Mr. Gabriel Jibrin Sallah -VS- The Plateau State Government & 3 ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT JOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.I. AMADI.

DATED: June 19, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/JOS/37/2012

GABRIEL JIBRIN SALLAH CLAIMANT

AND

PLATEAU STATE GOVERNMENT
THE GOVERNEMT OF PLATEAU STATE DEFENDANTS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE
PLATEAU STATE PENSION BOARD

REPRESENTATIONS:

R.C. Nwaiwu with N.F Rotwukka and J.N. Jack for the Claimant

N.D Shaseet (DCR), with N.Mbap (PSC), N.J. Agaba (PSC), S.G. Deme (PSC), I. B. Hirse (SSC) Ministry of Justice for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This case originally started 2010 at the High Court of Plateau State in suit No: PLD/J282/10. It was later transferred to this Honourable Court by a transfer order dated 21/11/2012. The Claimant by his Further Amended Statement of claim dated 21st July, 2014 but filed on 5^th August, 2014 claimed against the defendants as follows:

1) A declaration that the reduction of the Claimant’s pension from N125,916.95 to N30,711.57 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

2) An order directing the Respondents to restore to the Claimant his monthly pension of N125,916.95 from July 2010 until a review upwards as provided by law

3) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the gratuity or monthly pension of the Claimant as computed by the 4^th Respondent and confirmed by the Auditor General of Plateau State in 2003

4) An order directing the Respondents to pay back via his bank Account No.801100/001/000 at Unity Bank, Jos the sum of N476,026.90 which was unlawfully deducted from the said pension payment from February to June 2010

5) An order directing the Respondents to pay the Claimant the sum of N1, 000,000.00 being the balance of his gratuity with the 4^th Respondent withheld since 2003.

The Claimant thus claims a total sum of N1,476,026.90 from the Defendants and restoration of his pension of N125,916.95 per month from July, 2010.

The Defendants filed their Statement of Defence and a Counter Claim on the 20th July, 2011, an amended Statement of Defence dated 19th September, 2013 and a further amended Statement of Defence wherein they counter- claimed from the claimant for: “the payment of the excess sum it had been paying the claimant for these 78 months in the sum of N7,501,029.90”.

TRIAL

Trial commenced on 30^th October 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as (CW1). He tendered some documents in evidence as exhibits which were admitted and marked accordingly. He was cross examined by the defendants’ counsel and was discharged from the witness box on 30^th November, 2018 after which the claimant closed his case.

The Defendants opened their case on 24^th January 2019 and called two witnesses who testified on their behalf and were cross examined. The Defendants closed their case. Thereafter the parties filed there final written addresses.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of this case are straight and not disputed by the parties. The Claimant was employed on a pensionable appointment into the public service of the Plateau State Government by the Plateau State Public Service Commission vide a letter dated 2^nd July, 1970(exhibit CA). He was deployed to the Ministry of Education as an Education Officer. While in that Ministry, he rose by promotion to the position of Director on GD Level 16.

In 1990 he was appointed the Director of the Plateau State Agency for Adult and Non-formal Education (exhibit CB). He served in this position for thirteen years before retiring at the age of 60 years in September 2003. He gave six months notice of his retirement to the 1^st Defendant on 12^th March 2003(exhibit CH). Whereupon the 4^th Defendant computed his retirement benefits, that is, his pension and gratuity (exhibit CC). Thus, from September 2003 – February 2010 the Claimant received a monthly pension of N125, 916.65 through his Unity Bank account in Jos.

It is the claimant’s case that out of the approved gratuity of N2, 008,224, he was paid N1, 008,224.00 only, leaving a balance of N1, 000,000 which is also claimed in this suit.

It is further the case of the claimant that from the month of March 2010, he discovered that only the sum of N30, 711.57 instead of N125, 916.65 was being paid into his account. He wrote the 1^st Defendant to find out why he was short-paid(exhibit CE), but the 1^st Defendant answered him through Letter from 4^th Defendant to Plaintiff (Exhibit CF) to direct his inquiry to the 4th Defendant which he did through his letter to 1^st Defendant (Head of Service, Exhibit CG), but no answer came from the 4^th Defendant.

