BREAKING: President Tinubu to address Nigerians today

ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI v. TARABA STATE
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS
(2014) LPELR-24021(SC)
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 21st day of November, 2014
SC.418/2013
Before Their Lordships
SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN Justice of The
Supreme Court of Nigeria
SULEIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Supreme Court of
Nigeria
BODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of
Nigeria
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA Justice of The Supreme
Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of
Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN
Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of
Nigeria
Between
ALHAJI SANI ABUBAKAR DANLADI
Appellants
AND
1. TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
2. RT. HON. ISTIFANUS GBANA
(SPEAKER, TARABA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY)
3. HON. JUSTICE J. Y. TURKUR
(ACTING CHIEF JUDGE OF TARABA STATE)
4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF TARABA STATE
5. THE GOVERNOR OF TARABA STATE
6. ALHAJI GARBA UMARU
(DEPUTY GOVERNOR, TARABA STATE)
Respondents
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - IMPEACHMENT: The
impeachment process as provided by Section 188 of the
1999 Constitution which must be strictly adhered to
"For an impeachment to be Constitutional there must be
strict compliance with Section 188 of the Constitution.
Section 188 of the Constitution states that- "188(1) The
Governor or Deputy Governor of a State may be removed
from office in accordance with the provisions of this
Section. (2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing
signed by not less than one-third of the members of the
House of Assembly. (a) is presented to the Speaker of the
House of Assembly of the State. (b) stating that the holder
of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the
performance of the functions of his office detailed
particulars of which shall be specified. The Speaker of the
House of Assembly shall within seven days of the receipt
of the notice, cause a copy of the notice to be served on
the holder of the office and on each member of the House
of Assembly and shall also cause any statement made in
reply to the allegation by the holder of the office, to be
served on each member of the House of Assembly. (5)
Within fourteen days of the presentation of the notice to
the Speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not any
statement was made by the holder of the office in reply to
the allegation contained in the notice) the House of
Assembly shall resolve by motion, without any debate
whether or not the allegation shall be in investigated. (4) A
motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation be
investigated shall not be declared as having been passed
unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-
thirds majority of all the members of the House of
Assembly. (5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion
under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief
Judge of the State shall at the request of the Speaker of
the House of Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons
who in his opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being
members of any public service, legislative house or political
party to investigate the allegation as provided in this
section. (6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being
investigated under this section shall have the right to
defend himself in person or be represented before the
panel by legal practitioner of his own choice. (7) A Panel
appointed under this section shall - (a) have such powers
and exercise its functions in accordance with such
procedure as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly;
and (b) within three months of its appointment, report its
findings to the House of Assembly. (8) Where the Panel
reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has
not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in
respect of the matter. (9) Where the report of the Panel is
that the allegation against the holder of the office has been
proved, then within fourteen days of the receipt of the
report, the House of Assembly shall consider the report,
and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported
by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the
report of the Panel is adopted then the holder of the office
shall stand removed from office as from the date of the
adoption of the report. An examination of Section 188 of
the Constitution reveals that several steps must be taken
before an impeachment can be said to have been done in
accordance with the Constitution." Per RHODES-VIVOUR,
J.S.C.(Dissenting) (Pp.11-13,Paras.B-E) (...read in context)
2. EVIDENCE - AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Effect of facts
deposed to in an affidavit where crucial matters are not
controverted
"Where facts deposed to in an affidavit on a crucial and
material issue are not controverted or denied in a counter-
affidavit such facts must be taken as true except they are
moonshine. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC p. 39." Per
RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.(Dissenting) (P.14,paras.E-F)
(...read in context)
3. LEGISLATION - LEGISLATIVE ACT: Meaning of a
legislative act
"A legislative act is an act within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the legislature. The 1st step in impeachment
proceedings, i.e. the preparation of the Notice is a
legislative act." Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.(Dissenting)
(P.15,para.A) (...read in context)
4. LEGISLATURE - IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS: Whether
legislative acts conducted outside the legislative house will
be deemed inappropriate and a nullity
"The view of the majority is that members of the House of
Assembly can meet anywhere outside the House of
Assembly to prepare a notice alleging misconduct against
the Deputy Governor. To my mind this reasoning is wrong.
A similar procedure occurred in Inakoju v. Adeleke 2007 4
NWLR pt. 1025 p. 579. In that case Tobi JSC referred to
Akintola v. Aderemi 1962 ALL NLR where legislative acts
conducted outside the legislative House was condemned.
His lordship said: "In Akintola v. Aderemi 1962 ALL NLR p.
442 at 443 it was held that anything done outside the
House of assembly to remove the Governor of the Old
Western Region was/is a nullity. The Governor is elected by
the people. The electorate. The procedure and the
proceedings leading to his removal should be available to
any willing eyes. And this, the public will see watching from
the gallery. It should not be a hidden affair in a secret
organization or a secret cult or fraternity where things are
done in utmost secrecy in the recess of a hotel. On the
contrary, a legislature is a public property to the glare and
visibility of the public. As a democratic institution operating
in a democracy, the actions and inactions of a House of
Assembly are subject to public judgment and public opinion.
The public nature and content of the legislature is
emphasized by the gallery where members of the public sit
to watch the proceedings. Although I concede the point
that and legislature has the right to clear the gallery in
certain deliberations for security reasons. I do not think
proceedings for the removal of a Governor should be hidden
from the public." Impeachment proceedings provided by
Section 188 of the Constitution is a purely legislative
Constitutional affair and in exercising their powers good
faith must always be at the forefront of their
considerations. It would amount to bad faith where
members of the House sit outside the House or at strange
hours to conduct impeachment proceedings. Changing the
rules before the commencement of impeachment
proceedings would also amount to bad faith. It is clear that
the conclusion is inescapable that the framers of the
Constitution wanted the House of Assembly to be
responsible at every level (or step) for the ultimate fate of
the Deputy Governor facing impeachment. All steps must
be taken in the House and not from some seedy Guest
House however well meaning. Law and convention cannot
be replaced by the whim and fancies of party members, or
party political agendas outside the House." Per RHODES-
VIVOUR, J.S.C.(Dissenting) (Pp.16-18,paras.D-B) (...read in
context)
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.:(Delivering the
Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the
proceedings of a panel set up by the Acting Chief Judge of
Taraba State at the instance of the 1st Respondent to
investigate allegation of gross misconduct against the
appellant. Based on the report of the panel, the 1st
Respondent removed the appellant from office as the
Deputy Governor of Taraba State.
Appellant challenged his impeachment and removal from
office in the High Court of Taraba State. The trial Court
ruled against him.
He appealed to the Court of Appeal which court dismissed
the appeal.
Appellant then further appealed to this court seeking the
following reliefs:
"a. Allow the appeal.
b. Set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola
Judicial Division in its entirety delivered on 19th July, 2013
which affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
c. Set aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the
appellant's Originating Summons.
d. Nullify the impeachment proceedings and the
impeachment (removal) of the appellant as the Deputy
Governor of Taraba State.
e. An order re-instating the Appellant as the Deputy
Governor of Taraba State."
Appellant herein is also the appellant in Appeal No.
SC.416/2013 in which he sought substantially similar
reliefs against the 7 Member Panel which investigated the
allegation made by the 1st Respondent against him.
There is no live issue in the appeal, the reliefs sought have
been dealt with in Appeal No. SC.416/2013. It is my view
that issues in this appeal have become academic in view
of the judgment in SC.416/2013.
The proper order in the circumstance is one for striking out
and I do hereby strike out the appeal.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.: I have the
benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned
brother, NGWUTA, JSC just delivered.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that having
regards to the judgment of this Court in appeal No
SC/416/2013 involving the same parties, substantially the
same subject matter just delivered, the issues raised and
canvassed in the instant appeal has been overtaken by that
judgment thereby rendering a decision in the instant appeal
of no moment.
The appeal is therefore, in the circumstance struck out.
Parties to bear their costs.
Appeal struck out.
SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C.: I have had the privilege of
reading in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother
NGWUTA, JSC just delivered.
I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that there is no
longer any live issue in this appeal, the main relief sought
by the Appellant having been adequately dealt with in the
sister appeal No. SC. 416/2013, which has been delivered.
Having held in the appeal SC. 416/2013 that the report and
proceedings of the panel, which resulted in the removal of
the appellant was null and void and of no legal effect, I
agree that the issues raised in the instant appeal have
become academic. Consequently, this appeal is hereby
struck out. Parties to bear their respective costs in the
appeal.
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.(DISSENTING
JUDGMENT): I have had the advantage of reading in draft
the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother,
Ngwuta,JSC. His lordship concluded thus:
"There is no live issue in the appeal, the reliefs sought have
been dealt with in Appeal No.SC 416/2015. It is my view
that issues in this appeal have become academic in view
of the judgment in SC.416/2013.
With the above reasoning, His lordship struck out appeal.
After a very careful consideration of the live issue in this
appeal I am of a completely different view. Both appeals are on the impeachment of the appellant -The Deputy Governor of Taraba State.
The issue of this appeal is;
Whether there was compliance with Section 188 of the
Constitution in the procedure adopted by members of the
Taraba State House of Assembly to impeach the appellant.
I read carefully submission of counsel on this issue. I must
say straight away that I am not swayed by the
submissions of learned counsel for the respondents. The
submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is
preferred.
For an impeachment to be Constitutional there must be
strict compliance with Section 188 of the Constitution.
Section 188 of the Constitution states that-
"188(1) The Governor or Deputy Governor of a State may be
removed from office in accordance with the provisions of
this Section.
(2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by
not less than one-third of the members of the House of
Assembly.
(a) is presented to the Speaker of the House of Assembly
of the State.
(b) stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross
misconduct in the performance of the functions of his
office detailed particulars of which shall be specified.
The Speaker of the House of Assembly shall within seven
days of the receipt of the notice, cause a copy of the
notice to be served on the holder of the office and on each
member of the House of Assembly and shall also cause
any statement made in reply to the allegation by the holder
of the office, to be served on each member of the House
of Assembly.
(5) Within fourteen days of the presentation of the notice
to the Speaker of the House of Assembly (whether or not
any statement was made by the holder of the office in
reply to the allegation contained in the notice) the House of
Assembly shall resolve by motion,without any debate
whether or not the allegation shall be in investigated.
(4) A motion of the House of Assembly that the allegation
be investigated shall not be declared as having been passed
unless it is supported by the votes of not less than two-
thirds majority of all the members of the House of
Assembly.
(5) Within seven days of the passing of a motion under the
foregoing provisions of this section, the Chief Judge of the
State shall at the request of the Speaker of the House of
Assembly, appoint a Panel of seven persons who in his
opinion are of unquestionable integrity, not being members
of any public service, legislative house or political party to
investigate the allegation as provided in this section.
(6) The holder of an office whose conduct is being
investigated under this section shall have the right to
defend himself in person or be represented before the
panel by legal practitioner of his own choice.
(7) A Panel appointed under this section shall -
(a) have such powers and exercise its functions in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by
the House of Assembly; and
(b) within three months of its appointment, report its
findings to the House of Assembly.
(8) Where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that
the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings
shall be taken in respect of the matter.
(9) Where the report of the Panel is that the allegation
against the holder of the office has been proved, then
within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, the House
of Assembly shall consider the report, and if by a resolution
of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-
thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel
is adopted then the holder of the office shall stand
removed from office as from the date of the adoption of
the report.
