TUMSA & ORS v. JIBO & ORS
(2022)LCN/16518(CA)
In the Court Of Appeal
(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, April 13, 2022
CA/YL/50M/22(R)
Before Our Lordships:
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal
Muhammed Lawal Abubakar Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. HON. TIJJANI TUMSA 2. DR. RACHAEL AKPABIO 3. AJODO MONDAY DAMIAN 4. YUSUF TABUKA 5. HON. BABA GANA TIJJANI BANKI 6. HON. ABUBAKAR HASSAN DIFA 7. DR. ABDULLAHI BABA ISA 8. BARR. TUKUR EL-SUDI 9. MUSA SHEKA 10. ALIYU DANFAMI 11. AHMADU ZAKARI 12. APOLOS JEDIEL APPELANT(S)
And
1. YUNUSA JIBO 2. IDRIS AYUBA 3. PST. STEPHEN OTHANIEL BESHI 4. HON. IBRAHIM DANLADI 5. ADAMU ISA 6. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS 7. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF LAW ON INTERIM RELIEFS
The reliefs sought are interim in nature, it is made without notice to the other side, to keep matters in status quo to a named date, in this case until the Respondents have been put on notice.
The rationale is that delay would arise if the proceedings are conducted in the ordinary way, by putting the other side on notice, it would or might cause irretrievable or serious mischief, it is for cases of real urgency in which the present application is one. See UNION BANK VS. UWA PRINTERS (NIG.) LTD. & ORS(2010) LPELR – 11665 (CA) P. 18, PARAS. A-E. The order sought is interim or a temporary stay of execution of the judgment of the lower Court, the essence is to preserve the status quo ante, until the application on notice is heard and determined. See STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LTD. VS. BRAITHWAITE (2013) LPELR – 20814 (CA) PP. 47 – 48, PARAS. D-E. At this stage, no contentious issue can be decided upon. See 7 UP BOTTLING CO. LTD VS. ABIOLA AND SONS LTD. (supra) and KOTOYE VS. CBN (1989) LPELR – 1707 (SC) PP. 78 – 79, PARAS. B-C. PER UWA, J.C.A.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): The application ex-parte was brought pursuant to Order 4 Rules 1 and 6, Order 6 Rules 1 and 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 and Section 6 (6) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) (hereafter referred to as the Constitution). The following reliefs were sought:
1. “AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting the Applicants leave for a departure from the Provisions of Order 6 Rules 1 and 4 of the Rules of this Honourable Court by granting Leave to the Applicants to make an application for Stay of Execution or injunction pending appeal in respect of an application which ought to have been first made to the lower Court.
2. AND ORDER of the Honourable Court granting the Applicants an Interim Stay of Execution of the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court Jalingo Judicial Division on 1st March, 2022 in Suit No. FHC/JAL/CS/49/2021 between YUNUSA JIBO & 4 ORS V. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & 13 ORS and all subsequent orders made thereto by the trial Court pending the hearing and determination of the Applicants’ Motion on Notice pending before this Honourable Court.
3. AN INTERIM ORDER of maintenance of status quo by restraining the Respondent from giving effect or taking any step to enforce the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court, Jalingo Judicial Division on 1st March, 2022 in Suit No. FHC/JAL/CS/49/2021 between YUNUSA JIBO & 4 ORS V. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & 13 ORS and all subsequent orders made thereto by the trial Court pending the hearing and determination of the Applicants’ Motion on Notice pending before this Honourable Court.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court that the grant of this application shall operate as an interim Stay of Proceedings of all applications pending in Suit No. FHC/JAL/CS/49/2021 between YUNUSA JIBO & 4 ORS V. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & 13 ORS.
5. AND SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this Application.”
The grounds for the application were as follows:
1. “On 1st March, 2022, the Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State delivered Judgment in Suit No. FHC/JAL/CS/49/2021 between YUNUSA JIBO & 4 ORS V. All PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & 13 ORS and set aside the congress of the 6th Respondent conducted on 24th October, 2021 to elect its officials into various offices to run the affairs of the 6th Respondent in Taraba State.
