EFCC v. YUGUDA & ANOR
(2020)LCN/14768(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, November 26, 2020
CA/J/187/2019
RATIO
APPEAL: ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TO PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES
While it is permissible to formulate one issue from several grounds of appeal, it is not proper to formulate more than one issue from a single ground of appeal. The preferable practice is to frame an issue from a combination of grounds of appeal – Ugo Vs. Ummuna (2018)2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 102 at 115. See also Fawehinmi Vs. G.M.H (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1633) 197; Society Bic S.A. Vs. Charzin Industries Ltd. (2014)4 NWLR (Pt. 1398) 497; Chaka Vs. Mesrs. Aerobell (Nig.) Ltd. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 296 and Leedo Presidential Hotel Ltd. Vs. B.O.N (Nig.) Ltd. (1993)1 NWLR (Pt. 269) 334.
In other words, a single ground of appeal cannot give rise to more than one issue for determination even though a single issue can arise from more than one ground of appeal.
It means therefore that issues formulated for determination in an appeal cannot and should not be more in number than the grounds of appeal contained on the notice of appeal. This was the position aptly stated by Ngwuta, JSC in the case of Society Bic, S.A. Vs. Charzin Industries Ltd. (supra) at page 531 paras F-G when he said:
“The number of grounds of appeal in an appeal should on no account be less than the issues for determination and framing two issues from one ground of appeal is a violation of the principle. A ground of appeal should not be split to raise two issues. Where two issues are framed from one ground of appeal, the issues ought to be ignored or struck out as incompetent as it is not the duty of the Court to make a choice for the appellant from the two issues. (Agu Vs. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.180) 385; A-G Bendel State Vs. Aideyan (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566; Adelaja Vs. Fanoiki (1990)2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137 referred to).” PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
COURT: SITUATION THAT AMOUNTS TO AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
The Supreme Court in Conoil Vs. Vitol S.A. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 496 at 496-497 paras H-A held that, to institute an action during the pendency of another suit claiming the same relief is an abuse of Court process and the only course open to the Court is to put an end to the suit. See also Arubo Vs. Aiyeleru (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 126. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
COURT PROCESS: FEATURES OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
Some of the features of abuse of Court process are:
(a) Filing multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues or numerous actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there is in existence, a right to commence action.
(b) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds.
(c) Where two or more similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right, for instance, a cross-appeal and a respondent’s notice
(d) Where two actions are instituted in Court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexatious and an abuse of Court process.
See PML (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. F.R.N. (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 448 at 464; Allanah Vs. Kpolokwu (2016)6 NWLR (Pt. 1507) 1; Okorocha Vs. PDP (2014) 7 NWLR and Oyeyemi Vs. Owoeye (2017)12 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHEN IS AN APPEAL SAID TO BE FRIVOLOUS
An appeal is said to be frivolous when there is no legal basis for bringing it.
The Courts have inherent powers to prevent the abuse of judicial process. See Madukaegbu Vs. State (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 26; Abacha Vs. State (2002)11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 and Edet Vs. State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 52. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Tani Yusuf Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mudashiru Nasiru Oniyangi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION APPELANT(S)
And
1. HOUSE NO. 184 ATTAHIRU BAFARAWA CLOSE, BESIDE FARIAH SUITES, OLD GRA, BAUCHI STATE 2. MALLAM ISA YUGUDA RESPONDENT(S)
TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By a Motion Ex-parte dated the 23rd day of May, 2018, the appellant as plaintiff before the Federal High Court, Bauchi prayed the Court for the followings:
1. “An interim order forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the property situate and known as House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close, Beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State described in the Schedule herein.
2. An order directing the publication of a Notice in the Daily Trust Newspaper and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission website initiating any person, body corporate or financial institution who may have interest in the said property to show cause within 14 days from the date of the publication why it should not be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The Motion Ex-parte was supported by seventeen paragraphs affidavit with two annextures and a written address. The trial Court in its ruling dated the 24th of May, 2018 granted as prayed the two prayers contained on the face of the Motion Ex-parte against the 1st respondent.
By a Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 12th day of
1
June, 2018, the 2nd respondent/applicant as a party interested prayed for an order of Court to set aside or vacates its interim order of forfeiture made on the 24th of May, 2018.
Secondly, an order mandating and directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to unseal and allow the respondent/applicant have unhindered access and reside in the property located at House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State.
The Motion on Notice was predicated on five grounds, supported by five paragraph affidavit with exhibits and a written address.
The appellant/respondent filed a counter affidavit on 10th October, 2018 of seventeen paragraphs with exhibits and a written address. The party interested/applicant (2nd respondent) filed a five paragraph Further and Better affidavit with an attached annexture on 11th October, 2018. The appellant/respondent filed a reply to the Further and Better Affidavit on 23rd November, 2018 with an attached exhibit. After considering the submissions of parties on the application, the trial Court in its judgment dated the 10th of December, 2018 set aside/vacated the interim order
2
of forfeiture granted on the 24th of May, 2018 for constituting an abuse of Court process.
Aggrieved with the judgment, the appellant appealed to this Court. The Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 25th of January, 2019 contained three grounds with their particulars.
The appellant’s brief of argument dated 31st January, 2020 was filed on the 10th of February, 2020 but deemed properly filed on the 1st of June, 2020. In it, three issues were formulated thus:
“1. Whether the learned trial Court was right to rely on the case of Ibrahim Vs. Ojonye (2011) LPELR- 3737 (CA) and hold that the order of the lower Court per Tsoho J. of the Abuja Division of the lower Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 setting aside the interim order therein has taken the life out of suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 which gave rise to the current appeal. (Grd 1)”
2. Whether the trial Court was right to hold and conclude that suits Nos: FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 and FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 are of the same nature and between the same parties arising from the same cause of action with Suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 and therefore constitutes abuse of Court
3
process” (Grds 1 and 2)
3. “Whether in view of the affidavit evidence before the trial Court, the learned trial Court was right in finding and concluding that the appellant concealed the fact of the existence of the vacating order made in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 and the then pending motion in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 (Grd 3)”
Learned counsel for the appellant Sir. Steve Odiase adopted the brief and urged the Court to allow the appeal.
The respondents’ brief dated 3rd of June, 2020 was filed on the 5th of June, 2020. Two issues were identified therein for determination as follows:
“1. Whether Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 and suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 filed before the Abuja Division of the trial Court and Suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 (the suit leading to this appeal) filed at the Bauchi Division of the trial Court do not relate to the same parties, same subject matter and the same interest, thereby resulting to abuse of Court process.”
2. “Whether in view of the decision of the Abuja Division of the trial Court in suit No. FHC/CS/347/2018 ordering the release of the 1st respondent to
4
the 2nd respondent, the same trial Court had the powers at its Bauchi Division to order the forfeiture of the same 1st respondent to the Appellant or the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
Learned counsel for the respondents adopted the brief and urged that the appeal be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal, as the penultimate Court is enjoined to consider all issues properly raised and submitted before it by the parties. However, it is noted that the appellant distilled issue one from ground 1 of the notice of appeal and issue two also distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal.
While it is permissible to formulate one issue from several grounds of appeal, it is not proper to formulate more than one issue from a single ground of appeal. The preferable practice is to frame an issue from a combination of grounds of appeal – Ugo Vs. Ummuna (2018)2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 102 at 115. See also Fawehinmi Vs. G.M.H (Nig.) Ltd. (2018) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1633) 197; Society Bic S.A. Vs. Charzin Industries Ltd. (2014)4 NWLR (Pt. 1398) 497; Chaka Vs. Mesrs. Aerobell (Nig.) Ltd. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 296 and Leedo Presidential Hotel Ltd. Vs. B.O.N (Nig.) Ltd.
5
(1993)1 NWLR (Pt. 269) 334.
In other words, a single ground of appeal cannot give rise to more than one issue for determination even though a single issue can arise from more than one ground of appeal.
It means therefore that issues formulated for determination in an appeal cannot and should not be more in number than the grounds of appeal contained on the notice of appeal. This was the position aptly stated by Ngwuta, JSC in the case of Society Bic, S.A. Vs. Charzin Industries Ltd. (supra) at page 531 paras F-G when he said:
“The number of grounds of appeal in an appeal should on no account be less than the issues for determination and framing two issues from one ground of appeal is a violation of the principle. A ground of appeal should not be split to raise two issues. Where two issues are framed from one ground of appeal, the issues ought to be ignored or struck out as incompetent as it is not the duty of the Court to make a choice for the appellant from the two issues. (Agu Vs. Ikewibe (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.180) 385; A-G Bendel State Vs. Aideyan (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 566; Adelaja Vs. Fanoiki (1990)2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 137 referred to).”
6
Apparently since two issues were formulated from a single ground of appeal in the instant case, the issues are liable to be struck out as incompetent as succinctly enunciated above by the Apex Court. Issues one and two of the appellant along with the argument canvassed are accordingly struck out.
The appellant is left with only one issue for the determination of this appeal. The respondents’ issues are apt and I shall utilize them to resolve this appeal.
ISSUE ONE
“Whether Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 and suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 filed before the Abuja Division of the trial Court and Suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 (the suit leading to this appeal) filed at the Bauchi Division of the trial Court do not relate to the same parties, same subject matter and the same interest, thereby resulting to abuse of Court process.”
Counsel for the appellant on this issue submitted that suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 and suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 are completely different in substance, procedure, statutory foundation, parties and the cause of action with suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 that gave rise to this appeal. That the
7
order vacating the interim order of attachment and management in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 is unconnected with the suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 that led to the present appeal, by its nature.
The Court is urged to resolve in favour of the appellant.
Responding, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the institution of suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 that led to this appeal amounted to gross abuse of Court process.
Learned counsel referred to suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 between Chairman Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Mallam Isa Yuguda instituted before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court by the appellant and by Motion Exparte applied for an interim order of attachment of House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State pending the conclusion of investigation. The order was granted on the 4th of October, 2016.
That a motion on notice was filed on the 2nd June, 2017 by Diamond Bank Plc. which has lien on the property (1st Respondent herein), the interim order of attachment of the 1st respondent made on the 4th of October, 2016 was vacated and set aside. Learned counsel
8
submitted that the appellant did not appeal against the decision vacating or setting aside the interim order of attachment of the 1st respondent.
Submitting further, it is argued that the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the 1st respondent instituted suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 against the appellant on the 4th of April, 2018 by originating summons. That the appellant who was duly served with the originating process failed to file a response to the 2nd respondent’s claims. The trial judge after hearing the matter on the 6th of June, 2018, delivered judgment on the 22nd of June, 2018, granting the reliefs sought by the 2nd respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that while suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 was pending at the Federal High Court Abuja Division, the appellant filed a motion Ex-parte in suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 (the suit leading to this appeal), before the Bauchi Division of the Federal High Court praying again for an order or interim forfeiture of the 1st respondent. That application was filed on 23rd May, 2018 when suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 was pending, awaiting judgment and that the application was heard and the
9
order for interim forfeiture of 1st respondent was made, on 24th May, 2018.
Submitting further, that the 2nd respondent upon becoming aware of the order for interim forfeiture of the 1st respondent, filed an application on the 12th of June, 2018 for an order setting aside the order for interim forfeiture of the 1st respondent, and also filed an affidavit to show cause as directed by the lower Court in the order for interim injunction.
That the trial Court after hearing the application, in a considered ruling, set aside/vacated the interim order of forfeiture made on 24th May, 2018 against the 1st respondent for constituting an abuse of Court process.
Referring to the cases of Ladda Vs. Ajembi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87 at 131 para B-E and Lokpobiri Vs. Ogola (2016)3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 367 at 368 paras E-B, where the concept of abuse of Court process is settled, counsel submitted that the appellant is guilty of abuse of Court process having the same parties, the same subject matter and issues in suits Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016; FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 and FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018. That the law is settled, abuse of Court process does not only lie in the
10
multiplicity of action and the manner of the exercise of the right of action, it also consists of intention, purpose or aim of the person exercising the right, which inter alia is to interfere with the administration of justice. He relied on Bukoye Vs. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 173 at 192 paras A-H.
Counsel argued that the purpose of the appellant in suits Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016; FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 and FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 was for the interim attachment or forfeiture to serve the same purpose, involving the same parties and in respect of the same subject matter. The Court is urged to resolve in favour of the respondents.
In suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 between Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State, the appellant by a motion Ex-parte dated the 23rd of May, 2018 prayed the Court for an interim order forfeiting to the Federal Government of Nigeria the property situate and known as House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State (1st respondent herein).
The order of interim forfeiture of the said property
11
(1st respondent) was granted on the 24th day of May, 2018.
The 2nd respondent by a motion on notice dated and filed on the 12th of June, 2018 applied as party interested for an order setting aside or vacating the interim order of forfeiture made on the 24th day of May, 2018, in view of the suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 between the Chairman Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Mallam Isa Yuguda where the appellant applied for interim order of forfeiture of the property, House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State, which order was made on the 4th of October, 2016. However, the order made on the 4th of October, 2016 was vacated and set aside on the 17th of October, 2017 on the application of Diamond Bank Plc which has a lien on the property.
The 2nd respondent who is the owner of the property (1st respondent) in question instituted suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 by originating summons on the 4th of April, 2018, i.e. Between Mallam Isa Yuguda and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The respondent/appellant did not file a response to the claim against it. The lower Court in its judgment delivered on
12
22nd of June, 2018 granted all the reliefs in default of appearance and response.
From the judgment of the Court dated 22nd June, 2018, it is clear that unless and until the final determination in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018, the appellant cannot institute any criminal proceeding against the respondents in respect of the forfeiture of the property in issue. The suit giving rise to this appeal is based solely on interim order of forfeiture of the 1st respondent, it is grossly incompetent, an abuse of Court process.
The Supreme Court in Conoil Vs. Vitol S.A. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 496 at 496-497 paras H-A held that, to institute an action during the pendency of another suit claiming the same relief is an abuse of Court process and the only course open to the Court is to put an end to the suit. See also Arubo Vs. Aiyeleru (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 126.
It follows therefore that as at the time the appellant filed the motion ex-parte on the 23rd of May, 2018, in suit No. No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018, there was a pending suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018, which action constitutes an abuse of Court process.
Whenever it is alleged that a matter filed in Court
13
is an abuse of Court process, it centres on the improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation aimed at or targeting on inference with due administration of justice. Some of the features of abuse of Court process are:
(a) Filing multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues or numerous actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there is in existence, a right to commence action.
(b) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds.
(c) Where two or more similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right, for instance, a cross-appeal and a respondent’s notice
(d) Where two actions are instituted in Court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexatious and an abuse of Court process.
See PML (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. F.R.N. (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 448 at 464; Allanah Vs. Kpolokwu (2016)6 NWLR (Pt. 1507) 1; Okorocha Vs. PDP (2014) 7 NWLR and Oyeyemi Vs. Owoeye (2017)12 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364.
14
In the instant case, there is present, features of an abuse of Court process. In suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016 Between Chairman Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Mallam Isa Yuguda, the issue therein is for an order of interim forfeiture of House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State which is the subject matter in the suit.
Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018 Between MALLAM ISA YUGUDA AND CHAIRMAN ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION, the issue is in respect of the interim forfeiture of the subject matter of the suit, property No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State.
While suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 between Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State, and Mallam Isah Yuguda the issue therein is also for an order of interim forfeiture of the subject matter, the property No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State.
I had recourse to the record, the interim order of forfeiture of the subject matter in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016
15
granted on the 4th of October, 2016 was vacated on the 17th of October, 2017. There is nothing to show that the ruling has been set aside on appeal.
Also, as earlier pointed in this judgment in suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 Between Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and House No. 184 Attahiru Bafarawa Close beside Fariah Suites, Old GRA Bauchi, Bauchi State and Anor, the order of interim forfeiture of the subject matter, made on the 24th of May, 2018 was also set aside/vacated on 10th of December, 2018 on the application of the 2nd respondent as party interested which is the ruling that led to this appeal.
There is no doubt suits Nos. FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2016, FHC/ABJ/CS/347/18 and FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 as reflected above are between the same parties, in respect of the same subject matter and on the same issue, contrary to the submission of the appellant’s counsel that the suits are different. The suits being between the same parties, on the same issue and in respect of the same subject matter constitute an abuse of Court process. The trial Court in its judgment at page 672 of the record had this to say:
16
“It is no longer in doubt that this suit was initiated while another in respect of the same parties, same subject matter and same interest was still pending before the Federal High Court Abuja Division. The Supreme Court had this to say where there are two or more simultaneous actions in Dingyadi Vs. INEC (2010) LPELR-952 (SC) that ”it is trite law that where two actions of similar or same nature and between same parties and subject matter are being prosecuted concurrently before the same Court or different Courts, it is the latter in time that vacates” Per I.T. Muhammad JSC (CJN).
It is also on this premise that I must set aside the order made on the 24/5/18 which was initiated later than suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/347/2018”.
The judgment of the lower Court cannot be faulted, as it is in line with the correct position of the law. The employment of judicial process by a party, not only to irritate and annoy his opponent, but also against the efficient and effective administration of justice is an abuse of the process of the Court. See Alex Vs. F.R.N (2018)7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 228 and Saraki Vs. Kotoye (1992)9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156.
In the instant case there is no law
17
supporting the appellant’s argument under the first issue for determination.
The appeal on the said issue is clearly premised on frivolity and recklessness, and that is what makes the appeal on that issue vexatious and abuse of the Court process. I am reinforced on this point by the decision of the Supreme Court in R-Benkay Nig. Ltd. Vs. Cadbury Nig. Ltd. (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1306) 596. An appeal is said to be frivolous when there is no legal basis for bringing it.
The Courts have inherent powers to prevent the abuse of judicial process. See Madukaegbu Vs. State (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1626) 26; Abacha Vs. State (2002)11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 and Edet Vs. State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 52.
The issue is resolved in favour of the respondents against the appellant. Issue two has become academic having been taken care of in issue one. Issue two is therefore struck out. In the circumstance, I have no choice than to enter an order dismissing the appeal as unmeritorious. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The judgment of the lower Court in suit No. FHC/BAU/CS/14/2018 setting aside the interim forfeiture made on 24th May, 2018 is hereby affirmed.
18
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother TANI YUSUF HASSAN JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived thereat that the appeal lack merit and should be dismissed.
I also dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders made therein.
BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I read in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A. and I am in agreement with his conclusion; accordingly, I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.
19
Appearances:
SIR. STEVE ODIASE For Appellant(s)
E. ANIYA, with him, D. K. MINER and N. K. MALI holding the brief of SAMUEL D. ZIBIRI (SAN) For Respondent(s)
