NZELI EMMANUEL & ANOR V. PRINCESS CHINWE C. NWAEBILI & ORS
(2011)LCN/4842(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 13th day of October, 2011
CA/E/EPT/25/2011
RATIO
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 18 (1), (3) AND (4) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 (AS AMENDED) AS REGARDS WHEN A PETITIONER IS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRE HEARING NOTICE ; WHEN THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT WILL DISMISS A PETITION AS ABANDONED; AND WHETHER THERE IS A SPECIFIC FORMAT FOR APPLYING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRE HEARING NOTICE
Paragraph 18 (1), (3) and (4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), provides thus: “18 (1) Within 7 days after the filing and service of the petitioner’s reply on the respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the respondent’s reply, whichever is the case, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice as in Form TF 007. 18(3) The respondent may bring the application in accordance with subparagraph (1) where the petitioner fails to do so, or by motion which shall be served on the petitioner and returnable in 3 clear days, apply for an order to dismiss the petition. 18 (4) Where the petitioner and the respondent fail to bring an application under this paragraph, the tribunal or court shall dismiss the petition as abandoned petition and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained.” By the aforementioned provisions a Petitioner is mandatorily expected to apply for pre hearing notice. Upon the failure of the Petitioner to apply, the Respondent may apply for pre hearing or for the dismissal of the petition. See Paragraph 18 (3) earlier reproduced above. The court may also dismiss the petition as an abandoned petition, see Paragraph 18 (4) above. The law having placed a mandatory duty on the Petitioner to apply for pre hearing notice, there is no specific format for making the application. The application can therefore be made in any form be it by letter, motion either ex parte or on notice. See the following unreported cases: Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi v. Alhaji Garba Dahiru & Ors, CA/J/EPT/HR/127/2011 of 22nd August, 2011, Ezeude v. John, CA/E/EPT/06/2011 of 5th September, 2011 and Mr. Simon Isa & Anor v. Alhaji Sa’ad Tahir & Anor, CA/YL/EPT/ADS/2/2011 of 6th September, 2011.The application of the 1st Respondent for the dismissal of the petition was rooted in paragraph 18 (3), consequent upon which the tribunal dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition. PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A
ABANDONED: WHAT THE WORD “ABANDONED” ENTAILS
The word ‘abandoned’ etymological derives its origin from the word ‘abandon’. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 7th edition defined the word ‘abandoned’ on page one to mean “left and no longer wanted, used or needed”. To fully understand the import of this definition, resort must still be made to Paragraph 18 and to find out the wisdom of the legislature in making such a provision with heavy sanctions against a Petitioner. By the provisions of Paragraph 18, the Legislature aims at checking indolence on part of Petitioners, particularly considering the sui generis nature of election petitions where time is of great essence. PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A
Before Their Lordships
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIRJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADAMU JAUROJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. NZELI EMMANUEL
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRINCESS CHINWE C. NWAEBILI
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. PROF. (PASTOR) C. E. ONUKAOGU (RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER ANAMBRA STATE)
4. DR. EBUH GODDAY U. (RETURNING OFFICER, IYIOWA ODEKPE/OHITA WARD)
5. EZE ROMANUS O. (COLLATION OFFICER IYIOWA ODEKPE/OHITA WARD)
6. NNATUNANYA EKENE A. (COLLATION OFFICER, OSSOMALA WARD)Respondent(s)
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal herein is against the ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal Anambra State, holden at Awka delivered on 19th August, 2011 in petition number EPT/AN/HA/58/2011, wherein the said petition was dismissed. The tribunal dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition, on the ground that the Appellants as Petitioners applied for the issuance of pre hearing notice prematurely before pleadings were completed.
A brief summary of the facts giving rise to this appeal is hereby made as follows: The 1st Appellant was a candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant at the State House of Assembly election for Ogbaru II State Constituency Anambra State, held on 26th April, 2011 and 6th May, 2011. Upon the conclusion of the election, the 2nd Respondent declared and returned the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election. Peeved by the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election, the Appellants as Petitioners challenged same vide a petition dated 26th May, 2011 and filed the same date.
The ground upon which the petition is anchored is that, the 1st Respondent who was declared elected and returned did not score a majority of lawful votes. See page 3 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellants as Petitioners sought for the following reliefs in paragraph 7 of the petition, namely-
“(a) That the 1st Respondent was not validly elected having not scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the election into the State House of Assembly election held on the 26th April, 2011 and 6th May, 2011 for Ogbaru II State Constituency of Anambra State.
(b) That the 1st Petitioner and his party be declared the winners and the 1st Petitioner elected in the State House of Assembly election held on 26/4/2011 and 6/5/2011 for the Ogbaru II State Constituency of Anambra State having scored the highest/majority of lawful votes cast at the said election.”
See page 9 of the Record of Appeal
Upon the service of the petition, all the Respondents filed their respective replies. The 1st Respondent filed her Reply to the petition on 29th June, 2011, while the 2nd to 6th Respondents Reply was filed on 29th June, 2011. The petitioners’ Reply to 1st Respondent was filed on 5th July, 2011 and the Reply to 2nd to 6th Respondents filed on 18th July, 2011. The Petitioners applied for pre-hearing session vide a letter dated 5th July, 2011. The Petitioners’ reply to 2nd to 6th Respondents was served on the 2nd to 6th Respondents on 19th July, 2011. All parties filed in their pre hearing information sheet and issues for determination. The tribunal adjourned the petition for the commencement of pre hearing session against 4th August, 2011.
On the 6th August, 2011 the 1st Respondent filed a motion on notice for the dismissal of the petition as an abandoned petition. In the course of pre hearing session, the 1st Respondent’s application for the dismissal of the petition was argued on 17th August, 2011. In a reserved ruling delivered on 19th August, 2011, the tribunal dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition on the ground that the application for pre hearing notice was made before the final settlement of pleadings, hence incompetent. Hear the tribunal on pages 482 to 483 of the Record of Appeal:
“Paragraph 18 (1) of the rules provides as follows
18 (1) Within seven days after the filing and service of the petitioners’ reply on the respondents or seven days after the filing and service of the respondents reply whichever is the case, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice as in form TF 008.
From the above provision therefore a petitioner is duty bound to bring the said application within seven days of filing and service of the last pleadings be it the respondent or his own reply to the respondents reply. In the instant case, the last pleading is the petitioners reply to the 2nd to 6th respondents reply dated the 18th day of July, 2011 and filed on the same date, a certify (sic) true copy of which was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit “APP” it is clear from the endorsement of service at the back page of exhibit “APP” (i.e. the said petitioners reply) that same was served on all the Respondents on 19/07/11, In our view the period within which to apply for pre hearing notice is seven days after 19/7/2011 which terminated on 26th day of July, 2011. Therefore any application for pre hearing filed before or after this period is incompetent and we so hold.”
Apparently unhappy and piqued by the ruling dismissing their petition, the Petitioners challenged same by a notice of appeal dated 7th September, 2011 and filed on 8th September, 2011. The notice of appeal is anchored on six grounds of appeal. See pages 485 to 493 of the Record of Appeal. In strict adherence to the Rules of Court and Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions 2011, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. The Appellants brief of argument is dated 20th September, 2011 and filed on 22nd September, 2011. The 1st Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 26th September, 2011 and filed the same date. The 2nd to 6th Respondents’ brief of argument is dated 6th October, 2011 and filed on 7th October, 2011 but deemed properly filed with the leave of court on 10th October, 2011.
Mr. Emeka Agbapuonwu leading Mr. E. Mofumamaya for the Appellants adopted and relied on the Appellant’s brief in urging the court to allow the appeal. Learned counsel however intimated the court that he is abandoning the alternative relief contained in his notice of Appeal. Mr. A. C. Anaenugwu leading T. U. Oguji Esq., Okey Abazu Esq. and Chike Okafor Esq. for the 1st Respondent, adopted and relied on the 1st Respondent’s brief in urging the court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit. Mr. C. C. Okaa leading C. I. Okafor Esq. for the 2nd to 6th Respondents adopted and relied on the 2nd to 6th Respondents’ brief of argument in urging the court to dismiss the appeal.
The Appellants distilled a lone and solitary issue for determination on page 4 of their brief, namely:
“Whether the lower tribunal was right to dismiss the petition on the facts and circumstances of petition.”
The 1st Respondent also formulated a single issue for determination on page 3 of the brief, to wit:
“Whether the Honourable tribunal was right in dismissing the Petition as abandoned petition for non-compliance with the provisions of paragraph 18 (1) of the first Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).”
The 2nd to 6th Respondents on their part, nominated two issues for determination on page 3 of their brief of argument. The two issues are hereby reproduced, viz-
“1. Whether the mere latter to the Secretary of the Tribunal below written outside the period mandatorily stipulated under Paragraph 18 (1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) is a proper Application for issuance of Pre-Hearing Notice as envisaged by law.
2. If the answer to issue one above is in the negative, is the petition of the Appellant at the tribunal below not liable to be dismissed as an abandoned petition?”
All the issues submitted for determination by the parties are basically identical. Hence the lone issue submitted by the Appellants will be adopted in resolving this appeal.
“Whether the lower tribunal was right to dismiss the petition on the facts and circumstances of the petition.”
The appellants made a two pronged argument in launching their onslaught on the decision of the tribunal. The Appellants stated that the application of the 1st Respondent for the dismissal was based on failure to apply for pre hearing notice, not on premature application for pre hearing notice. Learned counsel stated that the tribunal having found that there was an application made, suo motu on its own raised the issue that the application was prematurely made. Learned counsel contended that the tribunal raised the issue and decided on same, without affording parties an opportunity to address it. Learned counsel argued that this is clear case of travesty of justice and on this score alone the decision of the tribunal should be set aside. In support of the submission, reference was made to the following cases: Dr. Reuben Tolorunleke v. ARMTI (2009) 16 WRN 39, Chief V. C. Obumselu & Anor v. Chief Chinyelugo Uwakwe (2009) 28 WRN 147, University of Calabar v. Dr. Essien (1996) 10 NWLR (pt. 477) 225, Oshodi v. Eyifunmi (2000) 7 SCNJ 295, (2001) 11 WRN 86.
The Appellants stated that they were served the 1st Respondent’s reply on 30th June, 2011, to which they filed the Appellant’s Reply on 5th July, 2011. The Appellants further stated that 2nd to 6th Respondents’ joint reply filed on 29th June, 2011, was not served on them until 13th July, 2011. Learned counsel contended that if the Appellants had waited until 13th July 2011, they would have been out of time by 12th July, 2011. Learned counsel argued that at the time the Appellants filed their application, they had no means of knowing whether the 2nd to 6th Respondents had filed their reply to the petition. Learned counsel further argued that all the Respondents having filed pre hearing information sheet, they are deemed to have waived any right to challenge the competence of the pre hearing application.
Learned counsel submitted that the essence of Paragraph 18 (3) and (4) is to punish an indolent petitioner but not a situation as in the present case, where an application has been made. Based on the foregoing, learned counsel submitted that the tribunal was wrong to have dismissed the petition as abandoned based on premature application. In support, reference was made to the following cases: Fayemi v. Oni & 16 Ors (2009) 8 WRN 103, Atiku Abubakar v. Yar’adua (2008) 14 WRN 12, (2008) 12 SCNJ 549 at 581 – 583, Egolum v. Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (pt. 611) 355, Olayinka v. INEC (2009) 32 WRN 105, Ezeude v. John CA/E/EPT/06/2011 of 5th September, 2011, Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi v. Alhaji Garba Dahiru & Ors CA/J/EPT/HR/127/2011 of 23rd August, 2011, Rev. Nyame v. PDP CA/YL/TR/S/6/2011- of 6th September, 2011 and Simon Isa & Anor v. Alhaji Sa’ad Tahir & Anor CA/YL/EPT/ADS/HA/2/2011 of 6th September, 2011. Learned counsel urged that the issue be resolved in favour of the Appellants.
In response, the 1st Respondent stated that by Paragraph 18 (1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010, a petitioner can only apply for pre hearing notice after close of pleadings. Learned counsel submitted that any application made before or after the period stipulated in the Paragraph is incompetent. In support, reference was made to the cases of Azudibia v. INEC (2008) 4 LRECN 105 at 121, Kupolati v. Oke (2009) All FWLR (pt. 486) 1858.
Learned counsel submitted that where the provision of a statute is clear and unambiguous, resort should not be made to the mischief rule of interpretation. In support reference was made to the following cases: IBWA Ltd v. Imano (Nig) Ltd & Anor (1988) 7 SCNJ (pt 11) 326 at 344, A. G. Ogun State v. Alhaji A. Aberuagba & Ors (1985) 4 SC (pt. 1) 288 at 383. Learned counsel argued that the issue of premature application was not raised suo motu by the court, but the parties argued it before the tribunal. In support of the submission reference was made to pages 435 and 478 of the record.
Learned counsel contended that the case of Ezeude v. John (supra) is distinguishable from the case at hand. Learned counsel posited that the case of Azudibia v. INEC (supra) is more apposite to the instant case, hence the court should adopt it. In support, reference was made to the following cases: Dahiru v. Kamale (2005) 9 NWLR (pt. 929) 18 at 41, Ojugbele v. Lamidi (1999) 10 NWLR (pt 621) 167 at 171, Adegoke Motors v. Adesanya (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 74) 108 at 116, Onwumelu v. Duru (1997) 10 NWLR (pt. 525) 377 at 405 – 406, NEPA v. Onah (1997) 1 NWLR (pt 484) 580 at 689, Ojong v. Duke (2003) 14 NWLR (pt. 841) 581 at 618, Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) 12 NWLR (pt. 1100) 95, Ownens of MV “Arabella” v. NAIC (2008) 4 – 5 SC (pt. 11) 204, Sirika v. Bello (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1232) 452 at 458, Enwezor v. INEC (2009) 8 NWLR (pt. 1143) 223.
Learned counsel argued that the tribunal was right when it held that the Appellant’s application dated 5th July, 2011 and filed on 7th July, 2011 as incompetent having been filed before close of pleadings. Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal was right in the light of its findings to have dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition. In concluding, learned counsel urged the court to resolve the lone issue in favour of the 1st Respondent and dismiss the appeal.
The 2nd to 6th Respondents on their part stated that by Paragraph 18 (1) of the 1st Schedule, the Petitioners are to apply for pre hearing within 7 days after the filing and service of the last pleading in the petition. In support of the submission, reference was made to the following cases: Azudibia v. INEC (2008) 4 LRECN 105 at 121, Kupolati v. Oke (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 486) 1858 at 1899, Otito v. Odidi (2011) 7 NWLR (pt. 1245) 108 at 129. Learned counsel stated that in the instant case the last pleading was the Petitioners’ reply to 2nd to 6th Respondent filed on 18th July, 2011 and served on the Respondents on 19th July, 2011. Learned counsel argued that by Paragraph 18 (1), the time to apply for pre hearing started running form 19th July, 2011 and ended on 26th July, 2011. On the computation of time within which to apply for pre hearing, reference was made to the following cases: Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) 12 NWLR (pt. 1100) 95, Enwezor v. INEC (2009) 8 NWLR (pt. 1143) 223 at 237, Orusede v. Dombraye (2008) 2 LRECN 83, Ikoro v. Izunaso (2008) 4 LRECN 1, Maitsidau v. Chidari (2008) 2 LRECN 360, Ado v. Makera (2009) 9 NWLR (pt. 1147) 491, Onyedebelu v. Nwaneri (2008) 1 LRECN 207, Okoroaffia v. Agwu (2008) 12 NWLR (pt.1110) 165 at 187.
