Download PDF
RULING. Vide motion on notice dated 25/10/18 and filed on 26/10/18, the claimants are praying for: 1. An ORDER of the Honourable Court joining Asset Management Company of Nigeria. (AMCON) as the 1st Defendant to this suit. 2. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Applicants to amend their Statement of Material facts, schedule of Documents, and Witness Statement on Oath to include Asset Management of Nigeria (AMCON) as the 1st Defendant to this suit. 3. AND for such order or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances as to meet the justice of the case. The grounds upon which this application was brought are:- I. That the Claimants/Applicants' General Form of Complaint was filed on 13th of November, 2017 before the Honourable Court. II. That the name of Asset Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON) who .were originally the first Defendant to this suit because they had not been served with pre-action notice was struck out by an order of the Honourable Court made on 24th May, 2018 III. AMCON has now been served with a pre-action notice and there is need to join them as Defendants to the suit for a just determination of the issues involved. There is also need to amend the processes to reflect their name as one of the Defendants to the suit. The application is supported by a 7 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Akawe Martins Luter, a deputy chief litigation clerk in the law firm of S. T. Hon, SAN, counsel for the claimants. The gist of the facts as disclosed in the affidavit in support are that this action was instituted on 13/11/17, but by order of this court made on 24/5/18, the name of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), was struck out of the suit due to lack of service of pre-action notice. Vide exhibit A, the claimants have now served the requisite pre-action notice in respect of the suit. Granting order of joinder is necessary in the presentation of the claimants’ case. The joinder will make it necessary for amendment of the processes filed by the claimants in this suit. The application is aimed at bringing all the relevant facts and parties before the court so as to determine the matter effectively and effectually once and for all in the interest of justice. There is the need to join AMCON as 1st defendant. The claimants/applicants also filed along with their motion on notice written address. J. J. Dabo, Esq; counsel for the claimants/applicant in adumbration informed the court that they are relying on the entire deposition contained in the affidavit in support. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address a sole issue was distilled for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the claimants/applicant(s) has(s) made out a case to warrant the grant of this application’’. In advancing argument in support of the motion on notice, counsel submitted that under order 13 rule 4, order 17 rule 1 and order 26 rules 1 and 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, this court is empowered to grant this application. Counsel also submitted that taking into consideration judicial authorities on the issues under consideration, the claimants have satisfied conditions for grant of application for joinder and amendment of originating processes and their attachments. On this submission counsel placed reliance on cases of OKOLI V OJIAKOR (1997) 1 NWLR (PT479) 48, C.M.I. TRADING SERV. LTD V YURIY (1998) 11 NWLR (PT.573) 284, EKE V AKPU ((2010) AL FWLR (PT.510) & SANNI V ABDULSALAM (2010) ALL FWLR (PT.528) 987. It was argued by counsel that amendment of pleading for the purpose of determining the real issues in controversy between parties ought to be allowed at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal. It is only when such amendment will result in injustice, surprise or embarrassment to the other party that it will be refused. It is the contention of counsel that this application is not meant to overreach the respondents in any way. The proposed amendment do not raise any new issues nor do they shift from the facts upon which the applicants instituted the action. Counsel urged the court to hold that conditions for grant of this application exists and it should granted in the interest of justice. In opposing this application the party sought to be joined filed a 16 paragraphs counter-affidavit sworn to by one Samuel C. Onah, Esq; a counsel in the law firm of Joseph Nwobike & Co. counsel for the party sought to be joined. In the counter-affidavit it was averred that the party sought to be joined was not served with the motion on notice for joinder. The deposition in the affidavit in support and averment in the proposed amended statement of facts did not disclosed any wrong committed against the claimants by the party sought to be joined. There is no claim against the party sought to be joined in the statement of facts. The party sought to be joined did not participate and/or play any role or part whatsoever in the transactions that led to the termination of the appointment of the claimants. The party sought