KENECHUKWU & ANOR v. INEC & ORS
(2022)LCN/16997(CA)
In the Court Of Appeal
(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, June 03, 2022
CA/AS/EPT/GOV/123/2022
Before Our Lordships:
Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal
Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph Eyo Ekanem Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. HON. CHUKWUEMEKA KENECHUKWU 2. NEW GENERATION PARTY OF NIGERIA (NGP) APPELANT(S)
And
1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 2. PROF. CHARLES CHUKWUMA SOLUDO 3. ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALIANCE (APGA) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A DEAD PERSON HAS A LEGAL PERSONALITY
It was also argued referring to SGB Ltd vs. Braimoh (1991) NWLR (pt. 108) 428 at 434 thus:
“It is settled law that a dead person ceases to exist in the eyes of the law and any cause or action pending against such a person automatically, abates unless it is one action that survives the person.
That the dissolution of legal person is analogous to the death of an ordinary human person. … dead men are no longer legal persons in the eyes of the law as they have laid down their legal personality with their lives at death. Being destitute of right and interest they can neither sue nor be sued.” See Nzom V. Jinadu (1987) 1 NWLR (pt 51) 533 at 539 per Oputa. PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.
THE PROCEDURAL STEPS TO FOLLOW TO FILE AN ELECTION PETITION
Paragraph 7 (a) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2011 provides as follows:
“7. At the filing of the notice of appeal the Appellant shall;
(a) Pay to the Secretary such fees as he may determine having regard to the bulk of the records of proceedings which he shall compile.”
Paragraph 9 of the said directions states:
“9. The Secretary shall within a period of not more than 10 days of the receipt of the notice of appeal, cause to be compiled and served on the parties, the record of proceedings.”
It should be quickly stated that Practice Directions have the force of law and are imbued with constitutional flavor and therefore must be complied with strictly. See Buhari v. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 601, Abubakar V INEC (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 854) 207, 227, Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246, Haruna v. Modibbo (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 and Nwankwo v. Yar’Adua (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518.
The provisions use the phrase “shall” in their prescriptions which make them mandatory. See Nkeiruka v. Joseph (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt.1135) 505, 526 – 527 and Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 367, 441- 442. Election petitions are sui generis and procedural steps are to be strictly followed. See Buhari v Yusuf (2003) 114 LRCN 2802. PER EKANEM, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A DEAD PERSON CAN INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN COURT
It also had no capacity to file the appeal. In Nzom v. Jinadu (1987) LPELR – 2143 {SC) it was held that dead men are no longer persons in the eye of the law and that their personality is extinguished by death. It was further held that a writ issued against a dead person is null and void.
In A. P. C. v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 531, 581, M. D. Muhammed, JSC, re-stated the law as follows:
“…dead persons whether natural or artificial, lack the vires of initiating and/or maintaining an action, including an appeal, in the law Court.
See also Bajehson v. Otiko (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 38. PER EKANEM, J.C.A.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment/rulings of the Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal Holden at Asaba delivered on the 7th of April, 2022 in Petition No. EPT/GOV/AN/07/2021. HON. CHUKWUEMEKA KENECHUKWU & ANOR VS. INEC & 2 ORS Coram Hon. Justice B. Mohammed (Chairman), Hon. Justice Edem Akpan (Member i) and Hon. Justice O. H. Oyajinmi (Member ii) wherein the Tribunal, inter alia upheld the Motion filed by the 2nd Respondent herein on the 1st of April, 2022 against the Petitioners for want of jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court decision in Appeal No. SC/CV/485/2020 – INEC VS. ACD & 22 ORS delivered 25th March, 2022 wherein the Supreme Court re-affirmed the deregistration of the 2nd Appellant as a Political Party in Nigeria. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. (See pages 157-161 of the Record of Appeal).
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment/rulings of the Tribunal and therefore appealed to this Honourable Court by way of a Notice of Appeal containing two (2) grounds of appeal, dated 27th April, 2022 and served on the 1st Respondent on the 29th of April, 2022. (see pages 162 – 168 of the Record)
STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS APPEAL
On the 8th of November, 2021, Governorship election was conducted for Anambra State by the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the 1st Respondent herein, being the statutory body responsible for the conduct of elections in Nigeria.
The 2nd Appellant is one of the Political Parties deregistered by the 1st Respondent for failure to comply with the Constitutional requirements provided in Section 225A of the Constitutional Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to exist as political party.
