Umar Adamu Katsayan V. Sani Sa’idu Fago (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE

The Election into the House of Representatives took place all over the country on the 9th of April 2011, and in Katsina State, the 3rd Respondent returned and declared the Appellant, who was the candidate of the CPC, as the duly elected Member representing Daura/Maiadua/Sandamu Federal Constituency of Katsina State. Whereupon, the 1st Respondent, and the party that sponsored him, PDP, filed an election Petition at the Katsina State National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal, wherein they prayed the Tribunal that it may be determined as follows –

i. That the 1st Respondent (Appellant herein) was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

ii. That the 1st Petitioner (1st Respondent herein) who scored the majority of lawful votes at the election be declared validly elected and returned the winner of the election.

Or in the Alternative to i and ii above:

iii. That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned.

iv. That the election of the (Appellant herein) was null and void and a fresh or bye-election ordered to be conducted by the 2nd Respondent (INEC) for the Daura/Maiadua/Sandamu Federal Constituency.

The “Grounds on which the Petition is based” are as follows –

(i) That the 1st Respondent (Appellant herein) was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(ii) That the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the Election as he was not sponsored by a political party at the election.

They further averred as follows in paragraph 98 of the said Petition –

“FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND TWO – That the 1st Respondent (Appellant herein) was at the time of the Election not qualified to contest the Election as he was not sponsored by a political party at the Election.

i. The (Appellant) was not sponsored by any political party at the Election as required by Section 65(2)(b) of the Constitution…

ii. The 4th Respondent (CPC), which the (Appellant) claimed to be his sponsor, at all material time refused to sponsor (him) for the Election as required by Section 65(2)(b) of the Constitution – –

iii. The (Appellant) and some other persons however wrongfully compelled (INEC) and (CPC) to accept (him) as the candidate sponsored by (CPC) for the Election on the force of the Judgment/order of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division of 25th February, 2011 delivered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/126/201 1 – Senator Yakubu Garba Lado & 44 Ors v. CPC & 5 ors commenced by Originating Summons after the expiration of the time prescribed for political parties to submit the names of their sponsored candidates for the Election.

iv. The (1st and 2nd Respondents) shall use and rely on the Originating Summons filed by the (Appellant) and others in the said Suit and the Judgment of the Federal High Court in the Suit delivered on the 25th day of February, 2011 at the trial of this Petition.

v. The 2nd Respondent (INEC) published the Final List of Candidates for the Election at the INEC Katsina State Office at Katsina and on its website before the Election wherein it included the (Appellant) as the candidate of (CPC) for the Election. The (1st and 2nd Respondents) shall use and rely on the said Final List of Candidates for the Election at the trial of this Petition and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are hereby given notice to produce it at the trial of this Petition.

vi. However, pursuant to an appeal filed by (CPC) and others against the said Judgment of the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division in its Judgment delivered on the 20th day of April, 2011 set aside the Judgment of the Federal High Court and inter alia held and/or declared that the (Appellant) was not the candidate sponsored by the (CPC) for the Election. The (1st and 2nd Respondents) shall use and rely on the said Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division in Appeal No. CA/A/133/2011 – Congress for Progressive Change & Others v. Senator Yakubu Garba Lado & Others.

The Appellant entered a conditional appearance, and thereafter filed a Reply to the Petition, wherein he raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the Petition, and prayed that it be struck out because –

1. The substance of the Petition relates to and involved pre-election matters; in consequence of which the Tribunal lacks Jurisdiction and power to entertain and grant the reliefs sought.
2. The petitioner failed to comply with the Provisions of Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 in that the grounds of the Petition are in the alternative.
3. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the election and return of the 1st Respondent (Appellant herein) and subsequently sought to be declared validly elected and returned on the purported ground that the 1st Respondent was not sponsored by a Political Party.

The 1st Respondent herein filed a Reply to the preliminary objection in the Appellant’s Reply to the Petition, wherein he countered as follows –

1. The substance of the Petition does not relate to or involve pre-election matter as the pre-election matter that arose between the (Appellant) and (CPC) and others had been resolved and decided by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment in Appeal No. CA/A/133/2011 – CPC and Others v. Sen. Yakubu Garba Lado and others delivered on 20th April, 2011; in consequence of which the Tribunal has the jurisdiction and power to entertain and grant the reliefs sought by the Petitioners vide section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and sections 133, 137(1) and 138 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.
2. Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended does not prohibit a petitioner from stating the grounds of his Petition in the alternative.
3. Section 285 of the Constitution – – 1999 as amended read in conjunction with Sections 133, 137(1) and 138 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended gives the Petitioners the locus standi to challenge the election and return of the (Appellant) on the prescribed grounds of the Petition.

The 5th Respondent (CPC) also filed a Reply wherein they raised an objection to the competence of the Petition on the grounds that –

1. The – – Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the said petition is also incompetent as the two grounds on which the Petition is hinged revolves around the issue of nomination and sponsorship of candidates by the 4th respondent (CPC) to contest the election.
2. The Grounds upon which the election – – is challenged – – are interwoven as the 1st ground which complains of the (Appellant) not having been elected by majority of lawful votes is hinged on the assumption by the Petitioners that the (Appellant) was not sponsored by the 4th Respondent (CPC).
3. The petitioner did not comply with the provisions of section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended by anchoring the Grounds of the Petition in the alternative, which renders the entire petition incompetent.
4. The petitioner has no locus standing to challenge the election and consequentially seek to be declared validly elected and returned on the ground that the 4th Respondent (CPC) did not sponsor the (Appellant) as the issues involved are the internal affairs of the 4th Respondent (CPC).

The 1st and 2nd Respondents herein, however, countered as follows in their Reply to the 5th Respondent (CPC)’s Reply to the Petition, that –

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Petition; the Petition is competent and the Grounds on which the Petition is hinged are also competent.
2. The Petition is based on two separate Grounds stated in the alternative. The two grounds are recognized by the Electoral Act and the Petition is not based on any assumption but on facts, which are clearly stated.
3. Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended does not prohibit stating the grounds of the Petition in the alternative.
4. The Petitioners have the requisite locus stand to challenge the election and return of the 1st Respondent (the Appellant herein) and the 4th Respondent CPC (5th Respondent herein), and to seek the reliefs stated in the Petition.

The 3rd and 4th Respondents merely filed their Reply to the Petition, and the Tribunal opted to take the objections together with the main Petition.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents called one witness, and they also tendered the following documentary evidence at the Tribunal –

– Exhibit A – Originating Summon in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/126/2011 dated 3rd February 2011.

– Exhibit A1 – The Judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/126/2011 delivered on 25th day of February, 2011.

– Exhibit B- The Judgment of this Court in Appeal No. CA/A/133/2011 delivered on the 20th of April 2011.

– Exhibit C- Declaration of Result (Form EC8E (1).

– Exhibit D- F – Result of the Election.

– Exhibit G – Final list of Candidates – Exhibit G.

The Appellant testified for himself, and did not call any other witness. His Statement on oath was admitted as Exhibit O, and he also tendered a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court that was admitted as Exhibit N. The 3rd and 4th Respondents also called one witness in their defence, but the 5th Respondent did not call any witness, and tendered no document.

In its Judgment delivered on the 28th of September 2011, the Tribunal first of all considered the objections, and then held as follows –

“- – The issue of nomination and sponsorship had been laid to rest by the decisions of both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Exhibits A, A1 and B. These are the Originating Summons, Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja and Court of Appeal Judgment cumulating in the Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court- Exhibit N… The appropriate time to challenge the question of qualification is after the election – – The Petitioners could not have challenged the sponsorship or non-sponsorship of the 1st Respondent before the election. It is settled principle of law that the relief claimed in a suit determines the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on it – –

Since the relief in this petition is anchored on qualification of the 1st Respondent to contest election, this Honourable Tribunal is clothed with full regalia of authority under Section 285(1) of the 1999 Constitution … The Petition is not a pre-election matter of nomination and sponsorship but on qualification to contest which vest the Petitioners with locus standi to challenge the election and the Tribunal has the Jurisdiction to hear and determine same and we so hold. The preliminary objection is overruled…”

In finding against the Appellant in the main Petition, it held as follows –

“The question now is, is the 1st Respondent sponsored by his Political Party to qualify him under Section 65 (2) (b) of the Constitution to contest the election –

…In Exhibit A, the 1st Respondent is a party to the Originating Summons at the Federal High Court. The Judgment of Federal High Court – Exhibit A1 authorised and legally qualified him to contest the election as a candidate of CPC. His name is No. 9 on Exhibits A and A1. However, by the Court of Appeal Judgment of 20th April 2011, Exhibit A1 was set aside. The Appeal Court held that the winners of the primary elections held on 15th January 2011 were not candidates of CPC to contest the election because the primary election was not sanctioned by the National Headquarters of the Party.

