MR. FELIX EGHOBAMIEN & ORS V. MR. ALFRED OGHOGHO EGHOBAMIEN (SAN) & ORS
(2012)LCN/5395(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 23rd day of May, 2012
CA/B/81/2011
RATIO
APPEAL: STATUTORY PROVISION FOR THE PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING AN APPEAL
Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides for the procedure for generating an appeal and the form a notice of appeal should take. PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D), J.C.A.
ACTION: HOW IS THE LOCUS STANDI OF A PLAINTIFF DETERMINED
It is now commonplace law following a chain of judicial dicta on the point that in considering whether or not a Plaintiff has the necessary locus to institute an action in court or has a cause of action in a suit; it is the Statement of Claim that has to be looked at.
See ADENUGA V. ODUMERU (2002) 8 NWLR Pt. 821) 162 at 184:
AGWARAMGBO V. UBN LTD (2001) 4 NWLR (pt.702) 1 at 17.
Indeed the Statement of Defence and the facts outside a Statement of Claim have no place in such consideration.
See KADIR V. YUSUF (2003) 7 FWLR pt. 151 1930 at 1938. PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D), J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: NATURE OF AUDI ALTERAM PATEM
Audi alteram patem is one of the basic underpinning foundations of our jurisprudence. It is enshrined in our Constitution S.36 as a fundamental right. Any proceeding therefore in breach of that provision is a nullity and must be avoided. PER RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A
JUSTICES
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
(1) MR. FELIX EGHOBAMIEN
(2) MR. LUGARD EGHOBAMIEN
(3) MR. VICTOR EGHOBAMIEN
(For themselves and on behalf of the entire children and grandchildren of late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo save the 1st, 2nd and 4th Respondents) Appellant(s)
AND
(1) MR. ALFRED OGHOGHO EGHOBAMIEN (SAN)
(2) MR. JOSEPH EGHOBAMIEN
(3) MRS. COMFORT EGHOBAMIEN
(4) SOLOMON EGHOBAMIEN, ESQ.
(The Head/Okaegbe of Eghobamien family. Respondent(s)
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D), J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The present Appellants in this appeal as the 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs together with one Francis Eghobamien as 2nd Plaintiff, (for themselves and on behalf of the entire children and grand children of Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo save the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants, 2nd and 4th Respondents in this appeal) and one Samuel Eghobamien as 1st Plaintiff (For themselves and on behalf of the children of Mrs. Omorevbaria etc) commenced proceedings by Writ of Summons at the High Court of Edo State Benin Judicial Division against the Respondents as Defendants and crystallized their reliefs in a 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim in paragraph 47 thereof in the following terms:
“(a) A DECLARATION that the 1st plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the children of Late Mrs. Omorevbaria Eghobamien begotten for Late chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo are entitled to the house of Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo at Iguedayi Village by virtue of the Testamentary devise dated the 8th day of June 1955, by which the said house was devised to them and by the deceased’s oral declaration of the devise to principal members of the family before his demise.
(b) A DECLARATION that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have no legal or proprietary interest or right in the house at Iguedayi village, which the late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo willed to the 1st Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of the children of Late Mrs. Omorevbaria Eghobamien and openly declared to principal members of the family, his desire for them to take possession of after his death.
(c) A DECLARATION that the denial of the 1st, Plaintiff by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, being aided by the 1st Defendant to occupy the house at Iguedayi, which they were meant to inherit and therefore denying them their inheritance right is unconscionable and actionable.
(d) AN ORDER that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants should deliver vacant possession of the said house at Iguedayi village to the 1st plaintiff forthwith.
(e) A DECLARATION that under Benin Customary Law of inheritance, all the children of the Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo, the Osuma of Benin (not being a hereditary chieftaincy title) are entitled to share in the intestate estate and the Late Chief Sunday I. Eghobamien father of the 1st Defendant being the Eldest son is not entitled to inherit the entire Estate to the exclusion of other children.
(f) A DECLARATION that under the Benin Native Law and custom, Late Chief Sunday Igbinedion Eghobamien in his life time and thereafter the 1st Defendant in succession held the unshared intestate estate of Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo in trust for themselves and the heirs of Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo and/or their surviving children who are beneficiaries of the said estate and are entitled to share from same.
(g) AN ORDER of this Honourable court setting aside the Ex-parte order of the defunct Customary Court Grade 1 made on 30th November, 1959 for its negation of Benin Customary Law of inheritance and succession and/or on ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and lack of fair hearing.
(h) AN ORDER setting aside the certificate of occupancy No. 7902 issued in favour of Late Chief Sunday Igbinedion Eghobamien based inter alia, on the customary court order of 30th November 1959 in respect of the unshared intestate estate of Late chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo who was the Osuma of Benin Kingdom same having been irregularly obtained.
(i) AN ORDER mandating the 4th Defendant, being the “Okaegbe” (head) of Eghobamien family to share the intestate estate of Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo among the beneficiaries of the estate i.e. the heirs of the deceased and/or their surviving children including the Plaintiffs according to Benin Native Law and Custom.
(j) AN ORDER that the 1st Defendant should render account of the accruals and/or proceeds from the unshared estate of the late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo which was held in succession by the 1st Defendant’s late father, Chief Sunday Ighinedion Eghobamien and the 1st Defendant himself in trust for themselves and all the beneficiaries thereof since 14th August, 1959 till date and submit the estate and proceeds to the 4th Defendant for sharing according to Benin Native Law and Custom.
(k) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, assigns, cohorts, privies and representatives from further interfering with the estate and/or sharing of the estate of late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo and also from disturbing or harassing the 1st plaintiff in the house at Iguedayi devised to the 1st plaintiff and his siblings by late Chief Eghohamien Ogbeide-Oyo, their late father, who built the house”.
They also made alternative claims to reliefs (e) and (f) above in the following terms:
“A DECLARATION that notwithstanding the Exparte order of the Customary Court Grade 1 made the 30th day of November, 1959 and the Certificate of occupancy No. 7902 issued by the defunct Government of Bendel State to late Chief Sunday Igbinedion Eghobamien in respect of part of the unshared estate of late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo, and the certificate of occupancy No. EDSR14933, dated 6th December 2004 issued to 1st Defendant in respect of the same land, the said unshared estate is subject to Benin Customary Law of succession and inheritance and is liable to be shared to the heirs (and/or their surviving children), of late chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo who are beneficiaries of his estate according to Benin Native Law and Custom”.
Upon service on them of the pleadings of the said Plaintiffs, the Respondents as Defendants filed their defence. In his Further Amended Statement of Defence, the 1st Respondent in this appeal as the 1st Defendant in the court below raised a Preliminary Objection to the competence of the suit, the content of which may be summarized thus: the action is statute barred; the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain same as the cause of action arose in 1959; Chief Eghobamien did not make any gifts inter vivos of the house (part of the property in dispute) to 1st plaintiff and assuming he did, the action was caught by the Limitation Law of Bendel State applicable to Edo State; a condition precedent was not fulfilled before the institution of the action; the 2nd to 5th plaintiffs were not the direct children of Late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo and did not take part in his burial ceremony and so lacked the locus to institute the action; Plaintiffs were estopped by laches and acquiescence; the Amended Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action; the action was an abuse of process in that 4th Defendant was also one of the plaintiffs; and the action was incompetent as proper parties were not before the court.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants (also Respondents in this appeal) also raised Preliminary objection on similar grounds as those raised by 1st Defendant. Thereafter 1st Respondent as 1st Defendant filed a motion by which he sought to have the objections he raised in his defence to be determined in limine. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants followed suit in a similar motion.
The two motions raising the preliminary objections were heard together by the trial court, at the end of which the lower court upheld the objection in part striking out the names of the 2nd to 5th Defendants from the suit holding as he did that they had no locus and no cause of action against the Defendants and that he had no jurisdiction to set aside Exhibits A and C but held that only the 1st plaintiffs claim disclosed a cause of action. The effect of that ruling was that the suit survived at the behest of the 1st Plaintiff only in relation to his claims. The present appeal is against that ruling.
Altogether eight original grounds of appeal and one additional ground were filed from which the Appellants distilled 7 (seven) issues for the determination of this court. Those issues as set out at pages 7 – 8 of the Appellants, brief are:
(1) Whether having regard to the averments in the Appellants’ 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim and the fact that evidence had not been adduced in the suit, the learned trial Judge was not wrong when he struck out the names of the appellant on the ground that they have no locus standi to institute the suit. From Ground I.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was not wrong when, in a proceedings in lieu of demurer, he found that the appellants were in error in instituting this suit without first reporting the matter to the Oba of Benin for mediation when there was no evidence of Benin custom in that regard and the pleadings of the parties did not capture that issue. From Ground II.
(3) Whether in the absence of evidence of custom, the learned trial Judge’s finding that the 1st Respondent (who is a grandchild) holds the properties of the estate of late Chief Eghobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo in trust for himself and the children of the deceased and not the grand children can be justified. From Ground III.
