Homan Engineering Company Ltd v. Ugobecks Worldwide Solution Ltd & Anor

This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting in its Port Harcourt Judicial Division contained in a Ruling delivered on the 7th of February, 2019 in Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 dismissing the appeal of the Appellants.

The Respondents were the claimants in the High Court and they commenced the action leading up to this appeal against the Appellant under the Undefended List Procedure by a writ of summons filed on the 8th of December, 2015. Their claims were for:

1. The sum of N32,921,7 720 being and representing the outstanding balance of the cost of chippings and hard core supplied and duly delivered by the Respondents to the Appellant at the Appellant’s

1. 1

road construction site at Eberi Omuna and flow station Umuebule, both in Etche LGA, Rivers State.

1. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 25% per annum from the 11th day of June, 2012 till date of judgment in this suit.

Thereafter interest on the judgment debt at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of judgment till the judgment is liquidated.

The case of the Respondents in the affidavit of facts in support of the claim under the Undefended List Procedure was that they had had business dealings with the Appellant supplying materials ranging from mixed materials, chippings, granite, hard core, bitumen, etc to it and that the Appellant made payments for the supplies within thirty days thereof. It was their case that the Appellant usually made oral requests for supplies through its officers and that when deliveries are made the officers endorse the invoice of the first Respondent in acknowledgement of receipt. It was their case that they made supplies to the Appellant on the 30th of April, 2012, 11th of June, 2012 and 3rd of December, 2012 and the officers of the Appellant duly endorsed the invoices in acknowledgement of receipt of the supplies. It was their case that the Appellant stopped making payments within thirty days of supplies and that their several complaints in this regard were met with promises to pay for the supplies within a short period. It was their case that whenever the Appellant made payments, they were in trickles such that out of the sum of N33,791,720.00 outstanding as at 4th of October, 2013 on the supplies made, the Appellant only paid the sum of N1,500,000.00, leaving a balance of N32,291,720.00 unpaid.

It was the case of the Respondents that the Appellant failed to pay the balance despite repeated demands and that this refusal to pay put them out of business and that the monies outstanding included bank loans with mounting interest rates. was their case that they caused their lawyers to write a letter of demand of payment to the Appellant to no avail and that

P.2

in March 2013 one of their creditors petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and had the second Respondent arrested. It was their case that the second Respondent informed the officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission that they were unable to repay their creditors because of the indebtedness of the Appellant. It was their case that the officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission wrote to the Appellant to confirm the fact of the indebtedness and the Appellant replied by a letter dated 8h of March 2013 acknowledging that it was owing the Respondents the sum of N37,436,520.00 as at March 2013. It was their case that the Appellant had no defence to the action and that it was in the interest of justice to entered summary judgment in their favour.

The affidavit of facts was supported by copies the documents referred to therein and copies of the documents were attached thereto. The writ of summons together with the affidavit of facts and the attachments thereto were served on the Appellant on the 17t” of December, 2015 along with a hearing notice that the matter would be coming up for hearing before the trial Court on the 18th of January, 2016. By the Rules of the trial Court, the Appellant, if desirous of defending the action, was expected to file a notice of intention to defend together with an affidavit disclosing a defence not less than five days before the date fixed for hearing. The Appellant filed no such process and/or processes.

On the 18th of January, 2016, both parties were represented in Court by Counsel, one Chief V. O. Egbuawa appeared for the Respondents, while a Mr. C. B. Onah appeared for the Appellant. Counsel to the Respondents prayed that judgment be entered for the Respondents as claimed as the Appellant had filed nothing evincing an intention to defend the action. On his part, Counsel to the Appellant requested for an adjournment on the ground that he was instructed only a week earlier and was yet to receive the processes served from the Appellant. The trial Court apparently refused the request for adjournment and it entered judgment in favour of the Respondent for the outstanding sum of N32,291,720.00. The trial

P.3

Court refused the prayer for prejudgment interest and it awarded post judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment and costs of the action assessed at N50,000.00.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal containing two grounds of appeal and dated the 27th of January, 2016 against the judgment to the lower Court. The complaints of the Appellant in the two grounds of appeal were (0) that the writ of summons was not stamped or sealed by a legal practitioner, and (i) that the trial Court relied on the letter written by the Appellant to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission admitting its indebtedness to the Respondents and attached as exhibit to the affidavit of facts in making its finding and which letter was inadmissible evidence.