An examination of Section 188 of the Constitution reveals
that several steps must be taken before an impeachment
can be said to have been done in accordance with the
Constitution
.
There is no doubt that step 1 in the impeachment process
is that not less than 1/3 members of the House of
Assembly shall prepare in writing and sign a notice
containing the allegations of misconduct against the
Deputy Governor (i.e. the appellant).
In the affidavit in support of the appellants originating
summons he deposed as follows:
"8. That on 3rd September, 2012, the meeting for the
initiation of impeachment proceedings resulting to the
signing by 19 members of the 1st Defendant was held at
the Guest House of the Majority Leader, Taraba State
House of Assembly (Hon. Charles Maijankai) at Technobat
Quarters, Mile 6, Jalingo, Taraba State.
9. That on the 3rd day of September, 2011, some
members of the 1st Defendant presented a notice to the
2nd Defendant (Speaker, Taraba State House of Assembly)
alleging acts of gross misconduct against me pursuant to
Section 188 of the Constitution.........and both the meeting
and the signing of the Notice of allegation was done at the
Guest House of the Majority Leader, Taraba State House of
Assembly (Hon.Charles Maijankai) at Technobat Quarters,
Mile 6, Jalingo Taraba State.
In the several counter-affidavits filed by the respondents
the above is not denied. The Majority Leader of the Taraba
State House of Assembly, Hon. Charles Maijankai did not
file a counter-affidavit to deny paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
affidavit in support of the Origiuating Summons.
What is the position of the Law?
Where facts deposed to in an affidavit on a crucial and
material issue are not controverted or denied in a counter-
affidavit such facts must be taken as true except they are
moonshine. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC p. 39
It is established beyond all doubt that about 19 members
of the Taraba State House of Assembly met and sat in a
Guest House situate at Technobat Quarters, Mile 6, Jalingo,
Taraba State on the 3rd of September 2013. In that Guest
House they prepared and signed a notice containing,
serious allegations of misconduct against the appellant.
Is the 1st step in impeachment proceedings, a legislative
act?
A legislative act is an act within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the legislature. The 1st step in impeachment
proceedings, i.e. the preparation of the Notice is a
legislative act
.
What did both courts below say?
The High Court said:
"Issuance of the notice of allegation by the 1st defendant
from the scenario above was done on 4/9/12 when the
house sat on the floor to receive a request received by the
speaker for acts of misconduct put together by who
William Shakespeare in his characteristic language will
refer to as "fellow conspirators" to the extent that the
activities of certain members who sat and put together the
notice of the allegation of misconduct dated 3rd September
2012 and later submitted to the speaker must not be
construed as the action of the House of Assembly. Rather
it must be seen as the action of some aggrieved individual
members whereas the house of assembly only became
involved on the 4th September 2012 when the matter was
laid on the table as evidenced by Exhibit HAG 15 votes and
proceedings of 4/9/2012."
And the Court of Appeal said:
"On this issue therefore it is my view that, while the act of
signing of the notice of allegation is definite part of the
legislative act of the members of the House of Assembly it
is not intended by Section 188(2) of the Constitution that
the signatures to the notice of allegation must be
generated from the floor of the House. It is my view that,
once a notice of allegation is presented to the speaker of
the House, signed by one-third of the house, that aspect of
Section 188(2) has been satisfied, and it will not matter
that the signatures had been generated from outside the
House of Assembly or that it was done outside
parliamentary hours.
The issue raised by the appellant therefore has no
substance, and is accordingly resolved against him."
Both courts below were of the view that it is immaterial
where members of the State House of Assembly met to
prepare the notice which contained allegations of
misconduct against the appellant (Deputy Governor of
Taraba State). At the conference of this court the majority
view supports the above.
The view of the majority is that members of the House of
Assembly can meet anywhere outside the House of
Assembly to prepare a notice alleging misconduct against
the Deputy Governor. To my mind this reasoning is wrong.
