MR. PIUS ILOKA & ANOR. V. DONATUS ENEMUO & ORS. (2013)

MR. PIUS ILOKA & ANOR. V. DONATUS ENEMUO & ORS.

(2013)LCN/5832(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Tuesday, the 8th day of January, 2013

CA/E/144/2009

RATIO

WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF FAIR HEARING

Fair hearing means the same thing as impression given to an ordinary person watching the proceedings; if he goes away with the impression that a person has not been treated fairly there is a breach of fair hearing, reference made to SALEH V. MONGUNO (2002) FWLR (PT 87) 671 at 685. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A.

FAIR HEARING: CRITERIA OF FAIR HEARING

That the basic criteria and attributes of fair hearing include the Court or Tribunal hearing both sides not only in the case but also on all the material issues in the case before reaching a decision which may be prejudicial to any party in the case. The Court or Tribunal shall give equal treatment, equal opportunity and equal consideration to all concerned and 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 have been done reference made to UDO AKAGHA V. PAICO LTD (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 288) 434; KOTOYE V. CBN (2001) FWLR (PT. 49) 1567; ADIGUN V. A.G. OYO STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 53) 678; DEDUWA V. OKORODUDU (1976) 9 – 10 S.C 329. PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. MR. PIUS ILOKA
2. MR. OBIORA ILOKA Appellant(s)

AND

1. DONATUS ENEMUO
2. CLETUS ENEMUO
3. MRS CHRISTIANA ENEMUO (FOR THEMSELVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN OF LATE FRANCIS ENEMUO Respondent(s)

ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal by the appellants against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court sitting at Onitsha Judicial Division delivered on 16th March 2009 by V.N. Agbata J.
The facts that give rise to this appeal are stated thus:-
The Respondents as Plaintiffs in paragraph 21(1)(2) and (3) of their statement of claim claimed thus-
1. A declaration that the plaintiffs are the persons entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy over the piece or parcel of land known as and called No. 7 Oduwano Street Fegge, Onitsha.
2. An immediate recovery of possession of the plaintiffs’ premises illegally occupied by the defendants
3. N5,000,000.00 damages for breach of the terms of a building agreement and the consequent trespass onto the said premises.
At the final close of trial on 8th October, 2008 written addresses were ordered, 45 days to the appellants and thereafter the plaintiffs/respondents shall file and serve within 21 days. The case was adjourned for adoption of written addresses to 17/12/08.
As at the 16/12/08 the defendants/appellants had not filed addresses, the plaintiffs had to file and serve theirs since the defendants/respondents failed to file their address and have not filed a motion for extension of time to enable them file same.
On 17/12/08, the matter was adjourned further to 27/1/09 for adoption. The court on 17/12/08 on its own without any application further extended time for the defendants/appellants to file and serve their final addresses by 14 days. The defendants/appellants did not file any written addresses. On 27/1/09, the respondents filed their written address dated and filed on 16/12/08. The defendants/appellants had nothing to urge the court and did not apply for any further extension of time to enable them file their written addresses’ On 27/2/09, one month after the plaintiffs/respondents had adopted their final addresses, and the court had adjourned for judgment, the defendants/appellants filed a written address out of time without a motion for enlargement of time to do so and without paying for complete penalties as prescribed by the High Court Rules. As at the time the court had adjourned for judgment on 16th March, 2009, judgment was delivered by the trial, dismissing the counter-claim of the appellants and entering judgment for the respondents’ claim.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed against same.
The appeal was taken on the 9/10/12. Counsel to the appellants’ Mr. V.C. Umeadi informed the court that the appellants’ brief of argument is dated 17/4/09 and filed same date that they also filed a Reply brief dated 6/6/09 and filed on 19/6/09, Counsel to the appellants adopted the two briefs and urged the court to allow the appeal. Counsel to the respondents Dr M.N. Umenweke informed the court that the respondents’ brief of argument is dated and filed on 19/5/09, Counsel adopt the brief of argument and urge the court to dismiss the appeal.
The Appellants from the two grounds of appeal formulated one issue for determination and the issue is stated thus:-
1. Whether the Defendants/Appellants could be said to have been given/afforded FAIR HEARING in accordance with the Provisions of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution instead of the exclusion and/or non consideration of their Written Address albeit filed out of time but the which they paid the correct and appropriate penalty assessed by the Assistant Registrar of the Onitsha High Court in accordance with the Provision of Order 44 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules 2006 of Anambra State of Nigeria.
The respondents on their part formulated five issues for determination which are stated thus –
1. Whether the written address of the defendants/appellants filed out of time and without payment of complete penalties for late on 27/2/09 was proper before the court.
2. Whether the court should consider the written address of the defendants/appellants filed out of time without applying for extension/or enlargement of time when the court had adjourned for judgment.
3. Whether the court should consider the written address of the defendants/appellants when the defendants/appellants failed to pay complete penalty for their Final Address filed out of time.
4. Whether the defendants/appellants who waived their right of address when they filed their written address out of time without applying to the court for extension of time can properly turn around to complain of denial of fair hearing.
5. Whether the judgment of the trial court can be said to have been arrived at after a fair trial in view of failure by the learned trial judge to consider the Final Address of appellant filed out of time and not placed before the court.
The issues formulated by the respondents are more than the grounds of appeal, in the appeal at hand the grounds of appeal are two and the issues formulated by the respondents are five. It is settled law that issues for determination cannot be formulated to be more than the grounds of appeal.
The sole issue formulated by the appellants captured the essence of this appeal as such it is to be adopted in the determination of this appeal.
Learned Counsel to the appellants is challenging the whole decision of the lower court on the ground of violation of the Provisions of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That it is not in doubt that the Appellants filed their written address on the 27th day of February 2009 well out of time, by 20 days to the limit given by the lower court for the filing of the same.
Counsel contends that it is clear by the Provisions of Order 31 Rule 4(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 of Anambra State of Nigeria where any party fails to file a Written Address or comply with the time limit set out above for filing and serving the Written Addresses, he will be deemed to have nothing to urge the court and shall not be heard in oral argument.”
Also it is clear by the Provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 of Anambra State of Nigeria that “any party who defaults in performing an act within the time authorized or limited under these rules shall pay the court an additional filing fee of N200.00 (two hundred Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance”.
Counsel submits that the Appellants in obedience and compliance to the spirit and tenor of Order 44 Rule 5 paid into court the sum of N4,320.00 (Four thousand, three hundred and twenty Naira) as penalty for late filing of their Written Address and this was receipted on treasury receipt Number ANT BK 6A thereby regularizing their position. Counsel argues that since the appellants had paid for the 20 days that they were out of time in filing their written address and this much was clear and obvious to the lower court it ought to have considered the Appellants’ Written Address instead of excluding and or not considering at all that which was before it since the appellants have rectified remedied and or regularized their position vide Order 44 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 Anambra State of Nigeria. Counsel submits that the trial court in its judgment noted that the Appellants’ Counsel R.O. Ezenwosu Esq had nothing to urge in favour of the Defendants by way of address, since they did not file anything written address.
Counsel to the appellants contends that fair hearing must mean that a trial conducted according to all the legal rules formulated to ensure that justice is done to the parties and that the position of the law is that every adjudication should reflect the principle of fair hearing. Counsel refers to ARIORI & ORS. V. ELEMO & ORS. (1983) 1 SCNLR 1; (1983) 1 SC 13 at 23 – 24; OKOYE V. ANAMBRA STATE (2012) FWLR (Pt.198 at 205.
Counsel further argues that fair hearing is constitutional and once a party shows that he has been denied fair hearing he needs do no more. Fair hearing means the same thing as impression given to an ordinary person watching the proceedings; if he goes away with the impression that a person has not been treated fairly there is a breach of fair hearing, reference made to SALEH V. MONGUNO (2002) FWLR (PT 87) 671 at 685.

Counsel to the Appellants submits that the learned trial Judge made a fundamental error in excluding and or not considering at all the Defendants/Appellants said written Address which was before him just because it was filed out of time but for which 20 days late penalty amounting to N4,320.00 was paid into the Court Registry as was assessed by the Assistant Chief Registrar in accordance with the Provisions of Order 44 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 Anambra State of Nigeria and receipted on Treasury Receipt Number ANT BK 6A. Counsel further contends that a court should not close its eyes to a process before it filed by a party to a Suit that will help the Court in resolving the matter in controversy just because of irregularity, more so when the irregularity as provided for in Order 31 Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, was cured and regularized by the payment of late filing penalty for 20 days into the Court Registry by the Appellants’ former Counsel R.O. Ezenwosu Esq. in accordance with the Provisions of Order 44 Rules 5 of the aforesaid High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, reference made to WILLOUGHBY V. INTERNATIONAL MERCHANT BANK (NIG) LTD (1985) 1 WACR (PT 48) 105; NNEJI V. CHUKWU (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 81) 206; IZAWAL LTD. V. S.N. JETHWANI (1984) 12 S.C. 234; AGBULUWA V. C.O.P. (1961) ALL NLR (PT.14) 850.
Finally Counsel submits that as it has been shown that the Appellants Right to Fair Hearing guaranteed by 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was not observed by the trial Court before judgment was decreed against them, Counsel urged the court to resolve the sole issue in this appeal in favour of the Appellants and allow the appeal.
In reply to the submissions of the learned Counsel to Appellants Learned Counsel to the Respondents submits that the payment of penalty is a mandatory duty on a party who defaults in performing an act within the time authorized or limited under the rules to pay to the court an additional filing fee N200.00 (Two Hundred Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance reference made to Order 44 Rules 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra Stat e, 2006 and Order 44 Rules 5 of the same Rules.
That on the 8th day of October, 2008 the Honourable Court ordered filing of written addresses as follows –
“Learned defence has 45 days within which to file and serve his written submissions. Thereafter learned counsel for the plaintiffs shall have 21 days within which to respond. Suit is adjourned to 17/12/08 for adoption of same.”
The appellants on 17/12/08 did not file written address and the Suit was further adjourned to 27/1/08 for adoption of written addresses. The Court on its own extended time for the appellants to file their written address by 14 days. On 27/I/09, the appellants did not file again and did not urge the court for anything and the Suit was adjourned to 9/3/09 for judgment. The 45 days limit expired on 22/11/08.
That by the printed record of appeal the appellants only filed their written address on 27/2/09, after 97 days of defaulting in complying with the order of the court. It is clear that between the 23/11/08 and 27/02/09 when the appellants filed their written address it is 97 clear days.
The appellants paid in incomplete penalty of N4,000.00 (Four thousand). It shows that the appellants only paid N4,000.00 for 20 days leaving out 77 days which amounts to N15,400 (Fifteen thousand four hundred Naira). That from the above calculation the appellants paid incomplete mandatory additional filing fee of N4,000.00 for 20 days and 77 days was left out. The implication is that, the appellants’ payment of N4,000.00 is that they have not complied with the mandatory provision of Order 44 Rules 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, 2006.
Counsel also contends that assuming (but without conceding) the appellants relied on the extension given to them by the court on 17/12/08 for 14 days and calculated from the expiration date of fourteen days which is 31st December 2008 which counsel contends is wrong since the court cannot and did not waive the earlier additional filing fees for default. The appellants did not pay complete filing fees as prescribed by Order 44 Rules 1 & 5 of the High Court Rules of Anambra State. That if they wrongly relied on the aforesaid extension, they put the appellants at 58 days of default from 1/1/09 after the later 14 days extension expired on 27/2/09. When they filed the belated address the 58 days default would give them an additional filing fee of N11,000.00 out of which they paid only N4,000.00.
Counsel argues that from the above the appellants did not comply with the mandatory provision of Rules which provides for mode of computation.
Further counsel submits that it is clear that the appellants evidence of payment in compliance with the Rules is at variance with the provisions of Order 44 Rules (1) (a) & (c) and (5) of the High Court Civil procedure Rules of Anambra Stat e, 2006. That it has been held that payment of filing fees is very fundamental in nature in validating a process filed in court reference made to OKPOIDO V. UDOIKPONG (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 604) 595; MAGAJI V. SALEH (2009) All FWLR (Pt 455) 1809.
Counsel argues that failure of the Appellants to comply with the mandatory Rules of Court for payment of additional filing fees, on which they are relying on for this appeal is fatal to their case.
Counsel to the respondents referred to Order 44 Rules 4 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules of Anambra State and contends that the appellants did not comply with this mandatory Rule. The appellants who are aware that they are in default only choose to file their written address at the registry of the court and abandoned the written address.
Counsel to the appellants submits that the failure of the appellants to either approach the respondents or their counsel or make an application to the court for further abridgment or extension of time within which to file their case- There was no evidence of any application by the appellant to the court for extension of time to file their written address, when they are also aware that the court has adjourned Suit for judgment from 27/1/09 to 9/3/09. That the appellants only filed and abandoned their written address with their purported compliance to Order 44 Rules 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, 2006. This the appellants did only 9 days to the 9/3/09 fixed for judgment. That the Rules of Court, the appellants are relying on makes it mandatory for the appellants to get the time extended only when appropriate penalties have been paid either from the respondents or by a Motion on Notice to the court reference made to OLORO V. EKITI STATE GOVERNMENT (2007) All FWLR (Pt.387) 958 at 973-974.
It is further submitted that the appellants decided not to comply with the provisions of Order 44 Rules 4 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, Anambra State, 2006 in order to bring the process filed properly before the court. That the non-regularization of the appellants written address before the court in accordance with the Rules of court and the non-application to do so renders their appeal incompetent.
Learned counsel to the respondents submits that the appellants waived their right of filing their written address, after they were given due opportunity and they did not utilize it. They cannot be heard to complain of denial of right of fair hearing. Counsel referred to ADO V. COMM. WORKS, BENUE (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt 1058) 429; NEWSWATCH COMM LTD. V. ATTA (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt 993) 144; MUHAMMED V. KPELAI (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt 710) 700; EKE V. OGBONDA (2007) All FWLR (Pt 351) 1456.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that failure to consider the appellants’ written address filed out of time and was not brought before the trial Judge for regularization cannot by any stretch of imagination vitiate or nullify the entire proceedings reference made to TAPSHANG V. LEKRET (2001) FWLR (Pt. 42) 161.
That the trial Judge not to have considered the final address of the appellant did not give rise to any unfair hearing as all the witnesses presented by both parties were duly taken and their evidence considered in the Judgment reference made to JINADU V. ESUROMBI ARO (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 251) 349; UDEOZOR V. FRN (2007) 15 NWLR (PT 1058) 499 at 518; OBASUYI V. BUSINESS VENTURES LTD (2000) FWLR (PT 10) 1722 at 1738; AGBAMU V. OFILI (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 197) 1060 at 1086; UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. AYODARE & SONS. NIG. LTD. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 383) 1 at 42; ADOWE V. IKEBUDU (2001) FWLR (Pt 72) 1892) at 1909. Counsel urged the court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant.
In reply on points of law counsel referred to Order 31 Rule 4 (2), Order 44 Rule (5) and Order 5 Rule (3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 of Anambra State of Nigeria and contend that the appellants were on a firm wicket in the Suit when they paid the sum of money duly assessed by the Assistant Registrar of the lower court and did not need any extension of time to file their said written address as that situation has been taken care by the provision of Order 44 Rules 5 of the said Rules and throughout the length and breadth of the said Rules, no where was mention made of a party in default of filing a written address out of time having recourse to an application for extension of time to file the written address once he pays the penalty to be assessed by the Assistant Chief Registrar for late filing.
Further counsel to the Appellants argues that the non-payment of complete Penalties for late filing does not invalidate the process he referred to 7UP BOTTLING COMPANY LTD V. YAHAYA (2001) 4 NWLR (PT. 702) 47; AJUWA V. SPDC (NIG.) LTD (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1094). UKPABIO V. N.F.V.C.B. (2008) 9 NWLR (PT 1092) 227; ACB V. LTD V. HENSHAW (1990) 1 NWLR (PT.129) 646; EKE V. ELUWA (2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 688) 560; EZEANI V. OKOSI (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 596) 623.
It is the submissions of counsel to the Respondents that non-payment of filing fees or payment of adequate or inadequate filing fees on documents for use in court does not raise an issue of jurisdiction and the failure to fulfill the provisions of the High Court Rules in that regard is a mere irregularity which when not taken up timeously or when acquiesced, becomes incapable of affecting the proceedings in anyway reference made to EKE V. ELUWA (2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 688) at 562; EZOMO V. OYAKHIRE (1985) 1 NWLR (PT 2) 195; SAUDE V. ABDULLAHI (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 116) 387; NOIBI V. FIKOLATI (1987) (Pt. 52) 619; DIKE NWORA V. UNION BANK (1987) 1 NWLR 958. That a court process is deemed to have been filed when it has been assessed by the Registrar of the High Court and same court process is filed in the Registry of that High Court and a treasury receipt accordingly issued to the party that has filed and paid the filing fees as assessed by the Registrar of that court. Counsel referred to AJUWA V. S.P.D.C. (NIG) LTD (2008) 10 NWLR (PT 1094) 64 at 69; ADEBAYO V. A.G. OGUN STATE (2008) 7 NWLR (PT.1085) 201; ADAH V. NYSC (2004) 7 S.C (PT. 11) 139; OBI NWANZE OKONJI & 4 ORS. V. GEORGE NJOKANMA & 2 ORS (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 202) 131 at 146; BALOGUN V. LABRIAN (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 66; CHIEF OKOTIE-EBOH V. CHIEF JAMES MANAGER & 2 ORS (2004) 11 – 12 SC 174.
