Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Monday 17th March, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/348/2012 Between: Abubakar Musa and Another Claimant AND Dekina LGA and 6 Others Defendant REPRESENTATION Parties absent: Ojonuma Miachi Miss for the defendants. S.A. Lawal Esq. for the claimant /applicant. RULING By a Motion on Notice, dated the 30th of January 2014 and filed on the 4th of February 2014, the claimant/applicants sought for leave of this court to join Bassa Local Government Education Authority, Dekina Local Government Education Authority, Bassa District Education committee and Dekina District Education committee as defendants in this suit. The application which is brought pursuant to order II (I) and (2) and 15 of National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007 and under the inherent powers of the court is supported by a 6 paragraph affidavit and a written address. In the written address counsel to the claimants Mr. S.A. Lawal formulated a lone issue for determination which is; Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the presence of the parties sought to be joined is necessary for a just and effectual determination of this case, In answering this question for determination, Mr. Lawal submitted that the presence of the parties being sought to be joined in this case will be crucial to the just determination of this suit as they are necessary parties. Counsel submitted further the 1st and 2nd party being sought to be joined in this suit are creation of statute and by virtue of their function in relation to this case, they are necessary parties to be joined in this suit. Counsel referred the court to the cases of Hassan Vs. Atanyi 2002 8 NWLR (Pt. 770 at 612-613 paragraph H-D. Counsel contended that the aim of joinder is to effectually and completely adjudicate on the issues in controversy between the parties so that such issues can be completely settled with a view to bringing an end to litigation. In this wise, counsel call in aid the case of UBA Ltd Vs. Akparabong Community Bank Ltd and Another 2006 all FWLR Pt. 320 at 1129 paragraph C. Counsel finally urged the court to grant his prayers in the interest of justice . In opposing the application, counsel to the defendants Mr. P.D Abalaka filed a written address dated and filed on the 7th of February 2014. In His submission, Abalaka Esq. argued that joinder of parties to a suit as a co defendant as in this case is not authomatic but must pass some test set out by case law as decided in the cases of Akanbi (Mogaji) Vs. Fabunmi (1986) 2 SC 431; CMI Trading Services Ltd Vs. Yuriy (1998) II NWLR (Pt. 573) 284; Aromire Vs. Awoyemi 1972 I All NLR (Pt. I) 101; Peenok Inv. Ltd Vs. Hotel presidential Ltd (1982) 12 SC 148. These test and principles according to counsel includes; (1) Is it possible for the court to adjudicate upon the cause of action set out by the plaintiff unless the person is added as a defendant? (2) Is the person someone who ought to have been joined as a defendant in the first instance? (3) Or is the person someone whose presence before the court as defendants will be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the case? Counsel conceded that these questions can be answered affirmatively in respect of Bassa and Dekina Local Government Education Authorities but cannot be so answered in the case of Bassa and Dekina District Education Committees. In other words counsel concedes to the applicants prayers in respect of the (1st and 2nd) a and b of parties sought to be joined but not in respect of C and D as the functions of C and D has nothing to do with the complainants complaints or relief. Counsel urged the court to refuse the prayers of the claimants /applicants in respect of C, and D sought to be joined in this suit as defendants. I have carefully considered the application and the respective arguments of counsel in support of their positions and the authority cited. Joinder of parties is covered by procedural or practice rules and under the inherent powers of the court to do justice. It is not a substantive law issue per se. This issue is not expressly provided for in the National Industrial Court (NIC) rules of 2006 and in this circumstance, the rule of this court expressly gives a wide discretion to the court as follows; Order 15 “Where no provision is made in these rules as to practices and procedure or where the provisions are inadequate, the court may adopt such procedure as will in its view do substantial justice to the parties” Apart of the above quoted portion of the rules of this court, the judge is not left in the dark as to what should be operating at the back of his minds in considering this type of application where there is a perceived lacunae as to the express provisions of the rules on a particular subject matter. Section 14 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 has this to say: “The court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court think just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the court so that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided”. A careful look at this section of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 accommodates and underscores the principle guiding joinder of parties. This section talks about avoiding multiplicity of actions and settling all matters