PASSMAKK SERVICES (NIG) LTD. v. FBN
(2020)LCN/15240(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, April 16, 2020
CA/C/79/2015
Before Our Lordships:
Mojeed Adekunle Owoade Justice of the Court of Appeal
Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
PASSMAKK SERVICES NIG. LTD. APPELANT(S)
And
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT SPECIAL DAMAGES MUST BE PLEADED
As a matter of law, this is not permissible as special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. An award of special damages, unlike an award of general damages, is not based on the discretion of the trial Court but an credible evidence adduced before the trial Court which strictly prove the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the award. Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded with relevant particulars, but must also be strictly proved. Without such proof, no special damages can be awarded. See Garba vs. Kur (2003) 11 NWLR (pt. 831) 280, Osuji vs. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 613 SC, Alotaji Otaru & Sons Ltd. vs. Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 606) 330 SC. PER OWOADE, J.C.A.
FEATURE FOR THE CLIAM FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES
Contrary to the submission of learned counsel the law is settled that special damages once claimed must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Indeed where possible and needful (like in the instant case), the particulars thereof must be given or itemized in the pleadings. Thus in the case of EASTERN BREWERIES PLC AWO OMAMMA & 2ORS. VS. HENRY NWOKORO (2012) 14 NWLR (pt. 1321) 488 at 515 it was held that:
“For a claim for special damages to succeed, it must be pleaded and proved strictly as the Court is not entitled to make its non-estimated on such an issue without proof. A feature of the claim for special damages is that there must be viva voce evidence of the items of claim specifically itemized in the pleadings.”
See also ODULAJA VS. HADDAD (1973) 1 ALL NLR 83C; DUMEZ (NIG) LTD. VS. OGBOLI (1972) 3 SC 205; SPDC (NIG.) LTD. VS. TIEBO VII (2005) 9 NWLR )pt. 931) 439 STIRLING CIVIL ENG. (NIG.) LTD. VS. YAHAYA (2005) 11 NWLR (pt. 935) 181; and NIGERIAN ROMARIAN WOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. J.O AKINGBULUGBE (2011) 11 NWLR (pt.12570 131 at 154. PER OWOADE, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL DAMAGES NEED TO BE PROVED
While general damages need not be proved, for a Plaintiff to be entitled to special damages she has a duty not only to plead the same with particulars, but also strictly prove same. See Ololo vs. Nigeria Agip Oil Ltd. (2001) 88 LRCN 2283, UNIPETROL (NIG) PLC vs. ADIJERE (WA) LIMITED (2004) ALL FWLR (pt. 231) 1238,TAYLOR VS. OGHENEOVO (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 610) 1358. Issue No. 3 is resolved against the Appellant. PER OWOADE, J.C.A.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Justice Pius P. Idiong sitting at High Court Uyo delivered on 20th June 2014. The Appeal is against the part of the judgment stating that special damages as claimed by the Appellant must fail.
The Appellant as Plaintiff commenced this action by a writ of summons of 19th April, 2005. By her Amended Statement of claim dated the 5th day of February, 2007 the claim of the Appellant against the Respondent/Defendant is for:
a. The sum of N5,473,367.50 less N1,112,500.00 paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant on 8th July, 2003 being the total amount drawn from cheques issued by the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s mandate.
b. Interest on the sum of N4,362,867.50 at 10% per month being amount and interest owed the Plaintiffs by the Defendant as outstanding sum resulting from illegal payment from her account.
c. Payment of the sum of N5,000,000.00 being general damages.
The Respondent bank maintained a banker/customer relationship with the Plaintiff/Appellant. In the process, the Appellant gave mandate and later amended mandates as to the limits of cheques the Respondent could honour from its Directors. By this suit, the Appellant claims in essence that the Respondent had allowed the withdrawal of a total sum of N5,475,367.50 from her account without mandate.
By paragraph 27 (a) of the Appellant’s amended Statement of claim, she averred that “The Defendant (Respondent) had on 8th July, 2003 issued cheque/draft in the sum of N1,112,500.00 and thereby reducing the total indebtedness owed to the Plaintiff by that Suit”
A glimpse of the defence put up by the Respondent in the suit could be captured in paragraphs 8, 17 and18 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence.
“8. The Defendant as a matter of Courtesy and good business relationship admitted owing the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira only) being excess payment without following the mandate of 9th December, 1999. The Defendant had since paid the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) in Suit No. HU/148/2002 High Court 2 Uyo.
