CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4583(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 27th day of May, 2011
CA/A/EPT/PRES/1/11
RATIO
PLEADINGS: WHETHER THE GRANT OF AN ORDER FOR FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
In other words, the granting of an order for Further and Better particulars is at the discretion of the Court. Paragraph 5 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) puts the matter beyond doubt. “5. Evidence need not to be stated in the election petition, but the Tribunal or Court may order such Further Particulars as may be necessary (a) to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense. (b) to ensure fair and proper hearing in the same way as in a civil action in the Federal High Court; and (c) on such terms as to costs or other wise as may be ordered by the Tribunal or Court. In the case of ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR & 2 ORS V. ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR’ADUA & 5 ORS. (2008) 4 NWLR (pt. 1078) (supra) 465 at 503-504 the Supreme Court (Per Tobi JSC) expounded the rationale for the grant of an order for Further and Better Particulars as follows:- “The next consideration is the request for further and better particulars from the 1st and 2nd Respondents. A party asks for further and better particulars where, in his view, the pleadings are not only generic, and omnibus but vague, nebulous and lacking specificity. In such a situation, the party asks for further and better particulars to make the pleadings more exact or precise. The purpose of further and better particulars is not to amend or rewrite the pleadings. The purpose is to explain them so they con sound more exact and precise. See NWOBODO V. ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1. Thus, where a party has any doubt about any matter pleaded, he can ask for further and better particulars. See OKAFOR & SONS LTD. V. N.H.D.S. (1972) 4 SC. 175. The object of further and better particulars is to put the adverse party on notice as regards the nature of evidence he would meet at the trial. See OBIKOYA v. EZENWA (1973) 11 SC 135. Another object is to limit the generality of the pleadings. They “prevent surprise at the trial, and limit inquiry at the trial to matters set out in the particulars, they tend to narrow issues ……….” See THOMSON V. BIRKLEY (1882) 47 LT 700.” At page 504 of the Law Report, after referring to and quoting copiously from older decisions such as the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal in OGUNTOKUN v RUFAI (1945) 11 WACA 55 at 56-57, Udo Udoma JSC in AYENI v. SOWEMIMO (1982) 5 SC 60 and again the Supreme Court in WAB LIMITED v. SAVANNAH VENTURES LTD 10 NWLR 401, Niki Tobi JSC remarked in respect of the ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (supra) that:- “I would like to think that, apart from the genuine belief on the part of the appellants that further and better particulars are needed, it was also to avoid legal consequences mentioned in the cases above that the appellants asked for them. Apart from that, Paragraph 17 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act is authority for the request” PER ISA AYO SALAMI, J.C.A. PCA, OFR
PLEADINGS: WHETHER A PARTY WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO FURNISH FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS TO HIS PLEADINGS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO LEAD EVIDENCE ON THE FACTS OF WHICH FURTHER PARTICULARS WAS REQUIRED
…failure by a party to comply with an order to furnish further and better particulars to his pleadings will preclude the party so defaulting from leading evidence on the facts of which further particulars is required. See NWACHUKWU v. ENEOGWU (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.600) 629. PER ISA AYO SALAMI, J.C.A. PCA, OFR
JUSTICES:
ISA AYO SALAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED L. GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
M.A.OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE – Appellant(s)
AND
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & 41 ORS. – Respondent(s)
ISA AYO SALAMI, J.C.A. PCA, OFR (Delivering the Lead Ruling): By a Motion on Notice dated and filed on 18th day of May, 2011, the 3rd and 4th Respondents to Petition No. C/A/EPT/PRES/11 through their leading Counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN filed an application for an order directing the Petitioners to give/furnish Further Particulars in relation to named paragraphs of the Petitioner’s Petition dated and filed on 8/5/2011. The said application was brought pursuant to paragraphs 5, 17 and 54 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended) and Order 13 Rules 5 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009.
The Further and/or Better Particulars requested for by the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants relate to Paragraphs 12, 14(a), 14(b), 14(c), 4th Respondents/Applicants relate to Paragraphs 12, 14(a), 14(b), 14(c), 14(d), 14d(i)(a), 14d(i)(b), 14(d)(ii), 14(d)(iii), 14(d)(iv), 1a(d)(v), 1a(d)(vi), 14(d)(vii), 14(d)(viii), 14(d)(ix), 14(d)(x), 14(d)(xi), 14(d)(xii), 14(e), 14(0, 14(g), 14(h), 14(i), 140), 14(k), 14(k)(a),(b), 14(1), 14(m), 14(n)(a), 14(n)(b), 18, 19, 20, 28(a), 28(b)&(c ),(d),(e),28 (Imo State)(a), 28 (Imo State) (b),(c ), (d), 30(c ),(d) 31,32,33(a), 33(b), 33 (Taraba State), 33 (Jigawa State (b).
The said 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants Motion on Notice is supported by a 7 Paragraph Affidavit sworn to by Kenneth Omoruan, a Counsel in the Law Firm of Alex A. Izinyon (SAN) & Co.
In reaction to the above position of the Respondents/Applicants, Learned Senior Counsel for 3rd the and 4th Petitioner Chief Ebun Sofunde (SAN) also filed a 7 paragraph Counter Affidavit dated and filed on 22/5/2011 sworn to by one Yusuf Salihu the National Organizing Secretary of the Congress for Progressive Change.
In support of their different positions, Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants filed a Written Address dated 18/5/2011 and filed on 20/5/2011. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand filed a Written Address dated 20/5/2011 in support of the Counter Affidavit to the Motion of the 3rd and 4th Respondents filed on 18th May, 2011.
On Tuesday the 24th day of May, 2011, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN leading Senior Counsel to the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants moved the said Application. He relied on all the 7 paragraphs of the Applicants’ Affidavit. He also adopted and relied on his Written Address in support of the application. His prayer that the Prayers in support of the application of 18/5/2011 for further and better particulars be granted was supported by Dr. O. Ikpeazu SAN, of Counsel to the 1st 2nd, 6th-42nd Respondents and also by Chief Kyari Gadzama SAN of Counsel to the 5th Respondent, the latter having withdrawn a similar application dated 22/5/2011 and filed on 23/5/2011 so that he could be bound by the decision of Court in the present application.
Chief Ebun Sofunde (SAN) the leading Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent also relied on his 7 Paragraph Counter-Affidavit. He also adopted and relied on the Written Address in support of the Counter-Affidavit.
The sole issue formulated for determination by the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants is: –
“Whether this Honourable Court has the powers to grant this application.”
Similarly, the Petitioner/Respondent formulated a lone issue as follows:-
“Whether the Applicants are entitled to the relief sought in their Motion Paper in the circumstances of this Petition.”
On the sole issue for determination, Learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants referred in particular to paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in support of their motion which deposed to the fact that certain allegations raised in the Petition were general, vague and at large and that the request for Further and Better Particulars from the petitioner is to ensure fair and proper hearing of the Petition.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants referred to the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 17 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and emphasized that the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants have not joined issues with the petitioner/Respondent with regards to the 46 paragraphs outlined in the Applicant’s motion. That the principles behind asking the Petitioner to furnish the Applicants with Further and Better Particulars is to prevent the petitioner/Respondent from springing surprise on the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants. And, that the facts in the aforementioned paragraphs of the Petition pleaded by the Petitioner/Respondent have not sufficiently informed the Applicants of the issues in dispute. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the case of ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) p. 465 at 503-504.
In adopting his own Written Address in support of the Counter-Affidavit, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent abandoned his Notice of Preliminary Objections and the arguments in relation to the incompetency of the Respondents/Applicants application as contained in pages 3-7 of his Written Address.
Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent conceded that the arguments contained in Paragraphs 3. 4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.12 all directed against the 1st, 2nd, 6th-42nd Respondents and not to the 3rd and 4th Respondents/Applicants.
In spite of the above, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent submitted more generally that the Petitioner was not expected to plead either law or evidence. He referred to a host of cases including the cases of:-
EZEWANI V. ONWORDI (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 33) 27 at 46, YAR’ADUA V. BARDA (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.231) 638 at 654 and Re-VANDEVILL’S TRUST (NO.2) (1974) 3 ALL E.R. 2005.
In further support of his contention, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/Respondent also referred to the provision of Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act to the effect that:- “Evidence need not be pleaded in the election Petition, but the Tribunal may order such Further Particulars as may be necessary.”
On this score, Counsel concluded that evidence ought not to be pleaded and the Court is not to order Further Particulars of pleadings as requested by the Applicants in their following paragraphs: 14, 14d(i)(b), 14d(ii), 14d(iii), 14(j) and 28(c )
Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent summarized his grounds of objection to the application as follows:-
(i) That, in the instant case, the Petitioner has sufficient facts in support of its Petition to elicit the defence of the Applicants if any.
(ii) The Applicants understand and have good knowledge of the allegations against them in the Petition.
(iii) The application reeks of bad faith, it is oppressive, inequitable unfair and unjust in the circumstances of this Petition.
In determining the sole issue in this application, none of the Learned Senior Counsel for either of the parties would be heard to say that the Court does not have the power to order or grant an application for Further and Better Particulars when the circumstances so demand.
In other words, the granting of an order for Further and Better particulars is at the discretion of the Court. Paragraph 5 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) puts the matter beyond doubt.
“5. Evidence need not to be stated in the election petition, but the Tribunal or Court may order such Further Particulars as may be necessary
(a) to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense.
(b) to ensure fair and proper hearing in the same way as in a civil action in the Federal High Court; and
(c) on such terms as to costs or other wise as may be ordered by the Tribunal or Court.
In the case of ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR & 2 ORS V. ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR’ADUA & 5 ORS. (2008) 4 NWLR (pt. 1078) (supra) 465 at 503-504 the Supreme Court (Per Tobi JSC) expounded the rationale for the grant of an order for Further and Better Particulars as follows:-
“The next consideration is the request for further and better particulars from the 1st and 2nd Respondents. A party asks for further and better particulars where, in his view, the pleadings are not only generic, and omnibus but vague, nebulous and lacking specificity. In such a situation, the party asks for further and better particulars to make the pleadings more exact or precise. The purpose of further and better particulars is not to amend or rewrite the pleadings. The purpose is to explain them so they con sound more exact and precise. See NWOBODO V. ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1.
Thus, where a party has any doubt about any matter pleaded, he can ask for further and better particulars. See OKAFOR & SONS LTD. V. N.H.D.S. (1972) 4 SC. 175. The object of further and better particulars is to put the adverse party on notice as regards the nature of evidence he would meet at the trial. See OBIKOYA v. EZENWA (1973) 11 SC 135.
Another object is to limit the generality of the pleadings.
They “prevent surprise at the trial, and limit inquiry at the trial to matters set out in the particulars, they tend to narrow issues ……….” See THOMSON V. BIRKLEY (1882) 47 LT 700.”
At page 504 of the Law Report, after referring to and quoting copiously from older decisions such as the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal in OGUNTOKUN v RUFAI (1945) 11 WACA 55 at 56-57, Udo Udoma JSC in AYENI v. SOWEMIMO (1982) 5 SC 60 and again the Supreme Court in WAB LIMITED v. SAVANNAH VENTURES LTD 10 NWLR 401, Niki Tobi JSC remarked in respect of the ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (supra) that:-
“I would like to think that, apart from the genuine belief on the part of the appellants that further and better particulars are needed, it was also to avoid legal consequences mentioned in the cases above that the appellants asked for them. Apart from that, Paragraph 17 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act is authority for the request”
In the instant case, in order to fulfill the requirement of a judicious exercise of discretion, we have carefully gone through the relevant paragraphs of the Petitioner’s pleadings on which the Applicants are applying for particulars. We discovered that apart from the Petitioner’s averment in Paragraph 14(d)(i)(b) which we consider complete in the sense that it gives sufficient notice of the case to be met by the Respondents/Applicants, all the other paragraphs of the Petitioner’s pleadings on which the Applicants made the request are indeed drafted in more general terms and in need of particulars so as to limit the enquiry, narrow down issues and prevent surprise to the Respondents.
Few examples of the pleaded averments and the questions raised would suffice. Starting from Paragraph 12, the Petitioner pleaded that:-
“12. And your Petitioner states that the figures stated above were not a true reflection of the lawful votes cast by the voters at the election; that the votes were unlawfully assigned to the candidates by the 2nd Respondent or agents acting on behalf of the 1st Respondent as the said figures did not duly arise out of the election conducted; that the figures collated and reserved by the 2nd Respondent acting on behalf of the 1st Respondent were substantially collated and returned in breach of the Electoral Act and your Petitioner states that the Presidential Election of 16th April 2011 was invalid by reasons of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, corrupt practices, violence and various malpractices as shall be shown hereunder.”
On its face, paragraph 12 of the Petitioner’s pleadings would have raised the question of whether the pleadings were alleged positively, precisely and distinctly, and as briefly as is consistent with a clear statement, as required under the provision of Order 13 Rule 4(4) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.
We are of the opinion, that the Respondents/Applicants have pertinently asked to be furnished particulars on – the names of the agents of the 1st Respondent who unlawfully assigned votes to the candidates, where, and the polling units where this was done.
In Paragraph l4(a), the Petitioner pleaded as follows:-
“(a) By virtue of Section 12(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (hereinafter “The Act”) a person shall not be allowed to register more than once in the same registration centre but the 1st Respondent which is the body to which the compilation, maintenance and updating of a National register of votes and register of voters for each State of the Federation and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and each Local Government and Area Council within the State and the Federal Capital Territory respectively was assigned allowed voters to register more than once in the same registration centres and in consequence allowed members of Peoples Democratic Party to multiple votes in the same registration Centre.”
At first, and up to a point, one would think that the Petitioner’s allegation in paragraph 14(a) concerns only the 1st Respondent but the conclusion of the paragraph which alleges multiple votes by the members of the Peoples Democratic Party do in fact relate to the other Respondents. The Applicants are therefore right to seek particulars on – the name and place of registration centres where voters were allowed to register more than once and the numbers of such voters so allowed to register more than once.
It must be noted that in coming to a conclusion that many of the paragraphs of the Petitioner’s pleadings on which the Respondents seek particulars are coined in general terms, regard must be placed on the fact that the Presidential election concerns the length and breadth of the entity called Nigeria. The country consists of thirty-seven (37) States including the Federal capital Territory; 774 Local Government Areas and numerous polling units.
In the light of the above, and for the purpose of a fair contest or trial, allegations or statements such as “strong holds of the Petitioner” as in paragraph 14(d)(ii). “South – South, south-East” as in 14d(iii),
“unlawful and missing votes in various polling stations” as in 14(d)(iv) “multiple thumb printing of ballot papers covering the entire election” as in 14(d)(v).”Self-awarded scores etc.” as in 14(d)(vi) 14(d)(ix) and inflation of votes in certain polling units” as in 14(g) are allegations and/or statements that truly require further and better particulars.
The consequences of the inability of a Respondent to request for further and better particulars where necessary have been pointed out in numerous cases. In AYENI v. SOWEMIMO (1982) 5 SC 60 for example, Udo Udoma JSC followed the decision of the West African Court of Appeal in OGUNTOKUN v. RUFAI (1945) 11 WACA 55 at 56 – 57 to say that:-
“…………there is nothing to prevent a defendant in a suit from asking for particulars of any averment contained in a statement of claim even after the statement of defence has been filed and delivered. And where therefore a party omits to set out in descriptive detail an allegation in his statement of claim and his opponent does not apply for particulars, he is entitled to give evidence at the trial of any fact supporting the allegation given by him.”
In contrast to the above position, failure by a party to comply with an order to furnish further and better particulars to his pleadings will preclude the party so defaulting from leading evidence on the facts of which further particulars is required. See NWACHUKWU v. ENEOGWU (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.600) 629.
Earlier on, we did say that on a careful perusal of the Petitioner’s pleadings, paragraph 14(d)(i)(b) should be exempted from the demand by the Respondents/Applicants for further and better particulars. The said paragraph 14d(i)(b) itself is in the nature of particulars in that it qualifies paragraph 14(d)(i) which alleges under supply of electoral materials in “strongholds of the Petitioners” and reads:-
“(b) In Bauchi State also, thousands of voters were disenfranchised in Misau and Azare Local Government
Areas because of shortages of ballot papers.”
In relation to paragraph 14(d)(i)(b) the Respondents sought further particulars as follows – (vii).
“14 d(i)(b) – how many accredited voters, were disenfranchised, their names voters card, registration numbers and addresses of Local Government Areas in Misau and Azare were so disenfranchised”
In our humble opinion, it would seem that the averment in paragraph 14 d(i)(b) is ‘complete’ as an averment in a pleading, in the sense that it is sufficient notice to the Respondents of what is contained therein. It does not contain elements of surprise and therefore does not require an order for further and better particulars. The above observation in respect of paragraph 14 d(i)(b) of the Petitioner’s pleadings could not be said of those other paragraphs on which the Respondent’s request for further and better particulars was made.
In the circumstances therefore we are of the opinion that with the exception of the said paragraph 14(d)(i)(b) the other paragraphs on which the Respondents have applied or requested for particulars are not only truly “generic, and omnibus but vague, nebulous and lacking specificity” to borrow the expression of Tobi JSC in ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA, (supra) at page 503 and therefore qualify for an order for further and better Particulars.
Accordingly, the application of the 3rd and 4th Respondents for an order directing the Petitioner to give/furnish further particulars or better particulars of the paragraphs enumerated in the Respondents Motion on Notice dated 18/5/2011 succeeds in part.
With the exception of paragraph 14 (d)(i)(b) the Petitioner is hereby ordered to give/furnish further particulars or better particulars of all the other paragraphs of the Petitioner’s pleadings contained and enumerated in the Applicants Motion on Notice dated 18/5/2011.
And that shall be the order of the Court.
MOHAMMED L. GARBA J.C.A: I agree.
M.A. OWOADE J.C.A: I agree.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE J.C.A: I agree.
OBANDE OGBUINYA J.C.A: I agree
Appearances
1. Ebun O. Sofunde, SAN
2. Ocholi James, SAN
3. Oladipo Okpeseyi SAN
4. Abubakar Malami SAN
5. A.B. Mahmud Esq.
6. Ismaila Alasa Esq.
7. Imhanobe Sylvester Esq.
8. Chief O.O. Obono-Obla Esq.
9. Chuks Nwana
10. J. Obono-Obla (Mrs.)
11. Joshua Akor Esq.
12. Mary Ekpere Esq.
13. Daisy Anagende Esq. For Appellant
AND
1. Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN 2.
2. Chief O.C.J. Okocha, SAN
3. Dr. Alex A. Izinyon, SAN
4. D.D. Dodo, SAN
5. Mr. Ighodalo Imadegbelo, SAN
6. Mr. J.T.U. Nnodum, SAI\
7. Mr. O.A. Omonuwat SAN
8. Chief Assam A. Assam, SAN
9. M. Paul Erokoro, SAN
10. Dr. Fabian Ajogwu, SAN
11. F.F. Egele, Esq.
12. Nelson Uzoegbo, Esq.
13. Audu Anuga, Esq.
14. U. Egbon, Esq.
15. Gbenga Adeyemi, Esq.
16. D.U. Achumba (Mrs.)
17. John Okonkwo, Esq.
18. Hannatu Abdurrahman (Mrs.)
19. E. Oghojafor, Esq.
20. Luter Atagher, Esq.
21. Ifeyinwa Arum
22. Michael Ajara, Esq.
23. Babara Omosun
24. Rachael Osibu
25. Bola Aidi
26. Patrick Abang, Esq.
27. A.L. Yabidu (Miss)
28. Patrick Umoh, Esq.
29. Okonache Ogoor, Esq
30. S.A. Eigege, Esq.
31. Aisha Ali, (Miss)
32. Alex A. Izinyon (II) Esq.
33. Abimbola Kayode, Esq.
34. Ogin Koleosho, Esq.
35. Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN
36. Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, SAN
37. Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, OON, SAN
38. Hassan M. Liman
39. Ahmed Raji
40. Victoria Awomolo (Mrs.)
41. Patience Osagiede-OfeYi (Mrs.)
42. Funmi Quadri
43. Wale Balogun
44. Eyitayo Fatogun
45. Bello Abdullahi
46. Kehinde Ogunwumiju
47. Prisca Ozoilesike Chinedu
48. I.M. Dikko
49. Y.D. Dangana
50. Marcus Abu
51. Ebuka Nwaeze
52. D.E. Daniel
53. Aminu Sadauki
54. Hadid Jazuli
55. Oluwasanmi Aiyemowa
56. I. Uwa
57. Feyisayo Folorunso (Mrs.)
58. Baraka Ali (Miss)
59. Anulika Osuigwe (Miss)
60. Ephraim Ajijola.
61 Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama’ SAI\
62. Seyi Sowemimo, SAN
63. Chief Amaechi Nwaiwu, SAN
64. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN
65. Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN
66. Chief Duro Adeyele, SAN
67. Joseph Nwobike, SAN
68. C.U. Ekomaru, SAN
69. Arthur Obi Okafor, SAll
70. Prof. Andrew I. Chukwuemeria, SAN
71. M.A. Abubakar, Esq.
72. J.N. Egwuonwu, Esq.
73. Garba Pwul, Esq.
74. Chief Olusola Oke
75. Yinka Orokoto, Esq.
16. Chief A.O. Ajana
17. Alhaji R.O. Yusuf
78. Abdul Ibrahim, Esq.
79. Mrs. J.O. Adesina
80. Magai Vimtim Magai, Esq.
81. E.S. Oluwabiyi, Esq.
82. Oladele Gbadeyan, Esq.
83. Ayodeji Olakunle Bobaderin Esq.
84. A.C. Ozioko Esq.
85. Afam Asigwe, Esq.
86. N.N. Shaltha (Miss)
87. C.P. Olir Esq.
88. Dayo Famakin-Johnson Esq.
89. Chinyere Onyedim (Mrs.)
90. A.A. Akingbade, Esq.
91. D.H. Bwala, Esq.
92. U.M. Jawur, Esq.
93. Ngozi Udokwu (Miss)
94. Ifeanyi Okechukwu Esq.
95. Funmilayo Oshunwusi (Miss)
96. Chijioke Uwandu, Esq.
97. Ola Mafo, Esq.
98. Ayo Babalola, Esq.
99. I.H. Ngada, Esq.
100. J.M. Ugbeji (Miss)
101. P.C. Igwenazor, Esq. For Respondent
