HRH OBA R.A. ADEJUGBE & ANOR v. CHIEF BAMIDELE ADULOJU & ORS
(2018)LCN/11867(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 6th day of July, 2018
CA/EK/11/2016
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: A DEMURRER PROCEEDINGS
“It is trite law that for the purposes of an application of this nature which in essence is a demurrer proceeding, the averments in the statement of claim are deemed admitted. In the case of DISU v. AJILOWURA (2006) LPELR 955 SC Niki Tobi JSC @ page 36 PARA A-C held: In demurrer proceedings, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the averments in the statement of claim. Similarly in the procedure concept of locus standi, defendant relies on the statement of claim and urges the Court to strike out the matter on the ground that the statement of claim discloses no locus standi to the Plaintiff. In both processes, the averments in the Statement of Claim are the final arbiter.”” PER FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.
COURT AND PROCEDURE: LOCUS STANDI
“Belgore JSC (as he then was) in his judgment in ADESOKAN v. ADEGOROLU (Supra) @ 639 held:
Locus standi can exist in voluntary arrangement of mode of controlling relationship in a voluntary organization whereby certain principles a group is averse to can be challenged (Thomas v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 18) 669. Whether in a Chieftaincy Matter (ADEFULU V. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 122) 377- or under the Constitution or a mere statute (EMELOGU v. STATE(1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 78) 524; Section 6(6) (b) of 1979 Constitution) a party must show clearly that he has a right to protect and his coming to Court is to seek remedy so that the right will not be violated.” PER FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HRH OBA R.A. ADEJUGBE
( The Ewi of Ado-Ekiti)
2. MR. DAYO-OLU FAJEMILUA – Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF BAMIDELE ADULOJU
2. AKIN BERNARD
3. IDOWU ADULOJU
(for themselves and on behalf of the Edemo Family of Ado-Ekiti)
4. MR. OJO ADEYEYE
5. MR. ABDUL ABUGAN
6. MR. SOLA AKINLUSI – Respondent(s)
FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of Ekiti State High Court sitting in Ado-Ekiti, delivered on 3/12/15 by Hon. Justice M. O. Abodunde wherein the learned trial Judge held that parties should exchange pleadings and all other processes to facilitate expeditious hearing of the substantive matter in the instant-case.
By a writ of summons dated 27th May, 2014, the Claimants initiated an action against six defendants claiming the following reliefs namely:
1. A Declaration that under the native law and custom of Ado Ekiti; the Ewi has no power known to law and/or native law and custom to nominate any person as Edemo of Ado Ekiti.
2. A Declaration that the nomination, selection, appointment and the purported installation of the 2nd defendant as Edemo of Ado-Ekiti on 7th May,2014 is illegal contrary to the law and custom of the Edemo family/chieftaincy and thereby null and void.
3. An Order setting aside the purported appointment, nomination and installation of the 2nd defendant as Edemo of Ado-Ekiti.
4. A Declaration that the nomination and or the selection of the 2nd Defendant as the Edemo of Ado-Ekiti is contrary to the procedure for nomination contained in the Edemo of Ado-Ekiti chieftaincy declaration of 1958 and to that extent null and void.
5. A Declaration that Chief j.b. Aduloju is the Edemo of Ado -Ekiti having been properly nominated, elected and appointed by the Edemo family in accordance with custom and tradition.
6. A Declaration that the Chieftaincy house (Akodi Edemo) is the property of the Edemo family, and the 2nd Defendant having not completed all rites associated with the appointment of an Edemo is not entitled to enter into the Akodi Edemo.
7. A Perpetual order of injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from parading himself or holding himself out as the Edemo of Ado-Ekiti.
8. A Perpetual order of injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from entering the Edemo chieftaincy house as Chief Edemo.
The Appellants were sued as the 1st and 2nd Defendants at the lower Court.
At the filing of the writ of summons, the Claimants front loaded their documents which include the statement of claim, the witness written statements on oath as well as their list of witnesses.
Upon delivery of writ of summons and statement of claim, the 1st and 2nd defendants (now appellants) took up an objection asking that the action be struck out on the ground that:
a. The first relief sought constitutes an abuse of Court process;
b. The Claimants lack locus standing to institute the action and
c. That they failed to exhaust the internal remedies provided for in section of the chiefs law of Ekiti State.
The learned trial judge in his ruling delivered on 3rd December, 2015 struck out the 5th relief and held further that the objection is unsustainable with respect to reliefs (i)-(iv).
It is against the above ruling that the appellants have brought this appeal by filing its notice of appeal on 16th December, 2015. The notice of appeal contains two grounds of appeal.
Upon the receipt of the record of proceedings, the appellants applied to amend the grounds of appeal contained in the original notice of appeal which was opposed on the ground that grounds 1 and 2 therein raised issues of mixed law and fact.
In a reserved ruling delivered by this Court on 13th day of July, 2016, the Court struck out grounds 1 and 3 leaving only ground 2. Arising from the ruling, the appellants thereafter brought an application to file additional grounds and also sought leave to argue those grounds which the Court graciously granted on 20th September, 2017.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Respondents who instituted the action for themselves and on behalf of Edemo family by their pleadings showed that there are two ruling houses that are entitled to nominate and select an Edemo which is a minor chieftaincy in case of any vacancy in the stool.
The claimants by their pleadings are from aduloju ruling house while the 2nd Appellant whose nomination, selection and appointment being challenged is from Fajemilua ruling house.
The Claimants pleaded copiously the process of nomination and selection of an Edemo.
The claimants alleged that the appointment of the 2nd Appellant is unknown to the history, custom and tradition of Edemo.
As earlier stated, after considering the facts pleaded by the respondents, the appellants took up an objection which culminated in the ruling being appealed against.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to strike out the claimants actions on lack of competence.
particulars of error.
i. In a chieftaincy action, any aggrieved party is mandatorily obliged to exhaust the internal remedies provided for in the chiefs law of ekiti state;
ii. The claimants failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(4) , (5), (6) and(7) of Chiefs Law of Ekiti State before they initiated their action.
iii. Failure to comply with the above provision robs the Court of its jurisdictional power to determine the action.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held as follows:
I deem it fit to order parties to exchange pleadings and all other processes to facilitate expeditious hearing of the substantive matter in the instant case and i so hold.
When compliance with provisions of Section 13(4),(5),(6) and (7) of Chiefs Law of Ekiti State is a condition precedent to initiation of an action in a chieftaincy matter.
3. The learned trial judge rightly held that it is the claimants action that determines issue of locus standing, it is the statement of claim that must be looked into and considered thereafter erred in law when he thereafter held that:
It is for this that I agree with the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents that they should be heard and for the Court not to strike out the suit at this stage. Whether or not the suit will succeed is a matter for the substantive trial on the merits and I so hold. I therefore overrule the learned silk on the issue of locus
From the grounds of appeal, Appellants learned counsel distilled two issues for determination as follows:
i. Whether the learned trial judge was right in ordering pleadings instead of striking out the suit for non compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 13(4),(5), (6) and (7) of the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State grounds 1 and 2 of the additional grounds of appeal contained by virtue of order of Court made on 20th September, 2017.
ii. Whether having regard to the Respondents pleadings, the learned trial Judge was right in failing to strike out the respondents action for failure to disclose their locus standi. (Ground 3 of the amended grounds of appeal).
The learned counsel for the 1st – 3rd Respondents on behalf of the Respondents adopted the issues for determination as formulated by the Appellants.
The learned counsel for the 4th – 6th Respondents on behalf of the Respondents also adopted the issues formulated by the Appellants.
In arguing issue 1, Appellants counsel remarked that it has long been recognized that where some laws prescribe, some procedural steps before embarking on actual litigation, it is mandatory for a litigant to take such steps, failure of which will vitiate any action initiated.
One of such laws in this appeal is the Chiefs Law of Ekiti State contained in Cap 5, Laws of Ekiti State Section 13 (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the law prescribes the steps that must be taken before a litigant can embark on action to pursue a chieftaincy dispute.
It provides as follows:
13 (4) Where there is a dispute as to whether a person has been appointed in accordance with customary law to a minor chieftaincy, the prescribed authority shall determine the dispute and the person concerned shall be notified of the decision.
(5) Any person who is not satisfied with the decision of the prescribed authority may within twenty-one days from the receipt of the notification, make representations to such member of the executive council to whom responsibility for chieftaincy affairs is assigned that the decision be set aside and he may, after considering the representation confirm or set aside the decision.
(6) Before exercising the powers conferred by Subsection (5) of this section, the member of the executive council responsible for chieftaincy affairs may cause such inquiries to be held as appear to him necessary or desirable.
(7) Where the member of the executive council responsible for Chieftaincy affairs in his determination under Subsection (6) of this section sets aside an appointment to a Chieftaincy he shall require the persons responsible under Customary Law for the appointment of the person to fill the vacancy in that chieftaincy to appoint another person in accordance with the customary law within such time as he may specify.
The San submitted that it is now settled by a long line of decisions that failure to comply with this provision renders any action taken incompetent. See the cases of EGUAMWENSE v. AMAGHIZEMWEN (1993) 9 NWLR (Part 315) 25; BAMISILE v. OSASUYI (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1042); ADESOLA v. ABIDOYE (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28 at 56. See ARIBISALA v. OGUNYEMI (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt 321) 212.
The San referred to the pleadings of the 1st – 3rd Respondents, 29 and 30. Learned San pointed out that the letter referred to in the pleadings above was not frontloaded in line with Order 3 Rule 2(1) of the High Court procedure rules of Ekiti State. He contended that no such letter was written.
Counsel submitted that even if it is accepted that it was indeed written could that be accepted as appropriate mode of compliance with the steps he answered in the negative.
The san contended that the claimants did not submit their grievances to the prescribed authority for determination.
Furthermore, the Claimants did not wait for the notification of the decision of the prescribed authority before rushing to the commissioner for chieftaincy affairs.
The provisions of Sections 13(4) and (5) were set out again by learned silk for emphasis that there is time stipulation under Section 13(4) as to exactly when representation is to be made to commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs.
Learned silk submitted that the letter purportedly sent to commissioner of chieftaincy affairs did not meet the required standard as shown above. Those 1st – 3rd respondents did not wait for the commissioner for chieftaincy affairs who is enjoined to pass his decision to the prescribed authority under Section 13(5) before rushing to Court. He submitted that an aggrieved party must exhaust all the internal remedies. See CHIEF FATONJI WHETTO & ORS v. AYINLA AWODE &ORS.
It was reiterated by San that the 1st- 3rd respondents failed to exhaust all the internal remedies which are conditions precedent to initiation of an action under the Chief’s Law of Ekiti State.
The approach of the trial Court was attacked by San who submitted that the trial judge instead of resolving this issue of this fundamental importance one way or the other introduced sentiment into it and the Court thereafter ordered pleadings to be exchanged.
It was submitted that the issue of non-compliance with provision of Section 13(4), (5), (6) and (7) of Chiefs Law is a jurisdictional matter since they are conditions precedent to initiation of a chieftaincy matter.
The San submitted that then competence of the learned trial judge to exercise jurisdiction rests entirely on the resolution of the issue of non compliance with provisions of Section 13(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Chief’s Law of Ekiti State as failure to comply with the law robs the Court of its jurisdictional power to determine the action.
In that it is settle law that if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter before it, any step taken in relation to the matter is a nullity and void. See TIMITIMI VS AMABEBE & ORS 14 WACA 374, MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 SCNLR 341.
San submitted that if the issue of non compliance is resolved and determined, the 1st-3 Respondents can be shut out prematurely at the interlocutory stage. San reiterated that it is a strict requirement of law that must be complied with and not that of sentiment as expressed by his Lordship. And by extension, the pleadings ordered by his Lordship would be an exercise in futility.
The San urged this Court to hold that failure to exhaust the internal remedies afforded by provisions of Section 13(4) (5), (6) and (7) of the Chief’s Law robs the trial Court of jurisdiction and competence to hear the case.
He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant and allow the grounds on which they relate.
ISSUE TWO
In arguing Issue Two, the san submitted that the issue deals with the 1st -3rd Respondents locus to institute the action.
In that, it is settled law that before a party can institute an action in a Chieftaincy Matter, he must disclose his locus.
It is not sufficient for the claimants to state that he is a member of the family, he has to state further that he has an interest in the chieftaincy title and furthermore state in his Statement of Claim how his interest in the Chieftaincy Title arose. See MOMOH & ANOR v. OLOTU (1970) NSCC Vol. 6 99 at 104; ADESOKAN v. ADEGOROLU (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.179) 293 AT 305-306.
In determining whether the plaintiff has locus, the averments in the statement of claim and the writ of summons are mainly the materials required to be examined. See ADESOKAN v. ADEGOROLU (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 261; ADETONA & ANOR v. ZENITH INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC (2009) 3 NWLR (1129) 577; OMNIA NIG LTD v. DYKTRADE (2007) 15 NWLR (1058) 576.
It is therefore necessary to examine the materials supplied by the 1st- 3rd Respondents in this matter.
The 1st-3rd Respondents admitted in their pleadings that there are two ruling houses that are eligible to contest the Chieftaincy Title of Edemo vide paragraph 11 of the statement of claim. The two ruling houses are Aduloju and Fajemilua.
By paragraph 12, the 1st-3rd Respondents averred that the 1st respondent hails from Aduloju ruling house while the 2nd Appellant belongs to Fajemilua ruling house.
The 1st-3rd Respondents pleaded various steps taken by the 1st Appellant in selecting the 2nd Appellant as the Edemo and in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Statement of Claim, they admitted the fact of installation.
If the averments herein are juxtaposed with the 1st-3rd Respondents claim, it is clear that they are challenging the selection, nomination, appointment of the 2nd Appellant.
The 1st-3rd respondents did not throughout their pleadings show that they are interested in chieftaincy stool nor did they show that it is the right of their ruling house to nominate a candidate to fill the vacant stool.
It is clear their claim and averment showed their desire to protect the sacred stool of Edemo rather than establishing their interest in the stool. The position of the 1st to 3rd Respondents is not too dissimilar to the position of the Appellants in Thomas & Sons v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 17 NSCC Vol. 17 323 @338.
The ruling of the trial judge was attacked by the San who is of the view that the trial judge misunderstood the issue of locus with particular reference to the case presented by the 1st-3rd Respondents when his Lordship held that:
It is for this that I agree with the learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents that they should be heard and for the Court not to strike out the suit at this stage. Whether or not the suit will succeed is a matter for the substantive trial on the merits and if so hold. I therefore overrule the learned silk on the issue of locus.
The San submitted that the issue is not whether it is the turn of 1st Respondent or 2nd Appellant to contest the stool contrary to his Lordships observation above.
First, both the 1st respondent and 2nd appellant belong to the same family but different ruling houses.
Secondly, the issue in contention is to the process of selection, nomination and installation of the 2nd appellant which was said to be contrary to the custom and tradition of Edemo family.
That in any event, even if the perception of the case by the learned trial judge is right, San submitted that the right over which they can protest is that involving their ruling house but they must show that it is turn of that ruling house to present candidate. See ADEWUMI & ORS v. A.G EKITI STATE (2006) 9 NSCQ 66 @103.
The 1st-3rd Respondents had admitted in their paragraphs 23 and 24 of their statement of claim that the 1st respondent had been deposed which necessitated for Courts intervention by way of injunction.
It was submitted by San that the case of BABATUNDE v. GOV of WESTERN REGION (1960) NSCC Vol. 1 @ 41-43 is a high authority for the proposition that a deposed chief has no locus to challenge the appointment of his successor. His remedy lies in an action against his deposition.
And that they admitted further in the same paragraph 23 that the 1st appellant had directed the Edemo family to commence the process of selection and nomination of a new Edemo.
I have carefully studied the issues for determination as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. As I stated earlier in this judgment, it is an interlocutory appeal. I am of the view that the gravamen of the Appellants grouse is that the 1st-3rd Respondents did not comply with the provisions of the Chief’s Law of Ekiti State.
It is trite law that for the purposes of an application of this nature which in essence is a demurrer proceeding, the averments in the statement of claim are deemed admitted.
In the case of DISU v. AJILOWURA (2006) LPELR 955 SC Niki Tobi JSC @ page 36 PARA A-C held: In demurrer proceedings, the defendant is deemed to have accepted the averments in the statement of claim. Similarly in the procedure concept of locus standi, defendant relies on the statement of claim and urges the Court to strike out the matter on the ground that the statement of claim discloses no locus standi to the Plaintiff. In both processes, the averments in the Statement of Claim are the final arbiter.”
From paragraphs 5, 28, 29, 30, 40, 43 of the Statement of Claim, it is clear to me that the complaints of the 1st-3rd Respondents is the acts of HRM Oba Adejugbe the 1st Appellant, who is the prescribing authority of the Edemo of Ado-Ekiti Chieftaincy, and whose action is being challenged. The Chief’s Law of Ekiti State in Section 13(4) states that the prescribing authority shall determine a dispute in relation to the appointment of a minor chieftaincy.
I agree with the view of the 1st Respondents counsel that it is not and cannot be the intention of the lawmakers that the said prescribing authority should determine a dispute arising from his actions in nominating and selecting a chief whose appointment is now being challenged, as being contrary to the customary law regulating the said chieftaincy. That in his opinion will be unconstitutional and could not have been the intention of the lawmakers.
Kekere-Ekun JSC, in KAYILI V. YILBUK LPELR 92/2005, succinctly highlighted what the intention of the lawmakers was when interpreting the provisions in the law that the prescribing authority shall first determine the dispute, when she held at Page 78 Para G by making provision for the resolution of disputes by the prescribed authority a condition precedent to approaching the Court for redress, the intention of the lawmakers is to reduce the number of such disputes that eventually find their way to Court.
The 1st Respondents counsel rightly elucidated his contention referring to the cases of JSC CROSS-RIVERS STATE v. YOUNG DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE v. FAWEHINMI (1985) 2 NWLR PT. 7 300 SC; TIV TRADITIOAL COUNCIL v. ZUGU (2005) ALL FWLR PT. 290 1532 CA.
The counsel rightly pointed out no one should be a judge in his own cause (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which indirectly restricts the enjoyment of such right. See A.C.N v. LAMIDO (2011) LPELR 9174 CA; WOMILOJU v. ANIBIRE (2010) LPELR-3503 SC.
From the facts in the 1st-3rd Respondents Statement of Claim, I agree with their counsel that in the peculiar circumstances of this case to concede to the argument of the Appellants that the 1st-3rd Respondents did not complain to the prescribing authority that the 1st Appellant in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case would be condoning unconstitutionality and giving an absurd meaning and effect to this case. In OKWUEZE v. EJIOFOR (2000) LPELR-5083 CA. This Court Per Mohammed JCA held A Court must dutifully refrain from giving absurd effect to statutes by the manner of the construction of same.
Also in NNPC v. ZARIA (2014), this Court Per Aboki JCA held: The law recognizes that where reliance on the literal interpretation of wordings of a statute will lead to absurdity, a Court is permitted to depart from that principle of interpretation. To further elucidate his point, learned counsel referred to the case ofOKOMALU v. AKINBODE (2006) 26 NSCQR 227 @ 244-245 where this Court in a similar situation made an order directing that the Appellant there in goes back to a party (Commissioner in Charge of Chieftaincy) that had, with a tone of finality by way of a letter taken a position on the dispute; Niki Tobi JSC opined thus; go back to where, I ask? Go back to the office that has stamped a word of finality, the last word on the matter, sounding like the Almighty God? No. That cannot be justice. That is clear injustice and this Court will not be a party to that injustice.
Similarly, in FRN v. OSAHON (2006) LPELR 317 SC, Onnoghen JSC, held at pages 72-73 thus:
Where the provisions of a statute are clear and unambiguous, effect shall be given to them as such, unless it would be absurd to do so having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case.
The point made by learned counsel that a referral of this dispute in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is to the one who is the actual aggressor though the prescribed authority is correct.
Oguntade JSC was very clear when he held in the case of OWOSENI v. FALOYE(2005) LPELR -2856 SC:
It is important to stress that laws which prescribe that some procedural steps be taken to resolve a dispute before embarking on actual litigation are not and cannot be treated or categorized as ousting the jurisdiction of the Court. Indeed if such laws attempt to do so, they would be in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. Such laws only afford the body to which such disputes must be referred to in the first instance an opportunity to resolve the dispute if it can before recourse is heard to the Court.
In other words, they serve the purpose of preventing actual litigation in Court where it is possible or desirable to resolve the dispute.
On the issue of locus standi of the 1st-3rd Respondents, their learned counsel stated correctly the principle of law that the capacity in which the 1st-3rd Respondents instituted this action can be seen from the statement of claim. I am of the view that the lower Court was right when it held that the right being asserted by this action was the right of the Edemo family of Ado-Ekiti as distinct from the individual rights of the claimants to the stool.
Belgore JSC (as he then was) in his judgment in ADESOKAN v. ADEGOROLU (Supra) @ 639 held:
Locus standi can exist in voluntary arrangement of mode of controlling relationship in a voluntary organization whereby certain principles a group is averse to can be challenged (Thomas v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 18) 669. Whether in a Chieftaincy Matter (ADEFULU V. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 122) 377- or under the Constitution or a mere statute (EMELOGU v. STATE(1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 78) 524; Section 6(6) (b) of 1979 Constitution) a party must show clearly that he has a right to protect and his coming to Court is to seek remedy so that the right will not be violated.
In the case of BAMISILE v. OSASUYI (2007) LPELR 8221 CA @67 B-E this Court Per Ogunwumiju JCA, held: Where the interest belongs to the family as claimed in this case in hand, the family as a whole has the legal standing to defend their right to nominate a candidate to the chieftaincy. A member can sue to represent the whole family.
The Respondents counsel applying the settled position of law to the circumstances of this case showed that the 1st-3rd respondents have shown that they are interested in the stool and they seek to assert the civil right of the family to nominate, select, and appoint a Chief Edemo in the circumstances if at all a vacancy is in existence necessitating the stool to be filled which at no time was ever invested in the 1st Appellant. See AROWOLO v. AKAPO (2011) LPELR -561 SC; LADEJOBI v. OGUNTAYO (2005) 7 WRN 22 @ 44-45; ADEFULU v. OYESILE (1989) 5 NWLR PT 122, 377; EJIKE v. UKPABI (2016) LPELR 40975 – CA.
From the totality of the arguments of the Respondents, I am of the view that the conclusion reached by learned trial judge is one that ought not to be disturbed. Consequently appeal is unmeritorious, therefore it is hereby dismissed.
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, F.O. Akinbami, JCA. I agree that the appeal is unmeritorious. I therefore dismissed the appeal.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
Afolabi Fashanu, SAN. with him, Monday Mawah, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Olalekan Olatawura, Esq.- for 1st-3rd Respondents
Rotimi Adabembe Esq.- for 4th-6th Respondents
For Respondent(s)