The 1st Respondent himself admitted being a party to Exhibit A, A1 and B. He is therefore a product of 15th January primary election organized by some CPC members without due authorization by the National Executive of CPC. By virtue of – – Section 287 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the decisions of the Court of Appeal must be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons and by Courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Court of Appeal. This Tribunal is therefore bound to yield to the supremacy of the decision of the Court of Appeal – – This Tribunal has a constitutional duty to enforce the subsisting Judgment of the Court of Appeal. This Tribunal cannot close its eyes to Exhibit B even if it is a declaratory Judgment; being a judgment of a superior Court where no right is vested on this Tribunal by the doctrine of binding precedent to decline compliance – – Sponsorship of a Candidate in an election is enough to qualify a Political Party as having participated in an election – – The result of Exhibit B is that the 1st Respondent was not sponsored by his political party (CPC).

Exhibit B has a retrospective effect on Exhibit A1. The fact that an appeal is pending at the Supreme Court per Exhibit N is not a bar to the enforcement of Exhibit B having not been overruled. The Judgment of the Court of Appeal cannot be put in abeyance because of Exhibit N as that will not serve the end of justice – – The totality of all we have been saying is that the 1st Respondent – Umar Adamu Katsayan was not sponsored by his political party – CPC. He is therefore not qualified under Section 65 (2) (b) of the Constitution and Section 138 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act (2010) and we so hold”.

The Tribunal concluded as follows at page 325 of the Record –

“In the present circumstance, the disqualification of the 1st Respondent came into existence after the election. The electorates cannot be faulted for casting their votes for him. The election to the House of Representative – – for Daura/Maladua/Sandamu Federal Constituency held on the 9th April, 2011 is hereby nullified under Section 140(1) of the Electoral Act 2010. And we so hold. The Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) is hereby ordered to conduct a fresh election to the House of Representative of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Daura/Maiadua/Sandumu Federal Constituency within 90 days from the date of this Judgment (All highlight mine).

Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing six Grounds of Appeal. The 1st and 2nd Respondents are also dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s final order, and they also filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal, which contains only one Ground of Appeal. As required by the Rules of this Court, parties filed Briefs of Arguments, and in the Appellant’s Brief prepared by Festus Okoye, Esq., it was submitted that the Issues that call for determination in the main appeal, are as follows –

1. Whether the Hon. Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Petition before it.
2. Was the alternative Ground on which the Petition was premised valid and was the Hon. Tribunal tight in considering same without first and foremost considering the main Ground.
3. Whether the Hon. Tribunal was right in enforcing the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/133/2011 CPC &ors V. Sen. Yakubu Garba Lado in favour of the Petitioners.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents adopted the Issues as formulated by the Appellant in their brief settled by Uyi Igunma, Esq., M. I. Abubakar, Esq., and Napoleon O. Idenala, Esq. The 3rd and 4th Respondents did not file any brief but the 5th Respondent did. It filed a brief settled by Abubakar Malami SAN, Sulaiman Usman, Esq., and M. H. Adamu, Esq., wherein this Court was urged to allow the appeal, which is certainly, not proper.

It is well settled that the Respondent’s role in an appeal is to do everything to support the Judgment; if the Respondent wishes to challenge the Judgment or Ruling, he must file a cross appeal – see UTB (Nig.) Ltd v. Ajagbute (2006)2 NWLR (Pt.965) 447, Imoniyame Holdings Ltd. & Anor V. Soneb Ent. (2010) LPELR-SC .114/2002, Obi v. INEC (2007) 7 SC 268, where the Supreme Court held as follows –

“It is also the law that a Respondent to an appeal who neither files a cross-appeal nor a Respondent’s notice, will not be allowed to even file a brief of argument attacking the judgment appealed against or be allowed to present oral argument in the course of the hearing of the appeal. Therefore without a cross-appeal, the 6th and 7th respondents are not competent to play the role of an Appellant they have attempted to play in this appeal. The effect of the action of these Respondents in the present appeal is that all the arguments in their Respondent’s brief in support of the case of the Appellant in this appeal, shall be ignored in its determination. See Oguma Associated Companies Limited v. IBWA Ltd. (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 658; (1988) 3 SCJN 113…”

The 5th Respondent did not file a cross-appeal or Respondent’s Notice, and its brief in support of the Appellant’s case will be discountenanced. The merit or otherwise of the appeal will be resolved on the arguments canvassed by the Appellant and the 1st & 2nd Respondents in their briefs. But it is my view that the Issues as formulated by the Appellant can be subsumed in his Issue 1 – whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Petition before it. To this end, he submitted that jurisdiction is the spinal cord of every litigation and a Court that is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain a particular claim and goes ahead to assume and vest itself with jurisdiction is marooned in the web of nullity and adjudicates in vain – Odedo V. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554 and Onuora V. KRPC Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 393 cited.

