On the issue of the root causes of the crisis? The Court of Appeal held at page 92-93 that the direct immediate cause of the crisis was the respondent’s (Paul Emeka’s) refusal to agree with the majority of the members of the executive on how to react to and address the complains by the Body of Ambassadors and National Consultative Assembly in the Executive Committee meeting of 7th, 8th and 9th October, 2013.
The Court of Appeal at page 93 & 1st paragraph said, “It was resolved that the respondent (Paul Emeka) should speak on behalf of the Executive Committee informing the Unit Heads that the Executive Committee would deliberate on the complaint and convey to them its decision at another meeting with them to be convened for that purpose. On the 8th October 2013 meeting with the Unit Heads, the respondent (Paul Emeka) did a different thing. He acted in disregard of the decision of his committee. He rather presented and distributed an already prepared written response to the complain of the Body of Ambassadors and announced his decision to tour the various units and explain his response.”
At page 94 & 2nd paragraph the Court of Appeal held that “The conduct of the respondent (Paul Emeka) in refusing to carry out the 7th October 2013 decision of the Executive Committee he presided over undermined the ability of the Executive Committee to resolve the issue and triggered the crisis.
The Court of Appeal at page 95 held that “Events after 7th October 2013 meeting of the Executive Committteee show that the respondent (Paul Emeka) became hostile to the majority members of the Executive Committee, would not agree with them and thwarted all efforts of the Executive Committee to address the complain brought to them and resolve the conflict brewing in their own ranks.”
The Court of Appeal reaffirming the autocratic and dictatorial style of leadership of Paul of Emeka at page 95-96 of C.A Judgment said that the conduct of Paul Emeka in refusing to accept the majority decision as the decision of the Executive Committee and treating the meeting as having failed to reach a decision and therefore deadlocked because the majority decision is contrary to his view, completely disabled the Executive Committee as an organ of the church and caused it to remain irreconcilably divided into two factions namely, the 11 members group and the other group consisting of Paul Emeka and 3 or 4 other Executive Committee members
