NNALUE KINGSLEY CHIMZOBAM v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS
(2019)LCN/13786(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 30th day of September, 2019
CA/PH/400/2019
JUSTICES:
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
NNALUE KINGSLEY CHIMZOBAM – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
2. STELLA ADAEZE ODUAH
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) – Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE ORIGINATING PROCESS OF THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT IS THE MAIN POINT UPON WHICH THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION SHOULD BE DECIDED
Now having gone through the argument of counsel for and against the resolution of issue one, it is pertinent to state that where a suit is challenged on the ground that it is statute barred, it is always the summons and the affidavit in support of such summons of the statement of claim that ought to be the main fulcrum upon which the issue of limitation should be decided. SeeEREGBOWA & ORS V. OBANOR & ORS (2010) LPELR 8964; ADEKOYA V. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT 1099) 539 and OMOMEJI V. KOLAWOLE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT 1106) 180. It is only where the cause of action cannot be properly found in the Originating Processes that recourse can be had on the statement of defence or a counter affidavit and even then the date of the accrual of cause of action discoverable there must be admitted by the plaintiff; in that case the Court can look at the defence and thirdly, where the matter proceeded to trial and the evidence adduced indicated the date of accrual of a cause of action, then a Court is entitled to take cognizance of that date and apply limitation of law. PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.
WHEN IS AN ACTION CAUGHT UP BY STATUTE OF LIMITATION
An action is said to be caught up by statute of limitation or becomes statute barred when the party suing brings his action beyond the period laid down by statute or limitation Law.ARAKA V. EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT 1) 99.Where an action is statute barred, a plaintiff or Claimant who might have had a cause of action loses the right of enforcement of such cause of action or claim in a Court of law as a result of the expiration of the prescribed period. See EBOIGBE V. NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 347) 649; UBA LTD ABIMBOLU & CO (1995) 9 NWLR (PT 419) and AREMO II V. ADEKANYE & ORS (2004) 13 NWLR (PT 891) 572.PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.
FACTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED OR NOT
In the determination of whether an action is statute barred or not, the Court will look at the processes filed by the claimant so as to discover the time of the accrual of the cause of action. InEREGBOWA & ANOR V. OBANOR & ORS (2010) LPELR 8964 @ 36-37; Augie JCA (as he then was) held as follows:-
It is well settled that in determining whether a cause of action is statute barred or not, the crucial consideration is when the cause of action arose, and the period of limitation is determined by looking at the writ of summons and statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed that gave the plaintiff a cause of action and by comparing that date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed.
See ADEKOYA V. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT 1099) 539 and OMOMEJI V. KOLAWOLE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT 1106) 180.
The law is also well settled that where the cause of action cannot be discovered on the face of the processes filed by the plaintiff but the defendant has provided the date of the occurrence of the cause of action, and the plaintiff admits same, then the Court will accept that fact as can be found in the statement of defence or a counter affidavit. Better still, that date may be established through the oral evidence adduced in the course of trial. PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.
DEFINITION OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
What then is a cause of action? It is the facts which establish or give rise to a right of action; that is a factual situation that gave rise to a judicial relief. InBELLO V. AG OYO STATE (1986) LPELR 764@81;Karibi Whyte, JSC explained what a cause of action is in the following way:-
A cause of action is constituted by the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving rise to make the claim against the relief or remedy being sought. Thus the factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by the law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against the defendant. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right of claim. SeeTHOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) LPELR 3237; EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) LPELR 1032; TUKUR V. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 and UBA PLC V. ABDULLAHI (2003) 3 NWLR (PT 807) 359. PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.
ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division delivered on 22/07/2019 by Mohammed, J.
By an originating summons filed on 25th January, 2019, the Plaintiff/Appellant claimed against the Defendant/Respondents the following reliefs: –
1. A DECLARATION that the submission by the 1st Defendant of the name of the 2nd Defendant to the 3rd Defendant as the 1st Defendants candidate for the 2019 general election to the senate in respect of Anambra North Senatorial District of Anambra state is null and void.
2. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff was the valid winner of the 1st Defendants National Assembly Primary Election for Anambra North Senatorial District of Anambra state filed on 02/10/2018.
3. AN ORDER setting aside the candidature of the 2nd Defendant as the nominated candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Anambra North Senatorial District general election salted (sic) for February 2019.
4. AN ORDER directing the 1st and 3rd Defendant to take all steps/action including listing the name of the plaintiff as
1
the 1st Defendants candidate for the senatorial election for Anambra North Senatorial District of Anambra State in the forth coming general election in February 2019.
Upon being served with the Originating summon, the Respondents filed notice of Preliminary objection respectfully challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit of the plaintiff. Argument on both the notices of Preliminary objection and the substantial matter were taken and in a considered ruling, the trial Court found the suit of the plaintiff as statute barred and struck out same.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant lodged his notice of appeal containing three grounds. The grounds of appeal are reproduced here under without their particulars:-
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned miscarriage of Justice when His Lordship declined jurisdiction to entertain the case of the Appellant on the ground that the matter is statute barred and incompetent, the basis of his Lordships decision being solely on the preliminary objection of the 1st Respondent and the motion on notice of the 2nd
2
Respondent without consideration of the Appellans further affidavits in support of the Originating summons.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned miscarriage of justice when His Lordship failed to consider the case of the Appellant on the merit, hereby denying the Appellant his constitutional right to fair hearing
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned miscarriage of justice when the trail Court failed to consider paragraph 9 of the Appellants affidavit in support of the Origination Summons and also failed to consider and attach any important to Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P attached to the further, further and better affidavit of the Appellant, more so the trial Court having held that the failure of the 3rd Respondent in filing any process meant that the 3rd Defendant admitted the Appellants case.
In compliance with the rules of this Court, the Appellant filed his brief of argument on 11/09/2019 and a reply brief on 23/09/2019. The 1st Respondent filed his brief of argument on 24/09/2019 but deemed filed on 30/09/2019. The 2nd
3
Respondent filed a notice of Preliminary Objection and embedded the argument in its brief of argument filed on 19/09/2019 and the 3rd Respondent filed its brief of argument on 30/09/2019.
In the Appellants brief of Argument settled by O. J. Wondah, Esq., two issues for determination were formulated. The issues are:-
1. Having regard to the Originating processes in this action, whether or not the Appellant filed this action at the lower Court not later than fourteen (14) days from the date in which his cause of action arose and therefore not statute barred.
2. In the event that issue one is resolved in the Appellants favour, whether or not the failure of the lower Court to consider and determine the suit on the merit did amount to a breach of the Appellants constitutional right to fair hearing and access to Justice.
The 1st Respondent also formulated two issues for determination thus:-
1. Whether the learned trial judge was not right in holding that the Appellant filed this suit outside the fourteen 14 days prescribed by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which made the action statute barred.
4
2. Whether having regard to the success of the Preliminary Objection which upheld the wants of jurisdiction in the part of trial Court to determine the suit, the learned trial judge ware not right in not considering the substantive suit.
The 2nd Respondent formulated two issues for determination which are similar to the issues formulated by the Appellant. The issues need not be reproduced.
The 3rd Respondent formulated a single issue for determination. The issue is:-
Whether the lower Court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Before considering the merits or demerits of this appeal, it is important to note that the 3rd Respondents brief of argument was filed on 30/09/2019 contrary to the order of this Court made on 17/09/2019 abridging the time for the Respondent to file the briefs of arguments in view of the nature of this matter to 4 days. The 3rd Respondent clearly filed its brief of argument outside the abridged period of 4 days and worse still he did not ground any application to regularize the said brief of argument. As a consequence to such a willful disobedience to the order of
5
this Court, the 3rd Respondent brief of argument filed on 30/09/2019 without the leave of the Court is incompetent and ought to be struck out. It is accordingly struck out.
The 2nd Respondent have filed a notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of this appeal on ground that it is academic since the period of 180 days within which to hear and determine same by the trial Court has elapsed and this Court cannot hear and determine the merit of this suit since it has not been considered by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent in arguing the Preliminary objection has emphasized that the 180 days allowed by Section 285 (a) of the Constitution within which to hear and determine Pre-election matters have elapsed and there is nothing this Court or the trial court can do. He referred to APC V. IBRAHIM UMAR & ORS (2019) LPELR 47296. He further argued that even where the Court holds that the action is not statute barred, this Court cannot proceed to resolve the issues raised in the Originating summons. He referred to INAKOJU V. ADELEKE (2007) LPELR 1570; EZEIGWE V. NWAWULU (2010) 4 NWLR (PT 1183) 159 and UKACHUKWU V. INEC (2013) LPELR 20668.
