Download PDF
RULING In a motion on notice filed on 12th July 2018 and brought pursuant to Order 13 Rule 7, Order 26 Rule 2, 3, and 4 of the NICN Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the Claimant sought the following prayers: 1. An Order joining Mr. Ahmed Umar as the 2nd Defendant in this suit. 2. An Order granting leave to the Claimant to amend the Complaint, statement of facts and witness statement on oath. 3. An Order deeming the amended complaint, statement of facts and witness statement on oath as properly filed and served. 4. And any further orders the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. In the affidavit of the Claimant filed in support of the motion, it was deposed that the suit was instituted without including Ahmed Umar as party. The said Ahmed Umar is a director of the 1st Defendant as well as Delserve Nigeria Limited and he signed the Claimant’s appointment and termination letters. The name of Ahmed Umar and his signature are on the directors’ form of the Defendant filed at the Corporate Affairs Commission. Upon a review of his case with his counsel, new issues were discovered which made it necessary to join Ahmed Umar as the 2nd Defendant in the case so that the issues between the parties can be effectively dealt with. It is also necessary to amend Claimant’s originating processes to reflect the current position. The Claimant also stated that the application is not intended to overreach the Defendants, nor will the grant of the application prejudice the Defendants. The proposed amended originating processes are annexed as Exhibit A. In the written address in support of the motion, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that the Claimant is permitted in Order 13 Rule 7 of the NICN Rule 2017 to join any person to the suit who will be affected in the litigation. Counsel also cited ONABANJO vs. EWETUGA and MOHAMMED vs. CAR to buttress his arguments. Counsel also argued that the rules permit the Claimant to amend the originating process, which amendment in this case, will not overreach or annoy the Defendant. The Defendant opposed the motion through a counter affidavit deposed by Kehinde Olona, a legal practitioner in the law firm of counsel for the Defendant. It was deposed that only one Defendant has been sued in this action and the issues between the parties can be dealt with without amending the originating processes for the purpose of joining Ahmed Umar who is a mere employee of the Defendant. It was also stated that the Defendant is a separate legal entity from Delserve Nigeria Limited who the Claimant has a case against but who is not a party to this suit. The deponent further stated that this application is intended to overreach the Defendant. The Defendant’s counsel, D.D. Kili Esq., formulated two issues for determination in the written address in support of the counter affidavit. They are: 1. Whether Mr. Ahmed Umar being an employee of the respondent is a proper party to be joined to this suit. 2. Whether the Claimant has disclosed a cause of action against the party sought to be joined. It was submitted in respect of issue one that Mr. Ahmed Umar is not a necessary or proper party to be joined to this case because he was a mere employee of the Defendant. The Defendant has a legal existence separate from that of its owners, directors or employees. Any act of Ahmed Umar as employee and agent of the Defendant would have been done for the Defendant as the principal. In that case, liability arising from the acts of Ahmed Umar is that of the Defendant. Counsel cited in support the cases of YESUFU vs. KUPPER INTERNATIONAL MV and AKALONU vs. OMOKARO. It was submitted that Ahmed Umar cannot be joined to the suit for acts performed in his capacity as a director on behalf of another company. On issue two, it was submitted that the facts leading to this suit occurred while the party sought to be joined was working for another company, Delserve Nigeria Limited, who is not a party to this suit. It was argued that the Claimant has not disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the party sought to be joined. COURT: In the Claimant’s application, he seeks to join Ahmed Umar as the 2nd Defendant in this suit and to amend the originating processes to reflect the facts of the joinder. The basis for seeking to join Ahmed Umar to the suit as a Defendant is that Ahmed Umar is a director of the Defendant as well as Delserve Nigeria Limited and he signed the Claimant’s appointment and termination letters. The Claimant also said joining Ahmed Umar as the 2nd Defendant in the case will enable the issues between the parties to be effectively dealt with. I have also examined the proposed amendment to the complaint and statement of facts in Exhibit A of the Claimant’s affidavit in support of the motion. It discloses that the Claimant made some joint allegations against Ahmed Umar and the Defendant and the reliefs sought by the Claimant are sought from the Defendant and Ahmed Umar jointly and severally. Order 13 Rules 1, 4, 7 and 8 provide as follows: 1. All persons may be joined in one action as Claimants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such Claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such relief as the Claimant may be entitled to without any amendment 4. Any person may be joined as Defendant against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative. Judgment may be given against one or more of the Defendants as may be found to be liable, according to their respective liabilities, without any amendment. 7. A Claimant may at the Claimant’s option join as parties to the same action all or any of the persons severally, or jointly and severally liable on any reliefs in the matter. 8. Where a Claimant is in doubt as to the person from whom the Claimant is entitled to redress, the Claimant may, in such manner as hereinafter mentioned, or as may be prescribed by any special order, join two or more Defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the Defendants is liable and to what extent, may be determined as between all parties. It is clear from the above rules that the Claimant is permitted to join any person to the suit as a Defendant once he believes that he has a right to any relief against the person. Whether the Claimant will eventually succeed in is claim against the joined party is another matter, but it is not a consideration for refusing the application for joinder. Therefore, the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant has not disclosed a reasonable cause of action against Ahmed Umar is not a relevant factor to refuse the Claimant’s application to join Ahmed Umar as a Defendant to the suit. Whether or not the Claimant has a reasonable cause of action against Ahmed Umar is a matter to be determined after evidence has been taken in the matter. I find that the Claimant has made out a case for the joinder of Ahmed Umar as the 2nd Defendant in this case. Order 13 Rule 16 of the NICN Rule 2017 provides that where a Defendant is added or substituted, the Originating Processes shall be amended accordingly and served on the new Defendant. By this rule, the Claimant’s application for amendment of the originating process to reflect the facts of the joinder of Ahmed Umar in the suit is in order. Hearing has not commenced in this case. I do not see how the Defendant will be overreached or prejudiced by the amendment. In any case, the new Defendant will have the chance to file a defence to the amended processes. So also, the Defendant may file a consequential amendment to the statement of defence if it deems necessary. The prayer for amendment of the originating processes is granted accordingly. I find merit in the Claimant’s application. It is hereby ordered as follows: 1. Mr. Ahmed Umar is joined to the suit as the 2nd Defendant. 2. Leave is granted to the Claimant to amend the Complaint, statement of facts and witness statement on oath. 3. The clean copy of amended complaint, statement of facts and witness statement on oath filed separately on 12th July 2018 is deemed as properly filed and served. 4. The Claimant is ordered to serve the 2nd Defendant with the amended originating processes within 7 days from today. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge