Hon. Walter Ikechukwu Uzonwanne -VS- The Speaker, Imo State House

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT OWERRI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE I.S GALADIMA

DATE: 20^TH JANUARY, 2020 SUIT NO: NICN/OW/64/2015

BETWEEN:

HON. WALTER IKECHUKWU UZONWANNE ………………………. CLAIMANT

AND

THE SPEAKER, IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
THE CLERK, IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY DEFENDANTS
THE IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

REPRESENTATION:

Obinna Ohaneje for the Claimant.
L.E Onyeananam for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT:

In this action, the Claimant alleges he was a member of the 7^th House of the Imo State House of Assembly by virtue of his being sworn in just 3 months to the expiration of his tenure caused by delay from litigation. Having allegedly lost over 45 months of his tenure, he was finally sworn in following a State High Court’s pronouncement on the 17/3/2015. He now seeks for an order of Court compelling the Defendants to pay him all his accrued salaries for those 45 months, including emoluments, allowances and entitlements which ordinarily come with the office. The Defendants on the other hand deny the Claimant’s membership of the 7^th Imo State House of Assembly, contending that the Court Judgment ordering the swearing in of the Claimant was gotten by the Claimant after he purportedly deceived the Court that the Election in Oguta Constituency was not inconclusive and that he was the winner. He was accordingly sworn in erroneously. They therefore, counter claimed against the Claimant for refunds of all payments he received for the 3 months’ period he spent in office as he was purportedly not entitled to them because the Independent National Electoral Commission accordingly never gave any candidate any return certificate thus presumably meaning he was sworn-in in error and deceit. The Defendants further allege that because of his defection from the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) to the All People’s Congress (APC) which was a party that never sponsored or nominated him, it was erroneous of the Claimant to have believed he validly won his seat as alleged by him. The Claimant’s opposition candidate during the election, Eugene Okechukwu Dibiagwu, had initially applied by way of a motion for joinder in this suit as a co – Defendant but his application was dismissed on the 14/7/2016 by the ruling of this Court delivered by the Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe.

Consequently this suit was commenced by a Complaint accompanied by other originating processes dated and filed on 4/9/2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendants, the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the continuous refusal by the Defendants to pay to him (the Claimant) his accrued and outstanding salaries, emoluments, allowances and other entitlements is wrongful, unjust and unconstitutional.
A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the Claimant is entitled to be paid his accrued and outstanding salaries, emoluments, allowances and other entitlements first from the date of the inception of the 7^th Imo House of Assembly to the date he was sworn into the House and secondly, from the date he was sworn into the house to the date of the termination of the tenure of the House (minus the six months’ salaries, emoluments, allowances and other entitlements representing the amount paid to Hon. Eugene Dibiagwu during his stay in the House.
An ORDER of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to immediately, pay to the Claimant the sum of One Hundred and Eight Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty Six Naira, Two Kobo only (N108,259,626.02) being the liquidated amount accrued and outstanding salaries, emoluments, allowances and other entitlements being owed to the Claimant by the Defendants from the date of the inception of the 7^th House of Assembly to the date the Claimant was sworn into the house.

CLAIMANT’S CASE:

After pleadings were exchanged by the parties’ Counsel, the Claimant opened his case on the 2/7/2019. Claimant testified for himself as CW1. He adopted his deposition dated 28/2/2018 and relied on same as his evidence in chief. He also relied on his reply and further deposition dated 5/9/2018 adopting same as part of his testimony in open Court. A total of 10 Exhibits were tendered by him lettered Exhibits C1 – C10. The Exhibits tendered by him are as follows:

Exhibit C1 – Imo State High Court Judgment and enrolled order dated 13/3/2015 per Hon. Justice C.A. Ononeze-Madu;
Exhibit C2 – Domiciliation of Salary and Emolument Form on behalf of Hon. Walter Ikechukwu Uzonwanne dated 30/3/2015;
Exhibit C3 – Internal Memo demanding payments of 2013 Annual Accommodation Allowance for Hon. Members dated 8/7/2013;
Exhibit C4 – Document dated 26^th May, 2015 titled “RE: PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF MY EMOLUMENTS”;
Exhibit C5 – Letter Written by Obinna Ohaneje & Co. to the Permanent Secretary/Clerk Imo State House of Assembly dated 21/7/2015 titled “Payment of the arrears of my Emoluments”;
Exhibit C6 – Document dated 5/5/2015 titled “Payment of Arrears of my Remuneration and Allowances”;
Exhibit C7 – Document dated 18/6/2019 titled “Passionate Appeal for his Excellency Governor Rochas Okorocha’s Intervention”: RE: Payment of arrears of accrued entitlements and Benefits;
Exhibit C8 – Letter written by Messrs Obinna Ohaneje & Co. and addressed to the Hon. Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General of Imo State dated 6/7/2015 requesting for intervention;
Exhibit C9 – Document from the office of the Clerk of Imo State House of Assembly dated 15/07/2015.
Exhibit C10 – Document titled “Analysis of Allowances Payable to Speaker, Deputy Speaker and other Members of the House for the periods from March to May, 2015.

The Claimant as sole witness, was thereafter cross examined by the Defendants’ Counsel whereupon he closed his case on the same 2/7/2019.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

The Defendants opened their case on 15/7/2019. One Onwuneme Chamberlain Uchenna testified as DW1 and adopted his written deposition dated 4/6/2018 and filed on the same day. 1 Exhibit was tendered by him marked Exhibits D1 (a), (b), (c) respectively. He was duly cross examined by Counsel to the Claimant on the same day and the Defendants thereafter closed their case on that same day.

The Documents tendered by DW1 marked as Exhibits DW1 (a), (b), (c) are copies of Judgment of the Imo State High Court, Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.

Exhibit D1 (a) – the processes filed on Appeal in suit No CA/OW/140/2015: Hon. Eugene Dibiagwu V. Chief Walter Ikechukwu Uzonwanne.
Exhibit D1 (b) – the processes filed before the Federal High Court, Owerri in Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/171/2013: Hon Eugene Dibiagwu V. All progressive Grand Alliance.
Exhibit D1 (c) – the processes filed before the State High Court as Suit No: HOR/146/2014.

DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER CLAIM:

Although the Defendants filed a counter claim along with their Statement of Defence on 4/6/2018, the Defendant’s witness neither depose to a separate oath in support of the Counter Claim nor adopted the said Counter Claim in open Court while testifying. The resultant effect is to consequently deem the Counter Claim as abandoned as pleadings not supported by evidence have no legal effect whatsoever. In the same vain, the Claimants’ Defence to the counter claim shall also not be considered in making my findings in this action — see ADEYINKA AND 3 ORS V. NIGERIAN WIRE AND CABLE PLC NICN/IB//43/2012 per F.I. Kola-Olalere.

Upon the close of evidence and trial, the parties were given sufficient time to file and exchange their final written addresses and submissions whereupon their respective Counsel adopted them on the 12/11/2019 and the matter was adjourned to today for pronouncement of this here judgment.

DEFENDANTS’ FINAL ADDRESS AND SUBMISSIONS:

The Defendants’ lead Counsel’s Final Written Address was filed out of time on the 7/11//2019 wherein two issues were raised for determination to wit:

Whether the Claimant was properly elected and sworn in as a Member who represented the Oguta Constituency in the 7^th House in the Imo State House of Assembly?
Whether the Claimant is duly entitled to his salaries, allowances and emoluments having not worked for 48 months as a member of the 7^th House due to litigation in Court?

On issue number 1, the learned Onyeananam first submitted that Section 118 of the CFRN 1999 provides that “the registration of voters and conduct of election shall be subject to the direction and the supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission”. Accordingly, the Claimant at trial tendered Exhibit “C1” headed Judgment and enrolled judgment order from the Orlu High Court dated 13/3/15. It was argued that the said Claimant was at that time, involved in several matters with a certain Eugene Dibiagwu in different courts on the status of the winner of the election for the state house of assembly representing Oguta at that material time. It was further submitted that Sections 116(1) and 117 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, were both apposite in determining who the winner of that election was between the two contending parties. That in a bid to resolve that matter then, the Claimant was sued as either respondent and or defendant in suits nos. HOR/146/2014, FHC/OW/CS/171/2013 and APPEAL NO: CA/OW/140m/2015.