A similar procedure occurred in Inakoju v. Adeleke 2007 4
NWLR pt. 1025 p. 579 .
In that case Tobi JSC referred to Akintola v. Aderemi 1962
ALL NLR where legislative acts conducted outside the
legislative House was condemned. His lordship said:
"In Akintola v. Aderemi 1962 ALL NLR p. 442 at 443 it was
held that anything done outside the House of assembly to
remove the Governor of the Old Western Region was/is a
nullity. The Governor is elected by the people. The
electorate. The procedure and the proceedings leading to
his removal should be available to any willing eyes. And
this, the public will see watching from the gallery. It should
not be a hidden affair in a secret organization or a secret
cult or fraternity where things are done in utmost secrecy
in the recess of a hotel. On the contrary, a legislature is a
public property to the glare and visibility of the public. As a
democratic institution operating in a democracy, the
actions and inactions of a House of Assembly are subject
to public judgment and public opinion. The public nature and
content of the legislature is emphasized by the gallery
where members of the public sit to watch the proceedings.
Although I concede the point that and legislature has the
right to clear the gallery in certain deliberations for security
reasons. I do not think proceedings for the removal of a
Governor should be hidden from the public."
Impeachment proceedings provided by Section 188 of the
Constitution is a purely legislative Constitutional affair and
in exercising their powers good faith must always be at the
forefront of their considerations. It would amount to bad
faith where members of the House sit outside the House
or at strange hours to conduct impeachment proceedings.
Changing the rules before the commencement of
impeachment proceedings would also amount to bad faith.
It is clear that the conclusion is inescapable that the
framers of the Constitution wanted the House of Assembly
to be responsible at every level (or step) for the ultimate
fate of the Deputy Governor facing impeachment.
All steps must be taken in the House and not from some
seedy Guest House however well meaning. Law and
convention cannot be replaced by the whim and fancies of
party members, or party political agendas outside the
House
.
Legislative business especially for impeachment of a high
official is a very serious matter that demands the highest
standards from honourable members. Their legislative acts
should be seen at all times as in the best interest of the
country and not to settle political scores. Conducting
legislative acts in a Guest House becomes laughable in the
eyes of the public. I must say that the commencement of
impeachment proceedings from a Guest House is a clear
move by the legislators to achieve set goals by
subterranean procedure. It is wrong. The whole world saw
on television the impeachment proceedings of one time
President of the U.S.A Bill Clinton, by the House of
Representatives. It was not a hidden affair. The venue was
the House of Representatives and every step in the
impeachment proceedings was taken/done in the House of
Representatives and not in a Hotel. It is unconstitutional,
null and void for the members of the Taraba State House
of Assembly to deliberate, and then prepare a notice
alleging misconduct against the appellant in a Guest House.
The notice of allegations of misconduct against the Deputy
Governor (the appellant) must be prepared, signed in the
House of Assembly within congressional hours and not
outside the House of Assembly or in a Guest House. The
meeting, by about nineteen members of the Taraba State
House of Assembly in the majority leader's guest house to
prepare and sign a notice of allegations of misconduct
against the Deputy Governor was wrong, and
unconstitutional. This grave error settles both appeals as
this is the first step to be taken in impeachment
proceedings. The Legislators were wrong to have met, sat
in a Guest House. Consideration of denial of fair hearing in
SC.416/2013 would no longer be necessary as that issue is
about step 5 in Section 188 of the Constitution, while the
issue of preparation of notice containing allegations of
misconduct in this appeal is step 1.
Finally and on the contrary it is clear that there is a very
live issue in this appeal. It has not been dealt with in
SC.416/2013. The issue in SC.416/2013 is whether the
appellant was denied fair hearing. The conclusion is that he
was denied fair hearing. I agree with that conclusion, but
since the issue in this appeal comes before the issue is
SC.416/2013, and it is substantial, further consideration of
SC.416/2013 would in the circumstances be a waste of
judicial time.
