Download PDF
RULING The Claimant initiated this action by way of Complaint against the Defendants jointly and severally, on the 5th day of May, 2011, claiming: A. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendants to pay the claimant the sum of N930, 000 {Nine Hundred and Thirty Thousand Naira Only) being the total claim of the claimant’s arrears of salaries and emolument due and accruable to him. B. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 22% per annum on the sum due until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the final liquidation of the judgment debt. C. Cost of litigation. Accompanying the Complaint is a 14-paragraphed Statement of Facts, List of Witnesses and List of documents to be relied upon at the trial by the Claimant. By way of response, on the 23rd of May, 2011, the Respondents entered a conditional appearance. The Respondents also filed a joint statement of defence and joint witness statement on oath on 3rd June, 2011. In their joint defence, the Respondent admitted owing the Claimant 5 months arrears of salaries at the rate of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) per month and a further sum of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) being salary in lieu of notice; the whole amount admitted to be owing the Claimant by the Respondents totals N300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira only). On the 23rd of June, 2011, the Claimant filed a Motion on Notice for joinder pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1(1), Order 3 Rule 3 and Order 15 of the NIC Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Motion on Notice was accompanied by a 5-paragraphed affidavit, a written address in support of the Motion on Notice and Exhibit “A”. By the Motion on Notice, the Claimant/Applicant sought the following reliefs: 1. An order joining Afro-System and Technology Limited as a Defendant in the suit. 2. An order for leave to amend the Claimant/Applicant writ of summons to reflect the joinder. The Claimant/Applicant in his written address formulated one issue for determination viz: “WHETHER in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant/Applicant is entitled to leave of this Honourable Court joining Afro-System and Technology Limited as a party in this case and to amend originating processes before this Honourable Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case?” In reaction to the Claimant’s/Applicant’s Motion on Notice for joinder, the Respondents’ Counsel on the 5th of July, 2011 filed a 3-paragraphed joint counter-affidavit, a written address and “Exhibits Advanced 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2C.” The Respondents also submitted one issue for determination to wit: “Whether the party sought to be joined is a necessary party, which in whose absence the court cannot properly and adequately adjudicate on the matter before it?.” On the 12th July, 2011 when the matter came up for hearing, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant adopted his written address and proceeded to make oral submissions. While arguing the motion, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that by his writ of summons, the Claimant is claiming against the 1st and 2nd Respondents jointly and severally, among other things, his gratuity calculated at 80% of his annual salary and leave bonus. It was the contention of Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant that the claims derived from a document titled General Conditions of Employment issued by Afro-System and Technology Limited, the party sought to be joined as a respondent in this suit. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that the document is already pleaded by the Claimant/Applicant. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that the Respondents in their joint statement of defence denied the existence of the document under reference and that it is based on this denial that the Claimant/Applicant brought this application seeking to join Afro-System and Technology as a co-defendant in the suit. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant contended that the 1st Respondent is the alter-ego of the 2nd Respondent and the co-defendant sought to be joined. It was the submission of the Counsel that the 1st Respondent having issued the Claimant with the document titled General Conditions of Employment, it makes the party to be joined a necessary party in this suit. Counsel to the Claimant contended that the issues before the Court could not be finally determined without joining the party. The Claimant’s/Applicant’s Counsel drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 2(h) of the Respondents’ joint counter-affidavit wherein they denied that Exhibit ‘A’ emanated from them. Counsel urged the Court to take judicial notice of Exhibit ‘A’ and the fact that the signature on Exhibit ‘A’ is one and the same with Exhibit ‘A’ page 2 in support of Claimant’s motion. Finally, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant urged the Court to grant their prayers as contained in the Motion on Notice. As earlier noted, the Claimant’s Counsel in his written address formulated one issue for determination. It is not expedient to re-quote the issue as formulated. It suffices to state that Counsel to the Claimant in his written address referred to the case of BISIMILLAHI V. YAGBA-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2002) 3 WRN 167 on the criteria to be met by an applicant seeking to be joined as a party to any action or suit. According to the Counsel, Afro-System and Technology Limited is a necessary party whose presence is very germane to the determination of the issues being canvassed by the parties. In his written address, Counsel submitted that the fact that the Claimant/Applicant signed the General Conditions of Employment which was issued by the party sought to be joined and worked for both the 2nd Respondent and Afro-System and Technology Limited owned by the 1st Respondent as factors weighing in favour of the grant of this application. According to Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant, the fact that the Claimant pleaded the General Conditions of Employment in his writ of summons and equally relied on the document in calculating his gratuity and leave allowance makes Afro-System and Technology Limited a necessary party to this suit. Counsel further referred the Court to the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice and the Exhibit attached thereto which is a photocopy of the Claimant’s 2 identity Cards issued to him by the 1st Respondent and the similarity in the staff identity cards and the signature thereon. On the prayer respecting the proposed amendment of the Claimant’s writ of summons, Counsel noted that the prayer is anchored on relief one if granted by the Court and aimed at determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Counsel referred to the Court of Appeal decision in the case of AJOSE V. U. A. C. N. (2004) 48 WRN 79 (issue 6) on the purpose of the proposed amendment. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant prayed the Court to exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously in favour of the Applicant given that he has satisfied the conditions laid down by the Rules of the Honourable Court and several judicial authorities of the appellate courts. On his part, Counsel to the Respondents during his oral submission referred to the counter-affidavit of the Respondents, the attached written address and the Exhibits attached thereto. He submitted further that from the time the Claimant/Applicant was employed and confirmed, all his salaries, wages, payments and adjustments were made solely by the 2nd Respondent without any complaint from the Claimant. Counsel to the Respondents contended that the issue of the staff Identity Card was never in issue. Counsel cited the Supreme Court decision in NACH V. MHWUN (2008) 37 WRL p. 1 at 8 ratio 6 in support of his submission and urged the Court to dismiss the Claimant’s/Applicant’s application. As I have earlier stated, the Respondents in their joint written address formulated one issue for determination. It is not necessary to reproduce the issue as formulated. The crux of the Respondents’ arguments is that the Claimant did not aver in his pleadings that he was employed by the party sought to be joined that is, Afro-System and Technology Limited. Counsel to the Respondents in his written submission referred to paragraph 4 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support of his Motion on Notice where he deposed that he was a staff of the 2nd Respondent but merely performed functions for the party sought to be joined when the need arose. It was the submission of the Counsel to the Respondents that a party seeking an order of the court bears the burden of placing before the court all material particulars to be entitled to same and cites the case of NACH V. MHWUN (supra) in support of his submission. It was the contention of the learned Counsel to the Respondents that the Applicant has failed to put before the Court any document to show that there was an employment relationship between him and the party sought to be joined. Counsel submitted further that Exhibit ‘A’ attached by the Claimant without more is not sufficient to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought by the Applicant since according to him, the issuance of Identity Cards to a person could not by any stretch of imagination be construed to mean the existence of employment relationship between the issuing authority and the holder of the ID card. Counsel to the Respondents argued further that even if it were assumed (without conceding) that the party sought to be joined has an interest to protect in this case, the parties as are herein represented can still represent any of that interest without necessarily joining the party sought to be joined; since according to him, the 1st Respondent is a Director in both companies. Relying further on the case of NACH V. MHWUN (supra), Counsel to the Respondents submits that the Claimant has nothing to lose if the party sought to be joined is not joined as any decision reached “will still bind it.” Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the application for joinder. I have carefully perused and considered the issues raised in the Motion on Notice for joinder filed by the Claimant/Applicant including the submissions made and authorities cited for and against them by the parties. The Respondents, like the Claimant/Applicant formulated one issue for determination. On a careful perusal, I am persuaded that both issues are the same in substance but differ only in semantics. I am inclined to adopt the issue as formulated by the Applicant for the purpose of determining this application. I have chosen this approach given the fact that the issue for determination as submitted for determination by the Claimant/Applicant is broader and encapsulates the issue formulated by the Respondents. In order to resolve the issue, I shall proceed to make some observations. The kernel of the Claimant’s/Applicant’s case is that the General Conditions of Employment for the staff signed by the Claimant as an employee of the 2nd Respondent was issued by the party sought to be joined. That the Claimant/Applicant relied on the General Conditions of Employment for staff in computing his gratuity, that he performed some functions for the party sought to be joined when the need arose, that he was issued Exhibit ‘A’ which are the Identity Cards of the 2nd Respondent and the party sought to be joined and that the 1st Respondent owns both the 2nd Respondent company and the party sought to be joined. The Claimant/Applicant submittd that since the Respondents denied issuing Exhibit ‘A’, and the General Conditions of Employment, it becomes necessary to join Afro-System and Technology in order to ensure effectual and complete determination of the issues between the parties. The submission of the Respondents rests on the premise that the Claimant/Applicant was not employed by the party sought to be joined and based on this fact, there is no reason for an order of the Court joining Afro-System and Technology Limited as a party to the suit. It is pertinent to state that the case of the Claimant is not built on the premise that he was employed by the party sought to be joined. Rather, it is the case of the Claimant/Applicant that the relationship between the party sought to be joined, the Respondents and the Claimant is such that necessitates an order of the Court joining Afro-System and Technology as a party so as to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the issues involved in the case as was decided in the case of Bisimillahi V. Yagba-East Local Government supra. It is pertinent to consider whether the Applicant in this case has satisfied the Court on the necessity of joining the party sought to be joined. The Applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of this Court that he signed the General Conditions of Employment issued by the party sought to be joined. The Applicant has also relied on the said document in calculating his gratuity and leave bonus being claimed against the Respondents. In order to demonstrate the importance of this document to his case, the Claimant/Applicant pleaded this document in paragraph 11 of his statement of claim. Another salient issue that I have had to consider is the averment by the Claimant/Applicant that whenever the need arose, he performed functions for the party sought to be joined. This averment has not been controverted by the Respondents. The Claimant/Applicant also held the Identity Cards of both the 2nd Respondent and the party sought to be joined. I agree with the Respondents Counsel submission that the mere fact that an identity card is issued to a person does not necessarily infer an employment relationship between the holder and the issuing authority. However, in appropriate cases such as the one at hand, the issuance of ID Card can establish a nexus between the holder and the issuing authority; although the Court must hear evidence to establish the sort of relationship that existed. This is a matter for full trial and cannot be determined at this preliminary stage. The parties are ad idem on the fact that the 1st Respondent is a Director in both the 2nd Respondent and the party sought to be joined. On the whole and based on the facts as reviewed above, I am inclined and so hold that the nexus between the Claimant/Applicant, the Respondents and the party sought to be joined is such that makes the latter a necessary party to be joined. It is clear that Afro-System and Technology Limited has sufficient interest in the case that will enable this Court exercise its discretion in favour of granting the present application. In coming to this conclusion, I rely on the decision of the Court in the case of Bisimillahi V. Yagba-East Local Government supra. In the circumstances, and for all the reasons I have stated above, this Court holds that this application succeeds on its merit. It is therefore, the order of this Court that Afro-System and Technology be joined as a co-respondent in this suit. In the light of the order above, leave is hereby granted to the Claimant/Applicant to amend his writ of summons to reflect the joinder. I shall make no order as to costs.