IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE MBAISE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AHIAZU MBAISE
THURSDAY 1ST JUNE, 2023
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I.M. NJAKA.
SUIT NO: HAM/54D/2021
BETWEEN
DR CHINWE PATIENCE PEDRO AZUOGU
PETTITIONER/RESPONDENT
AND
BARR AZUOGU, PEDRO REMY RESPONDENT/
Applicant
RULING
By MOTION ON NOTICE dated 22nd day of February, 2022 and filed on 3rd day of November 2022 and said to be BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 111, RULE 4 OF THE MATRIMONIAL CAUSES RULES, 1983 AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HONOURABLE COURT, the Respondent/Applicant prays as follows:
- An Order striking out and/or dismissing this suit/petition for being incompetent and as such the Hon Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same.
- An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside its Ex-parte order for substituted service made on 3/12/2021- wherein, the Honourable Court was misled to grant leave for the Petitioner to serve the petition and other processes in this suit on the Respondent, through UGOANI OWEN ESQ of No. 49 Macaulay Street, Umuahia, who is not Respondent’s Counsel in this matter.
- An Order of the Honourable Court setting aside the Purported service of the petition and other processes in this matter on the Respondent/ Applicant, through Owen C. Ugoani of Counsel, who is not a party to this suit nor retained as Counsel by the Respondent in this matter -as the said service is invalid, null and void and of no effect.
- And for such further other order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
GROUNDS upon which the application is abased are:
- The Respondent/Applicant who is the husband of the Petitioner, is native of Ndieke village in Ikemba Autonomous Community of Ikwuano Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria.
- The jurisdiction for divorce petition is governed by the domicile of the husband. Consequently, the Court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate in this petition/suit is the Court of the domicile of the husband of the Petitioner, which is Abia High Court holden at Ikwuano Judicial Division and not Imo State High Court, holden at Ahiazu Mbaise Judicial Division.
- That the Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this Suit /Petition.
- That also, Ex-parte order for substituted service made on 3/12/2021 -wherein the Honourable Court was misled to grant leave for the petitioner/Respondent to serve the Petition and other processes in this matter on the Respondent/Applicant through Owen C. Ugoani of Counsel, who is not Respondent’s Counsel in this matter, ought to be set aside.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE is depsed to by one BARR. AZUOGU, PEDRO REMY, the Respondent/Applicant in this Suit/Motion respectively. He deposed: I am the Respondent in this matter as well, the husband of the petitioner. My permanent abode or home is Ndieke village in Ikemba Autonomous Community of Ikwuano Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria. I know as a Constitutional Lawyer that the Court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate on this Petition/Suit is the Court of my domicile since I am the husband of the petitioner in this matter. The Court of my domicile is Abia State High Court, holden at Ikwuano Judicial Division and not Imo State High Court, holden at Ahiazu Mbaise Judicial Division. The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Also, Ex-parte Order for substituted service made on 3/12/2021 – wherein the Honourable Court was misled to grant leave for the Petitioner/Respondent to serve the Petition and other processes in this matter on the Respondent (i.e my very self) through Owen C. Ugoani of Counsel, who is not my Counsel in this matter, ought to be set aside. A copy of the said order is hereby annexed and marked Exhibit “A”. The Petitioner knows my permanent abode or home at Azuogu Compound, Ndieke village Ikemba Autonomous Community, Ikwuano Local Government Area, Abia State, as clearly stated in her said Petition. The Petitioner and I lived together as husband and wife at my aforesaid permanent abode or home before quarrel ensued. I ought to be served personally with all the originating processes in this matter.