to be joined is neither a necessary party nor a nominal party to the transactions that led to the substantive suit and its presence is not required to effectually and completely determine the issues raised. The grant of this application will highly prejudice the party sought to be joined. Godswil D. Nwani, Esq; counsel for the party sought to be joined in his oral submissions before the court informed the court that they are opposing this application and in furtherance of that they have filed a 16 paragraphs affidavit which they are relying in its entirety. Counsel adopted written address as his argument. In the written address a single issue was formulated for determination. Thus: ‘‘Whether having regards to exhibit B attached to the affidavit in support of the application, the claimants disclosed a claim against the party sought to be joined to warrant the grant of the application for joinder’’. In arguing the issue for determination, counsel cited order 13 rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria and submitted that for a person to be joined as a party to an action, the party must show that he has a right of relief against such person it is therefore follows, that a person against whom no right of relief exist cannot in law be properly joined as a defendant to an action. Counsel referred to the case of DEMOCRATIC PARTY (ADC) V YAHAYA BELLO (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt.1545) 112, the Supreme Court has laid down factors to be considered in an application for joinder, thus: ‘‘the deciding factors determining the effect of non-joinder or mis-joinder of a party lie in the following questions: 1. Whether the cause or matter is liable to be defeated by non-joinder? 2. Whether the matter can be adjudicated without the 3rd party added a (sic) defendant? 3. Is the 3rd party a person who should have been joined in the first place? 4. Is the 3rd party a person whose presence before the court as a defendant will be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter?" See also the case of Green vs. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 at 493. WHETHER THE CLAIMANTS ALLEGED ANY RIGHT OF RELIEF AGAINST THE PARTY SOUGHT TO BE JOINED? It is the submission of counsel that the Claimants did not allege any right of relief against the Party Sought to be joined. The Claimants merely mentioned the Party Sought to be joined in the averments at paragraphs 3, 4 and 33(1) of the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts (attached as Exhibit B to the Affidavit in support of the application). In the said paragraphs, the Claimants averred as follows: The 1st Defendant is a statutory body established by an Act of the National Assembly to take over liquidated or dying corporate organizations. Its head office is located in the FCT, Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The party sought to be joined as 1st Defendant and 3rd Defendants are, however, in dispute as to which of them would manage the affairs of the 2nd Defendant, now a liquidated company. Both parties have been having settlement meetings in Lagos and the 9th and 22nd Claimants have attended some of the meetings; but till date, settlement as to who between the party sought to be joined as 1st defendant and 3rd Defendant would manage the affairs of the liquidated company and share/ dispose of its assets. The Claimants' claims against the Defendants jointly and or severally therefore, are as follows: RELEIFS CLAIMED: An order that since the 3rd Defendant lacks legal capacity to terminate the employment of the Claimants, the said 3rd Defendant and the 1st Defendant having been involved in a legal tussle as to which of them should manage the affairs of the 2nd Defendant, the purported termination of the Claimants' employment with the 2nd Defendant is illegal, unlawful, null and void." From the above, counsel contended that there is no allegation of any right of relief made by the Claimants against the Party Sought to be Joined. A careful perusal of the entire averments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts shows that the transactions that gave rise to the action was between the Claimant on one hand and the 1st and 2ndDefendants on the other hand. The Party Sought to be Joined did not play any role whatsoever in the said transactions. In relief 33 (1) where the Party Sought to be Joined was mentioned, the Claimant did not make any claim against the Party Sought to be Joined but against the 2nd Defendant herein whom they alleged to have terminated their employments. It is the submission of counsel that in the absence of allegation of any right of relief against the Party Sought to be joined, its presence is absolutely unnecessary and not required for the effectual and complete determination of the issues in the Claimants' suit. Consequently, this question is answered in the negative. WHETHER THE CAUSE OR MATTER IS LIABLE TO BE DEFEATED BY NON-JOINDER? WHETHER THE MATTER CAN BE ADJUDICATED WITHOUT THE 3RD PARTYADDED AS A DEFENDANT? Counsel in answer both questions adopted his arguments, in paragraphs 