Learned counsel submitted that the application for pre hearing made by the Appellants before the close of pleadings is incompetent, as it has not complied with Paragraph 18 (1). On the fatal consequences of failure to obey the Rules of Court, reference was made to the following cases: Ojugbele v. Lamidi (1999) 10 NWLR (pt 621) 167 at 171, Owners of MV “Arabella” v. NAIC (2008) 4 – 5 SC (pt. 11) 204, Williams v. Hope Rising Fund Society (1982) 2 SC 145 Sirika v. Bello (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1232) 452, Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) 12 NWLR (pt. 1100) 95. Learned counsel submitted that an application for pre hearing must be made within the time stipulated in Paragraph 18 (1) and not any other time. In support, reference was made to: Ojong v. Duke (2003) 14 NWLR (pt. 841) 581 at 618. Learned counsel contended that the issue of premature application was never raised suo motu by the court, but was argued by the parties, before the court.
In support of this submission, reference was made to pages 434 to 435 and 477 to 480 of the Record of Appeal and exhibit APP1.
Learned counsel argued that the case of Ezeude v. John (supra) is inapplicable to this case. Learned counsel therefore commended the case of Azudibia v. INEC (supra), as more appropriate and applicable to this case. Learned counsel further submitted that the principle of waiver cannot apply where the law itself removes the exercise of jurisdiction by the court or tribunal. In support of this submission, reference was made to: Enwezor v. INEC (2009) 8 NWLR (pt.1143) 223. Learned counsel contended that the purported application of the Appellants was filed before the service of the last pleading, hence outside the time prescribed by Paragraph 18 (1). Learned counsel further argued that the tribunal was right in treating the petition as an abandoned petition and dismissing same. In concluding learned counsel urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the 2nd to 6th Respondents and dismiss the appeal.
By way of prologue and preamble a start will be made with Paragraph 18 (1) (3) and (4), since the dismissal of the petition was based on the said provision. Paragraph 18 (1), (3) and (4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), provides thus:
“18 (1) Within 7 days after the filing and service of the petitioner’s reply on the respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the respondent’s reply, whichever is the case, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice as in Form TF 007.
18(3) The respondent may bring the application in accordance with subparagraph (1) where the petitioner fails to do so, or by motion which shall be served on the petitioner and returnable in 3 clear days, apply for an order to dismiss the petition.
18 (4) Where the petitioner and the respondent fail to bring an application under this paragraph, the tribunal or court shall dismiss the petition as abandoned petition and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained.”
By the aforementioned provisions a Petitioner is mandatorily expected to apply for pre hearing notice. Upon the failure of the Petitioner to apply, the Respondent may apply for pre hearing or for the dismissal of the petition. See Paragraph 18 (3) earlier reproduced above. The court may also dismiss the petition as an abandoned petition, see Paragraph 18 (4) above. The law having placed a mandatory duty on the Petitioner to apply for pre hearing notice, there is no specific format for making the application. The application can therefore be made in any form be it by letter, motion either ex parte or on notice. See the following unreported cases: Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi v. Alhaji Garba Dahiru & Ors, CA/J/EPT/HR/127/2011 of 22nd August, 2011, Ezeude v. John, CA/E/EPT/06/2011 of 5th September, 2011 and Mr. Simon Isa & Anor v. Alhaji Sa’ad Tahir & Anor, CA/YL/EPT/ADS/2/2011 of 6th September, 2011.The application of the 1st Respondent for the dismissal of the petition was rooted in paragraph 18 (3), consequent upon which the tribunal dismissed the petition as an abandoned petition. The appellants contended that the tribunal raised the issue of premature application for pre hearing notice suo motu, hence resulting in a travesty of justice. I have meticulously perused the Record of Appeal, particularly what transpired during the oral argument of the application, as reflected on pages 478 to 479 of the Record of Appeal. Mr. Agbapuonwu for the Petitioners on page 479 stated thus:
“It is our submission that once we reply to a respondent’s reply, we can bring the application notwithstanding that another set of respondent did not serve us their reply at the time we bring the application. This (sic) is of the essence in election petition matters.”