17. The Defendant admits paragraph 27 (a) of the Plaintiff Statement of Claim and States that she paid the money out of Courtesy and to ensure cordial business relationship with the Plaintiff.
18. The Defendant denies paragraph 28 of the Plaintiff Statement of claim and said that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff for the sums claimed in paragraph 28 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of claim.
At the trial, the Appellant as Plaintiff called one witness Engineer Remmy Anike who testified as PW1 and tendered a number of exhibits. The Respondent also called its Relationship Manager. Mr. Niskak John Utin who tendered a document admitted as exhibit 8.
The Learned trial Judge found as a fact that the Respondent was negligent and in breach of the extant mandate of the Appellant in two senses.
1. That 6 (six) cheques drawn during the period which the mandate permitted the Manager Director to only sign as the sole signatory where the amount did not exceed N250,000 but to be signed by all the three members of the company.
2. That the Respondent also negligently gave value to fourteen other cheques for the total amount of N2,015,500.00 when the concerned Mr. Tom Nwachukwu was not authorized to single handedly sign a cheque on behalf of the Appellant.
The Learned trial Judge found that Respondent was negligent in handling the Appellant’s account but that while the Appellant is entitled to general damages, the Appellant failed to plead, particularize and prove special damages of the sum of N5,475,367.50 less N1,112,500.00 as suggested by the learned counsel to the Appellant.
The learned trial judge concluded that the case succeeded in part. That the Appellant’s claim for special damages failed but she is entitled to general damages which was assessed in the sun of N1,000,000.00 and N50,000.00 costs awarded against the Defendant/Respondent.
Dissatisfied with the part of this judgment stating that the special damages as claimed by the Appellant must fail, Appellant’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal containing four (4) grounds of appeal in this Court on 17th September, 2014.
The relevant briefs of argument are as follows:
1. Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed on 18th June, 2015 but deemed filed on 30th April, 2018. It is settled by A. A. Asuquo Esq.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
- Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on 6th June, 2018 but deemed filed on 21st January, 2020. It is settled by Victor Ukpe Esq.
3. Appellant’s Reply Brief of Argument filed on 21st January, 2020. It is settled by A. A. Asuquo Esq.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant nominated three (3) issues for determination of the appeal. They are:
1. Whether the learned trial judge did not misdirect himself when after admitting that the Six (6) cheques cashed by the Respondent were cashed out of mandate then turned around to hold that the sum of N1,112,500.00 paid to the Appellant by the Respondent was “excess payment” and so the Appellant had no reason to ask for further payment from the Respondent.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that by the pleadings and evidence adduced by the Appellant, he did not specifically plead and prove general damages (sic) special damages.
3. Whether it was right for the learned trial judge not to award general damages to the Appellant on slip in adding the value of Exhibits 3, 3 (a) –3 (n) and 4, 4 (a)- 4 (d).
Learned Counsel for the Respondent abandoned the Notice of preliminary objection earlier raised by him at the hearing of the Appeal on 21st January, 2020 and adopted the three issues nominated by the Appellant.
On issue 1, learned counsel for the Appellant summarized the facts of the case and hanged on to the averments in the pleadings of the parties particularly paragraph 27 (a) of the Amended Statement of claim and paragraph 17 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence to the effect, that paragraph 27 (a) of the Amended Statement of claim pleaded thus:
27 (a) The Defendant had on 8th July, 2003 issued cheque/draft in the sum of N1,112,500.00 and thereby reducing the total indebtedness owed to the Plaintiff by that sum. And that in paragraph 17 of the Further Amended Statement of Defence the Respondent pleaded thus:
17. The Defendant admits paragraph 27 (a) of the Plaintiff statement of claim and stated that she paid the money out of Courtesy and to ensure cordial business relationship with the Plaintiff.
Based on the above pleadings, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant instituted the action on 19th April, 2005 to demand for the balance of the value of cheques paid out of mandate by the Respondent. But that at page 255 of the judgment, the learned trial judge stated:
“That is why the Defendant had also admitted owing the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 being excess payment made without mandate which sum the Defendant said she had paid to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had not denied the receipt thereof — having received the said excess payment, whether the sum was out of Courtesy or to show good business relationship, the question whether after receiving the sum, the Plaintiff has any good reason to complain against the said payment in this sum. My answer is a definite ‘NO’.”
Learned Counsel for the Appellant went further to submit on the assumption that his paragraph 27 (a) was indeed admitted by the Respondent that the Appellant needed no further proof of what has been admitted.
He concluded on issue 1 that the holding of the learned trial judge was perverse and a miscarriage of justice.
On issue 1, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the issue of excess payment was canvassed by the Defendant by stating clearly the sum of N1,112,500.00 was excess payment made by the Respondent outside the mandate of 9th December, 1999. That the Respondent admitted paying the said cheques outside the mandate and went ahead to pay same to the Appellant.
He submitted that the Appellant who claimed it was not satisfied with the N1,112,500.00 paid to her that is duty bound to prove the balance in accordance with the law. This Respondent’s Counsel said he failed to do.
He concluded that there cannot be a case of miscarriage of justice in situation where the Respondent paid the Appellant N1,112,500.00 being “excess amount” in respect of 6 (six) cheques paid outside mandate.
In deciding Appellant’s issue 1, I think the learned counsel for the Appellant was in grave error to imagine that the Respondent by its paragraph 17 of the Further Amended Statement Defence admitted any indebtedness outside of the N1,112,500.00 already paid by the Respondent and acknowledged by the Appellant.
In the first place, the ever first time the Appellant pleaded its alleged total indebtedness of the Respondent to it is in paragraph 28 (a) of the Amended Statement of claim where it pleaded (a) the sum of N5,475,367.50 less N1,112,500.00 paid to the Plaintiff by the defendant on 8th July, 2003, being the total amount drawn from cheques cashed by the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s mandate.
The penultimate paragraph 27 (a) which the Appellant believed that the Respondent admitted is indeed vague because at that stage and or before that stage, the Appellant’s pleadings did not make any reference to any figure as the total amount it intended to claim from the Respondent.
Meanwhile, paragraph 27 (a) of the Amended Statement of claim “out of the blues” so to say averred that:
“27 (a):
The Defendant had on 8th July, 2003 issued cheque/draft in the sum of N1,112,500.00 and thereby reducing the total indebtedness owed to the Plaintiff by that sum.”
As I observed earlier, there was no previous reference to any total indebtedness until the claim of N5,475,367.50 less N1,112,500.00 —“ in paragraph 28 (a) of the said Amended Statement of Claim.
If the Appellant had cared to give a holistic construction to the relevant averments in the Respondent’s Further Amended Statement of Defence, he would have discovered that the Respondent was consistent in asserting that he paid the sum of N1,112,500.00 to the Appellant being the total amount in excess of the mandate of N250,000.00 agreed as authority of the Managing Director by the mandate of 9th February, 1999.
Thus paragraphs 8, 17 and 18 of the Respondent’s Further Amended Statement of Defence read thus:
“8. The Defendant as a matter of Courtesy and good business relationship admitted owing the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira only) being excess payment without following the mandate of 9th December, 1999. The Defendant had since paid to the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 (One Million, One Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) in Suit No. HU/148/2002 High Court 2, Uyo.
17. The Defendant admits paragraph 27 (a) of the Plaintiff statement of claim and stated that she paid the money out of Courtesy and to ensure cordial business relationship with the Plaintiff.
18. The Defendant denies paragraph 28 of Plaintiff statement of claim and said that the Defendant is not indebted to the Plaintiff for the sums clamed in paragraph 28 of the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
All of the above, amounting to a total denial rather than admission of any other further sums in indebtedness to the Appellant apart from the “excess payment” of N1,112,500.00 was witnessed to in the statement of DW1 NISKAK UTIN particularly at paragraph 13, 25 and 26 of the Statement of Oath.
It was therefore a misconstruction of the pleadings and evidence of the Respondent for the learned counsel for the Appellant to say that the Respondent admitted an indebtedness of N5,475,367.50 less N1,112,500.00.
In all the circumstances, the learned trial judge was right to have held at pages 254 -255 of the Record of Appeal that:
Those cheque were drawn during the period which the mandate permitted the Managing Director to only sign as the sole signatory where the amount did not exceed N250,000.00. But a careful perusal of the document shows as I have already stated that the amount involved in each case was more than N250,000.00. Under the prevailing mandate at that time, such cheque could only properly be signed by all the three members of the company. As a result giving value to them by the Defendant was in clear breach of the instruction or mandate of the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Defendant has admitted the fact that the said payments were made in excess of the mandate payment of N250,000.00. That is why the Defendant had also admitted owing the Plaintiff the sum of N1,112,500.00 being the excess payment made without mandate which sum the Defendant said she had paid to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff has not denied the receipt thereof. See paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of her Further Amended Statement of Defence as well as paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff written statement on oath. Having received the said excess payment whether the same was out of Courtesy or to show good business relationship, the question is whether after receiving the same. The Plaintiff has any good reason to complain against the said payments in this suit. My answer is a definite ‘NO’.
Issue 1 is resolved against the Appellant.
On issue 2 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial judge was wrong to have held inter alia
“…for the Plaintiff to be entitled to the special damages claimed, she has a duty not only to plead same with particulars, she must also strictly prove it otherwise she will not be entitled to it…“
Learned Counsel for the Appellant believed and submitted that by the pleadings of the Appellant and her reliance on various listed exhibits, she had pleaded special damages and also strictly proved same. He referred to the cases of Marine Management Association Inc & Anor. Vs. National Maritime Authority (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1333) 506 at 553, UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC VS. MR. N. M. OKPARA CHIMAEZE (2014) 9 NWLR (pt.1411) 166 at 185 and argued that the learned trial judge failed to give exhibits admitted and as contained on page 236 of the record, their true legal effect.
Learned counsel for the Respondent maintained that the Appellant did not specifically plead and strictly prove with particulars, special damages in the instant case.
He submitted that the evidence–in-chief of PW1 who was the Appellant’s sole witness as contained at pages 50-54 of the Record more especially at page 54 (No,12) is that:
“The Plaintiff claims from the Defendant the sum of N4,362,867.50 as well as interest element on that sum as 21% per annum or at the prevailing bank rate. The Plaintiff also claims the sum as well as N5,000,000.00 as general damages.”
He submitted that although the Appellant tendered various cheques, no additions and subtractions showed how the Appellant arrived at the sum of N4,362,867.50 claimed by the Appellant as special damages.
Respondent’s Counsel referred to the cases of Ololo vs. Nigeria Agip Oil Ltd. (2001) vol. 88 LRCN 2283 at 2285, Taylor vs. Ogheneovo (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 610) 1358 at 1363, UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC VS. MR. N. M. OKPARA CHIMAEZE (2014) 9 NWLR (pt.1411) 166 at 185.
He submitted that the above cited cases are clear on how claims for special damages must be made and that even though the cases were also referred to by learned counsel for the Appellant, the Appellant indeed did not comply with the requirements laid down in the said cases as to the need to specifically plead and prove special damages. Then, rather than comply with the dictates of the above cited authorities, the Appellant stated at page 185 (5.2) of the Record “there is no law that stated that special damages must be particularized.”
He added that contrary to the suggestion of the learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court could not pay as special damages any amount nay “lesser amount” that was not particularized, pleaded and proved.
He urged us to resolve issue 2 against the Appellant.
A good summary of the Appellant’s claims starting from “particulars of Negligence” as contained in paragraph 20 (a) and (b) of the Amended Statement of claim and culminating into paragraph 28 of the claim are as follows:
20
(a) The Defendant did not refer to the mandate given her in cashing cheques issued for cashing and so cashed cheques up to the value of N5,475,367.50 without any authority to do so.
(b) The mandates of the Plaintiff to her (Defendant) were not complied with in cashing the Plaintiff’s cheques.
28. The Plaintiff stated that due to the negligence of the defendant in dealing with her account, she lost a huge sum of money as well as blacklisted by Mobil Producing Nigeria unlimited and so claims from the Defendant as follows:
(a) The sum of N5,475,367.50 less N1,112,500.00 paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant on 8th July, 2003 being the total amount drawn from cheques cashed by the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s mandate.
(b) Interest on the sum of N4,362,867.50 at 10% per month being amount and interest owed the Plaintiff by the Defendant as outstanding sum resulting from illegal payment from her account.
(c) Payment of the sum of N5,000,000.00 being general damages.
As was pointed out by the learned trial judge in the Court below and the learned counsel for the Respondent in this appeal, the Appellant did not particularize what he now termed as special damages and how he arrived at the said figure. As a matter of law, this is not permissible as special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. An award of special damages, unlike an award of general damages, is not based on the discretion of the trial Court but an credible evidence adduced before the trial Court which strictly prove the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the award. Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded with relevant particulars, but must also be strictly proved. Without such proof, no special damages can be awarded.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
See Garba vs. Kur (2003) 11 NWLR (pt. 831) 280, Osuji vs. Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 111) 613 SC, Alotaji Otaru & Sons Ltd. vs. Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 606) 330 SC.
By way of example, one fundamental aspect of proof that arose in this case is the fact that the Appellant has not shown how she is entitled to anything more than the money in excess of the mandate of N250,000.00 which amounted to N1,112,500.00 and which the Respondent had already paid.
