Download PDF
By a motion on notice dated 16th day of July 2012 but filed on 17th day of July 2012 and brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 6(6)(B) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the 2nd to 4th Defendants/Applicants prayed the court for the following reliefs: 1. An order striking out the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants for misjoinder of parties; 2. An order that Suit No. NIC/EN/63/2012 Between the Claimant/Respondent and 1-6th Defendants/Applicants is not properly constituted. 3. And for such further order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the application is brought are stated as follows: (a) That an agent that acts on behalf of a known and disclosed principal cannot incur any personal liability. (b) That the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants are offices or positions existing in 1st Defendant/Applicant for the effective management and administration of the said university. The application is supported by a 13 paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Peter Mgbabor, the Head, Department of Human Resources Management and Desk Officer, Legal of the 1st Defendant. Also accompanying the said motion is a Written Address dated 16th day of July 2012. In the said written address, learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th Defendants/Applicants formulated three issues for the court’s determination, namely, 1. Whether the suit as constituted with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants is proper; 2. Whether the court can strike out the names of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants for misjoinder of parties? 3. Whether the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are necessary parties to this suit and whether their being struck out would occasion miscarriage of justice? Arguing the first issue learned counsel submitted that the law is settled that an agent who acts on behalf of a known and disclosed principal cannot incur any personal liability. He then cited and relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Dr (Mrs) Mary J. Etteng vs Ebonyi State University & 3 Ors (2012) Unreported Judgment in Suit No CA/E/314/2009 delivered on 11th day of May 2012. Learned counsel also relied on the case of Ataguba & Company vs Gura Nig. Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429 at 436-437 ratios 6 and 7 where it was held that an agent acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal is not entitled to sue nor be liable to be sued. Learned counsel further stated that throughout the averments in the Statement of claim and the Exhibits, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants had always disclosed that they were acting on behalf of the university. He then referred to section 7(1) of the Ebonyi State University and Related Matters (Amendment) Law, 002 of 2011, wherein the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are clearly shown as bodies of the University, the 1st Defendant. Therefore since these bodies are agents of the University, a suit against it is enough without joining these agents particularly where there is no showing or complaining of personal misconducts against the occupier of the office in relation to the claimant. That the claimant is simply complaining of wrongful dismissal and seeks re-instatement into the services of the 1st Defendant. On the second issue, whether the court can strike out the case of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants for misjoinder of parties, counsel stated that the court is enjoined to have recourse to the claim of the claimant before it, which gives him the right to initiate the action for the alleged wrongful act in order to determine whether a party is a proper party to a matter before the court. He then submitted that there is no claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants from the statement of claim of the claimant and that they have no dispute with the claimant except as officers carrying out their duties to the 1st Defendant. Therefore, according to counsel, they ought to be struck out as wrongfully joined in the suit. He referred to and relied on the case of Ogbebo&Ors vs INEC &Ors (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 948) 376 at 384 Ratio 4,6,7 and 8. On the 3rd issue learned counsel submitted that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not necessary parties to the suit. That in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit in support, it was clearly deposed that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not necessary parties and that this suit can be completely and effectually be determined without them. He cited and relied on the case of Ngige vs Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 at 40 Ratio 1 in which the Supreme Court defined a necessary party to an action. He also referred to the case of Usmanu Danfodio University, Sokoto vs Balogun (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 124 at 130 Ratios 11, 12, 13 and 14 where the court held that in determining whether to join a person as a party to an action, the test is whether the person to be joined will have interest or will be irreparably prejudiced if he is not joined in the action. Counsel then submitted that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants have no interest in the matter and will not be prejudiced if they not joined as parties. Also on the issue of miscarriage of justice learned counsel submitted that the striking out of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants will not prejudice the claimant. He then referred to and relied on the case of Aigbobahi vs Aifuwa (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 976) 270 at 277 Ratio 6. Counsel urged the Court to strike out the names of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants. The learned counsel for the claimant filed his reply written address dated 30th day of July 2012 and filed same date, in which he formulated and argued two issues for the determination of this application. These issues are: 1. Whether the Claimant has cause of action against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants? 2. Whether the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are necessary parties in this action or simply mere agents of the 1st defendants. On the first issue learned counsel referred to the case of A-G Federation vs Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 at 75 R 39 where the Supreme Court defined cause of action. Thereafter counsel argued and submitted in paragraphs 1.10 to 1.14 of his reply written address that the clamant has cause of action against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants. On the second issue learned counsel equally submitted that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are necessary parties to this action. He referred to the definition of a necessary party as given by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions but particularly the cases of P.W.T. (Nig.) Ltd vs J.B.O. Int’l (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 1 at 23 Ratio 3 and Bello vs INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 at 404 Ratio 4. In Bello’s case the Supreme Court held that: The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person to an action is that he should be bound by the result and the question to be settled therefore must be a question in the action which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is a party. Learned counsel then argued that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are necessary parties for the following reasons: (i) The question as to why the claimant was suspended and who authorized his suspension cannot be answered by the 4th Defendant who suspended him. There is no evidence that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants were ever aware of and/or ever authorized the suspension. (ii) The question as to why the Claimant was dismissed from his employment and the bases for the said dismissal can only be answered by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants who allegedly authorized the dismissal. (iii) The questions as to why the statutory notices, required by Ebonyi State University Law, were not served on the Claimant before his suspension and/or dismissal can only be answered by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants. (iv) The questions as to why the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants violated the Claimant’s fundamental Right to fair hearing before his suspension and dismissal can only be answered by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants who violated the said right. Counsel further submitted that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are also necessary parties because they need to be bound by the judgment of this court while performing their statutory functions and duties with regard to the Claimant. Furthermore learned claimant’s counsel in paragraphs 1.18.1 to 1.18.3 of his written address argued and submitted that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants are not agents of the 1st Defendant with regard to the suspension and dismissal in question; and that even if they are such agents they still need to be parties to this action because they exceeded the limit or bounds of their respective authorities and went on the frolics of their own. I have carefully considered all the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties in this application. The main issue for determination is whether or not the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants are proper parties in this suit. The case of the Defendants/Applicants in this application is that the said 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not proper parties in this suit because they all basically performed their statutory responsibilities as agents of the 1st Defendant, the Ebonyi State University. I have looked at the claimant’s processes and his main grouse is that he is challenging his dismissal from the employment of the 1st Defendant, the Ebonyi State University. He has also stated in paragraph 3 of his statement of claim that the 2nd Defendant is created by section 11 of Ebonyi State University Law, 1999 and it is the governing body of the first Defendant and is charged with the general control and superintendence of the policies, finances and property of the 1st Defendant. Most importantly he averred that the 2nd Defendant is responsible for employment, suspension, termination and/or dismissal of senior staff, including senior lecturers of the 1st Defendant. Furthermore, looking at the processes of the Claimant he has sued the 3rd and 4th Defendants in their personal names and not just as Vice Chancellor and Registrar respectively of the Ebonyi State University, the 1st Defendant. Herein lies the problem of the claimant as raised and argued by the counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants. The learned counsel’s position is that the three offices and/or officers cannot be sued as such because they were acting as agents of a disclosed principal, the 1st Defendant. The claimant’s counsel argued that they are proper parties before the court because they were not acting as agents of the 1st Defendants but were executing their duties and functions statutorily conferred on them. He added that even if they were agents, they had exceeded their authority for which they must answer. The question now is: are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants proper parties before the Court? I will start with the 2nd Defendant first. As stated by the Claimant in his statement of Claim the 2nd Defendant is the body or organ of the 1st Defendant statutorily empowered to discharge functions that include the employment, termination and dismissal of its employees. In the circumstance therefore, it is thus not difficult to see how this important organ of the University, its Governing Council with statutory powers to employ, discipline and determine the appointment of its staff including the Claimant, must be a proper party to the complete and effectual determination of this suit, and I so hold. See the decision in Bello vs INEC (2010), supra. On the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants, the claims of the claimant show that these two defendants have been sued in both official and personal capacities, with their personal names clearly added. In the decision of the Court Appeal cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants, i.e., Ebonyi State University & 3 Ors vs Dr (Mrs) Mary J. Eteng (2012), supra, the court held that: It is of no moment that the 2nd – 4th Appellants are parties in this suit. The Respondent made it clear in paragraphs 2-5 of the Statement of Claim to the effect that the said Appellants were sued because they are heads of bodies of the 1st Appellant. The 1st Appellant in any case was the body that offered the Respondent the appointment and also determined the same through the acts of its human agents. The law is settled that an agent that acts on behalf of a known and disclosed principal cannot incur any personal liability. See Osigwe vs PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd (2009) 16 WRN 1. This being the position the Respondent’s suit is clearly against the 1st Appellant into whose employ or services the Respondent seeks to be re-instated. She had no appointment from any of the other Appellants. This was why I had stated earlier that I have used the words “as constituted” most advisedly. From this decision it is quite clear that the officers of the 1st Defendant, namely, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar, who discharged their functions, which though statutory, but in relation to the determination of the employment of the Claimant cannot be held personally responsible or liable. This is moreso where, as in the instant case, the main claim of the Claimant is that he has been wrongfully dismissed from his employment by the 1st Respondent. A further look at the reliefs of the Claimant as stated in paragraph 33 (a), (b) and (c) are specifically directed at the 1st Defendant. The remaining reliefs (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all couched in general terms. Consequently there is not a single specific relief directed against either the 3rd or 4th Defendants. In the circumstance therefore, the objection of the 1st-4th Defendants Counsel succeeds in part. Consequently, the court hereby makes the following orders: 1. The 2nd Defendant is a proper party in this suit 2. The 3rd and 4th Defendants are hereby struck out from this suit for misjoinder 3. The processes of the suit are accordingly to be amended to reflect the decision of the court. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim Presiding Judge