The 2nd Appellant herein together with other affected political parties approached the Federal High Court, Abuja Division in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 to challenge their deregistration. In a considered Judgment delivered on 11th June, 2020 per Hon. Justice Chikere J. The deregistration was upheld and the suit dismissed for lacking in merit.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the 2nd Appellant and others appealed o the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/ABJ/CV/507/2020 – ACD & 21 ORS. VS. AGF & INEC and the Court, without according hearing to the 1st Respondent herein on the issue of pendency of the said suit in Court when the deregistration exercise was carried out, allowed the appeal and set aside the de-registration of the 2nd Appellant and others.
The 1st Respondent in exercise of its constitutional right of appeal donated by virtue of Section 233(1) & (2) (a) (b) of the 1999 Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in a unanimous and well considered judgment, set aside the decision of the lower Court and reaffirmed in totality the trial Court’s decision. Part of the judgment can be found at pages 108 – 144 of the record of appeal.
Meanwhile, the Anambra Governorship Election had been set in motion while the said litigation was pending before the Court. In view of the decision of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 delivered 11th June, 2020 per Hon. Justice Chikere J. and pendency of the appeal at the Supreme Court, the 1st Respondent ceased to recognize the entity and activities of the 2nd Appellant and other affected Political Parties hence, refused to accept, recognized the purported candidates sponsored 2nd Appellant for the Anambra Governorship election held 8th November, 2021.
Again the 2nd Appellant and other affected political parties approached the Federal High Court Abuja division Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/722/2021 – Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD) & 16 Ors Vs. INEC as pre-election and prayed the Court to compel the 1st Respondent to accept the candidates purportedly nominated by them for the Anambra Governorship election. The Court in a very well-considered judgment per Egwuatu J., delivered 9th December, 2021 dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction and awarded cost against the plaintiffs including 2nd Appellant herein.
Upon the conclusion of the Anambra Governorship election and return of the 2nd Respondent as the candidate duly elected as the Governor of Anambra State on the 19th of November, 2021, the Appellants filed a petition at the Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal on the 30thof April, 2022 claiming unlawful exclusion by the 1st Respondent from participation at the Governorship Election and consequently prayed the Tribunal amongst other reliefs to nullify the election and to compel the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh governorship election in Anambra State with the names and logo of the Appellants on the ballot paper.
The 1st Respondent and other Respondents filed their replies to the petition accordingly.
On the 25th of March, 2022 during the pendency of the petition at the Tribunal, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in SC/CV/485/2020 – INEC VS. ACD & 22 ORS which set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and reaffirmed that of the Trial Court that confirmed the de-registration of the 2nd Appellant by the 1st Respondent.
The attention of the Tribunal was drawn to the decision vide a Motion supported by an affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent herein on the 1st of April, 2022 who sought for the leave of the Tribunal pursuant to Paragraph 47(1) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act 2022 to argue the Motion outside the pre-hearing session based on the extreme circumstances contained in the affidavit in support. The Motion sought the Tribunal to strike out the petition pursuant to Section 221 and 222 (a) and (c) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) on the ground that the Tribunal has lost jurisdiction in view of the Supreme Court decision. See pages 103 – 107 of the record.
On the 7th of April, 2022 when the motion came up for hearing, all parties were present in Court except the Petitioner, and their counsel. The Secretary to the Tribunal confirmed to the Tribunal that the Motion was served on the counsel to the petitioners personally and electronically via his email and the counsel had confirmed service of same to the Secretary via phone call. The Secretary further undertook to make available the proof of service to the Court. See page 158 of the record.
The Tribunal took the Motion and granted the prayers by striking out the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. See pages 157 – 161 of the record.
Being dissatisfied with the decision/ruling of the Tribunal, the Appellants filed this appeal alleging non-service of the Motion on the petitioners and praying the Court for:
“AN ORDER of the Court allowing the appeal.
AN ORDER setting aside the said decision in all its entirety and ramifications of the Anambra State Governorship Election Tribunal holding at Awka in petition no: EPT/GOV/AN/07/2021 BETWEEN HON. CHUKWUEMEKA KENECHUKWU, NEW GENERATION PARTY OF NIGERIA (NGP) AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC), PROF. CHARLES CHUKWUMA SOLUDO, ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA) delivered on 7th day of April, 2022, CORAM THEIR LORDSHIPS THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE BALIKISU MOHAMMED CHAIRMAN, EDEM AKPAN (MEMBER I) AND H. O. OYANJIMI (MEMBER II).
