of dedicating the same of

2
community. See evidence of Pw 1&3. The Respondent also called two witnesses
and admitted exhibits -1-5.

2.05 While on his part the Appellant’s Deposition on oath was more viable that the
Land in dispute belongs to his mother Aisha Iliyasu who inherited same from hyer
mother (Habsi Ladan) who also inherited the Land from her father Late Ladan Na
Augie. At the final conclusion of the hearing trial Court relied on the evidence
adduced by the Respondent.

2.06 The Appellant herein dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court appealed
to his Honorable Court.

3.0 ISSUE OF DETERMINATION

3.01 The Appellant formulate four issues

(i) Whether the lower Court erred in law when it entered it’s Judgment against the
Appellant over the disputed plot of Land despite credible witnesses and long act of
possession of the Appellant and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.

(ii) The decision of the lower Court was perverse for failure to evaluate the
evidences adduced before it.

(iii) the Court erred in law by entering Judgment in favour of the Respondent who
has no Locus Standi to institute the case.

(iv) The lower trial High Court erred in law for ordering the Respondent to execute
it’s Judgment by themselves against the Appellant and after the expiration of one
month duration from the date of the decision.

3
4.0 ARGUMENT

4.01 ISSUE 1

Whether the lower Court erred in law when it entered its Judgment against the
Appellants over the disputed plot of Land despite credible evidence and thereby
occasioned miscarriage of Justice .

4.02 The Law is trite that a claim for declaration of Land must be satisfied bu
credible and cogent evidence called by the Plaintiff to prove that he deserved such
relief to the satisfaction of the Court as in the instant case. Under the Evidence Act
that credible evidence/testimony of a witness shall be from the personal knowledge
of the facts in issue. In other words, the witness testimony shall be from the
witness’s personal knowledge that is what the witness saw or heard first hand and
secondary narrations or here say.

In the leading Supreme Court case in AYANWALE V. ODUSAMI (2012) 3

WURN at 6,3,3 at 19 line 5 45 held;

That the Plaintiff to prove the title he claim must go further to trace the root of his
title to one whose ownership of the Land has been established S.126 (a) (b) (c) of
the Evidence Act 2011 provides thus;

Subject to the provisions of part III oral evidence must in all cases whatever be
direct if it refers to:

(a) A fact which could be seen it must be the evidence of a witness who says he
saw the fact.
(b) A fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says
he heard that fact.

4
(c) A fact which could be perceived by any sense or any other manner must be
the evidence of a witness who says he perceived the fact that sense or in that
manner. Relying on the foregoing authorities the testimonies of PW 1 and 2
clearly shows that (i) the witness had no knowledge of how Liman Shehi
their grandfather (father) acquired the land (ii) their testimonies testified the
origin of root of title claimed PW 1 & PW2 except their testimonies. Also
with regards to act of possession in the S.C case of UMEANO ACHIAKPA
V. JOSIAH NDUKA & 6 ORS (2001) 7 NSCOR 341 para II. It was held
that the law is settled that a party relying on acts of possession as prove to
the title must show that such acts not only extend over sufficient length of
time but they are numerous & positive to warrant the interference of
exclusive ownership of such land. In other words, there must be proof that
from the nature of such massive & persistent acts exercised “ne clan nec vi
nec percario “ that is to say, openly & without force of stealthy, any person
asserting a contrary title would have known of such exercise & he expected
to assert his contrary title and /or ward off the perceived intruder. A few of
such acts which are isolated in nature & which the adversary was not in a
position to have known about would not suffice. A.I. Iguh JSC at P, 364.
My Lord, with regards to the instant case, the court erred in law when it
relied on the evidence of PW1 & PW2 & Exhibit IA – II (collectors receipt
No. 435510 – 435519 dated the 3rd day of Dec. 2014 collected from upper
Shari’a Court Argungu. Also Exhibit 2-5 & granted title of the land to the
respondent. These pieces of evidence tendered by the respondent were
supposed to be used by the trial Court as convincing & corgent that the
Appellant is owner in possession of the Land in dispute because the
respondent were convicted for interfering with the land in dispute for which