(4) Whether having regard to the averments in paragraph 22 (a) – (c) of the appellants. Further Amended statement of claim and paragraphs 15(a) (e) of 4th Respondents, Amended Statement of Defence regarding 1st Respondent’s father’s fraudulent procurement of exhibit “A” attached to the 1st Respondent’s Motion on Notice dated and filed on 7th October, 2009, the learned trial Judge’s finding that exhibit “A” was not secretly procured and that the father of the 4th Respondent executed same when evidence has not been adduced in the case is not patiently wrong. From Ground IV.
(5) Whether having regard to the circumstances of the 1st Respondent’s father’s procurement of Exhibit “A” and “C” (attached to the 1st Respondent’s Motion on Notice dated and filed on 7th October, 2009) as pleaded by the Appellants and 4th Respondent, the learned trial Judge was not wrong when he held that the appellants and 4th Respondent are stopped from laying claim to the property in dispute and that it has no jurisdiction to set aside exhibits “A” and “C”. From Ground V and VII.
(6) Whether having regard to the clarity and intelligibility of the totality of the Appellants, averments and claims in the 2nd Further Amended statement of claim, the learned trial Judge’s finding that the appellant had no cause of action against the Respondents is not patently wrong. From Ground VI.
(7) Whether in the circumstances of the learned trial Judge’s verbal confrontation of the 4th Respondent concerning the case shortly before the delivery of the Ruling, the ruling of the learned trial Judge cannot be said to have been induced by bias against the appellants. From Ground IX (Additional Ground of Appeal).
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents raised Preliminary Objection to the appeal before proceeding in the alternative, to argue the merits of the appeal. Let me first deal with the preliminary objection. The contention of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in their objection was that the “original notice and the additional notice of appeal” did not comply with Order 6 Rule 2 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007; that the additional Ground 9 of the Grounds of Appeal did not relate or arise from any decision of the court below and no leave was obtained to file same; that Reliefs 47 (b) and (c) of the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim upon which Ground 6 was founded were not paid for and this therefore rendered the said statement of claim and ground 6 incompetent; and that the Appellants appealed against the whole Judgment when part of the Judgment was in their favour.
In support of the objection, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Mr. Ezomo contended that notice of appeal was incompetent for non-compliance with Order 6 Rule 2(1) and therefore ought to be struck out by virtue of Order 6 Rule 6 of the Rules of this court. He argued further that the notice of appeal failed to include the names of 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in the appeal which, according to him offended Order 11 Rule 16 of the Bendel State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 1988. On ground 9 of the additional grounds of appeal, counsel argued that that ground did not arise from nor relate to the decision of the lower court. It was, therefore, an incompetent ground of appeal and should be struck out together with the issue relating to it.
Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides for the procedure for generating an appeal and the form a notice of appeal should take. I have painstakingly studied the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter and read the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2(1) with studious attention and considerable concentration but failed to see in what manner the Notice of Appeal herein complained of is an infraction of that rule of court. On the non-inclusion of the names of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in the Notice of Appeal. I do not see the basis for the learned counsel’s argument on this and the importation of the High Court Rules of Bendel State into this court. In the first place, this court is governed by the provisions of its own rules which is the Court of Appeal Rules and not the High Court Rules. In the second place, it is only an aggrieved party, if such a party wishes, that can lodge an appeal against a decision. No party to a case can be compelled to lodge an appeal if such a party does not wish to do so. Where more persons than one institute an action at a trial court and Judgment is entered against them it is not the law that all of such persons must jointly appeal if some of them do not wish to do so. It is only those aggrieved and desirous of appealing against such a Judgment that may do so. So the present Appellants, who were the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Plaintiffs in the court below, having betrayed their aggression against the Judgment of that court are perfectly competent to lodge their appeal without joining the other Plaintiffs who did not betray any such aggression. The objection on this ground is, therefore, misplaced.
With regard to the objection on payment of filing fees, I will refer to pages 87 to 105 of the Record of Appeal and state that the Amended Writ of Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim were exhibits to the motion filed on 30/3/10 by which the Appellants had sought to amend their Writ and their Statement of Claim, page 88 of the Records clearly show that all the documents were duly assessed for fees and a total sum of N1,850.00 paid by the Appellants. The objection on this ground is also misplaced.
