(2018) LPELR-44252(CA)

Transcription

1 IKURAV (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. MADUGU & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Makurdi Judicial Division Holden at Makurdi JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JOSEPH EYO EKANEM 1. IKURAV (NIG) LTD 2. STEPHEN OMO IYOHA ON THURSDAY, 19TH APRIL, 2018 Suit No: CA/MK/10/2014 Before Their Lordships: Between And Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal - Appellant(s) 1. TITUS MADUGU 2. THE HON. COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF LANDS AND SURVEY, MAKURDI, BENUE STATE 3. COSMOS SULE RATIO DECIDENDI - Respondent(s)

2 1. LAND LAW - GOVERNOR"S CONSENT: Consequence of failure to obtain Governor's consent before alienating a right of occupancy "There is no doubt that the consent of the Governor of Benue State was not applied for and obtained for the assignment of the interest of Aaron Agayami Akale in the land in dispute covered by the certificate of occupancy to the 2nd appellant. The same situation applies to the assignment of the interest of the 2nd appellant to the 1st appellant. In fact none of the instruments evidencing those transactions was registered. It was submitted by appellants' counsel that having paid the purchase price coupled with possession, the appellants acquired equitable interest in the land to ground their right to challenge the revocation of the certificate of occupancy. It is no doubt the law that when the purchaser of land is in possession of land by virtue of a registrable instrument which has not been registered and had paid the purchase money to the vendor, he acquires an equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal estate and is capable of being converted into a legal estate by specific performance. See Ogunbambi V Abowab 13 WACA 222, Fakoya V St Paul's Church, Sagamu (1966) 1 All NLR 74, Okoye V Dumez Nigeria Ltd (1985) 6 SC 3 and Etajata V Ologbo (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1061) 354. I have already stated that the consent of the Governor of Benue State was not applied for and obtained for the assignment relied upon by the appellants. Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978 provides that; "It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained." Section 26 of the same Act provides thus; "Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer or vest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall be null and void." Thus where the consent of the Governor is not obtained for the assignment of a statutory right of occupancy, the effect is that the transaction is rendered null and void and therefore incapable of transferring any right or interest. See Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 158, Calabar Central Co- Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd v Ekpo (2008) 2-3 SCNJ 307 and Olalomi Industry Limited v Nigeria Industrial Development Bank (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 260. It must however be stated as submitted by appellant's counsel that a transfer or sale of an estate in land is divisible into two stages, viz; (i) the contract stage ending in the formation of a binding contract. (ii) the conveyance stage culminating in the legal title vesting in the purchaser by means of the appropriate instrument under seal. See Brossette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd V MS Ola Ilemobola Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 379) 1340, In Brosette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd supra Katsina - Alu, JSC (as he then was) stated as follows; "But the holder of a statutory right of occupancy is certainly not prohibited by Section 22 (1) of the Land Use Act, 1978 from entering into some form of negotiation which may end with a written agreement for presentation to the Governor for his necessary consent. I think this is good sense because the Governor when giving his consent may require the holder of the statutory right of occupancy to submit an instrument executed in evidence of the assignment, mortgage, sublease in order that his consent under Sub-section (1) may be signified by endorsement thereto." See also Awojugbagbe Light Industry Ltd v Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 340) 379 and Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd v Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 545. This is in accord with Section 22 (2) of the Land Use Act which provides that; "The Governor when giving his consent to an assignment, mortgage or sub-lease may require the holder of a statutory right of occupancy to submit an instrument executed in evidence of the assignment, mortgage or sub-lease and the holder shall when so required deliver the said instrument to the Governor in order that the consent given by the Governor under Subsection (1) of this section may be signified by endorsement thereon." Thus such an instrument can be executed subject to consent prior to obtaining the Governor's consent and it will remain inchoate (not null and void) until the Governor's consent is sought and obtained. See First Merchant Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Akinola (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 281, 335. Such an instrument has also been held by Ogbuagu, JSC in Brosette Manufacturing Nig. Ltd supra to be a mere escrow which passes no interest in the property to the purchaser. In Exhibit 3 (the deed of assignment between Aaron Agayami Akale and the 2nd appellant) in clause 3 of the recital clause it is stated that; "The consent of the Military Administrator of Benue State has been sought and obtained pursuant to the Land Use Act." Whereas no such consent was sought for and obtained either before the transaction or after the transaction. The inference is that the parties to Exhibit 3 intended the alienation to be a final and complete assignment of Akale's right of occupancy without truly seeking the Governor's consent or intending to do so. In Awojugbagbe Light Industry Ltd v Chinukwe supra. page 436, Iguh, JSC, stated that; "I agree entirely with Chief Williams, SAN that Section 22(1) [of the Land Use Act] prohibits transactions or instruments whereby the holder of statutory right of occupancy purports to alienate as a complete action, his right of occupancy by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sub-lease or otherwise, the absence of the relevant consent of the Governor first had and obtained notwithstanding. In my view, Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act does not cover purported alienations or alienations which the parties did not intend to become immediately effective until necessary approval by the Governor is obtained. It does however cover and strike at transactions which effectively purport to enable an assignee, mortgagee or sublessee of the right of occupancy to exercise his rights there under without the prior consent of the Governor." In such a circumstance as in this instance, the assignee can not rely on the position of the law that possession of land by virtue of an unregistered registrable instrument coupled with possession and payment of purchase price vests in the purchaser an equitable interest to challenge a revocation of the certificate of occupancy as the transaction is rendered null and void by the Land Use Act. The trial Court was therefore right in holding that; "In the absence of a consent by the Governor of the State, given to Aaron Akale to assign Exhibit 2 to the 2nd plaintiff. I hold that the alleged assignment... is in law invalid and does not transfer any title to the 2nd plaintiff. The title covered by Exhibit 2 before the revocation still resided in Aaron Akale. The 2nd plaintiff having no title, can not transfer what he does not have to the 1st plaintiff." Even if it could be said that Exhibit 3 was a deed of assignment made subject to the Governor's consent thus making it inchoate or an escrow, it would not advance the case of the appellants. The Phrase "inchoate" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary 9th Ed. P. 830 as; "Partially completed or imperfectly formed; just begun," While "inchoate right" is defined on the same page as; "A right that has not fully developed, matured or vested." Therefore Exhibit 3 passed no interest in the property to the appellants. See Anambra State Housing Development Corporation v. Emekwere (1996) 1 SCNJ 98, which was quoted in Brosette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd supra with approval."per EKANEM, J.C.A. (Pp. 8-15, Paras. E-C) - read in context

3

4 JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Benue State, holden at Makurdi (coram Kpojime, J.) in suit No. MHC/323/2006 delivered on 18/7/2013. In the judgment, the trial Court held that the case of the appellants (as plaintiffs) had failed and accordingly dismissed it in its entirety. The facts of the case leading to the appeal may be summarized as follows: One Aaron Agayami Akale was allocated the parcel of land in dispute by the Government of Benue State and was issued a certificate of occupancy No. BNA 2448 covering the land which is represented on the survey plan annexed thereto. The certificate of occupancy was issued in January, The said Akale by a deed of assignment dated 31/12/1998 assigned his interest in the land to the 2nd appellant. He (2nd appellant) in turn assigned his interest in the land to the 1st appellant by virtue of a deed of assignment made between them on 10th August, Sometime in September, 2006 the Government of Benue State revoked the certificate of occupancy issued to Aaron Agayami Akale vide a letter. 1

5 Aggrieved by the turn of events, the appellants took out a writ of summons at the trial Court against the respondents accompanied by a statement of claim (which was later amended) claiming as follows: a) A declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is the bonafide owner of the plot No. BNA 2448 lying and situate along Lafia Road North Bank, Makurdi and covered with Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 2448 having purchased same and had acquired title from Mr. Aaron Agayami Akale in which a deed of assignment was executed and registered by the 2nd defendant. b) A declaration that the purported revocation of Certificate of Occupancy No. BNA 2448 by 1st and 2nd defendants based on the letter of 3rd defendant is unconstitutional, null and void. c) AN ORDER of the Honourable Court setting aside the notice of revocation issued by the 1st and 2nd defendants dated 21st August, d) AN ORDER of the Honourable Court ejecting the 1st defendant, his agent, workmen, assigns and whomsoever from the plot forthwith. e) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, assigns successors and whomsoever deriving authority 2

6 from them from further entry on the plot. f) General damages of Ten Million Naira (N10, 000,000.00) against the defendants for trespass in favour of the 1st plaintiff." The respondents filed their separate statements of defence denying the claims of the appellants. At the trial, the appellants led evidence through two witnesses; PW1 and PW2 and tendered ten exhibits namely: Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 7. The respondents led evidence through three witnesses, viz; DW1, DW2 and DW3 and tendered four exhibits, viz; Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11. After taking addresses of counsel, the trial Court, as earlier stated, dismissed the case of the appellants. Dissatisfied by the decision, the appellants have appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal filed on 13/8/2013 which contains three grounds of appeal. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, the appellants filed a brief of argument on 7/2/2014 which was settled by S.E. Irabor, Esq. The 1st respondent filed his brief of argument on 14/2/2018 while the 2nd respondent did not file a brief of argument. 3rd respondent filed his brief of argument on 23/12/2015

7 and it 3

8 was deemed filed on 14/2/2018. It was settled by Abimbola A. Kamadeen, Esq. At the hearing of the appeal on 14/2/2018 the Court was informed that the 1st respondent was dead. On the application of appellants counsel and with the agreement of 3rd respondent s counsel, the name of the 1st respondent was struck out along with his brief of argument. I.M. Mari, Esq. for the appellants adopted appellants brief of argument in urging the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. C.L. Usongo, Esq. for 3rd respondent adopted his brief of argument in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial Court. In the appellants brief of argument, the following issues are formulated for the determination of the appeal 1) Whether or not the Appellants have the locus standi to challenge the revocation of certificate No. BNA 2448 issued to Aaron Agayami Akale and from whom the Appellants trace their root of title. 2) Whether or not the judgment of the learned trial Court is reasonable, warranted and can be supported having regards to the evidence placed before it." 4

9 3rd respondent s counsel adopted the two issues in his brief of argument. I will therefore be guided by the two issues in the determination of this appeal. ISSUE 1 "Whether or not the Appellants have the locus standi to challenge the revocation of certificate [of occupancy] No. BNA 2448 issued to Aaron Agayami Akale from whom the appellants trace their root of title." Appellants counsel submitted that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the appellants could not question the revocation of the certificate of occupancy issued to Aaron Agayami Akale through whom the appellants trace their root of title. He submitted that transfer of land is divisible into two stages. He referred to and relied on B.M.N.L. V Ola Ilemobola Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 379) 1340 to buttress his submission. He added that the appellants had been shown to have concluded the first stage before the 2nd appellant sold the land to the 1st appellant. He noted that purchase prices were paid and serial acts of possession pleaded. He then submitted that it is not the position of the law that the appellants must exhaust all 5

10 transfer formalities before they could have the legal or equitable right to challenge the revocation of the title of their vendor. Counsel contended that having paid the purchase price coupled with acts of possession, the appellants acquired equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal interest. He further contended that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the non-joinder of Aaron Agayami Akale defeated the claims of the appellants. This, he said, is because non-joinder of a party can not defeat a claim. On his part, counsel for 3rd respondent argued that the appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge the revocation of the certificate of occupancy as the said title, prior to the revocation, resided in Aaron Agayami Akale and did not pass to the appellants. He noted that there was no ground of appeal against the finding of the trial Court that the assignment by Akale to 2nd appellant was invalid as the appellants did not prove consent thereto by the Governor. Thus, he submitted, the appellants could not validly make a complaint based on it. It was his contention that the contract of sale remained inchoate and that the 6

11 appellants had never been in possession of the land in dispute. Findings The trial Court after a review of the facts and the applicable law held as follows at page 208 of the record of appeal; the plaintiffs have not placed before the Court any consent by the Governor of the State, not even an application for it. In the absence of a consent by the Governor of the State given to Aaron Akale to assign Exhibit 2 to the 2nd plaintiff, I hold that the alleged assignment though made before the revocation, is in law invalid and does not transfer any title to 2nd plaintiff. The title covered by Exhibit 2, before the revocation still resided in Aaron Akale. The 2nd plaintiff having no title, can not transfer what he does not have to the 1st plaintiff." The trial Court finally held at page 210 of the record of appeal that; Having however held that they have no title to the plot because there is no valid assignment, they have no locus standi to seek the declaration sought in paragraph 20(b) of the claim It is only Aaron Akale who was issued Exhibit 2 that has the locus standi to complain and sue for its revocation." 7

12 It was the contention of 3rd respondent s counsel that there is no ground of appeal against the above findings of the trial Court. The contention is unfounded as ground 1 of the grounds of appeal directly challenged the findings. The said ground 1, shorn of its particulars, reads; The Learned Trial Court erred in law when it refused the plaintiffs reliefs and held as follows; In the absence of a consent by the Governor of the State given to Aaron Agayami Akale to assign Exhibit 2 to the 2nd plaintiff, I hold that the alleged assignment, is in law invalid and does not transfer any title to the 2nd plaintiff." I therefore discountenance 3rd respondent s counsel s submission. There is no doubt that the consent of the Governor of Benue State was not applied for and obtained for the assignment of the interest of Aaron Agayami Akale in the land in dispute covered by the certificate of occupancy to the 2nd appellant. The same situation applies to the assignment of the interest of the 2nd appellant to the 1st appellant. In fact none of the instruments evidencing those transactions 8

