(2018) LPELR-45396(CA)

Transcription

1 FRSC & ORS v. MOHAMMED CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Jos Judicial Division Holden at Jos ON THURSDAY, 3RD MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/J/269M/2012(R) UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Before Their Lordships: HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS- DAWODU Between Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal 1. FEDERAL ROAD SAFETY COMMISSION 2. THE CORPS MARSHALL, FEDERAL ROAD SAFETY COMMISSION 3. THE COMMANDANT, FEDERAL ROAD SAFETY COMMISSION, BORNU STATE 4. MR. A. NAJUME 5. MR. A. S. LAZARUS 6. MR. SHETTIMA 7. MR. I. K. MUSA And ALI MOHAMMED - Respondent(s) RATIO DECIDENDI - Applicant(s)

2 1. APPEAL - EXTENSION/ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO APPEAL: Principles guiding the grant or refusal of an application for extension of time within which to appeal "The instant application is unchallenged as the Respondent had not filed any Counter-affidavit or a written address in response in any way. The 2016 Rules of this Court provides in Order 6 Rule 9 (1) that, time provided for the doing of anything to which the Rules apply may be enlarged by this Court except as it relates to the taking of any step or action under Order 16. Rule 9 Subrule (2) of Order 6, prescribes specifically in respect of the instant application thus: Order 6 Rule 9 (2) Every application for an 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 facie show 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. Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 is also relevant in the determination of this application and provides thus: 24. (2) The periods for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are- (a) in an appeal in a civil cause or mater, fourteen days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three months where the appeal is against a final decision; On the issue of right to appeal, Section 241 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended provides thus: (1) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases- (b) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings; The Grounds of appeal, Exhibit B, filed along with the Applicants' application, which ought to be properly referred to as Proposed Grounds of appeal, in my view and humbly, are of law alone. The law is that, where a ground complains of a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law, or misapplication of the law to the facts before the Court, it is a ground of law, as herein. See the case of ABDULLAHI ABDUL V. CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (2013) LPELR SC. The Grounds are hereunder reproduced for ease of reference without the particulars: GROUND ONE The learned trial judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter notwithstanding the incurable and fundamental defects on the Writ of Summons and service of same. GROUND TWO The learned trial judge erred in law when he held thus in his ruling: "Moreover filing of a memorandum of appearance as done in this matter by the defendants amounts to waiver of an irregularity and a fortiori constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. See ADEGOKE MOTORS V. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (part 109) 250."?And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice. GROUND THREE The learned trial (sic) erred in law and this has led to a miscarriage of Justice when he held in his ruling as follows: "from all the foregoings and in the interest of Justice that I hereby order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this Court be served with the Writ of Summons of this matter retroactively. And I so hold." If that be the position, it means that this application comes under the provision of Section 241 of the Constitution and therefore, it is an appeal as of right, which does not need the leave of the Court. In other words, the Applicants would simply come under the right donated to them by the said provision of the Constitution to appeal, since the grounds of appeal herein as found are of law alone, notwithstanding that it is against an interlocutory order. It is clear from the language used in Section 241 1(b) that it does not exclude interlocutory decisions in so far as the ground or grounds of appeal are of law alone. This Court in the case of ORIEBOSI V. ANDY SAM INVESTMENT CO. LTD (2014) LPELR (CA) removed any likelihood of confusion or mix up with the clear and unambiguous provision of Section 241 1(b) vis a vis Section 242 (1) of the Constitution when it stated thus per Abiru JCA: "...Section 241(1) states, in part, that an appeal shall be as of right from the final decision of the High Court or the Federal High Court and where the appeal is on grounds of law alone while Section 242(1) states that appeal from the decisions of the High Court or of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in all other instances, apart from those provided for in Section 241 (1), shall be with the leave of Court. These provisions have been severally interpreted by the Courts to mean that leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and the grounds of appeal are either on mixed law and facts or on facts alone, and that no leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and it is on grounds of law alone or where the appeal is against a final decision of the High Court irrespective of whether the grounds of appeal are on mixed law and facts or facts alone - GLOBESTAR ENGINEERING COMPANY (NIG) LTD VS MALLE HOLDINGS LTD (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt 622) 271, AHAMEFULE VS IMPERIAL MEDICAL CENTER (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 917) 51, NIC VS ACEN INSURANCE CO LTD (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) 589, KALAGBOR VS GENERAL OIL LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt 418) 303." It is however important to note that, an Applicant whose matter comes under Section (b), and the time as provided under Section 24 (2) of the Court of Appeal Act to appeal lapses, will have to seek an order of Court enlarging the time within which to file his notice of appeal as it is the position of the Applicants. From afore stated provisions of Order 6 Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of this Court, the Applicants need to satisfy two conditions as follows: i. File an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the stipulated time. ii. Grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. See the cases of WILLIAMS V. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1981) ALL NLR (PT. 1) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA (1980) 5-7 SC 42 and DEEN MARK CONSTRUCTION COY LTD V. BISHOP S. ABIOLA (2001) LPELR-CA/IL/13/99(R). A good and substantial ground is one which raises substantial issues of fact or law, issue of jurisdiction and includes pardonable inadvertence, mistake or negligence of Counsel. The Court would readily accede to an application for extension of time to appeal if, there is a good ground for the appeal and is on the issue of jurisdiction, even if no good reasons for the delay are before the Court. This is because jurisdiction is a fundamental issue in every case and can be raised at any time. See the cases of CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET (2014) LPELR-SC 355/2012, ADEYEMI V. YRS IKE OLUWA & SONS LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 309) P. 27, FHA V. KALEJAIYE (2010) 12 SC (PT. III) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA supra, USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. KRAUS THOMPSON ORG. (2002) 15 NWLR (PT. 736) P. 305, OLOBA V. AKEREJA (1988) 3NWLR (PT. 84) P. 508 and UKWU V. BUNGE (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 527. The grant of an application for extension of time to appeal is at the discretion of the Court which should be exercised judicially and judiciously. In doing so, the Court has to consider the rules governing the application. The two necessary conditions are as stated above. A pertinent question therefore, that needs be asked herein is, whether or not the Applicants' Grounds of Appeal are substantial. Ground One of the Grounds of Appeal herein, Exhibit B is on the issue of jurisdiction and the Court would readily accede to an application for enlargement of time, even if no good reasons for the delay is given, due to the fundamental nature of the issue of jurisdiction. Again, see the cases of CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET (2014) LPELR-SC 355/2012, ADEYEMI V. YRS IKE OLUWA & SONS LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 309) P. 27, FHA V. KALEJAIYE (2010) 12 SC (PT. III) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA supra, USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. KRAUS THOMPSON ORG. (2002) 15 NWLR (PT. 736) P. 305, OLOBA V. AKEREJA (1988) 3NWLR (PT. 84) P. 508 and UKWU V. BUNGE (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 527. It is not material that, the three (3) Grounds herein should qualify as good and substantial. It is also immaterial that, the grounds of appeal have to succeed necessarily, but should show good cause why they should be heard. The reason is that, the law seeks to ensure that, an applicant with an arguable appeal should not be denied his constitutional right to appeal. See the cases of ADEWUNMI V. OSIBANJO (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 83) P. 483 and CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET 'XIV' supra. The Applicants averred that, they were out of time to appeal because they were not aware of the Court's sitting on May 23rd 2017 when the Ruling was delivered as they were not put on notice and that, they were unable to obtain the Ruling of the Court in good time, as well as the delay in getting the approval of the Applicants to prosecute the appeal on their behalf. Exhibits D and E, in respect of the Ruling and approval, in my humble view, provide acceptable reason in terms of time, for the delay. And even if that were not so, the fact that there is the issue of jurisdiction involved herein as aforestated, this Court would allow the Applicants' application. It is pertinent to note that, there is no Counter-affidavit against the Applicants position whatsoever. Their depositions remain unchallenged and the law is trite that an unchallenged affidavit, where credible, is deemed as the correct position and admitted. See the cases of ODULAJA V. HADDAD (1973) 11 SC 357, OMOREGBE V. LAWAN (1980) 3-7 SC 108 and DUROSARO V. AYORINDE (2005) 3 SCNJ 8, EZEANYA V. OKEKE (1995) 4 SCNJ P. 60. In the light of the foregoing, in my considered view and humbly, time should be enlarged for the Applicants to exercise their Constitutional right of appeal seeing the issue of jurisdiction is involved and the appeal is arguable. Whether or not the appeal will succeed is a different matter entirely, it is not an issue at this stage, more so, the law does not compel that the grounds must succeed. As aforesaid, where at least one ground is arguable and shows a good cause why the appeal must be heard, that would suffice. Consequently, in view of the preceding paragraphs, one finds this application as meritorious and is hereby allowed."per WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (Pp. 5-14, Paras. B-E) - read in context

