Download PDF
The Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection praying this honourable court for: 1. AN ORDER dismissing this suit for being incompetent; or 2. In the alternative, striking out the names of each and all the Defendants. The Applicant states that the said preliminary objection was brought on the ground that the law does not allow the agents of a disclosed principal to be sued together with the principal, and that there is no entity that goes by the name of the 1st Defendant. In this written address, the solicitor to the Defendants argued that the 2nd to 4th Defendant acted as agents to the first Defendant. He submitted that an agent is not liable and cannot be sued or joined in a suit for the wrongs of his principal where the principal is disclosed. In such a case, he said, only the principal is liable and he only can be sued. He relied on the case of Oforkaja Vs. Taraba State Govt. (2003) FWLR (Pt. 178) 1036 at Pg. 1063 Para. G. H e further submitted that the Claimant at all material times knew that he was dealing with the 2nd – 4th Defendants as staff of the 1st Defendant. He relied on the authority of Esang Vs. Aureol Plastic Ltd. (2003) FWLR (Pg. 129) 1471 at 1489 where the Court of Appeal held that the trial Judge was right in striking out the name of the 2nd Defendant from the suit since the Appellant knew from the start that he was dealing with the 1st Respondent being principal of 2nd Respondent. Counsel also relied on the case of Carlen (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. Unijos (1994) I NWLR Pt 323 Pg. 631 at 640-641 where the Supreme Court held that the University of Jos being an artificial legal entity can only enter into contracts through it’s agents, namely it’s officers and servants. The court further held that a contract made by an agent acting in the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal, is in law, the contract of the principal, and the principal, not the agent, is the proper person to sue upon such contract. Counsel submitted that it is an established rule in the law of agency that a Defendant who acted on behalf of a known or disclosed principal incurs no liability. He further relied on the cases of Okafor Vs. Ezenwa (2002) FWLR (Pt. 121) 1837 at 1843 and Vassile Vs. Pass Industries Nig. Ltd. (2000) FWLR (Pt. 19) 418 at 430 – 431. In Conclusion, counsel for the Defendant submitted that since the 2nd – 4th Defendants acted in their respective capacities as agents of the 1st Defendants, they cannot be liable or sued for the wrong of the 1st Defendant, a disclosed principal. He urged the court to strike out the names of the 2nd – 4th Defendant out of this suit, or in the alternative, strike out the entire suit. Responding, the Claimant filed a reply in opposition to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection. Claimant’s counsel gave a brief Statement of Facts narrating the events that led to the suit. In summary, the Claimant, a self loader driver was ordered by the 3rd Defendant to manually off-load heavy plates from a truck without any safety wear in place. This resulted in an accident that damaged the Claimant’s toe. In his narration, he stated the specific roles played by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants. Counsel narrowed down the issues for determination to two major issues. 1. What is the position of the law in the circumstances . 2. Whether the law permits the Claimant to join all the parties in a suit of this nature as shown in the brief of facts. Counsel chose to argue the two issues together. He submitted that the laws of agency allows the joining of the Defendants as already sued. He further stated that the case before the court is a tortious case of deceit. He relied on the case of R.O. Iyere Vs. Bende Feed & Flour Mills Ltd (2008) 7-12 Sec. 151 at 168-169 where the Supreme Court stated that in case of a tort feasor, each of two or more joint feasors is liable for the entire damage resulting from the tort. The Supreme Court went on to give instances of joint feasors as: (a) Employer and employee where the employer is vicariously liable for the tort of the employee. (b) Principal and agent where the principal is liable for the tort of the agent; (c) Employer and independent contractor where the employer is liable for the tort of his independent contractor. (d) A person who instigates another to commit a tort and the person who then commits the tort. (e) Persons who take concert action to a common end and in the course of executing that joint purpose, commit a tort. Relying on the above decision, counsel submitted that classes a, b, d and e as shown above, are applicable in the case at hand. He stated that the law permits the Claimant to sue either anyone among the classes or jointly. He said the Claimant in this case has chosen to sue all the people involved in the case as allowed by law. The Supreme Court in the case of Management Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Jonathan Otusanya (1987) 4 Sc 367 at 395 held that an agent who commits a tort on behalf of or on the instruction of his principal is along with the said principal, joint tort feasors in law. The Plaintiff is at liberty to select and sue anyone or any number of them and he can recover his claim in full from those he sued. Counsel submitted that the issue before the court is that of tort of deceit. He urged the court to discountenance the submissions of learned counsel to the Defendants, as they made reference only to mere principal and agent relationship. On the issue of error in spelling the name of the 1st Defendant, counsel submitted that the law allows the Claimant’s counsel to correct such error and omission. He observed that the correct spelling of the 1st Claimant’s name is “Mercury Eng. and Const. Co. Ltd.” Whereas the Claimant spelt it as “Mercury Engineering Construction Co. Ltd.” He submitted that these errors were mere misnomers which do not go to the root of the matter as to cause confusion to the mind of the reasonable man. He relied on the cases of Ngige Vs. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) at page 228, and Ajadi Vs. Ajibola (2204) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91 at 207. And submitted that there would be no doubt in the mind of the Defendants when they got the complaint and other processes that the 1st Defendant as shown in the processes is referring to the 1st Defendant and no other company. He urged the court to correct the errors in this case, as there is no doubt created by the error. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the matter has been shown to be a tort of deceit committed by the Defendants jointly and severally; and that the Defendants are joint tort feasors in this matter, which gives the Claimant the right to sue them jointly or severally; and having also shown that the errors complained by the Defendants are mere misnomers, therefore urged the court to refuse the Defendants’ application. I have carefully considered the facts of this case, the Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Written Submissions of Counsel on both sides. The black’s law dictionary defines a tort feasor as one who commits a tort, a wrongdoer. When two or more tort feasors who contributed to the Claimants’ injury and may be joined as a Defendant in the same law suit, they are called joint tort feasors. In the case of: Dickson Friday Dickson & Anor Vs. Nathaniel Moses Assamudo (2013) LPER 20416 The Court of Appeal held that in any joint tort, the party injured has his choice of whom to sue. He can sue all of them together or any one or more of them separately. However, before the issue of joint or several liability of joint tort feasors arises, there must be evidence of participation of the persons or parties sued in the commission of the tort complained of. At this point, I find it necessary to define tort. “A tort or tortuous act as being defined by in Osborns Concise dictionary is as follows: “An act which causes harm to a determinate person, whether intentionally or not, being the breach of a duty arising out of a personal relation or contract, and which is either contrary to law, or and an omission of a specific legal duty or a violation of an absolute right” Having defined tort, it is also necessary to restate the brief Statement of Facts preceding this action as captured in the Claimant’s written address. 2.2 The Claimant was employed as a self loader driver in the 1st Defendant Company. On 22nd day of November 2006, the 3rd Defendant ordered him with two other workers to off-load heavy plates from his truck manually and without any safety wears in place. 2.3 In the process of off-loading the said plate, the heavy plate slipped off from the truck and from the hands of the two men who were in the vehicle while the Claimant was on the ground and fell on the foot of the Claimant; damaging his left big toe. 2.4 There was a very serious lack of care from the company over the welfare of the Claimant while in the Clinic where the 1st Defendant Company sent him resulting in the amputation of the left big toe and also necessitating the change of hospital by the Claimant. 2.5 Claimant receiving no attention from the 1st Defendant, wrote the 1st Defendant Company through his Counsel resulting in amicable settlement. During the negotiation and subsequent settlement, the 2nd Defendant who represented the 1st Defendant assured the Claimant that he will resume his work after his wound might have been properly healed. 2.6 The terms of settlement was finally signed by the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant, while the 2nd Defendant requested from all present in the meeting to allow him send the entire document to the 4th Defendant for his own signature before dispatching the Claimant’s copy to him. He was allowed to do so. The said Claimant’s copy was never dispatched and attempt made by the Claimant to resume his duty in the 1st Defendant Company was resisted by the 2nd Defendant up to the time of filing this suit. From the foregoing facts viz-a-viz the earlier definition of tort. Clearly, there has been an injury or a harm whether done intentionally or unintentionally. The injury or harm arose from a relationship or contract, in the course of duty, and based on specific instructions. I am inclined to hold that the defendants can be said to be joint tortfeasors, and I so hold. In the case of R.O. Iyere Vs. Bendel Feed & Flour Mill (2008) 7 -12 Sc. 151 at 168 – 169, the Supreme Court held that in a case of joint tortfeasors, where several persons are jointly liable, the Plaintiff is at liberty to select and sue anyone or any number of them and he can recover his claim in full from those he sued. Persons are to be deemed joint tort feasors when they are responsible for the same tort. Without going into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to note that from the summary of facts each of the Defendants had played one role or the other in the genesis of this suit. It will therefore be premature at this stage, to strike out any of their names without first hearing the matter in full. Having carefully considered the processes authorities and submissions of counsel, I am convinced that all the Defendants are properly sued or joined as parties to the suit, and I so hold. On the issue of misnomer, it is settled law that a misnomer occurs when the correct person is brought to court under the wrong name. See the Supreme Court case of Emespo J. Continental Ltd. Vs. Corona Shifa – RTSGE SELLSCH AFT MBH & Anor (2006) LPER – 1129. The Court of Appeal has further held in Umu Udoeke Umueze Village Isuofia & Anor Vs. Umueze Village Union & 11 Others (2010) LPELR – 8667. That a misnomer will arise where a party is sued in the wrong name, and the courts will usually grant amendments to correct the mistake, even on appeal. In the instant case, the 1st Defendant was written as “MERCURY ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.” Instead of “MERCURY ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD.” To the common man, they both appear to refer to the same company. One looks like an abbreviated form of the other. There is no doubt as to the identity of the 1st Defendant. I have again looked at the submission of counsel and authorities cited, as well as the prayers to correct the said error; and I hereby hold that the error is a mere misnomer and is hereby corrected to read “MERCURY ENG. & CONST. CO. LTD.” Instead of “MERCURY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.” And is deemed duty corrected in all processes filed before this Hon. Court. On the whole, the Preliminary Objection of the Defendant fails, and I so hold. I make no Order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge