Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Uche Ozoagbo for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Oluwafunmilayo Oleribi for 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N.O. Anya for 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">O.O. Fakolujo holidng brief of Abubakar Musa <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">for 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">1. Introduction.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This case was originally filed at the Federal High Court, Lagos as Suit No: FHC/L/CS/493/2001. By the order of Tsoho J of that Court dated 4/3/15, this case was transferred to this Court. Pursuant to the direction of this Court that this case be filed in accordance with the Rules of this Court, the Claimant by his <i>General Form of Complaint </i>dated 21/9/15 sought the following prayers from the Court - <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as contained in the Federal Ministry of Transport’s Letter of 28<sup>th</sup> November, 2000 and 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s letter of 8<sup>th</sup> December 2000 is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is contrary to the terms of the Claimant’s employment and the laid down procedure of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and amounts to breach of Claimant’s right to fair hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain in the employment of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as the acting Director of Finance with full enjoyment of all the rights, benefits and privileges attached to the said officer until his retirement. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. A declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was not entitled to forcibly eject the Claimant from his official residence at No. 74, Ikejiani Road, Railway Compound, Ebute- Metta, Lagos or howsoever disturb the Claimant from the lawful enjoyment of the perquisites of his office pursuance of his purported dismissal from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to reinstate the Claimant to the possession and occupation of his official residence at No. 74 Ikejiani Road, Railway Compound, Ebute-Metta, Lagos, as other retirees of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to pay the Claimant his full salaries, allowances and entitlements including appropriated increments calculated from the date of his purported dismissal up until his retirement age of sixty (60) years. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. An order directing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to commence the payment of Claimant’s gratuity and pension with effect from his statutory date of retirement. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">8. General damages in the sum of =N=100,000,000 (One hundred Million Naira) for wrongful dismissal from the employment of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Claimant's process was accompanied by all the requisite frontloaded processes in accordance with the Rules of this Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">2. 3rd Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 3rd Defendant entered an appearance on30/11/15, filed a statement of defence and also brought a notice of preliminary objection to this suit supporting same with a written address. The grounds for the preliminary objection are that (a) The action is statute barred; (b) The 1<sup>st</sup> dependent(sic) has the power and authority to hire the plaintiff and (c) The Minister of Transport sued as the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant has the power and authority to dismiss the claimant as provided under the Public Service Rules. The applicant therefore sought an (i) An Order of this Honourable Court declaring the dismissal of the plaintiff valid and legal; (ii) An Order of this Honourable Court declaring that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants are entitle to collect back their properties in the custody of the plaintiff and (iii) And for such further Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make. When this application was heard on 27/9/16, learned Counsel to the applicant adopted her written address and urged the Court to dismiss the suit. In her written address, learned Counsel argued that all the Defendants are public officers who are subject to the provisions of the <i>Public Officers Protection Act; </i>that the cause of action was said to have arisen on 28/12/2000 and that the Claimant slept over his right for a period of 14 years, 9 months and 21 days before commencing this proceedings against the Defendants. Citing <i>Plateau Construction Limited v. Aware (2014)6 NWLR (Pt. 1404) 519, </i>Counsel submitted that the question or issue as to whether an action has been commenced within time or otherwise, in order to determine whether it is statute barred or not is a matter of calculation of raw figures in which the Court has no discretion. Learned Counsel further submitted that when a case is statute barred, it connotes that the plaintiff may have an actionable cause of action but that his recourse to judicial remedy is voided citing <i>A.G. Adamawa State v. A.G. Federation (2014)14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 515. </i>Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that this case is statute barred and dismiss the claims of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">3. Claimant's Response<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant filed a written address on 17/6/16 in opposition to the 3rd Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection. On the issue of whether or not the case is statute barred, learned Counsel submitted that this case was filed at the Federal High Court in June of 2001 and transferred to this Court on 4/3/15. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant only sued 1st Defendant when the suit was commenced in 2001; that the 1st Defendant applied by an application dated 8/1/02 for the joinder of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and that though the Claimant vehemently opposed the application, the Court eventually granted the order. Counsel submitted that <i>Public Officers' Protection Act </i>is not applicable to this case; that by section 83(1), <i>Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, </i>the Claimant has 12 months within which to commence this action against the 1st Defendant and that this provision takes precedent over the general provision of the <i>Public Officers' Protection Act, </i>citing <i>Bakare v. NRC (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1064) 606 & NECO v. Tokode (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 45 at 69. </i>Counsel thus urged the Court to hold that the <i>Public Officers' Protection Act </i>is not applicable to this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">4. Decision<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have read with understanding all the processes filed for preliminary objection. I also heard the oral argument of learned Counsel on either side. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to one thus -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Whether the <i>Public Officers Protection Act </i>bars the suit of the Claimant/Respondent against all or some of the Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A challenge based of statute of limitation constitutes a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine a cause or matter. Issue of jurisdiction once raised, it is imperative that it be resolved one way or the other. Jurisdictional issue is a fundamental and critical issue. It is a challenge that can be raised at any point in the cause of the proceedings. It may even be raised on appeal. In any event, jurisdiction is not an issue of fact. It is one of law. That being the case, it can even be raised by a trial Judge <i>suo motu </i>the only proviso being that a trial Judge must allow parties to proffer their addresses on same before delivering a Ruling. The reason being that a challenge of jurisdiction goes to the very root and foundation of the case before the Court and where jurisdiction is absent every effort dissipated in hearing a case amounts to efforts in futility. This is irrespective of the genuine intention, diligence and erudition of the trial Judge.