The application is accompanied by WRITTEN ADDRESS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
In introduction, the counsel state that the Respondent/Applicant filed this Motion on Notice dated 22/2/2022 and brought pursuant to Order III, Rule 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1983 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court. The Motion is praying the Honourable Court essentially for an order striking out and / or dismissing this Suit/Petition for being incompetent and as such the Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. The Motion is supported by a 10 – paragraph Affidavit evidence deposed to by the Respondent/Application himself (i.e., Barr Pedro Remy Azuogu). Annexed to the said Affidavit is Exhibit “A” (i.e., a copy of Ex-Parte Order for substitute service made on 3/12/2021). This Exhibit can be found at paragraph: 7 of the supporting Affidavit. We rely on all the paragraphs of the said Affidavit and Exhibit annexed thereto.
Issues for determination are submitted as:
- Whether the Honourable Court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine this petition.
- Whether the Ex-parte order for substituted service made by the Honourable Court on 3/12/2021 was not made in error.
- Whether the Honourable Court has unfettered discretion and jurisdiction to set aside its order made in error.
On issue 1 the counsel made reference to paragraphs: 2,3,4,5 & 6 of the supporting Affidavit. he relied on the Court of Appeal decision in the case of KOKU V. KOKU (1) SMC P.82 AT 84, RATIO I, AS PER M .O ONALAJA J.C. A. (as he then was) held as follows: ”Jurisdiction for divorce petition is governed by the domicile of the husband as by operation of Law a married woman on marriage takes on the domicile of her husband, consequently the Court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate in a divorce matter is the Court of the domicile of the husband and (which is the Abia State High Court holden at Ikwauno Judicial Division in the instant case)”.
The words I the closed bracket I am certain is not part of the decision or paragraph quoted
It is submitted that domicile succinctly put is the permanent abode or home of a party whether he goes to the North, South, East or West as he would always return to the place. SEE KOKU V KOKU (SUPRA) AND RAMSAY V. LIVER POOL ROYAL INFIRMARY (1930) AC. The Court of Appeal also held a similar decision in OMOTUNDE V. OMOTUNDE (1) SMC P. 255 AT 262 RATIO 15.
It is submitted that it is settled Law that if a Court is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain a suit as in the instant case, any step taken in the matter is a nullity and void abinitio. In Professor OLUTOLA V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 416, the Supreme Court held as follows: whenever it becomes manifest to the Court that it is incompetent to handle a matter, the Court is not only entitled but bound to put an end to its proceedings no matter the stage of the case. The Court can do so in its own initiative, even though the parties had consented to the irregularities. ”
It follows that once Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the merits of the case become irrelevant because the issue of jurisdiction is not determined on sentiment. SEE DENR. L TD V. T. I. BANK LTD (2009) VOL. 173 LRCN 114.
According to the counsel, the issue of the domicile of the husband of the petitioner at the time of the hearing of this petition is vital and germane as it is a condition precedent to hearing of her petition by any Court as reflected in section 2(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, CAP M7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (underlining mine). See the case of OMOTUNDE V. OMOTUNDE (SUPRA) AT P. 258, RATIO I.
The court is finally urged to resolve this 1st issue for determination in favour of the Respondent/Applicant and accordingly strikeout and/or dismiss this suit for being incompetent.
Issues 1 and 2
The counsel place reliance on paragraphs: 7, 8 & 9 of the supporting Affidavit. it is submitted that the object of all types of services of Court processes whether personal or substituted is to give notice to the other party whom service is to be effected and not to a third party and/or a Counsel who is unknown in the matter, like in the instant case (underlining mine). See the case of AKEREDOLU V ABRAHAM (2018) 10 NWLR (PT. 1628) 510 SC. SEE ALSO OKOYE V. CENTRAL POINT MERCHANT BANK LTD. (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. 1110) 335.
It is submitted on steps Defendant who wants to object for service of originating process should take thus: When an originating process is served (like in the instant case) on the Defendant and he has an objection to it, he is expected to either:- (a) enter an appearance on protest, or (b) File a Notice of Motion asking the Court to set aside the &ported writ and service of same on the ground of the originating process and service being invalid (underlining mine). See the case of PDP V I. N.E.C (2018) 12 NWLR. (Pt. 1634) 533 SC.
The counsel adopted the above views and urged the court to apply to it to this instant case and accordingly set aside the purported service of the petition and other processes in this matter on the Respondent/Applicant through Owen C. Ugoani of Counsel, who is not a party to this suit nor retained as Counsel by the Respondent/Applicant in this matter- as same is invalid service and as such null and void and of no effect. See P.D.P V. INEC (supra).
On the powers of a Court to revisit and set aside its judgment/order, it was held in the notable case of Associated Discount HOUSE L T D V. AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD (2007) ALL FWLR (392) 178 AT 1840 (-F) that: “A superior Court of record has inherent powers to set aside its own judgment in appropriate cases, such cases were stated as follows: When the judgment is obtained by fraud or deceit, When the judgment is a nullity such as when the Court itself was not competent; or When the Court was misled into giving judgment under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it. Or where the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment of the character of a legitimate adjudication.” See also the case of IGWE V KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 787) 435. The Respondent/Applicant has shown by Affidavit evidence that the Ex-parte order for substituted service made on 3/12/2021, by this Honourable Court was made in error in that the Honourable Court was highly misled in making the said order. See paragraphs: 7, 8 & 9 of the supporting Affidavit, particularly paragraph 7 of the said Affidavit. The Applicant is thus entitled to the invocation of the powers that inheres in this Court to set aside its own judgment/order.
On whether a Court that made a void order can set it aside the counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision on MENAKEYA V MENAKAYA (1) SMC P. 294 AT 287, RATIO 6, thus: The position of the Law being settled that where an order (including a judgment of a Court) amounts to a nullity, the Court that made that order in its inherent jurisdiction is empowered to set the same aside and an appeal is not necessary … ”
It is also settled Law that if a Court makes an order which it has no jurisdiction to make, it has jurisdiction to rescind the order so as to restore status quo. See Omotunde v Omotunde (supra) at P. 258 ratio 2.
Counsel said he adopted the above views and urged the Court to resolve these Two (2) issues for determination in favour of the Respondent/Applicant.
In conclusion the court is urged to strike out and/or dismiss this suit for being incompetent.
The Petitioner filed Counter Affidavit deposed to by one Udo Uwakwe the litigation secretary of Adada Chambers, solicitors to the petitioner/respondent in this matter.
She deposed: I know the facts of this case, from reading the case file and facts related to me by my principal in chambers, L. I. Nwaogwugwu Esq. I have the permission of the petitioner/respondent to swear to this affidavit and that of my principal in chambers. My principal in chambers, L. I. Nwaogwugwu Esq. has informed me and I believe him as follows: The petitioner filed this petition for divorce last year and efforts to serve the respondent became difficult as he could not be found around to be served; In other to get the respondent to be aware of the existence of this suit, a motion ex-parte was filed through his lawyer, who was his chief brides maid when he married the petitioner as well as being his solicitor in the case filed by the respondent at the Family Court, Umuahia, Abia State, which suit has not been determined yet. The respondent’s solicitor gets in touch with Barr. Pedro Azuogu from time to time for one reason or other and it was considered convenient to get the respondent through his lawyer, who as a matter of facts must get in touch and let him know the existence of this case. The essence of service generally is to let the other party get to know the existence of the suit and react to same That paragraph 4 of the affidavit is denied. Any High Court in Nigeria has jurisdiction to entertain this matter, being a matter under the Marriage Act. The jurisdiction of this Court covers the whole of Nigeria and is not restricted to any state or local government. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit is denied and that Umuahia High Court as well as any other High Court in Nigeria has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on this petition. This Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter and to have made the order Exhibit “A” as attached. Paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit is admitted, it is faster and more convenient to relate to the respondent through his lawyer whom he relates with from time to time without numbers as telephone network in the-remote village of the respondent could hinder, his early knowledge of this suit from his relatives if the Order for substituted service is served in his village. The law has made provision as to alternative pattern of service where the respondent cannot be reached personally as he lives in Abuja with no fixed address. When the respondent concluded his evidence in the family Court matter at Umuahia, he rarely frequents home, which was why it was not possible to serve him personally and the petitioner has the right to use substituted service.
