MRS. OLOLADE TEMILOLA ONI v. IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA & ORS
(2018)LCN/12135(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 12th day of November, 2018
CA/AK/134/2015
RATIO
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“It is well settled that it is the party alleging breach of fair hearing that has the onus of proving that allegation based on the facts of the case. See MAIKYO V ITODO (2007) NWLR (PT. 1034) PG. 443, FIN BANK PLC V ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL NIG. LTD. & ANOR (2013) LPELR 20378. The Record of Appeal is the process to look to in determining if there has been fair hearing or the breach of it. GONZEE (NIG.) LTD. V NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) 634, THE STATE VS BABAGANA JOHN (2013) LPELR 20590, UKUT V STATE (2016) LPELR 41380.” PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“It therefore means that where a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity irrespective of how well the proceedings was conducted. UMANAH V ATTAH (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1009) 503, MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587, SKENCONSULT V UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6, BENIN RUBBER PRODUCERS LTD. V OJO (1997) 9 NWLR (PT. 521) 388, MAGAJI V MATARI (2000) 5 SC 46, ALAO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. (2000) 6 SC (PT. 1) 27, GALADIMA V TAMBAI (2000) 6 SC (PART 1) 196, ARAKA V EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT. 1) 99, LUFHANSA AIRLINES V ODIESE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 978) 39.” PER UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MRS. OLOLADE TEMILOLA ONI Appellant(s)
AND
1. IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
2. GOVERNING COUNCIL, IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
3. PROF. E. OSAGHAE
(Vice Chancellor, Igbinedion Univerty Okada)
4. DR. (MRS.) SALLY A. ASAGWARA
(Registrar, Igbinedion University Okada) Respondent(s)
UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court sitting at Akure, Ondo State delivered on 13th May, 2015 by Hon. Justice A. N. Ubaka.
The Claimant now Appellant filed a complaint against the Respondents as Defendants wherein she claimed as follows:
1. A declaration that the termination of Claimant’s employment by a letter dated 22nd April, 2007 styled services no longer required under the hand of the Registrar of the Igbinedion University is without authority, wrongful and unlawful) same being in violation of the Claimant’s contract of service with the 1st defendant and contrary to the Senior Staff Condition of Service and the law establishing the 1st Defendant and so of no effect whatsoever.
2. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to her salary, privileges and entitlements from the date of the wrongful termination of her appointment with the 1st defendant until attained (sic) the age of 60 as stipulated in her contract of service with the 1st defendant.
3. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the contributions she made as Pension Contributions.
4. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further giving effects to the wrongful and unlawful termination of Claimant’s appointment and denying the Claimant of her entitlements, salary and privileges obtainable from the 1st Defendant as stipulated in her contract of employment with the 1st Defendant
5. An order directing the defendants to pay her salary and entitlement in the sum of N79, 750.00 for the month of May 2007.
6. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being General Damages jointly and severally against the Defendants for the embarrassment, emotional and psychological distress caused the Claimant by virtue of the unreasonable, unlawful termination of Claimant’s appointment by the 3rd and 4th Defendants herein.
7. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being General Damages jointly and severally against the Defendants for the injury meted on the Claimant by forcefully evicting her from her official residence at 1st Defendant’s University without just cause.
Pleadings were duly filed and exchanged.
The facts briefly stated are as follows:
It is the case of the Appellant that she was employed as a Deputy Registrar of the 1st Respondent by a letter of appointment dated 22nd May, 2000 for a fixed term of years from May 2000 until she turned 60 years of age. Her monthly salary was N108,899.57 inclusive of allowances. Pursuant to her employment she was given a three-bedroom bungalow apartment by the 1st Respondent as her official residence.
However, having served the 1st Respondent for several years her appointment was terminated via a letter styled ‘services no longer required’ and dated 2nd May 2007. It is the contention of the Appellant that her termination is not in compliance with the Conditions of Service contained in the Senior Staff Conditions of Service and the law establishing the 1st Respondent. She contended that her termination was done by the 3rd Defendant/Respondent in connivance with the 4th Defendant/Respondent purportedly acting for or/on behalf of the University Management, who had no authority to do so. She contended that only the 2nd Respondent who has the power to duly terminate her services.
She also contended that her purported termination was done without the notice or approval of the 2nd Respondent as required by the Terms and Conditions of Service of the 1st respondent. She contended that at the time of the termination of her employment she was 54 years old. She also contended that immediately this suit was transferred from the Edo State High Court to National Industrial Court, the 3rd and 4th Respondents forcefully ejected her and her family from her official residence without following due process.
The Respondents in their defence contended that relationship between the Appellant and the Respondents is a master/servant relationship. They contended that the appointment letter of the Appellant states that the appointment may be terminated by a notice of three months or a three months’ salary in lieu of notice. They contended that as a result of the reorganization carried out in the 1st respondent in 2007, the Appellant’s services was deemed unnecessary and the 1st Respondent bursar was directed to pay her three months’ salary in lieu of notice. They further stated that the Appellant’s termination was approved and ratified by the 2nd Respondent on 24th May 2007. According to the Respondents, the Appellant’s entitlement was N50,306.25 per month and her 3 months’ entitlement in lieu of notice amounted to N150,918.75.
At the trial, the Appellant testified for herself as CW2 and called one other witness CW1. The Appellant tendered a host of exhibits which was admitted and marked Exhibit A – H. While the Respondents called three witnesses. Addresses were filed and the trial judge in delivering its judgment granted some of the reliefs of the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed this appeal via a Notice of Appeal dated 14th July, 2015 consisting of three grounds of appeal.
Pursuant to the rules of this Court, both parties through their counsel filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The Appellant’s amended brief was filed on 7th March, 2016 but deemed properly filed on the 16th March, 2017 while the Respondents’ amended brief was filed on 30th March, 2017. In response, the Appellant filed a reply brief on 18th April, 2017.
The Appellant in her brief formulated two issues for determination as follows: –
Whether the failure of the lower Court to consider the following matters raised in the case does not amount to a denial of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing i.e.
a. That the Appellants employment was for a fixed tenure for which upon a finding of wrongful termination she was entitled to the sum she would have earned under the employment as the proper measure of damage.
b. That the forceful ejectment of the Appellant from the staff quarters she occupied without due process of law is a matter ancillary to her employment, over which the National Industrial Court is vested with jurisdiction to award damage.
The Respondents on the other hand raised a preliminary objection at pages 3 – 10 in their brief and in addition adopted issues formulated by the Appellant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
It is the contention of counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant?s appeal is incompetent as the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. He submitted that by virtue of Section 9(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Section 243 (2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) an appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court to the Court of appeal:
1. As of right on questions of fundamental rights as contained in Chapter IV of the said Constitution or in criminal cases as they relate to matters upon which the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction; and
2. With leave on any other matter or cause provided such privilege or right is prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
He referred to the cases of COCA-COLA (NIG) LTD V AKINSANYA (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1386) 255; LAGOS SHERATON HOTEL & TOWERS V H.P.S.S.S.A (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt 1426) 45.
It is the contention of counsel that in the instant case this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. In determining whether this Court has jurisdiction counsel referred to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and submitted that based on the reliefs therein the main claim of the Appellant is based on the wrongful termination from employment and not Fundamental Right. He further submitted that the Appellant’s submission in the Amended brief of argument that there is a breach of her right to fair hearing was a poor attempt by the Appellant to lead this Court to assume jurisdiction. He referred to the case of ADEBAYO V GOV. BOARD, RUGIPOLY ONDO (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt 1555) 264.
He thus urged this Court to dismiss the appeal on this ground.
Learned counsel for the Appellant in reply submitted that in determining whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal recourse must be had to the Notice of Appeal and not the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim as canvassed by the Respondent. He relied on the case of NIGERIAN NAVY V LABINJO (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt 1328) 56; FIRST ALSTATE SEC LTD V ADESOYE H. LTD (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt 1381) 470.
It is the contention of counsel that grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal and issues 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s amended brief borders on the breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing. He submitted that it is a Court’s duty to pronounce on every issue raised before it and where it fails to do so amounts to breaching the right to fair hearing. He relied on the case of OVUNWO V WOKO (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1277) 522. He thus submitted that the failure of the trial Court to consider the issues as raised by the Appellant’s in her grounds of appeal and amended brief amounted to a breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.