2. The Federal High Court also ordered the 6th Respondent to conduct a fresh congress to elect new officials and restrained the 7th Respondent from recognizing any act of the 8th – 12th Applicants in their capacity as elected officials of the 6th Respondent.
3. The Appellants/Applicants in exercise of their constitutional right to appeal filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal on 4th March, 2022.
4. On 4th March, 2022, the Appellants/Applicants also filed a Motion on Notice before the Federal High Court for a Stay of Execution or Injunction pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to this Honourable Court but the trial Court declined to give a hearing to the application despite that the National Convention of the All progressives Congress is slated for 26th March, 2022.
5. Though the Appellants/Applicants have an application for a Stay of Execution or Injunction pending Appeal before the trial Court, the Court ignored the application and heard the 1st – 5th Respondents on 14/3/2022 on an Ex-parte application and granted them an order restraining the Appellants from participating in the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress slated for 26/3/2022.”
The application was supported by a thirty-one paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 8th Appellant/Applicant to which is annexed a schedule of Exhibits, “BT1” – BT6” showing processes from the lower Court and this Court. Also, a written address in support of the application for an interim stay of execution. In arguing the application, the learned senior counsel, F. K. Idepefo (SAN) relied on the above processes as well as an affidavit of urgency deposed to by the same 8th Applicant filed on the same date, 22/3/2022 showing the timetable released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for Political activities that would lead to the conduct of the 2023 National Elections following the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress (APC) held on 26th March, 2022. Also, relied upon is a further and better affidavit of seven paragraphs in support of the application deposed to by one Blessing Yusuf a Legal Assistant in the Law firm of Messrs F. K. Idepefo, (SAN) & Co. a Senior Counsel to the Applicants.
The learned senior Counsel formulated a sole issue for the determination of the Application thus:
“Whether having regard to the facts and circumstance of this application, the Applicants are not to be entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought by them in the application.”
It was submitted that where an application could be made either at the lower Court or this Court, it should first be made at the lower Court except in “exceptional circumstances”. Further, that though such application to this Court should be by a Motion on Notice but, by the inherent powers of this Court pursuant to Section 6 (6) (a) and (b) of the Constitution to ward off irreparable damage/loss or mischief would exercise its inherent powers and jurisdiction to grant an Ex-parte Order; reliance was placed on CHIEF JOHN ATTAMAH & ORS VS. THE ANGLICAN BISHOP OF THE NIGER & ORS (1999) LPELR – 599 (SC) PAGE 11, PARAS. A – B, MATHEW OKECHUKWU ENEKWE VS. INTERNATION BANK LTD & ORS. (2006) LPELR – 1140 (SC) PAGE 38 PARAS. D-E and KOTOYE VS. CBN & ORS (1989) LPELR – 1707 (SC) PAGE 84, PARAS. E-F. Further, that where an application was not previously made, in an uncommon situation, it could be made ex-parte under special circumstances. See MARTINS VS. NICANNAR FOOD CO. LTD & ANOR (1988) LPELR – 1844 (SC) PAGE 19 – 20 PARAS. B-D and JOHN NWABUEZE VS. OBIOMA NWOSU (1988) LPELR – 2081 (SC) PAGE 16, PARAS. B-G, reliance was also placed on Order 4 Rule 6 (1) of the Rules of this Court, empowering this Court to grant injunctions whether or not sought from the trial Court, conditions under which an interim injunction could be granted were highlighted to the effect that there is a substantial issue to be tried at the hearing, that the Applicant has a strong prima facie case for the relief sought and that the applicant would suffer hardship before the hearing of the substantive matter. See AGBAJE VS. IBRU SEA FOOD LTD. (1972) LPELR – 230 (SC) PAGE 17, PARAS. B – E and OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. A.G. FEDERATION & ANOR (1987) LPELR – 2163 (SC) PAGE 37, PARAS. A – D. The learned counsel challenged the jurisdiction of the lower Court to have entertained the matter, reliance was placed on the following cases decided by the Apex Court, AGUMA VS. APC (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1796) PAGE 351 at 407, PARAS. D – G, ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) VS. DELE MOSES & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PT. 1796) PG. 278 at 323 PARAS. B-C and CHIEF REAGAN UFOMBA VS. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS. (2017) LPELR – 42079 (SC) PAGE 30 – 33, PARAS. A – C. It was submitted that after the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 1/3/2022, the Court made an order ex-parte stopping the activities of the Appellants as officials of the APC from organizing the members in Taraba State to attend the 26/3/2022 National Convention of the 6th Respondent, the party. It was argued that by the provision of Order 4 Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court, the power of this Court is not restricted by reason of an interlocutory order not appealed against. Further, that the ex-parte order granted by the lower Court is against the provision of Section 84 (15) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which forbids a Court from granting an injunction to stop the holding of primaries of a political party. The learned senior Counsel highlighted the exceptional circumstances of this case which qualifies or justifies the grant of the reliefs sought by the Applicants. The circumstances are listed hereunder:
(1) “On 1st March, 2022, the trial Court delivered judgment against the Appellants/Applicants against the backdrop of the Appellants protestation that:
(a) “The Federal High Court being a Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the provision of Section 251 of the Constitution has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit before it.
(b) The cause of action being a challenge against the conduct of Election to elect officials of a Political party is non-justiciable.
(c) The 1st – 5th Respondents did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism contained in the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress before they instituted their action and therefore the action was premature.
(d) The 1st – 5th Respondents who were not cleared to participate in the Election had no locus-standi to challenge the outcome of the election.
(e) The 2nd Respondent did not give consent to institute the action and therefore the action vitiated.
(2) On 4th March, 2022, the Appellants/Applicant filed Notice of Appeal, applied for compilation of record and filed a Motion for a Stay of Execution but applications were not attended to by the trial Court.
(3) On 10th March, 2022, the 1st – 5th Respondents filed a Motion for interim injunction against the Appellants and on 14th March, 2022, the trial Court promptly heard and determined the Motion restraining the Appellants from carrying out the activities of the All Progressives Congress and adjourned the hearing of the Motion on Notice to 30th March, 2022 after the National Congress of the All Progressives Congress would have been conducted on 26th March, 2022.
(4) Since 14th March, 2022 when the Ex-parte Orders were made by the trial Court, the 1st – 5th Respondents avoided serving the Appellants/Applicants with the Ex-parte Order or Motion on Notice but waiting to serve the Appellant/Applicant on the Eve of the National Convention being 25th March, 2022.
(5) The Appellants/Applicants applied for certified true copies of the Motion Ex-parte filed by the 1st – 5th Respondents, the Enrolled Order of the Court and the Motion on Notice filed by the 1st – 5th Respondents along with the Ex-Parte Motion on 15th March, 2022 but the Registrar of the trial Court refused to oblige the Appellants/Applicants waiting to do so on the Eve National Congress of the All Progressives Congress.
(6) The trial Court neglected to give a date for the hearing of the Appellants/Applicants’ Motion for Stay of Execution or Injunction pending Appeal and only issued a Hearing Notice on 18/3/2022 for the Appellants/Applicants’ Motion against 1st April, 2022 after the conduct of the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress.”
The Applicants have sought the leave of this Court for a departure from the provisions of Order 6 Rules 1 and 4 of the Rules of this Court for the Applicants to apply for an interim Stay of Execution or interim injunction pending appeal in respect of an application which ought to have first been sought at the lower Court in respect of the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo Judicial Division on 1st March, 2022 in Suit No. FHC/JAL/CS/49/21 between YUNUSA JIBO & 4 ORS VS. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & 13 ORS and other orders made thereafter made by the lower Court pending the hearing and determination of the Applicant’s Motion on Notice filed on 22/3/2022, same day the application ex-parte was filed, an interim order for stay of execution and proceedings of all pending applications at the lower Court. In the grounds for the application in paragraph (4), it was stated that an application on notice was filed before the lower Court on 4th March, 2022 for a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal against the decision of the lower Court but, the application was not heard and the National Convention of the 6th Respondent took place on 26th March, 2022. In paragraph (5) of the same grounds, it was stated that the trial Court instead of hearing the application for an interim order for stay of execution heard and granted the 1st – 5th Respondents’ application Ex-parte order restraining the Applicants from participating in the National Convention of the party of 26th March, 2022 which has already taken place. The Appellants in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Affidavit in support of the Application alleged that the lower Court made an order that the 6th Respondent should conduct a fresh congress to elect new officials and restrained the 7th Respondent from recognizing 8th – 12th Applicants in their capacity as elected officials of the 6th Respondent as shown in Exhibit “BT1” the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 1/3/2022. It is on record that the Applicants have appealed against the said judgment on 4th March, 2022 at the Registry of the lower Court, a copy of the Notice of Appeal of which is attached to the application as Exhibit “BT2”, it has raised serious issues of law and has challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to have entertained the matter in the first place. The Applicants had by their deposition in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application and from Exhibit “BT4” had applied for the compilation and transmission of the records of appeal. Further, without hearing the Applicants’ application for Stay of Execution of the judgment of the lower Court, the lower Court granted an Ex-parte order of an interim injunction which restrained members of the Executive Committee of the APC from participating in the National Convention of the Party that took place on 26th March, 2022. It is on record that the lower Court granted an Interim Order of Injunction in favour of the 1st – 5th Respondents on 14th March, 2022 after the judgment of 1st March, 2022.
Further, the Ex-parte application leading to the interim order of injunction was filed on 10th March, 2022 before the trial Court by the 1st – 5th Respondents while the Applicants’ application on Notice for Injunction pending appeal was filed on 4th March, 2022 which was withdrawn on 1st April, 2022 following the grant of the interim order of injunction in favour of the 1st – 5th Respondents. In paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 29 the applicants deposed as follows:
19. “That despite EXHIBIT “BT5” coupled with repeated and persistent demand by me through telephone calls to the Registrar of the Court, he neglected to issue the Appellants/Applicants the certified true copies of the above documents nor served the Appellants/Applicants with the Ex-Parte Order made by the Court on 14th March, 2022 nor the Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/65/2022 filed by the 1st – 5th Respondents along with the Motion Ex-Parte but waiting to serve the Appellants/Applicants on Friday 25th March, 2022 at the Eve of the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress.
20. That on Friday 18th March, 2022, Counsel in the Firm of Messrs F.K. Idepefo SAN & Co., that is, M.D. Arosanyin Esq., went to the Federal High Court to follow up Exhibit “BT5” but instead was served with a Hearing Notice wherein the Appellants/Applicants’ Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/56/2022 for Stay of Execution was fixed for 1st April, 2022, five (5) days after the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress. The Hearing Notice is hereby attached and marked as EXHIBIT “BT6” to the affidavit in support of this application.
21. That if this application is not granted, the Appellants/Applicants and 6th Respondent will be prejudiced as the Taraba State Chapter of the All Progressives Congress will be excluded from participation in the National Convention of the All Progressives Congress, which is slated for 26/3/2022.
22. That apart from the National Congress of the All Progressives Congress slated for 26th March, 2022, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has released a Time Table for Political activities that would lead to the conduct of the 2023 National Elections. The following activities have been outlined by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC):
(a) Monday 4th April 2022 – Friday 3rd June 2022, conduct of Party Primaries, including the resolution of disputes arising therefrom.
(b) Friday 10th June 2022 – Friday 17th June, 2022, submission of Nomination Forms to INEC via Online Portal for Presidential and National Assembly Elections.
(c) Friday 1st July 2022 – Friday 15th July, 2022, submission of Nomination Forms to INEC via Online Nomination Portal for Governorship and State Assembly Elections.
(d) Wednesday 28th September, 2022, commencement of campaigns by Political Party for Presidential and National Assembly Elections.
(e) Wednesday 12th October 2022, commencement of campaigns by Political Party for Governorships and State Assembly Elections.
