MISS GLORIA GOMWALK & ANOR V. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ORS
(2011)LCN/4298(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 18th day of February, 2011
CA/J/261/2001
RATIO
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA: FACTORS THE COURT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IS RAISED
It is the law, that when a plea of res judicata is raised, the court seized of the matter, must decide as to whether, in the two Suits under reference, the issues are the same, the subject matters are the same, the parties or their privies are the same, and the court that decided the earlier suit had the jurisdiction to so do. See DOKUBO V. OMONI (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 647; OBASI V. AGWU (1998) 9 SCNJI and IBERO V. UME-OHAMA (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.277) 510. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD RIGHT TO DETERMINE A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE WITHOUT HEARING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE
…he had no right to do so and to determine a substantive issue at an interlocutory stage without hearing the relevant evidence. It is procedurally, very wrong and it amounts to a serious breach of the principle of fairness and fair hearing. See UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD V. I. K. MARTINS (NIG.) LTD. (SUPRA); MOBIL OIL V. KENA (SUPRA) and A.G. RIVERS V. UDE (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008 at 456) 436 where the Supreme Court said – ”fairness is the determining factor for the application of the principles of natural justice….A hearing of a matter in court cannot be said to be fair if any of the parties appearing before the court is refused a hearing or is denied the opportunity to be heard or present his case or call evidence; See for example Military Governor of Imo State V. NWAIWU (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 490) 676. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
FAIR HEARING: WHAT THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING ENTAILS
Fair hearing is a constitutional guarantee to ensure that justice is done and in seen to have been done. Both parties must be given the opportunity to present their cases, before the court could rightfully reach a decision. The judge must also not be a judge in his own cause. These are the twin pillars that must support a trial; otherwise it will crumble like a pack of cards. When it is said that an opportunity must be given to both sides to preset their cases, it means that the court must hear both parties on ALL MATERIAL ISSUES, before it can reach a decision on them. The opportunities given to the parties and the consideration of their issues must not be lop-sided, but fair, equal and transparent or apparent. See NTUKIDEM V. OKO (1985) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 909 and TAFIDA V. BAFARAWA (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.579) 70. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: CONSEQUENCE ANY JUDGMENT GIVEN WITHOUT DUE COMPLIANCE AND IN BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING
Once there is a breach of fundamental right to fair hearing, occasioning miscarriage of justice, then the proceedings become a nullity and must be set aside. See A.G. RIVERS V. UDE (SUPRA) where Musdapher JSC held – “Any judgment which is given without due compliance and which has breached fundamental right of fair hearing is a nullity and is capable of being set aside either by the court that gave it or by an appellate court, see Bamgboye V. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, Doduwa V. Okorodudu (1976) 9 – 10 S.C. 3291 Amadi V. Thomas (1972) 4 S.C. 229, Sadan V. Kadir (1956) 1 FSC 99, (1956) 1 SCNLR 93. PER ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A.
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA: REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW FOR A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF RES JUDICATA
In the case of IKOTUN V. OYEKANMI 2008 10 NWLR Pt 10 94 – 10 96 the Supreme Court had this to say: “For a successful plea of res judicata, the law requires that the identities of the parties (or their privies) the respondent, that is, the subject matter of the litigation, and the claim as well as the issues and the parties in both the present and previous actions must be the same, otherwise, the plea will not be tenable.” PER PHILOMENA M. EKPE, J.C.A
JUSTICES
UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. MISS GLORIA GOMWALK
2. DANLADI GOMWALK Appellant(s)
AND
1. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF PLATEAU STATE
2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE
3. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR OF BENUE STATE
4. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENUE STATE
5. BENUE INVESTMENT COMPANY
6. ALH. ABDULKADIRI ALASIRIN
7. BUREAU FOR LANDS, SURVEY AND TOWN PLANNING, PLATEAU STATE Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants as plaintiffs, took out a writ of Summons out of the High Court of Plateau state, Jos on the 27/4/2000, and in their joint statement of claim, they prayed, against the defendants jointly and severally, for the following reliefs –
“(a) A DELCARATION that the Plaintiffs are the rightful owners by inheritance entitled to the exclusive use, enjoyment and occupation of Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos.
(b) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants by themselves, agents, privies assigns, heirs or servants from further acts of trespass unto Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bellow Way, Jos in any way howsoever.”
The defendants denied the claim and filed their statements of defence. However, before trial could commence, the 6th defendant, who is now the 6th respondent, filed a Motion on Notice dated the 15/6/2000, for –
“An Order dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim for being res judicata.”