It was further argued that the facts relied upon by the Tribunal were based on the pre-election matter decided by the Federal High Court and this Court, and now pending at the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court has held that where qualification or disqualification is based on the nomination exercise of a political party, it is a pre-election issue, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition as the issue would not be covered by Section 185 (1) (a) of the Constitution – Ucha V. Onwe (2011) 1 MJSC (Pt. 11) 52, Odedo V. INEC (supra) cited; that the burden of proving disqualification can only be discharged independently of the pre-election proceedings since the Respondents were not parties to those proceedings and since the proceedings relate to intra-party dispute between him and his party and/or members of his party – Ogboru V. Ibori & ors (2004) All FWLR (Pt.225) 173 cited; and since the Respondents were not parties to the said matters, the Tribunal ought not to have felt bound by this Court’s Judgment as the issue is still sub judice and has not been brought to finality by the Supreme Court – Okafor v. INEC & ors (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 316) 382 cited.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents, however, contend that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, and referred us to Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Waziri V. Ali (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 178, Section 285 (1) of the Constitution, Section 65 (1) & (2) of the Constitution, Section 138 (1) of the Electoral Act, and S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd. V. Ezeukwu (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 541) 1501 at 1532.

They submitted that each case must be decided on its own facts, and cases are only authority for what they actually decide, citing Aguomba V. Uwais (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 346) 440 and Babatunde V. P.A.S. & T.A. Ltd. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 372) 1721; that in this case, the pre-election issues had been resolved by this Court, and there was no need for the Tribunal to delve into such issues as the decision of this Court thereon “was not made for fun nor was it intended to be in vain”, citing Waziri V. Ali (supra), Saulawa V. Kabir (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1232) 417, Ojo V. INEC (2005) 1 LRECN 599, Idris V. ANPP (2005) 4 LRECN 554, and Ijagbemi V. Ige (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 560) 1314; that the Appellant, 3th, 4th and 5th Respondents were parties to the appeal that gave rise to that decision and are bound by it; that the Appellant wants this Court to wish away the Judgment because it does not favour him, and is playing the proverbial ostrich that tries to bury its head in the sand; that where the regular Court has determined that a person is not the sponsored candidate of a political party, it becomes a relevant and constitutional fact, which the Tribunal cannot close its eyes to; that the Tribunal’s duty is to abide by, apply or enforce the decision reached by the Regular Court, citing Obot V. Etim (2007) LRECN 737; and that the Appellant’s arguments and cases he cited are misconceived as they are different from this one, and do not decide that the Tribunal should ignore or jettison a Judgment delivered on a pre-election matter simply because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over pre-election matters.

They also contend that the pending appeal at the Supreme Court does not negate or invalidate the valid and subsisting Judgment of this Court unless and until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, citing Ojo V. INEC (supra), Idris V. ANPP (supra), and Ijagbemi V. Ige (supra), that the Judgment of this Court on the pre-election matter took effect from the date of the Federal High Court’s decision, citing Waziri V. Ali (supra); and that the Appellant’s argument overlooks the fact that CPC was the 1st Appellant in the appeal in which it was contended that the Appellant was not its candidate, and this Court entered Judgment in CPC’s favour; it overlooks the fact that he has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the CPC, which is the 1st Respondent vide Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court; it overlooks the fact that CPC was the 4th Respondent to the Petition leading to this appeal wherein it abandoned its pleadings by failing to adduce evidence at the trial, and is deemed to have admitted the Petitioner’s claim that it did not sponsor the Appellant; and that the Appellant cannot hold brief for CPC, which is a party to the Petition and this appeal, and was represented by counsel throughout.

So, there we have it – diametrically opposing views by the parties. The Appellant’s view is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition because the Grounds of the said Petition are premised on the pre-election matters that are still pending before the Supreme Court. The 1st and 2nd Respondent, however, opine that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction because the matters have been decided upon by this Court, and the Tribunal has a duty to “abide by, apply and enforce” the decision.

The Tribunal has not made it easy for us to determine who is right and who is wrong because it muddled up the objections with the Petition. Where a Court’s jurisdiction is challenged, it is usually better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hearing of the case on the merits – see First Bank V. T.S.A. Ind. (2010) LPELR-SC. 316/2006.