It is accompanied by WRITTEN ADDRESS OPPOSING THE MOTION TO STRIKE OUT ORDER
As introduction, the counsel stated that this is the reply of the petitioner opposing the application to dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction. It is supported by affidavit evidence and a written address.
The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent and after efforts were made to serve the respondent failed he was served by substituted means through his counsel. The respondent has now applied to vacate the order for substituted service and dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed in Abia State. In opposition, the petitioner has filed this reply.
he adopted the three issues raid by the Respondent/Applicant
ISSUE NO.1
Domicile in a divorce case has a technical meaning as defined in the Matrimonial Causes Act of 2004 and not 1983 as envisaged by the respondent’s counsel. Whenever a party lives in any state in Nigeria, domicility is ascribed to the person in a divorce case and the jurisdiction to determine any matter under the Act is granted to any High Court in Nigeria. See Sect 2 MCA. So a divorce matter can be filed in any State High Court in Nigeria. It does not matter whether the respondent lives in that state or not but must live in Nigeria. STANKOV V STANKOV 2016 LPELR 1:; 4095 (CA) 41 PER AKPABIO JCA.
It is submitted that the respondent’s counsel was wrong to have submitted that this matter can only be heard by Ikwuano High Court, the Court of the village where the respondent comes from. The argument of the respondent’s counsel suggests the provision in contract or other bodies of law as well as the civil procedure law which does not apply in Matrimonial Causes.
It is submitted that as long as the respondent lives in any state in Nigeria, any High Court in Nigeria, has the jurisdiction to decide this matter. Abia State the permanent home of the respondent, the husband of the petitioner is one of the states in Nigeria, this grants jurisdiction to this Court. The court is therefore urged to discountenance the submission of the respondent’s counsel and the authorities cited in support and hold that this Court has jurisdiction to determine this case to finality. Referred to NADOPP V NADOPP decided on 17/05/2011 by Apo High Court Abuja
According to the counsel if this Court accepts that it has jurisdiction the question of whether the trial is a nullity goes to no issue and should be abandoned and I submit that this Court has jurisdiction and therefore the question of nullity of trial where a Court determined a matter without jurisdiction should therefore be abandoned by this Court.
2.00 ON ISSUES NOS. 2 AND 3
It is submitted that Order 6 Rule 1 & 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules allows a Court to grant service by substitution as the aim of service is to get the other to have the knowledge that such suit exists and for his reaction. In the instance case at hand, the respondent had been very friendly and close to Ogan Owen Esq. who was his best man, served in his chamber and do cases for him through whom we served and true to test, the respondent is aware of this suit which knowledge had made him file this motion on notice. So, the aim was achieved. The petitioner had a choice as to the method of the substituted service, the likes and has made that choice which cannot be queried. The service of the Order was not meant for the lawyer to be a party to the divorce but to deliver the petition to whom it is destined for.
It is submitted that a Court has a right to set aside an order or judgment if made in error of assuming jurisdiction, that does not exist or fraud was involved but in the case at hand, this Court was not misled or deceived and no fraud was found. This Court abinitio has jurisdiction to entertain the main suit, the petition for divorce and can take motion under the suit. ELUWA VS ELUWA 2013 LPELR 22120 (CA).
In conclusion this Court is urged to refuse the application to set aside the service of the Order for substituted service more so when the respondent has benefitted from such service. Equally, this Court is urged to hear the main suit as there is no impediment either by personnel of the Court, mode of institution, none payment of filing fees that could deny this Court jurisdiction. EZEABAGBULEM V EZEABAGBULEM 2019 LPELR 4755 8 (CA)
Further Affidavit of the Respondent/Applicant in support of Motion Dated 22/2/2022 and in reaction to Counter-Affidavit dated 18/3/2022 was deposed to by Barr Pedro Remy Azuogu. He deposed: I have perused through the Counter-Affidavit of the Petitioner/Respondent. All the Paragraphs of the said Counter-Affidavit are hereby denied as false in all material particulars except as otherwise hereinafter expressly admitted. Paragraphs: 1- 3 of the Petitioner’s/Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit are facts within the Respondent’s knowledge alone. In response to Paragraphs: 4 of the Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent/Applicant state that it is not difficult to serve the Respondent/Applicant in this matter as the Petitioner/Respondent knows the Applicant’s permanent abode or home at Azuogu’s Compound, Ndieke Village, Ikemba Autonomous Community, Ikwuano Local Government Area, Abia State as clearly stated in her Petition. The Applicant further states that the matter at the Family Court Umuahia, Abia State has since 24/3/2022 been determined. There is no issue with telephone network in the Applicant’s village at Ndieke Village, Ikwuano Local Government Area of Abia State and that the Petitioner has no difficulty in reaching the Applicant personally. The Respondent/Applicant ought to be served personally with all the originating processes in this matter.
It is accompanied by reply on points of law:
The counsel urged the court to discountenance the Submissions of the Petitioner/Respondent in her written address in opposition to the Motion, for striking out and/or dismissing the Suit as well as setting aside the Ex-parte Order for substituted service in this matter filed by the Respondent/Applicant on 18/3/2022. It is submitted that jurisdiction for divorce petition is governed by the domicile of the husband as by operation of Law a married woman on marriage takes on the domicile of her husband, consequently the Court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate in a divorce matter is the Court of the domicile of the husband (which is the Abia State High Court, Holden at Ikwuano Judicial Division in the instant case). See the case of Koku Vs. Koku (1) SMC P.82 at 84, ratio 1. The issue of the domicile of the husband of the Petitioner at the time of the hearing of this petition is vital and germane as it is a condition precedent to hearing of her Petition by any Court as reflected in Section 2 (1) of the Matrimonial causes Act, CAP M7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. (underlining mine) see the case of Omotunde Vs. Omotunde (1) SMC P. 255 at 262 ratio 15. Therefore the erroneous and misleading submission of the Petitioner/Respondent that any High Court in Nigeria has jurisdiction to determine this matter as long as the Respondent/Applicant lives in any state in Nigeria does not hold any water at all. According t counsel, domicile succinctly put is the Permanent abode or home of a Party whether he goes to the North, South, East or West as he would always return to the place. See Koku Vs Koku (Supra) and Ramsay Vs. Liverpool Royal infirmary (1930) AC. The Court of Appeal also held a similar decision in Omotunde Vs. Omotunde (Supra).
It is submitted, that the object of all types of services of Court processes whether Personal or substituted is to give notice to the other party whom service is to be effected and not to a third party and/or a Counsel who is unknown in the matter, like in the instant case (underlining mine). See the case of Akeredolu Vs. Abraham (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 510 SC. See also Okoye V. Central Point Merchant Bank Ltd. (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1110) 335.
The court is urged to set aside the purported service of the Petition and other processes in this matter on the Respondent/Applicant through Owen C. Ugoani of Counsel who is not a party to this suit nor retained by the Respondent/Applicant in this matter – as same is invalid. This Court, being a Superior Court of record, has an Inherent Power to set aside its own ruling or judgment in appropriate cases including when the Court was misled into giving such ruling or judgment as in the instant case. See the case of IGWE VS KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 781) 435. This Court has Power to set aside an Order which it made without jurisdiction. See OMOTUNDE VS OMOTUNDE (SUPRA) at P. 258 Ratio 2.
RESOLUTION OF MATTER
I have considered the affidavit evidence before me as well as the erudite submission of the counsel on each side. The issue that calls for determination is whether this court, considering the circumstance of this case, has the requite jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
The first attack or complaint is the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
The main requirement for Courts to have jurisdiction in relation to matrimonial causes proceedings is domicile in Nigeria. A person who is domiciled in any State of the Federation is considered domiciled in Nigeria and can bring a petition for matrimonial causes reliefs in the High Court of any State of the Federation, irrespective of whether he is resident in that State or not.
Any High Court of any State of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory has jurisdiction to determine a petition for dissolution of marriage. Thus, no matter which state where the marriage is conducted, jurisdiction is nationwide and divorce proceedings can be commenced in any state For the purposes of domicile, Nigeria is treated as a single federation entity. As a result, a person who is domiciled in any state of the Federation is regarded to be domiciled in Nigeria and can file a divorce petition in any state in the country, regardless of whether he or she is domiciled there or elsewhere. However, the rule of forum convenience empowers the court to transfer matrimonial cases or a petition filed in a state high court to any other state high court in the federation, if it is in the interests of justice that the matrimonial case be dealt with in the other state. See Adegoroye v Adegoroye (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.433) 712); Ibru-Stankov v. Stankov (2016) LPELR-40981)
I am of the view that the issue of the domicile of the husband can only come up where both parties are outside the shores of the country or any one of the parties is somewhere outside the country. But where both parties are domicile in Nigeria any one of the them can file divorce at any state in Nigeria.
The only pleas is forum convenience and interest of justice. I have gone through the affidavit of the Respondent applicant has mentioned nothing of interest of justice or forum convenience,. He has not even stated that the Petitioner has no connection whatever with the Imo State and Ahiazu Mbaie to be precisely
The service of a writ or process on a defendant is one of the fundamental conditions precedents to the exercise of jurisdiction by court of law. Service of process whether personal or substituted is to give notice to the other party on whom notice is to be effected so that he may be aware of and be able to resist if he may that which is sought against him
The rules of court stipulate two main ways by which a Defendant may be served with originating processes; these are by personal service and by service other than personal. The former is the general rule while the latter represents a miscellany of the methods that are used on account of the peculiar circumstances of a particular Defendant or because of his disability or as a result of special circumstances of the case. Substituted service is very important form of non-personal service which is used often. If the Defendant for any reason cannot be served personally, the method may be used. It may be, for example, that he is untraceable or evading service. Hence, a substituted service duly ordered and executed is as effective in law as a personal service See ALHAJI ABDULLAHI MADALLA v. ALHAJI BALA GUSAU (2014) LPELR-22899(CA) Per ABOKI, J.C.A. (P. 23, paras. A-C)
The essence of service of process on parties in a case is to enable them to appear to prosecute and defend the case and also to ensure the appearance of the parties and those of their respective counsel in court. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. T.S.A. INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2010) LPELR-1283 (SC).
Where there is proof of service, by means of an affidavit of service, sworn to by a bailiff or an officer of court, it is in law a compelling prima facie proof of service on the appellant of the writ of summons, statement of claim and other processes. The party concerned ought to swear to a counter affidavit to controvert that affidavit of service. The responsibility of proving there was no service of the processes, rests with the Defendant. See IBWA VS. SASEGBON (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) 195 AT 218 AND 219, NEKA B.B.B. MIG CO. LTD. VS. A.C.B. LTD. (2004) 2 NWLR (PT. 858) 521 AT 550-551 AND ALAMIEYESEIGHA VS. F.R.N. (2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 1004) 1 AT 104; EGBAGBE VS. ISHAKU (2007) 1 JNSC (PT. 29) 785 AT 806; BLUE WHALES & CO. VS. MONGUNO [2010] LPELR 4502, (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt 1231) 275
Here the Respondent/Applicant said he is/was not served personally. The order of substituted service dispensed with personal service. The Respondent/Applicant admitted he was served through the person it was ordered to be served. I think that the most important thing is indeed the process got to the notice of the Respondent/Applicant. See AKEREDOLU V ABRAHAM & ORS LPELR (2018) 44067- (SC)
The objection raised by the Respondent is accordingly dismissed.
I so hold
I.M.Njaka
Judge
1-6-2023
Appearance
L.I. Nwaogwugwu Esq
O.N Okezie Esq.