8. The Court considers the production of the Order made by the Federal High Court, Abuja, to be new evidence, which relates to the situation referred to under Article 37 of its Rules of Procedure, which provides that: “1. In reply or rejoinder, a party may offer further evidence. The party must, however, give reasons for the delay in offering it. 2. No new plea – in – law may be introduced during the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. 3. If in the course of the procedure, one of the parties puts forward a new plea – in – law which is so based, the President may, even after the expiry of the procedural time – limits, acting on a report of the Judge – Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, allow the other party to answer on that plea. 4. The decision on the admissibility of the plea shall be reserved for the final judgment.” 9. The Court recalls that since the production of copy of the said Order, Counsel to Applicant was duly served and had the opportunity to react to this new evidence at the hearing of 1st November 2012, which he did not attend, and failed to make any observation thereto. 10.The Court also recalls that parties filed in their final writs, on the merit of the case, before the present Judgment; it therefore considers that the conditions stated under Article 37 (2) and (3) of its Rules are met, and that, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the said Article, it can now examine the admissibility or otherwise, of the new evidence. i) As to admissibility of the Order made by the Federal High Court, Abuja 11.The Court wishes to note that the existence of an Order made by the Federal High Court, Abuja, constitutes very crucial information, for a just consideration of the 4