What the Tribunal in this case did was to mix up the objections challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the Petition with the Petition itself; much like a pot of soup with all the ingredients thrown in. To sort it out, we will have to sift through the pot and fish out the nuggets of meat in it.

To start with, none of the parties are disputing the fact that it is only a regular Court that is vested with the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of nomination of a candidate for an election, which is clearly a pre-election matter – see Zaraiyda V. INEC (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 184 at 210, Amaechi V. INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1065) 170 at 196, and Ucha V. Onwe (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1237) 386 wherein the Supreme Court per Tabai, JSC, categorically stated as follows –

“A person’s disqualification or non-qualification based on or arising from the domestic nomination exercise of his political party is clearly a pre-election matter over which the election Tribunal has no jurisdiction.”

In this case, in overruling the said objections, the Tribunal held that –

“The Petition is not a pre-election matter of nomination and sponsorship but on qualification to contest which vest the Petitioners with locus standi to challenge the election and the Tribunal has the Jurisdiction to hear and determine same and we so hold. The preliminary objection is overruled…”

The Tribunal’s decision, obviously, flies in the face of the facts before it. The Petitioners’ alternative Ground (ii) for their Petition emphatically says that “the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election as he was not sponsored by a political party”, and as the Appellant pointed out, the entire paragraph 9B of the Petition, which contains facts in support of the alternative Ground (ii), show that the Petitioners’ grouse is that the Appellant was not “sponsored by any political party”, that CPC refused to sponsor him; and that he and some other persons wrongfully compelled INEC and CPC to accept him as the candidate sponsored by CPC by force of the Judgment aforementioned.

If these facts are not hinged on the nomination and sponsorship of the Appellant by a political party, which is definitely a pre-election matter, I don’t know what else can exemplify what a pre-election matter is.

The law is settled that the grounds recognized for presenting an election Petition are acts or omission that were “contemporaneous” with the conduct of the election, and that an election Tribunal has no power to investigate matters that took place before the conduct of the election – see ANPP V. Usman (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 1 at 55 and Ibrahim V. INEC (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334.

“Contemporaneous” simply means – “occurring during the same period of time”- see Dictionary.com.

This brings us to the Judgment of this Court, which the Tribunal relied on to assume jurisdiction over what is clearly a pre-election matter. Apparently, there was a dispute within the CPC (5th Respondent) as to who its candidate should be at the election held on the 9th of April 2011. The dispute ended up at the Federal High court, Abuja, which gave Judgment in favour of the Appellant, and he contested the said election or the 9th of April 2011. But on appeal to this Court, the tables turned. This Court set aside the Judgment of the Federal High Court and declared that the Appellant was not the candidate of the CPC after all.

What is of particular importance to this case is that the Judgment of this Court was delivered on the 20th of April 2011, after the election. The Tribunal, in justifying its decision to assume jurisdiction, held thus –

“By virtue of – – section 287 (2) of the 1999 Constitution – – the decisions of the Court of Appeal must be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons and by Courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the court of Appeal. This Tribunal is therefore bound to yield to the supremacy of the decision of the Court of Appeal – – This Tribunal has a constitutional duty to enforce the subsisting Judgment of the court of Appeal”.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents have echoed the same sentiments; that the Tribunal has a “duty to abide by, apply or enforce” our court’s decision. But who appointed the Tribunal the “enforcer” of this court’s decision? The Tribunal has its path well cut out for it; it is not an all-purpose court that can entertain just any claim; it is created for election matters alone – Obi V. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565. Surely, the issue of who and how the candidate of CPC was nominated, is not an election matter.

Obviously, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition on the alternative Ground on which it hinged its decision, and I so hold. The main Ground of the Petition, which complains that the Appellant was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election, is an election matter, on which the Tribunal should have focused its attention, rather it went on a frolic of its own and dabbled into a pre-election matter.

The end result is that it wasted its time and efforts on a matter for which it had no jurisdiction, and neglected or overlooked the matter that it had jurisdiction over – an election matter that it was created to look into. The only order that this Court can make in the circumstances is to uphold the said preliminary objections filed by the 1st and 5th Respondents, and set aside the proceedings and decision of the Tribunal for being a nullity.

The appeal is therefore allowed. The proceedings of the Tribunal, and its Judgment delivered on the 28th of September 2011 is set aside.

The cross-appeal with the preliminary objection raised thereon are based on a decision that is null and void, and is therefore of no moment. The cross-appeal filed by the Cross Appellants is, therefore, struck out. Each party will bear its own costs.

---

Other Citations: (2016)LCN/8668(CA)