RULING. Vide motion on notice dated 19th day of October 2017, filed on the 25th day of October 2017, the Claimant is praying the Court for the following orders: 1. An order of Court joining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as the 2nd Defendant in suit No. NICN/ABJ/261/2017 filed before this Honourabe Court. 2. An order of the Court correcting the last name of the Claimant in this case as ‘‘Gambo’’ and not ‘‘Sambo’’ as stated therein in the originating processes. 3. And for such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The ground for seeking the above reliefs is for the necessary parties from whom the Claimant’s claims are made to be joined for the final determination of the matter. The motion on notice was brought pursuant to Order 13 Rule 15 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Honouranble Court. The application is supported by an 11 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one B. C. Yerima, a Legal Practitioner in the law firm of K.J. Ntafa, the Claimant’s Solicitors. In line with the rules of this Court a written address was filed in support of the motion on notice. Counsel for the Claimant adopted the written address as his argument. In the affidavit in support of the application it was averred that the arrest of the Claimant by the 2nd Defendant sought to be joined led to the interdiction of the Claimant. It was also stated that upon his arrest the Claimant was investigated by the party sought to be joined and was never charged to Court. The Claimant deposed that despite the fact that he was not charged for any offence, but he was asked orally to be remitting some money in instalment into the account of the party sought to be joined as 2nd Defendant, as refund of the money earlier given to the Claimant by the Defendant as allowances. It was averred that while the Claimant was complying with order given to him by the party sought to be joined to be paying money into its designated account, the Claimant was thereafter interdicted again by the Defendant based on the directive given to him by the party sought to be joined to be remitting the money. It was stated that the Claimant who was no longer under investigation by the party sought to be joined and not being tried for any offence, unlawfully continue to remit money from the monthly half salary he receives from the Defendant as a result of interdiction. It was averred that the claim before the Court cannot be effectively determined against the Defendant without joining the party sought to be joined. In the written address filed before the Court Counsel for the Claimant/Applicant submitted sole issue for determination to wit: ‘‘whether in the circumstances of this case, the Court can join EFCC as a party to the case’’. In arguing the issue for determination Counsel submitted that in law as to who should be a party in a given case is a matter of preliminary consideration that has to be settled before a relief can properly be adjudicated upon. Counsel referred to Order 13 Rule 14 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, and submitted that a judge may order that the name of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settled the questions involved in the proceedings to be added. Counsel contended in this case the question involved in the proceedings as contained in the originating processes filed before the court are on the criminal allegation of bribery and corruption levied against the Claimant by the EFCC in the course of performing his duty and the subsequent interdiction by the Defendant. Counsel submitted the question as raised cannot be effectively and completely be determined by this Court as against the Defendant without joining the EFCC at whose instance the interdiction of the Claimant in this case arose. Counsel contended that considering the Claimant’s cause of action and the reliefs claimed before the Court, it would be necessary to join the EFCC as a co-defendant to the case for the question in the action to be effectually and completely settled. It is settled that a person should be joined as a party to a case where not only because the person joined should be bound by the result of the action but that the person joined or sought to be joined raises an issue or has a stake in the subject matter before the Court. Counsel relied on ONIBUDO V ABDULLAI (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 172) 230 @ 242. It is submitted that the act of the party sought to be joined in alleging bribery and corruption against the Claimant in the course of performing his job was the cause which set into motion the issue of query and interdiction by the Defendant against the Claimant when he was ordered to be paying money into EFCC account in refund of the money as shown in Exhibit ‘B’. It is submitted that the issue of the Claimant’s reliefs on interdiction which was based on allegation of bribery and corruption alleged to have been committed by him in office cannot be settled without going into the issue of the validity or otherwise of the said criminal allegation made by EFCC against the claimant. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant’s last name as contained in the originating processes was not properly stated which this Court has the power under Order 13 Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court to correct same on the application of the Claimant by stating therein his correct name which reads ‘‘Gambo’’ and not ‘‘Sambo’’. Counsel urged the Court to grant the application as prayed. COURT’S DECISION: It is to be noted that the Defendant despite being served with the motion on notice did not file counter-affidavit nor file written address in opposition to this application. Counsel for the Defendant submitted before the Court that he is not objecting to the grant of this application. In law, a single party can prosecute his action against a single Defendant. However, sometime, two or more persons may be joined in one action as Claimants or as Defendants to prosecute their common or personal claims or to defend jointly or individually the claims against them. The rationale for allowing joinder of parties is for prevention of multiplicity of actions and reduction of costs and time of trial. See AYANKOYA V OLUKOYE (1996) 2 SCNJ 292 @ 304, ADEDEDIRAN V INTERLAND TRANSPORT LTD (1991) 9 NWLR 155. It is also aimed at putting an end to litigation and not to have two parallel proceedings in which the same issue is raised, leading to different inconsistent results. One other objective is to ensure that the question to be settled in the action is effectually and completely settled with the presence of a necessary party or parties are bound by the result of the litigation. See In RE:YESUFU FOLAKE (MOGAJI) (1986) 2 SC 431 @ 449. Joinder of parties, either as plaintiffs or Defendants, is allowed in our procedural law. Accordingly, a party who wants to be joined as a plaintiff or as a Defendant is free to make an application and the Court of trial will be able to grant the application if there is merit. However, joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, is subject to two conditions, namely, 1. the right to relief must in each case be in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. 2. There must be some common question of law or fact See PEECOCK INVESTMENT LIMITED V HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL LIMITED (1983) 4 N. C. L. R. 122 (1982) 12 SC 1 @ 35-55, ADEGBENRO V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS. (1962) 2 S. C. N. L. R. 1 ALL NLR 431, ORIARE V GOVERNMENT OF WESTRERN REGION NIGERIA (1971) 1 ALL NLR 138, OKAFOR V NNAIFE (1973) 3 S. C. 85. The power to order joinder of parties is discretionary, which like all other judicial discretion, must be exercised judicially and judiciously. Thus, for the Court to order joinder the party seeking the exercise of the discretionary power must satisfy the Court that the party sought to be joined in the action is a person who ought to have been joined in the suit in the first instance or that his presence before the Court is necessary to enable such a Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the issues involved in the cause. That is to say it must be established that the party to be joined is a necessary party. A necessary party to a proceeding has been said to be a party whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the claim before the court. It is the party in the absence of whom the claim cannot be effectually and completely determined. See OYEDEJI AKASNBI (MOGAJI) V FAHUNMI (supra). Where however, the presence of a party is not necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the matter before the court, there will be no basis for exercise of discretionary power to order joinder. See UKU & ORS. V. OKUMAGBA & ORS (1974) 3 S. C. 35, (1974) 1 ALL NLR (PT. 1) 429, IGE V FARINDE (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 354) 42 @ 64-65. The Court in exercise of the power of joinder should be guided by the desirability to join all persons who may be entitled to or who claim some share or interest in the subject matter of the suit or who may be likely to be affected by the result of the litigation. It is interesting to note that in the instant case, this application was brought by the Claimant to join the party sought to be joined as 2nd Defendant. However, neither the Defendant nor the party sought to be joined has filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the application. It is therefore taken that the Defendant and the party sought to be joined have conceded to granting of this application. Notwithstanding, non-filing of counter-affidavit to challenge this application, this Court must be convinced that the party sought to be joined as 2nd Defendant to this proceedings is a necessary party and that his presence in the suit will lead to effectual and complete determination of the questions in dispute and for him to also be bound by the result of the litigation. For the Court to be able to determine the appropriateness or other wise of joining the party sought to be joined, the pleadings before the Court are relevant to this determination. There is no doubt that the main claim of the Claimant who initiated this suit and at the same time applicant for joinder of party sought to be joined borders on issue of declaring the purported interdiction of the Claimant by the Claimant unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever for contravention of terms and conditions of service as well as public service rules 2008. The Claimant is also seeking for order of this Court reinstating him back to his employment, as well as an order directing defendant to pay the Claimant the full amount of his emoluments which he was denied of while on interdiction. This clearly shows that the Claimant’s claim as contained in his complaint and statement of facts is against the current Defendant. It is worth noting that a peep into the statement of facts (Pleading) filed by the Claimant before this court will disclose that there is no relief claimed by the Claimant against the party sought to be joined as 2nd Defendant in this suit. In my view this may not be unconnected with the fact that the act being complained of is such that it can only be made be made by an employee against his employer. This goes to show that the party sought to be joined having not been the employer of the Claimant is not a necessary party to this proceedings. Therefore, the presence of the party sought to be joined is not required. Likewise the issue of legality or otherwise of the interdiction of the Claimant can be effectively and effectually determined by this Court without the presence of the party sought to be joined. The Claimant has also not produced the alleged directive of the party sought to be joined which led to his interdiction. It is to be noted that in law the mere fact that a party is in possession of evidence to prove a case is not a good ground for joining the party to a suit. In view of the above findings it is my humble view that the party sought to be joined in this suit is not a necessary party, the party cannot add or subtract to the proceedings. In view of the state of the pleadings of the Claimant before the court, it is clear the party sought to be joined is not a necessary party whose presence can be said to be very vital and critical to the determination of the issue of lawfulness or otherwise of the Claimant’s interdiction by the Defendant. This holding is strengthened by the fact that the party sought to be joined is not the employer of the Claimant. In the circumstance the party sought to be joined has no role to play on issues of staffers of the Defendant. The absence of the party sought to be joined will not affect determination of this suit. Likewise the presence of the party sought to be joined will make no difference to the effectual and complete settlement of all the questions that may arise in this suit regarding the issue of interdiction, reinstatement and restoration of full salary of the Claimant. Consequently, the party sought to be joined is not appropriate party to be joined in this suit. In view of the reasons given above the prayer for joinder is hereby refused. On issue of correction of name of the Claimant, the power of court to grant amendment to reflect correct name of any of the parties in a suit, has been acknowledged in a plethora of cases. See NJEMANZE V SHELL BP PORTHARCOURT (1966) Vol. 4 NSCC 1958) VOL. 1 NSCC6, MAERKS LINE V ADDIDE INVESTMENT LTD, OLU OF WARRI & ORS. V ESI & ORS. (1958) VOL.1 NSCC, the Courts were unanimous that amendment is readily granted to correct wrong description of a party. A.B. MANU NIG. LTD V COASTAIN (WA) LTD (1994) 7 NWLR 112. In view of non-objection to the application to amend the name of the Claimant by substituting ‘Gambo’ with ‘Sambo’ since it is a misnomer is hereby granted. The Claimant is granted leave to substitute the name ‘‘Gambo’’ with the name ‘‘Sambo’’, as prayed. In view of the reasons given above the prayer for joinder is hereby refused for lacking in merit. While the prayer for amendment of the Claimant’s name succeed and is hereby granted. Sanusi Kado, Judge.