3.03 - 3.04 above and submit that, the presence of the Party Sought to be joined is absolutely unnecessary for the determination of all the questions in issues in the substantive suit. Counsel referred to the averments in paragraphs 5, 7,8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Proposed Amended Statements of Material Facts, from the said paragraphs, it could be seen that the entire transactions that led to the action were between the Claimants, the 1st and 2nd Defendants. In the same vein, both the main, ancillary and alternative reliefs sought by the Claimants are against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. In the circumstances counsel submitted that the non-joinder of the Party Sought to be Joined will not in any way defeat the effectual and complete determination of the issues in dispute in the substantive suit. Furthermore, the presence of the Party Sought to be joined is not needed for this Honourable Court to adjudicate on the matter. IS THE 3RD PARTY A PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN JOINED IN THE FIRST PLACE? IS THE 3RD PARTY A PERSON WHOSE PRESENCE BEFORE THE COURT AS A DEFENDANT NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO EFFECTUALLY AND COMPLETELY DETERMINE ALL THE QUESTIONS IN ISSUE IN THE MATTER? Counsel adopted arguments in paragraphs 3.03 - 3.05 above and submit that, the Party Sought to be joined is neither a necessary nor a nominal party to the substantive suit. Thus, it ought not to have been joined as a party to the suit in the first place neither is its presence required or necessary for the Honourable Court to effectually and completely determine the questions in issue in the substantive suit. In B. B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. vs. O. H. M. B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206 at 263, para H, it was held that: "It is settled law that a necessary party to a suit is one who is not only interested in the dispute but one whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the claim before the court." See also the cases of A.D.C vs. Yahaya Bello (Supra) at page 136, paras D-F; Ige vs. Farinde (1994)7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 42 and Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Ltd. vs. J. B. O. Int'l & Ors. (2010)19 NWLR (Pt. 1226)1. Counsel submitted that a look at the whole averments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts will show that the party sought to be Joined has no interest whatsoever in the substantive suit and that its presence will not be required in any way by this Honourable Court to arrive at a just, effectual and complete determination of the questions in issue in the substantive suit. The averments by the Claimants at paragraph 4 of the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts to the effect that, the Party Sought to be Joined and the 2nd Defendant are engaged in a legal battle as to who should manage the affairs of the 1st Defendant, without more, cannot justify the joinder of the Party Sought to be Joined as a party to the substantive suit. This is because the Claimants at paragraph 5 of the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts averred unequivocally that the 1st Defendant was voluntarily liquidated on 20th November, 2016 and that the 2nd Defendant was appointed as the 1st Defendant's liquidator. Also, the Claimants averred at paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts that the Claimants' employments were terminated by the 2nd Defendant on 2nd March, 2017. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the termination of the Claimants' employments was carried out by the 2nd Defendant in his capacity as the liquidator of the 1st Defendant. It follows therefore that the Party Sought to be joined did not play any role in the transactions that gave rise to the Claimants' suit and has no interest in the suit. It is the submission of counsel that the averments in paragraph 4 of the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts that the Party Sought to be Joined and the 2nd Defendant are engaged in legal battle as to who should control the assets of the 1st Defendant does not suffice to warrant the joinder of the Party Sought to be Joined as a party to the suit. The case would have been different if the 2nd Defendant was removed as a liquidator of the 1st Defendant and substituted with an appointee of the Party Sought to be joined. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the 2nd Defendant has been removed as the liquidator of the 1st Defendant and substituted with an appointee of the Party Sought to be Joined, the Party Sought to be Joined cannot be said in fact and in law to have interest in the Claimants' action neither is the presence of the Party Sought to be Joined necessary for this Honourable Court to effectually and completely determine the questions in issue in the substantive suit. In view of the foregoing arguments, we answer the above questions in the negative. In concluding argument counsel urged the court to dismiss this application for lacking in merit as the party sought to be joined did not play any role in the transactions that led to the institution of the substantive suit by the Claimants. And the Proposed Amended Statement of Material Facts, the Claimants did not disclose or allege right to any claim and/or relief against the Party Sought to be joined. The claimants filed further and better affidavit in reaction to the counter-affidavit filed by the party sought to be joined in opposition to this application. A reply on points of law was also filed by the claimants in answer to the opposition by the party sought to be joined. It is the submission of counsel that contrary to the assertion of the party sought to be joined the claimant have reliefs against the party sought to be joined. To support this contention counsel pages 62 and 63 of exhibit B. counsel argued the party sought to be joined ought to be joined with the reliefs against it. On the argument that non-joinder will not defeat action. It is argued by counsel for the claimants that for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a matter proper parties must be before the court. On this submission counsel relied on GOODWIL & TRUST INVESTMENT LTD V WITT & BUSH LTD (2011) 2-3 SC (Pt.1) 176. The claimants have stated that party sought to be joined is entangled in a legal battle as to who will manage the affairs 1st defendant, the outcome of the litigation will bind whoever among the parties emerged victorious. It is argued by counsel that party sought to be joined is estopped by conduct from raising fresh objection on why they should not be a party since when they were initially sued they only raised issue of pre-action notice. To buttress his contention counsel relied on ISITOR V FAKOREDE (2018) 5 NWLR (pt.1612) 328 SC, and SANI V STATE (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt.1622) 412 SC. It is the contention of counsel that with these decisions when a party elects not to raise and argue an issue, he is estopped from bringing such issue again before the court. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to discountenance the opposition and grant the application for joinder. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly perused the originating process commencing this suit as well as the motion on notice seeking for order of joinder and a consequential order for amendment. I have equally and thoroughly examined the counter-affidavit file in opposition and further and better affidavit and the various addresses filed by counsel for and against this application. Having regards to the processes filed before the court, the question that needs resolution is: ‘‘Whether from the facts and circumstances of this suit the claimants are entitled to an order for joinder of the party sought to be joined and amendment of the statement of facts and its accompanying documents’’. In preparation to file an action before a court of law it is the prerogative of the plaintiff (claimant) to determine the defendants in a suit. The liability of each of the parties to the suit would be determined having regard to the pleadings and evidence led by the claimant in the light of applicable laws. Therefore, in considering application for joinder all that the court is to do is to examine the claim of the claimant before the court. This is because it is the claimant’s claim that gives him right to initiate the action for the alleged wrongful act. The person to be joined must however be someone whose presence is necessary as a party and the only reason which makes him necessary as a party to the action is that he should be bound by the result of the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The determining factors on issue of joinder are; I. Whether the issue that calls for determination cannot be effectually and completely settled unless the party sought to be joined is made a party II. That his interest will be irreparably prejudiced if he is not made a party. See BELLO V INEC 2010 2 SCNJ 127, AJAYI V JOLAYEMI 2001 10 NWLR PT.722 516. It is without any doubt that it is the duty of a party suing to bring to court any party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of his case because, it is only the party suing that can decide on the person he believes he has a relief against. Further to this is trite law that where there has been a non-joinder either by failure of the parties or an intervener to apply for such joinder or failure of the court to join suo motu, the non-joinder will not be taken as a ground for defeating the action. The said rule is designed to save rather than destroy to cure rather than to kill an action or suit. See GREEN V GREEN (1986) NWLR (Pt.18) 517, PEENOK INESTMENT LTD V HOTEL PRESODENTIAL (1982) 12 s. c. 1. It is therefore the law 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 IBRAHIM V OJONYE 2012 3 NWLR PT.1286 108SAPO V SUNMONU 2010 11 NWLR PT.1205 374 From the avalanche of decided cases on joinder of parties to an action, what stood out to be the cogent reason for court to order joinder of a party in a suit is for the party to be bound by the