(f) Thursday 23rd February, 2023, last day of campaigns by Political Parties for Presidential and National Assembly Elections.
(g) Thursday 9th March, 2023, last day of campaigns by Political Parties for Governorships and State Assembly Elections.
(h) Saturday 25th February, 2023, Presidential and National Assembly Elections.
(i) Saturday 11th March, 2023, Governorships and State Assembly Elections.
…
25. That unless this application is granted, the Appellants/Applicants and the All Progressives Congress will be denied the opportunity to present candidates to the electorates for the 2023 National Elections which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has set a Time Table that commences on 4th April, 2022.
26. That if this application is not granted, the Appellants/Applicants’ appeal will become nugatory as the period for the conduct of the All Progressives Congress National Convention would have elapsed and the conduct of Party Primaries which processes commence on 4/4/2022 in Taraba State and would be aborted to which the Court cannot ask for reversion to the status quo ante.
27. That the Appellants/Applicants are willing, desirous and ready to prosecute their appeal expeditiously and will cooperate with the Registrar of the Federal High Court as soon as the trial Judge releases the case file for the compilation of the record to facilitate the hearing and determination of the application.” By Exhibit “BT5” dated 15/3/2022, the Applicants had sought the Certified True Copies of the same documents from the Registry of the lower Court, which shows the Applicants’ willingness to pursue their appeal against the decision of the lower Court, subject matter of the application ex-parte. The documents sought from the Registry of the trial Court not yet received are as follows:
28. Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants/Applicants on 4th March, 2022.
ii. Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/56/2022 filed by the Appellants/Applicants on 4th March, 2022.
iii. Motion Ex-parte filed through Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/64/2022 filed by the 1st – 5th Respondents on 10th March, 2022
iv. The Ex-Parte order made consequent to the 1st – 5th Respondents Ex-Parte application by the Court on 14th March, 2022 in Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/64/2022.
v. The Motion on Notice filed with Motion No. FHC/JAL/M/65/2022 filed by the 1st – 5th Respondents on 10th March, 2022 along with their Motion Ex-Parte.
From the above depositions in the affidavit in support of the application, if an Interim Order of Injunction is not granted, the lower Court may not make effort to fast track the compilation and transmission of the records of appeal to this Court until the activities outlined by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the conduct of primaries has elapsed as shown in paragraph 22 (a) – (i) earlier reproduced in this Ruling. I do not see any way the Respondents would be prejudiced if the application is granted, on the other hand, it is in the interest of justice that it should be granted. In paragraph 30 of the supporting affidavit, the Applicants have undertaken to pay damages to the Respondents if this Court finds the application unfounded. I am of the humble view that the application sought before this Court can rightly be termed as made in “Exceptional circumstances” in view of the limited time frame provided by the 7th Respondent in respect of the activities preceding the conduct of 2023 National Elections, which cannot be elongated or changed to accommodate warring party members. Also, the Applicants and the 6th Respondent would be denied presenting candidates to the Electorate for the 2023 Elections as set out in the timetable which commenced on 4th April, 2022. Further, should the appeal favour the Appellants/Applicants if the reliefs are not granted, it will render nuggatory and an academic exercise if by then all the activities preceding the 2023 Elections would have taken place. If this happens the Court would not be in a position to order that the status quo ante be resorted to, forming part of the exceptional circumstances pursuant to Order 6 Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court as deposed in paragraph 27 above. It has been alleged that the trial Court has not released the case file which would form part of the compiled records to be transmitted to this Court for the purpose of facilitating the hearing and determination of the substantive Application on Notice. It is necessary that the Applicants are given an opportunity to pursue the Application on Notice and the appeal against the lower Court’s judgment delivered on 1st March, 2022, the Notice of Appeal in respect of the said judgment is Exhibit “BT2” in the affidavit attached to the motion papers. By the Provision of Order 6 Rule (1) of the Rules of this Court, the Court has the power to grant an order of injunction where it is not sought at the trial Court, with the condition that the Applicants diligently prosecutes the appeal. The Applicants have explained the delay as the registry’s inability to retrieve the case file from the trial Court for the purpose of compiling and transmitting the records of appeal to this Court.