Appeal allowed. The appellant remains the Deputy Governor
of Taraba State.
KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS, J.S.C.: Following the submission
of the report of the Panel set up by the Acting Chief Judge
of Taraba State at the instance of the 1st respondent to
investigate the allegation of gross misconduct against the
appellant, he was removed from office as the Deputy
Governor of Taraba State and the 6th respondent was
chosen to replace him. The appellant unsuccessfully
challenged the powers of the Acting Chief Judge to set up
the Panel as well as the membership of one of the panel
members, Hajia Aishatu Mohammed. In view of the fact
that the proceedings and report of the Panel were set aside
by this Court a few minutes ago in SC.416/2013, there is
no live issue left in this appeal and the appeal is
consequently struck out. I wish to observe however that
impeachment of any elected or appointed official should be
handled with all seriousness and with solemnity and there
should be strict adherence to all the steps laid down in the
Constitution for the exercise. Parties to bear their costs.
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN,
J.S.C.: I have had the benefit of reading before now the
lead judgment of my learned brother, NGWUTA, JSC just
delivered.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that there is no
longer any live issue in this appeal; the reliefs sought
having been dealt with in the sister appeal in SC.416/2013
in which judgment has just been delivered. Having found
and held in that appeal that the report and proceedings of
the panel upon which the removal of the appellant was
based are null and void and of no effect, I agree that the
issues in the instant appeal have become academic and
the proper order to make in the circumstances is the
striking out of the appeal. I hereby strike it out accordingly.
The parties shall bear their respective costs in the appeal.
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.: The facts leading to this
appeal are the same as in appeal No. SC.416/2013 in
which judgment has just been delivered. The appellant
herein is also appellant in the appeal alluded to above and
the reliefs substantially the same.
Having allowed the appeal in appeal No. SC.416/2013,
there remains no live issue to be considered in the instant
appeal. As was pointed out by my learned brother Ngwuta,
JSC in the lead judgment which I agree, the issues in the
instant appeal have become academic in view of the
decision in SC. 416/2013.
Consequently, this appeal is hereby struck out. Parties to
bear their respective costs.
Appearances
Kanu Agabi (SAN) with him: Yunus Ustaz Usman (SAN), O.
A. Adegoke (Mrs), Udoka Owie (Mrs), Audu Anuga, E. N.
Chia, A. Umar, J. J. Usman, M. G. Egenti (Mrs), M. B.
Odey, Patrick Okoh, Adewale Adegboyega, Ikhide Ehighelua,
Akinola Afolarin, Uchenna Ede (Mrs), Nana Aisha Usman
(Miss), F. F. Nwachukwu-Agbada and Ijedinma Agwu (Miss)
For Appellant
AND
A. J. Akanmode Esq, E. A. Ibrahim Effiong, H. R. Ibi Esq.,
and B. O. Akanmode (Miss) for 1st and 2nd Respondents.
M. M. Nuruddeen Esq., Mathias Ikyuv, Kuyik Usoro and O.
F. Jegede for 3rd Respondent.
M. A. Tende Esq, (A-G, Taraba State), B. M. Isa Esq (S-G,
Taraba State), J. D. Yakubu Esq (DCLO, M. N. Sa'ad Esq
(DLD). Hamidu Audu Esq (DCR), Emeka Okoro Esq., L. M.
Lunar Esq (SSC) and N. A. Tanko Esq (SC II) for the 4th
Respondent.
Yusuf Ali (SAN) with him: Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), A. K.
Adeyi Esq., Prof. Wahab Egbewole, Yakubu Maikasuwa
Esq., K. K. Eleja Esq., S. A. Oke Esq., Alex Akoja Esq., N.
N. Adegboye Esq., K. T. Sulyman (Miss), P. I. Ikpegbu
(Mrs), Halima Sylaiman (Miss), Patience Adejoh (Miss) and
A. O. Usman, Esq. for the 5th and 6th Respondents.
For Respondent