The Appellant thereafter filed four motions on notice on the 17th of October, 2016 for (i) to regularize the records of appeal compiled and transmitted by its Counsel; (i) leave to amend the notice of appeal; (ii) unconditional stay of execution; and (iv) setting aside the warrant of execution of judgment issued by the trial Court. On the 24h of January, 2017, the lower Court heard and granted the motion to regularize the records of appeal and adjourned the three other motions to the 30th of May, 2017 for hearing.

On the 2d of February, 2017, the Appellant filed another motion praying for leave to raise fresh issues of law not canvassed in the trial Court and for leave to amend the notice of appeal to include the fresh issue of law.

The Respondents opposed the application and they filed a counter affidavit thereto. When the matter came up on the 29th of June, 2017, the Appellant withdrew two of the motions filed in the 17th of October, 2016 – the motion to amend the notice of appeal and the motion to set aside the warrant of execution – and both motions were struck out by the lower Court. The lower Court thereafter directed the parties to file written addresses of arguments on the Appellant’s motion of 2nd of February, 2017 and it adjourned the hearing of the motion to the 13t” of February, 2018.

P.4

The parties filed copious addresses on the motion and the lower Court abridged the time for its hearing to the 30th of October, 2017.

On the 30th of October, 2017, the lower Court heard the motion on the merits and it subsequently delivered a considered Ruling on the 12^th of December, 2017 striking out the motion as lacking in merit and it awarded costs of N100,000.00 in favour of the Respondents. On the 15th of December, 2017, the Appellants filed a motion praying for leave to appeal against the Ruling striking out the motion. On the 11th of January, 2018, the matter came up in the lower Court and the Appellant reminded the lower Court of its motion for unconditional stay of execution filed on the 17^th of October, 2016. The lower Court directed the parties to file written addresses thereon and it adjourned the hearing of the motion to the 12^th of April, 2018. On the 22nd of January, 2018, the Respondents filed a motion praying for the setting aside of the records of appeal compiled and transmitted by the Appellant, and regularized by the Court, for not containing the records of the proceedings of the trial Court and for the reason that the documents contained therein were certified true copies of the processes filed in the trial Court. The Respondent also prayed for an order dismissing the appeal for failure to compile the records of appeal.

The Appellant opposed the application and filed a counter affidavit thereto.

On the 21^st of February, 2018, the Appellant filed a motion on notice praying for an order of stay of proceedings in the appeal pending the hearing and determination of their motion for leave to appeal against the Ruling of the lower Court delivered on the 12th of December, 2017 and which motion was filed at the Supreme Court on the 25 of January, 2018.

The motion also prayed for an order compelling all the parties to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the motion for leave to appeal. On the 27t of March, 2018, the Respondents filed a motion praying for four orders (i) extension of time to apply to set aside the order of the lower Court regularizing the records of appeal compiled

P.5

and transmitted by the Appellant; (i) setting aside of the said order of the lower Court regularizing the records of appeal; (ii) setting aside the records of appeal compiled and transmitted by the Appellant; and (iv) dismissing the appeal for failure to compile and transmit proper records of appeal and/or for want of diligent prosecution. The Appellant opposed this application and it filed a counter affidavit thereto.

On the 8^th of October, 2018, the Appellant filed an application for an order seeking to substitute the record of appeal regularized by the lower Court on the 24^th of January, 2017 with another record of appeal attached to the application as an exhibit and for an order deeming the substitute records of appeal as proper. On the 29^th of January, 2019, the Appellant filed another motion praying for extension of time within which to compile, transmit and serve the records of appeal from the Registry of the trial Court to the lower Court and for a deeming order. The matter came up before the lower Court on the 7^th of February, 2019 and the Appellant sought to withdraw the earlier records of appeal compiled and transmitted on the 13^th of October, 2016 and which was regularized by the lower Court on the 12^th of January, 2017, with the intention of thereafter moving the motion filed on the 29^th of January, 2019. Upon the Appellant withdrawing the earlier records of appeal, the lower Court struck out the records of appeal and surmised that the withdrawal of the records of appeal was tantamount to the Appellant withdrawing the notice of appeal filed in the appeal and it proceeded to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Order 11 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the dismissal of its appeal and it caused its Counsel to file a notice of appeal containing five grounds of appeal against it to this Court on the 3^rd of May, 2019. The five grounds of appeal read thus:

Ground One

The lower Court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016.

