LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

NIGERIAN UNION OF TEACHERS & ors -VS- THE GOVERNOR Of KADUNA STATE & ors

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

ON THURSDAY 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2019

  BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S.O. ADENIYI

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/53/2017

BETWEEN:

  1.  NIGERIAN UNION OF TEACHERS
  2. COMRADE AUDU TITUS AMBA (Suing for himself and on behalf of Primary School Teachers in Public Schools of Kaduna State) ……………………………………………………….CLAIMANTS

AND

  1. THE GOVERNOR OF KADUNA STATE
  2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KADUNA STATE
  3. TEACHERS REGISTRATION COUNCIL OF NIGERIA ………………………….…………………………….DEFENDANTS

J U D G E M E N T

The 1st Claimant is a registered trade union, whilst the 2nd Claimant is the Chairman of the Kaduna Wing of the union. The Claimants are challenging the conduct of the competency test of 03/06/2017 on the instruction of the 1st Defendant. They contended that it is within the exclusive power of the 3rd Defendant to conduct such competency tests for teachers in Kaduna. The Claimants further contended that the competency tests conducted was contrary to the agreement made by the stakeholders.

  1. Being thereby aggrieved by the actions of the 1stand 2ndDefendants, the Claimants instituted the present action by Originating Summons filed in this Court on 30/10/2017, whereby they prayed the Court for the determination of the questions set out as follows:

(i)              WHETHER, having regard to the following:

  1. Section 4(1) to (4), item 60(e) part 1 of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution);
  2. The Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria Act Cap T3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

The Governor of Kaduna State or any of the organs of the government of Kaduna State, has the constitutional or statutory powers and competence to order the conduct of any competency test to determine the standard of knowledge and skill to be attained by teachers in Kaduna State or on any matter connected therewith.

(ii)           WHETHER the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria, the 3rd Defendant herein is solely clothed with the vires/competence to determine the standard of knowledge and skills to be attained by persons seeking to become registered as teachers and all matters connected therewith and to regulate and control in all aspects and ramifications, the teaching profession in Nigeria under the extant legal regime.

(iii)        WHETHER the Governor of Kaduna State or any of the organs of the government of Kaduna State, has the vires to punish, dismiss or disengage any teacher in Kaduna State from his employment on the ground that he purportedly failed any competency test conducted by them to test the skills of teachers without the requisite constitutional or statutory legal support/umbrella of an enabling law empowering them to do so.

Upon the determination of the questions set out in the foregoing, the Claimants thereby claimed against the Defendants the principal reliefs set out as follows:

  1. A DECLARATION that the 3rd Defendant to the exclusion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants has the constitutional/statutory competence and powers to determine the standard of knowledge and skills to be attained by persons seeking to be teachers in Nigeria, and for matters connected therewith.
  2. A DECLARATION that the 3rd Defendant to the exclusion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants has the vires to regulate and control in all aspects and ramifications the teaching profession in Nigeria.

iii.             IN THE PREMISE of the foregoing, A DECLARATION that the competency test for Teachers in Kaduna State conducted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants is arbitrary, ultra vires, illegal, null and void ab – initio in that same is lacking and or bereft of any umbrella of an enabling law.

  1. AN ORDER setting aside/nullifying the competency test conducted by the Open University of Nigeria for Teachers in Kaduna State at the instance of the 1st and 2nd Defendant herein.
  2. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants more particularly the 1st and 2nd Defendants, jointly or severally, whether acting by themselves or through their officials, servants, agents or privies whosoever and howsoever otherwise from acting on or giving effect to the outcome of the purported competency test conducted for Teachers in Kaduna State at the instance of the Kaduna State Government.
  3. AN INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants more particularly the 1st and 2nd Defendants, jointly or severally, whether acting by themselves or through their officials, agents or privies whosoever and howsoever otherwise from purporting to discipline dismiss or disengage any Teacher in Kaduna State from his employment on the grounds of having failed the purported competency test conducted for Teachers in Kaduna at the instance of the Kaduna State Government.
  4. The 1stand 2ndDefendants opposed the Originating Summons by filing a Counter – Affidavit on 30/11/2017, whereby they denied the entirety of the Claimants’ claims.

The Claimants thereafter filed a Reply on Points of Law to the written address of the 1st and 2nd Defendants Counter – Affidavit on 05/02/2018. The 3rd Defendant did not file a Counter – Affidavit.

  1. By my understanding of the totality of the case of the Claimants and the defence put forward by the 1stand 2ndDefendants in their Counter – Affidavit, it seems to me that the basic, essential and relevant facts, upon which the Claimants have predicated their claim, could be enumerated as follows:

(i)      That this action was instituted by the Claimants as a registered trade union for and on behalf of all teachers in the public primary schools in Kaduna State.

(ii)    That by a letter dated 23/11/2016, the 3rd Defendant intimated the 1st Defendant inter – alia of its role as the regulating agency of the teaching profession in Nigeria.

(iii)   That the Kaduna State Government conducted a competency test for teachers in Kaduna State on 03/06/2017.

(iv)   That contrary to the agreement between the Kaduna State Government and stakeholders that the pass mark for the competency test be set at 60%, it was discovered that the Government set the pass mark at 75%.

(v)    That the Claimants wrote a letter to protest the pronouncement made by the 1st Defendant purporting to dismiss 21,780 teachers who did not score 75% in the competency test.

(vi) That in spite of the letter of protest, the 1st and 2nd Defendants is alleged to have set to recruit 25,000 teachers to replace the teachers that were to be dismissed.

(vii)  That the employment of the teachers in Kaduna State is protected by statute.

  1. To further support their case, the Claimants annexed to their Affidavit, the following documents:
  2. A copy of the report on the 2017 Kaduna State Primary Schools Teachers’ competency test conducted on 03/06/2017 – Exhibit A
  3. A copy of the letter dated 23/11/2016 written by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant – Exhibit B
  4. A copy of the letter dated 23/10/2017 written by the NUT Kaduna State Wing to the 1st Defendant – Exhibit C
  5. Upon a proper examination of theCounter – Affidavitof the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it seems to me that the areas of dispute of the Claimants’ claim are as follows:

(i)      That the Kaduna State Universal Basic Education Board has the responsibility to recruit, promote and discipline all teaching and non teaching staff in public primary schools in the State.

(ii)    That the 3rd Defendant’s function as a professional regulatory body for teachers in Nigeria is limited to registration and granting licenses/permission to teachers accredited to practice in Nigeria.

(iii)   That the 1st Defendant in conjunction with relevant State agencies and departments acted within their rights to conduct the competency test on 03/06/2017.

(iv)   That prior to the conduct of the competency tests, several meetings were held with all stakeholders including the Claimants and the 3rd Defendant and at the meeting held on 24/02/2017, the meeting had discussions on the paper presented by the labour unions on the state of education in Kaduna State.

(v)    That it was agreed inter – alia at the said meeting of 24/02/2017 that an assessment of teachers be conducted.

(vi)   That the Claimants and the 3rd Defendant participated in the process of planning and conducting the competency test.

(vii)  That contrary to the allegation of the Claimants, the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) did not participate in the planning and the conduct of the competency test.

To further support their defence, the 1st and 2nd Defendants in turn annexed the minutes of the meeting held by stakeholders on 24/02/2017 as Exhibit 1 to the Counter – Affidavit filed on their behalf.

  1. In the address filed to support theOriginating Summons, the Claimants’ learned counsel,Dakun Rindi Esq., relied on all the questions for determination and argued them together.

In the opinion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ learned counsel, I.M. Samson, Esq., the issues that arise for determination in this suit are distilled as follows:

“Whether the Claimants have disclosed a cause of action against the Defendants entitling this Honourable Court with jurisdiction to entertain this case?”

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

“If this Honourable Court holds that the Claimants have established a cause of action against the Defendants, whether they have established a case requiring this Court to decide this case in their favour on the merit?”

  1. Now, the Claimants’ learned counsel had contended in his written address that 1stand 2ndDefendants lack the powers to conduct the competency test for teachers in the public schools in the State. Learned Claimants’ counsel argued that the 1st and 2nd Defendants by their actions, have also contravened the provisions of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by which the National Assembly in exercise of its legislative powers enacted the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria Act Cap T3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (TRCN).

Learned Claimants’ counsel further argued that the TRCN is vested with the exclusive powers for regulating, controlling and registration of teachers in Nigeria; to set inter – alia the standard of knowledge and skill to be attained by persons applying to be registered teacher; and raising the standards from time to time as the circumstances may permit.

Learned Claimants’ counsel contended that the clear and unequivocal intention of the National Assembly in enacting the TRCN Act (supra) is aimed at attaining uniformity in the standards and skills of teachers in Nigeria.

  1. I have taken cognizance of the authorities ofA.G Ondo State Vs A.G Federation[2002] 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222 at 304 and A.G Abia State Vs A.G Federation  [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265 @ 421, cited by the Claimants’ learned counsel in which the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to legislate under item 60. Learned Claimants’ counsel further urged the Court to accord the plain and ordinary meaning of the provisions of the TRCN Act, which, according to him, are plain and unambiguous, so as to give clear effect to the intendment of the legislation. He further referred to Ehuwa Vs O.S.I [2006] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 544.

Learned counsel for the Claimants also argued that the competency test conducted by the NOUN at the instance of the 1st and 2nd Defendants is ultra vires, illegal, null and void and the same cannot form the basis of disciplinary action against any teacher in Kaduna State as the 1st Defendant must act within the confines of his powers vested by the Constitution (supra). He relied on the cases of A.G Bendel Vs Aideyan [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt.118) 646 at 671; Akpan Vs Umah [2002] 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 701 at 732.

Learned counsel further submitted that it is the duty of the Courts to interpret and give effect to constitutional and statutory provisions, to uphold the basic tenets of democracy and rule of law as opposed to arbitrariness. In aid of his submission, he cited the authorities of Akaninwo Vs Nsirim [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 410) 610; Gadi Vs Male [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 225; A.G Abia Vs A.G Federation (supra).

  1. In his reaction, learned counsel for the 1stand 2ndDefendants, contends that the suit lacks in merit no matter from whatever perspective it is viewed. The 1st and 2nd Defendants’ counsel submitted that the suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendants in respect of the reliefs claimed.

Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants further argued that the Claimants have not established a case requiring this Honourable Court to decide in their favour on the merit; and urged the Court to dismiss the action.

  1. In response to theCounter Affidavitfiled by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, the Claimants filed a Reply on Points of Law to the written address of the Defendants, on 05/02/2018. He maintained that the duty of the Court is to interpret the law and not to make laws and further submitted that the action disclosed sufficient cause of action to warrant the invocation of the jurisdictional powers of this Court to entertain the same. For his submissions, learned counsel further relied inter- alia on SunmonuVs Oladokun [1996] 8 NWLR (Pt. 467) 387; A.G. Cross River State Vs Okon [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 395) 370 at 394
  2. Flowing from my understanding of the Claimants’Claim, the relevant evidence adduced, the arguments articulated in the parties’ final submissions and the totality of the circumstances of this case, the focal issue that call for resolution in my opinion, without prejudice to the issues raised by the parties, could be succinctly reframed as follows:

“Whether or not the Claimants have established their claim for this Honourable Court to award the declaratory reliefs and other reliefs being claimed?”

In determining the questions set down for determination by the Claimants in this suit, I should state that I have taken due cognizance and benefits of the totality of the written and oral arguments canvassed by learned counsel in support and to oppose the issues formulated and canvassed; and as I proceed with the judgment, I shall endeavour to make specific reference to their submissions as I deem needful.

DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES:

  1. With respect to the issue of cause of action, I do not consider that the point should be over flogged or belaboured.

It is trite that a suit of this nature in which the Claimants seeks a determination of questions relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution and Statute, allegedly violated by the Defendants, particularly the 1st and 2nd Defendants, cannot be said not to be justiciable or unreasonable. I am in no doubt that the suit raises triable issues worthy of being inquired into by the Court. Perhaps, the 1st and 2nd Defendants would have opted like the 3rd Defendant not to defend the action should they be so convinced that the case has no reasonable cause of action, as it affects them. But as it turned out, they filed a Counter Affidavit to oppose the Claimants’ Originating Summons, which in itself presupposes that indeed the Claimants have raised certain questions worthy to be answered by the Defendants in the suit.

The Claimants deposed in paragraph 6 of his Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons as follows:

“6. That the Kaduna State Government i.e. the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein on 3rd June, 2017 caused to be conducted a competency test for teachers in Kaduna State. A copy of the report is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A.”

I further make reference to the depositions in paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Claimants’ Affidavit in support.

I hold that as a registered labour union who has the interest of its members, the complaint of the Claimants against the Defendants in this suit is legally cognizable and can found an action in law. As such, I further hold that the Claimants have a reasonable cause of action to pursue in this suit.

MERITS OF THE CASE:

  1. The Claimants, having successfully scaled the hurdle of right of access to Court, it is to be considered in succession, whether, on the basis of the evidence placed before the Court, they have established their entitlement to the declaratory reliefs sought in this suit.

Now, it is one thing for a party to have reasonable cause of action; it is another thing entirely for the party to be able to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the cause.

The Claimants opted to commence this suit by way of Originating Summons. It is trite that in such cases, the depositions in the affidavit filed constitute both the pleadings and the evidence at the same time. See Keyamo Vs House of Assembly Lagos State &Ors [2002] 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 605.

In this connection, I am particularly mindful that the Claimants have sought declaratory reliefs in this suit; the implication being that the burden on them to prove the allegations levelled against the Defendants exceeds the regular burden provided in Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act.

Declaratory reliefs are not even granted as a matter of course, by admission of the Defendant or default of defence. They succeed upon cogent and credible evidence. Dumez Nigeria Ltd Vs Nwakhoba [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 461) 842; Ndayako Vs Dantoro [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187; Olabanji Vs Omokewu [1992] 7 SCNJ 266. Similarly, the Claimants must succeed or fail on the strength of their own case. It follows that no matter the perceived weakness of the defence, the Claimants have the bounden legal duty and evidential burden to proof his case. See Mela Vs Ciniki [2017] LPELR-42999(CA).

  1. The Claimants have sought for the interpretation of the provisions ofSection 4(1) to (4), Item 60 (e) Part I of the Second Schedule of theConstitution (as amended), by which the National Assembly is empowered to make laws to prescribe minimum standards of education at all levels.

By virtue of its powers thereto, the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria Act, CAP T3 LFN, 2004 was enacted.  Section 1 thereof provides thus:-

“(1) There is hereby established a body to be known as the Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria (in this Act referred to as “the Council”) which shall be a body corporate under the name and be charged with the general duty of –

  1. Determining who are teachers for the purposes of this Act;
  2. Determining what standards of knowledge and skill that are to be attained by persons seeking to become registered as teachers under this Act and raising those standards, from time to time as circumstances may permit;
  3. Securing in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the establishment and maintenance of a register of teachers and the publication from time to time the list of those persons;
  4. Regulating and controlling the teaching profession (in this Act referred to as “the profession”) in all its aspects and ramifications;
  5. ………………………………………………………………….;
  6. ………………………………………………………………….
  7. It is needless to restate the trite position of the law that if there is nothing to modify, nothing to alter and nothing to qualify the language which an enactment or instrument contain, it must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words and sentences. If the language used is free from ambiguity and so clear and explicit as to leave no doubt as to its meaning, the Court must construe the enactment or instrument according to its expressed intention. SeeAraka Vs Egbue[2003] 17 NWLR (Pt 848) 1; Crown Flour Mills Ltd Vs Olokun [2008] 4 NWLR (Pt 1077) 254.
  8. The task that the Court is to undertake now, in the first instance, is to examine the evidence led on the record by the Claimants in order to determine whether or not it has satisfactorily established its entitlement to the declaratory reliefs claimed.

Now, the totality of the evidence ventured by the Claimants in this suit is as contained in the depositions of one Comrade Adamu Ango, the Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Teachers, Kaduna State. His depositions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons is that the 3rd Defendant wrote a letter, Exhibit A, wherein it intimated the 1st Defendant of its exclusive function as the regulatory Agency to determine the level of knowledge and skills required to be attained as a teacher but in spite of the said letter, a competency test was conducted for teachers in Kaduna State on 03/06/2017.

  1. His further deposition inparagraph 11of the Affidavit in support is that:

“That while playing host to World Bank Officials the 1st Defendant announced with pomp and pageantry that 66% of Primary School teachers in Kaduna State failed the competency test conducted at the instance of the Kaduna State Government by not scoring up to 75% and as a result whereof 21,780 teachers would be dismissed from service while 25,000 would be recruited to replace them”.

The crux of the Claimants case is based on the alleged announcement of the 1st Defendant’s intention or proposal to dismiss teachers from service and to replace them by recruiting other teachers.

Other than deposing to the facts that the Claimants wrote a letter protesting the announcement allegedly made by the 1st Defendant, the Claimants failed to produce any iota of evidence to establish firstly, the place, time and the mode by which the announcement was made by the 1st Defendant or secondly, to demonstrate how the Defendants have set in motion the machinery to dismiss 21,780 teachers and the for recruitment of 25,000 teachers as they alleged.

 A Court of law cannot conjecture or speculate. It is dangerous to do so in the absence of evidence. See Olufeagba Vs Abdul Raheem [2010] ALL FWLR (Pt 12) 1033 at 1074.

  1. Furthermore, it is indicated byExhibit Aand Exhibit C attached to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that the Claimants and the 3rd Defendant participated in the planning and conduct of the competency test.

Paragraph 3 of Exhibit C states as follows:

“…….We accepted and allowed our members to be examined because we wanted to assure your government that we don’t want quacks in our classrooms and we want to partner government (sic) in raising the standard of teachers and teaching profession.”

It was also reflected in Exhibit 1 attached to the 1st and 2nd Defendants Counter – Affidavit of the involvement of the 2nd Claimant and the 3rd Defendant in the planning of the competency test. On numbers 12 and 13 of the said Exhibit 1 are Com. Audu T. Amba (the 2nd Claimant) and Kabir Yar’Adua of the 3rd Defendant as attendees at the meeting held with labour union leaders on 24/02/2017.

Again, the report in Exhibit 1 stated that the labour unions presented a position paper on the state of education in Kaduna State and it was agreed inter – alia that the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) coordinate the exercise (competency test).

It is trite that where a person has given consent or approval to a particular cause of event or action, he cannot later be heard to complain. Awieh & Ors V Owofo [2012] LPELR 9472, Emuejerarowho Vs Eco Bank [2018] LPELR 45322

Furthermore, there was no evidence to support the facts that the competency test was conducted by the Open University of Nigeria for teachers in Kaduna State at the instance of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as alleged by the Claimants. It is the law that facts pleaded (or depositions as in the instant case) but not supported with evidence are deemed to have been abandoned. Consequently it goes to no issue. Jadocom Ltd Vs Ogun Electrical [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt 589) 153; Ojekan Vs Oyewale [2011] LPELR 4517

  1. It seems to me that the learned Claimants’ counsel realized the fact that the Claimant’s evidence failed to establish their case. Learned counsel for the Claimants made frantic effort to make a different case for the Claimants contrary to that which was in the Depositions in their Affidavit in support of Originating Summons. The learned Claimants’ counsel made heavy weather on the legal consequences of the alleged conduct of the competency tests by the said Open University. He stated inparagraph 4:6in his written address as follows:

“Having postulated the position of the law aforesaid, the next question that readily comes to mind is whether the competency test conducted by the National Open University at the instance of the Kaduna State Government i.e the 1st and 2nd Defendants has any legal backing or covered by an umbrella of a valid enabling law……”

The 1st and 2nd Defendants had denied in paragraph 4(v) of their Counter- Affidavit, that NOUN played any role in the planning, preparation and the conduct of the competency test of 03/06/2017.

It has been stated time without number that the address of counsel is no more than a handmaid in adjudication and cannot take the place of the hard facts required to constitute credible evidence. No amount of brilliance to a final address can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish or to disprove and demolish points in issue. See Michika L. G. V. National Population Commission (1998) 11 NWLR Pt. 573 Pg 201; Bwanle Tapshang V. Daluk Lekret (2000) 13 NWLR Pt. 684 Pg 381; Buhari V. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR Pg 286; Taiwo V Osunlabu (2017) LPELR 43739 Incorporated Trustees of the Brotherhood  V     (2018) LPELR 44087;

  1. I have taken a careful consideration of the Exhibits attached in support of the Originating Summons within the facts placed before the Court. The depositions in the Affidavit in Support are facts or should be facts to which the Court is bound to apply the relevant law. The learned Claimants’ attempt to ‘conjure’ facts to support the Claimants’ case in his written address cannot help their case. It would certainly amount to a denial of fair-trial occasioning a miscarriage of justice to allow a learned counsel to smuggle unverified facts on to the summation of the case at final address. That would also be unfair and unjust to the Court in that the Court will be deprived of a level playing ground from which platform to give a well-balanced and even justice in its evaluation of the evidence placed before it.
  2. Therefore, since the totality of the facts deposed to by the Claimants is unsupported by evidence, it cannot be said that the Claimants by any means proved their claim for the declaratory reliefs. And I so hold.
  3. I should further express the view that the Claimants having opted to commence this suit by Originating Summons, seemed to have restricted the quality of evidence that ordinarily could have availed them.As it is, only pleadings could have resolved these issues of facts; but no, lawyers want shortcuts, hence an Originating Summons. The point is that inAdegbuyi Vs APC & Ors [2014] LPELR-24214(SC), relying on National Bank of Nigeria Vs Alakija [1978] 9 – 10 SC 59, it was held thus:

“The principle has become trite that the Originating Summons procedure is not for causes in which facts remain hostile and in conflict. The procedure is ideal for the determination of short and straight forward questions of construction and interpretation of documents or statutes. It is never the applicable procedure in controversial cases where the facts on which the court is invited to construe or interpret the document or legislation in relation to remain violently in conflict.”

See also Famfa Oil Limited Vs AG of the Federation & Anor [2003] 9 – 10 SC 31; Njideka Ezeigwe Vs Chief Benson Chuks Nwawulu & Ors [2010] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 159 SC.

In thus choosing to come by way of an Originating Summons as they did, the matter must be resolved within the limits of the Claimants’ Affidavit evidence since by law having to come by way of Originating Summons instead of a Complaint does not signify that the case is incompetent. As enjoined by NJC Vs Hon. Justice Jubril Babajide Aladejana [2014] LPELR-24134, therefore, the resolution of the instant case (since it is an originating proceedings) must be restricted to the issues raised in the Originating Summons.

  1. I am thus inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the 1stand 2ndDefendants and subscribe to the standpoint that the Claimants have not proved their claims against the Defendants.

That being the case, and without any further ado, I hereby resolve all the questions set down in the instant Originating Summons against the Claimants.

My decision is therefore that the action lacked in merit and in substance. It shall be and is hereby accordingly dismissed.

I make no award as to costs.

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Presiding Judge)

09/05/2019

Legal representation:

Dakun Rindi Esq. for Claimants

  1. M. Samson Esq.for 1stand 2nd Defendants
  2. Ngaddafor 3rdDefendant
admin

Website:

Related Story