5
they demolished the appellant structure on the building which is a wrong act.
They committed.
The trial judge wrongly issued an order of cercorari quashing the judgment
of the Shari’a Court & assuming jurisdiction on the matter & at the same
time admitted in evidence the receipt of payment as a result of fine imposed
by the Upper Shari’a Court against the Respondent.
There is no reason whatsoever on record or judgment of the trial Court
which warrant the followings:
(i) A party was denied fair hearing
(ii) The upper Shari’a Court, Argungu acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction
(iii) Errors on the record of inferior court
(iv) A conviction or order has been obtained by collusion & fraud

The law is trite that the decision of certiorari is only granted on compelling
reasons apart from the above stated excepts in which it’s ruling will provide
guidance

(i) In interpretation of law

(ii) In cases resolving clear conflict of laws eg. In conflicting decision
involving the application was filed out of time. Therefore before same
could be considered by the trial Court to assume jurisdiction is the
payment on defaulting days must be made apart from filing fees
which only appeared on the face of the motion, payment in respect of
defaulting days must be made see case of SALE V. ORISAJIMI
(2019) NWLR (PT.1681) P. 513 ORDER 44(4) of the Kebbi State
High Court (civil procedure rules 2017 which stipulated thus;

6
The judge may as often as he deemed fit and wither before or after the expiration
of the time appointed by these rules or by judgment or order of the court extend or
adjourn the time for doing or taking any proceedings;

Provided that party defaults in performing an act within the time authorized by the
judge or under these rules shall pay (additional) fees of N300 (Three hundred
naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance. There’s no payment
of default made and unless such payment is made the trial court lacks jurisdiction
to entertain the application. There was objection to the application by the Appellant
counsel but trial court over ruled the objection and granted the order of certiorari.
My Lord, it is trite for cases of where court makes and order of certiorari are cases
of unique importance such as federal law or constitution interpretation see Dr
Nnamdi Azikwe V. FEDECO and our RE Dr. Olu Onogoruwa (1979) 3LRN
286 Also while referring to papers 142-147 of the record of appeal it, appear flatly
that no affidavit containing deposition or record for which the trial courts relied in
making its ruling attached or accompanying the motion NO, KB/HC/25/2016
Except counter affidavit on page 145 of record of proceeding.

4.03 It is trite that an application (motion) must be accompanied with a sworn

affidavit otherwise it cannot be accepted or admitted in evidence with regards to
oral application to amend paragraph 11 of the deposition of DW3 an oath, the trial
court was wrong in overruling the application without giving sufficient reason to
warrant such refusal the case of NWEOKE and ORS V. NWAOGBUINY (2001)
5 NSCQR P.93.

It is therefore manifest APPELLANT cannot be said to have had fair hearing my

lord. An appeal against interlocutory ruling may be included in the appeal against
the final decision of the court. This would help avoid unnecessary delay in

7
determination of the main issue joined by the parties. In the case under
consideration an Appellant wishing to adopt that procedure to do so see
ONWEOKE and OERS V. NWAOGBUINY (supra) A.O EJIWUN MI JSC
P.110-111 An appellate court can embark on such exercise where the mistake is so
glaring like in the instant case or was based upon accepted or documentary
evidence which the Appellant court can read and reach its own conclusion see case
of AWARA AND ORS V. ALAYEALA and 20 ORS (2002) 12 NSQLR 413.
A.O EJIWUNMI JSC at p. 476 – 477.

4.04 In the some vain, the law is also crystal clear that a claim for relief for
declaration of land must be satisfied by credible evidence. No court or tribunal
would safely grant title of a land in dispute to respondent based on the deposition
on auth and examination of PW1 AND 2 the only witnesses whose pleadings were
denied and discredited in evidence by the defence especially by DW2, DW2 and
DW3.

DW3 deposition on oath was that it was his father Abarshi who planted a mango
tree and not the claimant father. There wasn’t evidence adduced to disrepute DW3
by the claimant. In the case of CHIEF J.C BIARIA and 7 others V. CHIEF A.M
EDEH OGWILE and 2 ORS (2001) 6NSCQR 130 decides on where the court
will declare evidence of both parties in land dispute improbable and inclusion.

It is trite that once there are complicating evidence the court must promptly declare
them inconclusive there upon and consider recent acts. What indeed happens in
that the case being fought on here say the trial court has duty to reject both
inclusive and proceed to decide on the bases of numerous and positive acts of
possession and ownership S.U. ONU JSC at page 151.

8
It is also clear that the claimant deposition oath (pleadings) on page 21 of the
record of appeal contradicts the evidence he gave during examination in Chief
where the stated that “ I live at Dan Mangoro Area in Argungu where as in his
deposition on oath he said “I live at Danmangoro Area Birnin Kebbi” on page 80
of the record of appeal, my lord we do not know which to believe and rely upon.

It trite that where there is inconsistence in evidence the court should discard it.
Apart from the evidence of the PW1 (Son) & PW2 (Father) no indication of any
bases of numerous and positive acts of possession or ownership. In fact they did
verify by corroborating evidence of farming on the land which is adjacent and
attached to the APPELLANT house. The fact that a mango, is planted is not
sufficient to indicate ownership without more this assertion was disrupted by DW3
who has no interest in the case, to the extent that it was his father who planted the
mango tree and the land did not belongs to father but the APPELLANT. This is in
addition to the act done by the Appellant in building and erecting a structure on the
land signifies that the appellant is and in possession otherwise the respondent
wouldn’t have file a case before upper Shari’a Court Argungu and on which the
APPELLANT prevail with the conviction and imposition of fine on respondants.
The receipts of payment are hereby attached and market as exhibit 1A-11.

4.05 It is a settled principle of law in the case (supra) that court does not interfere
with the finding of trial court except in cases where they were found to be
perversed or not supported by evidence or where they are reached as wrong
approach to the evidence or a wrong application of the principle of substantive law
see ENANG V. ATU (1981) 11-12 SC 25 at 42.

In the case of BAMIGBOSE V. OLUSGA (1996) 4NWLR(PT444) 520 per.

BELGORE JSC where in a claim for title to land a party based it’s claim on a

9
grant of customary by a particular person family or community that party must go
further to plead and prove the origin of title of that particular person or family or
community unless that title has been admitted. In the case instant there is no
admission by the appellant (DW1) deposition on oath not his pleading the trial,
court solely relied on the isolated evidence of the claimant & his father no other
evidence from any source PW1&PW2 area interested parties. The root of title
originating from Liman Shehi was vehemently denied by DW1 & 2 & 3 that the
land did not in any occasion in time belong to Liman Shehi.

The appellant (defendant), in his pleadings denied any act purportedly done by the
or asserted to be done by the defendant which proved act of long possession &
enjoinment. Even the mango tree was not planted by them see the DW 3 deposition
on oath. Apart from PW1&PW2 deposition on oath no further evidence was called,
or documentary evidence tendered to show farming activity by the respondent
which is a fabrication of liar. Both DW1 & 2 had stated that no period of time
when the land was used by Liman Shehi as Islamic School but rather the school
was situated inside his house. The appellant in his disposition of oath asserting &
went further to call DW2 to further verify this fact. It is my inevitable view that
anybody can casually plant a tree anywhere for unknown reasons such as
desertification or other interest not necessarily the land mist belong to him. The
trial court seriously erred in law by relying on PW 1&PW2 deposition on oath along
while ignoring DW1-3.

It is equally clear from the record that the evidence of both the defendant & that of
appellant now respondent that the appellant (Defendant) is in possession of the
connected & adjacent land in circumstances rendering it probable that the owner of
such connected & adjacent land would in addition be the owner of the land in
dispute.

10
4.06 The trial Court visited locus in quo relied on the description placed by the
claimant ignoring the description of the appellant. I refer this Honorable Court to
the judgment of the lower Court & the pleadings of the claimant & that of the
defendant.

