IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
On Wednesday, the 28th day of January, 2015
CA/AK/41/2012/
BETWEEN
VICTOR ADEFIOYE AYOADE (for himself and other members of Momimi family) .... Appellant
AND
1. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE
2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OSUN STATE. ......... Respondents
3. THE COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS
4. IREWOLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IKIRE
5. HRM OBA OLATUNDE FALABI (Lambeloye II, The Akire of Ikire)
6. ALHAJI SAMOTU ADEWOLE
7. ALHAJI MORUFU AKINWALE
8. MR. GASALI LAWAL
9. MR. ADENIRAN ALIDU
(For themselves and other members of Metiku, Ademuyiwa, Atere and Falade Ruling Houses of Shoko Chieftaincy of Ikire)
APPEARANCES
J.D. Olaniyan - For Appellant
AND
I.A. Mikaheal for the 1st - 3rd Respondents
C.A. Ogunmuyiwa for the 4th Respondent
Olayinka Sokoya for the 5th Respondent
O.J. Erhabor with Olamide O.J. for the 6th - 9th Respondents - For Respondent
CONNECTED AREAS OF PRACTICE
1. Customary Law
2. Litigation
3. Administrative Law
MAIN ISSUES
1. CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION CONTAINED IN A REPEALED LAW: Effect of repealing a Chieftaincy Law on a Chieftaincy declaration contained in it
2. JUDGMENT AND ORDER - CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER: Meaning of a consequential order
3. EVIDENCE - ESTOPPEL: Essence and Pre-requisite for the application of the doctrine of estoppel
4. ACTION - ORIGINATING SUMMONS: Restrictions on the use of originating summons Whether objection to the use of originating procedure on a contentious issue can be raised on appeal
5. CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS - REGISTERED DECLARATION: Effect and applicability of registered declaration
6. WORDS AND PHRASES - "JOINDER OF ISSUES": Meaning of "joinder of issues"
7. WORDS AND PHRASES STARE DECISIS - "JUDICIAL PRECEDENT": Meaning of Stare Decisis and " Judicial precedent"
MAIN JUDGMENT
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of Honourable Justice S.O. Falola of the Osun State High Court of Justice Osogbo delivered on 27th day of February, 2012.
The appeal is at the instance of the 5th Defendant in the suit instituted by the 6th to the 9th Respondents as Plaintiffs against the 1st to the 4th Respondents the Appellant as the 5th Defendant and the 5th Respondent as the 6th Plaintiff at the Osogbo Judicial Division of the Osun State High Court of Justice. The 6th - 9th Respondents as Plaintiffs by an Originating Summons sought the determination of the following questions:
1. Whether the Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration dated 23rd of June 1958 and made as a subsidiary legislation to the Chiefs Law, (cap. 19) Laws of Western Nigeria 1957 is still valid and operational having regards to the fact that the said parent legislation is no longer operational having been repealed and replaced first by the Chiefs Law cap, 21, laws of Oyo State 1978 and Chief Law cap. 25 Laws of Osun State 2004.
2. Whether the Shoko Chieftaincy having been de-recognized by The Recognized Chieftaincy (miscellaneous provisions) Order 1978 and made a minor chieftaincy is still subject to the provisions of the written Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957 and who between and amongst the Defendants has the duty to now install any Chief Shoko of Itaakun Ikire.
3. Whether the Osun State Government, as represented by the 1st - 4th Defendants, is not obliged to complete the amendment of the Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration dated 23rd June 1958 (if found to be still operative) having been found to be defective by the inclusion of Momimi Ruling House as a ruling house entitled to present candidate for the Shoko Chieftaincy by the J.B. Abegunde Commission of Public Inquiry and accepted by Government which commenced the process of amending the said Declaration before the Chieftaincy was derecognized.
4. Whether by the findings of the J.B. Abegunde Commission of Inquiry (which findings were accepted by the Government) to the effect that Momimi family is not entitled to be made a Ruling House entitled to nominate candidate for the Shoko Chieftaincy of Ikire, the 5th Defendant or any other member of Momimi is still entitled to become or parade himself as Shoko of Ikire.
And upon the determination of the said questions, the Plaintiffs (6th - 9th Respondents) prayed for the grant of the following claims:
1. A declaration that the Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration dated 23rd of June 1958 and made as a subsidiary legislation to the Chiefs Laws, 1957 is no longer valid or operational having regards to the fact that the said parent legislation is no longer operational having been replaced first by the Chiefs Laws cap. 21, Laws of Oyo State, 1978 and Chiefs Law cap. 21 Laws of Osun State 2004.
2. A declaration that the 1st - 4th Defendants have no direct role to play in the selection and installation of Chief Shoko of Itaakun, Ikire, the Shoko Chieftaincy having been de-recognized by the Recognized Chieftaincy (miscellaneous provisions) order 1978 and made a minor Chieftaincy over which the 6th Defendant has installation duty as the prescribed Authority.
3. A declaration that the 6th Defendant as the prescribed Authority over the Shoko Chieftaincy is the person entitled to approve and install Chief Shoko or determine any dispute as to the rightful person entitled to be installation.
4. A declaration that the findings and conclusions or judgment of the J.B. Abegunde Commission of Inquiry to the effect that there are only four Ruling House namely. Metiku, Ademuyiwa, Atere and Falade to the exclusion of Momimi family is still valid and binding customary law relating to Shoko Chieftaincy.
5. A declaration that the 5th Defendant as a member of the Momimi family and other members of the said Momimi Ruling family are not entitled to be installed as Chief Shoko of Itaakun Ikire.
6. An order compelling the Osun State Government as represented by the 1st - 4th Defendant to forthwith complete the amendment of the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration in line with the findings of J.B. Abegunde commission of Public Inquiry and the amendment processes commenced thereafter by the Government which accepted the findings and recommendations.
7. An order restraining forthwith the 5th Defendant from parading himself as Chief Shoko or as person entitled to become Chief Shoko of Itaakun Ikire.
8. An order restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Defendants from recognizing and or paying any salary or allowances to the 5th Defendant as the Shoko of Ikire.
The case of the 6th - 9th Respondents as Plaintiffs from the affidavit evidence is that before the making of the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958, there had always been four Ruling Houses of Shoko Chieftaincy, namely (a) Metiku (b) Ademuyiwa (c) Atere and (d) Falade.
The Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 included the Appellant's Momimi Ruling House which led to series of protests by the four (4) Ruling Houses mentioned above and resulted in the setting up of J.B. Abegunde Commission of Enquiry. The Abegunde Commission of Enquiry found the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 to be defective and the Commission's findings were accepted by the Government through the statement issued by Dr. L.O. Adegbite, the then Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and steps were taken to disregard the defective Declaration. Consequently, upon that, the Appellant's family instituted an action in suit HOY/5/73 which action was later withdrawn and in 1976 the Shoko Chieftaincy was derecognized and relegated to a part III Chieftaincy which meant the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration no longer subsist and as such excludes Momimi family from filing of Shoko Chieftaincy.
Furthermore, in 1993 the Appellant's family instituted an action in Suit No. HIW/170/93 on the matter but the 6th - 9th Respondents and Government were not made parties to the action and since the judgment, there have been outside court acrimonies between the four (4) families and the Appellant's family, hence there is need for the Osun State Government to complete the amendment of the Chieftaincy Declaration or declare it void in line with the findings of the Abegunde commission of Inquiry.
Finally, it is the case of the 6th - 9th Respondents that sometime in 2010, the Appellant started to lay claim to the office of Shoko of Ikire and also demanding for his allowances and that it is the Akire of Ikire who is the prescribed authority to Shoko of Ikire and he has not approved and or installed the Appellant as Shoko of Ikire. The 1st to 3rd Respondents filed a counter affidavit in the court below. They deposed that the 5th Respondent (6th Defendant) is a mere consenting authority and not a prescribed authority to the Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy, and that the 1958 Chieftaincy Declaration was validly made and reflect the true and correct tradition and customary law relevant to the Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy. They conceded that the J.B. Abegunde Commission made some recommendations, but such remains recommendations, and that Suit No. HOY/5/73 instituted by the Momimi family was not determined on merit.
They further deposed that by a letter Exhibit MOJ I, the Appellant (5th Defendant) has since been recognized and that suit HIW/170/93 has decided many issues raised by the 6th - 9th Respondents (Plaintiffs).
1st to 3rd Respondents (Defendants) further contended that since the 1958 Chieftaincy Declaration of Shoko of Ikire has not been amended or revoked, it is still the subsisting declaration governing the appointment and selection of Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy. That though the Recognized Chieftaincy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1978 derecognized the Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy by reducing the rank of the Chieftaincy to Minor Chieftaincy, this does not change the customary law as codified in the Chieftaincy Declaration, and such should prevail until amended contrary to the prayers contained in the 4th and 5th reliefs of the Plaintiffs (6th - 9th Respondents). They contended that the Appellant (5th Defendant) has been installed since 1998 and that by a letter dated 15th July 2003 Exhibit MOJ 1 the 5th Defendant (Appellant) cannot now be restrained from performing the function of that office.
The 4th Respondent (4th Defendant) the Irewole Local Government Ikire contended that the Chiefs Law 1957 under which Chieftaincy Declaration was made had been repealed and replaced by the Chiefs Law of Oyo State 1978 and finally Chiefs Law Osun State cap 25 of 2002. That the report of Abegunde Commission of Inquiry and the attempt to implement it by amending the Chieftaincy Declaration have all become obsolete. The 4th Respondent conceded that Government has concluded the amendment process and was about sealing it when it was decided that since the Chieftaincy has become a minor Chieftaincy, there was no need for an amendment of the Declaration which does not apply to the Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy any more. The 4th Respondent contended further that the principal law having been repealed with its subsidiary legislation (Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration) the two have become so obsolete and no longer valid for purpose of actions not commenced or completed before the repeal.
The Appellant as 5th Defendant averred that he is the Shoko of Itaakun Ikire and a traditional Oba recognized by Osun State Government. He admitted that the 6th Defendant (5th Respondent) the Akire of Ikire is the paramount Traditional Ruler of Ikire. He also admitted that Shoko Chieftaincy was derecognized as a part III Chieftaincy. He admitted that there had been litigations between his Momimi Ruling Family and other four ruling families. He disclosed that after his installation as the Shoko of Itaakun he pressed for his salary. He further deposed that Abegunde Commission of Inquiry and the subsequent acceptance through the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs was the issue in contention in suit No. HIW/170/93. That his family filed a separate suit when the Abegunde Commission for Inquiry recommended the removal of his Momimi family from the entitled ruling house. But, when it was realized that the time for amendment of the Declaration had lapsed, they withdrew the suit. He deposed that officers of Government who should have completed the amendment had refused to do so till the time it lapsed, and that being public servants they cannot be called upon to conclude the exercise in view of the provisions of Public Officers Protection Law. He disclosed that his Counsel R.O. Ogunwole (SAN) had alerted him that all the issues being raised in this case had been resolved in HIW/170/93 hence this suit is no longer maintainable, and an abuse of court process, the Plaintiffs having filed series of suits against his family. He Insisted that the Chieftaincy Declaration is still binding on the Plaintiffs and himself, and that the fact that the Chieftaincy has been derecognized has not taken away any effect of the Registered Declaration.
The 5th Respondent (6th Defendant) agreed that after it's de-recognition the Shoko of Ikire became a Minor Chieftaincy. He described the process of installation culminating in the presentation of the candidate ratified by the kingmakers to the prescribed Authority who would approve and install the candidate. He contended that the last holder of the title died in 1992 and ever since, no candidate has been presented to him for approval and installation as the Shoko of Ikire. He further contended that unlike Shoko Mudashiru Oyekanmi who occupied the title last, the Appellant (5th Defendant) has never been presented to him for approval and installation. He wondered how the Appellant (5th Defendant could be claiming to have been installed without the input of the prescribed Authority. He further contended that the Government cannot recognize a chief that has not been installed. The 5th Respondent (6th Defendant) emphasized that his position as the prescribed Authority over Minor Chieftaincies in Ikire has not been repealed and the government cannot approbate and reprobate. He deposed that the intention of the Appellant (5th Defendant) to parade himself as Shoko of Itaakun within Ikire land who is not under him would lead to chaos and total breakdown of law and order in Ikire town with two Obas of coordinate status.
The learned trial judge reviewed the affidavit evidence and considered the submissions of the parties.
On the application of the Public Officers Protection Law to the suit as contended by the Learned Counsel to the Appellant (5th Defendant) the learned trial judge held that the Public Officers Protection Law, even if it exists in Osun State is not applicable to Chieftaincy disputes and that the Public Officers Protection Act cannot be used either as a substitute because its application is restricted to Federal Public Officers.
After holding that the 5th Respondent (6th Defendant) is the Prescribed Authority over all Minor Chieftaincies in the area traditionally associated with Ikire town, including Shoko Ikire Chieftaincy the trial court went further to say that the fact that a chieftaincy has been relegated to Minor Chieftaincy does not preclude the chieftaincy from having a Chieftaincy Declaration.
However, such Chieftaincy Declaration should be read, interpreted and applied in line with the repealing and parent law. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the parent law (Chiefs Law) and de-recognition law and the relegated Chieftaincy Declaration, the Chieftaincy Declaration shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
The learned trial judge also considered that there is no issue of estoppel created by the decision in Suit No. HIW/170/93 which led to Appeal No. CA/I/211/99 because the parties, the claims/issues and the subject matter in the previous suit was not the same with the present suit. In particular, that the res in the previous suit are the subsistence of the Chieftaincy Declaration pending the amendment, eligibility of Momimi family to Shoko Chieftaincy and the incompetence of the candidature of Adeoye Dairo. That the res in this case is the completion of the proposed amendment of the Chieftaincy Declaration and the incompetence of the claim of the 5th Defendant (Appellant) as the incumbent of Shoko of Ikire.
He dismissed the suggestions that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that domestic remedies were not exhausted and or that the suit constituted an abuse of process.
The learned trial judge found as a fact that the Government has abandoned the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 and that the Report of the J.B. Abegunde's Commission of Inquiry has also been abandoned.
Consequently, the learned trial judge at pages 332-335 of the records resolved the questions raised by the 6th -9th Respondents (Plaintiffs) as follows:
1. The Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration dated 23rd June 1958 and made as a subsidiary legislation to the Chiefs Law cap. 19 Laws of Western Nigeria 1957 has been abandoned by the 1st - 4th Defendant (1st - 4th Respondents) in view of Exhibit OJ2, OJ6 and OJ7 and therefore no longer operational.
2. The Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy having been de-recognized by the Recognized Chieftaincy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1978 and made minor Chieftaincy, it is the 6th Defendant the Akire of Ikire and the prescribed Authority to Minor Chieftaincies in areas associated with Ikire town.
3. Osun State Government as represented by the 1st - 4th Defendants is obliged to, rather than complete the amendment of the Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration made 23rd June 1958 which has been found to be defective by J.B. Abegunde Commission of Public Inquiry and abandoned by the 1st to 4th Defendants conduct a fresh public inquiry and make and approve a new Chieftaincy Declaration for Shoko of Ikire.
4. The report of J. B. Abegunde Commission of Inquiry having been abandoned, the new commission of Inquiry to be set up by the 1st to 3rd Defendants shall determine whether or not, the Momimi ruling house as represented by the 5th Defendant in this suit, is entitled to produce Shoko of Ikire.
However, until a new Chieftaincy Declaration is approved and registered, the prescribed Authority (the 6th Defendant) shall exercise his powers under Section 22 (2) and (3) Chiefs Law cap. 25 Laws of Osun State 2002 to determine disputes which may arise as to whether a person has been appointed in accordance with the applicable customary law as the Shoko of Ikire.
