THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF NIGERIA (ICAN) v. MAZI OKECHUKWU UNEGBU & ORS
(2011)LCN/4736(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 15th day of July, 2011
CA/L/134M/2011
RATIO
EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL: DUTY PLACED ON AN APPLICANT SEEKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WHITHIN WHICH APPEAL
The grant of this application is at the discretion of the court which has to be exercised judicially and judiciously. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC, 39; Obikoya v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1989) 1 SC (pt.1) 132. I need to emphasize that this type of application is not granted as a matter of course. The Applicant is under a duty to place enough and credible materials before the court to warrant the exercise of the discretion in his favour, See Akinpelu v. Adegbore (2008) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt.1096) 531; Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1978) 2 SC, 39; Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society ( 1982) 1- 2 SC 145 at 152; EFP Co. Ltd, & Anor. v. NDIC & Anor. (2007) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.1039) 216. In the instant application and from the prayers made by the Applicant, two main reliefs are sought. The first relief is seeking extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal and secondly to appeal as an interested person. Thus, the Applicant has two sets of conditions to satisfy the court in order to succeed in its application. First, the Applicant has to fulfill the conditions for enlargement of time to appeal. Secondly, it has to fulfill the condition of obtaining leave as an interested person. The Applicant has to satisfy the two conditions at once, after all there will be no need to enlarge time if the applicant cannot show that he is an interested party. Conversely, although an applicant may satisfy the condition as an interested person, if he does not satisfy the court why time should be extended, the application may not be granted. See Yesufu v. Co-operative Bank (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.110) 483. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A
EXTENSION OF TIME: STATUTORY PROVISION ON THE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BY THE APPLICANT SEEKING FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL
I shall first consider the conditions for extension of time. The conditions are as provided for under order 7 Rule 10(2) of the court of Appeal Rules, 2007 which maintains its position in the 2011 Rules. The Rule states:- “10(2) Every application for enlargement of time within which to appeal, shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period and by grounds of appeal which prima good cause why the appeal should be heard. When time is so enlarged, a copy of the order granting such enlargement shall be annexed to the notice of appeal”. The language of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules is clear and unambiguous. An Applicant seeking an enlargement of time is required to file an affidavit in support of the application which must give satisfactory explanation for the delay. In other words, the affidavit must show good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within the period prescribed. Such materials as would enable the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant must be made available in the affidavit. Secondly, the Grounds of Appeal must show good cause why the appeal should be heard. The two conditions must be satisfied conjunctively before the extension of time can be granted. See Co-operative and Commerce Bank Nig. Ltd. v. Emeka Ogwuni (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.284) 637; In Re Adewumi & Ors. (1998) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.83) 1. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 243(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 AS IT REGARDS RIGHT OF AN INTERESTED PARTY TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION GIVEN AT THE LOWER COURT
section 243(a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 gives a right to a person to appeal against a decision given, in which he was not a party, and at the hearing of which he did not participate. The section provides:- “243. Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court conferred by this constitution shall be- (a) exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings at the instance of in accused person or, subject to the provisions of the constitution and any powers conferred upon the Attorney General of the Federation or the Attorney General of a State to take over and continue or to discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed”. The above provision places a duty on the Applicant to show that he is a person “having an interest in the matter” or someone who is aggrieved by the decision. The grief here is not an ordinary grief but a legal grievance meaning that you must have an interest in the matter you are grieving as a result of deprivation of something or wrongful refusal of something which ordinarily ought to accrue to the person. Such a person affected by a decision is said to be a person interested. See Ikonne v. COP & Anor (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt.365) 476 at 503; Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.10) 806; In Re Madaki (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt.142) 266 and Williams v. Mokwe (2005) 14 N.W.L.R. (pt.945) 249. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A
JUSTICES
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF NIGERIA (ICAN) Appellant(s)
AND
1. MAZI OKECHUKWU UNEGBU
2. K.P.M.G. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3. GUINESS NIGERIA PLC Respondent(s)
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A (Delivering the Lead Ruling): By a Motion on Notice dated and filed on 17th February, 2011, the Applicant herein prayed for the following reliefs:
“1. An order extending time within which the Applicant shall seek leave to appeal as a party interested against the final decision of the Federal High court, Lagos (coram Abang, J.) in Suit No.FHC/L/CS/373/2010 delivered on 19/11/2070.