Even with the description accepted by the trial Court the claimant house is not
connected to the land being on the opposite site. While the land is connected to the
appellant land on two folds; by the north side his house & his family house by the
western side. See claimant pleading or deposition on oath. The land is directly
connected to his land PW1 on P.5 of the record of preceding stated apart from
connected to land even the borehole before being constructed the consent of the
appellant was sought and given. It had been in evidence & a receipt was tendered
by the claimant & admitted in evidence as:

Establish the fact that the appellant is in possession of the land when Kebbi State
urban development authority issue a building permit on the land. This coupled with
other evidences is a proof of ownership on the part of the land. All these pieces of
evidence were ignored by the trial judge which caused miscarriage of justice to the
Appellant.

See ALH. GONI KYARI V. ALH. CIROMA ALKALI & ORS (2001) 6
NSCQR 819,

In the case of ANTHONEY IBHAFIDON VS. SUNDAY IGBINSON (2001) 6

NSCQR 315. The S.C held that where the conclusions made from the findings are
not supported by evidence, relied upon or the proper conclusion or interferences
are not drawn from the evidence, or where the trial Court failed to evaluate the
evidence the appellate Court will, in the interest of justice be free to do so. The

11
appellate Court is entitled to evaluate the evidence and come the right decision
supported by evidence. A.G Karibi White JSC at P. 325.

It is in addition trite that where the identity of a parcel of land is in dispute remains
disputed, the burden is undoubtedly on the plaintiff just like in the instant-case to
establish the same.

4.07 ISSUE 2

Whether the decision/judgment of the trial Court was perverse for failure to
evaluate the evidence adduced before it.

4.08 The Appellant/defendant in his deposition on oath on P.48 of the record of

proceeding indicated how he inherited the land from his mother late Habsi Ladan
who also inherited it from her mother & her Mother from her father Mal. Ladan
Augie & all his brothers & living family or living on the developed past of the land
& the land remained under his family possession till date.

Equally the evidence by PW1&PW2 also that the land bordered the appellant
occupied part of the land from the two folds his mother & western sides at the
same time the claimant in the pleading & deposition on oath is to the fact that
entering the defendant/appellant house involves passing through the land in
dispute. It was fabricated while the evidence regarding to passage connected to the
land is for real. The Court visited the locus in quo & was able to see & yet the trial
Court failed or neglect to take into cognizance the strength of the evidence adduced
or presented before it. The duty upon the court to evaluate evidence presented is
unshakable.

4.09 Further more on the issue of running Islamic School on the disputed land by
Liman Shehi, farming activities & centre for communal gathering as deposed by

12
PW1&PW2 on PP. 4-5 & 7 & 17 ---- 19 of the record of appeal were vehemently
denied by the appellant & not a single person from the community gave testimony
in their support. The appellant denied the assertion in his deposition on oath &
pleadings instead asserted his root of title & how they reside on the part of the land
& the rest of the land. It is mandatory of the claimant to prove by evidence any
pleading by evidence KODILINYE V. ODU (1953) 2 WACA 336 it is the duty of
the plaintiff claiming title to land must rely in order to succeed on the strength of
their own case and not on the weakness of the defence.

It is clear, going by the record of appeal the trial court ignored the evidence
presented by the Appellant / Defendant & based his entire judgment on the
evidence of the respondent (plaintiff) which is discredited and inconsistent where a
party is inconsistent in his claim will not be sustainable.

On duties of the trial court evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value
to the evidence are the primary duties of the trial court which has the opportunity
of seeing, hear and assess witness. In deciding this the court must give
consideration to evaluate all the evidence led in the court see the case of
OLUFOSOYE V. OLORUNFEMI (1989) 1 NWLR (part. 95) 26.

4.10 ISSUE 3

Whether the trial Court erred in law by entering judgment in favour of the
respondent who had no Locus Standi to institute case.

4.11 It is evident going by the evidence adduced the respondent was never one of a
family conferred title to the land in dispute. In consequences, there is no
relationship of whatever nature to warrant, the respondent to institute this action on
behalf of the persons appearing on the authority list.

13
The trial Court relied on the evidence of the claimant & his father. The exhibits
admitted did not in other way support title to the parcel of land. The evidence of
PW1 & PW2 is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof of title to the land
that Liman Shehi dedicated the same as gift to the community while the claimant
could not even establish how Liman Shehi acquired the land in dispute from which
root they claim.