The court below then made the following orders:
1. it is hereby declared that Registered Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration approved 23rd June 1958 and registered on 24th June 1958 and made subsidiary legislation to the Chiefs Law 1957 is no longer valid or operational, having been abandoned and rendered obsolete by the 1st - 4th Defendants in view of Exhibits OJ2, OJ6 and OJ7 attached to the Originating Summons.
2. It is hereby declared that the 1st - 4th Defendants have no direct role to play in the selection and installation of Chief Shoko of Ikire, the Shoko Chieftaincy having been de-recognized by the Recognized Chieftaincy (Miscellaneous Provision) Order 1978 and made a minor Chieftaincy over which the 6th Defendant has installation duty as the prescribed Authority.
3. A declaration is hereby made that the 6th Defendant as the Prescribed Authority over Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy is the person entitled to approve and install Chief Shoko of Ikire and determine any dispute as to the rightful person entitled to be so installed.
4. It is hereby declared that the report of J.B Abegunde chieftaincy Commission of Inquiry having been abandoned, the 1st - 4th Defendants shall cause a fresh Commission of Inquiry to determine the correct customary law applicable to Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy with regards to the name and number of entitled ruling houses. Pending the approval of a new Chieftaincy Declaration, the 6th Defendant shall determine the eligible candidates in line with the applicable customary law.
5. The claim No. 5 is dismissed. Rather it is hereby declared that the 6th Defendant as prescribed Authority in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the law shall determine whether the 5th Defendant and members of Momimi Ruling family are entitled to be selected and installed as Shoko of Ikire pending when a new declaration is approved and registered.
6. The 6th relief hereby fails and is accordingly dismissed. The report of J.B. Abegunde Commission of Inquiry having been abandoned and rendered obsolete and inoperational can no longer be used to amend the Shoko of Ikire Chieftaincy Declaration which has also been abandoned and rendered obsolete and inoperational by the 1st - 4th Defendants.
7. An order is hereby granted restraining forthwith the 5th Defendant from parading himself as Chief Shoko of Ikire pending his appointment by the person entitled by customary law so to appoint and approve by the prescribed Authority.
8. An order is hereby made restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th Defendants from recognizing and or paying any salary or allowances to the 5th Defendant as the Shoko of Ikire until his appointment is approved by the 6th Defendant being the prescribed Authority.
Dissatisfied with this judgment the 5th Defendant as Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal containing thirteen (13) grounds of appeal before this court on 5/3/2012.
On 10/10/2012, the Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal containing fourteen (14) grounds of appeal in this Honourable court. The relevant briefs of argument in this appeal are as follows:
1. Appellant's brief of argument dated 10/10/12 and filed on the same day but deemed filed on 26/11/2012 - settled by J.D. Olaniyan Esq.
2. 4th Respondent brief of argument dated 4/5/2013 and filed on 16/5/2013 - settled by C.A Ogunmuyiwa Esq.
3. 5th Respondent's brief of argument dated 22/2/2013 and filed on 25/2/2013 - settled by Olayinka Sokoya Esq.
4. 6th - 9th Respondents brief of argument dated 29/1/2013 and filed on the same day and deemed filed on 25/2.2013 - settled by O.J. Erhabor Esq.
5. Reply on points of law to the 5th Respondent's brief of argument dated 6/3/2013 and filed on 7/3/2013 - settled by J.D. Olaniyan Esq.
6. Reply on points of law to the 6th - 9th Respondents brief of argument dated 6/3/2013 - settled by J.D Olaniyan Esq.
The 1st - 3rd Respondents did not file any brief of argument in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated five (5) issues for determination in this appeal.
They are:
1. Whether or not the action is competent.
2. Whether or not the court can grant reliefs not claimed by any of the parties before it.
3. Whether or not the Appellant, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents and indeed the court are not bound by the decision of the Appeal court in Appeal No. CA/I/211/99.
4. Whether the Appellant has been given fair hearing by the Honourable trial court by raising certain issues suo motu and making pronouncement on same without giving him the opportunity to address the Honourable trial court on them before his pronouncement.
5. Whether or not the Chieftaincy Declaration of 1958 is the native law and custom which regulates the appointment of Shoko Chieftaincy title.
The 4th Respondent adopted the same five (5) issues formulated by the Appellant. The 5th Respondent formulated three (3) issues for the determination of the appeal as follows:
1. Whether the Shoko Chieftaincy is a minor Chieftaincy having been so relegated by the chiefs law.
2. Whether the lower court was not right in holding that the 5th Respondent - Oba Olatunde Falabi is the prescribed authority over the Shoko Chieftaincy.
3. Whether the Appellant can without been presented to the 5th Respondent - Oba Olatunde Falabi for installation as the prescribed authority can validly claim to be Shoko of Ikire.
The 6th - 9th Respondents also formulated five (5) issues as follows:
i. Whether or not the action at the lower court was competent.
ii. Whether or not the reliefs granted by the lower court do flow from the resolution of the questions posed before the lower court and the reliefs claimed from the court upon the determination of those questions.
ii. Whether the parties and issues in this case were the same with the issues and parties before the court in HIW/170/93 and CA/I/211/99.
iv. Whether the lower court was not right, having regards to the law and undisputed facts, in coming to the conclusion that the process of appointment of the Appellant (then 5th Defendant) as Shoko of Ikire has not been completed and that parading himself as the Chief Shoko of Ikire pending the appointment by the person entitled under customary law and approved by the prescribed Authority was inappropriate.
v. Whether the lower court was not right in holding that the 5th Respondent Oba Olatunde Falabi, was the Prescribed Authority over the Shoko Chieftaincy.
This appeal shall be decided on the issues nominated by the Appellant. Meanwhile, the case of the Appellant shall be considered on one side of the scale while the cases of the 4th Respondent, the 5th Respondent and the 6th - 9th Respondents shall be considered together on the other side of the scale as that of the "Respondents"'. This is for the reason of the shared common interest between the three sets of Respondents and also for convenience of treatment.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued issues Nos. 1 and 3 together under different headings as follows:
(a) The propriety of the use of originating summons procedure.
(b) Abuse of court process.
(c) Condition precedent
(d) Estoppel
(e) Principle of Stare decisis
(f) Statute of limitation.
On (a) above, Learned Counsel submitted that from the gamut of the affidavit evidence before the trial court and its findings, the life issues before the court are chieftaincy issues in which facts are in dispute.
He submitted that in circumstances like this where facts are in dispute, Originating Summons cannot be applied in resolving such dispute.
He said the issue of native law and custom regulating the Shoko Chieftaincy Declaration, the status of the Abegunde Commission of Inquiry, the entitlement or otherwise of the Appellant's family to present a candidate to fill the vacant stool of Shoko, the validity or otherwise of the selection of the Appellant as Shoko are all issues of disputed facts before the trial court which ordinarily should have been resolved by calling evidence.
He submitted on the authority of the cases of Orji V Dorji Textiles & 3 Ors (2009) 12 SC (Pt.111) 73 at 122 and Dipianlong & 5 Ors V Dariye & Anor (2007) 4 SC (Pt. 111) 116 at 167 - 168 that the position of the law is clear on the use of Originating Summons and it is to the effect that Originating Summons can only be applied in interpretation of documents or statutes and certainly not in a matter where facts are in dispute as in chieftaincy matters of this nature.
Appellant's Counsel submitted further that the issue of the manner of approaching the court by the Plaintiffs (6th - 9th Respondents) herein touches on the issue of jurisdiction and it is trite that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be waived or acquiesced by the parties.
He referred to the cases of Aderibigbe & Anor v Abidoye (2009) 4 - 5 SC (Pt.111) pages 142 - 143; Colecna v Church Gate (Nig.) Ltd 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 346.
He urged us to set aside the judgment or strike out the matter on this ground.
On (b) above, Counsel submitted that the action which culminated in this appeal is an abuse of the process of the court as it was a blatant act of forum shopping by the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents in collaboration with the 5th Responden