2. An order granting leave to the Applicant to appeal (as an interested party/person) against the final decision of Federal High Court, Lagos (Coram Abang, J.) in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/373/2010 delivered on 19/11/10 in tine with the Proposed Notice of Appeal attached and marked Exhibit “AA2”.
3. An Order for an extension of time within which he Applicant shall appeal (as an interested party/person) against the final decision of Federal High court, Lagos in suit No, FHC/L/CS/373/2010 delivered on 19/11/10 in tine with the Proposed Notice of Appeal marked Exhibit “AA2”.
And for such order or such further orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance”‘
NB: Prayer No. 4 was abandoned’
The grounds upon which the reliefs are predicated as stated on the motion Paper are that: –
“(i) The decision of the court below centered on the interpretation of Applicant’s enabling law’ namely: Institute of chartered Accountants of Nigeria Act.
(ii) The decision of the court below adversely affects Applicant’s power to regulate Accounting Practice/Profession in Nigeria and the guidelines issued by the Applicant to Chartered Accountants in Nigeria.
(iii) The Applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and as a party affected by the appeal (sic) intends to appeal against the decision”.
In support of this application, the Applicant has filed a 24 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Ayodeji Awobiyide Esq., a legal practitioner in the Law Firm of Bayo Osipitan and Co. representing the Applicant herein. Attached to the said affidavit are two exhibits marked Exhibits “AA1” and “AA2”. At the hearing of this application, the Applicant abandoned prayer No. 4 which was for an order staying execution/suspending the operation of the Judgment of the said Federal High Court sought to be appealed against pending the determination of this application and the appeal to be filed by the Applicant against the said decision.
Moving the application, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN, leading O. Salisu Esq. relies on all the paragraphs of the supporting affidavit, particularly, paragraphs 11-20 and Exhibits AA1 & AA2 annexed. He submitted that these paragraphs show clearly that the Applicant is interested in the matter. That the Applicant’s Rule of Practice was voided without hearing from it. He posited that at this stage, it does not matter whether the appeal will succeed or not. Learned Senior Counsel then urged the court to grant the application.
In response, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent, Emmanuel Sukore Esq. with C. A. Nwankwo Esq., referred to their 21 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Celestine Nwankwo Esq., a legal practitioner in law firm of Zik Chuka Obi & Co., solicitors to the 1st Respondent and submitted that a party seeking to appeal as an interested person must comply with the Rules of this Court. Referring to Order 7 Rule 7 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, he posited that the Judgment of the lower court sought to be appealed against annexed by the Applicant, is neither signed by the learned Trial Judge nor certified. He urged this court to strike out this application for failure to comply with the Rules of this court.
F. C. Egede Esq., with A. O, Igebu Esq., learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent did not oppose this application.
The 3rd Respondent which was duly served with hearing notice did not appear and was not represented by counsel at the hearing of this application.
In a brief rejoinder, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submitted that it is not necessary at this stage, in the light of a position by the opposing counsel that there is a pending appeal against the Judgment of the court below in this matter and that the record of appeal has been transmitted to this court. That in the light of this revelation, there is no need to exhibit any Judgment at all. He relies on the case of Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assembly (2006) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt,983) 50 at 72 paragraphs F-H.
He urged this court to grant this application. The Applicant herein, is invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this court. The grant of this application is at the discretion of the court which has to be exercised judicially and judiciously. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC, 39; Obikoya v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1989) 1 SC (pt.1) 132.
I need to emphasize that this type of application is not granted as a matter of course. The Applicant is under a duty to place enough and credible materials before the court to warrant the exercise of the discretion in his favour, See Akinpelu v. Adegbore (2008) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt.1096) 531; Akinyede v. The Appraiser (1978) 2 SC, 39; Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society ( 1982) 1- 2 SC 145 at 152; EFP Co. Ltd, & Anor. v. NDIC & Anor. (2007) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.1039) 216.
In the instant application and from the prayers made by the Applicant, two main reliefs are sought. The first relief is seeking extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal and secondly to appeal as an interested person. Thus, the Applicant has two sets of conditions to satisfy the court in order to succeed in its application. First, the Applicant has to fulfill the conditions for enlargement of time to appeal. Secondly, it has to fulfill the condition of obtaining leave as an interested person. The Applicant has to satisfy the two conditions at once, after all there will be no need to enlarge time if the applicant cannot show that he is an interested party. Conversely, although an applicant may satisfy the condition as an interested person, if he does not satisfy the court why time should be extended, the application may not be granted. See Yesufu v. Co-operative Bank (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.110) 483.
I shall first consider the conditions for extension of time. The conditions are as provided for under order 7 Rule 10(2) of the court of Appeal Rules, 2007 which maintains its position in the 2011 Rules. The Rule states:-
“10(2) Every application for enlargement of time within which to appeal, shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period and by grounds of appeal which prima good cause why the appeal should be heard.
When time is so enlarged, a copy of the order granting such enlargement shall be annexed to the notice of appeal”.
The language of Order 10 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules is clear and unambiguous. An Applicant seeking an enlargement of time is required to file an affidavit in support of the application which must give satisfactory explanation for the delay. In other words, the affidavit must show good and substantial reasons for the failure to appeal within the period prescribed. Such materials as would enable the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant must be made available in the affidavit. Secondly, the Grounds of Appeal must show good cause why the appeal should be heard. The two conditions must be satisfied conjunctively before the extension of time can be granted. See Co-operative and Commerce Bank Nig. Ltd. v. Emeka Ogwuni (1993) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.284) 637; In Re Adewumi & Ors. (1998) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.83) 1.
Let me point out here that it is not the duty of the court at this stage to consider whether the appeal will succeed. It is enough that the grounds of appeal are arguable. As to whether the appeal will succeed, this is to be left for consideration at the hearing of the appeal. See Ibodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5-7 SC, 42; Ogbu v. Urum (1981) 4 SC 1; Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society (1982) 1-2 SC 145; Shittu v. Osibanja (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.83) 483; Ukwu v. Bunge (1997) 8 N.W.L.R. (pt.518) 527; Ikenta Best Nig. Ltd. v. Att. Gen. Rivers state (2008) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt.1084) 612.
On the first condition that the Applicant must show good and substantial reason for failure to appeal within time, the Applicant herein had deposed to in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the supporting affidavit as follows:-
“14. That although the Applicant is directly affected by the decision of the lower court, she was not joined as a party to the suit in the court below.
15. that the Applicant only became aware of the proceedings and Judgment of the court below when the Judgment was forwarded to her by the 2nd Respondent”.
It is clear that of the 24 paragraphs contained in the Applicant’s affidavit in support of this motion, the reason for the delay in filing this appeal is contained in paragraph 15 only. That is to say, that the Applicant only became aware of the proceedings and Judgment of the court below when the Judgment was forwarded to her by the 2nd Respondent. With due respect to the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, paragraph 15 of the affidavit is bereft of any particulars to sustain the reason for the delay. For example, there is nothing in the paragraph or any other paragraph of the affidavit to suggest when the Applicant became aware of the Judgment. It is important to state the date the Applicant became aware of the Judgment at least to see whether he was tardy or not. It is trite and very important too, that an Applicant seeking the indulgence of this court must provide enough and credible materials which the court can rely to exercise its discretion in his favour. Although the date the Applicant became aware of the Judgment is important and ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit, I can ignore and play down on this requirement in the interest of justice. But that is not all.
The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent had submitted that the Applicant has failed to comply with Order 7 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Court which requires an Applicant requesting for extension of time to appeal to annex a certified true copy of the decision of the court below sought to be appealed against to the affidavit in support of the application. Order 7 Rule 7 of the Rules of this court, 2007 states:-
“7. The application for leave to appeal from a decision of a lower court shall contain copies of the following items, namely:-
(a) Notice of motion for ‘leave to appeal (Form 5);
(b) A certified true copy of the decision of the court below sought to be appealed against;
(c) A copy of the proposed grounds of appeal; and
(d) Where leave has been refused by the lower court, a copy of the order refusing leave”.
The Applicant annexed to his affidavit in support, Exhibit “AAI” purported to be the Judgment of the lower court sought to be appealed against. That document is neither signed nor certified. I do believe that this is not the type of document envisaged by Order 7 Rule 7(b) of the Rules of this Court. Let me point out that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper and has no effect whatsoever. Having not been signed or certified, I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Applicant failed to obey the Rules of this Court in filing this application.
Whenever this court is invited to make an order enlarging the time within which to do certain things such as extending the time to appeal as prescribed by the Rules of this court, the court must insist that its rules must, prima facie, be obeyed. Thus, to justify the court exercising its discretion in extending the time which is prescribed by the rules of court to do certain procedural acts, there ought to be enough and credible materials in the supporting affidavit explaining the delay in taking timeously such procedural steps. See Akinpelu v. Adegbore (2008) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt.1096) 531 at 568-569 paras H-B; Williams v. Hope Rising Voluntary Society (Supra).
The inevitable conclusion is that the Applicant has failed to obey the rules of this court under which he has invoked the Jurisdiction of this court. The learned Senior Counsel had made frantic effort to save this application by citing the case of Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assembly (Supra) and urged this court to hold that the Applicant was no longer required to obey Order 7 Rule 7(b) of the Rules of this court since the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had transmitted the Record of Appeal to this court in an appeal filed by them. I have perused the entire counter affidavit of the 1st Respondent and I have not seen where it is alleged that the Record of Appeal has been transmitted to this court. All that is therein contained in respect of an appeal is paragraph 16 which states:
“16. That the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have already filed an appeal against the said Judgment. A copy of their Notice of Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit “CNI”.”
That is all. There is no record of appeal before the court. In other words, the Judgment sought to be appealed against is neither exhibited to the affidavit in support of the Application nor found in the Record of Appeal referred by the learned Senior Counsel. In Adeleke’s case (supra), the Record of Appeal was before the court and the court dispensed with the need to attach the Judgment to the affidavit since the Judgment was already in the record before the court. This is not the case here.
Adeleke’s case (supra) does not apply in the circumstance.
The inevitable outcome of this application is that the applicant has not satisfied the conditions for extension of time to appeal. So, although, as I have seen that the grounds of appeal are arguable and ought to be heard, as the applicant has not satisfied the first leg of the condition, the application cannot be granted with one leg. That is as regards the first part of this application.
This brings me to the next condition which is that the Applicant has to show that he is an interested person in the matter. As the Applicant was not a party at the court below when the Judgment was entered, he has to show that a right of appeal enurs to him and that he has interest in the outcome of the appeal. The Applicant must also show that the decision has caused him some loss, grief, disadvantage or affected his title or position.
section 243(a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 gives a right to a person to appeal against a decision given, in which he was not a party, and at the hearing of which he did not participate. The section provides:-
“243. Any right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court conferred by this constitution shall be-
(a) exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter, and in the case of criminal proceedings at the instance of in accused person or, subject to the provisions of the constitution and any powers conferred upon the Attorney General of the Federation or the Attorney General of a State to take over and continue or to discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other authorities or persons as may be prescribed”.
The above provision places a duty on the Applicant to show that he is a person “having an interest in the matter” or someone who is aggrieved by the decision. The grief here is not an ordinary grief but a legal grievance meaning that you must have an interest in the matter you are grieving as a result of deprivation of something or wrongful refusal of something which ordinarily ought to accrue to the person. Such a person affected by a decision is said to be a person interested. See Ikonne v. COP & Anor (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt.365) 476 at 503; Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.10) 806; In Re Madaki (1990) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt.142) 266 and Williams v. Mokwe (2005) 14 N.W.L.R. (pt.945) 249.
The relevant paragraphs of the Applicant’s affidavit showing its interest in this matter are 5 – 22. These paragraphs are hereby reproduced as follows:-
“5. That the 1st Respondent herein instituted an action in the Federal High court against the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein challenging the validity of the Audited Report and Financial statement of the 3rd Respondent which was prepared by the 2nd Respondent.
6. That the Applicant herein is the professional body regulating Accountancy profession in Nigeria under and by virtue of Institute of chartered Accountants of Nigeria Act.
7. That Applicant from time to time pursuant to the ICAN Act issues regulations and guidelines in order to regulate Accountancy Profession in Nigeria.
8. It is also part of the functions of the Applicant herein to ensure that guidelines and regulations is issued by her are in harmony with global Accounting Standards.
9. That the Applicant is a Member of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and is consequently obliged to comply with all the Rules and Regulations of IFAC.