13 was registered. It was submitted by appellants counsel that having paid the purchase price coupled with possession, the appellants acquired equitable interest in the land to ground their right to challenge the revocation of the certificate of occupancy. It is no doubt the law that when the purchaser of land is in possession of land by virtue of a registrable instrument which has not been registered and had paid the purchase money to the vendor, he acquires an equitable interest in the land which is as good as a legal estate and is capable of being converted into a legal estate by specific performance. See Ogunbambi V Abowab 13 WACA 222, Fakoya V St Paul s Church, Sagamu (1966) 1 All NLR 74, Okoye V Dumez Nigeria Ltd (1985) 6 SC 3 and Etajata V Ologbo (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1061) 354. I have already stated that the consent of the Governor of Benue State was not applied for and obtained for the assignment relied upon by the appellants. Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978 provides that; It shall not be lawful for the holder of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor to alienate his right of occupancy or any part 9

14 thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise howsoever without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained. Section 26 of the same Act provides thus; Any transaction or any instrument which purports to confer or vest in any person any interest or right over land other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall be null and void. Thus where the consent of the Governor is not obtained for the assignment of a statutory right of occupancy, the effect is that the transaction is rendered null and void and therefore incapable of transferring any right or interest. See Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 158, Calabar Central Co- Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd v Ekpo (2008) 2-3 SCNJ 307 and Olalomi Industry Limited v Nigeria Industrial Development Bank (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 260. It must however be stated as submitted by appellant s counsel that a transfer or sale of an estate in land is divisible into two stages, viz; (i) the contract stage ending in the formation of a binding contract. (ii) the conveyance stage 10

15 culminating in the legal title vesting in the purchaser by means of the appropriate instrument under seal. See Brossette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd V MS Ola Ilemobola Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 379) 1340, In Brosette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd supra Katsina Alu, JSC (as he then was) stated as follows; But the holder of a statutory right of occupancy is certainly not prohibited by Section 22 (1) of the Land Use Act, 1978 from entering into some form of negotiation which may end with a written agreement for presentation to the Governor for his necessary consent. I think this is good sense because the Governor when giving his consent may require the holder of the statutory right of occupancy to submit an instrument executed in evidence of the assignment, mortgage, sublease in order that his consent under Sub-section (1) may be signified by endorsement thereto. See also Awojugbagbe Light Industry Ltd v Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 340) 379 and Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd v Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 545. This is in accord with Section 22 (2) of the Land Use Act which provides that; 11

16 The Governor when giving his consent to an assignment, mortgage or sub-lease may require the holder of a statutory right of occupancy to submit an instrument executed in evidence of the assignment, mortgage or sub-lease and the holder shall when so required deliver the said instrument to the Governor in order that the consent given by the Governor under Subsection (1) of this section may be signified by endorsement thereon." Thus such an instrument can be executed subject to consent prior to obtaining the Governor s consent and it will remain inchoate (not null and void) until the Governor s consent is sought and obtained. See First Merchant Bank of Nigeria Ltd v Akinola (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 281, 335. Such an instrument has also been held by Ogbuagu, JSC in Brosette Manufacturing Nig. Ltd supra to be a mere escrow which passes no interest in the property to the purchaser. In Exhibit 3 (the deed of assignment between Aaron Agayami Akale and the 2nd appellant) in clause 3 of the recital clause it is stated that; The consent of the Military Administrator of Benue State has been sought and obtained pursuant 12

17 to the Land Use Act. Whereas no such consent was sought for and obtained either before the transaction or after the transaction. The inference is that the parties to Exhibit 3 intended the alienation to be a final and complete assignment of Akale s right of occupancy without truly seeking the Governor s consent or intending to do so. In Awojugbagbe Light Industry Ltd v Chinukwe supra. page 436, Iguh, JSC, stated that; I agree entirely with Chief Williams, SAN that Section 22(1) [of the Land Use Act] prohibits transactions or instruments whereby the holder of statutory right of occupancy purports to alienate as a complete action, his right of occupancy by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise, the absence of the relevant consent of the Governor first had and obtained notwithstanding. In my view, Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act does not cover purported alienations or alienations which the parties did not intend to become immediately effective until necessary approval by the Governor is obtained. It does however cover and strike at transactions which effectively purport to enable an assignee, 13

