"A consideration of the affidavit evidence show that some of the documents contained in the Record of Appeal are different from what were filed and used in the two Courts below and cannot be relied upon herein. Also some documents used in the lower Courts are of a different content compared to what was compiled and transmitted to this Court by the appellant. Again of note is that some of the documents filed and used at the Court of Appeal are not certified.

In fact getting into specifics, paragraph 14 of the supporting affidavit to this motion and the Further and Better Affidavit found on pages 236 - 238 of the Record of Appeal transmitted by the appellant is not a 12 paragraph affidavit as contained in pages 236 - 238 of the Record of Appeal transmitted by the appellant, rather it is a 62 paragraph affidavit as shown in Exhibit 3 which the applicant is stating is the authentic Record of Appeal which the Court of Appeal ordered the Federal High Court to come up with for use in the determination of the appeal at the Court below.

Also shown up in paragraph 15 of the applicant's affidavit in support is a 12 paragraph affidavit as shown in pages 488 - 491 of the Authentic Record of Appeal (Exhibit EFCC 3) attached to the applicant's affidavit to this motion and not a 62 paragraph Affidavit as found in pages 239 - 250 of the Record of Appeal transmitted to this Court by the appellant. To be noted again is that pages 222 - 233, 388 - 389 of the Record of Appeal were documents never filed and used at the lower Courts and were also not certified by the lower Courts. See paragraph 16 of supporting affidavit. Then several pages of different processes contained in the Record of Appeal were omitted as shown in paragraph 12 of supporting affidavit. There are numerous documents as seen in pages 402- 432, 433 462, 463 - 479 and 480 - 504 of the said record not certified as true copies.

The same scenario goes on and on and so it is easy for this Court to come to the conclusion that these are strange and extraneous documents not to talk of incompleteness of the process i.e. the Record of Appeal have drained this Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Assuming one is to be persuaded to go on to the appeal, the question that would naturally crop up, is with what record is the Court to utilise in the venture. Just like an artisan setting out in the creation of an artifact or furniture without the necessary tools or implements. See Orugbo v UNA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 127) 1024, Shari v Anumakyen (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt.773) 1898 at 1903 - 1904. This Court had held in the case of Garuba v Omokhodion (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1269) 145 thus: "A record of appeal/proceeding has to be duly and properly compiled to guarantee as to its correctness; and it must be meticulously checked and compared vis-a-vis the original process/documents filed in the matter as well as the proceedings of Court. A record of appeal/proceeding having been duly compiled has to be authenticated and certified as prescribed by law.

This Honourable Court has also laid down as precedent, the fate to befall such uncertified record/proceeding of appeal in the case of Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria v Wamal Express Services (Nig) Ltd. (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) at page 219, particularly at page 236 - 237, where this Honourable Court, having quoted the provision of Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act on certification of public documents held thus by per /Muhammed JSC: "Vol 11 of the Record of Appeal in this appeal lacks all the requirements stipulated by the Evidence Act, it has not been done in conformity with the Evidence Act. It is difficult for the Court to rely on such uncertified public documents. Vol. II of the Record of Appeal is hereby discountenanced." It is to be stated that it is now well settled in law that any averment in an affidavit which has not been clearly, explicitly and directly denied is deemed admitted. That being the case, it is seen that the appellant/respondent did not deny in any manner the inclusion of uncertified processes never used in the Courts below nor deny the fact that even the processes used at the lower Courts are not the same in content as those compiled and transmitted by him to this Court.

There is no denial in any part of the counter affidavit of the appellant/respondent that the processes purportedly filed at the Court of Appeal including the judgment of the Court below which is the base of the appeal is equally uncertified. Paragraph 14 of the supporting affidavit shows that respondent/applicant's Further and Better Affidavit as seen on pages 236 238 of the Record of Appeal is not a 12 paragraph affidavit as contained in the said pages 236 - 238 of the Record of Appeal transmitted by the appellant rather it is a 62 paragraph affidavit as shown in Exhibit EFCC 3, which is the authentic Record of Appeal used in the appeal at the Court of Appeal. Again at paragraph 15 of the same affidavit in support is a 12 paragraph affidavit as shown in pages 488 - 491 of the Authentic Record of Appeal (Exhibit EFCC 3) attached to applicant's affidavit to this motion and not a 62 paragraph affidavit as found in pages 239 - 250 of the Record of Appeal. Also of note is that pages 1-2 of the Authentic Record of Appeal ordered and used by the Court of Appeal, the originating summons upon which the order of Forfeiture which the appellant seeks to set aside by this appeal is based is a two page document and not a single page document found on page 1 of the Record of Appeal in question. Again there are other missing aspects of the transmitted document for which there is no need to go one after the other.

I need to bring to the fore also that the appellant did not wait for the 60 days given by the Court of Appeal to the registrar of that Court to transmit a compiled record and within 20 days filing the Notice of Appeal sent in his version of the compiled record of appeal. The explanation for this fast forwarding by the appellant has not been accorded this Court, thus leading to the conclusion that a serious breach or infraction has occurred. Therefore taking that aspect alongside the missing documents and the incomplete documentation not to talk of the uncertification of documents that must be certified, there is nothing else to say than that the Record being incomplete is not utilisable and has to be discountenanced. The appellant having not denied those facts it is very safe to say he admitted the assertions by the applicant. I am following in the path earlier laid by this Court in Lawson-Jack v SPDC Nig. Ltd. (2002)7 SC (Pt. 11) 112, The Reg. Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & Ors. (2008) 7 SCNJ 348; Garba v Ummuani (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.722) 1715 at 1740.

The bottom line in this application and the submissions for and against it, is that the Record of Appeal as compiled and transmitted by the appellant is unusable and there is no redemption in sight. That being so the option open to this Court is to strike out the appeal. It follows that the application which I earlier stated at the beginning in which the appellant prays for the appeal to be heard on his appellant's brief alone is a non starter as there really cannot be an Appeal without a Record of Appeal from which a consideration will be made. This appeal is incompetent from the foregoing and I strike it out."

Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.IN UKIRI v. EFCC CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43992(SC)