P.6

Particulars of the Ground

An appellate Court’s jurisdiction has not been invoked when there is no valid record of appeal before the Court.

1. An appellate Court can only dismiss an appeal where there is a valid record of appeal before it.

Ground Two

The lower Court erred in law when it dismissed Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 by relying on Order 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016.

Particulars of the Ground

1. The Court of Appeal cannot dismiss an appeal where there is no record of appeal.
2. Order 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 applies in situations where the appellant willingly withdraws its appeal.
3. The Appellant did not withdraw its appeal.

Ground Three

The lower Court denied the Appellant fair hearing when it dismissed its appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 without hearing the Appellant’s application filed on 29th of January, 2019.

Particulars of the Ground

1. The Appellant’s applícation filed on 29^th of January, 2019 which was not heard sought to regularize the record of appeal.

Ground Four

The lower Court erred in law when it dismissed the Appellant’s Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 when the Appellant had a valid notice of appeal and a pending application filed on the 29th January, 2019 seeking inter alia an order deeming the record of appeal (with

P.7

Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 transmitted on 15h August, 2018) as properly transmitted record of appeal.

Particulars of the Ground

1. The Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on 29^th January, 2019 was validly filed and same was never withdrawn.
2. The record of appeal was transmitted on 13^th October, 2016 and the Registry assigned the Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 to the appeal. However, the record of appeal transmitted on 13^th October, 2016 was not duly certified and was consequently incompetent.
3. The Appellant transmitted another record of appeal (albeit out of time) on 15h August, 2018 and same was assigned the Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 by the Registry of the lower Court.
4. The Appellant equally filed an application on 29^th January, 2019 seeking inter alia an order deeming the record of appeal transmitted on 15h August, 2018 as properly transmitted record of appeal.
5. At the proceeding of 7^th February, 2019, Counsel to the Appellant sought to move the application filed on 29^th January, 2019 (which seeks for an order deeming the record of appeal transmitted on 15^th August, 2018 as proper record of appeal), but the lower Court indicated that granting the application will entail the existence of two records of appeal and there cannot be two extant records of appeal in one appeal.
6. Consequently, the Appellant’s Counsel orally applied to withdraw the record of appeal transmitted on 13^th October, 2016 in order to clear the path and allow for the grant of the motion filed on 29^th January, 2019 and the consequent deeming as proper of the record transmitted on 15^th August, 2018.

P.8

vii. Sequel to the aforementioned oral application, the lower Court ruled that having withdrawn the record of appeal transmitted on 15^th August, 2018 Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 was dismissed.

vii. The decision of the lower Court dismissing Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 when there was a pending application seeking to regularise the record of appeal transmitted on 15^th August, 2018 is against the settled position of law that where there is an application seeking to regularise processes in order to properly bring the substance of an appeal before the Court, the Court has a duty to oblige parties the opportunity to regularise the said processes.

Ground Five

The lower Court lacked the vires to dismiss the Appellant’s Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 pursuant to Order 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 in the absence of a notice of withdrawal of the appeal or an application withdrawing the appeal in its entirety.

Particulars of the Ground

1. The Appellant did not file a notice indicating that it does not intend to further prosecute the appeal at the lower Court.

Also, the Appellant did not apply to withdraw the appeal at the lower Court.

1. The Appellant had pending before the lower Court an application filed on 29^th January, 2019 seeking inter alia an order deeming the record of appeal transmitted on 15^th August, 2018 as properly transmitted.

iii. The oral application made by the Counsel for the Appellant to withdraw the incompetent record of appeal transmitted on 13^th October, 2016 to clear the way for the hearing and determination of the Appellant’s application filed on 29^th January, 2019 seeking inter alia an order regularizing the record of appeal transmitted on 15th August, 2018.

P.9

1. The oral application made by the Counsel for the Appellant to withdraw the record of appeal transmitted on 13^th October, 2016 is not a notice filed and served in accordance with Order 11 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016, indicating that the Appellant does not intend to further prosecute the appeal at the lower Court.
2. Order 11 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 provides for the withdrawal of an entire appeal by means of a properly filed and served notice of withdrawal. Order 11 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 provides that when an appeal is withdrawn pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, same shall be dismissed.
3. The Appellant did not apply to withdraw its appeal pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss Appeal No CA/PH/504/2016 pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1 and 5 and consequently bar the Appellant from re-filing the appeal.

In arguing the appeal, Counsel to the Appellant filed a brief of arguments dated the 27th of November, 2019 on the same date and which was subsequently amended and replaced with an amended brief of arguments dated and filed on 11th of November, 2023. Counsel to the Respondents responded with a brief of arguments dated 6^th of October, 2022 and filed on the 13^th of October, 2022. Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments in their respective briefs of arguments in arguing the appeal.

Counsel to the Appellant distilled four issues for determination in the appeal and these were:

Whether the Court below breached the Appellant’s right to fair hearing when it dismissed the Appellant’ appeal without hearing the Appellant’s application filed on the 29th of January, 2019.

P.10

1. Whether the Court below wrongly dismissed the Appellant’s appeal when the Appellant had a valid notice of appeal and an application dated 29th of January seeking inter alia an order deeming the record of appeal transmitted on 15th August 2018 as the proper record of appeal.

Whether the Court below wrongly dismissed the Appellant’s appeal pursuant to Order 11 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal 2016 in the absence of a notice indicating that the Appellant is not willing to prosecute the appeal.

İV. Whether the Court below had the jurisdiction to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal in the absence of a valid record of appeal.

Now, this Court has gone the length it has to narrate the events that took place in the two lower Courts and to reproduce the grounds of appeal, with their particulars, and the issues for determination showing why the Appellant has approached this Court, to demonstrate how ridiculous our administration of justice system can be made to look and how an unscrupulous party, unwilling to meet its obligations, can use and game the system for selfish and unjust purposes. The narration shows that the Appellant failed to meet its contractual obligations to the Respondents and it, in its own writing, admitted owing the Respondents for supplies made to it in a letter dated 8th of March 2013 addressed to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. By reason of the persistent refusal of the Appellant to pay its indebtedness, the Respondents, hoping for justice, approached the trial Court in December, 2015, over two years after the Appellant made the open admission of its indebtedness, by commencing an action to recover the admitted debt.

The court papers were duly served on the Appellant as well the notification of the date of hearing. The Appellant ignored the court papers and filed nothing in response thereto. The Appellant even had the temerity to send a Counsel to the trial Court to represent it on the fixed date for hearing,

P.11

without handing over to the Counsel the court processes served on it, and with instructions to go and seek for an adjournment. The Counsel too, unprofessionally and like a lamb to the slaughter, attended the trial Court to do the bidding of the Appellant. Luckily, the trial Court saw through the shenanigans of the Appellant and it refused the request for adjournment and rightly entered judgment for the Respondents and this was on the 18^th of January, 2016. The above narration shows that this was the last date that the question of whether or not the Appellant was indebted to the Respondents came up for discussion in the Courts.

The Appellant did not pay the judgment debt and has from that date till now, a period of over eight years, engaged the administration of justice system and bogged down the entire hierarchy of Courts with matters other than the question of its indebtedness to the Respondents. In not one of the very many processes filed by the Appellant in the lower Court and in this Court has it denied, contested or put forward any defence to the claim of the Respondents on its indebtedness. Yet, the Appellant has refused to settle the indebtedness and has instead led the entire justice system, including the Courts on a wild goose chase of spurious, irrelevant and technical issues that have absolutely no connection to and nothing to do with the substance of the case of the Respondents against it. It is preposterous that any administration of justice system will allow such nonsense to occur and to perpetuate for so long.