18 mortgagee or sublessee of the right of occupancy to exercise his rights there under without the prior consent of the Governor. In such a circumstance as in this instance, the assignee can not rely on the position of the law that possession of land by virtue of an unregistered registrable instrument coupled with possession and payment of purchase price vests in the purchaser an equitable interest to challenge a revocation of the certificate of occupancy as the transaction is rendered null and void by the Land Use Act. The trial Court was therefore right in holding that; In the absence of a consent by the Governor of the State, given to Aaron Akale to assign Exhibit 2 to the 2nd plaintiff. I hold that the alleged assignment is in law invalid and does not transfer any title to the 2nd plaintiff. The title covered by Exhibit 2 before the revocation still resided in Aaron Akale. The 2nd plaintiff having no title, can not transfer what he does not have to the 1st plaintiff." Even if it could be said that Exhibit 3 was a deed of assignment made subject to the Governor s consent thus making it inchoate or an 14

19 escrow, it would not advance the case of the appellants. The Phrase inchoate is defined in the Black s Law Dictionary 9th Ed. P. 830 as; "Partially completed or imperfectly formed; just begun, While inchoate right is defined on the same page as; A right that has not fully developed, matured or vested. Therefore Exhibit 3 passed no interest in the property to the appellants. See Anambra State Housing Development Corporation v. Emekwere (1996) 1 SCNJ 98, which was quoted in Brosette Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd supra with approval. The trial Court was therefore right in holding that the appellants had no locus standi to seek the relief in paragraph 28 (b) of their statement of claim. I therefore enter a negative answer to issue 1 and resolve it against the appellants. ISSUE 2 Whether or not the judgment of the learned trial Court is reasonable, warranted and can be supported having regards to the evidence placed before it. Appellants counsel while acknowledging the primary role of a trial Court in assessment of evidence and

20 15

21 placement of probative value thereon, urged this Court to interfere with the trial Court s discharge of that function for having been improperly done. He contended that 3rd appellant s (sic; respondent) evidence as to acts of adverse possession was full of contradictions which he highlighted. He referred to Exhibit 2 which he said showed that appellants predecessor-in-title surveyed the land in 1988 and had the land fixed with beacon stones without challenge until 18/7/2006. He noted that appellants predecessor-in-title was not served with 3rd respondent s petition which he said was a denigration of the principle of audi alterem partem. He submitted that that was fatal to the revocation. For the 3rd respondent, it was submitted that evaluation of evidence is primarily the duty of the trial Court. Counsel for 3rd respondent urged the Court not to interfere with the trial Court s discharge of that function as it was properly done. It was his contention that appellants failed to prove possession or title to the land. It was his position that it is not every contradiction that affects the 16

22 case of a party especially, as in this case, the respondents had no counter-claim. I shall discountenance the argument of appellants counsel as to alleged failure to notify Aaron Akale of the petition of the 3rd respondent as I have already upheld the trial Court s finding that the appellants lack the locus standi to challenge the revocation of the certificate of occupancy issued to Aaron Akale. Appellants sought to trace their root of title to Aaron Akale, with their case being that Akale assigned his right of occupancy over the land in dispute to 2nd appellant who in turn assigned his interest to 1st appellant. The trial Court at page 206 of the record of appeal posed a question as follow: Has he (i.e., Aaron Akale) validly transferred his right in Exhibit 2 to the 2nd plaintiff. After a review of evidence on record and the applicable law, the trial Court answered the question at page 208 of the record thus; I hold that the alleged assignment is in law invalid and does not transfer any title to the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff having no title can not transfer to the 1st 17

23 plaintiff. Since the assignment between Akale and the 2nd appellant was null and void and so the 2nd appellant had nothing to assign to the 1st appellant, the case of the appellants was bound to fail. I therefore see no reason to interfere with the trial Court s conclusion. I therefore enters an affirmative answer to issue 2 and resole it against the appellants. I hold that the appeal has no merit and I hereby dismiss it. I affirm the judgment of the trial Court. I assess the costs of the appeal at N450, in favour of the 3rd respondent. JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Ekanem, J.C.A. The reasoning and conclusion are in consonance with my views on the issues raised in the Appeal, which thereby leads me to adopt the reasoning and conclusion as my own. Thus, for those reasons given in the lead Judgment, I also dismiss the Appeal. I endorse the consequential orders made therein, inclusive of the order as to costs.

24 ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I had read before now 18

25 the Judgment just delivered by my learned Brother, Joseph F. Ekanem, JCA, dismissing this appeal. I agree with the resolution of the issues formulated therein for determination. I see no merit in this appeal and it is also dismissed by me. I abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment. including the order as to costs. 19

26 Appearances: T. M. Mari, Esq. For Appellant(s) G. L. Usongo, Esq. for 3rd respondent. For Respondent(s)