RULING. This deals with notice of preliminary objection dated 12/3/18 and filed on 13/3/18, by the Defendant/Applicant seeking for an order of this Honourable Court striking the entire suit for lack of jurisdiction. The application is supported by a 10 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Umar A. Mohammed a manager with the Defendant/Applicant. The grounds for the preliminary objection were stated as follows:- 1. Arewa Hotel (Developments) Limited is a private company registered under the laws of the Federation as a limited liability (sic). 2. Kongo Conference Hotel Limited is also a private Company registered under the laws of the federation as a limited liability (sic) which transformed and changed its name to Ahmadu Bello University Hotels Limited. 3. The Claimant was employed by Arewa Hotels Limited, which is still in existence at its corporate Headquarters at No. 24, Waff Road, Kaduna. 4. That Arewa Hotels limited did not at any time change its name to Kongo Conference Hotel. 5. The purported Claimant’s employment by the Arewa Hotels Limited neither involved nor affects the Defendant in any way. 6. The present claim lacks proper parties with the appropriate legal nexus. M. I. Saidu, Esq; Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant in his oral submission informed the Court that he is relying on all the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the notice of preliminary objection as his argument. A single issue was formulated as the issue calling for resolution, to wit: ‘‘Whether as presently constitute, the Claimant has a cause of action against the Defendant’’. In arguing the issue for determination, counsel submitted that a Court can only assume jurisdiction on a necessary party to an action. It is argued that from the Claimant’s claims and her accompanying affidavit, the claimant was employed by Arewa Development Hotels Limited and not the Defendant. All her exhibits clearly shows that Arewa Development Hotels Limited was responsible for all her claims and not the Defendant. There is no nexus nor any link between the claimant and the Defendant, therefore the Defendant is not and cannot be a necessary party to this suit. It is further argued that for a person to be a party to an action he must be a necessary party so as to be bound by the proceedings. On this submission Counsel relied on FBN PLC V OZOKWERE (2014) 3 NWLR (pt.1395) 446. Counsel submitted that since the Defendant was wrongly joined, this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the claimant cannot sustain any cause of action against the Defendant. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case as this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit. OPPOSITION TO THE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. In reaction to the notice of preliminary objection, the Claimant/Respondent deposed to a 5 paragraphs counter-affidavit filed on 22/3/18. A written address was also filed along with the counter-affidavit. S. M. Oyeghe, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant/Respondent in his adumbration relied on all the deposition in the counter-affidavit and the exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection. In the written address two issues were formulated for resolution by this Court, namely: 1. Whether the defendant is not the necessary party to be sued in this suit? 2. Whether the defendant can in anyway deny liability for acts done in its behalf? LEGAL ARGUMENTS: Counsel jointly proffer legal argument to the two issues posited above. It is the submission of counsel that the defendant in this suit is a proper and necessary party to be sued. According to counsel from exhibits Moo1 and Moo2 as well as all the other documents attached to the statement of facts, the claimant was employed by Arewa Hotels Development Ltd for and on behalf of the defendant. It is argued that the law is trite that where an agent is acting on behalf of a disclosed principal the proper party to be sued is the principal and no more. On this point Counsel relied on the cases of Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) 13 NWLR Pt. 784 pg. 319 AT 325; Carlen (Nig) Ltd V. University of Jos (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 323) 631. Counsel contended that Areawa Hotels Development Company Ltd is the agent of a disclosed principal i.e Ahmadu Bello University Hotels Ltd (formerly Kongo Conference Hotel Limited). It is also submitted that since the claimant’s employment with the defendant all other correspondences relating to her welfare, remuneration and gratuity has been in the name of Kongo Conference Hotels Ltd (now Ahmadu Bello University Hotels Ltd). Counsel urged the Court to take judicial notice of Exhibit Moo2 (which includes a letter written in response to the claimant’s application for voluntary retirement; computation of the claimant’s gratuity by the defendant as well as an acknowledgement for unremitted pension contribution). In the same vein for the span of 34 years since the claimant’s employment, the defendant had always held out Arewa Hotels Limited to be its duly appointed agent. The question that readily comes to mind is whether the defendant can now attempt to absolve itself of liability for acts carried out in its own name? the answer it is submitted is a resounding NO. It is the contention of counsel that by section 31(6) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004, the defendant cannot escape liability by change of name. It is the position of the claimant that the clear and unambiguous provision of S. 31 (6) of Companies and Allied Matters Act, the defendant as presently constituted is the only necessary party to be sued for the claimant’s unpaid gratuity and other emoluments. In support of his submission counsel cited the cases of Ogun State Govt V. Dalami Nig Ltd & Anor (2003) 7 NWLR Pt 878 P. 72 at 102, Union beverages Ltd v. Pepsi Cola Int. Ltd (1994) 3 NWLR Pt (330) pg. 1 at 17, O.U Davidson Group Construction (Nig) Ltd v. Bees Elect Co. Ltd (2001) 9 NWLR pt. 719 pg. 507 at 509 R4., also on Pg. 515 to 516 paras G-A. It is the contention of Counsel that the Defendant is a necessary party without whom this case cannot be fairly determined. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to hold that the defendant is the only necessary party for the claimant’s claim and to dismiss the defendant’s preliminary objection with deterring cost as same is frivolous, lacking in merit and a deliberate attempt to waste the time of this Honourable Court. COURT’DECISION I have carefully perused the Originating processes commencing this suit as well as all the processes filed in respect of the notice of preliminary objection. From the prayers as contained in the notice of the preliminary objection, the issue calling for resolution, is ‘‘Whether the defendant is a necessary party in this suit’’. The defendant/applicant is of the view that it was wrongly made a defendant in this suit. Consequently, there is no basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant/applicant for mis-joinder. The claimant/respondent on the other hand contended that there is no mis-joinder in this case. As the present defendant is the only necessary party that the claimant can pursue to recover her retirement entitlement. In law a party who conceives that he has a cause of action against a particular defendant is entitled to pursue his remedy against the defendant only and should not be compelled to proceed against other persons whom he has no desire or interest to pursue. However, the court as dominus litus has a duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings accord with the justice of the case by ensuring that necessary parties are before the court i.e all the persons who may be entitled to, or who claim share or interest in the subject-matter of the suit, or who may be likely to be affected by the results are the parties already been made parties. Before dealing with the main issue for determination, it is apt at this juncture to correct the wrong impression the defendant has regarding issue of jurisdiction. The law is well settled that non-joinder or misjoinder is not fatal to a proceeding as it can be corrected upon application by any of the parties, a third party or by the court suo motu. Therefore, the mere fact that there is issue of non-joinder or mis-joinder in a matter does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter under consideration. No action can be defeated on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder. It is well settled principle of law that where a suit has not been properly constituted whether as regards to joinder of causes of action or as to parties, that does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to determine the suit. See MARTINS V FEDERAL ADMINSTRATOR GENERAL (1962) 1 ALL NLR 1, KALU V ODILI (1992) 5 NWLR (pt.240) 130 “ 185. The positon of the law is that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties and the court may in every cause or matter deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before it. See PEENOCK INVESTMENT LTD V HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC 1. CHIEF EMMANUEL BELLO V INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR (2010) 8 NWLR (PT.1196) 342 SC, WAHAB ALAMU SAPO & ANOR. V ALHAJA BINTU SUNMONU (2010) 11 NWLR (1205) 374 Coming to the main issue for determination that is whether the defendant is a necessary party in this case. The defendant’s position is that the defendant is not a necessary party in this suit because the claimant was employed by Arewa Development Hotel Limited and not Ahmadu Bello university Hotel. Counsel insisted that the affidavit evidence before the Court clearly shows that the defendant is not employee of the defendant. However, from a careful perusal of the originating Court processes and all the accompanying documents therein, as well as the notice of the preliminary objection and the affidavits evidence before the Court, it is apparent that the claimant in this suit was employed by the Arewa Hotels Development Ltd and posted to the defendant and the claimant served the defendant from December 17, 1980 to March 15, 2014, when the claimant/applicant voluntarily retired from the employment of the defendant, following which the defendant computed the claimant’s gratuity which stood at N3, 157, 240.00 (Three Million, One Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Six Naira) only, as shown in exhibit Moo2, these documents were also frontloaded and attached to the statement of facts. After the claimant/applicant’s retirement from the service of the defendant, the claimant realized that the defendant defaulted in remitting the claimant’s pension contribution for over 20 months. From the averments in the statement of facts and the affidavit evidence with the exhibits attached therein, it is manifestly clear that the claimant was the employer of the defendant and this action was instituted by the Claimant to claim his retirement benefit from the defendant. From the facts so far disclosed in this suit. It is clear that the claimant served the defendant from 1980 to March, 2014. This means that the claimant can lawfully claim retirement benefit from the defendant for the 34 years’ service rendered by the claimant to the defendant. I therefore have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant is a necessary party in this suit. The defendant in this case being the principal of the Arewa Development Hotels Limited is the only necessary party to be sued in this suit. The Claimant is not bound to make Arewa Hotels a party in this suit. This is because in law an agent of a disclosed principal incurs no liability. This is because the act of the agent is in law the act of the principal. It was the principal that did or omitted to do what the agent did or omitted to do. The common law maxim is expressed in latin maxim quit facit per aluim facit per se, a sum facere indepur, which means he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself. An action against an agent in its private capacity for acts done on behalf of a known and disclosed principal is incompetent. See NIGER PROGRESS LTD V N. E. L. CORPORATION (1989) 3 NWLR (PT.107) 68, LEVETIS TECH. LTD V PETROJESSICA ENT. LTD (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.214) 459. In view of the state of the law, I have no choice than to hold that the defendant in this suit being principal of Arewa Development Hotel Ltd, is a necessary party in respect of acts or omission of Arewa Development Hotel Ltd. The change of name of the defendant from Kongo Conference Hotel Limited to Ahmadu Bello University Hotel does not change the position of the defendant when it comes to the issue of liability or responsibility. At the end the defendant’s notice of preliminary objection fails, as it is lacking in merit, it is frivolous and vexation I have no difficulty in dismissing it. I hereby award N50,000.00 against the Defendant in favour of the Claimant. Sanusi Kadfo, Judge.