10. That one of the Rules and Regulations of IFAC approved by the Applicant, /s that Audited Reports prepared by ICAN Members should be signed by ICAN Members in the name of the Adult Firm/partnership name.
11. That the above regulation is reflected in Nigerian standards on Auditing (NSA) issued by the Applicant to its Members.
12. That the validity of one of the provisions of NSA and the interpretation of the Applicant’s enabling law, namely: Institute of chartered Accountants of Nigeria ICAN Act, were the central issues of Law litigated and decided upon in the Court below.
13. That the court below voided the Applicant’s Nigerian standard on Auditing (NSA) regulations/guidelines (NSA) on tie ground that they are in conflict with the applicant’s enabling Law. The Judgment of the court below is attached as Exhibit -AA1,.
14. That although the Applicant is directly affected by the decision of the lower court she was not joined as a party to the suit in the Court below.
15. That the Applicant only became aware of the Proceedings and Judgment of the court below when the Judgment was forwarded to her by the 3rd Respondent.
16. That since the said Judgment of the court below many of the Applicant’s Members who were not parties to the proceedings have been confused and have been making inquiries on whether to comply or not to comply with the regulations given to them by the Applicant.
17. That some of the Applicant’s Members have started blaming the Applicant for misleading them through the Nigerian standards on Auditing (NSA) guidelines which was voided by the Court below.
18. The Applicant is dissatisfied with the Judgment of the court below and is desirous of appealing against the said decision.
19. That leave of this Honourable court is required to enable Applicants to appeal against the decision of the lower court as an interested party.
20. That if granted leave the Applicant would file a Notice of Appeal along the line of the Proposed Notice of Appeal attached as Exhibit “AA2″.
21. That the Respondents will not suffer any prejudice if leave to appeal against the decision of the lower Court is granted to the Applicant.
22. That the Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s action challenges the validity of Nigerian Standards on Auditing (NSA) which has been approved by the Applicant for the use of Chartered Accountants in Nigeria”
The contention of the Applicant herein is that it is the professional Body regulating Accounting Profession in Nigeria under and by virtue of Institute of Chartered Accountant of Nigeria Act. Also that it issues regulations as reflected in the Nigerian Standards on Auditing (NSA). However, that by the Judgment of the lower court, this regulation has been struck down which has brought uneasy calm in the body. There is no doubt that the Applicant has shown sufficient interest in the outcome of this appeal. The fact that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have appealed cannot take away the interest and right of the Applicant to appeal. It is my view that the Applicant is an interested person in this appeal.
As I had stated in the first leg of this application, the Applicant failed to provide materials to support application for extension of time. The application is not granted as a matter of course. Though the Applicant has satisfied the court that he is a person interested, yet, not having satisfied the court on the other condition, this application is incompetent and is hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs.
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A.: The granting of the nature of the application at hand is not a matter of course but that which ought to satisfy the provision of order 7 Rule 10(2) of the rules of court. The two salient conditions are well spelt out that the applicant desiring favour from the court must show good and substantial reasons why he failed to file the notice of appeal within the time allowed by the law. The proposed grounds of appeal must also and in additional be arguable. This does not however require that the applicant must show that he will succeed on his appeal. Rather the grounds must prima facie or on the onset show good reason why the appeal should be heard. The two conditions must co-exist conjunctively and not be disjunctive.
The question and proof of the 1st condition is a matter of fact which ought to be deduced from the affidavit evidence placed before the court inclusive of exhibits as well as all other materials. The failure to exhibit a certified true copy of the judgment sought to appeal is very detrimental to the application. I agree with my learned brother John Inyang Okoro JCA that the application is grossly incompetent and is hereby struck out. I also abide by the order made as to costs.
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance the Ruling of my learned brother Okoro J.C.A. just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived thereat. For the same reasons stated in the lead ruling which I adopt as mine I too hold that the application is incompetent and same is struck out. I make no order as to costs.
Appearances
1. Professor Taiwo Osipiton, SAN, with O. Safisu (Miss)For Appellant
AND
2. Emmanuel Sukore, Esq. with C. A. Nwankwo, Esq. for the 1st Respondent.
3. F. C. Egede, Esq. with A. O. Igebu (Mrs.) for the 2nd Respondent.
The 3rd Respondent not in court and unrepresentedFor Respondent