He further submitted that where the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal and brief of argument complained of lack of fair hearing like in the instant case the Appellant can appeal as of right to this Court. Thus, there was no need to seek the leave of the Court to file the Notice of Appeal. He relied on the case of UCHBM V MORAKINYO (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt 1434) 589; COCA COLA NIG LTD V AKINSANYA (SUPRA).
Counsel also argued that the argument of counsel for the Respondents to the effect that actions for dismissal cannot be brought under Fundamental Human Rights for wrongful dismissal cases belong to Common Law class of action is misconceived. It is the contention of counsel that issue of breach of fair hearing which is a Fundamental Right can arise in any judicial proceeding regardless of the nature or class of action. He further submitted that the case of LAGOS SHERATON HOTEL & TOWERS V H.P.S.S.S.A cited by the Respondent will not apply as it is distinguishable from the instant case.
He thus urged this Court to hold that this appeal is not one in which the claim of violation of the right to fair hearing is bogey rather it is one of such instances where the leave of the trial Court need not be sought before an appeal is filed against the judgment of the trial Court.
ISSUE 1
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the failure of the trial Court to consider the Appellant’s counsel argument on the issue that since the Appellant’s employment was for a fixed term, she was thus entitled to her full salary for the unexpired period of her fixed contract as damages for wrongful termination amounts to a breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is trite that where an employee whose employment is for a fixed tenure or term of years has his/her employment wrongfully terminated, the proper measure of damages is what he or she would have earned under the contract if it had run its course. He relied on the Supreme Court case of S.S. CO. LTD V AFROPAK (NIG) LTD (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 77.
He submitted that the trial Court having held that the termination of the Appellant’s fixed term employment was wrongful, the failure of the trial Court to consider the Appellant’s counsel argument on the issue of the appropriate quantum of damage for the wrongful termination as held in the case the Supreme Court case of S.S CO LTD V AFROPAK (supra) amounts to a breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing.
It is the contention of counsel that in the instant case the unexpired period of the Appellant’s tenure from the date of her termination is 6 years and her monthly pay is N108,899.577 which facts remain unchallenged. He referred to clause 4 of Exhibit A, paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim as well as Paragraph 17 of her Witness Statement on Oath and Paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim as well as paragraph 8 of the Appellant’s Statement on Oath respectively. He also relied on the case of EFET V INEC (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt 1247) 423; MATANMI V DADA (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1353) 319.
He further submitted that had the trial Court considered the Appellant’s issue on the appropriate quantum of damage for the wrongful termination and the Supreme Court case of S.S. CO LTD V AFROPAK (supra), the trial Court would have upheld the position that the Appellant is entitled to be paid as damages for the wrongful termination the sum she would have earned for the remaining 6 years at her monthly earning of N108,899.57 i.e. 72 months (6years) multiplied by N108,899.57 to give N7,840,769.04.
He thus urged this Court to so hold.
In response, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s submission to the effect that her employment was a fixed term employment and as such she is entitled to damages for the unexpired period of her appointment and authorities cited in support is misconceived and irrelevant.
It is the contention of counsel that the Appellant’s contract of employment is simply a contract of personal service of Master/Servant relationship. He submitted that in a master and servant relationship, the damage is measured on the length of notice which ought to have been given.
In this case counsel submitted that the letter of appointment of the Appellant clearly stipulated the mode of termination which is three months’ salary in lieu of notice. He referred to exhibit D. He also referred to the case of OLATUNBOSUN V NISER COUNCIL (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 25; OSISANYA V ARIBANK PLC (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) 565; DUDUSOLA V NIGERIA GAS COMPANY LTD (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt 1363) 423.
He thus urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
ISSUE 2
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is trite law that jurisdiction of a Court is derived from the Constitution or a Statute and cannot be expanded or restricted by the Court, he relied on the cases of P & C.H.S CO LTD V MIGFO (NIG) LTD (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1333) 555; ELELU – HABEEB V AG FEDERATION (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423.