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A case is said to be barred by the statute if it is not brought and instituted within the time limit statutorily allowed to institute such an action. In a scenario as this, though the right of a party suing is there, it can however not be enforced through the judicial process. To determine whether or not a case is or is not barred by a statute, two critical points must be established. Firstly, the provision of the statute must be established as to the class of suits and the duration or time limit permitted. Secondly, the time when the suit concerned is instituted must be established so as to determine whether or not it comes outside the time limit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now section 2(a) of the <i>Public Officers Protection Act, Cap. P 41, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 </i> provides as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> 'Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> a. the action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof'.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Legislation establishing some statutory bodies also often make provisions relating to time limitation within which to bring an action against such bodies. The 1st Defendant here is a statutory body. Its enabling statute, the <i>Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, Cap. N129, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria </i>provides in Section 83(1) as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''No suit against the Corporation or any servant of the Corporation for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Law, or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of such Act or Law, duty or authority shall lie or be instituted in any court, unless it is commenced within twelve months next after the act, neglect or default complained of or, in the case of a continuance of damage or injury, within twelve months next after the ceasing thereof''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The purport of the provision of <i>Public Officers' Protection Act</i> is that all actions against public officers must be instituted within three months failure to do which the right to ventilate same through the judicial process is extinguished, see <i>Christiana Yare v. National Salaries, Wages and Income Commission (2013) LPELR 20520 (SC).</i> Respecting the second provision, the limitation period is 12 months. Where an action is instituted outside the time allowed by the statute, the Court which hitherto had jurisdiction to hear and determine same is automatically divested of that adjudicatory power. In much the same vein, the right available to a Claimant or Plaintiff in such a situation is one that cannot be enforced through the judicial process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now, the next critical point to consider is whether or not this suit is caught by the said statute being a statute of limitation. In determining whether or not a case is not caught by a statute of limitation, the starting point is the examination of the date the cause of action arose vis-a-vis the date the suit was instituted. The appropriate focus is certainly the statement of facts in the instant case. Now, when did the cause of action in this case arise? A cause of action arises the day a party is entitled under the law to approach the Court for redress against an alleged wrong committed by the other party. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By the statement of facts filed by the Claimant, the cause of action of the Claimant arose on 28/11/2000, see paragraph 14 of the statement of facts. The case was initially filed on 22/6/2001 at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division. That was within a period of 7 months from the accrual of cause of action. I have on record from the Federal High Court transferring this matter this Court that 2nd and 3rd Defendants were joined pursuant to an application filed by the 1st Defendant. That was on 21/5/2002 about a year after the filing of this case in that Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is apparent that at the time the Claimant instituted this action against the 1st Defendant, this action was not barred within the provision of section 83(1) of the statute setting up the 1st Defendant. By that statute, <i>Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, Cap. N129, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, </i>Claimant has within 12 months to institute an action against the 1st Defendant. I thus have no hesitation in holding and I so hold that the case against the 1st Defendant is not statute barred as urged by the 3rd Defendant. Respecting the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the Claimant had 3 months within which to bring an action against either of them. Unfortunately, the action was brought about 7 months after the accrual of the cause of action. This no doubt is not in conformity with the provision of Section 2(a), <i>Public Officers' Protection Act, 2004. </i>Once a case is commenced outside the time limit allowed by the statute, whatever right of the Claimant cannot be enforced through judicial process. The three Defendants in this case are separate entities. They also have different statutory protection and limitation of time within which judicial proceedings may be instituted against them. While the 1st Defendant can take solace under the <i>Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, </i>the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are protected by the <i>Public Officers' Protection Act. </i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before I draw a curtain on this Ruling, it is important that I make a comment of two on the address filed in support of the preliminary objection by the learned Counsel to the 3rd Defendant. The address in support is of 7 pages. The first 2 pages were devoted to introduction and brief statement of facts. The remaining 5 pages are extremely shallow. The crux of learned Counsel's argument is the <i>Public Officers' Protection Act. </i>Yet learned Counsel did not cite not even a section of the Act that supports her case. Unfortunately, more than three quarter of the written submission are mere quotations from judicial authorities cited. In other words, learned Counsel left everything to the Court to figure out. The Bar must learn to do its duty of advocacy properly and adequately. It is this and this alone that will enable the Bench to do it's also properly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Ruling, the preliminary objection brought by the Defendant/Applicant succeeds in part and I hold that<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. The preliminary objection is overruled and dismissed respecting the 1st Defendant as the suit against it is not statute barred and the suit properly brought within the provision of <i>Nigerian Railway Corporation Act, Cap. N129, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. The preliminary objection succeeds respecting 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the Claimant's suit is dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This case shall therefore proceed to be heard and determined on the merit against the 1st Defendant - Nigerian Railway Corporation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I make no order as to cost<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">____________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice J. D. Peters<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>