Download PDF
The Claimant commenced this action via Complaint filed on 1st March, 2016 with the accompanying frontloaded documents against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the Claimant’s appointment is confirmed, tenured, pensionable and governed by law. 2. A declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s Appointment by the Defendants is unlawful. 3. An Order re-instating the Claimant to her employment without prejudice to all her rights, interest, salaries, promotion and other benefits. 4. An Order Directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the Sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) only as the sum of prosecution of this case. The Defendant filed a MOTION ON NOTICE on 21st March, 2016, supported by a 5 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Daniel Agyeno, praying the Court for An Order striking out the name of the 2nd Defendant/Applicant from this suit. Together with a WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE. Wherein the following ISSUE was formulated for determination. Whether the 2” Defendant is a necessary party in the determination of the Claimant’s suit to warrant his joinder as a Defendant. Learned Counsel to the defendant I. I. Edoh Director Civil Litigation Ministry of Justice Nasarawa State, submitted that a critical perusal of the Claimant’s claim clearly shows that no cause of action is disclosed against the 2nd Defendant/Applicant sued as the Governor of Nasarawa State. In the case of Alhaji Lai Mohammed Vs. Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) (2011) LPELR 8973. He urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant/Applicant from the claim as no cause of action is disclosed against him. Veralam Holdings Ltd Vs. Galba Ltd & Anor. (2014) LPELR 22671; Bebeji Oil Allied Prod. Ltd Vs. Pancosta Ltd (2007) (vol.3 1) WRN 163, per Mshelia, JCA: “Where no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, the consequence as pronounced by the apex court in DURU VS. NWAGWU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 324) 1830. The Apex Court had this to say: “Where no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against a Defendant or Respondent, the court can on proper application of the party strike out his name from the suit. Such finding and pronouncement which is definitive and correct will not prejudice the hearing of the substantive case against other Defendants or Respondents against whom reasonable cause of action has been disclosed.” The Claimant filed a 5 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVIT on 22nd April, 2016. Accompanied with a WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT With the ISSUE Whether the Governor is a proper and a nominal party in this suit. Learned Counsel to the Claimant Philip O. Akinlosotu Esq., submitted that the Governor is a proper and a nominal party in this suit as he is the Chief Executive Officer of the Nasarawa state. Section 176 (1) and (2) o the CFRN (Promulgation) 1999.He contended that by virtue of the Governors position as the Chief Executive officer of the state he is in charge of the day to day running of the state and ought to be aware of the happenings of its employees as it relates to the Plaintiff Respondent, thus, that the Governor is a proper party in this suit and as such he is to be a party in the suit for the just determination of this suit. Furthermore, that a nominal party is one who though have no direct interest in the subject matter but made a party by virtue of his office. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF V LAWAL (2012) 10 NWLR PT 1307 PG 66 AT 5. On 25th January 2017 parties adopted their written addresses and adumbrated their respective positions accordingly. Court’s Decision Having carefully summarized the position of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether there is any merit to the defendants application. To my mind the issue as formulated by the claimant particularly address the questions in contention in this application: Whether the Governor is a proper and a nominal party in this suit. The defendants in making this application to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant have argued that the claimants have not disclosed a cause of action is against the 2nd Defendant/Applicant being sued as the Governor of Nasarawa State, urging the court to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant/Applicant from the claim as no cause of action has been disclosed against him. The claimants on the other hand contend that the Governor is a proper and a nominal party in this suit as the Chief Executive Officer of the Nasarawa state he is in charge of the day to day running of the state and is a proper party. Section 176 (1) and (2) o the CFRN (Promulgation) 1999. The position of law is as stated in the case of GASSOL v. TUTARE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT. 1374) 221 @ 231 S.C.Where the Supreme Court presented the blue litmus test for the determination of who may be a necessary party to a suit is predicated on whether the judgment will affect the party; and one of the reasons which makes it necessary to make a particular person a party to an action is that he will be bound by the result of the action and to put to an end to parallel litigations. (P. 249, PARAS. C-E) see also ENTERPRISE BANK LTD v. AROSO (2014) 3 NWLR (PT. 1394) 256 @ 266 S.C. Where the Apex Court held that “a person is made a party to an action if, and only if, the action cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The plaintiff has an unfettered right to decide the person against whom to proceed. This court in AUPCTRE v. IMO TRANSPORT CO. LTD & ORS. (2014) 45 NLLR (PT. 142) 53 held that “Parties to an action have been classified into three namely: Proper Parties – proper parties are those who, though not interested in the plaintiff’s claims are made parties for some good reasons. Desirable Parties – Desirable parties are those who may have an interest in the suit or who may be affected by the result thereof. Necessary Parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. That is to say, the issue or question to be determined in the matter between the existing parties should be one which cannot be properly settled unless they are parties to the action. following the authorities of GREEN v. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 480; BABAYEJU v. ASHAMU (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 567) 546. And in the case of ADEBAYO v. ANL & ANOR. (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 175) 374 NIC @ 377. This court held that ‘a party is said to be a proper party though not interested in the claim of the plaintiffs, is nonetheless made a party for some good reason. GREEN v. GREEN (1987) NWLR (PT. 61) 481 Recently in SUIT NO: NICN/OW/18/2013 PAUL OGUJIOFOR & ORS Vs. GOVERNOR OF IMO ST & ORS delivered on January, 9TH 2017 this court was called upon to consider the position of a state governor in a suit vis a viz the Government of the state and held that by Section 176 of the 1999 Constitution which provides ‘that there shall be for each State of the Federation a Governor who shall be the Chief Executive of that State. Let us go back to Section 5 (2) 1999 Constitution which provides- “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of a State- shall be vested in the Governor of that State … and (b) shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the House of Assembly of the State and to all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has for the time being power to make laws. The import of these provisions is that the Governor, being the Chief Executive of the state exercises power and authority on behalf of the state, including execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution, all laws made by the House of Assembly of the State and all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has power to make laws. Then Section 318 of Constitution went on to define the meaning of “Government” to include the Government of the Federation, or of any State, or of a local government council or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf”. It is clear in Sections 5 (2) and 176 of the 1999 Constitution that the powers and authority of a State is exercised on its behalf by the Governor of the State. Considering the circumstances of this case and the position of the law as exemplified in the above authorities I find that the 2nd defendant is indeed a necessary and proper party to this suit. The 2nd defendants lacks merit and is hereby struck out. This matter shall proceed to trial accordingly. I make no order as to costs. This is the court’s ruling, it is hereby entered. ................................................. Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge