AKPANUDOEDEHE v. NTUKEKPO & ORS
(2022)LCN/16164(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, May 27, 2022
CA/ABJ/CV/353/2022(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
SEN. JOHN JAMES AKPANUDOEDEHE (Secretary Caretaker/Extra Ordinary Convention Planning Committee Of APC) APPELANT(S)
And
1. STEPHEN LEO NTUKEKPO (State Chairman, APC Akwa Ibom State) 2. UDUAKOBONG PETER UDOH (State Secretary, APC Akwa Ibom State) 3. UKO OBONODO INI (State Women Leader, APC Akwa Ibom State) (For Themselves And As Representing All The Democratically Elected Members Of Akwa Ibom State Executive Committee Of The All Progressives Congress (APC), At The APC State Congress Held In Akwa Ibom State On The 16th Day Of October, 2021 4. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 5. HIS EXCELLENCY MAI MALA BUNI (National Chairman Caretaker/ Extra Ordinary Convention Planning Committee Of APC) 6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW WHERE THERE IS AN APPLICATION SEEKING TO TERMINATE A PROCESS OR DESTROYS SAME AND THERE IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AN APPLICATION BY THE PARTY AFFECTED TO RESCUE OR REMEDY THE PROCESS CHALLENGED BY HIS OPPONENT
The trite law is that where you have an application seeking to terminate a process or destroys same and there is pending before the Court an application by the party affected to rescue or remedy the process challenged by his opponent, the Court seised of the matter will do well to take the application seeking to remedy the situation before delving into the merit of application seeking to bring the process to an abrupt end. See
1. THOMAS OLUMESAN V AYODELE OGUNDEPO (1996) 2 NWLR (PART 433) 628 AT 646 F- H per IGUH, JSC who said:-
“However, whether the application for an adjournment would be granted or refused is a totally different matter. What seems to me important in the situation is that the application for an adjournment having been made, the same ought first to have been addressed, considered and ruled upon one way or the other before the application for dismissal would be taken. Even where the application for the adjournment was heard and refused, the power of the Court to dismiss the appeal ought not to be exercised still unless the appellant was given the opportunity and he refused to proceed with his appeal. The appellant must have been given the opportunity to proceed with his appeal, failing which the Court of Appeal, may, in its discretion, make whatever appropriate orders it may deem fit in the circumstances. It was therefore the duty of the Court of Appeal before deciding to dismiss the appellant’s appeal to have disposed of the application for an adjournment properly made to it by the appellant by ruling that the same was either granted or refused. If it was refused, it was the further duty of the Court below to give the appellant an opportunity to decide whether or not to go on with his appeal. This, the Court of Appeal failed to do. It is therefore my view that the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal in the circumstances explained above without giving him an opportunity to proceed with the appeal if he so desired is, with great respect, a grave procedural error which, without doubt, occasioned a miscarriage of justice and constituted a definite breach of the audi alteram partem rule. “PER IGE, J.C.A.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): By the consent of the parties to this appeal six applications/motions were consolidated for hearing on 24/5/2022. The said applications are as follows:-
1. Motion filed by 1st and 2nd Respondents on 5/4/22 seeking to strike out this appeal.
2. Motion filed on 5/4/22 by the 3rd Respondent seeking to strike out this appeal.
3. Motion filed on 22/4/22 seeking to regularize the Appellant’s Counter Affidavit against the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion of 5/4/22.
4. Motion filed on 26/4/22 to regularise the Appellant’s Counter Affidavit against the 3rd Respondent’s Motion of 5/4/22.
5. Motion filed on 13/5/22 seeking to restrain UMOH, SAN from appearing for the Appellant.
6. Motion filed on 17/5/22 seeking to strike out the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ application filed on 13/5/22.
The above applications were duly argued.
I will deal first with the Appellant’s applications filed on 22/4/2022 seeking to file out of time his Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion dated 5th April, 2022 and the Appellant’s Motion on Notice dated and filed on 26/4/2022 seeking to file out of time his Counter-Affidavit against the 3rd Respondent’s Motion dated 5th April, 2022.
The aforesaid motions were not opposed. It must however be noted that while moving the motion filed on 22/4/2022 to extend time to file Counter-Affidavit against the motion filed by 1st and 2nd Respondents to strike out the appeal, the learned Senior Counsel to the Appellant SOLOMON UMOH, SAN abandoned prayers 2 and 4th thereof.