It is the contention of counsel that the trial Court derives its jurisdiction from Section 254 of the 1999 Constitution. He submitted that by virtue of Section 254(a) of the 1999 Constitution the trial Court is vested with jurisdiction over matters of employment and matters incidental thereto and connected therewith. In the instant case, Counsel submitted that the occupancy by the Appellant of the staff quarters of the 1st Respondent was incidental to her employment and thus within the jurisdiction of this Court. He submitted that failure of the trial Court to consider the Appellant’s grievance in respect of the manner in which the Respondents harassed and unlawfully ejected her from the staff quarters of the 1st Respondent amounts to a breach of the Appellant?s right to fair hearing.
He also submitted that failure of the trial Court to evaluate the evidence led by virtue of Exhibit A, E and F violates the Appellant’s right to fair hearing enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of OVUNWO V WOKO (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1277) 522.
He thus urged this Court to all issues in favour of the Appellant.
Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that Appellant’s submission that the occupation of the staff quarter is incidental to her employment emphasizes the fact that this relief is subject to the head of claims dealing with wrongful termination and therefore does not fall within jurisdictional scope of this Court.
He thus urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondent.
RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The Respondent alleged that there was no incident of a breach of fair hearing at the hearing of this matter in the trial Court to entitle the Appellant to appeal as of right.
It is well settled that it is the party alleging breach of fair hearing that has the onus of proving that allegation based on the facts of the case. See MAIKYO V ITODO (2007) NWLR (PT. 1034) PG. 443, FIN BANK PLC V ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL NIG. LTD. & ANOR (2013) LPELR 20378.
The Record of Appeal is the process to look to in determining if there has been fair hearing or the breach of it. GONZEE (NIG.) LTD. V NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 943) 634, THE STATE VS BABAGANA JOHN (2013) LPELR 20590, UKUT V STATE (2016) LPELR 41380.
The Courts have however, warned that:
“It is not proper to make spurious allegations without substantiating same. The lower Court is a Court of record. Any allegation of breach of fair hearing must be substantiated or specifically stated to enable this Court pronounce on it or address it. It is not enough to say that the fundamental right to fair hearing of a party was breached without stating what or how such right was breached or denied AMAH VS OZOULI (2010) LPELR 3762.”
In the Instant case, the Appellant merely alleged that the learned trial Judge did not evaluate the evidence placed before him. Whether or not a trial Judge failed to evaluate the evidence placed before him properly or not at all doesn’t amount to a breach of fair hearing. It is a failing by the trial Court which can be appealed upon to enable the Appellate Court have a better look and assess whether such evidence was properly evaluated by the trial Court. ADEBAYO V ADUSEI(2004) 4 NWLR (PT. 862) PG. 44.
Fair hearing within the meaning of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution means a trial conducted according to all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties. It requires the observance of the twin pillars of the rules of natural justice namely audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. ESHENAKE V GBINIJE (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 961) PG. 228.
Fair hearing is so fundamental in adjudication of cases, that once there is a breach of it, the whole proceedings in the course of which the breach occurred and the decision arrived at by the Court become a nullity. ANPP V INEC (2004) 7 NWLR (PT. 871) PG. 16, ALL PEOPLES PARTY V OGUNSOLA (2002) 5 NWLR (PT. 761) PG. 484, BON LTD. V ADEGOKE (2006) 10 NWLR (PT. 983) PG. 339.
The Appellant alleged that her Fundamental Right of fair hearing was breached. Was it that the Appellant was not heard ‘ audi alteral pantem or that the trial Judge descended into the arena nemo judex in causa sua’
The Appellant did not prove this considering that the onus rested squarely on her.
The Respondent had urged the Court to look into the statement of claim in the lower Court. This is not the case here. On appeal the Court is only entitled to look at the Notice and Grounds of Appeal and then the Record of Appeal where lies the proceedings of the lower Court.
Was there a breach on the face of the Record where any of the twin pillars was breached? It has been held in a plethora of cases that the concept of fair hearing and fair trial are interchangeable. The time test of fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether, from his observation; justice has been done in the case. Such bystander would be guided by two universally recognised principles. First, were the two sides to the case heard so as to fulfill the principle of audi alteram partem? Secondly, was the Judge personally interested in the issues before him, thus violating the principle of nemo judex in causa sua. ISIYAKU MOHAMMED V KANO N. A. SC/417/1967 (unreported delivered on 31/12/1968), EZECHUKWU V ONWUKA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT. 963) PG. 151.
