SUNDAY CHIJIOKE AGBO & ORS. v. THE STATE (2010)

SUNDAY CHIJIOKE AGBO & ORS. v. THE STATE

(2010)LCN/3589(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 24th day of February, 2010

CA/E/222/2008

JUSTICES

AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOHAMMED L. TSAMIYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

OLU KAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. SUNDAY CHIJIOKE AGBO
2. AUGUSTINE UGBALLA
3. OLIVER IKEKWE
4. PANTHELIAN OGIDI
5. STEPHEN UGWU
6. PETER ADESILENEYA Appellant(s)

AND

THE STATE Respondent(s)

RATIO

REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTION TO IMPUGN ON THE EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

On contradiction on the prosecution’s witnesses, it was submitted that no such discredit or contradiction is apparent on the face of the evidence of the prosecution before the trial Court. That even if there was such contradiction and the appellants were convicted based thereon, such conviction cannot be invalidated merely on ground of the immaterial contradiction. That for contradiction to impugn the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the said contradiction must be shown to have substantial disparagement of the witness or witnesses concerned making it dangerous or likely to result in a miscarriage of justice to rely on the evidence of the witness or witnesses. PER TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

MEANING OF A “NO CASE SUBMISSION”

What is the meaning of ‘no case submission’?
To this end, it is necessary, I think to refer to the relevant case on the meaning of ‘no case submission’. In the case of Rex Vs. Coker & Ors 20 N.L.R. 62. Hubbard .J had this to say:
“The meaning of a submission that there is no case for an accused person to answer is that there is no evidence on which even if the court believes it, it could convict. The question whether the Court does believe the evidence does not arise nor is the credibility for the witness the issue at this stage.” (underlining mine). PER TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED TO SUCCEED ON A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER

Conditions to be satisfied to succeed on a submission of ‘no case to answer.
There are no provisions in the C.P.A, stating the conditions which must be fulfilled before a ruling of ‘no-case’ submission can be made by the court or sustained by the court if made by counsel to the accused. Similarly, what has to be established to show the evidence is insufficient to justify the continuation of the trial is not stated in the enactment either. I will refer again to the relevant authorities.
It is settled by a long line of authorities that a submission of ‘No case’ to answer may be properly made and upheld in the following circumstances.
1. When there has been no evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged offence either directly, circumstantially or inferentially. See Ibeziako v. C.O.P. (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 61 at 69.
2. When the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunals can safely convict on it. See Practice Direction. 1962 W.L.R.227.
It is important to note that in a long line of legal authorities it was emphasized that when a court is giving consideration to a submission of no case. It is not necessary at that stage of the trial for the court to determine if the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction. The trial court only has to be satisfied that there is a Prima facie case requiring at least some explanation from the accused person. PER TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

MEANING OF THE TERM “PRIMA FACIE”

This expression Prima facie case is not defined anywhere in our Nigerian Law, as such it received numerous definitions by our Courts. In Ajidagba v. I.G.P. (1958) S.C. N.L.R. 60 Abott, F.J. attempted to find a definition for the expression. He said:
“We have been at some pains to find a definition of the term ‘Prima facie case’. The term, so far we can find, has not been defined either in English or in the Nigerian Courts. In an Indian case, however, Shersingh v. Jitendranathsen (1931) 1 L.R. 50, cal 275, we find the following dicta:-
“What is meant by a Prima facie (case)? It only means that there is a ground for proceeding… But prima facie case is not the same as proof which comes later when the court to find whether the accused is guilty or not guilty…” the evidence discloses a prima facie case when it is such that if uncontradicted and if believed it will be sufficient to prove the case against the accused” (Per Lort-Williams, J).
Also in our court, in the case of Duru v. Nwosu (1989) NWLR (pt.113) 24 at 43, Nnamani J.S.C. (of blessed Memory) said:
“It seems to me the simple definition is that which says that, “there is ground for proceedings.” In other words, that something has been produced to make it worthwhile to continue with the proceeding. On the face of it, “suggests that the evidence produced so far indicates that there is something worth looking at.”
The expression was also defined in Osborne’s Concise Law Dictionary 6th ed by John Burk, at p.262 as:
“A case in which there is some evidence in support of the charge or allegation made in it, and which will stand unless it is disposed.”
Also in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. At p.1209, the expression ‘Prima facie case’ has been defined thus:
(1) “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption.
(2) A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact- tribunal to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party’s favour.” PER TSAMIYA, J.C.A.

MOHAMMED L. TSAMIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of Abakaliki High Court in Ebonyi State delivered on 11/4/08 in which the High Court (herein referred to the as the trial Court) over-ruled the submission of ‘No case to answer’ made by the appellant’s counsel.
The summary of the facts of this appeal is this:
The appellants were ordinary police officers attached to the surveillance squad of the Nigeria police Force, Abakaliki. They were arraigned before the trial Court, on one count i.e. murder of one Ifeanyi Nnaji, on 23/28/2001.
Upon arraignment, each of the appellants pleading not guilty to the charge, where upon the prosecution, in order to establish the charge, called 5 witness and closed its case. Thereafter, the appellants, through their counsel made ‘a No Case – submission’, and submitted that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima-facie case to warrant calling on the appellants to defend themselves. He urged the court to discharge and acquit the appellants.
In his reply in opposition to the ‘No case submission’, learned counsel for the prosecution contended that the evidence ruling delivered on 11/4/2008, the learned trial Judge over-ruled the ‘No case’ submission.

It is against that ruling the appellants have lodged this instant appeal before this court on four grounds of appeal.
In accordance with the Rules of this court, the appellants filed their Brief of argument on 7/8/08. On receipt of the respondent’s Brief of argument the appellants also filed their Appellants’ Reply Brief on 17/11/08. In their Appellants Brief, only one issue was distilled from the four grounds of appeal for determination in this appeal. This issue is:
“Whether, having regard to the failure of the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence of murder and the manifestly unreliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge was right in over-ruling the ‘No case submission’ made on behalf of the appellants.” (Grounds, 1- 4)
The respondent in his brief of argument also formulated his own sole issue which reads:
“Whether from the totality of evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was right in over-ruling the ‘No Case submission.”

After perusing the records of appeal, the grounds of appeal, the ruling of the trial court and the issues identified by each party in this appeal, it is my view that the issue which ought to be considered in this appeal is simply:
“Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the ‘No Case’ submission in respect of the charge against the appellants.”
I shall, therefore, determine this appeal on this issue formulated by me as it is all encompassing and sufficient to dispose of the appeal. And for the reasons which I shall state herein after I shall be brief in this judgment.
Arguing the sole issue, it was submitted that in the circumstances of this case i.e. where the appellants being charged with the offence of murder, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence charged. That in this case the prosecution did not prove any of the elements of the offence of murder. With regards to the death of the deceased, learned counsel submitted that neither Exhibit ‘G’ nor Exhibit ‘H’ suggested that Ifeanyi Nnaji was one of the deceased brought to the Police Headquarters Abakaliki. Not only that there was no satisfactory or conclusive evidence that the corpse, which is the subject matter of Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’ tendered by PW2, is that of Ifeanyi Nnaji, whose alleged murder the appellants are standing trial, as no person identified the body of Ifeanyi Nnaji to PW2. Further more, that the body was labeled before the autopsy was performed.

The respondent in his brief of argument also formulated his own sole issue which reads:
“Whether from the totality of evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge was right in over-ruling the ‘No Case submission’.
After perusing the records of appeal, the grounds of appeal, the ruling of the trial court and the issues identified by each party in this appeal, it is my view that the issue which ought to be considered in this appeal is simply:
“Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the ‘No Case” submission in respect of the charge against the appellants.”
I shall therefore, determine this appeal on this issue formulated by me as it is all encompassing and sufficient to dispose of the appeal. And for the reasons which I shall state herein after I shall be brief in this judgment.
Arguing the sole issue, it was submitted that in the circumstances of this case, i.e. where the appellants being charged with the offence of Murder, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence charged.
That in this case the prosecution did not prove any of the elements of the offence of murder. With regards to the death or the deceased, learned counsel submitted that neither Exhibit ‘G’ nor Exhibit ‘H’ Suggested that Ifeanyi Nnaji was one of the deceased brought to the police Headquarters Abakaliki. Not only that there was no satisfactory or conclusive evidence that the corpse, which is the subject matter of Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’ tendered by PW2, is that of Ifeanyi Nnaji, whose alleged murder the appellants are standing trial, as no person identified the body of Ifeanyi Nnaji to PW2. Furthermore, that the body was labelled before the autopsy was performed.
On the cause of death of the deceased, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death since PW2 is not a pathologist.