However, the objection to the additional Ground 1 of the Ground of Appeal appears to me cogent. Ground 9 of the Additional Ground of Appeal did not arise from the proceedings in court and was not part of the Appellants’ Statement of Claim at the lower court. The facts of what happened after the matter had been adjourned for Judgment ought to have been raised in court before the delivery of the Judgment and the court given the opportunity to advert to the allegation and pronounced upon it so as to make it part of its record and appropriate as a ground and an issue in the appeal. In my view, therefore, Ground 9 is inappropriate and the issue founded upon it is also inappropriate. Accordingly, Ground 9 of the Additional Ground of Appeal and Issue No 7 founded upon it are hereby struck out. The objection succeeds only in relation to Ground 9 of the Additional Ground of Appeal. All other objections, as earlier observed, have no merit and they are hereby overruled. The appeal before us is adjudged competent on the Notice and Original Grounds of Appeal.
Now to the merits of the appeal. My decision on the Notice and Original Grounds of Appeal saves Grounds 1 – 7 of the Grounds of Appeal and issues 1- 6 raised by the Appellants for determination. Respondents adopted the said issues. All the remaining six issues in this appeal come to this:
“Whether on the averments in the Appellants’ 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim; the lower court was right in striking out the names of the Appellants holding that they had no locus standi to institute the action and had no cause of action without taking evidence.”
The summary of the arguments of learned counsel for the Appellants in his brief and reply briefs was that in ascertaining whether a Plaintiff has locus standi in an action, the Statement of Claim must be shown to disclose a cause of action vested in him and also his rights, obligation or interest which have been or are about to be violated. In this regard, therefore, it was only the Statement of Claim of a Plaintiff that is cognizable in the assessment of the issues of locus standi and cause of action. Counsel referred to the Appellants’ 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim at pages 99-105 and submitted that there, were abundant facts pleaded therein to ground the Appellants’ locus standi and cause of action on the matter before the lower court which would require evidence to be led and assessment of the evidence so led before a decision could be reached.
Counsel further submitted that the lower court’s findings on such crucial areas of custom relating to inheritance by grandchildren, report to the Oba of Benin as a precondition to the institution of the action and devolution of estate without evidence on such issues were erroneous. So also was the lower court’s pronouncement on the Customary Court Order in the face of an allegation that the order was obtained fraudulently.
The arguments of the 1st Respondent and counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents followed closely the same pattern. In summary, their contention was that the 2nd to 5th Plaintiffs at the lower court had no locus to institute the action in the face of the pleading of the Plaintiffs in their Statement of Claim that the grandfather of 1st to 5th Plaintiffs died intestate as a result of which the father of 1st Respondent took over the property without sharing it out to the others. Therefore Plaintiffs having pleaded that the father of 1st Respondent appropriated the property to himself and having not been challenged before his death, the action died with the 1st Respondent’s father and there was nothing left on which Appellants could found their claim. They contended that the lower court was entitled to rely on the book on Benin Custom as he did. On the Customary Court Order, they submitted that the Appellants (Plaintiffs at the lower court) were presumed to be aware of it by virtue of Section 74 (1) of the Evidence Act and ought, therefore, to have appealed against it. Having not done so, they were estopped. Besides, it was contended, not being party to that order of the customary court they would not have the locus standi to set it aside.
The 4th Respondent in the appeal conceded the appeal by the document dated 17th day of May, 2011 and titled “4TH RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ADMISSION OF APPEAL” which he filed in this court. It is now commonplace law following a chain of judicial dicta on the point that in considering whether or not a Plaintiff has the necessary locus to institute an action in court or has a cause of action in a suit; it is the Statement of Claim that has to be looked at.
See ADENUGA V. ODUMERU (2002) 8 NWLR Pt. 821) 162 at 184:
AGWARAMGBO V. UBN LTD (2001) 4 NWLR (pt.702) 1 at 17.
Indeed the Statement of Defence and the facts outside a Statement of Claim have no place in such consideration.
See KADIR V. YUSUF (2003) 7 FWLR pt. 151 1930 at 1938.
Applying the foregoing principle of law and using it as a basis to assess the 2nd Further Amended Statement of Claim in the determination of the locus of the Appellants and whether or not they possess a cause of action on this matter, I will now have to advert to the Appellants’ said pleading which is at pages 99 – 104 of the Record of Appeal. Paragraph 3 of the said pleading disclose the identity of the 2nd to 5th Plaintiffs including the Appellants in this appeal and the capacity in which they brought the action at the lower court. Paragraph 14 describe the area of land in dispute and proceeded to plead inter alia as follows:
“….This forms parcels of land to which the Plaintiffs now lay claims of inheritance…”
(Underlining supplied)
After pleading the dispute that arose in 2008 over the property in paragraph 28, the Appellants in paragraphs 31, 32 and 34 of their aforesaid pleading, (as Plaintiffs in the court below) also laid bare their claim to the property in dispute when they averred thus:
“(31) It was during this hearing that the family saw the order of the customary court of 1959 referred to above for the first time.
