ALKALI MARAFA UMAR FARUK MUH’D KATAMI v. ALHAJI USMAN GARBA KATAMI
(2018)LCN/12056(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 28th day of November, 2018
CA/S/17/2018
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: THE QUESTION OF NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
“What is clearly before this Court as presented by both sides to the Appeal is the case of non-joinder of parties. The position of the law is that when a person who is a necessary party to a suit has not been joined as a party it is a case of non-joinder. As regards the non-joinder of parties, a distinction has to be drawn between the non-joinder of a party who is a necessary party and ought to have been joined and the non-joinder of a person whose joinder is only a matter of convenience or expediency.
The settled position of the law is that a suit is not to be dismissed only on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The authorities in support of this proposition of the law are in the legions. The Court may allow necessary parties to be joined in at a later stage. The Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. See Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2015, which provides thus: “No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non – joinder of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter in control in so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before the Court”.” PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.
COURT AND PROCEDURE: REASON OF A MIS-JOINDER OR NON-JOINDER
“However, for the simple reason that no action can be defeated by reason of a misjoinder or non-joinder of any party and the principles enunciated in the judgment of the apex Court in OKOYE vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE CO. LTD (Supra), which tends to amplify and indeed give impetus to the Rule of Court in Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the Sokoto High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, this Court therefore allows this Appeal and that by so doing, is left with no options than to adopt one or more of the measures prescribed by the Apex Court in the OKOYE vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION (Supra).” PER FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.
Justice
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ALKALI MARAFA UMAR FARUK MUH’D KATAMI – Appellant(s)
AND
ALHAJI USMAN GARBA KATAMI – Respondent(s)
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The major issues at stake in this Appeal are whether a proceeding is liable to be defeated due to reason of misjoinder or non – joinder of parties and also whether a trial judge, does not have the powers under the rules of Court to order the joinder of necessary parties in order to address the needs of justice in so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties before the Court.
Also raised is the notorious issue of whether the proper thing to do is to dismiss an action, rather than striking it out, after making a finding that the action is incompetent and or that the trial Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the action following the sustenance of a Notice of Preliminary Objection raised and argued for that purpose. This Appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Sokoto State, sitting at Sokoto Judicial Division Coram: BELLO DUWALE, J. in Suit No. SS/28/2017, delivered on the 26th day of July, 2017 wherein the Court dismissed the Appellants suit for reason of its being incompetent following the determination of a Notice of Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent.
The facts of this case are that following the demise of Late Sarkin Yamma Abubakar Musa in the year 2013, the chieftaincy stool of Sarkin Yamma Katami became vacant. The Appellant, a retired civil servant with the State Judicial Service Commission, belongs to the Alazawa Family; which is one of the ruling Houses qualified to field a candidate for the vacant stool. The entire families of Alazawa subsequently met and agreed that the Appellant be made the sole candidate to fill the vacant stool pursuant to which the Appellant indicated his interest to contest for the said vacant stool. In what appeared to the Appellant as against the age-old hereditary customs and traditions of Katami town, the Respondent who was not a descendant of Alazawa but from the Tasalyawa Family and which is also not one of the ruling Houses, was wrongly installed as the Sarkin Yamma Katami.
The Appellant instituted Suit No. SS/28/2017 by Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim challenging the selection, appointment and installation of the Respondent as the Sarkin Yamma Katami, wherein at paragraph 22 of the said Statement of Claim, he claimed against the Respondent as Defendant as follows;
WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF Claims from the Defendant as follows;
1. A Declaration that under the native law and custom, regulating appointment of chieftaincy title to Kantami town, it is only members of Alazawa Family are entitled. (sic)
2. A Declaration that the Defendant not being a descendant of Alazawa Family is not entitled to be appointed as Sarkin Yamman Kantami.
3. An Order setting aside the purported appointment of the Defendant as the Sarkin Yamman Kantami same not made in accordance with the native and custom of chieftaincy title of Kantami town.
4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from parading himself as the Sarkin Yamman Kantami.
On the 11th day of April, 2017, the Respondent as Defendant filed his Statement of Defense and the statements of his witnesses on oath. Upon the joining of issues and the conduct of a pre – trial conference by the Court below, the Respondent through his Counsel filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the suit and a fortiori the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the Suit No.SS/28/2017.