He exhibited a copy of the earlier judgment he was relying upon – PLD/J237/92. The appellants filed a counter-affidavit. After counsel for the parties had addressed the court, it examined the issues in Suit No. PLD/J237/92, Edict No. 6 of 1975 – The sale of property (Revocation) Edict-and Exhibit 2, and concluded by holding that the two properties in issue – Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, were vested in the “Benue Plateau State Government” and that the judgment in Suit No. PLD/J237/92 (Exhibit 4) is a judgment in rem, against all persons, operating as Res Judicata” The claim of the appellants was therefore dismissed. Dissatisfied with the ruling delivered on the 13/7/2000, the appellants filed an appeal before this court, on three grounds.
In their Amended Appellants Brief filed on the 18/6/2007, their counsel, Mr. T. A. Adudu identified three issues for determination in this appeal. They are –
“1. whether a judgment obtained is respect of land is a judgment in rem or is a judgment in personam (Ground 1).
2. Whether in the entire circumstances of this case the plaintiffs are privies to Benue and Plateau states Government to justify the holding of Res-Judicata against them in order to oust their interest on the two properties. (Ground 2).
3. Whether it was right for the trial judge to pronounce on who the properties were vested on, when that was one of the issues submitted to the court for determination in the substantive matter. (Ground 3).”
The 1st, 2nd and 7th respondents filed their Amended Brief on the 25/5/2009 but were deemed filed on the 26/10/2009. They also identified three Issues for determination, similar to those identified by the appellants.
The 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents’ Amended Brief filed on the 11/3/2009, was deemed filed on the 26/10/2009. They adopted the issues identified by the 6th Respondent.
The 6th Respondent filed his Amended Brief on 27/7/2007 also identifying three issues viz –
1. Whether the judgment obtained in suit No. PLD/237/92 in respect of Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos is a judgment in REM or is a judgment in PERSONAM.
2. Whether in the entire circumstances of this case the plaintiffs are privies to Benue and Plateau States Government to justify the holding of Res Judicata against them in order to oust their interest on the two properties.
3. Whether by his reference to the vesting of Ownership of property Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, in the Benue State Government, the learned Trial Judge decided the substantive issue at interlocutory stage.”
As all the issues identified by the parties are very similar, I shall utilize those issues identified by the appellant. In so doing, I shall take up the 3rd issue first. It is –
ISSUE NO. 3
Whether it was right for the trial judge to pronounce on who the properties were vested on when that was one of the issues submitted to the court for determination in the substantive matter.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that by paragraphs 13 and 16 of the statement of claim, the appellants had pleaded that evidence will be led at the hearing to establish that these properties were vested in them. That inevitably, the court would have to interpret Edict No. 6 of 1975 and Decree N. 24 of 1993. In that vein therefore, counsel argued, the court had forayed into the substantive issues whilst it was considering the issue of res judicata. This was wrong he argued, because the earlier Suit –
PLD/J237/92 did not determine those issues and no evidence had been led in the present Suit in that regard. In submitting that a court is not permitted to determine or make comments on issues in the substantive suit whilst considering an interlocutory application, counsel cited a plethora of authorities, including MOBIL OIL (NIG.) PLC. V. KENA (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 555 at 564. ORJI V. ZARIA INDUSTRIES LTD. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt, 216) 124 at 126; UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD V. I. K. MARTINS (NIG.) LTD. (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 654) 584 at 595; and G.T.B. Plc. V. FADCO IND. LTD. (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 307 at 332 Counsel argued that the trial court determined the issue of who was vested with properties Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, at an interlocutory stage, without hearing the parties and that this breached the principles of fair hearing. He urged us to so hold.
Counsel for the 5th respondent Mr. Ofodile Okafor S.A.N. submitted on this issue, that the 6th respondent had at the lower court, pleaded res judicata, relying on Suit No. PLD/J237/92 decided in his favour. It held that the 6th respondent was entitled to the issuance of right of occupancy and Certificate of Occupancy upon plots Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, as an owner. This is contrary to the claim of the appellants that they are entitled to the ownership of the two properties having inherited same from their father J. D. Gomwalk, according to customary law; and the fact that No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos was never forfeited to the Benue-Plateau State.
Counsel submitted that in deciding whether an earlier suit operates as res judicata to a present suit, a court of law is bound to consider among other things, whether the subject matter of the two suits are the same. He referred to OGBOGU V. NDIRIBE (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 40 at 62C; IGE V. FARINDE (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 384) 42 at 75 F; AGBAILA V. AMADI (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 572) 16 at 29 – 30 and AFOLABI V. GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE (2003) 13 NWLR 6 (Pt. 836 119 at 32 C – E. Counsel submitted that it was in the process of resolving whether the subject matters are the same, especially the contentious No. 13, that the trial court traced the history of the properties, and made reference to the fact that the 2 properties had been forfeited and ownership vested in the Benue-Plateau State Government, which sold it to Secure Investment Company Ltd, which sold to the 6th respondent.
Counsel argued that the reference does not amount to the trial court deciding the issue of ownership of the two properties as that had already been decided in the judgment in the earlier Suit PLD/J237/92. He then urged us to resolve the issue against the appellants and hold that the trial court did not delve into the substantive suit at an interlocutory stage.
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th respondents simply adopted the submissions of the 6th respondent on Issue 3.
Now, paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the statement of claim, aver that
13. The Plaintiffs plead that the assets Confiscated and forfeited were Nos. 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, 18 Wamba Road, Dogon Dutse Home and 30 Ahmadu Bello Way all of Jos. No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way was NEVER confiscated nor forfeited and has always remained the plaintiffs property.
14. The Plaintiffs further aver that by virtue of Forfeiture of Assets (Release of certain forfeited properties, etc) Decree No. 24 of 1993 made available to them, all the properties enumerated as confiscated and forfeited in paragraph 13 hereto, were expressly released to the deceased which they inherited. The plaintiffs shall rely on Decree No. 24 of 1993 at the hearing.
16. The plaintiffs aver that none of the Defendants has title to the properties in so far as No, 18 has been released to them and for the fact that No. 13 has never been confiscated nor forfeited, and so the Defendants cannot give what they don’t have NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET. Evidence of this shall be adduced at the trial.
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the 6th defendant’s statement of defence aver that
7. The 6th defendant admits paragraph 13 of the claim and further avers that No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos was one of the properties confiscated and forfeited to the then Benue-Plateau State Government.
8. The 6th defendant denies paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the claim and puts the plaintiffs to the strictest proof thereof.
Clearly therefore, the parties had joined issues as to whether No, 13 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos was ever confiscated and forfeited to the Benue-Plateau State or not. They have also joined issues as to the ownership of both properties – Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos.
It is the law, that when a plea of res judicata is raised, the court seized of the matter, must decide as to whether, in the two Suits under reference, the issues are the same, the subject matters are the same, the parties or their privies are the same, and the court that decided the earlier suit had the jurisdiction to so do. See DOKUBO V. OMONI (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 616) 647; OBASI V. AGWU (1998) 9 SCNJI and IBERO V. UME-OHAMA (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.277) 510.In deciding whether the subject matter in Suit No. KD/237/92 is the same as in Suit No. PLD/127/2000, the trial judge perused the earlier Suit and in his Ruling, held, at page 140 of the Record, that “Contrary to the claim of the plaintiffs the said properties were vested in the Benue-Plateau State Government.”
At page 141, the trial judge said –
“I find that these properties viz No. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, had been forfeited to the Government of Benue-Plateau State and which later became the properties of Benue State after forfeited properties had been shared between Benue and Plateau States.”
I have looked at the judgment in PLD/J237/92. Page 67 of the record shows the orders made in the said judgment. The orders were reproduced by the trial judge in this Suit, in his Ruling. See pages 138 – 139 of the record. The en-rolled order following the judgment in PLD/J237/92 is contained at pages 70 – 71. They are:-
1. That the Plaintiff is a purchaser for value without notice. He is entitled to Possession of all that properties lying and situate at Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos covered by title Deed Nos. PSG 883 and 093 respectively.
2. That the Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of Right of Occupancy and Certificate of occupancy upon Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way, Jos in accordance with the Land Use Act 1978, and to have his name entered as the Registered Owner.
3. That perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendants by themselves their servants and/or privies whatsoever and howsoever from withdrawing revoking and/or withholding consent/approval to assign Right of Occupancy and/or from tempering, interfering with plaintiffs title right and interest respecting the properties at Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello way, Jos by Title Deed Plan PSG, 883 and 093.’
It is crystal clear to me that from the above-quoted orders, the court in its judgment in Suit No. PLD/J237/92 did not make any declaration that both properties Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos had been VESTED in Benue-Plateau State. Therefore the finding by the trial judge in this Suit could not have been based on the declaration of the judge in Suit No. PLD/J237/92. The findings by the trial judge here, that both properties Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos had been forfeited to Benue-Plateau State and had been vested in the State, are clear findings on the substantive issue in the Suit. This is because by paragraph 16 of the statement of claim, the appellants had pleaded that the property known as No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos, was never confiscated. Since it was not, it never belonged to Benue-Plateau State, and so it could never pass title to anyone, including the 6th respondent – NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.
As things stand, the trial judge in deciding whether the subject matter in the Suits are the same, had indeed “gone into a voyage of discovery” as stated by learned counsel for the 6th respondents. But he had no right to do so and to determine a substantive issue at an interlocutory stage without hearing the relevant evidence. It is procedurally, very wrong and it amounts to a serious breach of the principle of fairness and fair hearing. See UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD V. I. K. MARTINS (NIG.) LTD. (SUPRA); MOBIL OIL V. KENA (SUPRA) and A.G. RIVERS V. UDE (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1008 at 456) 436 where the Supreme Court said –
”fairness is the determining factor for the application of the principles of natural justice….A hearing of a matter in court cannot be said to be fair if any of the parties appearing before the court is refused a hearing or is denied the opportunity to be heard or present his case or call evidence; See for example Military Governor of Imo State V. NWAIWU (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 490) 676″
Even on the basis of the documents exhibited to the counter-affidavit of the motion praying for the dismissal of the Suit, the trial judge should have been more cautious in his approach since the documents had indicated that further evidence was necessary, before a decision could be given. Pages 104 – 107 of the record, is exhibit “GG”?. It is the Forfeiture of Assets (Release of Certain Forfeited Properties, etc) Decree 1993. Pages 105-106 of the record show the forfeited properties released to Mr. J. Gomwalk, the person through whom, the appellants are claiming the properties: Now No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos was never listed in the Decree as one of the properties released to Mr. Gomwalk. The question arises. Is this because it was never forfeited as claimed by the appellants in the statement of claim? Or is it that the Federal Military Government deliberately refused to release it and it still remains, forfeited to the Government if it ever was?
If No. 13 Ahmadu Bello Way was never forfeited, then it could not have been vested in any one else apart from its owner, If it had been forfeited and was never released, then the original owner has ceased to have title in it and the new owner could do with it what it wished. These are crucial and substantive issues in the main suit that can only be resolved after parties had been given the opportunity to prove their assertions at the trial. They cannot, and should not be correctly and fairly decided, at the interlocutory stage under the guise of determining whether the subject matters are the same in the two Suits for Res Judicata to apply. This is all the more serious when it is remembered that counsel for the appellants had cautioned the court quite rightly, that substantive issues ought not to be decided at an interlocutory stage.
Fair hearing is a constitutional guarantee to ensure that justice is done and in seen to have been done. Both parties must be given the opportunity to present their cases, before the court could rightfully reach a decision. The judge must also not be a judge in his own cause. These are the twin pillars that must support a trial; otherwise it will crumble like a pack of cards.
When it is said that an opportunity must be given to both sides to preset their cases, it means that the court must hear both parties on ALL MATERIAL ISSUES, before it can reach a decision on them. The opportunities given to the parties and the consideration of their issues must not be lop-sided, but fair, equal and transparent or apparent. See NTUKIDEM V. OKO (1985) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 909 and TAFIDA V. BAFARAWA (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt.579) 70.
I hold that in the instant matter, the trial judge had delved into the merit of the substantive Suit, at an interlocutory stage and before the hearing of relevant evidence to be led by both sides. It is a serious breach of the constitutional right of fair hearing. It is against everything fair and just and has occasioned grave miscarriage of justice, since the appellants had been condemned without being heard. Issue No. 3 is resolved in favour of the appellants.
Once there is a breach of fundamental right to fair hearing, occasioning miscarriage of justice, then the proceedings become a nullity and must be set aside. See A.G. RIVERS V. UDE (SUPRA) where Musdapher JSC held –
“Any judgment which is given without due compliance and which has breached fundamental right of fair hearing is a nullity and is capable of being set aside either by the court that gave it or by an appellate court, see Bamgboye V. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, Doduwa V. Okorodudu (1976) 9 – 10 S.C. 3291 Amadi V. Thomas (1972) 4 S.C. 229, Sadan V. Kadir (1956) 1 FSC 99, (1956) 1 SCNLR 93.”I therefore hold that the entire proceedings before Oyetunde J in Suit No, PLD/J127/2000 are a nullity and are hereby set aside. In view of this, the resolution of issues Nos. 1 and 2, by this court now, will be pre-judicial to the interests of both parties at a later hearing.
I hereby remit the case back to the Chief Judge of Plateau State for hearing, before another judge.
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A: I had the privilege of reading in draft from the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Yahaya JCA. I am in agreement with his reasoning and final conclusions. However, I must lend my voice to the legal principles of fair hearing.
The learned trial Judge in his judgment held that the two properties in issue Nos. 13 and 18 Ahmadu Bello Way Jos had been forfeited to the Benue-Plateau State as it then was, is to my mind a determination of the status of both properties. Was any evidence led to that effect? No!!! The trial Judge therefore in his interlocutory judgment determined the substantive issues. The parties never gave evidence to this effect and as such the trial Judge had no evidence to work on to reach such a far reaching decision thereby breaching the right of fair hearing of the parties. None of the parties led evidence in this regard.
The right of fair hearing is a very essential right for a person to secure justice. The basic attribute of fair hearing include:
(a) that the court shall hear both sides not only in the case but also on all material issues in the case before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case;
(b) That the court or tribunal gives equal treatment opportunity and consideration to all concerned;
(c) That the proceedings be heard in public and of concerned shall be informed of and have access to such place of public hearing;
(d) That, having regard to all the circumstances; in every material decision in the case, justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to hove been done.
Usani V. Duke (2004)7 NWLR pt 871 page 116. Fagbule V. Rodriguez (2002) 7 NWLR Pt.765 Page 188.The burden of proving a breach of fair hearing is on the party alleging the breach.
Maikyo V. Itodo (2007) 7 NWLR Pt.1034 Page 443.
It is trite law that once there is a breach of fair hearing, the whore proceedings in the course of which the breach occurred, and the decision arrived of by the court becomes a nullity.
ANPP V. INEC (2004) 7 NWLR Pt 871 Page 16, All Peoples Party V. Ogunsola (2002) 5 NWLR Pt. 761 Page 484.
For this breach of fair hearing, the entire proceedings and judgment of the trial Judge are a nullity and are hereby set aside.
I also abide by all the consequential orders in the lead judgment.
PHILOMENA M. EKPE, J.C.A: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother Abubakar Datti Yahaya, JCA. On the issue of res judicata as was raised by the 6th Respondent, he filed a motion dated 15/6/2000 for-
“An Order dismissing the Plaintiffs claim for being respondent judicata.”
His claim was however dismissed and that decision now forms the subject matter of this appeal.
It is however trite law, that when a plea of res judicata is raised, the Court, seised of the matter must decide as to whether, in the suits under reference, the issues are the same and the subject matters and parties also the same. Also whether the Court that decided the earlier suit had jurisdiction to do so.
In the case of IKOTUN V. OYEKANMI 2008 10 NWLR Pt 10 94 – 10 96 the Supreme Court had this to say:
“For a successful plea of res judicata, the law requires that the identities of the parties (or their privies) the respondent, that is, the subject matter of the litigation, and the claim as well as the issues and the parties in both the present and previous actions must be the same, otherwise, the plea will not be tenable.”
No doubt, the trial judge in deciding whether the suits No. KD/237/92 and NO. PLD/127/2000 are the same delved into the earlier suit and in his Ruling at pages 140 and 141 of the record declared that the properties in question viz-
No.13 and 18 Ahmadu had been forfeited to the Government of Benue-Plateau state and which later became the properties of Benue State after forfeited properties had been shared between the 2 states.
I too share in the submission of Learned Counsel for the 6th Respondent that the Trial Court had embarked on a voyage of discovery to determine a substantive issue at an interlocutory stage without hearing the relevant evidence which indeed is a breach of the Principle of fair hearing.
I too hold that the proceedings in the Lower Court are a nullity and are hereby set aside. I abide by the consequential order of any Learned Brother to remit the case back to the chief Judge of Plateau state for hearing before another Judge.
Appearances
Z.A. Hamza Esq. holds T.A. Adudu’sFor Appellant
AND
F.B. Lotben (DCL Plateau State) for the 1st, 2nd and 7th Respondents
V.Y. Anyongur (DPP Benue State) for the 3rd-5th Respondents
G. Ofodile Okafor SAN (with N.O.P Uffele (Miss)) for the 6th RespondentsFor Respondent