On who was responsible for the death of the deceased, the learned counsel for appellants submitted that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial linking the Appellants with the death of Ifeanyi Nnaji. That it was only PW1 and PW3 who mentioned the 1st Appellant in passing in their evidence-in-chief in the trial court, otherwise non of the prosecution witnesses made mention of the 2nd – 6th Appellants. That the evidence of PW1 and PW3 was discredited under cross-examination and most important of all is that PW1 and PW3 did not mention the 1st Appellant in their respective statements (Exhibits ‘B’, ‘E’) to the police. He further submitted that since the appellants were not arrested at the scene and the prosecution witnesses did not name the accused at the earlier opportunity, a proper identification of the accused should be conducted and this identification was not done in this case. He refers to the case of YUSUF VS. STATE (2007) 3 NWLR (Part.1020) 94 at 122. On Exhibit ‘G’ and ‘H’, again learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that all these two exhibits exonerated the appellants because, the former (Exhibit ‘G’) therein stated unequivocally that ‘it was the Mobile police officers that shot the driver and the three occupants of the Toyota Car and that the driver died on the spot. It was further stated therein that, the three wounded occupants of the Toyota Car with bullet wounds were brought to the police Headquarters dead’. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that, if there is any person or persons that caused the death of Ifeanyi Nnaji, it was the Mobile police officers and not the Appellants. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the prosecution has proved the said essential elements of the offence of murder, the fact which he did not concede, the prosecution evidence adduced is manifestly unreliable and that, no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it. He further submitted that, the evidence of PW3 before the trial Court contradicts his statement to the police which is Exhibit ‘E’, as well as his testimony before Justice Ogbu (Exhibits ‘F1’ – ‘F4’). In these Exhibits (‘E’ and ‘F1’- ‘F4’,) PW3 did not mention seeing any of the appellants. That the testimony of PW1 before the trial Court contradicts that of Sgt. Livinus Ezeka in Exhibit ‘G’. On the evidence of PW2, learned counsel also submitted that, that the piece of evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW3. That PW1’s evidence in-chief is indirect conflict with his statement to the police and earlier testimony before Justice Ogbuinya tendered under cross-examination as Exhibits’ ‘A’ & ‘B’. He respectfully urged this court to allow the appeal and discharge the appellants.

In the respondent’s brief of argument, it was contended that, in making a ‘No case submission’ on behalf of the appellants, the Appellant’s counsel did indicate that he was not relying on it. And in that circumstance, what should be considered by the trial court should be whether the prosecution has made out a prima-facie case, requiring at least some explanations from accused person as regard his conduct or otherwise. That the evidence of the prosecution witnesses disclosed a prima-facie case of the offence of murder of Ifeanyi Nnaji by the appellants upon which explanation is required from them. That there was strong circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the death of Ifeanyi Nnaji. That the appellants did not deny taking away Ifeanyi Nnaji and his two friends from the State Police Headquarters Abakaliki on that fateful day rather they acknowledged taking the deceased and two others that day as per their (appellants’) statement to the police.

The respondent further contended that the appellants can be required to give some explanations as to what happened to Ifeanyi Nnaji before the trial in the face of evidence that they were last seen with the deceased, Ifeanyi Nnaji. That the learned trial judge, in the circumstance, was absolutely right and in consonance with the law when he over-ruled the ‘No case’ submission made by the appellants.
It was further submitted that in over-ruling the appellants’ ‘No case’ submission, the learned trial judge was right to have avoided the temptation and invitation of the appellants to embark on a complete surgery of the evidence of the prosecution particularly when the appellants said they were not relying on their ‘No case submission’.
On contradiction on the prosecution’s witnesses, it was submitted that no such discredit or contradiction is apparent on the face of the evidence of the prosecution before the trial Court. That even if there was such contradiction and the appellants were convicted based thereon, such conviction cannot be invalidated merely on ground of the immaterial contradiction. That for contradiction to impugn the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the said contradiction must be shown to have substantial disparagement of the witness or witnesses concerned making it dangerous or likely to result in a miscarriage of justice to rely on the evidence of the witness or witnesses.
The learned counsel cited and relied upon legal authorities provided in his brief of argument to support his submission. He finally urged this court to dismiss the appeal and return the case to the trial court for the appellant’s defence.
Having stated the submissions of both parties to this appeal I will consider the law.

Section 286 of C.P.A provides that:
“If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence the court shall, as to that particular charge, discharge him.”
The above provisions of section 286 C.P.A may be invoked suo-motu by the court. i.e., the court may of its volition rule that an accused person has no case to answer. Counsel representing the accused may also submit before the trial court that the accused has no case to answer and move the court to exercise its discretion under the said section 286 C.P.A.

With the foregoing principles and definitions of the expression, prima facie case, can it be said that the learned trial Judge rightly overruled the ‘no case submission’ made by the appellant’s counsel? One should not go outside the evidence (oral and documentary) tendered by the prosecution in coming to the conclusion. Evidence of PW1 – 5 and ‘Exhibits ‘A’, ‘E’, ‘F1’, ‘F4’, ‘G’ and ‘H’ form part of that evidence.
Apart from these two situations, a tribunal should not in general be called on to reach a decision as to conviction or acquittal until the whole of the evidence which either side wishes to tender has been placed before it.
I have earlier in this judgment stated that if a submission is made to the fact that there is no case to answer, the decision should depend not so much on whether the trial court (if compelled to do so) it would at that stage convict or acquit, but on whether the evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal might convict. If a reasonable tribunal might convict on the evidence so laid before it there is a case to answer.
Learned counsel for the appellant made detailed submission to show that the prosecution failed either to prove unequivocally the death, and the cause of death of Ifeanyi Nnaji or show any act of the appellants that led to the death of the deceased. Furthermore, he also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
The submissions were, no doubt, quite powerful. But in coming to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the appellants, the trial court adopted the principle in the case of Ibeziako vs. C.O.P. (1963) (supra), and relied on the evidence that support the charge at the trial court. For example;
In his evidence before the trial court, PW3 (the father of the deceased) said that he saw his Son (Ifeanyi Nnaji) alive in a vehicle (Pick up Van) and that he called him ‘pa – pa – pa’. The other persons carried in the vehicle, according to PW3. were vizi Ida and Ogbonna. And apart from these persons he mentioned, he also saw the 1st appellant who he said he knew before. He said that when he heard his Son (Ifeanyi Nnaji) calling him he followed them but could not trace their whereabouts and then came back home.
On the following day, according to PW3, he said that he saw the corpses including the corpse of his son, at the police station Abakaliki. He said that he identified the dead body of his son Ifeanyi Nnaji. However, the evidence of PW2, (Dr. Ugochukwu) before the trial court has confirmed the death of Ifeanyi Nnaji and according, to the evidence, the death of Ifeanyi was intra crenel hemorrhage and brain tissue damage, secondary to gun shot injury.

The substance and inference one can draw from the evidence of PW3 narrated above is that the appellants were last seen with the deceased (Ifeanyi Nnaji) while alive, and the substance and conclusion that could he deduceable from the evidence of PW2, is that of Ifeanyi Nnaji’s death and the cause of death is gun shot.
In these circumstances, once the evidence of PW3 and PW2 stood at that, there can be no doubt that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellants only if the evidence are uncontradicted, and the trial court believed it could support a conviction of the appellants for the offence murder charged.
For the foregoing, however, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence to justify a finding of there being a prima facie case. The totality of the evidence of PW3 and PW2, Ifeanyi Nnaji while alive was put inside Pick-Up Van and driven away by the appellants. The next day, Ifeanyi Nnaji was found dead in the Mortuary of the Federal Medical Centre, Abakaliki and certified cause of death to be intra crenel hemorrhage and brain tissue damage secondary to gun shot. Medical reports Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘D’ tendered.

There were no doubts that there are some discrepancies which details I shall not highlight now. The case is to be sent back for continuation. A detailed discussion on the evidence and all the issues raised by learned counsel for the appellants might be prejudicial to the fair trial of the appellants in the continuation of the trial, and I shall therefore, refrain from doing so. Suffice it to hold in the circumstances, that there was prima facie case against the appellants.
In final conclusion, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. This case is remitted to the trial court for the defence to open its case.

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A: I had the advantage of reading the draft copy of the judgment just
delivered by my learned brother Tsamiya JCA. His Lordship has thoroughly dealt with the issue at stake and arrived to a conclusion which I am at one with. Suffice it say however, that I shall chip in a word or two of mine Just for the purpose of emphasis.
At the conclusion of the presentation of the prosecution’s case, the defence counsel chose to take a Submission of No Case to answer on behalf of the appellants as accused persons at the lower court. The learned trial Judge after duly considering the submissions of the defendants and the reply thereto by the prosecution, overruled the said Submission and called upon the defendants to open their defence(s). Aggrieved by such ruling, the appellants appealed to this court against the said ruling overruling their Submission.
Under the provisions of Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if at the close of the presentation of evidence led in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall as to that particular charge, discharge him.

In a line of decided authorities of superior courts of record, three conditions have been laid down which must be established before a submission of no case to answer may be made or upheld. These conditions are:-
(a) where there has been no evidence to led by the prosecution to prove an essential element of the offence charged.
(b) when the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so discredited as a result of cross-examination; or
(c) when the evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal or court can safely convict on it.