(32) The surviving children of late Chief Eshobamien Ogbomo Ogbeide-Oyo Osuma and his grandchildren protested the customary court order and claimed that those of their fathers and/or mothers who survived the Osuma were entitled to share in the old man’s Estate.
(34) That the Plaintiffs have made several demands on the 1st Defendant directly or through the 4th Defendant to render account of his trusteeship and give them their inheritance right but 1st Defendant ignored the demand and continue up till now to deny them their inheritance and render account for the period of his stronghold of the estate.
(Underlining supplied)
By paragraph 43 of their pleading the 2nd to 5th Plaintiff (including the Appellants) crystallized the reason for their claim to the estate (property in dispute) when they stated thus:
“(43) Meanwhile the grandchildren of the Osuma also insisted that they would pursue by lawful means their father’s/mother’s share of the Osuma Estate, apart from the Igiogbe at 5, Iwenoga Street, Benin city, as their mother and fathers took part in the traditional burial of the late Osuma including the ‘Isoton’ ceremony.”?
(Underlining supplied)
Paragraph 44 shows one of the steps the 2nd to 5th Plaintiffs took in their insistence and resolve to forge their claim to the property in dispute. The cause of action was clearly and succinctly pleaded in paragraphs 45 and 45(a) which lies in the application by 1st Defendant for the grant of, and obtaining a certificate of occupancy and the selling of portions of the estate (property in dispute).
Paragraph 20 pleaded that the father of 1st and 2nd Appellants secretly obtained the Customary Court Order on the claim that as the eldest surviving son of his late father he was entitled to inherit the estate to the exclusion of others which assertion Appellants pleaded in paragraph 21 was contrary to Benin Customary Law.
Appellants then pleaded in paragraph 22 that the Order of the Customary Court was obtained by fraud and proceeded to give the particulars of fraud in paragraphs 22 (a) to (L).
The foregoing pleadings clearly locate the interest of the Appellants in the land in dispute which has created a locus in them for purposes of raising the action. The pleadings as itemized also show their cause of action. Whether the Plaintiffs (Appellants in this court) will succeed in their claim or not, or whether as grandchildren of the Osuma they are entitled to inherit along with the direct children of the Osuma or not will be a matter of evidence where the lower court would have the opportunity to test which side of the divide the pendulum will swing to.
Additionally, the Appellants pleaded that they were not aware of the Customary Court Order until a certain time and that even then that order was obtained fraudulently. This becomes a triable matter to be resolved by evidence. Whether an order exists or does not exist is a matter of fact and nobody should be presumed with knowledge of such an order as contended by counsel for the Respondents especially where that party denies knowledge of it without evidence being led. In the same vein, the issue of Benin Customary Law on inheritance in the light of the pleading in paragraph 21 of the Amended Statement of Claim becomes a matter of evidence which cannot be resolved offhand without taking evidence by the lower court.
I am therefore bound to agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellants and on the authorities that all the findings of the lower court on the foregoing issues without taking evidence on them are grossly erroneous. Counsel for the Respondents did not advance any solid answer capable of dislodging the arguments on those points. Without much ado therefore, the six issues identified by the Appellants’ counsel and compressed into a single issue above are resolved in favour of the Appellants against the Respondents. Therefore Grounds 1 – 8 of the Grounds of Appeal succeed leading to the overall success of this appeal which is hereby allowed.
The case is remitted back to the lower court for trial on the merits before another Judge. I make no order as to costs.
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the, lead judgment of Nwosu-Iheme, JCA (Ph. D) and I agree completely with both her reasoning and conclusions.
Audi alteram patem is one of the basic underpinning foundations of our jurisprudence. It is enshrined in our Constitution S.36 as a fundamental right. Any proceeding therefore in breach of that provision is a nullity and must be avoided. In the instant case there has been a breach of that principle. It vitiates the proceedings at the trial court. I also allow the appeal and abide by all the consequential orders made in the lead judgment.
GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brothel Nwosu-Iheme JCA, the Appeal is indeed meritorious. I agree with the reasoning offered therein and I also allow the appeal and remit the same to the lower court for trial on the merits before another Judge. I make no order as to costs.
Appearances
E. E. Obasuyi for the Appellant/Applicant.For Appellant
AND
G. E. Ezomo, with him are Mrs. S. E Edayi, A. H. Omorogbe, Miss I. O. Osadola, T. U. Odoma, Miss M. O. Agbim and T. B. Quidom for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.
E. F. Osifo for the 4th Respondent.For Respondent