That he kept going to the office of the 4^th Defendant to get his pension restored in full as earlier computed, all to no avail. Frustrated, he filed a claim at the High Court of Justice, Jos and the case was later transferred to this court.

However the position of the defendants is that there was a mistake on their part to have computed the retirement benefits of the Claimant using his last pay point as a Director for the Adult and Non-formal Education Agency which is a political appointment instead of using his last pay record as a staff of the Ministry of Education from where he retired on salary Grade Level 16 Step 9 consequently upon which his entitlement were re-computed and the pension was slashed to N30,711.57 from N125,916.95.

ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES.

In his final written address, the learned counsel for the defendants raised four (4) issues for determination by this Honourable court to wit-

Whether the appointment of the Claimant which is governed by the Plateau State Agency for Adult and Non-formal Education Edict No. 28 of 1988 (herein after referred to as “the Edict No. 28 of 1988”) is pensionable.
Whether the Claimant’s appointment by the office of the Secretary to the Military Government is not a Political appointment,

III. Whether by giving his notice of retirement to the Chairman Civil Service Commission through the Head of Civil Service instead of the Secretary to the State Government on the attainment of the retirement age of 60 years, the Claimant is governed by Civil Service Rules

Whether the Defendants reserve the right to correct the mistake it made by re-computing and slashing the pension of the claimant.

Counsel argued all the issues raised above together, Counsel submitted that the appointment of the Claimant by the Military Government through the Office of the Secretary to the Military Government and not the Civil Service Commission is a political appointment therefore he is not entitled to pension using his last pay slip as Director for Adult and Non-formal Education.

That the appointment of the Director of the Agency is governed by Section 9 (1) & (2) of Edict No. 28 of 1988 which provides thus:

“9(1) There shall be a Director of the Agency who shall be appointed by the Military Government who shall be the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of the Agency and responsible by the Board for carrying out of policies and the decisions of the Agency.

(2) The Military Government shall exercise disciplinary control over the Director and determine the terms and conditions of his service, remunerations and otherwise in addition to any other provisions of the Edict which the Director might be subject to.”

Counsel argued that the position of the Claimant as the Director of the Agency is a Political Appointment because it is the Military Governor that appoints and determines his remuneration and disciplining him, unlike other staff in the Civil service including a Permanent Secretary whose appointment is done through the Civil Service Commission and are under the control of the Head of Civil Service.

Counsel submitted that, by the appointment of the Claimant as the Director of the Agency, he is not a staff whose employment is governed by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations operating in the state, therefore by that appointment he is not entitled to be paid pension as such appointment is not pensionable.

That Section 11 (1) of Edict No. 28 of the 1988 provides as follows.

“Subject to this section, the Board shall have power to appoint and exercise disciplinary control over such officers (including the Secretary) servants and agents of the Agency as it may discern necessary for the discharge of its functions under this Edict and to determine their terms and conditions of service as to remuneration and otherwise in accordance with the Civil Service Rules and Regulations operation in the state.”(underlining supplied.)

That Edict No. 28 of 1988 defines “staff” in Section 2 as follows:

“Staff” means any member of staff of the Agency but shall not include the Director.”

Counsel argued further that, the combined effect of section 2 and 11(1) of the Edict is that only staff employed by the Board of the Agency that will have their term or tenure of Service determined in line with the Civil Service Rules and Regulations operating in Plateau State which made provisions for their pensions and gratuity unlike the Director who is not a Staff of the Agency.

Counsel submitted further that, the provisions of the Edict No. 28 of 1988 referred to above are clear and unambiguous. Counsel urged the court to give it its ordinary meaning, referring to the case of Dr. Umar Ardo v Murtala Nyanko & Ors (2014) ALL FWLR [PT .44] 130 @ 158-159 Paras H-B., where the Supreme Court held thus:

“It is settled law that in interpretation of statutes, the words used, in as much as they are clear and unambiguous, must be given their ordinary meaning, unless this words lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the statute.