The scenario in this matter brings to mind the criticism levelled by Roscoe Pound against the American administration of justice system in 1906 for sacrificing substantial justice on the altar of contentious procedure, which he described as “the sporting theory of justice”. Roscoe Pound stated in an address delivered to the American Bar Association on “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice” on the 29^th of August, 1906 thus:

“..we take it as a matter of course that a judge should be a mere umpire, to pass upon objections and hold counsel to the rules of

P.12

the game, and that the parties should fight out their own game in their own way without judicial interference. We resent such interference as unfair, even when in the interest of justice. The idea that procedure must of necessity be wholly contentious disfigures our judicial administration at every point. It leaves the most conscientious judge to feel that he is merely to decide the contest, as counsel present it, according to the rules of the game, and not to search independently for truth and justice. It leads counsel to forget that they are officers of the court and to deal with the rules of law and procedure exactly as a professional football coach with the rules of the sport. It leads to exertion to ‘get error into the record’ rather than to dispose of the controversy finally and upon its merits.

The effect of our exaggerated contentious procedure is not only to irritate parties, witnesses and jurors in particular cases, but to give the whole community a false notion of the purpose and end of law.

Hence, comes, in large measure, the modern American race to beat the law. f the law is a mere game, neither the players who take part in it nor the public who witness it, can be expected to yield to its spirit when their interests are served by evading it. And this is doubly true in a time which requires all institutions to be economically efficient and socially useful. We need not wonder that one part of the community strains their oaths in the jury box and find verdicts against unpopular litigants in the teeth of law and evidence, while another part retains lawyers by the year to advise how to evade what to them are unintelligent and unreasonable restrictions upon necessary modes of doing business. Thus, the courts, instituted to administer justice according to law, are made agents or abetters of lawlessness.”

As stated earlier, the appeal instituted in the lower Court against the judgment of the trial Court was not to challenge the substance of the judgment. The two grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal were on issues that had nothing to do with the correctness of the judgment but on matters extrinsic to the judgment and which the Courts

P.13

had already decided and determined in several cases. The first issue raised in the appeal was the failure of the Counsel who filed the matter to affix his stamp and seal thereon. This Court decided in 2015 in the cases of Mega Peoples Party Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt 1491) 207 and Yaki Vs Bagudu (2015) 18 NWLR (Pt 1491) 288 that the regulation to affix stamp and seal on court processes was not mandatory, but directory and that, at the worst, it rendered the process voidable and not void. The second issue raised was that the lower Court relied on an uncertified copy of the letter written by the Appellant to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, wherein it admitted its indebtedness, in making its findings: that the letter was a public document in respect of which only a certified true copy was admissible. The letter in question was attached to the affidavit of facts filed in support of the claims of the Respondent under the Undefended List Procedure. The Courts had decided prior to 2016 in several decisions that copies of public documents attached to an affidavit as exhibits needed not be certified true copies because the documents already formed a part of the evidence adduced by the deponent before the court, and were available for the court to use once it was satisfied that they were credible- Onobruchere Vs Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 19) 799, Nzekwu Vs Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt 104) 373, Araka Vs Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt 848) 1, Ojuya Vs Nzeogwu (1996)1 NWLR (Pt 427) 713, Ilorin East L.G.A. Vs Alasinrin (2012) LPELR 800, B.A.T. (Nig.) Ltd. Vs Int’l Tobacco Co. Plc (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1339) 493 to mention a few of the cases.

Therefore, Counsel to the Appellant knew and was aware from the get go that the appeal was going nowhere, but he filed it nevertheless, obviously for the purpose of preventing the Respondents from getting the fruits of the judgment. This fact was played out by the conduct of the Appellant before the lower Court. Counsel did everything, but push for the hearing of the appeal for the three years the matter tarried in the lower Court. All that the Appellant did was to file motions upon motions upon motions. It is apparent from the attitude of the Appellant in the lower Court that it

P.14

did not commence the appeal bona fide and that it improperly employed the judicial process of appeal to harass, irritate, intimidate, oppress and annoy the Respondents and to interfere with and take the entire administration of justice system for a ride. The appeal was a clear case of abuse and misuse of the process of Court. In Ogboru Vs Uduaghan (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt 1370) 33, this Court stated that abuse of process is the improper and tortuous use of a legitimately issued court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process’s scope. In Nwosu Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt 1640) 532, this Court reiterated that:

The employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent. The common denominator with the concept of abuse of court process is the improper use of the judicial process in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice.”