It must be emphasized here, that where a No case submission is made by the defence at the close of the case of the prosecution, the court is only to answer whether there is prima facie evidence which if believed by the court would support a conviction. Where such evidence exist, the trial court is bound to find that there is a case to answer. But if there is no such evidence, the court must discharge the accused/defendant. At the stage of No Case Submission, the court should not consider the credibility of the prosecution witness or witnesses. It is also premature for the court to believe or disbelieve the witness, or witnesses, since the defence is yet to present its witnesses. Also a court in ruling on a No case submission is not to convict or acquit an accused person. In fact, the ruling of a court on this submission while over-ruling a ‘No case submission’ should not be of inordinate length.
It should therefore be brief and no observation should be made.

Coming to this instant case, there is no doubt that the prosecution led evidence to prove some vital elements or ingredients of murder with which the appellants were charged, which would certainly justify the calling upon them to explain by way of presenting their defence or defences. The evidence adduced so far are also admissible. In a nut-shell, the evidence led by the prosecution has made prima facie case as could necessitate the extension of invitation to the accused/appellants to explain or present their defence(s) to the offence charged.
Upon considering the evidence so far adduced in the case by the prosecution, I think the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted when he overruled the No case submission made by the learned defence counsel and called upon the accused/defendants/appellants to enter their defence(s). I also accordingly so hold.
Thus, on a careful perusal of the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by my learned brother in the lead judgment with which I have no reason to disagree, I too find no merit in the appeal. Without any hesitation, I accordingly dismiss it for being unmeritorious. I endorse the order made that the appellants should proceed to present or open their defence(s) before the learned trial Judge.

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.C.A: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ladan-Tsamiya, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the said judgment. In this case, the appellants had made a no case submission before the trial court but was overruled hence this appeal. The relevant provision is Section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap 41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which reads:-
“If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the defendant sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the court shall, as to that particular charge discharge him.”
It has long been held that a submission that there is no case to answer means that there is no evidence on which the trial court would convict even if the court believed the evidence given by the prosecution. See; R. Vs. Coker & Ors. 20 NLR 62 per Hubbard, J.
In other words, a submission of no case by the defence may be upheld where:
(a) there was no evidence to prove an essential element of the alleged offence; and
(b) the evidence adduced has been so discredited as a result of cross examination.
(c) The evidence is so manifestly unreliable that no reasonable tribunal can safely convict on it.
However, if a reasonable tribunal can convict on evidence so far led then there is a case for the accused to answer. See; Lord Parker; Lord Chief Justice of England’s Practice Direction in (1962) 1 WRN 227, Ibeziako Vs. Cop (1963) 1 All NLR 61.

In Daboh & Anor Vs. The State (1977) 5 SC 197 at 209, the Supreme Court, per Udo Udoma, JSC on when a no case submission may be upheld opined as follows:-
“Before, however, embarking upon such an exercise, it is perhaps expedient here to observe that it is a well-known rule of criminal practice, that in a criminal trial at the close of the case for the prosecution, a submission of no prima facie case to answer made on behalf of an accused person postulates one of two things or both of them at once.
Firstly, such a submission postulates that there has been throughout the trial no legally admissible evidence at all against the accused person on behalf of whom the submission has been made linking him in any way with the commission of the offence with which he has been charged, which would necessitate his being called upon for his defence. Secondly, as has been so eloquently submitted by Chief Awolowo, that whatever evidence there was which might have linked the accused person with the offence has been so discredited that no reasonable court can be called upon to act on it as establishing criminal guilt in the accused person concerned; and in the case of a trial by jury, that the case ought therefore to be withdrawn from the jury and ought not to go to them for a verdict, On the other hand, it is well settled that in the case of a trial by jury, no less than in a trial without a jury, however slight the evidence linking an accused person with the commission of the offence charged might be, the case ought to be allowed to go to the jury for their findings as Judges of fact and their verdict.

Therefore, when a submission of no prima facie case is made on behalf of an accused person, the trial court is not thereby called upon at that stage to express any opinion on the evidence before it, The court is only called upon to take note and to rule accordingly that there is before the court no legally admissible evidence linking the accused person with the commission of the offence with which he is charged. If the submission is based on discredited evidence, such discredit must be apparent on the face of the record. If such is not the case, then the submission is bound to fail.”
On a careful look at the evidence called by the Prosecution without, at this stage, expressing an opinion on it, can it be said that there was no evidence connecting or linking the appellants with the alleged crime? The answer is in the negative.
For the above and the fuller reasons contained in the lead judgment, the appeal lacks merits, it should be dismissed and I hereby dismiss it. I abide by the consequential order in the said lead judgment.

Appearances

Mr. A.I. AniFor Appellant

AND

Mr. J. Eze (with) A.G. for Ebonyi State Ministry of Justice
Mr. Ikpor-OfeFor Respondent