Consequently, it is hereby ordered in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the Motion Papers filed on 22/4/2022. The Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit filed on 22/4/22 in opposition to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion dated 5th April, 2022 is hereby deemed properly filed and served.
Prayers 2 and 4 having been abandoned are hereby struck out.
It is also ordered as prayed in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the Appellant’s Motion to regularize his Counter-Affidavit filed out of time. The Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the 3rd Respondent’s Motion dated 5/4/2022 is hereby deemed as properly filed and served.
It is observed that the Appellant also filed Further Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the 3rd Respondent’s Motion dated 5th April, 2022 on 9/5/22. The said Further Counter-Affidavit of the Appellant filed on 9/5/2022 is also hereby deemed properly filed and served. The Appellant’s Further Counter-Affidavit filed on 9/5/2022 against the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion of 4/5/22 is also deemed properly filed and served.
On 17th day of May, 2022, the Appellant filed a Motion on Notice to strike out the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion filed on 13th May, 2022 for being gross abuse of process.
I am of the firm view that the Motion filed by the Appellant against the Motion of the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed on 13/5/2022 seeking to disqualify Learned Senior Counsel SOLOMON UMOH, SAN from appearing for the Appellant in this appeal, cannot be the answer to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion of 13/5/2022.
The Appellant has on the same date (17/5/2022) filed copious Counter-Affidavit against the aforesaid Motion of the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed on 13/5/2022.
I am of the view that the Appellant’s Motion filed on 17/5/2022 seeking to have the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Motion filed on 13/5/2022 struck out is hereby struck out for being an abuse of Court process.
It now remains for me to consider one after the other, the following Motions:-
1. Notice of Application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents seeking to dismiss or strike out the Appellant’s appeal.
2. Motion on Notice filed on 5/4/2022 by 3rd Respondent seeking in similar vein as 1st and 2nd Respondents, to strike out the Appellant’s appeal on ground of lack of locus standi and as constituting abuse of judicial process and
3. Notice of application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on 13/5/2022 seeking to restrain the learned Senior Counsel to the Appellant, SOLOMON UMOH, SAN or any Counsel from his Law Firm from appearing as Counsel to the Appellant.
1. APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT THE APPEAL FILED BY 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS ON 5/4/2022.
This application borders on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeal as the grounds for the Application are that the Appellant lacks locus standi to maintain the appeal and according to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, there is no existing dispute between the Appellant and the Respondents.
The purpose of this application is to terminate the appeal in limine.
It is the right of any Respondent to an appeal who conceives that an appeal is incompetent and by extension that this Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on an appeal to proceed to file his or her Notice of Preliminary Objection as prescribed by the Rules of this Court. I call in aid ORDER 10 RULE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2021 which provides:-
“ORDER 10 – FILING NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
1. A Respondent intending to rely upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal shall give the Appellant three clear days notice thereof before the hearing, setting out the grounds of objection, and shall file such notice together with ten hard/physical copies and an electronic copy thereof with the Registry within the same time. The preliminary objection shall be argued in the Respondent’s brief of argument.”
As can be seen above the 1st and 2nd Respondents are expected to file their Notice of Preliminary Objection to the hearing of the appeal and argue same in the Respondents’ Brief of Argument when appeal comes up for hearing so that if this Court finds that the Preliminary Objection is viable, it will be sustained and the appeal will be struck out for incompetence and on ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of this Court. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ application violates Order 10 Rule of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021. The application of the 1st and 2nd Respondents is hereby struck out for incompetence.
I observe that the 1st and 2nd Respondents subsequent to their application aforesaid filed their Brief of Argument on 4/5/2022 without arguing the objection in their Brief of Argument.
In respect of the 3rd Respondent’s Notice filed on 5/4/2022, I have read the Affidavit in support and the Counter-Affidavit of the Appellant. I have also read the Further Affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent and I am of the view that the objection of the 3rd Respondent ought to be argued in their Brief of Argument pursuant to Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.
The 3rd Respondent’s application is also hereby struck out for incompetence.