3

4 ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): By Motion on Notice dated, August 7th 2017 and filed August 8th 2017, brought pursuant to Order 6 rule 9 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 and the inherent powers of the Honourable Court, the Applicants herein seek in the main the following orders of the Court: 1. An order granting extension of time to the Applicants within which to seek leave to appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria sitting in Maiduguri in suit number FHC/MG/CS/12/2015 delivered on the 23rd day of May, An order granting leave to the Applicants to appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Maiduguri in suit number FHC/MG/CS/12/2015 delivered on the 23rd May, An order granting extension of time to the Applicants within which to file Notice of Appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Maiduguri in suit number FHC/MG/CS/12/2015 delivered on the 23rd day of May,

5 There are four (4) grounds submitted for this application as contained on the face of the Motion paper. An affidavit of six (6) paragraphs was filed along in support and dated September 8th 2017 together with the Ruling of the Court delivered on May 23rd 2017 as Exhibit A, Notice of Appeal and three (3) Grounds of Appeal as Exhibit B, a Further affidavit of five paragraphs deposed to on December 12th 2017 with Exhibit D, being letter dated June 13th 2017 from the Law Firm of A. M. Mshelia & Co. and Exhibit E, being letter from the Federal Road Safety Corps to A. M. Mshelia & Co. dated August 4th A written address dated and filed December 11th 2017 is also brought in support of this application. It is necessary to note that, on February 26th 2018, the adjourned date for the instant application, the Respondent s Counsel as well as the Respondent were absent in spite of the service of the hearing notice for the application on the Respondent s Counsel, Mr. Modu Grema Esq. on February 22nd Upon satisfaction that the Respondent through his Counsel was duly notified of the day s hearing, the 2

6 application was taken and the Applicant s Counsel, Mr. A. M. Mshelia accordingly, moved the Applicants application and adopted the written address in respect thereof. This appeal arose as a result of the Ruling of the Court below delivered by Hon. Justice M. T. Salihu of the Borno State High Court, Maiduguri on May 23rd 2017, pursuant to the Applicants Preliminary Objection on the import of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Order 26 Rules 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Federal High Court Rules of 2009, to the effect that, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that, the Respondent s Writ of Summons was incompetent. The Court in the said Ruling ordered that, the Appellants residing outside its jurisdiction be served with the Writ of Summons retroactively. Being dissatisfied with the decision, the Applicants have come with the instant application for enlargement of time and leave to appeal. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS The learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr. A. M. Mshelia, argued as follows on the sole issue he submitted: That, the delay in filing the Applicants Notice of Appeal was 3

7 because they were not aware of the Court s sitting on May 23rd 2017 when the Ruling was delivered since they were not put on notice. Further that, they did not receive the copy of the Ruling on time and the approval of the Applicants to appeal came after the statutory period had lapsed. He asserted that, the Applicants from their affidavits in support have good and substantial reasons for being late and referred in particular to paragraph 4 (b) (j) and Exhibits B, C, D and E. Further that, there are grounds of appeal which prima facie show cause why the appeal should be heard. The foregoing conditions he submitted, guide this Court in an application of this nature and that there is unfettered jurisdiction and powers of the Court to grant the application. In support, he cited the case of MINISTER OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND ANOR. V. EXPO-SHIPPING LINE NIG. LTD. (2010) 4 SCNJ 155, and ONASHILE V. IDOWU (1961) SCNJ 16. He submitted in conclusion that, there is no Counter-affidavit to their affidavits which remain unchallenged and the Respondent had failed to react in any way to the application. Therefore, he is deemed 4

8 to have no objection to the application and cited in support the case of NIGERCHIN IND. LTD. V. OLADEHIN (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 1998) 536. In consequence, he urged that, the application be allowed and the prayers of the Applicants be granted as prayed. THE COURT The instant application is unchallenged as the Respondent had not filed any Counter-affidavit or a written address in response in any way. The 2016 Rules of this Court provides in Order 6 Rule 9 (1) that, time provided for the doing of anything to which the Rules apply may be enlarged by this Court except as it relates to the taking of any step or action under Order 16. Rule 9 Subrule (2) of Order 6, prescribes specifically in respect of the instant application thus: Order 6 Rule 9 (2) Every application for an 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 facie show 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. 5

9 Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004 is also relevant in the determination of this application and provides thus: 24. (2) The periods for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are- (a) in an appeal in a civil cause or mater, fourteen days where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision and three months where the appeal is against a final decision; On the issue of right to appeal, Section 241 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended provides thus: 241 (1) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases- (b) Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings; The Grounds of appeal, Exhibit B, filed along with the Applicants application, which ought to be properly referred 6

10 to as Proposed Grounds of appeal, in my view and humbly, are of law alone. The law is that, where a ground complains of a misunderstanding by the lower Court of the law, or misapplication of the law to the facts before the Court, it is a ground of law, as herein. See the case of ABDULLAHI ABDUL V. CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE (2013) LPELR SC. The Grounds are hereunder reproduced for ease of reference without the particulars: GROUND ONE The learned trial judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter notwithstanding the incurable and fundamental defects on the Writ of Summons and service of same. GROUND TWO The learned trial judge erred in law when he held thus in his ruling: Moreover filing of a memorandum of appearance as done in this matter by the defendants amounts to waiver of an irregularity and a fortiori constitutes a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. See ADEGOKE MOTORS V. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (part 109) 250. And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice. 7

11 GROUND THREE The learned trial (sic) erred in law and this has led to a miscarriage of Justice when he held in his ruling as follows: from all the foregoings and in the interest of Justice that I hereby order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this Court be served with the Writ of Summons of this matter retroactively. And I so hold." If that be the position, it means that this application comes under the provision of Section 241 of the Constitution and therefore, it is an appeal as of right, which does not need the leave of the Court. In other words, the Applicants would simply come under the right donated to them by the said provision of the Constitution to appeal, since the grounds of appeal herein as found are of law alone, notwithstanding that it is against an interlocutory order. It is clear from the language used in Section 241 1(b) that it does not exclude interlocutory decisions in so far as the ground or grounds of appeal are of law alone. This Court in the case of ORIEBOSI V. ANDY SAM INVESTMENT CO. LTD (2014) 8

12 LPELR (CA) removed any likelihood of confusion or mix up with the clear and unambiguous provision of Section 241 1(b) vis a vis Section 242 (1) of the Constitution when it stated thus per Abiru JCA:.Section 241(1) states, in part, that an appeal shall be as of right from the final decision of the High Court or the Federal High Court and where the appeal is on grounds of law alone while Section 242(1) states that appeal from the decisions of the High Court or of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in all other instances, apart from those provided for in Section 241 (1), shall be with the leave of Court. These provisions have been severally interpreted by the Courts to mean that leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and the grounds of appeal are either on mixed law and facts or on facts alone, and that no leave to appeal is required where the appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court and it is on grounds of law alone or where the appeal is against a final decision of the High Court irrespective of whether the grounds of 9

13 appeal are on mixed law and facts or facts alone - GLOBESTAR ENGINEERING COMPANY (NIG) LTD VS MALLE HOLDINGS LTD (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt 622) 271, AHAMEFULE VS IMPERIAL MEDICAL CENTER (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 917) 51, NIC VS ACEN INSURANCE CO LTD (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) 589, KALAGBOR VS GENERAL OIL LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt 418) 303." It is however important to note that, an Applicant whose matter comes under Section (b), and the time as provided under Section 24 (2) of the Court of Appeal Act to appeal lapses, will have to seek an order of Court enlarging the time within which to file his notice of appeal as it is the position of the Applicants. From afore stated provisions of Order 6 Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of this Court, the Applicants need to satisfy two conditions as follows: i. File an affidavit setting forth good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the stipulated time. ii. Grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard. See the cases of WILLIAMS V. HOPE RISING 10

14 VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1981) ALL NLR (PT. 1) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA (1980) 5-7 SC 42 and DEEN MARK CONSTRUCTION COY LTD V. BISHOP S. ABIOLA (2001) LPELR-CA/IL/13/99(R). A good and substantial ground is one which raises substantial issues of fact or law, issue of jurisdiction and includes pardonable inadvertence, mistake or negligence of Counsel. The Court would readily accede to an application for extension of time to appeal if, there is a good ground for the appeal and is on the issue of jurisdiction, even if no good reasons for the delay are before the Court. This is because jurisdiction is a fundamental issue in every case and can be raised at any time. See the cases of CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET (2014) LPELR-SC 355/2012, ADEYEMI V. YRS IKE OLUWA & SONS LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 309) P. 27, FHA V. KALEJAIYE (2010) 12 SC (PT. III) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA supra, USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. KRAUS THOMPSON ORG. (2002) 15 NWLR (PT. 736) P. 305, OLOBA V. AKEREJA (1988) 3NWLR (PT. 84) P. 508 and UKWU V. BUNGE (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 527. The grant of an application for extension of time to appeal is at the discretion of the Court which should be exercised 11

15 judicially and judiciously. In doing so, the Court has to consider the rules governing the application. The two necessary conditions are as stated above. A pertinent question therefore, that needs be asked herein is, whether or not the Applicants Grounds of Appeal are substantial. Ground One of the Grounds of Appeal herein, Exhibit B is on the issue of jurisdiction and the Court would readily accede to an application for enlargement of time, even if no good reasons for the delay is given, due to the fundamental nature of the issue of jurisdiction. Again, see the cases of CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET (2014) LPELR-SC 355/2012, ADEYEMI V. YRS IKE OLUWA & SONS LTD. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT. 309) P. 27, FHA V. KALEJAIYE (2010) 12 SC (PT. III) P.1, IBODO V. ENAROFIA supra, USMAN DAN FODIO UNIVERSITY V. KRAUS THOMPSON ORG. (2002) 15 NWLR (PT. 736) P. 305, OLOBA V. AKEREJA (1988) 3NWLR (PT. 84) P. 508 and UKWU V. BUNGE (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 527. It is not material that, the three (3) Grounds herein should qualify as good and substantial. It is also immaterial that, the grounds of appeal have to succeed necessarily, but should show good cause why they should be 12

16 heard. The reason is that, the law seeks to ensure that, an applicant with an arguable appeal should not be denied his constitutional right to appeal. See the cases of ADEWUNMI V. OSIBANJO (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 83) P. 483 and CHIEF NGERE V. CHIEF OKURUKET XIV supra. The Applicants averred that, they were out of time to appeal because they were not aware of the Court s sitting on May 23rd 2017 when the Ruling was delivered as they were not put on notice and that, they were unable to obtain the Ruling of the Court in good time, as well as the delay in getting the approval of the Applicants to prosecute the appeal on their behalf. Exhibits D and E, in respect of the Ruling and approval, in my humble view, provide acceptable reason in terms of time, for the delay. And even if that were not so, the fact that there is the issue of jurisdiction involved herein as aforestated, this Court would allow the Applicants application. It is pertinent to note that, there is no Counter-affidavit against the Applicants position whatsoever. Their depositions remain unchallenged and the law is trite that an unchallenged affidavit, where credible, is 13

17 deemed as the correct position and admitted. See the cases of ODULAJA V. HADDAD (1973) 11 SC 357, OMOREGBE V. LAWAN (1980) 3-7 SC 108 and DUROSARO V. AYORINDE (2005) 3 SCNJ 8, EZEANYA V. OKEKE (1995) 4 SCNJ P. 60. In the light of the foregoing, in my considered view and humbly, time should be enlarged for the Applicants to exercise their Constitutional right of appeal seeing the issue of jurisdiction is involved and the appeal is arguable. Whether or not the appeal will succeed is a different matter entirely, it is not an issue at this stage, more so, the law does not compel that the grounds must succeed. As aforesaid, where at least one ground is arguable and shows a good cause why the appeal must be heard, that would suffice. Consequently, in view of the preceding paragraphs, one finds this application as meritorious and is hereby allowed. The Applicants are hereby granted fourteen (14) days from today, to file their notice of appeal. UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the ruling of my learned brother 14

18 ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, JCA. I agree with the reasons adduced therein and the conclusion that the application is meritorious. It is hereby allowed. I abide by the consequential order made in the lead ruling. HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead Ruling delivered by my learned brother, Elffieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu, JCA. His Lordship has ably considered and resolved all the issues in contention in the application of the Applicants seeking for the trinity prayers to appeal against the decision contained in the Ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Maiduguri in Suit no FHC/MG/CS/12/2015 delivered on the 23rd of May, 2017 by Honorable Justice M. T. Salihu. I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion that the application is worthy of the exercise of the discretion of this Court in its favor. I too grant the orders prayed on the motion paper. 15

19 Appearances: Mr. A. M. Mshelia, Esq. For Appellant(s) Mr. Modu Grema, Esq. For Respondent(s)