PATRICK AMOZIE v. CHIZOR LAMBERT ODIDIWE & ORS
(2011)LCN/4688(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 9th day of September, 2011
CA/E/EPT/17/2011
RATIO
ELECTION TRIBUNAL: WHETHER THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A PETITION ARISING FROM A POLITICAL PARTY’S MEMBER NOMINATION
In the recent case of UCHA V. ONWE (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt 1237) 386, the issue for determination was whether having regard to the cause of action being and arising from the result of the 4th Respondent’s nomination exercise, the National Assembly election Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition filed by the 1st respondent. The Supreme Court per Tabai, JSC after a thorough review of the relevant constitutional provisions and the electoral Act concluded thus at Page 427. “In view of the foregoing considerations and particularly having regard to the specific pronouncements of this court on the issue of proper venue for pre-election and post election matters in the cases which I have reviewed above and which I am bound to follow, I hold that the election tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The matter of the petitioner/1st Respondent’s nomination and or substitution is a pre-election domestic matter of the PDP for which determination is vested in the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State.” PER ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR (PJ) Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PATRICK AMOZIE Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIZOR LAMBERT ODIDIWE
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A.:(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the National Assembly/Legislative Houses Election Tribunal Anambra State delivered on 11th July, 2011.
The facts leading to this appeal are that the Appellant as petitioner at the Tribunal below brought a petition dated 13/5/2011 at the Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Awka challenging the election of the 1st Respondent to the House of Representatives representing Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency of Anambra State held on 26/4/2011 wherein he prayed the Honourable Tribunal for the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that under S.65(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Section 31(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended); and Articles 12, 17; 12.18(b) 12.46; 12.47 and 12.37 of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria, and paragraph 50 at page 3; paragraph 51 and 52 at page 32; and paragraph 13 at page 6, all of the election guidelines of the Peoples Democratic Party, 2010, it is only the Peoples Democratic Party through its National Secretariat or National officers that can nominate, sponsor and consequently submit lists of its candidates to contest elective offices in to the offices of the National Assembly.
(b) A declaration that the 2nd Respondent lacks the capacity to refuse a list of candidates duly nominated and submitted by the Peoples Democratic Party through its national officers to contest any elective offices under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
(c) A declaration that the 2nd Respondent lacks the capacity to recognize any list of candidates other than the one duly submitted by the Peoples Democratic Party through its national officers to contest any elective offices under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
(d) A declaration that the petitioner being the candidate duly nominated and submitted by the Peoples Democratic Party is the only lawful candidate sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party to contest for the Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency of the Federal House of Representative, 2011.
(e) A declaration that the petitioner being the candidate duly nominated and sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party is the only lawful candidate to be returned as duly elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party for the Oyi/Anyamelum Federal Constituency, Anambra State.
(f) A declaration that the recognition of any other person as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party to contest for the Oyi/Anyamelum Federal Constituency of Anambra State, 2011 other than the petitioner is ultra vire, illegal, null and void.
(g) An order of the Tribunal returning the petitioner as the duly elected candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency, Anambra State.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE
(h) That it may be determined that the said 1st Respondent was not duly returned and that the petitioner was duly elected and ought to be returned as duly elected candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency, Anambra State.
With the filing of the petition the 1st Respondent filed a motion on Notice challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition, the said motion on notice was filed on the 1st day of July 2011, the petitioner/Appellant filed a counter-affidavit of 7 paragraphs on the 9th day of July 2011 in opposition to the application, The counter-affidavit is also supported by a written address.
The written address in support of the motion on notice for the striking out of the petition as well as the written address in support of the counter-affidavit were adopted by counsel on the 11th day of July 2011 whereupon the tribunal delivered its Ruling same day striking out the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the Ruling of 11th July 2011, the Appellant appealed to this Honourable Court on the 28th day of July 2011.
In accordance with the provisions of the relevant Rules of court and practice Direction 2011, briefs of argument were subsequently filed and exchanged by the parties who eventually adopted and relied on their respective briefs and replies at the hearing of the appeal on 7th September 2011.
The Appellant’s brief of argument dated 19th August 2011 and filed on 23rd August 2011 was settled by K.C. Nwufo Esq. Also the Appellant filed a Reply Brief to the 2nd Respondent’s brief of argument, the reply brief of argument is dated 31st August, 2011 and filed on 1st September 2011, the Reply brief was settled by K.C. Nwufo Esq. The 1st Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 26th August, 2011 and filed on 29th August 2011. The brief was settled by B.O. Okpemandu Esq. The 2nd Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 26th August, 2011 and filed same date, the brief was settled by Emeka Etiaba Esq. The 3rd Respondent’s brief of argument is dated 25th August 2011 and filed on 26th August 2011, it was settled by Ernest Nwoye Esq. It was withdrawn and struck out on 7/9/2011.
In the Appellant’s brief of argument one issued was submitted for determination and the issue is stated thus:-
“Whether the Tribunal was right in declining jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the ground that the petition was based upon intra-party dispute.”
The 1st Respondent also formulated one issue for determination to wit:
“was the Tribunal below right in striking out the petition for having raised the issue of nomination and sponsorship of candidates which is matter falling within the purview of internal and/or domestic affairs of the party”
The 2nd Respondent also submitted a sole issue for determination the issue reads:-
“Whether an inquisition into the validity or otherwise of a nomination exercise (being a pre-election matter) falls within the jurisdiction of an election tribunal”.
I have studied the issues as formulated by the Appellant the 1st and 2nd Respondents and it is my view that the issues are the same in content but differently worded by learned counsel to the parties as such the issue as formulated by the Appellant would be adopted in the determination of this appeal.
In his submissions on the issue counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned judges of the Election Petition Tribunal were wrong when they struck out the petition on the ground that they lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the petition allegedly bordering on intra-party disputes. Counsel to the Appellant argues that the petition was not an issue of nomination of parties who belong to the same political party, the PDP.
Counsel to the Appellant referred to page 434 lines 19 to 28 of the Record of Appeal and contends the Appellant and the 1st Respondent are members of the 3rd Respondent but that the 1st Respondent did not participate in the primary election organized and conducted by the National Assembly Electoral panel appointed for Anambra State by the 3rd Respondent’s National Executive Committee otherwise known as Senator Waku Panel. That it was only the Petitioner now Appellant that was nominated and returned as the party’s flag bearer for Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency by process known and recognized by the 3rd Respondent’s Constitution and its Electoral Guidelines 2010. Counsel submit that paragraphs 1 and 3(a) of the petition which the Tribunal quoted and relied on in its Ruling do not fall within the purview of the issue of nomination of parties or intra party affairs, but rather the said paragraphs 1 and 3(a) of the petition supports the petition as rightly brought under section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2011 (as amended). That this is because the 1st Respondent was not qualified to be issued with a Certificate of Return. He was not qualified to contest the election and did not infact contest the election. Counsel to the Appellant argues that the Appellant was a candidate at the said election who was unlawfully excluded by the 2nd Respondent at the point of declaration of result and issuance of Certificate of Return. That it is trite that election is a process including commencing from accreditation, voting, collation of votes, announcement or declaration of Certificate of Return of candidates reference made to OSUNBOR v. OSHIOMHOLE (2009) All FWLR (PT 463) 1363 AT 1405 PARAGRAPH H.
Learned counsel to the Appellant contends that the Appellant has shown by the averments as contained in his petition that he was validly nominated, participated in the election but however was excluded at the point of issuance with a certificate of return. It is argued for the appellant that the application of the 1st Respondent to strike out the petition on the allegation that the grounds are pre-electoral show a misconception of the meaning of an election and lack of proper understanding of section 137(1) (a) and Section 138 (1) (d). That the facts averred in the petition portray or show a valid process of the petitioner’s nomination before going on to show how and at what stage he was unlawfully excluded.
Counsel to the Appellant conceded that the petition is quite unique and is clearly different from the other petitions presented before the tribunal which dealt with pre-election issues but not in the con of this particular petition in which the petitioner averred facts to show his lawful nomination as well as facts to show his unlawful exclusion. Counsel further submits that this does not automatically mean that the petition is incompetent. On the contrary the petition complied with all the conditions necessary to succeed under section 138(d) of the Electoral Act 2011 (as amended). That this feature therefore make the petition quite different from the other petitions which were struck out by the Tribunal for being pre-election matter. Counsel referred to SUNDAY v. INEC (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 431) 985 at 1003 Paragraphs A-E; PPA V SARAKI (2007) 17 NWLR (PT 1064) 453 at 519-521- Paragraphs G-D.
Counsel urged us to answer the lone issue for determination in favour of the Appellant thus allowing the appeal in the circumstance.
In response to the briefs of the Appellant, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed their briefs of argument which are almost similar in content as such the briefs would be considered together in this judgment.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents submit that the grouse of the Appellant in the appeal at hand is that the Tribunal below struck out his petition on the ground that the said petition raises intra party and pre-election disputes which are matters outside the jurisdiction of an electoral tribunal. That the Supreme Court in several line of authorities including AMECHI V. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (PT 1080) 227 at 310; ODEDO v. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (PT 1117) 554, has clearly postulated that there is a dichotomy between postelection and pre-election matters. In those cases, the Supreme Court has clearly held that pre-election matters are not entertainable by Election petition tribunals. It is for the regular Courts to hear and determine intra-party and pre-election disputes.
Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents contend that a calm consideration of the facts contained in the Appellant’s petition would reveal that the petition of the Appellant raise intra-party and pre-election disputes as to deprive the Tribunal below jurisdiction to entertain same.
That in determining this question the court regard must be had to the conclusion reached by the court below against which no appeal has been lodged by the Appellant. That at page 625 of the Record of Appeal, the Tribunal below found thus.
We have considered all written addresses of the parties in this petition. Paragraph 1 of the petition reads as follows:-
“Your petitioner Patrick Amuzie of Odiyaja, Ugbena village, Omosi in Ayuamelum L.G.A. Anambra State was a candidate at the above election.
He was validly nominated and sponsored by this political party PDP as a candidate for the election as member, House of Representative for the Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency, Anambra State. He participated in the election. His political party PDP won the election”.
Paragraph 3(a) of the petition reads as follows:-
“The return of the 1st respondent who was not sponsored by the PDP instead of the petitioner (who was duly nominated and sponsored candidate of the PDP as winner of the election for the office of a member of the House of Representative representing the Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency Anambra State held on Tuesday 26th April 2011 was ultra vires, unlawful and invalid by reason of non compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.”
Looking at the above 2 paragraphs of the above quoted paragraphs of the petition it is abundantly clear that this is an issue of nomination of the parties who belong to the same political party.”
Counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents submits that a calm consideration of the above reproduced paragraphs of the Appellant’s petition as quoted by the Tribunal below in its ruling appearing at page 625 of the Record of Appeal will show that the petition was predicated on issue of nomination of candidates which said issue an election Tribunal has no jurisdiction over. Counsel argues that it is important to note that the Appellant has not appeal against the specific conclusion and finding reached by the tribunal below in the above quoted ruling of the tribunal. That the finding therefore remains valid and subsisting. That it is not possible for both the Appellant and 1st Respondent to at the same time contest the same election under the platform of the PDP for the same Oyi/Ayamelu Federal Constituency. That the law will take it that it is the validly nominated candidate of PDP that stood for that election, as to who between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent was the valid candidate of the PDP for the election, that question is a matter that can only be determined by a regular court and not an election tribunal.
Counsel contends that the Appellant has argued in paragraph 3.06 of his brief of argument that ground 3(c) of the petition complains that the petitioner was unlawfully excluded in the list of candidates recognized by the 2nd Respondent. The Appellant in paragraph 3.07 of the Appellant’s brief reproduced the said ground 3 (c) of the petition read thus:
“The petitioner who was validly nominated and sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party as candidate for election as member of the House of Representative representing Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency was unlawfully excluded in the list of candidates recognized by the 2nd Respondent (INEC) for the election that held on 26th April, 2011.”
Counsel to 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the Appellant from the facts he put forward in his petition particularly with respect to ground 3 (c) appearing at page 2 of the Record of Appeal has clearly shown that he was not recognized by Independent National Electoral Commission as a candidate for the Oyi/Ayamelum House of Representative election held on 26th April, 2011 to entitle him to be returned in the election at a time when the tribunal would have resolved that the 1st Respondent indeed not validly nominated or sponsored as the candidate of PDP. That it is obvious from paragraph 2 of the petition that the 1st respondent participated and scored the highest number of votes cast in the election on the platform of Peoples Democratic Party. The 1st Respondent having scored the highest number of votes cast in the election was also returned as the winner of the election and certificate of return issued to him on the basis that he was the candidate of PDP, counsel argues that foundational issue of being the candidate of PDP on the basis of which the Certificate of Return was issued to the 1st Respondent raises both intra party and pre-election issues.