Similar statements have been made by this Court is several other cases such as Saraki Vs Kotoye (1992)9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156, Ikine Vs Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt 745) 446, R-Benkay Nig. Ltd Vs Cadbury Nigeria Plc (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt 1306) 596, T.S.A. Industries Ltd Vs First Bank of Nigeria Plc (No 1) (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt 1320) 326, Allanah Vs Kpolokwu (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt 1507) 1, International Trust Bank Vs Okoye (2021) 11 NWLR (Pt 1786) 163.

The law is that, although every person as citizen has a right of access to the court for redress, that right should be exercised in good faith – Okafor Vs Attorney-General of Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 200) 659, Saraki Vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156, Owonikoko Vs Arowosaiye (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt 523) 61. It is obvious that the appeal commenced by the Appellant in the lower Court was done in bad faith and this further appeal is a protraction and elongation of the bad faith and a continuation of the abuse of Court process. This appeal ought not to have

P.15

been entertained by this Court and having been entertained, it is undeserving of any consideration by the Court. It merits an order of outright dismissal. It is trite that once it becomes clear to the Court that an action has been brought in bad faith and in utter disregard for and abuse of its processes, the proper thing to do is to at once dismiss the offensive and perverse action, without much ado – Arubo Vs Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 280) 126, Ojo Vs Attorney General, Oyo State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt 1110) 309, Kigbu Vs Nigerian Army (2020) 10 NWLR (Pt 1731) 157, Adegbanke Vs Ojelabi (2023) 4 NWLR (Pt 1875) 481.

Before concluding this appeal, it is necessary to reiterate that Courts exist to do justice, (emphasis added) to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law. Justice is defined as a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal within a reasonable time. The aphorism “justice delayed is justice denied” was developed by reason of happenings of the nature that has taken place in this matter.

Cases like this cannot engender public confidence in our justice system.

We must never lose sight of the fact that justice is rooted in public confidence and it is essential to social order and security. It is the bond of society and the cornerstone of human togetherness. Justice is the condition in which the individual is able to identify with society, feel at one with it and accept its rulings. The moment members of the society lose confidence in the system of administration of justice, a descent to anarchy begins.

The Court has refrained from commenting on the unprofessional conduct of the lawyers that assisted the Appellant in the disgraceful abuse of the processes of Court. Suffice to say that lawyers as operators of the administration of justice system owe a duty, to the society that nurtured them and made them what they are, to ensure that they conduct their

16

activities in a manner that edifies and brings honor, respect and belief to the justice system. They should not allow themselves to be used by litigants to bring the justice system into disrepute. It is pertinent that this Court reminds Counsel of the eternal words of a great jurist J Wesley McWilliams who writing in an American Bar Association Journal in January 1955 (41 ABA 18) wrote in an article he itled “The Law as a Dynamic Profession” thus:

“We belong to an ancient, to a great, to an honored profession. The practice of Law is a worthy calling. It has rewarded us with financial success and with prestige and leadership in our communities. It has given us much happiness and the good life. From it we have received the gratitude and respect of our friends and neighbors whom we have served. Our word affords intellectual pleasure with dignity and independence, in competition with our fellow Lawyers with whom we have cemented warm friendships and enjoyed happy companionships. For these blessings, we cannot but have a sense of gratitude and of obligation. The most productive, unselfish and wholly satisfying repayment of the obligation is constructive work to increase the effectiveness of our judicial system and the welfare of the profession.”

In conclusion, this appeal be and it is hereby dismissed for being an abuse of Court process. The decision of the trial Court in the judgment delivered in Suit No OHC/41/2015 on the 18th of January, 2016 is hereby reiterated.

The Respondents are awarded the costs of this appeal assessed in the sum of N5 Million.

HABEEB ADEWAEOLUMUYIWA ABIRU

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

P. 17