6
He further argued that this is not a proper case where this Court should invoke the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and this is so because in so doing the court will be determining the suit outside the 180 days as prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution. Counsel urged the Court to strike out the appeal.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted on the Preliminary Objection that the 180 days as stipulated by Section 285(9) of the Constitution applies to the trial Court and has no application or bearing to the appeal before this court and by Section 285(12) of the Constitution, 60 days are allowed for the hearing and determination of the appeal to this Court. He also argued that the fact that the 180 days allowed to the trial Court to hear and determined the suit of the Appellant has elapsed necessitated a prayer that this Court should invoke the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to hear and determine same and the conditions enumerated in EZEIGWE V. NWAWULU (Supra) are all present to necessitate such invocation.
It seems the Preliminary Objection is anchored on the fact
7
that since the suit of Appellant was struck out for want of jurisdiction, this Court should strike out the notice of appeal as it is pure academic exercise. There is no doubt that the constitution has provide that the Appellants suit must be heard and determined by the trial Court within 180 days from the date of filing and there is no doubt that the 180 days have elapsed bearing in mind that it was filed in January 2019. Does that fact make the pending appeal before this Court academic? The Appellant is challenging the decision of the trial Court and constitutionally, he is entitled to challenge the said decision as a party who is aggrieved by the decision; See Section 243(1) of the 1999 CFRN. If the Constitution has granted the Appellant the right of Appeal against the decision of the trial Court, It is then a serious misconception to contend that the exercise of such right amounts to an academic exercise. It is not.
Secondly, it is the contention of learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the Court cannot assume the role of the trial Court to determine the issues raised in the Originating summons in view of the fact that the 180 days have
8
elapsed. This Court can in appropriate cases and in deserving circumstances invoke its wide powers as donated by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to hear and determine the substantive matter in the Originating summons. In EZEIGWE V. NWAWULU (SUPRA) for the avoidance of doubt where this Court finds that the trial Court is wrong in holding the suit of the Appellant is statute barred, nothing precludes this Court from invoking its powers under Section 15 of the Act to hear and determine the substantive matter and the Originating Summons. However, the condition listed in EZEIGWE V. NWAWULU (Supra) must be present before the Court can invoke the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.
The sum total of this discourse is that the Preliminary Objection of the 2nd Respondent is unmeritorious and it ought to be and is hereby overruled. It is dismissed on its entirety.
In the determination of this Appeal, the Court adopt the issues for determination as formulated by the Appellants counsel with some modification for the purposes of brevity. The two issues for the determination of this appeal are as follows:-
1. Whether the lower Court was right
9
in holding that the suit of the Appellant is statute barred.
2. Whether the trial Court was right in not considering the case of the Appellant on the merit.
Arguing issue one, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that in order to ascertain whether a suit is statute barred, the originating process must be examined in order to discover the date of the accrual of the cause of action. He referred to EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT 47) 1 and ELABANJO V. DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (PT 1001) 76.
He further submitted that the suit being a pre-election matter must be filed within 14 days of the occurrence of the cause of action. He referred to Section 285 (9) of the Constitution (1999). He argued that a case of action is the aggregate of facts grounding an enforceable right in law or in equity. He referred to NPA V. LOTUS PLASTICS LTD (2005) LPELR 2028; SAVAGE V. UWECHIA (1972) LPELR 3018; OKAFOR V. B. D. U. JOS BRANCH (2017) 5 NWLR (PT 1559) 385 and MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR EKITI STATE V. ALADEYELU (2007) LPELR 1875. He further argued that the averment in Paragraphs 9-12 of the affidavit in support of the Originating summons have clearly stated
10
the cause of action and the time of its accrual and by the averments there in, it cannot be taken that the cause of action occurred on 02/10/2018. The legal wrong was done to the Appellant on 17/01/2019 when the list of candidates was published and the Appellant instituted his suit on 25/01/2019 i.e 9 days after the accrual of the cause of action. Learned counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant and against the Respondents.
Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted on this issue that considering the fact that the Appellants first relief and facts in his affidavit in support all pointed to the primary election of 02/10/2018, it follows therefore that the cause of action accrued on that date. He further argued that the Appellants contention that the cause of action accrued on 17/01/2019 when the list of candidates was published is diametrically opposed to his claim that his complaint is about the submission of the name of the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent. He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. He referred to AG RIVERS STATE V. AG AKWA IBOM STATE (201) 29 WRN 1.
Learned counsel argued
11
that the cause of action accrued on 02/10/2018 when the primary election was conducted and not 17/01/2019. The Appellant had 14 days from 02/10/2018 to file his action but failed to. He referred to Section 285 (9) of the 1999 constitution. He referred to SALIM V. CPC & ORS (2013) LPELR 19928; AKPAMGBO OKADIGBO & ORS V. CHIDI & ORS (2015) LPELR 24564; PDP V. CPC (2011) 17 NWLR (PT 1277) 485 and UCHECHUKWU V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (PT 1436) 255. He concluded that from 02/10/2018 when the cause of action accrued to 25/01/2019 when the suit was filed is more than 3 months and the Appellant who had 14 days to file his action is in violation of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution and the trial Court was right to hold that the suit is statute barred. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents.
Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the Appellant hinged his claim on the submission of the 2nd Respondents name to the 3rd Respondent instead of his name, which was made on 18/10/2018. And by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, the Appellant ought to have challenged the
12
act within 14 days from the date of the accrual of the cause of action. He referred to APC V. UDUJI & ANOR UNREPORTED in SC/480/2019 delivered on 21st June 2019 and MUSA V. UMARU & ORS (UNREPORTED) appeal No SC/405/2019 delivered ON 14TH June 2019.
He argued that from the reliefs as contained in the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the cause of action accrued when the primary election was conducted on 02/10/2018 and though the Appellant argued that the cause of action accrued on the date of publication of list of candidates, by the 3rd Respondent yet no relief was raised against the publication. He referred to SORO V. GALADIMA & ORS (UN REPORTED). Learned counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents.
The main complaint on this issue is that the trial Court was wrong to have held that the suit of the Appellant was statute barred even when the affidavit evidence showed that the list of candidates qualified to contest the election was published on 17/01/2019 and the suit was filed on 25/01/2019. The Respondents argued in line with the
13
decision of the trial Court urging the Court to uphold same. Now having gone through the argument of counsel for and against the resolution of issue one, it is pertinent to state that where a suit is challenged on the ground that it is statute barred, it is always the summons and the affidavit in support of such summons of the statement of claim that ought to be the main fulcrum upon which the issue of limitation should be decided. See EREGBOWA & ORS V. OBANOR & ORS (2010) LPELR 8964; ADEKOYA V. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT 1099) 539 and OMOMEJI V. KOLAWOLE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT 1106) 180. It is only where the cause of action cannot be properly found in the Originating Processes that recourse can be had on the statement of defence or a counter affidavit and even then the date of the accrual of cause of action discoverable there must be admitted by the plaintiff; in that case the Court can look at the defence and thirdly, where the matter proceeded to trial and the evidence adduced indicated the date of accrual of a cause of action, then a Court is entitled to take cognizance of that date and apply limitation of law. An action is said to be caught up by
14
statute of limitation or becomes statute barred when the party suing brings his action beyond the period laid down by statute or limitation Law. ARAKA V. EJEAGWU (2000) 12 SC (PT 1) 99. Where an action is statute barred, a plaintiff or Claimant who might have had a cause of action loses the right of enforcement of such cause of action or claim in a Court of law as a result of the expiration of the prescribed period. See EBOIGBE V. NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 347) 649; UBA LTD ABIMBOLU & CO (1995) 9 NWLR (PT 419) and AREMO II V. ADEKANYE & ORS (2004) 13 NWLR (PT 891) 572.
In the determination of whether an action is statute barred or not, the Court will look at the processes filed by the claimant so as to discover the time of the accrual of the cause of action. In EREGBOWA & ANOR V. OBANOR & ORS (2010) LPELR 8964 @ 36-37; Augie JCA (as he then was) held as follows:-
It is well settled that in determining whether a cause of action is statute barred or not, the crucial consideration is when the cause of action arose, and the period of limitation is determined by looking at the writ of summons and statement of claim alleging when the wrong
15
was committed that gave the plaintiff a cause of action and by comparing that date with the date on which the writ of summons was filed.