In any event, I observed that the Appellant has a pending Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 17th day of May, 2022 seeking to amend the capacity of the Appellant in the appeal in apparent reaction to the Applications filed by the two (2) sets of Respondents who have filed objection challenging the locus of the Appellant. That application has not been taken and the Court cannot close its eyes to it. The trite law is that where you have an application seeking to terminate a process or destroys same and there is pending before the Court an application by the party affected to rescue or remedy the process challenged by his opponent, the Court seized of the matter will do well to take the application seeking to remedy the situation before delving into the merit of application seeking to bring the process to an abrupt end. See
1. THOMAS OLUMESAN V AYODELE OGUNDEPO (1996) 2 NWLR (PART 433) 628 AT 646 F- H per IGUH, JSC who said:-
“However, whether the application for an adjournment would be granted or refused is a totally different matter. What seems to me important in the situation is that the application for an adjournment having been made, the same ought first to have been addressed, considered and ruled upon one way or the other before the application for dismissal would be taken. Even where the application for the adjournment was heard and refused, the power of the Court to dismiss the appeal ought not to be exercised still unless the appellant was given the opportunity and he refused to proceed with his appeal. The appellant must have been given the opportunity to proceed with his appeal, failing which the Court of Appeal, may, in its discretion, make whatever appropriate orders it may deem fit in the circumstances. It was therefore the duty of the Court of Appeal before deciding to dismiss the appellant’s appeal to have disposed of the application for an adjournment properly made to it by the appellant by ruling that the same was either granted or refused. If it was refused, it was the further duty of the Court below to give the appellant an opportunity to decide whether or not to go on with his appeal. This, the Court of Appeal failed to do. It is therefore my view that the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal in the circumstances explained above without giving him an opportunity to proceed with the appeal if he so desired is, with great respect, a grave procedural error which, without doubt, occasioned a miscarriage of justice and constituted a definite breach of the audi alteram partem rule.”
2. A.G. FEDERATION V A.I.C. LTD & ORS (1995) 2 NWLR (PART 378) 388 AT 397 per KUTIGI, JSC who said:-
“When the two motions came before us for hearing on 5th December, 1994 Professor Kasunmu learned senior counsel for the respondent/applicant insisted that his motion must be taken first since it was earlier in time and if granted there would be no further need for the appellant’s motion. It was then pointed out to him that since the appellant’s motion which was wider in scope also clearly covered his own, the two motions would be taken together beginning with the appellant’s counsel. I would have thought that Professor Kasunmu ought to have been aware of the general practice by now that where in the same case there are two adversely competing motions before a Court, one “Constructive” and the other potentially “destructive”, the Court will normally proceed to take the former motion first unless it will be inequitable to do so, so that if it succeeds, there would be no need for the latter motion which will then be withdrawn and struck out accordingly.”
3. EDHEREMU UGBODUME & ORS V. REV. MOSES ABIEGBE & ORS. (1973) NSCC 26 AT 33.
Now coming to the Notice of Application filed on 13th May, 2022 by the 1st and 2nd Respondents seeking to restrain SOLOMON UMOH, SAN and or Counsel or his law firm from appearing as Counsel to the Appellant and for an order striking out all the processes filed in this appeal by the said learned silk, the grounds upon which the application is predicated as stated on the Motion Paper are as follows:-
“Grounds for the Application
1. The All Progressives Congress briefed a consortium of Solomon Umoh SAN and Niyi Akintola SAN to represent the All Progressives Congress and her officials in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CV/163S/2020, Stephen Leo Ntukekpo v APC at the Federal High Court.
2. Solomon Umoh, SAN and Niyi Akintola SAN were the joint counsel to the APC and its officials, and, contracted a counsel/client relationship with the APC.
3. Niyi Akintola, SAN appeared for the APC and the National Chairman of the APC, while Solomon Umoh, SAN appeared for the National Secretary of the APC at the trial Court.
4. The APC terminated the brief after the delivery of judgment by the trial Court.
5. Subsequently, Solomon Umoh, SAN accepted the brief of a party to the same suit, John James Akpanudoedehe, and filed an appeal on his behalf against his former client and is seeking reliefs against his former client, the APC.
6. The said acceptance of the brief and filing of processes against the APC by Solomon Umoh, SAN is in breach of the counsel/client relationship which existed between the APC and Solomon Umoh, SAN.
7. The said acceptance of the brief and filing of processes against the APC by Solomon Umoh, SAN is in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct that regulates legal practitioners in Nigeria.”
Paragraphs 1 – 20 of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Affidavit stated as follows:-
“4. That we joined the interim national Chairman and interim Secretary of the APC in the suit as alter ego and administrative heads of the APC and to have them bound by the outcome of the suit.
5. That the APC briefed the law firms of Solomon Umoh, SAN and Niyi Akintola, SAN to represent the APC and her officials at the Federal High Court.
6. That the law firms of Solomon Umoh, SAN and Niyi Akintola, SAN represented the APC, the National Chairman of APC and the National Secretary of the APC at the trial.