The Appellant has not been able to satisfactorily discharged the burden placed on her to prove the breach of fair hearing during the trial in the lower Court.
The Appellant cannot therefore appeal as of right. She needed to seek leave of the Court to appeal against the decision of the trial Court. See Section 9(1) National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Section 243(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Having not obtained leave, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See SKYE BANK V IWU (2017) LPELR 42595.
Where the jurisdiction of a Court is challenged like in this appeal, the Court is entitled under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to consider the processes before it in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it.
It is settled that a Court is competent when the Court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. All the requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court. It therefore means that where a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity irrespective of how well the proceedings was conducted. UMANAH V ATTAH (2006) 17 NWLR (PT. 1009) 503, MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587, SKENCONSULT V UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6, BENIN RUBBER PRODUCERS LTD. V OJO (1997) 9 NWLR (PT. 521) 388, MAGAJI V MATARI (2000) 5 SC 46, ALAO V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD. (2000) 6 SC (PT. 1) 27, GALADIMA V TAMBAI (2000) 6 SC (PART 1) 196, ARAKA V EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT. 1) 99, LUFHANSA AIRLINES V ODIESE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 978) 39.
It is important for a party who perceives that a Court has no jurisdiction to hear a cause or matter to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. Correspondingly, a Court is expected to decide the issue of its jurisdiction to hear a case when a challenge is raised at the earliest opportunity. NNONYE V ANYICHIE (2005) 2 NWLR (PT. 910) PG. 623.
Where a Court lacks jurisdiction, the only thing left for the Court to do is to strike out the matter.
I therefore uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
No order as to cost.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: Clearly from the Record of Appeal and the tenor of the Arguments upon the issues canvassed, the subject of Appeal herein was one that required the leave of this Court to appeal.
The Primary or Principal and Main claim of the Appellant related to the termination of the Appellant’s employment with the Respondent. This was a matter relating to concerning Employment, Labour and Trade Disputes.
The law confers exclusivity of jurisdiction in the National Industrial Court. Appeals shall lie with leave to this Court in such matters that are neither based on Criminal cases emanating from such cases nor based on the breach of fundamental right such as fair hearing. Appeals on those later categories lie as of right. I agree with my Lord Uzo .I. Ndukwe Anyanwu, JCA, in this Lead Judgment that the crux of the appeal, is the grouse against the violation of entitlement to stay on in the employment for a term certain and alleged violation of the contractual terms of Employment and protection of the perquisites of Employment.
The principal relief as in ABBA TUKUR vs Taraba State Government (1992) is the main relief from the violation complained of.
The Ancillary reliefs relating the breach of fair hearing, award of Damages and unlawful ejection and damages as torts span and ooze out of the contract of Employment, a labour dispute under the constitution and Labour Act.
In this matter, they ought to be articulated in a competent appeal that has had the requirement of prior leave first met. Leave has to be sought and granted to make the raising of those issues arising from the Judgment of the National Industrial Court cognizable by this Court. This appeal is incompetent and is therefore struck out, for want of Jurisdiction.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I had the privilege to read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother, UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA just delivered. I endorse the reasoning and conclusion reached therein.
The preliminary objection raised by the Respondent is well founded. I uphold the submission of the Learned Counsel to the Respondent that the Appellant merely included the issue of breach of fair hearing only to clothe this Court with jurisdiction. This is a futile attempt by the Appellant to cure the defect in their appeal which was brought without leave when leave ought to have been sought, the matter not being one for breach of fundamental at the Court below. I agree that none compliance with Section 9(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 & S. 243(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution robs this Court of jurisdiction.
I therefore uphold the preliminary objection and strike out this appeal for want of jurisdiction. I also make no order as to costs.
Appearances:
M. O. OkhuaroboFor Appellant(s)
W. O. Ovbiebo for 1st-4th RespondentsFor Respondent(s)
