HRH EZE YOUNG NWANGWA V. BARR. UCHECHUKWU E. OGBONNAYA & ORS

RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): Court: Mr. Achilefu, both your motion filed on 14-2-11 and this motion filed on 7-11-16 do not contain the addresses for service on the 2nd to 4th Respondent. In the light of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 do you consider the applications to be competent?

Answer: The motion is competent in the sense that it has been filed. We ask for a Court adjournment.

Court: all the processes filed by appellant that do not contain the addresses for service for 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are clearly incompetent in consonance with Order 2 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 and are hereby struck out.

MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.: I agree

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I agree