in dispute between the parties completely and finally. In the case of Awoniyi Vs. AMORC 2000 10 NWLR Pt. 676 522 at 540 the supreme court held that the purpose of joinder of parties in an action is to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involve in the cause or matter. This is so because it is a fundamental principle that a judgment in personam is only binding on the parties to the list. Consequently all parties who may be affected by the result of the litigation may be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. See also the case of Jimoh Vs. Oyinloye 2006 15 NWLR (Pt. 100 2 ) 392. Justice Niki Tobi, in the case of Ogolo Vs. Fubura 2003 II NWLR (Pt. 831) 231 Narrowed the essence of joinder of parties to a suit to 3 issues: (1) To avoid abuse in the litigation process (2) To save litigation time in the judicial process and (3) To avoid multiplicity or duplicity of actions. As a corollary to the above, the court has laid down a time tested principles governing this subject matter. These principles can be stated as follows: (1) Is the cause or matter liable to be defeated by the non- joinder? (2) Is it possible for the court to adjudicate on the cause of action set up by the plaintiff unless the third party is added as a defendant? (3) Is the third party a person who ought to have been joined as a defendant? (4) Is the third party a person whose presence before the court as defendant will be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involve in the case or matter? See the case of Adepiti Vs. Govt. Ondo State 2012 LPELR 19684 Adefarasin Vs. Dayekh and Another 2011 II NWLR (Part 1044) 89 at 36; Ugorji Vs. Onwu (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 178) 177 furthermore, it is trite law that all parties who may be affected by the outcome of the action are necessary party and ought to be joined. Against all the principles above as a back ground, let me now proceed to look into the present application. The applicants filed a supporting affidavit to their motion which has not been countered or denied in any way. In paragraph 2 (c) and (d) of the supporting affidavit, the claimant /applicant depose as follows 2 ( c ) That the board also set up at each local government area an advisory body called district education committee to be keeping the local government Education Authority informed of all educational problems in their area. 2 (d) that because of the importance of those bodies to the success of the claimants/applicants claim in this suit, they are sought to be joined as defendants” The claimant /applicant also supported his application with the submission that the function of the district education committee as outline by statute included: “Recommending to local government Education Authority the adequacy of teaching and non-teaching staff and keeping the local government Education Authority informed of all educational problems in the area.” The defendant /respondent is not opposed to the joining of the Bassa and Dekina Local government Education Authorities as defendants in this suit. The Bassa and Dekina District Education Committees are responsible for reporting all Educational problems in the area. They also have that advisory role bordering on adequacy or otherwise of teaching and non teaching staff in the community or area; These functions are statutory. The claimants applicants are complaining about their sack or non sack in the teaching employment of the local governments in question. They are also complaining about their payment or non- payment of their salaries and emoluments; I think the presence of the local government Education Authorities and its advisers on adequacy or inadequacy of teaching staff and on all educational problems in the area, which is the district education committee, will go a long way to effectively and effectually settle all the issues in controversy in this suit as the claim of the applicant raises some common questions of law and facts on the parties sought to be joined and I so hold. Muktar JSC held in the case of Ibigbami Vs Military Govt. Ekiti State 2004 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 343 as follows; “joinder of parties, whether as plaintiff or defendant is subject to two conditions (1) The right to relief must in each case be in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions. (2) There must be some common questions of law and fact. The issues in this case arises out of the same transaction involving common questions of law and facts deduceable from the educational activities of the parties seeking to be joined in relation to their employment as teachers in Bassa and Dekina Local Government authorities and the associated bodies. I hold that in the above context, the parties sought to be joined in this case /suit are necessary parties, desireable parties and proper parties in the circumstances. Consequently, the claimants application has merit and it succeeds. Accordingly leave is hereby granted to the claimant/applicant to join (a) Bassa Local Government Education Authority (b) Dekina Local Government Education Authority (c) Bassa District Education Committee (d) Dekina District Education Committee as co defendants in this suit. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. ------------------------ Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP.) Judge