On the 26th of July 2017, the ruling of the Court below sustained the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the Respondent in part and dismissed the action of the Appellant as Plaintiff for being incompetent on the grounds that there was the absence of necessary parties in the suit. See page 113 of the records. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Appellant has appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal filed on the 3rd day of August 2017 containing 4 (four) grounds at pages 114 – 117 of the records. These grounds of Appeal are reproduced here without their particulars as follows;
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. The Court below erred in law and which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when in upholding the preliminary objection of the Respondent and consequently dismissing the Suit No. SS/28/2017 it held that the case of the Appellant cannot be effectively determined without the joinder of the Sultanate Council, the Governor and Silame Local Government Council as parties.
2. The Court below erred in law and which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when in upholding the preliminary objection of the Respondent and consequently dismissing the Suit No.SS/28/2017, it abdicated its duty of joining the parties which it referred to as necessary parties on the grounds that with the moving of the preliminary objection of the Respondent, the Court cannot suo motu join necessary parties as same would prejudice the Respondent.
3. The Court below misdirected itself in law and which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when having held that Suit No. SS/28/2017 disclosed a reasonable cause of action it nonetheless dismissed the case of the Appellant.
4. The Court below erred in law and which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when having held that the Suit No. SS/28/2017 was incompetent for failure to join necessary parties, it dismissed the suit of the Appellant rather than striking out same.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appellant nominated a total of two (2) issues for the determination of this Appeal as follows;
1. Was the Court below right in law when it held that with the moving of the preliminary objection of the Respondent, the Court cannot suo motu join necessary parties in the suit before it?(Ground 2)
2. Was the Court below right in law when it dismissed Suit No SS/28/2017? (Grounds 1, 3 & 4)
On the part of the Respondent, the two issues nominated by the Appellant were promptly adopted and it was in respect of these issues that learned Counsel for the parties addressed Court extensively. The Appellants Brief of Argument filed on the 30-5-2018, settled by IBRAHIM ABDULLAHI ESQ., while the Respondents Brief of Argument filed on the 12-9-2018 and deemed filed on the 11-10-2018 was settled by A. Y. ABUBAKAR ESQ. At the hearing of the Appeal on the 11-10-2018, learned Counsel adopted their Briefs of Argument on behalf of their respective clients and urged the Court to decide the Appeal in their favour.
SUBMISIONS OF COUNSEL;
APPELLANT;
ISSUE ONE:
Was the Court below right in law when it held that with the moving of the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent, the Court cannot suo motu join necessary parties in the suit before it?
The submission of Counsel on this issue is that at pages 78 – 80 of the records, whilst responding to the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent, the Appellant called on the Court below to suo motu join the necessary parties alluded to by the Respondent. He referred Court specifically, to page 80, lines 6 – 13 of the records in respect of this issue. In his arguments, Counsel stated that in reviewing the arguments of the parties as contained in their respective written addresses, the Court below refused to make an order of joinder on the ground that the Respondent as Defendant having moved his Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Court cannot suo motu join the aforementioned necessary parties as it will be prejudicial to the case of the Respondent.
The argument of Appellant in this connection is that it was on the basis of this prejudice and/or non-joinder that the Court below had relied upon in dismissing the action of the Appellant at page 113 of the records. On account of this position, Counsel submitted that the Court below has the inherent powers to suo motu order for the joinder of necessary parties. He referred Court to Order 13 Rule 16 (3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2015 of Sokoto State which provides thus:
“A Judge may order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or involved in the proceedings be added.”
According to learned Counsel, what the above cumulative provisions portends is that where there has been a non-joinder either by failure of the parties or an intervener to apply for such joinder or failure of the Court to join suo motu; this non-joinder will not be taken as a ground for defeating the action. He said that this rule is designed to save rather than destroy; to cure rather than to kill the action or suit.
It was further submitted that failure to join a party will thus under Order 13 Rules 16 (1) & (3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2015 not be fatal to the proceedings and the Court may determine the issues or questions so far as those issues or questions relate to and affect the rights and interests of the parties actually before the Court below with the corresponding right vested on the Court below to order for joinder suo motu.
Counsel further submitted that the refusal of the Court below to suo motu order for joinder of the necessary parties has no foot to stand and the factor of prejudice which the Court below took into consideration is meant to destroy or kill the import of Order 13 Rules 16 (1) & (3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2015. Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
ISSUE TWO:
“Was the Court below right in law when it dismissed Suit No SS/28/2017?
The submission of learned Appellants Counsel is that the Court below, having found the Appellants suit incompetent on the ground of failure to join the necessary parties despite that fact that the Court had earlier held that the Appellants action disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the Respondent, that it was wrong for the Court to do a summersault in dismissing the Appellants cases rather than striking it out.
Counsel cited a plethora of decided cases in support of his arguments, some of which are;BELLO vs. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1196) 342; IBRAHIM vs. OJONYE (2012) 3 NWLR (PT.1286) 108; SAPO vs. SUNMONU (2010) 11 NWLR (PT.1205) 374; OKOYE vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE CO. LTD (1991) 6 NWLR (PT.199) 501; OWNERS OF THE MV ARABELLA vs. NAIC (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1097) 182 AT 209 PARAS C-E RATIO 11. Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent and set aside the decision of the Court below.
RESPONDENT;
ISSUE ONE & TWO;
In arguing the two issues together, learned Counsel submitted that it is trite principle of the law that where there are no proper parties in an action pending before a Court, that the Court is robbed of the jurisdiction to try it. He argued that parties go hand in hand with the question of jurisdiction of a Court. He cited the case ofAWONIYI vs. REGISTRAR OF AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 76) 522 AT 533 where the Supreme Court per Mohammed, JSC held as follows:
“It is trite that parties to whom complain are made must be made parties to such an action, it is an elementary procedure that in prosecuting civil claim all parties necessary for the invocation of judicial powers of the Court must come before it so as to give the Court the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.”
Arising from the position of the law cited above and considering the reliefs claimed by the Appellant and those that will be affected by those reliefs if granted, Counsel submitted that the Appellant failed to sue the proper parties competent to defend the suit before the trial Court and that trial Court was right in its decision when it held that the Appellant’s case is incompetent by reasons of such failure. Counsel also referred to the lower Courts pronouncements in paragraphs 6, 14, 20 of the Statement of Claim, relief in paragraph 22(1)(2) and (3) of the statement of claim). At pages 3- 7 of the Record of Appeal.
The further argument of Counsel is that by these averments and reliefs sought thereof, the Appellant is challenging the appointment and the installation of the Respondent as the District Head of the newly created District of Katami in Silame Local Government. According to Counsel there are three parties involved in the appointment of any District Heads in Sokoto State by the provision of Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law Cap 21 laws of Sokoto State, 1996 and Sokoto State of Nigeria Law No.2 2009. Learned Counsel gave the names of the three parties as follows;
1. Silame Local Government Council.
2. Sokoto Sultanate Council.
3. The Governor of Sokoto State.
The further argument of Counsel is that going by the extant provisions of the law on the Appointment of Chief in Sokoto State, it is clear, that the Governor and the Sultanate Council are necessary parties in an action challenging the Appointment of a Chief and that by suing only the Respondent the Appellant is chasing shadows. Counsel cited the case of GREEN vs. GREEN (1987) 18 NSCC (PT. II) 1115; (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 480 SC, and AJAYI vs. JOLAYEMI (2001) 10 NWLR (PT. 722) 516 SC AT 531, 537 in support.
In responding to the argument of the Appellant where his Counsel posited that non joinder cannot defeat the Appellant’s action and relied on the provision of Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the Rules of Court, Counsel argued that when counterbalanced with the reliefs sought and the interest such reliefs will affect if granted, he said that the provision of Order 13 Rule 16 (1) will have to be holistically considered.
According to Counsel, the use of the phrase: “in so far as” by the framers of the rules has created a limitation to the application of the provision of Order 13 Rule 16 (1) by putting a caveat to mean that the order is applicable only when the Court can deal effectively with rights and interests of the parties before it and not when in dealing with those rights and interests of the parties before it, the interest of others not before it will be negatively affected, in such instance non joinder of necessary parties can effectively defeat an action. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss this Appeal.
RESOLUTION OF APPEAL
A civil action in Court will normally begin with the institution of the case by one party against another and the Court ultimately decides the rights and liabilities of the parties involved. The Rules of procedure of the various High Courts in Nigeria as well as case law deal with the question of who the proper parties to the suit would be and also contain provisions for addition, deletion and substitution of parties, joinder, non-joinder and misjoinder of parties, alongside objections to misjoinder and non-joinder.
