that case. It behooves counsel to acquaint themselves with the said rules of court before invoking the jurisdiction of the court.” Consequently, we urge this Honorable Court to answer the lone issue submitted by the respondents in the negative and dismiss the applicants’ application in its entirety as lacking in merit and constituting an abuse of the process of this court and award heavy cost against the applicants and their counsel.” 5.4.2. CONTENTIONS BY THE 4th and 5th RESPONDENTS 5.4.2.1. Just like the other Respondents, the 4th and 5th Respondents/Defendants also filed their own Motion for Extension of Time, Counter Affidavit, and Written Address, opposing the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw and/or Discontinue their suit. Similarly, we herein reproduce the full texts of the Motion and the Counter Affidaivt of the 4th and 5th Defendants: - 12 5.4.2.2. In their Written Address in support of the Counter Affidavit, the 4th and 5th Defendants stated: “INTRODUCTION:” “My lord, the Applicants filed this Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/11/14 and have 17 months after brought this motion praying the court for leave to withdraw/and or discontinue proceedings against all the Respondents in the suit. The 1 st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents have filed their Statements of Defence and the Applicants have in fact filed their Replies to the defences so far filed.” “ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:” “We have formulated only one issue for the court’s determination:“WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THE APPLICANTS’ SUIT AS ISSUES HAVE BEEN JOINED BY THE PARTIES?” “ARGUMENT:” “In the case of THE YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS LTD. V. OKONKWO (2002) 38 WRN 98, the Nigerian Court of Appeal made reference to some Supreme Court cases and held; “In SOETAN V. TOTAL NIGERIA LTD. (1972) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 1) 1, 3, the effect of withdrawal of an action under sub-rule 1 (2) of order 28 of the Western Nigeria

Select target paragraph3