The authorization letter sought to be presented & admitted in evidence & marked
as exhibit (2) where in the claimant representing lacks legal substances to indicate
the right of those appearing as being represented including the claimant.

Assuming but not conceding the respondent are legal owners thought not proved,
the right person to claim is the father (PW1) to represent the acclaimed community
& even this is successfully done is in futility because PW1 and PW2 did not verify
and proved how when the land was acquired & by which method? Bush clearing,
purchase or gift etc. failure by the trial court to observe all these facts no doubt
occasioned miscarriage of justice.

A party to a dispute land can only give it out as a gift if it established that he has
the legal right to do so claiming root of title under him see the case of CHIEF
MUNALAYELA ASEIMO & ORS VS. CHIEF TARI ABRAHAM & ORS
(2001) 6 NSCQR 777.

4.12 In general parlance Locus Standi means a recognition position and standing in
law. It means a place standing in Court or right to appear in court or standing to
sue is defined as a legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before
a court of law or tribunal. It enables legal capacity of instituting or commencing an
action in a court of competent jurisdiction and without inhibition, obstruction or
hindrance direct from any person or body whatever. In other words, Locus Standi

14
is the right of appearance in court or legislature body or in a given question. See
DADA VS. OGUNSANYA (1992)3 NWLR (PT. 904)180.

In the instant case the claimant did not establish his Locus Standi and those he
claimed to represent by evidence adduced so far before the court. A mere paper
presented by disgruntled person, with signature endorsed will not suffice without
backing facts see the case of TAIWO V. ADELUGBA (2011) 11 NWLR
PT.1259,562. ADETONA V. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC
(2011)18 NWLR (PT. 1279)627 referred to (P.439) pare D-F.

4.13 ISSUE 4

Whether the trial court erred in law for ordering the respondent to execute its
judgment by themselves against the appellant and after the expiration of one month
duration commencing from the date of judgment / decision.

4.14 The trial court wrongly made an order itemized on page 189 of the record
appeal the Honorable court direct the defendant to remove the structure raised by
the appellant or the claimant to remove the same after the elapse of one month
period. The grant must be within a period of 3 month so as to allow the expiration
of appeal.

The action taken by the claimant led to unimaginable loss of the appellant property
for which he seeks, redress in compensating him the extend of loss incurred.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.01 My Lord, the judgment of the trial Court woefully and inextricably defective
beyond salvaging as far as the law is concerned from several lateral grounds
namely;

15
(i) Where the ipse dixit parties conflict and where the only evidence before the
court is ipse dixit of the parties which is conflicting and there is evidence that the
subject of the conflict was witnessed by a third party it behoves the party who
asserts to further proves his assertion by calling the witness to give corroborative
evidence in his favour.

With respect to the instant case, the claimant did not call further corroborative
evidence except that of his father who has same interest in the dispute. There is no
single member of the community asserting or corroborating the evidence.

(ii) The Appellants as defendants before the trail Court were not accorded the right
to prove their case with regards to land in dispute and thus denied fair hearing, we
refer to my Lords to the judgment of the Court pages 169 – 189.

(iii) The trial Court premised it’s judgment on unfounded facts contrary to the
pleadings, we refer my Lord to the judgment of the court on the record of appeal.

(iv) The trial Court in it’s judgment in flagrant disregard to ORDER 40 R.4 on
page 184 of the record of Appeal hereby ordered.

(a) The Honorable Court had made an order for cercioration quashing the
decision of Shari’a Court Argungu in Suit No. SC/AR/CV/63/2014.
(b) The Honorable Court deemed the decisions of Shari’a Court Argungu in Suit
No SC/AR/CV/63/2014.

The ORDER of R.4 provides thus;

‘An application for judicial review shall be made within 3 months of the date of
occurrence of the subject matter of the application in the instant case contrary to
said ORD. 4 Rule 4 Motion for extension of times within which to file the
application for order of cerciorari quashing the decision of the upper Shari’a Court

16
Argungu in Suit No. CV/03/2014 was filed on 15 th day of May, 2015 before the
High Court Argungu while leave was granted on the 7 th day of April, 2016. I refer
my Lord to page 128 of the Record of Appeal.