The above submission is a subtle response by the petitioners to the issue of premature application. The assertion of the appellants that the issue of premature application was raised suo motu by the court, can not hold water and is hereby discountenanced.
In this case, there was an application for pre hearing notice made by the petitioners after the filing of the Petitioners’ reply to 1st Respondent but before the service of the 2nd to 6th Respondents’ Reply on the Petitioners. The contention of the Appellants was that their application was filed within time; hence it was wrong for the tribunal to have dismissed their petition as an abandoned petition. In support of this contention, the Appellants relied heavily on the case of Ezeude v. John (unreported), a decision of this division. The two set Respondents argued per contra and relied heavily on the case of Azudibia v. INEC (supra). It is clearly not in dispute that after the Petitioners’ application for hearing, parties in the petition filled and filed in their pre hearing information Forms with their issues for determination. Indeed pre hearing session commenced on 4th August, 2011 and the application for the dismissal of the petition as an abandoned petition was taken in the course of the pre hearing session. Going by the tenor of Paragraph 18 of the 1st Schedule to the Act, a petition is said to be abandoned when there is no application for pre hearing session.
The next question that readily comes to mind is, whether this petition can be regarded as an abandoned petition, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The word ‘abandoned’ etymological derives its origin from the word ‘abandon’. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 7th edition defined the word ‘abandoned’ on page one to mean “left and no longer wanted, used or needed”. To fully understand the import of this definition, resort must still be made to Paragraph 18 and to find out the wisdom of the legislature in making such a provision with heavy sanctions against a Petitioner. By the provisions of Paragraph 18, the Legislature aims at checking indolence on part of Petitioners, particularly considering the sui generis nature of election petitions where time is of great essence. Paragraph 18 therefore is not intended to punish a diligent petitioner who has ignited and kick started process for the hearing of his petition.
In the case at hand, the tribunal had already activated pre hearing based on petitioner’s application, which commenced on 4th August, 2011. The application for the dismissal of the petition on ground of failure to apply for pre hearing was argued in the course of pre hearing on 17th August, 2011. The ruling dismissing the petition as an abandoned petition was also delivered in the course of pre hearing session. The Petitioners contended that they filed the application for pre hearing after filing their Petitioners’ Reply to 1st Respondent. The petition in the circumstances of this case was obviously not abandoned but on course. The sanction prescribed in Paragraph 18 (3) and (4), should only be applied in circumstances where the petition can rightly be described as abandoned. The provisions of Paragraph 18 (1) ought to be interpreted liberally, particularly where a petitioner is diligent and has made positive efforts as in this case towards the hearing of his petition. See Ezeude V. John (supra). The tribunal was therefore in grave error in dismissing the petition as an abandoned petition.
Consequent upon the foregoing, the lone issue for determination in this appeal is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellants. The tribunal was wrong in dismissing the petition as an abandoned petition. The appeal is meritorious and is hereby allowed. The ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, Anambra State delivered on 19th August, 2011 in petition number EPT/AN/HA/58/2011 is hereby set aside. The petition in hereby remitted for a hearing on the merit by a different panel. There will be no order as to costs.
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A: I agree.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A: I agree.
Appearances
Mr. Emeka Agbapuonwu with E. Mofumamaya Esq.For Appellant
AND
Mr. A. C. Anaenugwu with T. U. Oguji Esq., Okey Abazu Esq. and Chike Okafor Esq. for the 1st Respondent
Mr. C. C. Okaa with C. I. Okafor Esq. for the 2nd to 6th RespondentsFor Respondent