It was submitted that the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/OW/CS/171/2013 between Hon. Eugene Dibiagwu V. Chief Walter & Ors held inter alia that:

“The independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did not make any return in that re-run election. Rather the Commission declared the re-run election inconclusive. The independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is yet to conclude the election in the remaining Electoral Wards and Units in which elections could not hold on the 29^th June, 2013, despite the order of the Court of Appeal, directing the Commission to do so”

Accordingly, that the Claimant even though aware of this judgment by the Federal High Court, had on the 13^th day of March, 2015 erroneously approached the State High Court in Suit No: HOR/146/2014 and deceptively secured the Court’s order that there was no legal impediment preventing the Respondents House of Assembly and its Clerk, from performing their public duty of swearing him based on the authentic and undisputed result of the election released by INEC. The Claimant had allegedly but contrarily, claimed there that his election was not the subject of any dispute or proceedings in any election petition panel or any Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that it was clear this Claimant never placed or tendered any Certificate of Return or order from the Court of competent jurisdiction to establish that he was properly or lawfully returned by the Independent National Electoral Commission as a member representing Oguta State Constituency by the 7^th House in accordance with INEC Regulations.

Defendants’ Counsel argued that this Claimant, having deceptively obtained the Order of Judgment from the State High Court in Orlu, and upon being sworn in erroneously by the Deputy Clerk barley three months before the 7^th House of Assembly was wound up, cannot sufficiently say that he was properly elected.

He submitted that this Court must resolve issue one in favour of the Defendants and discountenance the Claimant’s claims particularly paragraphs (19) (1) and (2) of the amended Statement of facts.

On issue two learned Counsel summarized the claims made by this Claimant and submitted that some of the claims made by him in his amended statement of facts include payment for work never done for forty five (45) months and throughout the time he was absent from the House as a result of multiple litigations. That from the facts of the claims made, the Claimant was never elected into the Imo State House of Assembly. It was further submitted that the Court must discountenance any claims made by the Claimant summing up to N274,636,234.00 (Two Hundred and Seventy Four Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Four Naira) only purportedly in respect of 45 months out of the 48 months’ tenure of all elected members of the House of Assembly as he did work or function as an elected member who represented Oguta Constituency in the 7^th House of Assembly. Counsel also challenged the claim of 10% monthly pre judgement interest on the above sum from the month of March 2015 to June 2015 and thereafter, 15% monthly interest on the above sum from the month of July until judgment is delivered and thereafter till the amount is fully paid to the Claimant. It was submitted that the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission which provided for the remuneration of elected House of Assembly members specifically mentioned that only elected members are entitled to such allowances and salaries.

Learned Counsel submitted further that the Defendants filed a Counter Claim to the claim of the Claimant. Accordingly, the Defendants’ witness had given evidence in the instance case that the Claimant was not returned as a member representing Oguta Constituency and so it was proper to order the Claimant to refund the salaries and allowances he erroneously received from the office of the Defendants in the 7^th House for the 3 months that he was there.

L.E. Onyeananam argued on that there are no Laws, Acts or Regulations stating that salaries, emoluments and entitlements attract interests when they are not paid within time or does any Civil Service Rule or Public Service Law recommend such.

It was further reiterated that the Claimant neither disclosed to this Court that he was elected or returned by the Independent National Electoral Commission to represent the Oguta Constituency nor did he actually represent his Constituency from June 2011 – June 2015, to be entitled to the sum claimed. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the claims as same are unjustified. Counsel impressed on this Court to refrain from granting any pre or post judgment interests on any claims citing the case of AP V. Aborisade & Anor (2013) LPELR – 20362(CA) where Mbaba, JCA, stated

“A Court is barred from making an award or granting a relief, outside what was claimed in the pleadings and proved by evidence at trial. This is because, being regulated by laws and principles relating to pleadings, and due to the need to be disciplined, predictable act on evidence before it, the Court cannot afford to stray to play the comic role of a “father Christmas” who doles out gifts, unsolicited, to whoever he delights to please”

Counsel finally urged this Court to dismiss this suit in limine.

CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS AND SUBMISSIONS:

Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on 12/11/2019, wherein he raised two issues for determination as follows:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims against the Defendants?;
Whether the Defendants are entitled to their Counter-claim against the Claimant?

On issue one, his Counsel, Obinna Ohaneje argued that he who asserts must prove pursuant to Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and thus questions whether the Claimant has proven his case to justify awarding his Claims. He submitted that every legislative member elected to represent his constituency in the House of Assembly, is in charge of the affairs of his constituency and thus entitled to receive all monies, emoluments, salaries and allowances that were budgeted for and accrued to him and his/her constituency. He submitted therefore that this Claimant was sworn in late because of the protracted litigation with respect to his seat until he finally secured Exhibit CW1 (Judgment and Judgment Order dated 13/3/15) in line with Section 75 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 which provides that “where the Commission refuses and, or neglects to issue a certificate of return, a certified true copy of the Order of a Court of competent Jurisdiction shall, ipso facto, be sufficient for the purpose of swearing-in a candidate declared as the winner by the Court”.

Claimant’s Counsel submitted that the Defendants duly recognized Exhibit C1 by issuing Exhibit C2 which is a Photocopy of letter written by the Director of Accounts, Imo State House of Assembly to Skye Bank, confirming and recognizing the Claimant as a member of the 7^th Imo House of assembly dated 30/3/15 on his behalf. Thus, entitling the Claimant to all those benefits which ordinarily accrued to him and to his Constituency for 45 months prior his swearing in.

Counsel submitted that the appeal against Exhibit C1 had laid to rest all concerns about whether he was validly issued with a certificate of return when it was struck out by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, a valid judgment of a Court operates as res judicata even though an appeal is pending against it. He cited Agbogunleri V. Depo (2008) 1 SC 189 at para F-A; (2008) 3 NWLR (pt.1074) 217 at 247, paras G-E.

Learned Counsel argued that Exhibits D1 (a), (b), and (c) are all irrelevant and inapplicable to this suit. Besides, he emphasized, issues regarding whether the Claimant was duly and validly issued with a certificate of return are outside the scope and jurisdiction of this Court and that this Court can only concern itself with whether the Claimant has proved his entitlements.

Counsel iterated that as at when this Claimant came into and when he was leaving office, he had demanded for all his entitlements which were already budgeted for and kept for him in his Constituency. Accordingly, the Defendants received and ignored all his demand letters, purporting that they admitted to all his claims herein as per the writ of summons and statement of facts. Accordingly, it is trite law that business letters ought to be expressly replied to and that what is not expressly denied must be deemed admitted — R.M.A.F.C V. Onwuekweikpe (2010) ALL FWLR (pt.528) 947 at 953 R.10

Counsel submitted further that these Defendants maliciously denied the Claimant’s claim because he is demanding for his rights and upon recognizing him earlier, the law is trite that one cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time and this Court should not attach any value to the entire evidence produced by the Defendants who accordingly engage in double standards to the detriment of this Claimant — A.G RIVERS STATE V. A.G AKWA IBOM STATE (2011) Vol.3 MJSC at 1. He argued on that these Defendants cannot deny this Claimant all his monies which were budgeted and released for his Constituency but withheld by them for reasons best known to them. Accordingly, what is admitted need no further prove of as an admission is relevant against the party who made it or against his agent — Section 75 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Okparaeke V. Egbuonu (1941) 7 WACA 53 are accordingly apposite. Counsel contended that as a matter of fact, these Defendants must be made to account and extend to the Claimant and his Constituency, that which other Legislators and Constituencies in Imo State obviously received during their tenures. He argued that the case of Mato V. Hember & Ors (2017) LPELR-42765(SC), is on all fours with the instant case, whereat Mato was prevented by a protracted litigation between him and Hember from assuming his legislative roles of representing the Vanddikya/Konshisha Federal Constituency in Benue State. When the case got to the Supreme Court, the apex Court ordered that Hember must refund all the monies, allowances, salaries and emoluments earned and same must be paid to Mato who was accordingly, the rightful winner of the election implying that though Mato has been prevented from assuming his role in the House by a protracted litigation, he was still entitled to all the salaries, allowances, entitlements that accrued all the years and which should ordinarily have been paid to him.

Learned Counsel juxtaposed that like it is obtainable under the Public Service Rules of the Federation, where a Public Servant is wrongly removed, he is not only entitled to reinstatement but to all payments of salaries and allowances which had accrued during the period of litigation and even where reinstatement is impossible, such a person is accordingly still entitled to all the payments he could have ordinarily earned. This was accordingly the underlining ratio in Eze V. Governor Abia State (2014) 7KLR 2935 at 2938, where the Supreme Court was accordingly unanimous in stating that:

“all Courts in the land are Courts of Law and Equity…Once the learned trial judge was unable to order the reinstatement of the appellants because their tenure had lapsed, his lordship was right to order that they be paid their entitlements in lieu of their reinstatement, since unpaid salaries are necessary and incidental to the relief seeking reinstatement.

Mr. Ohaneje stressed that from the above, this Court must agree with the Claimant that there is no other justice to be done in this case except to order that he be paid all his entitlements according to his claims, having finally assumed his position in the 7^th Imo State House of Assembly because “equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation” and also sees as done, that which ought to be done.

He submitted further that having entered the House, the Claimant is presumed to have fulfilled all his legislative roles in the 7^th House and thereby entitled to all the payments of all salaries and emoluments that all Legislative colleagues got. Assuming, the Claimant was allowed to assume his position in the House on time, he would have started with his mates at the same time, fulfilled his legislative roles and collected all his constituency entitlements, adumbrated the Claimant’s Counsel. Therefore, assuming again that the Claimant’s tenure was extended to four years from the time he was finally sworn as it is with the case of the Executive offices, he would have fulfilled his legislative roles and collected all his constituency entitlements. Counsel canvassed that the Claimant, having come this far should not be allowed to go empty handed, as the only remedy the Court is expected to order at this point is monetary payment to put an end to the injustice. He further stated that the Claimant is entitled to cost because the Defendants unjustifiably withheld the Claimants’ money even upon its lawful demand. The Court is entitled in appropriate cases, to award interests in the form of consequential orders — Nigerian General Superintendence Co. Ltd V. Nigerian Ports Authority (1990) 1NWLR (Pt.129) 71. He reiterated that not only have the Defendants been owing and withholding the monies owed as salaries, emoluments and entitlements due to the Claimant which he severally demanded from them since 2015, the Defendants have been doing so without legal justification and ought to consequentially, take responsibility for their actions by paying pre and post judgement interests as claimed by the Claimant on the debt owed to serve as future deterrence. He concluded his submission on issue one by urging this Court to resolve same in the Claimant’s favor.

On issue 2, learned Claimant’s Counsel submitted that it is laughable for the Defendants to set up a Counter-claim against the Claimant for the refund of money paid to him. It was argued that it is on record that the only reason the Defendants set up a Counter-claim is because they believe that the Claimant was not validly elected and issued with a Certificate of Return by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). He pointed out that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether someone has been validly elected into office or not and or whether a person was validly issued with a certificate of return or not since these are issues are reserved for tribunals and regular High Courts. This is a specialized court, educates Mr. Ohaneje, and as such, it is merely saddled with responsibilities connected to industrial/labour related issues, the payment of salaries, emoluments, workers welfare etc.

Accordingly, the counter-claim was an afterthought and should be dismissed. That having slept on their rights, these Defendants have no locus to institute such cross action against the Claimant as they are estopped by law from asserting what they earlier stated. The law is trite that “equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”, argued the Claimant’s Counsel. He urged this Court to grant the reliefs sought citing Magit V. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 2980 SC. 1313 at 1321 R. 11 where Justice Pats Acholonu (JSC) Stated thus:

COURT’S DECISION:

Upon a careful evaluation and consideration of the processes filed, evidence, exhibits adduced in this suit, I find and hold that the lone issue for determination is “whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought”.

The facts which are not in contention are:

that the Claimant was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk of the Imo State House of Assembly barely 3 months to the expiration of his tenure is not in contention.
the fact that he was paid for 3 months during his tenure is also not in contention.
His swearing in was in compliance with the State High Court’s order and this also is not in contention.

Now, the crux of this suit is in respect of the Claimant’s claim for payment of salaries and emoluments purportedly meant for his office during the 45 months’ litigation period and all other appurtenances attached to it. While on the Defendants’ part the Claimant is not entitled to the payments because he was accordingly erroneously sworn in while also counter-claiming for refunds of what he had already been paid, the Claimant believes he is justified to be paid his claims being monies owed for work he was ordinarily expected to have carried out if he had been on seat as a member representing the Oguta Constituency at the 7^th House of Assembly.

Of course I had already dealt with the fate of the Counter claim in my earlier pronouncement and there is therefore no need to revert back or raise the issue any longer.

Meanwhile, as far as the substantive claim is concerned, I quickly find solace in the case of OLA V. INEC AND ANOR (2012) JELR 34968 CA. There, the Court of Appeal stated expressly thus:

The contention of the Appellant that since he was sworn in, on 7th July 2009 he is entitled to salaries, allowances, and emolument accruing to the Seat of Ekiti Central Senatorial District, Ekiti State from 29th day of May 2007 to 6th day of July 2009 is mis-conceived and not backed up by any law. It is morally and politically wrong for a person who did not work to present a claim for salaries, allowances and entitlement which he did not merit.

It is my view that a member of the Senate like the Appellant is only entitled to receive such salary and allowances from the day he was sworn in and not before then. It cannot be retrospective” — per Bada, JCA.

In that case, the facts of which are similar to the action before this Court, the Appellant as Applicant filed an originating summons at the trial court in which he contended that he was entitled to payment of salaries and allowances due to him as a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for a period of four (4) years being the life span of Senate between proclamation and dissolution and specifically that he was entitled to those emoluments between 29th day of May, 2007 and 6th July, 2009 when he was at the Tribunal and thereafter declared the winner of the Election held in April, 2007, but consequently sworn in as a member of the National Assembly (Senate) on 7th July, 2009.

At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court in a considered judgment dismissed the suit. It was against that judgment that the appeal was lodged.

I cannot, in the circumstances, agree with this Claimant that he is entitled to be paid salaries, allowances and emoluments accruable to his office as a member of the 7^th Imo State House of Assembly from 29^th May, 2011 to 25^th March, 2015. The principle of law in the maxim quantum meruit, is that a person is entitled to be paid for services he had rendered. The converse, which also is true, is that a person is not entitled to be paid for services he has not rendered. He is only paid the salaries, allowances and emoluments of that office as a member of the Imo State 7^th House of Assembly de jure and de facto and not as a member designate.

The Claimant’s Counsel in paragraph 4.18 of his final submissions cited the case of Eze V. Governor of Abia State (Supra). That case as relied on by him is not applicable to the instant suit. The crux of that suit is for claims by elected local government councilors of their entitlements whose tenure were illegally cut short by the State Government and during the period of litigation, their tenure elapsed therefore they were entitled to their payments. The situation in the instant suit may have been different if the Claimant was even returned as elected or sworn in before litigation commenced.

For the purpose of clarity in respect of the findings made above, none of the reliefs sought by the Claimant is granted. This suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety without costs.

DELIVERED IN OWERRI THIS 20^TH JANUARY, 2020.

HON. JUSTICE I.S GALADIMA

JUDGE, NICN.