AN ORDER restoring petition No. EPT/GOV/AN/07/2021 on the cause list.”
At the hearing of the appeal on the 30th May, 2022, the respective parties by their learned counsel adopted their Briefs of Argument as filed. This was not before the argument on the respective preliminary objections raised by the Respondents, which were identified and argued, praying this Court to strike out the appeal for incompetence and want of jurisdiction. All the Respondents had also urged in the alternative that the Appeal be dismissed even on its merit while the Appellants had urged that the appeal be allowed and the petition restored for hearing by the Election Petitions Tribunal.
This appeal and its facts and circumstances and, therefore, all the Brief of Arguments filed are similar to those in the appeal Number CA/AS/EPT/122/22 just disposed of; as this is also an Appeal emanating from the striking out of the petition upon the same reason that the political party under which the 1st Appellant purports to belong and to have been sponsored had been deregistered and confirmed as such by the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Tribunal to grant the Motion by the 2nd Respondent to so strike out the petition.
At the hearing of the petition, on the 7th day of April, 2020, Wende Kuku (Mrs) appearing for the 1st Respondent had informed the Court of an earlier application to strike out the petition in view of the Supreme Court decision (Judgment) confirming the deregistration of the 2nd Appellant and the fact of the pending Motion by the 2nd Respondent in that direction.
The other Respondents not opposing and the Secretary of the Tribunal confirming service on the petitioners’ counsel, Kehinde Edun, Esq., on 1/4/22 and a confirmation of same, the 2nd Respondent moved the motion of 4/4/22 relying on the Supreme Court judgment SC/CV/485/2020 of 25/3/22 (Certified True Copy) as exhibited and wherein 2nd Appellant was the 11th Respondent in the appeal and which said motion was granted and the Petition was struck out.
Dissatisfied at the grant of the motion and the consequential striking out of the petition, hence this appeal was lodged.
The Appellants’ Brief of Argument based upon the Record of Appeal transmitted on 4/5/22 was adopted and this Court urged to allow the appeal and to grant the reliefs sought therein of restoring the petition EPT/GOV/AN/07/2021 on the cause list for hearing. The said brief was filed on 11/5/22 and adopted together with all the Replies to the Notices of Preliminary objections filed by the Respondents and Argued in their respective Briefs of Argument.
The 1st Respondent filed its Brief of Argument on 16/5/2022, it was settled by Bashir M. Abubakar Esq., and who also adopted it at the hearing.
The 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) and filed on 16/5/22 was adopted at the hearing by K. E. Mozia (SAN), while the 3rd Respondent’s brief settled by Chinedu Ezeh Esq., and filed on 16/5/22 was argued by the said Chinedu Ezeh, Esq. at the hearing.
The common thread that runs through all the Respondents’ Brief of Argument is that they urged that the appeal was incompetent, as it was predicated upon a Record of Appeal unknown to the Electoral Petition and Appeal process, not having been compiled and transmitted by the Secretary to the Election Petition Tribunal to this Court and that the petition should be struck out, and so also this appeal.
It was also argued, in common, that the 2nd Appellant, having been shown by the Supreme Court decision (annexed to the motion argued before the Tribunal) to have been de-registered, had ceased to exist and their petition therefore rendered incompetent and spent. That the continuation of its hearing will serve no useful purpose, it having become spent and the exercise becoming an academic exercise.
It was also argued that the duration of time limited to have an Election Petition heard and concluded reckoning from date of the filing of the petition was 180 days and that this Election Petition filed on 30/11/21 had influenced on 30/5/22 and was incapable of being revived to be heard by the Tribunal, even if the Tribunal had the jurisdiction.
In the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, filed on 16th May, 2022, the sole issue raised was:
“whether the trial Tribunal correctly struck out the petition in view of the Supreme Court decision in Appeal No; SC/CV/485/2020 – INEC VS. ACD & 22 ORS delivered on 25th March, 2020 affirming the de-registration of the 2nd Appellant by the Respondent.”
The learned counsel argued, relying on Accord vs. INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR 25674 CA that in the face of the Supreme Court decision in Appeal No. SC/CV/485/2020 of March 25th, 2022, the Appellants had ceased to have any competence to maintain the petition, as the decision had reaffirmed the non-existence of the 2nd Appellant as a political party; which does not have the legal right to maintain a petition at the Election Tribunal or any other suit in any Court of law in Nigeria whatsoever.