In the circumstance, I agree with the learned trial judge that the Appellant did not plead, particularize and/or prove its entitlement to special damages. The learned trial judge was right when he held at pages 260-261 of the Record of Appeal as follows:
That issue is whether the Plaintiff has pleaded with particulars and proved strictly the special damages claimed by her in this suit; the question is not about the bulk sum claimed. Rather, the issue is in how the Plaintiff arrived at the said sum whether the same is calculated to be N5,475,367.50 or wrongly calculated to be N5,700,367.50. The Plaintiff’s amended statement of claim is not helpful in that regard. The said evidence of the Plaintiff’s witness does not fair better. The attempt by learned Plaintiff’s counsel to add fresh to it was a complete failure. It is therefore no surprise that the next line of action by learned counsel in relation thereto was in complete legal suicide. Hear him:
“We submit that there is no law that states that special damages must be particularized. What is needed about special damages is that same must be specifically pleaded and not proven” (emphasis supplied)
See paragraph S. 2 at page 16 of the Plaintiff’s counsel final address.
Contrary to the submission of learned counsel the law is settled that special damages once claimed must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Indeed where possible and needful (like in the instant case), the particulars thereof must be given or itemized in the pleadings. Thus in the case of EASTERN BREWERIES PLC AWO OMAMMA & 2ORS. VS. HENRY NWOKORO (2012) 14 NWLR (pt. 1321) 488 at 515 it was held that:
“For a claim for special damages to succeed, it must be pleaded and proved strictly as the Court is not entitled to make its non-estimated on such an issue without proof. A feature of the claim for special damages is that there must be viva voce evidence of the items of claim specifically itemized in the pleadings.”
See also ODULAJA VS. HADDAD (1973) 1 ALL NLR 83C; DUMEZ (NIG) LTD. VS. OGBOLI (1972) 3 SC 205; SPDC (NIG.) LTD. VS. TIEBO VII (2005) 9 NWLR )pt. 931) 439 STIRLING CIVIL ENG. (NIG.) LTD. VS. YAHAYA (2005) 11 NWLR (pt. 935) 181; and NIGERIAN ROMARIAN WOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. J.O AKINGBULUGBE (2011) 11 NWLR (pt.12570 131 at 154.
It is therefore not correct that the plaintiff who is claiming special damages in this case did not have to plead and prove the same with particulars. The Plaintiff has therefore in the circumstance failed to prove the said was his claim.
Issue No. 2 is resolved against the Appellant.
On issue 3, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted in essence that the trial Court would not have turned down the special damages because of the slip in calculation, rather, the Court ought to have granted the lesser sum claimed by the Appellant.
He referred to the case of Ekpenyong & Ors. Vs. Inyang Nyong & ORS. (1975) 2 SC 71 at 80. He urged us to resolve the said issue in the Appellant’s favour.
Learned counsel for the Respondent noted on account of issue three first that the issue did not arise from any ground of appeal and in any event that the issue is oti-ose because the trial Court in fact awarded general damages.
He added that the Appellant did not specifically prove with particulars even the sum of N4,362,867.50 which she claimed as special damages. That the case of Ekpenyong & ORS. Vs. Inyang Nyong & ORS. (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the Appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case. Since, the trial Court would only award a lesser sum of amount claimed only if the lesser amount had been proved in accordance with the law.
I adopt my decision on issue No. 2 in the resolution of issue No. 3 and reiterate that the Appellant in the instant case did not plead nor prove special damages and she is therefore not entitled to any form of special damages. While general damages need not be proved, for a Plaintiff to be entitled to special damages she has a duty not only to plead the same with particulars, but also strictly prove same.
See Ololo vs. Nigeria Agip Oil Ltd. (2001) 88 LRCN 2283, UNIPETROL (NIG) PLC vs. ADIJERE (WA) LIMITED (2004) ALL FWLR (pt. 231) 1238,TAYLOR VS. OGHENEOVO (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 610) 1358.
Issue No. 3 is resolved against the Appellant.
Having resolved the three (3) issues in this appeal against the Appellant, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
N30,000 costs is awarded to the Respondent.
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, M. A. OWOADE, JCA. I am in agreement with the resolution of the issues presented for determination in this appeal.
I therefore have nothing more to add.
I too dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment of my learned brother, Mojeed A. Owoade, JCA just delivered and I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion. For the same reasons which I respectfully adopt as mine, I too dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit. I abide by the consequential orders including the order as to costs.
Appearances:
A. Asuquo Esq. For Appellant(s)
VICTOR UKPE Esq. For Respondent(s)