Again, Motion on notice KB/AR/HC/2016 was filed on the 7th day of April, 2016
for an order quashing the decision of the upper Shari’a Court, Argungu in suit No.
CV/63/2014.

The Counsel signed his application on 8th day of May, 2014 but wasn’t filed until
the 7th day of April, 2016. See p. 143 of the record of Appeal.

The Court ruling in respect thereof was made and purportedly signed on 18 th day of
November, 2014. While counter affidavit was written in response was made and
signed on the 18th day of August 2014 and was overruled.

(v) The law is established that to obtain a declaration relief as of right there has to
be evidence which supports argument as to the entitlement to such right, the right
could not be conferred simply upon the statement of pleadings or by admission
therein.

EKE V. UDEOZOR OKWARANYIA and 2 ORS (2001) NSQUR VOL. 6 part

1 and P S.O Uwaijo JSC at P. 259.

5.02 We humbly urge the Honorable Court to allow the appeal and set aside the
judgment of the trial Court (High Court of Justice) Birnin Kebbi.

6.0 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

6.01

(a) AYANLE V. ODUSAMI (2012) 3 WLR AT 6,3,3 at line 5-54

(b) S. 126 (a) (b) (c) of the Evidence Act 2011

17
(c) UMEANO ACHEANO ACHIAKPA V. JOSIAH NDUKA AND 6 ORS
(2001) 7 NSCQR 341 Page 346 Para II
(d) SULE V. ORISAMI (2019) NWLR (Pt. 1681) P, 513
(e) ORDER 44 (4) KEBBI STATE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE)
RULE’S 2017
(f) DR. NNAMDI AZIKWE V. FEDECO AND ORS
RE DR. OLU ONOGORUWA (1979) 3 LRN 286
(g) NWEOKE AND ORS V. NWAGBUINY (2001) 5 NSCQR P, 93
(h) AWARA AND ORS V. ALAYEALA AND 2 ORS (2002) 12 NSQLR 413
(i) CHIEF J.C. BIARA AND 7 ORS V. CHIEF A.M. EDEH –OGWILU AND
2 ORS (2001) 6 NSCQR 130
(j) ENANG V. ATU (1981) 11-12 SC 25 at 42
(k) BAMIGBOSE V. OLUSOGA (1996) 4 NWLR (PE. 444)
(l) ALH. GONI KYARI V. ALH. CIROMA ALKALI AND 2 ORS (2001) 6
NSCQR 819
(m) ANTHONEY IBHAFIDON V. SUNDAY IGBINSON (2001) 6 NSCQR
315
(n) KODILINYE V. ODU (1935) 2 WACA 336
(o) OLUFOSOYE V. OLORUNFEMI (1989) 1 NWLR (Part, 95)26
(p) CHIEF MUNALAYELA ASEIMO AND ORS V. CHIEF TARI IBRAHIM
AND ORS (2001) 6 NSCQR 777
(q) DADA V. OGUNSANYA (1982) 3 NWLR (part 232, 754)
(r) U.B.A FOR AFRICA PLC V. B.T.L INDUSTRIES LTS (2004) 18 NWLR
(pt 904) 180
(s) TAIWO V. ADELUGBA (2011) 11 NWLR pt. 1259, 562
(t) ADETONA V. ZENITH BANK PLC (2011) 18 NWLR (pt 1279) 627
referred to (P. 439) Para D-F.
18
DATED this ………………………..day of ……………………2022

MUHAMMAD GHALI ABDULLAHI ESQ

(COUNSEL TO THE APPELLENT)
B.U. LIKITA & CO
LIKITA LAW CHAMBERS
NO. 1 GWANDAGAJI ROUND ABOUT
OPP. STATE SECRETARIAT
BIRNIN KEBBI, KEBBI STATE

ON SERVICE TO THE RESPONDENT

C/O AMINU KALGO ESQ
A.A FINGILLA & ASSOCIATED
ADALCI LAW CHAMBERS
ALMU YARI PLAZA
GESSE I, BIRNIN KEBBI
KEBBI STATE

19