The word 'shall' connotes mandatory discharge of a duty or obligation, and when the word is used in respect of a provision of the law that requirement must be met. The word 'shall' may have other meanings, for when used in a legislation, it may be capable of translating into a mandatory act, giving permission or direction. See Nonye v. Anyichie & Ors 2005 2 NWLR Part 910 page 623.

The use of the word 'shall' in the case at hand, to my mind conjures mandatoriness, the conditions of which must be met and satisfied.    It is settled law that a legislation is to be given its ordinary interpretation and effect, most especially where the words used are straight forward and unambiguous. See Toriola v. Williams 1982 7 SC. 27, Sunmonu Oladokun 1996 8 NWLR part 467 page 387, and Lawal v. G. B. Ollivant 1972 3 SC. 124.

Per BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C in TABIK INVESTMENT LTD v. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC (2011) 17 NWLR (PT. 1276) 240