7. That the trial Court delivered judgment in our favour, which judgment is subject of an appeal before this honourable Court.
8. That the APC directed the withdrawal of all appeals filed by her lawyers in the name of the APC, the National Chairman and the Secretary of the APC and forwarded copies of the said directives to this honourable Court and all lawyers involved in the Appeal. A copy of the letter addressed to the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN is exhibited as “Exh. APC 1”
9. That the law firm of Niyi Akintola SAN complied with the directive from the APC and withdrew Appeal No. CA/ABJ/352/2022, filed in the name of the APC and the National Chairman of the APC.
10. That the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN, declined to accede to the directive of the APC to withdraw Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CS/353/2022 filed in the name of the Secretary of the APC.
11. That the APC was embarrassed by the conduct of the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN, and was compelled to brief another counsel to take over the appeal and comply with the directive of the APC.
12. That when the new counsel informed the Court of Appeal of his mandate from the APC, the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN, then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to, maintain the appeal and convert all documents they had filed on behalf of the Secretary of the APC, to an appeal filed by Senator John James Akpanudoedehe.
13. That the sole purpose of the application is to frustrate the mandate given by the APC to her new counsel and continue the undue and unprofessional harassment of my person without the mandate of the APC.
14. That the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN was the counsel to the APC at the trial Court and stood in a fiduciary relationship with the APC when they represented the Secretary to the APC under mandate given to them by the APC.
15. That I know that it is against the rule of professional ethics for the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN to canvass arguments and positions on Appeal that are against those of the APC – which is a party they represented at the trial Court in this same suit.
16. That I know that it is against the rule of professional ethics for the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN to file Court processes in this appeal and place themselves in an adversary position against the APC who they previously represented at the trial Court.
17. That Senator John James Akpanudoedehe has a right to counsel of his choice but the rules prohibit the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN from representing him in this appeal, as such will place the firm in conflict with their former client, APC and the brief given to them by the APC.
18. That the rules of professional ethics for legal practitioners prohibit a counsel from representing the rival to his former client in the same suit, even when the suit is on appeal and even after he has ceased to act for the said former client.
19. That an appeal is a continuation of the trial, and counsel cannot offer their services to opposing parties in the same suit when the case goes to appeal.
20. That under the rules of professional ethics, the application filed 10/5/2022, (and indeed all other processes) filed by the law firm of Solomon Umoh, SAN is incompetent, being an application filed by a counsel against the interests of APC, who the firm previously represented.”
Responding to the above deposition of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the Appellant filed Counter-Affidavit on 17/5/2022 stating in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 28 as follows:-
“1. That I am a legal practitioner in the Law Firm of Solomon E. Umoh SAN & Co., Counsel to the Appellant/Respondent and by virtue of which position I am conversant with the facts deposed to hereunder.
2. That the facts deposed to hereunder are facts within my personal knowledge except as otherwise stated.
3. That I have the consent of the Appellant/Applicant as well as my employer to depose to this affidavit.
4. That paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ affidavit in support of their Motion on Notice dated 13th May, 2022 are not correct.
5. That at the trial Court, the firm of Solomon Umoh SAN Co was instructed to represent the appellant sued as the 3rd defendant independently and not part of any consortium of lawyers. A copy of the Letter of Instruction dated 6th January, 2022 is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA1.
6. That after the delivery of the judgment, his instruction to represent the 3rd defendant was later expressly terminated by the 4th Respondent. A copy of the letter terminating his Instruction dated 6th April, is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA2.
7. That upon delivery of the judgment the 3rd defendant who became the appellant briefed the firm of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co as a counsel of his choice to proceed to handle the appeal against the judgment on his behalf. A copy of his letter of Instruction to Solomon Umoh San & Co dated 17th March, 2022 is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA3.
8. That upon the receipt of Exhibit JJA2 expressly terminating the brief of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co at the trial Court and suggesting that the processes filed on appeal be withdrawn, the firm replied the said letter explaining the circumstances of the appeal. A copy of the Firm’s letter dated 7th April, 2022 is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA4.
9. That in furtherance both Solomon Umoh SAN & Co as well as his client, the appellant had written several letters disclosing the circumstances as well as the issues pertaining to the appeal to the 4th Respondent. Copies of the appellant’s letters to the APC dated 14th April, 2022 and 29th April, 2022 and that of the appellant’s counsel to APC dated 7th April, 2022 are hereby attached and marked exhibits JJA5 and JJA6 respectively.
11. That the present applicants were the plaintiffs at the Court below who took out proceedings against the appellant and the 4th respondent as defendants and have never been clients of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co.
18. That I was informed by the Appellant in our law firm at No. 4 Ejura Close, Opp 17 Ajesa Street, Wuse 2, Abuja on 13th May, 2022 at about 3:00 pm and I verily believe him.
19. That he went back to his party where he is still a member and held a meeting with the APC’s National Chairman, National Secretary, National Legal Adviser inter alia and they advised that he can continue with his appeal in Court, provided the description attached to his name at the trial Court is taken out so as not to pass him off or present that he is still the secretary of the party.
20. That based on the outcome of the meeting, the appellant instructed his counsel to file the application dated the 10th day of May, 2022.
21. That the appellant has now filed a Notice of Discontinuance of the said application of 10th May, 2022 having identified some errors due to inadvertence. A copy of the said Notice of Discontinuance is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA9.
22. That the appellant has also filed another application as a substitute to the said application of 10th May, 2022. A copy of the said Application is hereby attached and marked Exhibit JJA10.
26. That the firm of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co has not canvassed any argument against the APC, as the appeal is against the judgment of the trial Court entered in favour of the applicants and all that is sought from the Court of Appeal is to overturn the decision of the trial Court.
27. That the firm of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co has not filed any process against the APC as the APC is a nominal party in this appeal and were made a party for the purpose of procedural completeness.
28. That the firm of Solomon Umoh SAN & Co is not representing any rival interest against the APC, rather the appeal is against the judgment of the trial Court entered in favour of the Applicants.”
There is no reply to the Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit or Further Affidavit in support of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Application. The reproduced paragraphs of the Appellant’s Counter-Affidavit are thus deemed admitted.
I have carefully read the Affidavits for and against the application under consideration and what stands out very significantly is that the 1st and 2nd Respondents are out fighting the battle of the 4th Respondent (APC) which did not see any need to challenge the appearance of SOLOMON UMOH, SAN. The 1st and 2nd Respondents have also shown by their Affidavit in Support that they did not brief SOLOMON UMOH, SAN at the lower Court and he did not appear against the interest of 1st and 2nd Respondents rather he was briefed by the ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS to defend her at the lower Court against the suit of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
I have read Rule 17(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and I agree with the Appellant’s learned senior Counsel that it is a matter for the injured client to complain about and not for 1st and 2nd Respondents to take it upon themselves to fight what appears to be the cause of ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) the 4th Respondent in this appeal.
I am therefore of the view that the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Application seeking to restrain the learned senior Counsel to the Appellant and seeking to strike out the processes filed in this appeal has no merit. The 1st and 2nd Respondents have no locus standi to bring the application.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Application filed on 13th May, 2022 is hereby dismissed as lacking in merit.
There will be no order as to costs.
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: The lead ruling of my learned brother, Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA, which has just been delivered was made available to me in draft.
I am allegiant to the reasoning and conclusion in the said lead ruling. I adopt the same as mine with nothing more to add.
I abide by the orders made in the lead ruling, inclusive of the order as to costs.
DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE (JCA) just delivered. It substantially captured all the issues I raised during the conference of Justices that heard this appeal.
I therefore agree with the findings and conclusions reached in the lead judgment that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have no locus standi to bring this Application filed on 13th May, 2022, thus, this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Appearances:
SOLOMON UMOH, SAN, WITH HIM TAWO E. TAWO, SAN, A. A. MALIK, SAN, P. H. OGBOLE, SAN, OBINNA MBATA, ESQ., I. F. UKPAH, ESQ., SANTOS ENEJAH, ESQ., F. U. ARCHIBONG, ESQ., V. B. ONOCHIE, ESQ., C. C. ADAGI, ESQ., U. O. UMEANO and OJONG DAKON, ESQ.
DR. OBINNA ONYA (Seeking to take over the Prosecution of the Appeal)
OLAJIDE AYODELE, SAN, with him, SIMON PETER ESSIEN, ESQ. and AKIN AYODELE, ESQ. for Persons seeking to appeal as Interested Parties For Appellant(s)
UMEH KALU, SAN, with him, VALENTINE OFFIA, ESQ. and ADEKUNLE KOSOKO, ESQ. – for 1st and 2nd Respondents
KALU ONUOHA, ESQ. with him, MANDY NWORIE, ESQ. for 3rd Respondent
UMA NTIMA, ESQ., with him, IVIE ONYENEKE, ESQ. – for 4th and 5th Respondents
E. M. AKAFA, ESQ. – for 6th Respondent. For Respondent(s)