That the claims of the Appellants must fail woefully as you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand; Mcfoy Vs. UAC Ltd (1961) 3 WLR 1405 relied upon. The learned counsel referred, aptly, to the case of APC vs. INEC (2014) LPELR 24036 (SC) where the apex Court put it pungently and poetically in this prose thus;
“On 31st July, 2013, INEC passed “death sentence” on CPC which was to take effect from that date. Thus anything done by the CPC, any day after the 31st of July, 2013 was done by a dead person whether in the grave or in the Mortuary.”
It was also argued referring to SGB Ltd vs. Braimoh (1991) NWLR (pt. 108) 428 at 434 thus:
“It is settled law that a dead person ceases to exist in the eyes of the law and any cause or action pending against such a person automatically, abates unless it is one action that survives the person.
That the dissolution of legal person is analogous to the death of an ordinary human person. … dead men are no longer legal persons in the eyes of the law as they have laid down their legal personality with their lives at death. Being destitute of right and interest they can neither sue nor be sued.” See Nzom V. Jinadu (1987) 1 NWLR (pt 51) 533 at 539 per Oputa.
The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent then incised thus:
“My Lord, the inevitable result of the situation in this appeal is that same has become frivolous with no benefit whatsoever to the Appellants.”
The learned counsel contended relying on Taiwo V. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR pt (1259) 562 at 579 par F-G (SC) that the Appellants are classical interlopers and meddlesome busy bodies who do not deserve an attention of this Honourabe Court. I dare say, that a dead Juridical person or non-juristic entity cannot interlope or be a busy body as it may be said of a human; be that as it may, I think that by this succinct submission it suffices to hold that the appeal as constituted is incompetent as it has no legal entity, and who cannot be substituted, in the law of Electoral litigations. The petition and the appeal deserve to be struck out for incompetence, even on the 1st Respondent’s submission, as the deceased 2nd Appellant could not have or be capable of participating in an election to ground a locus under Section 137 (1) of the Electoral Act to institute and maintain an election petition. See Accord Vs. INEC (supra).
The 1st Appellant, who, by fact of the aforesaid will no longer be constitutionally enormoured but rather imperilled, and thus not qualified under Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution to be qualified to contest election for the office of the Governor of a State as by S. 177 (C), he would not “be a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party”, which truly in law, the 1st petitioner has ceased to be.
The Tribunal could not have proceeded on a hearing on a foisted candidacy on a non-juristic 2nd Appellant. The 2nd Respondent’s learned counsel, was right in so contending that the striking out of the petition was in order. He said so in 2nd Respondents’ Brief filed on 16/5/22.
I agree completely with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the 2nd Appellant, with no capacity to canvass for votes or sponsor a candidate for an election nor maintain a petition that, what had transpired herein was, by fact of Exhibit “1”, an abuse of the process of the Court, thus divesting the Tribunal of further jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The 3rd Respondent’s counsel shares the same view in his brief filed on 16/5/22, I agree. The consequential and further invocation of the discretionary jurisdiction of the lower Court and this Court, is also correct.
This case is on all fouls with Appeal No. CA/AS/EPT/GOV/122/2022 just decided by this Court as the facts, arguments thereat and the decision of the trial Tribunal and that of the Supreme Court relied upon are the same.
For stare decisis and its abiding value in the maintenance of consistency and the certainty of our corpus juris, I find our decision in that appeal applicable and binding on us accordingly, I allow the preliminary objections raised and strike out this appeal No. CA/AS/EPT/123/2022 in respect of petition No. EPT/GOV/A/07/2021 now on appeal.
In the alternative, I agree that the petition and appeal are wholly spent and is an abuse of Court process; the Election process as the subject of the appeal herein has become spent and extinct in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in SC/CV/485/2022: INEC V. ADVANCE CONGRESS OF DEMOCRATS & ORS confirming the de-registration of the 2nd Appellant as a political party and the added effluction of the time limited for the hearing and determination of the said election petition.
I must however state that even on the “Surplussaqe” legal effort of “over kill” by the respective learned counsel particularly of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents of the merits of the appeal bordering on the challenge to the competence of the Grounds of Appeal, as challenged, the appeal had no saving grace in law. Appeal is struck out.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment of my learned brother, M.A. DANJUMA, PJCA in this appeal. I agree with his Lordship’s reasoning and conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as there is no competent record of appeal compiled and transmitted in accordance with Practice Directions, 2011 before this Court. I too dismiss the appeal.