The Applicants have shown that the grounds of appeal have substantial issues to be settled on appeal, not that the Applicants would succeed, the success or failure of the appeal is immaterial at this stage. Further, Order 4 Rule 5, of the Rules of this Courtprovides thus:
5. “The powers of the Court in respect of an appeal shall not be restricted by reason of any interlocutory order from which there has been no appeal.”
Therefore, the Applicants need not have appealed against the interlocutory order of the lower Court made on 14th March, 2022 following an application Ex-parte, the lower Court in granting same stopped the activities of the Applicants as officials of the 6th Respondent from organizing the members of the party in Taraba State attending the National Convention of 26th March, 2022 of the 6th Respondent.
The argument in paragraph 3.08 of the Applicant’s written address is discountenanced as this application is not the forum to decide whether the trial Court had the power or not to have granted the injunction that stopped the participation by the Applicants as officials to attend the National Convention held on 26th March, 2022. Also, paragraph 3.09 touches on the substantive application on Notice, the Respondents would need to respond to the argument if they so wish. It ought not to be raised in an ex-parte application. If the present application is refused, the effect of excluding the Appellants/Applicants from participating in the activities that would lead to the 7th Respondent’s conduct of the 2023 National Elections (outlined in the Timetable for the Political Parties) would have a ripple effect of irreparable damage on the Applicants that cannot be reversed. The Applicants have also shown the necessity of the grant of an interim order of Stay of Execution and the need to maintain the “status quo ante” for the grant of the order. I hold that there is an urgent need to grant the application pending the hearing of the Application on Notice. See 7 UP BOTTLING CO. LTD VS. ABIOLA AND SONS LTD. (1995) 3 NWLR (PT. 383) 257 at 276, KOTOYE VS. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (PT. 98) 419, ITAMA VS. OSARO-LAI (2000) 6 NWLR (PT. 661) 515 at 521 and OLUWANIYI VS. ADEWUMI & ORS. (2010) LPELR – 4885 (CA) PP. 12 – 15, PARAS. E-A.
The reliefs sought are interim in nature, it is made without notice to the other side, to keep matters in status quo to a named date, in this case until the Respondents have been put on notice.
The rationale is that delay would arise if the proceedings are conducted in the ordinary way, by putting the other side on notice, it would or might cause irretrievable or serious mischief, it is for cases of real urgency in which the present application is one. See UNION BANK VS. UWA PRINTERS (NIG.) LTD. & ORS(2010) LPELR – 11665 (CA) P. 18, PARAS. A-E. The order sought is interim or a temporary stay of execution of the judgment of the lower Court, the essence is to preserve the status quo ante, until the application on notice is heard and determined. See STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LTD. VS. BRAITHWAITE (2013) LPELR – 20814 (CA) PP. 47 – 48, PARAS. D-E. At this stage, no contentious issue can be decided upon. See 7 UP BOTTLING CO. LTD VS. ABIOLA AND SONS LTD. (supra) and KOTOYE VS. CBN (1989) LPELR – 1707 (SC) PP. 78 – 79, PARAS. B-C.
In conclusion, considering the circumstances of this application, the Appellants/Applicants are entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought in the application. The sole issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Applicants. In consequence, I grant the reliefs sought in the Application, in paragraphs (1) – (4) earlier reproduced in this ruling.
I make no order as to costs.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I read before now the draft of the lead ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JCA and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by my Lord. I adopt the ruling as mine with nothing further to add.
MUHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading ruling just delivered by my learned brother, Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, JCA. I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother that the application has merit and it is granted as prayed.
Appearances:
F. K. Idepefo, (SAN), with him, F. S. Bashir, Esq., F. R. Baiyo, Esq. and M. D. Arosanyin, Esq. For Appellant(s)
M. A. Attah, Esq. holding brief for S. M. Attah, Esq. – for 7th Respondent For Respondent(s)