The question of joinder of parties may arise either as regards the plaintiffs or as regards the defendants. An Act may be done by a single individual and may adversely affect another individual. In that case, the question of joinder of parties does not arise at all. The question of joinder, therefore, arises only when an Act is done by two or more persons or where it affects two or more persons. All persons may therefore be joined in one suit as plaintiffs according to the conditions prescribed under Rules of Court.
What is clearly before this Court as presented by both sides to the Appeal is the case of non-joinder of parties. The position of the law is that when a person who is a necessary party to a suit has not been joined as a party it is a case of non-joinder. As regards the non-joinder of parties, a distinction has to be drawn between the non-joinder of a party who is a necessary party and ought to have been joined and the non-joinder of a person whose joinder is only a matter of convenience or expediency.
The settled position of the law is that a suit is not to be dismissed only on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The authorities in support of this proposition of the law are in the legions. The Court may allow necessary parties to be joined in at a later stage. The Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. See Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2015, which provides thus:
“No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non – joinder of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter in control in so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before the Court”.
Under the scheme of things and as it relates to the question of joinder or non-joinder of parties, the Court has a role to play if it must deal fairly with the rights and interests of the parties before it. For instance, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings whether or not there is an application by any party, order that the name or names of any party, not joined properly to be struck out. Likewise, the Court has the discretion to make an order that the names of certain person or persons be added to the proceedings if their presence would be necessary to effectively adjudicate upon questions involved in the proceedings. Under Order 13 Rule 17 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2015, of Sokoto State, any application for the purpose of adding or striking out or substituting or varying the name of the claimant or a defendant may be made to the Court by Motion on Notice supported by an affidavit and all relevant documents together with a Written Address.
It would be recalled that the reason for having this suit dismissed at the Court below was due to reasons of non-joinder of what the Court termed necessary parties. The expression: necessary party has been defined as one in whose absence the Court cannot pass an effective decree, valid or binding decision. See the popular case of GREEN vs. GREEN (Supra). However, where the joinder of a person is only a matter of convenience and he has not joined as a party, he may be added at any stage or the suit may be tried without impleading him. The allowing of the suit depends on whether a party who has not been joined is a necessary party or merely a proper party.
In arguing this Appeal, learned Respondents Counsel had drawn attention to the fact that by the reliefs sought, the Appellant as Plaintiff is challenging the appointment and the installation of the Respondent as the District Head of the newly created District of Katami in Silame Local Government. And that to do that effectively, the three parties who are statutorily involved in the appointment of any District Heads in Sokoto State by virtue of the provision of Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) law Cap 21 laws of Sokoto State, 1996 and Sokoto State of Nigeria Law No.2 2009 must be joined. According to learned Counsel, by the extant provisions of the law on the Appointment of Chief in Sokoto State, it is clear, that the Governor and the Sultanate Council are necessary parties in an action challenging the Appointment of a Chief and that by suing only the Respondent the Appellant has not chased substance.
Although a Court might typically have the jurisdiction to hear a suit, the absence of a proper or necessary party before the Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given an opportunity to defend himself. In the case ofOKOYE & ORS vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE COMPANY LTD & ORS (Supra) cited by learned Appellants Counsel, the Supreme Court per AKATA JSC, who delivered the lead judgment of the Court was of the view that the failure to join as a party a person who ought to have been joined will not render the proceedings a nullity on the ground of lack of competence or jurisdiction. The noble Lord was of the view that the failure to join a necessary party is an irregularity which does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it. He further said that even where the irregularity may lead to unfairness which may result in setting aside the judgment on Appeal, the judgment set aside will not be for lack of jurisdiction.
In the instant case, what transpired at the Court below was that the Respondent upon noticing the absence of necessary parties in the Appellants suit went ahead and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenging the competence of the suit. The purpose of a Notice of Preliminary Objection, is to lead quickly to the termination or the dismissal of a matter in limine, to avoid the dissipation of energy and also the waste of valuable time on matters which are not worthy of taking any valuable time and resources of the Court. See the case of the YARO vs. AREWA CONSTRUCTION LTD. & ORS (2007) 6 SCNJ 418.
Rather than therefore filing a counter affidavit and joining issues with the Respondent as Defendant on the hearing of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, what was tactically expected of Appellant as Plaintiff at that stage was to have quickly filed a motion for the joinder of these necessary parties, in so far as the purpose of that motion would have been to rescue or salvage the suit from the destructive intentions of the Objection raised. The said Motion on Notice no doubt would have enjoyed the priority attention of the Court below so long as it is meant to save or revive the suit, while the Notice of Objection would have been the dismissal of the action. See RIRUWAI & ORS VS. SHEKARAU & 4 ORS (2008) LPELR-4898 CA; JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC & ANOR vs. MRS PHILOMENA UGO (2014) LPELR-23152 CA and several other decided cases on the subject.
The Court below therefore, having been allowed to go through the long haul of hearing the Preliminary Objection and deciding on its merit one way or the other, the fault and blames for the lower Courts decision can only be left at the door steps of the Appellant, who rather than file the necessary processes for the joinder of all necessary parties instead preferred to join issues with the Respondent on the question of the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed. By allowing the Court below take the Notice of Objection, it amounted to the same thing as allowing the Court go into the hearing of the substantive suit with the parties as presently improperly constituted.
However, for the simple reason that no action can be defeated by reason of a misjoinder or non-joinder of any party and the principles enunciated in the judgment of the apex Court in OKOYE vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE CO. LTD (Supra), which tends to amplify and indeed give impetus to the Rule of Court in Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the Sokoto High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, this Court therefore allows this Appeal and that by so doing, is left with no options than to adopt one or more of the measures prescribed by the Apex Court in the OKOYE vs. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION (Supra).
Consequently, the judgment of the Court below delivered on the 26th day of July, 2017 is Hereby Set Aside and it is FURTHER ORDERED THUS;
The matter is remitted to the Chief Judge of Sokoto State to be assigned to another judge of his choice for a trial de novo and for all those who ought to have been joined to be joined.
It is important to note that the fact that no action can now be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder, does not in the least suggest that a judgment can be obtained in the absence of a necessary party to the action, but rather the Rule is satisfied by allowing parties to be added at any time or any stage of the matter. See the English case of KUNSTLER vs. KUNSTLER (1969) 1 ALL ER, 673. There are no orders as to cost.
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment of my learned brother, FREDERICK O. OHO, JCA.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that an action shall not be defeated merely by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties as provided by ORDER 13 RULE 16 (1) of the Sokoto State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2015. Though the preliminary objection succeeded for non-joinder of necessary parties, the proper order the lower Court ought to have made is that of a striking out and not of a dismissal of the entire suit since it is merely an irregularity that does not affect the competence or Jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it. See: Okoye V. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 7 SC (Pt.lll) (Reprint) 33 @ 56; Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (60) 480. The only thing to be noted is that an order made against a person who was not a party to the action before the Court, though not a nullity, is to no avail. Such an order cannot stand. See: Uwazuruike & Ors, v. A.G. Federation (2013) 4-5 SC (Pt. 1) 90.
In any event the Court is empowered to by ORDER 13 RULE 16 (3) to order that the proper parties who are or likely to be interested in the matter be joined as parties. In OYEYEMI & ORS V OWOEYE and ORS (2017) LPELR-41903(SC) the Supreme Court per AKA’AHS JSC held that when proper parties are not before the Court, such that those who may be affected by the orders of the Court are not before it, the proper course a Court must follow is to direct that all persons interested or likely to be affected by the results are brought before it see: Mozie v. Mbamalu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 466.”
On this premise and for the fuller reasons in the lead judgment, I also allow the appeal and abide the order remitting the suit to the Chief Judge for re-assignment to another judge for a fresh trial.
ABDULLAHI M. BAYERO, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in advance the lead Judgment just pronounced by my learned brother, Justice Frederick O. Oho JCA. I am in absolute agreement with the entire reasoning therein, and the conclusion that the Appeal is meritorious and should be allowed and is hereby allowed.
The absence of a necessary party before a Court renders the entire suit an exercise in futility, as a Court cannot validly make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit, who was never heard nor given the opportunity to defend himself.
Furthermore, no action can be defeated by reason of a misjoinder or non-joinder of a necessary party as enunciated by the Supreme Court in OKOYE V. NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION & FURNITURE CO. LTD (1991) 6 NWLR (Part 199) Page 501.
I abide by the consequential order of remitting the matter to the Chief Judge of Sokoto State, to be assigned to another Judge, for a trial de novo and for all those who ought to have been joined to be joined.
Appearances:
IBRAHIM ABDULLAHI, Esq. For Appellant(s)
A. Y. ABUBAKAR, Esq.For Respondent(s)