Also settled is the principle that where a word has been defined in a statute, the meaning given to it in the definition must be adhered to in the construction of the provisions of the statute, unless the contrary intention appears from the particular section or the meaning is repugnant in the context in which the definition is used.

Counsel submitted that, Edict No. 28 of 1988 pursuant to which the Claimant was appointed as the Director of the Agency does not make provision for the pension to be paid to the Claimant Exhibit CB (Letter of Promotion to Director) unlike exhibit CA (Letter of 1^st Appointment) which made his appointment pensionable under the Ministry of Education which made him a staff of the Head of Civil Service under the control of the Civil Service Commission where pension is made on retirement.

Continuing counsel submitted further that it is not in dispute that the employment of the Claimant as a staff under the Office of the Head of Civil Service was not terminated but rather condoned while he held his political appointment as the Director of the Agency; that is why his promotion still runs (Exhibit CJ) six years after his appointment as Director of the Agency. That in the Claimant’s paragraph 1(b) of his amended reply to the Defendants statement of defence dated 21^st July, 2014, he further confirmed the fact that he received one promotion from the Civil Service Commission after his appointment by the Military Governor. Similarly, paragraph 1(c) of his reply further confirmed the fact that his appointment by the Governor did not alter or terminate his Civil Service career.

Counsel submitted furthermore that from the pleadings by the Claimant, he admitted the fact that he was still a staff of the Civil Service Commission under the Head of Civil Service and therefore entitled to pension and gratuity as a Civil Servant and thereby gave his notice of retirement; six months, to attaining 60 years of age as required by the Civil Service Rules, which is not provided for under Edict No. 28 of 1988.

Continuing further, counsel argued that, the Claimant having affirmed that his retirement age of 60 years was up thereby giving a notice of retirement to that effect and with his further confirmation that he retired on Salary Grade Level 16 Step 9, submitted that the defendants having erroneously computed his retirement benefits (gratuity and pension) on the basis of his consolidated salary as Director for Adult and Non-formal Education, has the unfretted power to properly re-compute same on the salary Grade Level on which he retired on, in the Ministry of Education which is Level 16 Step 9. This therefore leaves the defendants without further notice, the power to re-compute and pay the Claimant what he is properly entitled to as pension and gratuity.

Counsel submitted on the counter claim that they adopt their submission in the main claim as contained therein and further submit thus:

– That the Claimant tendered his notice of retirement on approaching 60 years of age to the Head of Civil Service Commission through the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission because the Civil Service Rules require all Civil Servants to retire at the age of 60 years or after putting in 35 years in service whichever is earlier.

– That the Claimant did that even when he knew that as Director for Adult and Non-formal Education there is no retirement age.

– That the Claimant did not tender the notice of retirement to the Office of the Secretary to the State Government through which he was appointed because he knew that such appointment is not pensionable.

– That the Claimant knew and that his retirement from the Civil Service was in the Ministry of Education on salary Grade Level 16 Step 9.

– By Exhibit CB which is his letter of appointment, no Grade Level is indicated therein therefore to say that the Claimant retired from the Agency on Salary Grade Level 16 Step 9 is contradictory therefore he was not entitled to be paid pension and gratuity on his last pay point which is consolidated but on salary Grade Level 16 step 9.

– That having taken pension far above what he is entitled to and having retired on Level 16 Step 9, the Defendants further submit that:

the actual pension of the Claimant is N31,021.79
from the month of September 2003-2010, the Claimant was being paid N125,916.95 in error
the Claimant was therefore being paid N96, 167.05 in excess.
The over payment to the Claimant runs for a period of 78 months which amounted to N7,579,029.90 which the Defendants are entitled to recover the refund from the claimant.

Counsel urged the court to grant the Counter Claim.