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: Paragraph 7 (a) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2011 provides as follows:
“7. At the filing of the notice of appeal the Appellant shall;
(a) Pay to the Secretary such fees as he may determine having regard to the bulk of the records of proceedings which he shall compile.”
Paragraph 9 of the said directions states:
“9. The Secretary shall within a period of not more than 10 days of the receipt of the notice of appeal, cause to be compiled and served on the parties, the record of proceedings.”
It should be quickly stated that Practice Directions have the force of law and are imbued with constitutional flavor and therefore must be complied with strictly. See Buhari v. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 601, Abubakar V INEC (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 854) 207, 227, Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246, Haruna v. Modibbo (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 and Nwankwo v. Yar’Adua (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518.
The provisions use the phrase “shall” in their prescriptions which make them mandatory. See Nkeiruka v. Joseph (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt.1135) 505, 526 – 527 and Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 367, 441- 442. Election petitions are sui generis and procedural steps are to be strictly followed. See Buhari v Yusuf (2003) 114 LRCN 2802.
It is clear that the appellants did not pay to the Secretary of the Tribunal the requisite fee for the compilation of record. Appellant counsel stated in his reply to the 3rd respondent’s preliminary objection that “We paid money to the Registry for compilation of record…” there is no receipt for the alleged payment. The ipse dixit of counsel cannot establish that assertion especially as the submission of counsel cannot take the place of credible evidence. See NITEL Ltd v. Okeke (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1571) 437. 463.
Appellants therefore did not comply with the requirement of Paragraph 7 (a) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice directions, 2011.
It is also clear that the record of appeal was compiled by appellants’ counsel contrary to paragraph 9 of the Practice directions. The allegation in the reply briefs of appellants’ counsel that the Secretary of the Tribunal was nowhere to be found is nothing but glorified gossip since the replies have not been copied to the Secretary to defend himself against the grave allegation of dereliction of duty. To accept the allegation would amount to condemning the Secretary without an opportunity being afforded him to be heard. This would be contrary to one of the pillars of natural justice, to wit: audi alterem partem, i. e. let the other party be heard. The record of appeal compiled by appellants’ counsel without any justification is incompetent and cannot be the basis of an appeal. I therefore discountenance it.
The 2nd appellant’s de-registration by the INEC was given the final judicial imprimatur by the Supreme Court in its judgment in SC/CV/485/2022: Independent National Electoral Commission v. Advance Congress of Democrats and Ors. By that decision, the death of 2nd appellant was confirmed by the highest Court of the land. The 2nd appellant therefore lost its legal personality and the capacity to file the petition or maintain it. It also had no capacity to file the appeal. In Nzom v. Jinadu (1987) LPELR – 2143 {SC) it was held that dead men are no longer persons in the eye of the law and that their personality is extinguished by death. It was further held that a writ issued against a dead person is null and void.
In A. P. C. v. INEC (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1162) 531, 581, M. D. Muhammed, JSC, re-stated the law as follows:
“…dead persons whether natural or artificial, lack the vires of initiating and/or maintaining an action, including an appeal, in the law Court.
See also Bajehson v. Otiko (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1638) 38.
The 1st appellant could therefore not be sponsored as a candidate by a dead party and also cannot sue and maintain the petition or bring this appeal.
The appeal is incompetent. I therefore agree with my learned brother, DANJUMA, JCA, that the preliminary objections ought to succeed and they succeed.
Consequently, I join my learned brother in striking out the appeal.
Appearances:
Prince Chris Nkem Ekweozoh, Esq, For Appellant(s)
Tanimu M. Inuwa, SAN, with him, Alhassan A. Umar, SAN, Abdulaziz Sani, SAN, Nasara H. Auta, Esq, S.O. Ibrahim, Esq, Adeyemi Olufemi, Esq,, Wendy Kuku, (Mrs.) I.S. Mohammed, Esq, Bashir M. Abubakar, Esq, and Hassan Aminu, Esq,. for 1st Respondent.
Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN with him, K.E. Mozia, SAN, J.I. Odibeli, Esq, Enahoro Aghomon, Esq, Dr. C.B. Anyigbo, Santos Owootori, Esq, Tobechukwu Nweke, Esq, Dr. Obinna Onya, Julius Mba, Esq, A.A. Akaahs, Esq, and I.I. Orji, Esq, for 2nd Respondent.
P.I.N. Ikwueto, SAN with him, Chinedu Ezeh, Esq, for 3rd Respondent. For Respondent(s)