See ADEKOYA V. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT 1099) 539 and OMOMEJI V. KOLAWOLE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT 1106) 180.
The law is also well settled that where the cause of action cannot be discovered on the face of the processes filed by the plaintiff but the defendant has provided the date of the occurrence of the cause of action, and the plaintiff admits same, then the Court will accept that fact as can be found in the statement of defence or a counter affidavit. Better still, that date may be established through the oral evidence adduced in the course of trial.
What then is a cause of action? It is the facts which establish or give rise to a right of action; that is a factual situation that gave rise to a judicial relief. In BELLO V. AG OYO STATE (1986) LPELR 764@81; Karibi Whyte, JSC explained what a cause of action is in the following way:-
A cause of action is constituted by the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving rise to make the claim against the relief or remedy
16
being sought. Thus the factual situation on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim must be recognized by the law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against the defendant. In other words, the factual situation relied upon must constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right of claim.
See THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) LPELR 3237; EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) LPELR 1032; TUKUR V. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 and UBA PLC V. ABDULLAHI (2003) 3 NWLR (PT 807) 359.
In the appeal before us, the trial Court has upon taking cognizance of the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support of same, came to the conclusion that the cause of action accrued on 02/10/2018 when the primary election was conducted and rejected the contention of the Appellant that the cause of action accrued on 17/01/2019 when the 3rd Respondent published the list of candidates qualified to contest the general elections. The law is settled that in a situation such as this the date to be reckoned with is the date of submission of the names of candidates to the 3rd Respondents. The main argument of the
17
Appellant is that he became aware of the substitution on 17/01/2019 when the 3rd Respondent published the list of candidates qualified to contest the election and found that the 2nd Respondents name was submitted by the 1st Respondent. In claims such as this, where limitation period is sought to be invoked, knowledge of the accrual of right of action is hardly material; it is not a condition precedent for time to start ruining same where fraud can be established. See AJIBONA V. KOLAWOLE & ANOR (1996) LPELR 299. MULIMA V. USMAN (2014) 16 NWLR (PT 1432) 160 and SOBOWALE & ORS V. THE GOVT. OF OGUN STATE (2018) LPELR 43735.
The cause of action as can be gleaned from the Originating process arose on 02/10/2018 and the suit of the Plaintiff was filed on 25/01/2017 a period of over 3 months. Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 4th Alteration provides as follows:-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.
18
The Appellants suit having been filed on 25/01/2019 when the cause of action arose on 02/10/2019 is clearly stale or statute barred. The date of accrual of the cause of action cannot be when the lists of candidates were published by the 3rd Respondent. See PDP V. INNOCENT & ORS (2019) LPELR 47849; PDP V. EKEAGBARA & ORS (2016) LPELR 40849; THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (SUPRA) and BELLO V. AG OYO STATE (SUPRA). It is my humble opinion that this issue for determination ought to be resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
On the Second issued for determination, since the trial Court lacked the Jurisdiction to hear and determine a stale claim, then it also lacked the power to proceed in the determination of the substantive matter before it. Similarly, this Court cannot accept the invitation by the Appellant to invoke the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act in view of the fact that the suit of the Appellant is statute barred.
In the circumstances, both issues for determination are accordingly resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents.
The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly
19
dismissed. The decision of the trial Court in FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2019 by Mohammed, J., is hereby affirmed.
There is no order as to cost.
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the Judgment of my learned brother, ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO JCA before it was delivered. I agree with the reasoning therein and the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. I dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential order.
CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.: I was availed the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, JCA.
I agree with the learned Justice that this appeal is devoid of merit and therefore should be dismissed and it is so dismissed. The decision of the trial Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2019 by Mohammed, J. is also affirmed by me.
20
Appearances:
D. I. Okpe, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Emmanuel Enoideu, Esq. for the 1st Respondents.
Tobechukwu Nweke, Esq. with him, I. O. Ezea, Esq. for the 2nd Respondent.
I. S. Mohammed, Esq. for the 3rd Respondent For Respondent(s)
Appearances
D. I. Okpe, Esq. For Appellant
AND
Emmanuel Enoideu, Esq. for the 1st Respondents.
Tobechukwu Nweke, Esq. with him, I. O. Ezea, Esq. for the 2nd Respondent.
I. S. Mohammed, Esq. for the 3rd Respondent For Respondent