That heavy weather was made by the Appellant in his submissions that he was unlawfully excluded in the election at the point of declaration and issuance of Certificate of Return. That this contention of the Appellant is antithetical and of no moment, that the Appellant did not participate in the election by virtue of his averment in paragraph 2 and 3 (c) of the petition he stated inter alia that he was excluded in the recognized list of candidates for the election by INEC therefore could be excluded at the election at the point of declaration and issuance of Certificate of Return.
It is submitted for the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the authorities of SUNDAY V. INEC (2009) 12 NWLR (PT 1154) 194 at 216 and PPA v. SARAKI (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt 1064) 453 at 493 are cases dealing with situations where the petitioners were validly nominated but were wrongfully excluded from contesting the election. In those cases, the candidates and their parties came together to pursue their wrongful exclusion from the election. This is opposed to the situation presented here where the petitioner claiming to have been wrongfully excluded in the election made his party a Respondent in the petition.
It is further submitted for the 1st and 2nd Respondent that decision of the court below that the petition raised intra-party dispute is further re-enforced by paragraph 4 of the petition wherein the Appellant pleaded facts and a host of INEC nomination forms, result sheets, documents from PDP allegedly submitted to the 2nd respondent. That the pre-election suit (suit No FHC/AWK/G5/05/2011 relied by the Appellant, is not indicated in the petition that judgment had been entered against the 1st Respondent denying him of the candidacy of the Peoples Democratic Party. That there was nothing to show that suit No. FHC/AWK/GS/05/2011 was determine to finality. Counsel referred to INAKOJU V. ADEKEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt 1025) 423; NEC v. WADI (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt 104) 446, at 455 and urged the court to look at the interim orders being relied on by the Appellant.
That a glaring feature of those orders is that neither the 1st Respondent nor the PDP was a party in that proceeding. Counsel wonders how the issue of nomination and sponsorship could have been settled in that proceedings without the 1st Respondent and the Peoples Democratic Party being made parties in the proceedings. That apart from the fact that the issue of nomination and sponsorship was not settled in that case, the interim orders do not bind the 1st Respondent or the Peoples Democratic Party reference made to ODEDO V. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1117) 554. Further it is contended for the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the orders given by the Federal High Court at page 53 of the Record of Appeal to the effect that
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT parties should maintain status quo until the matter is disposed of.”
That going by the above quoted order there is no doubt that from its tenor or even the earlier order which had collapsed to give way to the new order that parties should maintain status quo that the Federal High Court did not decide as between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, who was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party and could not have decided that in the absence of the 1st Respondent and the Peoples Democratic Party in the proceedings.
Further counsel contends that both the Appellant, INEC and all authorities in Nigeria are bound by the provisions of Section 87 (10) and 11 of the Electoral Ad, 2010 (As amended) which provides as follows:
10 -“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the section of nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may apply to the Federal High Court or High Court of a state for redress.
11- Nothing in this section shall empower the courts to stop the holding of primaries or general election under this Act pending the determination of the suit”.
Counsel argues that the scope and extent of section 87 (10) and (11) is that pre-election matters have to be decided to finality for them to impact on the nomination and sponsorship of candidates by political parties. This is because section 87 (11) debars the courts from stopping the holding of elections at a time when the pre-election suit is pending.
That in effect, INEC is entitled to proceed to an election with the name of the candidate already received by it unless a final judgment has been pronounced thereupon. It is even more understandable since the holding of an election does not deprive a regular court of the jurisdiction to continue with the pre-election suit reference made to ODEDO V INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1117) 54. It is submitted for the respondents that the appellant is expected to tirelessly pursue his claim at the regular court which will entitle him to step into the shoes or the 1st respondent whenever it is decided that he is the duly nominated candidate of the PDP, until then he should keep his peace and not bother the election tribunal with pre-election issues reference made to UCHA V. ONWE (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt 1237) 386; KOLAWONS v. FOLOSHO (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt 1143) 338.
Further it is submitted for the Respondents that the law is settled that for the purposes of Section 285 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 138 (1) of the Electoral Ad, 2010 (as amended). There is a subject dichotomy into pre-election matters and post-election matters. Pre-election matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts while election tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over post election matters, reference made to ANPP V. ARGONGO (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt 1171) 445 at 464.
Further it is argued for the respondents that it is the cause of action that donates the right to a relief in every matter. That where the cause of action is outside the jurisdiction of the court, a court cannot lawfully on the basis of the reliefs assume jurisdiction in the matter, reference made to MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR, EKITI STATE V. ALADEYELO (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt 1055) 619 at 652.
That the Appellant had sought several reliefs from the trial tribunal, the effect of which if granted will be that the trial court will determine who as between the Appellant and the 1st respondent is the candidate of the 3rd respondent. It is submitted for the respondents that this matter does not come within the competence of the trial tribunal, reference made to ARNOLD AWAFIA V. UBUBA (1966) NSCC 65 at 67. Finally, it was submitted for the respondents that the authorities cited by the appellants which are SUNDAY V. INEC (Supra); PPA. V. SARAKI (Supra); OJUKWU V. YAR’ADUA (Supra) and OSHONBOR V. OSHIMOLE (Supra) does not apply to the circumstance of this appeal in that they do not deal with intra-party and pre-election disputes. That the authorities merely describe the concept of election. Relying on the above premises the respondents urge the court to resolve the issue in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and to dismiss the appeal.
In reply on points of law counsel to the Appellant maintained his stand that the instant appeal is not a pre-election matter, that it is a dispute over the unlawful exclusion of the appellant by the 2nd respondent from the said election when it refused to issue a certificate of Return to the appellant who was validly nominated by the 3rd respondent.
I have carefully considered the sole issue submitted for determination in this appeal vis-a-vis the submissions of learned counsel to the parties and the facts as contained in the Appellant’s petition and the reply to the petition by the 1st Respondent.
Paragraph 1 of the petition states as follows:
1- “You petitioner Patrick Amuzie of Odiyaja Ugbena village, Omasi in Ayamelum L.G.A., Anambra State was a candidate at the above election. He was validly nominated and sponsored by his Political Party, PDP as a candidate for the election as a member, House of Representative for the Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency, Anambra State. He participated in the election. His political party PDP won the election.
Paragraph 3 (a) of the petition states as follows:-
3(a) “The return of the 1st Respondent who was not sponsored by the PDP instead of the petitioner (who was duly nominated and sponsored candidate of the PDP) as the winner of the election for the office of a member of the House of Representative representing Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency Anambra State held on Tuesday 26th April 2011 was ultra vires, unlawful and invalid by reason of non compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. It is clear from the facts pleaded in the petition that the Appellant and the 1st Respondent both belong to the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP. It is also clear from the content of the petition as presented that the dispute between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent is one premised on party nomination of the general election in question. This is purely an intra-party dispute and it is also pre-election issue. That being the case the lower tribunal clearly lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as presented by the Appellant herein.
In the recent case of UCHA V. ONWE (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt 1237) 386, the issue for determination was whether having regard to the cause of action being and arising from the result of the 4th Respondent’s nomination exercise, the National Assembly election Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition filed by the 1st respondent. The Supreme Court per Tabai, JSC after a thorough review of the relevant constitutional provisions and the electoral Act concluded thus at Page 427.
“In view of the foregoing considerations and particularly having regard to the specific pronouncements of this court on the issue of proper venue for pre-election and post election matters in the cases which I have reviewed above and which I am bound to follow, I hold that the election tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The matter of the petitioner/1st Respondent’s nomination and or substitution is a pre-election domestic matter of the PDP for which determination is vested in the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State.”
In the instant appeal, there is no iota of doubt that the dispute between the appellant and the 1st Respondent is clearly premised for party nomination for the recently concluded National Assembly for the Oyi/Ayamelum Federal Constituency of Anambra State which I hold is a pre-election matter.
The sole issue formulated for determination is accordingly resolved against the Appellant in favor of the Respondent. In the result this appeal is totally lacking in merit and should be and is hereby dismissed.
The Ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal Awka delivered on the 11th day of July 2011 is hereby affirmed.
N30, 000.00 cost is awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondent each against the Appellant.
AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A: I agree.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A: I agree.
Appearances
Mr. G.C. Igboke with Mr. H.U. UdenziFor Appellant
AND
Mr. A. Obi-Okafor, SAN with Mr. C.I. Okafor and Miss J.O. Nwankiti for the 1st Respondent.
Mr. E. Etiaba with Mr. S.O. Ibrahim and Mr. C. Okoro for the 2nd Respondent.
Mr. E. Nwoye for the 3rd Respondent.For Respondent