Finally learned counsel submits that address forms part of the trial of a case and a party must not be denied the right to address the court reference made to OBODO V. OLOMU (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 59) 111 at 120; UGORJI V. ONWUKA (1994) 4 NWLR (PT.134) 839; CHUKWU V. OSSAI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT. 339) 16.
The complaint of the Appellants in this appeal is that their right of fair hearing had been breached by the failure of the trial court to consider their written address which was filed out of time after payment penalty of N4,320.00 for 20 days they alleged they were out of time.
In the appeal at hand it is not in dispute that the appellants are out of time in filing their written address. The appellants claimed that they were in default of filing their written address for 20 days and they paid a penalty of N4,000.00 surprisingly they did not state how they arrive at the 20 days they claimed they were in default.
Now by the printed record of the court at page 227 it shows that the court on the 8th day of October, 2008 ordered filing of written addresses as follows:
“Learned defence counsel has 45 days within which to file and served his written submissions. Thereafter learned counsel for the plaintiffs shall have 21 days within which to respond. Suit is adjourned to 17/12/08 for adoption of same”.
On the 17/12/08 the appellants did not file their written addresses. The court on its own extended time for the appellants to file their written addresses by 14 days and further adjourned to 27/1/09 for adoption of written addresses. On 27/1/09, the appellants did not file their written address and did not urge the court for anything and the Suit was adjourned to 9/3/09 for judgment. The 45 days limit expired on 22/11/08.
The appellants only filed their written address on 27/2/09 after 97 days of defaulting in complying with the order of the court. It is clear that between the 23/11/08 and 27/02/09 when the appellants filed their written address it is 97 clear days.
Again even if the appellants relied on the extension given to them by the court on 17/12/08 for fourteen (14) days and calculated from the expiration date of fourteen days which is 31/12/08 they will still be in default by 58 days (from 1/1/09) after the later days extension expired to 27/2/09 when they filed their address.
From the above evidence as gathered from the printed record of appeal it is clear that the appellants are in default of filing their written address as ordered by the court by 97 days from 23/11/08 and 27/02/09 when the appellants filed their written address. The period of 58 days after the extension of time granted by the court cannot be taken into account since the court cannot and did not waive the earlier additional filing fees for default. Now Order 44 Rules 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, 2006 provides thus –
“Any party who defaults in performing an act within the authorized or limited under these Rules shall pay to the Court an additional filing fee of N200.00 (two hundred Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance”
In the appeal at hand it is clear that the appellants are in default of filing their written address by 97 days and by the provisions of Order 44 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, 2006,it is mandatory that they pay additional filing fee of N200.00 (Two hundred Naira) for each day of such default at the time of compliance. The appellants by the own showing admitted being in default and paying for 20 days and left out 77 days with no explanation whatsoever why their paid for 20 days default while by the evidence before the court they are to pay default of 97 days. It is beyond dispute by the evidence before the court that the appellants did not comply with the mandatory provisions Order 44 Rules 5 of High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, 2006, it is only that mandatory compliance that would enable them have their written address being considered in the determination of the Suit before the trial court. The law is clear on the duty on a party alleging breach of fair hearing. The burden on the party alleging breach of fair hearing in a case is to prove the breach and he must do so in the light of the facts of the case. See MAIKYO V. ITOLO (2007) 7 NWLR (PT.1034) 443.In the instant appeal in light of the facts of the case the appellants have woefully failed to prove the breach of fair hearing they alleged. They have had the opportunity of being heard but failed to utilize same and cannot complain of breach of fair hearing. See S & D CONST. CO. LTD. V. AYOKU (2011) 13 NWLR (PT. 1265) 487.
In the appeal at hand the appellants refused to utilize the opportunity given and open to them to present their written address to the court, they therefore cannot complain of breach of fair hearing. The sole issue for determination is accordingly resolved against the appellants in favour of the respondents.
I come to the unalloyed conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. I affirm the Judgment of the court below. I award N50,000.00 costs in favour of the respondents against the appellants.

AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE J.C.A: I have had the privilege of reading the lead Judgment prepared by my learned brother, ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR, JCA. I am in complete agreement with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusions. I have nothing to add.
Accordingly, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed and I too, hereby dismiss it. I also abide by the order made in the lead judgment relating to costs.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A: I had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDUL-KADIR JCA just delivered. The issues in the appeal have been well considered and the reasonable conclusion is that the appeal is unmeritorious. I dismiss the appeal with costs as awarded in the lead judgment.

Appearances

Mr. V.C. Umeadi holding the brief of J.O. OnwujekweFor Appellant

AND

Dr. M.N. Umenweke with Mr. K.J. Bielu and Miss R. SoezeFor Respondent