Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi - Judge Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere - Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATED: February 24, 2010 Suit No. NIC/LA/11/09 BETWEEN 1. Barrister Friday Jomani 2. Comrade Uzzi Abiodun 3. Barrister Oduwa Julius 4. Barrister Omoruyi Nosakhare 5. Comrade Osaro Eguavoen - Claimants AND 1. John Ngoro (Secretary NULGE Edo State Branch) 2. Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees, Edo State Branch - Respondents REPRESENTATION M. U. Edadi, for the claimants. A. O. O. Ekpu and D. C. Onyeimata, for the respondents. RULING The claimants, by a motion dated and filed on the 19th of May 2009 and brought pursuant to section 19 of the National industrial Court Act 2006 and Order 11 Rule 8(1) of me National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 are praying the court to join (he following parties as the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9 th and 10th respondents respectively in this suit. They are 1. Comrade Patrick Okeranhen, 2. Kingsley lyamu, 3. Henry Enogheghase, 4. Maxwell Ogedengbe, 5. Michael Aiyanyor, 6. Nosa Omokaro, 7. Young Ilerikhena, and 8. Sunday Ikhinmvvin The claimants also prayed for such further order or orders as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case. The motion is supported by a 21 -paragraphed affidavit and two exhibits annexed as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively. In arguing the application for joinder, the claimants filed a written address, to which the respondents did not react. In their written address, the claimants submitted that the grant of an application for joinder is a discretionary power of the court and for the court to exercise this power in favour of the applicants such applicants must satisfy the court that the party sought to be joined ought to have been joined in the suit in the first place and that his presence; before the court is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the issues in controversy. That the issue guiding the exercise of this discretion is whether the interveners are necessary parties to the action and whether they will be directly affected or bound by the decision of this court in this suit by interfering with their legal right over the matter in dispute. Counsel referred the court to the case of Ige v. Farinde [1994] 20 LRCN 322 at 324 - 325 Ratios 1 and 2. Counsel argued that the rule for joinder is to allow the plaintiff to proceed against all the defendants against whom he alleges to be entitled to any relief whether the claim is brought against the defendants jointly, severally or in the alternative and that the person lo be joined must be someone whose presence is necessary as a party and the only reason which makes him a necessary party to the action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and tho question to be settled. Counsel further submitted that the parties to be joined are necessary parties and whatever decision the court will arrive at will definitely affect their legal rights. This is because as deposed to in paragraphs 7 to 14 of the affidavit in support of the motion, the parties sought to be joined were elected into the various positions as contained in the paragraphs of the affidavit. The claimants' contention is that whatever election is said to have been conducted is null and void being conducted in violation of the constitution of NULGE. The parties sought to be joined therefore are all beneficiaries of an election which is the subject matter of this action and that whatever decision the court will arrive at will affect their legal rights one way or other; either that they remain to hold offices as the executive members of NULGE Edo State branch or vacate their seats and relinquish their legal rights as executive members of NULGE Edo State if the court's decision is the other way. The claimants also submitted that the joinder of the parties if it is found necessary may be made at anytime during trial. This is with a view to adjudicating upon and settling all questions involved in the case. That the interest of justice demands that as far as possible, the issues between the parties should be determined once and for all, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Counsel then referred the court to the case of Nabsori Ltd v. Mobil Oil Nigeria Ltd [1995] 1 LRCN 178 at 182 Ratio 1 and the case of Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria v. Medical Health Workers Union of Nigeria [2008] 158 LRCN 25 I at 287 paragraph p. Counsel submitted that the parties sought to be joined are, therefore, an integral part of the election conducted in breach of the NULGE Constitution and NULGE Electoral Regulations and urge this court to hold that they are necessary parties. That to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to settle this issue once and for all, the parties sought to be joined are necessary and that the respondents did not file any counter-affidavit to controvert their depositions in the affidavit in support of the motion. That it is trite that where facts are deposed to in an affidavit and there is no counter-affidavit filed by the other party, the party is deemed to have admitted all the depositions and the court is enjoined to accept them and act upon those uncontroversial depositions. Counsel then reiterated that the respondents having not filed any counter-affidavit are deemed to have admitted the facts contained in the applicants' affidavit. The claimants then urged the court to accept them and act upon them and grant the application in the interest of justice. As indicated earlier, the respondents did not file any reaction to the claimants' written address even when they admitted lo have received the said written address. They did not also file any counter affidavit to the claimants' motion for joinder. Indeed, in open court, counsel to the respondents confirmed that they are not opposing the motion for joinder. The issue of joinder of parties is not actually covered by the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. However, Order 15 of the NIC Rules 2007 provides that- Where no provision is made in these Rules as to practice and procedure or where the procedures are inadequate, the Court may adopt such procedure as will in its view do substantial justice to the parties. Given that this court had on previous occasions considered issues of joinder, we will he guided by the principles so enunciated as to when a party can be joined in an action. In Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria v. National Orientation Agency and anor. In Re: Nigeria Civil Service Union 12005] 3 NLLR (Pt. 7) I at 26, this court held that a party wild sufficient interest in a matter before the court can be joined by the court. See also the case of National Union of Railwayinen v. Nigerian Railway Corporation and anor [2004 J I NLLR (Pt. I) 1 14 (although reported in 2004, this case was actually decided and judgment delivered on I5th June, 1984) where this court granted a prayer for joinder. In considering (he present application for joinder, we note the averments in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, II, 12, 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of the motion where the parties seeking to be joined are said to be elected officers in different capacities of the elections, the subject matter of this suit and so are acting as elected officers of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employee, NULGE Edo State. They, therefore, form an integral part of the complaint filed regarding the election conducted, which, as contended, is said to be in breach of the NULGE constitution and NULGE electoral regulations. Consequently, (hey are interested parties regarding the outcome of this matter We agree with the claimants, therefore, that there is need to join (he parties since I hey are interested parties given that (hey are beneficiaries of an election which is (he subject matter of this action; and whatever may be (he decision of (his court in (his matter will affect their legal rights one way or the other. For these reasons we hereby join Comrades Patrick Okeranhen, Kingsley Jyainu, Henry Enogheghase, Maxwell Ogedengbe, Micheal Aiyanyor, Nosa Omokaro, Young Ilerikhena, and Sunday Ikhinmwin as the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, respondents respectively in this suit. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Judge Judge Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J.T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge