HON. ISA MOHAMMED SANI A & ANOR v. IBRAHIM PETER AKWE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13512(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 17th day of July, 2019
CA/MK/EPT/SHA/3/2019
JUSTICES
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HON. ISA MOHAMMED SANI A.
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS Appellant(s)
AND
1. IBRAHIM PETER AKWE
2. PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3.INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) Respondent(s)
RATIO
THE ESSENCE OF A PRE-HEARINGS SESSION IN ELECTION PETITIONS
The essence of the pre-hearing session cannot be over-emphasized. The process enables both the tribunal and the parties to scale down the areas of dispute by consenting on important issues that require full investigation and trial. It also allows for the summary disposal of matters. At the close of the pre-hearing session, the tribunal shall enter a scheduling Order for the order of witnesses and tendering of documents that will be necessary for the expeditious disposal of the petition; and also consider other matters that will promote the quick disposal of the petition in the circumstances. The admission of documents and facts, hearing and determination of objections on points of law; inspection and production of documents, etc, are matters to be determined at the pre-hearing session. See Paragraph 18(6) (a)-(f); (7) (a)-(i) and (8) (a)-(b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
Thus, the pre-hearing report is expected to guide both the tribunal and the parties during the hearing of the petition, and should be complied with unless varied by the Tribunal. PER SANKEY, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A DOCUMENT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IS STILL SUBJECT TO SCURTINY BY THE TRIAL COURT
It is settled law that a document, though admitted in evidence, is still subject to scrutiny by the trial Court/Tribunal on the purpose for which it is tendered and in order to ascertain its evidential value as well as the weight to be attached to it. This is more so that the law is trite that even when pieces of evidence have been improperly received in evidence, the Tribunal and/or the trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, have powers to expunge it from their Record and decide the case only on legally admissible evidence. See Haske V Magaji (2008) LPELR-8330(CA); Ita V Ekpenyong (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 587, 613, E-F; Chigbu V Tonimas (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 115. PER SANKEY, J.C.A.
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal is against the Ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Lafia delivered on 24th May, 2019. Therein, the Tribunal rejected certain documents tendered in evidence by the 1st Respondent therein (now Appellant) which documents had been produced by the 3rd Respondent (INEC) from its custody upon the issuance and service on her of a Subpoena duces tecum.
The brief facts leading to the Appeal are that the Petitioners had instituted the Petition at the Tribunal on 29th March, 2019. At the close of pleadings, the Pre-hearing Session commenced on 7th May, 2019 and it was concluded on 13th May, 2019. A Pre-hearing Report was subsequently issued in line with Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended); thereafter, hearing in the Petition commenced on 22nd May, 2019.
?On that date, the 3rd Respondent produced certain documents before the Tribunal pursuant to the issuance of Subpoena duces tecum to her by the Tribunal on 21st May, 2019 at the instance of the Petitioners. The documents
1
were as follows:
(i) The certified true copy of Form EC40G of Obi 1 Legislative Constituency;
(ii) The certified true copy of a letter of complaint dated 10th March, 2019 addressed to the Returning Officer of Obi 1 Constituency;
(iii) The certified true copy of the Report of the Election for Obi 1 Constituency dated 10th March, 2019 addressed to the Resident Electoral Commission, Nasarawa State; and
(iv) The certified true copy of the Report of the Ward Election/Collation held at Tudun Adabu 9th March, 2019.
?
The documents were sought to be tendered through PW2, an officer from the 3rd Respondent (INEC). The Respondents raised an objection to the admission of the documents in evidence, contending the following: that by the Pre-hearing Session Report of the Tribunal, all certified true copies of documents are to be tendered from the Bar; and also that the documents bore no evidence of certification as there was no evidence of payment of fees and no stamp of the 3rd Respondent (INEC) and the certifying officer. The Appellants disagreed and responded to the objection accordingly. In its Ruling, the Tribunal upheld the objection and
2
consequently rejected the documents in evidence. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed their Notice and Grounds of Appeal on 31st May, 2019 wherein they complained on four grounds.
At the hearing of the Appeal on 27th June, 2019, Matthew Burkaa Esq. adopted the Appellants? Brief of argument filed on 11-06-19 and the Appellants? Reply Brief of argument in urging the Court to allow the Appeal. In like manner, P.E. Akwe Esq. adopted the 1st Respondent?s Brief of argument filed on 14-06-19 in urging the Court to dismiss the Appeal. Also, I.D. Atanyi Esq. adopted the 2nd Respondent?s Brief of argument filed on 14-06-19 in urging the Court to dismiss the Appeal. Finally, Sani Rabiu Esq. indicated that the 3rd Respondent did not file any Brief of argument and so had nothing to urge on the Court.
In their Brief of argument, the Appellants distilled the following two issues for the determination of the Appeal:
1. ?Whether the learned Justices of the lower Tribunal were not wrong in law when they rejected in evidence the documents produced by Subpoena duces tecum by PW1 and sought to be tendered through PW2 by the Appellant
3
despite the fact that the documents were relevant, pleaded, properly certified and admissible in law and produced by the 3rd Respondent. (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)
2. Whether the Appellant?s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution was not breached when the lower Tribunal raised the point of improper certification without affording the parties the opportunity of addressing it on same. (Ground 3).?
The 1st Respondent framed one sole issue for determination as follows:
?Whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the documents sought to be tendered by the Appellants through PW1 at the proceedings of 22nd May, 2019. (Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4)?
While the 2nd Respondent crafted two issues for determination as follows:
i. ?Whether having regard to the sui generis of election petition the learned justices of the Tribunal were right to have rejected the documents having commonly agreed by the parties that all Certified True of Public documents should be tendered from the bar (Grounds 1, 2 and 4)
ii. Whether the rejection of the documents by the learned Justices of the Tribunal
4
for failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 104 of the Evidence Act alleged to have raised suo motu breached the Appellants? right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). (Ground 3)?
On her part, the 3rd Respondent, as aforesaid, did not file any Brief of argument.
After scrutinizing the Grounds of Appeal vis-a-vis the three sets of issues which are similar but differently worded, I adopt the issues crafted by the Appellants in the determination of the Appeal. However, the two issues shall be addressed together.
ARGUMENTS
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Tribunal ought to have admitted in evidence the rejected documents which he contends were public documents properly certified and tendered through the maker; they were pleaded in paragraphs 77 (o) & (p) of the Petition, items 14 & 15 of the Petition, and paragraphs 7 & 8 of the PW2?s Statement on Oath; and were also relevant because they relate to the election into the House of Assembly for Obi 1 Constituency Election held on 9th March, 2019, the
5
subject matter of the Petition before the Tribunal, being complaints made by officers of the 3rd Respondent. Counsel also contends that as secondary copies of primary documents in the 3rd Respondent?s custody, they were duly certified in line with Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and so were admissible in law. Reliance is placed on Chevron (Nig) Ltd V Aderibigbe (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1289) 1 (CA); Okonji V Njokanma (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 250; Haruna V AG Federation (2012) LPELR-7821(SC) 15, C-D.
On the issue of non-payment of fees for certification of the said documents, Counsel submits that the documents emanated from the 3rd Respondent who produced them before the Tribunal through PW1, her Deputy Director and Head of Operation and were sought to be tendered through PW2, the Returning Officer of the election. However, he argues that even if payment of fees for certification was held to be necessary, the Tribunal could have directed the Appellants to make such payments. Reliance is placed on Tabik Investment Ltd V GTB (2011) LPELR-3131(SC).
?
In respect of the contention that the documents were not admissible at that stage in view of the
6
Pre-hearing session Report, Counsel submits that the Tribunal rightly found that admissibility is governed by law and that the pre-hearing session is not law. Nonetheless, it still proceeded to reject the documents in spite of the fact that the Appellants acted in fidelity with the law and sought to tender the documents through the person with the capacity to do so. INEC V Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1126) 525, 597 per Salami, JCA is relied on. Counsel therefore contends that the Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on Paragraph 18(11) (a) & (b) which only seeks to sanction parties who are indolent or not serious with the pre-hearing session; and is not an avenue to sanction parties who have acted in accordance with the dictates of law and the directions of the Court. He therefore urged the Court to hold that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the documents in evidence.
Secondly, learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal erred in law and breached the Appellants? right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) when it suo motu raised the issue that the certified true copies of the documents sought to be
7
tendered did not bear the name, title and seal of the certifying officer. The Tribunal also did not afford parties an opportunity to address it on the issue before making a determination thereon. Reliance is placed on Akere V Gov., Oyo State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240 (SC); Sanni V Ademiluyi (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 807) 381; Mojekwu V Iwuchukwu (2004) LPELR-1903 (SC) 25, D-E, per Mohammed, JSC. Based on these submissions, Counsel urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the Ruling of the Tribunal and admit the rejected documents in evidence.
In response, learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that Paragraph 18(10) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provides for the binding nature of the Pre-hearing session Report on the proceedings of an Election Petition Tribunal. He contends that the proceedings of the Tribunal must be in conformity with the Pre-hearing session Report unless the Tribunal modifies it; that by the use of the word ?shall? therein, the provision is mandatory. Reliance is placed on a number of decisions including Ibaku V Ebini (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1222) 286, 310, D-G; Maitumbi V Baraya (2017)
8
2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 347, 385, C-E. Counsel therefore submits that since election petitions are sui generis and time is of essence, the Tribunal was right when it relied on its Pre-hearing Report to reject the documents, which were also improperly certified and tendered through PW1. He contends that the only secondary evidence of a public document admissible under the Evidence Act is a certified true copy and refers to Sections 90(1) (c) and 104(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Therefore, the Respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents for failing to comply with Section 104 of the Evidence Act especially contending that fees for certification were not paid and they were not duly certified, and that the Tribunal was right in law to have rejected them. Udom V Imana (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1526) 179, 234, G-H & 235, A-B is relied on. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal with substantial cost.
On his part, learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits that election petitions are sui generis and the jurisdiction of an Election Petition Tribunal to deal with election matters is of a special nature different from that in
9
ordinary civil regimes. Buhari V Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446, 498-499, E-B is relied on. He submits that by the provisions of Paragraph 18(1), (4) and (6) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the pre-hearing session is a condition precedent to the hearing of an election petition. The report or scheduling Order of the Tribunal is also a requirement of the pre-hearing session. Therefore, any order made in the report binds the Tribunal and the parties. Any party who wants to depart from the scheduling order must apply for it to be varied. Therefore, the Tribunal was right to reject the documents as the Appellants acted in disobedience of its Order as to the procedure to be adopted by parties during trial. Reliance is placed on Oguebego V PDP (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 446, 480, C-D; & Uchiv V Sabo (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1538) 264, 317, F.
On the issue of non-compliance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act, Counsel submits that it was actually the 2nd Respondent that canvassed the issue before the Tribunal; and therefore it was not raised suo motu by the Tribunal. Reliance is also placed on a host of authorities for what
10
constitutes fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution, including Nwokocha V AG Imo State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 141, 168-169; Nyesom V Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1512) 452. He submits that the Appellants? right was not breached because they were given every ambidextrous opportunity to present their case without hindrance.
As an alternative submission, Counsel submits that assuming the Tribunal raised the issue suo motu in rejecting the documents, it still cannot translate into a breach of fair hearing as the documents were rejected for non-compliance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act. The Court is therefore urged to resolve the issues against the Appellant, to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Ruling of the Tribunal.
?
The Appellants in their Reply Brief of argument submit that the pre-hearing session report of 13th May, 2019 did not state how documents procured on subpoena, whether certified or not, should be tendered. Thus, it did not disallow the tendering of documents through a subpoenaed witness, as provided by law. He argues that admissibility is strictly regulated by law to wit: the Evidence Act and this cannot be taken away
11
by Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act which simply regulates the procedural steps to be taken in a petition. It does not affect the substantive law to be applied especially as it relates to the taking of evidence, which is strictly regulated by the Evidence Act. On the position of the law in respect of documents produced on subpoena, reliance is placed on INEC V Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1126) 524, 597.
In addition, Counsel submits that the purpose of the Report is just to guide the hearing of the Petition as it relates to procedural steps provided in Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule. He contends that the objection raised by the Respondents was strictly procedural and had nothing to do with the substantive law on admissibility. Therefore, the Tribunal should have directed for the procedural step to be taken instead of rejecting a document which was clearly admissible in law, because the determinant of admissibility is the Evidence Act by virtue of Section 3 thereof. Kubau V Rilwanu (2014) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 284 (CA); & Egbuchulam V Egbuchulam (2014) LPELR-22831(CA) are relied on.
?
Furthermore, Counsel submits that it
12
was the Respondents who first disobeyed the directions in the Pre-hearing session Report when they failed to reserve their objection on the admissibility of the documents contrary to the report which provided that all objections shall be reserved till the stage of final addresses of Counsel (page 155 of the printed Record of Appeal).
Finally, Counsel submits that the Respondents raised this objection to the admissibility of the documents because the circumstance of documents produced on subpoena was not envisaged in the pre-hearing session report. Thus, the Appellants cannot be accused of disobeying the report when the situation was not provided for in the said report. The Court is again urged to allow the Appeal.
Findings
The relevant provisions in Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) provides ?
?18. (6) At the pre-hearing session, the tribunal or Court shall enter a scheduling Order for –
(e) order of witnesses and tendering of documents that will be necessary for the expeditious disposal of the petition; and
(f) any other matters that will promote the quick disposal of the
13
petition in the circumstances.
(7) At the pre-hearing session, the tribunal or Court shall consider and take appropriate action in respect of the following as may be necessary or desirable ?
(b) the admissions of facts, documents and other evidence by consent of the parties;
(d) hearing and determination of objections on point of law;
(e) control and scheduling of discovery; inspection and production of documents;
(h) determining the form and substance of the pre-hearing order; and
(i) such other matters as may facilitate the just and speedy disposal of the petition bearing in mind the urgency of election petitions.
(8) At the pre-hearing session, the tribunal or Court shall ensure that hearing is not delayed by the number of witnesses and objections to documents to be tendered and shall pursuant to paragraph (b), (e), (b) and (e) of the paragraph ?
(a) allow parties to admit or exclude documents by consent;
(10) After a pre-hearing session or series of pre-hearing sessions the tribunal or Court shall issue a report and this report shall guide the subsequent course of the proceedings unless modified by
14
the Tribunal or the Court.?
From the above and other paragraphs of the First Schedule covering the pre-hearing session, the provision is evidently designed to ensure that all preliminary and interlocutory matters are disposed of within a specified time, so that once the matter is set down for hearing, the trial may proceed from day to day with despatch. This is in tandem with Section 142 of the Electoral Act by which Tribunals are mandated to give accelerated hearing to election petitions.
?The essence of the pre-hearing session cannot be over-emphasized. The process enables both the tribunal and the parties to scale down the areas of dispute by consenting on important issues that require full investigation and trial. It also allows for the summary disposal of matters. At the close of the pre-hearing session, the tribunal shall enter a scheduling Order for the order of witnesses and tendering of documents that will be necessary for the expeditious disposal of the petition; and also consider other matters that will promote the quick disposal of the petition in the circumstances. The admission of documents and facts, hearing and determination of
15
objections on points of law; inspection and production of documents, etc, are matters to be determined at the pre-hearing session. See Paragraph 18(6) (a)-(f); (7) (a)-(i) and (8) (a)-(b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
Thus, the pre-hearing report is expected to guide both the tribunal and the parties during the hearing of the petition, and should be complied with unless varied by the Tribunal.
In the instant case, the Pre-hearing Session Report itself is contained at pages 153 to 156 of the Record of Appeal. The portion of the Report relevant to this Appeal is contained at page 155 of the Record, and states inter alia as follows:
?From the consensus of counsel to the parties, all certified true copies of public documents shall be tendered from the bar while objections shall be reserved till the stage of final addresses.?
?Clearly from the above, two important aspects of the procedure for the conduct of the trial at the lower Election Petition Tribunal were agreed upon by the parties at the pre-hearing session and therefore incorporated into the Order made by the Tribunal. They are:
(i) that
16
all certified true copies of public documents shall be tendered from the Bar; and
(ii) that any objection to the admission of such documents shall be reserved till the stage of final addresses.
However, from all that transpired at the Tribunal on 22nd May, 2019 as reflected at pages 162 to 164 of printed the Record of proceedings, both parties were guilty of flouting the Order of the Tribunal in this regard in the following ways: whereas the Appellants failed to tender the certified true copies of the documents from the Bar, as agreed upon during the pre-hearing session, the Respondents also failed to reserve their objections to the tendering of the documents till the stage of final addresses.
?Nevertheless, when the Tribunal was presented with such an un-expected scenario, to wit: where the Appellants, (as Petitioners), applied to the Tribunal for the issuance of Subpoena duces tecum and the Tribunal obliged, and via the same subpoena, sprung the said documents on the Respondents through PW2 (who produced same on subpoena), which documents had not been tendered by consent from the Bar; and the Respondents also instantly raised objections to the
17
admissibility of the documents in evidence, instead of also indicating its objection and reserving arguments thereon till final addresses; it was incumbent on the Tribunal to have reserved its ruling thereon to be delivered alongside the Judgment at the close of trial. Rather, the Tribunal proceeded to issue its ruling on the issue instantaneously. This, in my respectful view, was premature in the light of these sui generis proceedings.
In view of the expeditious nature of Election Petitions, whether or not the Appellant went outside the scope of the Pre-hearing session Report, an objection thereto having been raised and extensively argued by all the Respondents, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have simply reserved its ruling on the admissibility or otherwise of the documents, to be delivered alongside the Judgment at the close of trial. This is evidently because the whole purpose of the pre-hearing session and Paragraph 18 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act is that interlocutory matters should not be allowed to delay the hearing of the Petition by requiring the Tribunal to take out precious judicial time, at this stage, to deliver
18
considered Rulings on such issues which could await the conclusion of hearing. Doing so inevitably leads to delay in these proceedings which are time-bound and for which time is of the essence. It also inevitably leads to the unwarranted and superfluous filing of interlocutory Appeals against such Rulings piece-meal at the Court of Appeal when the Petition is yet to be determined on its merit. This is totally unnecessary and actively discouraged by the appellate Courts, in view of the fact that both Election Petitions, as well as Appeals, are time-bound and so time is invariably of the essence. Such interlocutory Appeals that are filed piece-meal are frowned upon by this Court and will inevitably be sent back to the Tribunal to await its final Judgment at the conclusion of proceedings.
Consequently in these circumstances where both parties are in violation of the Order made in the Pre-hearing session Report, and yet a decision has already been rendered by the Tribunal prematurely rejecting the documents in evidence, in the interest of fair hearing and speedy trial, and in the spirit of the sui generis nature of election petition proceedings, it is hereby
19
Ordered that the documents tendered by the Appellants be admitted in evidence tentatively as if they had been tendered from the Bar, and that the Respondents renew their objections to the admissibility of the documents during final addresses, at which time the Tribunal may pronounce thereon and also decide on the weight to be attached to the said documents.
It is settled law that a document, though admitted in evidence, is still subject to scrutiny by the trial Court/Tribunal on the purpose for which it is tendered and in order to ascertain its evidential value as well as the weight to be attached to it. This is more so that the law is trite that even when pieces of evidence have been improperly received in evidence, the Tribunal and/or the trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, have powers to expunge it from their Record and decide the case only on legally admissible evidence. See Haske V Magaji (2008) LPELR-8330(CA); Ita V Ekpenyong (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 587, 613, E-F; Chigbu V Tonimas (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 115.
?However, for the avoidance of doubt, this Court affirms that there must be strict compliance with the agreed terms set out in
20
the Pre-hearing session Report duly issued by the Tribunal after consultation with, and agreement by the parties; and so this finding is not to be interpreted to water down the obligatory nature of the Report. It is only in view of the peculiar facts of the case as presented in this Appeal that this Order admitting the documents in evidence at this stage has been made.
?Thus, based on all the above, the legal issue of the admissibility or otherwise of the said documents shall not be pronounced upon by this Court on its merits, until same has been properly determined at the close of trial by the lower Tribunal. Such interlocutory Appeals filed during the hearing of Election Petitions, unless absolutely necessary, will henceforth be sent back to await the outcome of the Petition, as they generally only constitute a distraction to the Tribunal and of course unwarranted delay.
In consequence of all the above, the Appeal is allowed in part in these terms:
The Order of the lower Tribunal issued on 24-05-19 is set aside. In its place, it is Ordered that the following documents tendered in evidence through the PW2 on 22-05-19, that is.
(i) The
21
certified true copy of Form EC40G of Obi 1 Legislative Constituency;
(ii) The certified true copy of a letter of complaint dated March, 2019 addressed to the Returning Officer or Obi 1 Constituency;
(iii) The certified true copy of the Report Of the Election for Obi 1 Constituency dated 10th March, 2019 addressed to the Resident Electoral Commission. Nasarawa State; and
(iv) The certified true copy of the Report Of the Ward Election/Collation held at Tudun Adabu 9th March. 2019: are admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits PW2 (i) (ii) (iii) & (iv) respectively.
However. the Objections raised to the admissibility of the documents by the Respondents are to be renewed during final addresses of Counsel at the close of trial after which the Tribunal. in its Ruling and/or Judgment, may take a final decision on whether to act upon or to expunge the documents, and also decide upon the weight, if any, to be attached to them.
Parties are ordered to bear their costs.
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity to read in advance a draft copy or the lead Judgment of my learned
22
Brother, Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JCA, allowing this appeal in part, I agree with, and adopt as mine the comprehensive resolution of the issues raised therein.
I also allow this appeal in part and abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment.
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: I read before now the lead judgment of my learned brother Sankey, JCA, which has just been delivered. I am in agreement with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion which I adopt as mine in allowing the appeal in part. I abide by the consequential orders in the judgment.
23
Appearances:
Matthew Burkaa, Esq.For Appellant(s)
P.E. Akwe, Esq. holding the brief of M.A. Ebute, Esq. for 1st Respondent.
I.D. Atanyi, Esq. holding the brief of Y. A. Hassan, Esq. for 2nd Respondent.
Sani Rabiu, Esq. for 3rd Respondent.For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Matthew Burkaa, Esq.For Appellant
AND
P.E. Akwe, Esq. holding the brief of M.A. Ebute, Esq. for 1st Respondent.
I.D. Atanyi, Esq. holding the brief of Y. A. Hassan, Esq. for 2nd Respondent.
Sani Rabiu, Esq. for 3rd Respondent.For Respondent