In his own final written address, the learned counsel for the Claimant raised two (2) issues for determination by this Honourable Court to wit-

In the absence of any law authorizing them in that behalf, were the Defendants right to alter to the disadvantage of the Claimant, the duly calculated and authorized Pension and Gratuity due to him as a retired public officer in the public service of the Government of Plateau State?
Whether the counter-claim filed against the Claimant was proper or raised a valid cause of action?

In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that due procedure was followed in the computation and approval of the pension of the Claimant based on his last pay slip in his place of duty as Director at the Plateau State Agency For Adult and Non-Formal Education, hereinafter referred to as “the Agency.” The result of such formal procedure is Exhibit CC titled “COMPUTATION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS DUE TO MR. GABRIEL J. SALLAH FORMERLY OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION JOS FILE NO. PSVB/PEN/128246/R.8”

Counsel submitted that it is clear from the pleading and evidence before the Court, that at the time when the Defendants made a downward alteration of the pension of the Claimant, the earlier formal procedure was not followed. As a result no approved computation as in Exhibit CC (Plaintiff’s Retirement and Benefits) was produced. It was a unilateral action. To make it worse, the Claimant was not informed of the alteration until he discovered that himself in March 2010 when he went to the Bank to make withdrawal for his subsistence.

Counsel submitted further that; the Defendants did not show any legal authority which they had to alter the pension of the Claimant. There was no law of the State authorizing them to do so. Even though Pension and Gratuity are in Item 44 on the Exclusive Legislative List, the Defendants did not show any law made by Plateau State authorizing them to alter the Claimant’s pension. Counsel submitted, therefore, that the Defendants breached Section 210 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The said Section 210(1) and (2) provides as follows:

(1). Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, the right of a person in the public service of a State to receive pension or gratuity shall be regulated by law.

(2). Any benefit to which a person is entitled in accordance with or under such law as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall not be withheld or altered to his disadvantage except to such extent as is permissible under any law, including the Code of Conduct.”

Counsel argued that there is no gainsaying that the alteration made by the Defendants to the Pension payment of the Claimant from N125, 916.65 to N30, 711.57 was to his disadvantage. That the alteration was unlawful, illegal and by any means invalid, null and void. Counsel urged to uphold this submission.

Counsel argued further that; the Defendants argued that the Claimant’s appointment as Director of the Agency was a “political appointment.” That there was no proof of the appointment being political or indeed the meaning of political appointment in this case. That the term political appointment is neither constitutional nor defined by any law or regulation. That it was just a term coined to suit the Defendants’ purpose. In contrast the Claimant was a public officer in the “Public Service of Plateau State” which by interpretation under Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) means:

“Public Service of a State” means the service of the State in any capacity in respect of the Government of the State…”

Counsel submitted that the argument of the Defendants that the appointment was political because it was made by the then Governor of the State has no support in law. That the Governor is the Chief Executive Officer of the State and is not precluded by any law to make appointments into any arm of his government as in the present case.

Counsel argued further also, that it is erroneous to argue as the Defendants did that the Claimant’s appointment as Director of the Agency was not pensionable, while at the same time admitting that the pensionable appointment given to the Claimant at the inception of his public service by the Public Service Commission of the State was never terminated or brought to an end at any point in time in the course of his sixty years of public service. The Defendants failed to appreciate that the appointment as Director of the Agency was a call to serve in the same public service in a higher capacity and with greater responsibility than at the time of his initial engagement. This does not call for any statutory interpretation and resort to the judicial authorities cited by the Defendants.

Counsel submitted that it is erroneous to argue as the Defendants did that the Claimant’s pension was mistakenly computed using his last pay point at the Agency. That it would be an anathema to calculate the pension at any point lower than the last pay point. That it will certainly mean an unintended demotion of the Claimant. That if indeed it was a mistake, the attention of the Claimant was never drawn to the supposed error to at least show good faith. That it was rather over-reaching and an arbitrary use of power to inflict the injury of unlawfully slashing his pension and gratuity to his disadvantage. That it is indeed akin to denial of pension which the Courts have deprecated. Counsel referred to the case of Popoola v. kwara State (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 604) 175 @ 190-191 Paras. G-A where the court held as follows:

“By the provision of Section 210 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, pension or gratuity shall not be withheld under any circumstances or condition that is not clearly stipulated. In the instant case, the trial court erred by dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for payment of their gratuities which were withheld without reason by the Defendants as the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act will not be applicable to the Appellants. It is wicked and inhuman for a retiree or pensioner to be denied his pensions and gratuity.”

Continuing counsel also submitted that, the Defendants projected the Ministry of Education in this matter as if it was the employer of the Claimant, rather than the Public Service Commission of the State Government. That it was not shown in this case that the Claimant drew any salaries from the Ministry of Education from 1990 when he was placed on a consolidated salary as the Director of the Agency. That the matter of promotion or increments on Grade Levels as brought forth in the pleadings on both sides were merely notional.

Counsel further submitted that by the provisions of section 208 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) the position of the Claimant as Director of the Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education is equivalent to that of the Permanent Secretary of the State. The Defendants however were wrong when they “testified” at Paragraph 4:03 of their Final Address that:

“My Lord, from the above provisions, the position of the Claimant as the Director of the Agency is a Political Appointment because it is the Military Governor that appoints and determines his remuneration and discipline him unlike other staff in the Civil Service including a Permanent Secretary whose appointment is done through the Civil Service Commission and are under the control of the Head of Service.”

That they “testified” in their Final Address because there was no such evidence before the Court. The law is that an address should not be a source for bringing in evidence, counsel urged the court to discountenance that evidence.

That section 208 (1) & (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution referred to above provides as follows:

“(1) Power to appoint persons to hold or act in the offices to which this section applies and to remove persons so appointed from any such office shall vest in the Governor of the State

(2) The offices to which this section applies are, namely:

(a) ———–

(b) ————

(c) Permanent Secretary or other chief executive in any Ministry or Department of the Government of the State howsoever designated;”

Counsel submitted that having shown by constitutional authority that the office of the Director of the Agency such as the Claimant is on the same marginal note with the office of a Permanent Secretary, it is gratifying to submit that the case of the Claimant was made and supported by the evidence of the (DW2) Mr. Patrick Gamde, a retired Permanent Secretary who testified that as a retired Permanent Secretary he earns pension on his consolidated permanent secretary salary. In the circumstances, therefore, the Defendants failed to show why the case of the Claimant’s pension should be different. Indeed, they had no defence to the claim of the Claimant.

On issue two, counsel submitted that going by issue No. 1 above, the counter-claim of the Defendants does not arise. That it has severally been held that a counter-claim is a separate, independent and distinct action, counsel referred to the case of Ogboja v Access Bank Plc (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1496) 291 @ 320, paras G-H. That as an independent action, it must have its own cause of action. A cause of action has been held to mean a dispute in respect of which a court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine, counsel referred to the case of Iyeke & ors v Petroleum Training Institute & Another (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 217 @ 238-239 Para F-A.

That in the present counter-claim, no dispute was disclosed between the Claimant and the Defendants in that no demand for the amount claimed was addressed to the Claimant by the Defendants before filing the counter-claim for adjudication. That it is the demand that will bring about the dispute, and consequently a cause of action, counsel referred to the case of Wema Bank Plc v Alhaji Adisatu Owosho (2018) LPELR-43857 (CA) wherein it was held as follows:

“……. as a condition precedent for the exercise of the right of action in respect of that cause of action to recover the alleged debt from the respondent, the law requires and imposes a legal duty on the Appellant to make formal demand for the payment of the debt by the Respondent which was to activate the right of enforcement of the cause of action, through the judicial processes of a Court of law. So even though the cause of action arose in 1999 with Exhibit D8, the activation of the right for it to accrue to the Appellant to enforce the cause of action depended on a letter of demand for the payment of the debt from the Appellant and refusal or failure by the Respondent to pay. The letter of demand was to have been written by the Appellant before the legal action by way of the counter claim was filed and within the time prescribed by the limitation law of Lagos State.”

Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the counter-claim for not disclosing any cause of action.

In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the defendants have not shown any legal authority to alter the pension and gratuity of the Claimant in this matter. That their interference is consequently illegal and unlawful. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claim of the Claimant has been proved, grant all the reliefs sought, and dismiss the counter-claim.

COURT’S DECISION

I have read all the processes filed by the parties in this suit. I have also reviewed the evidence presented by them. I am of the view that, the two issues raised by the learned counsel for the claimant summarized the issues in controversy between the parties. I hereby adopt them as mine; consequently, I shall treat this suit based on those two issues as follows:

In respect of issue one, I have stated above that there is no dispute between the parties whatsoever and howsoever as to the facts of employment and retirement of the claimant.

Also, the parties agreed that his pension was initially calculated and applied from 2003 to 2010 when it was slashed. The defendants’ case is that the originally calculated and applied pension of the claimant was done on a wrong premises in that his last pay point as a Director of the Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education which was used to produce his said pension and gratuity benefits as in exhibit CC was a mistake, and ought not to have been used to calculate same. Rather that the claimant’s pay as a Director in the Ministry of Education should have been used. That the mistake has been corrected and the claimant’s proper pension is now the sum applied as paid to him from that 2010 to date. The simple question to ask here is what is the difference or disparity in the salary of the claimant as a Director in the Ministry of Education and the salary of the claimant as a Director of the Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education? The defendants cannot be right or correct unless they first of all show that there is such a difference or dichotomy in the salary of the claimant distinguishable on that basis.

Not only that, how did the defendants arrive on the pension sum of N30,711.57 now applied and paid. There is clear evidence on how his pension and gratuity were worked out and arrived at in exhibit CC, in the absence of such facts it only amounts to arbitrary tampering and deduction of the claimant’s earned pension and gratuity to his disadvantage which the law frowns at. See Section 210 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

Apart from that, exhibit CB is the appointment letter of the claimant as a Director of the Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education. Under paragraph (c) titled: “Remuneration and Vacation Leave” the claimant was entitled “to draw salary of N20, 174.00 i.e. (GL. 16 step 6) per annum. Also while at the Agency, the claimant rose from step 6 to 9. The implication of that is that the claimant’s appointment thereof approximates to a secondment and I so find and hold.

Consequently, in the absence of any evidence of disparity from the salary of the claimant as a Director in the Ministry of Education and from his salary as a Director of the Agency for Adult and Non-Formal Education, coupled from the absence of how in fact, the defendants came to the purported correct pension sum of N30,711.57, I find and hold that the slashing and or reducing of the claimant’s pension entitlement from the sum of N125,916.95 to the sum of N30,711.57 is unconstitutional, thus claims 1,2,3,4, and 5 of the claimant have succeeded.

In respect of issue two since claims 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the claimant succeeded the counter claim is ipso facto bound to fail and it has failed and liable to be dismissed.

In all I make the following orders:

1) I declare that the reduction of the Claimant’s pension from N125,916.95 to N30,711.57 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and howsoever.

2) I order the defendants to restore to the Claimant his monthly pension of N125,916.95 from July 2010 until a review upwards as provided by law.

3) I hereby restrain the defendants from interfering with the gratuity or monthly pension of the Claimant as computed by the 4^th defendant and confirmed by the Auditor General of Plateau State in 2003

4) I hereby order the defendants to pay the claimant back via his bank Account No.801100/001/000 at Unity Bank, Jos the sum of N476,026.90 which was unlawfully deducted from the said pension payment from February to June 2010 and any further sum deducted from July 2010 to date.

5) I order the defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N1, 000,000.00 being the balance of his gratuity with the 4^th defendant withheld since 2003.

6) The counter claim is hereby dismissed.

7) The defendants shall pay N100,000 to the claimant being the cost of this suit.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

………………………………………

Hon. Justice K. I. Amadi, Ph.D.

(Judge)