result of the decision of the court. This may have been due to the principle of law that a court of law cannot make an order to bound parties not before the court, it is only parties before the court that are bound by the decision of the court. The question to be asked here is the party sought to be joined a necessary party that the decision of the court will be bound on him. The counsel for the claimants has argued that the party sought to be joined in this case is a necessary party as his presence will enable the court to effectually and effectively decide the issue submitted to it for resolution by the suit. However, the party sought to be joined argued per contra. It is the submission of counsel for the party sought to be joined that that the presence of party sought to be joined is not necessary as this suit can be effectively settled without the presence of the party sought to be joined. As pointed out early in this ruling when a court of law is faced with this kind of situation, the claim before the court is the determinant factor. In this regard a careful perusal of the entire clams and the proposed amendment of the claims will reveal that the claimants in this suit were former employees of the 2nd defendant that is under liquidation. It is also evident from the affidavit evidence which has not been denied by the defendants that the party sought to be joined is currently entangled in a legal battle as to who is the rightful party to manage the affairs of the 1st defendant under liquidation. This clearly shows that if at the end of the litigation in this matter the claimants were able to prove and got judgment in respect of their claims and the party sought to be joined also got judgment in his favour and he was given the management of the affairs of the 1st defendant then he will be bound by the result of this suit. In the circumstances I am of the firm view that the party sought to be joined as a defendant in this suit will be adversely affected if this suit is tried in his absence. Since the aim of any joinder is to make the party to be bound by the result of litigation, I have no hesitation in holding that there is need for the party to be joined in this suit to be joined so as to be bound by the result of this litigation. This is more so when the party sought to be joined has interest to protect in the 1st defendant. See order 13 rule 8 of the National industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, by this order this court has requisite jurisdiction to consider and grant joinder in deserving cases. It is to be noted the claimants have in their statements of facts express fears as to who among the parties sought to be joined and the liquidator of the 1st defendant that is in charge of the affairs of the 1st defendant. The fears and doubt surrounding as to which among the party sought to be joined and the liquidator of the 1st defendant is what necessitated this application. By rule 8 of order 13 of the rules of this court the claimants are entitled to join parties in whom there is doubt as to whom the claimants have relief against. It is to be noted that a careful perusal of order 13 will reveal that the aim of allowing joinder of parties is primarily to prevent multiplicity of action and to avoid delay; and thus save the parties unnecessary costs and expenses. In other words, the primary purpose of joinder of parties is avoid multiplicity or duplicity of actions so as to save time and expenses of the litigation the judicial process. See ADENIRAN V INTERNAL TRANSPORT LTD 1991 NWLR PT.214 155, OGOLO V FUBURA 2003 11 NWLR PT.831 231, CARENA V AKINSALE 2008 14 NWLR PT.1107 262. If the joinder being sought is refused and if the party sought to be joined in this matter won at the Federal High Court and the management of the 1st defendant is handed over to it, then the outcome of this decision would create a confusion and there by defeat the aim and purpose of joinder. However, if the parties on whom there is doubt as to the one the claimants have reliefs are made parties it will save time and allow for timeous determination of dispute thereby eliminate delay and multiplicity of actions. The claimant did not bother to advance argument for or against the prayer for an order for granting leave to the applicants to amend their statement of material facts, schedule of documents, and witness statement on oath to include Asset Management of Nigeria (AMCON) as the 1st defendant to this suit is, having not been objected is hereby granted as prayed. In the final analysis the claimants/applicants application for joinder and amendment succeeds and is hereby granted for being meritorious and in the interest of justice. The claimants are as well granted 7 days within which to effect all necessary amendment to the processes to reflect the grant of joinder and amendment. The defendants are as well given 7 days from the date of service of the claimants’ processes to if need be to amend their processes to bring them in conformity of this order of joinder and amendment. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. s