Whether A Cause or Matter Can Be Defeated by Reason of Non-Joinder or Misjoinder of Parties

CASE TITLE: HABINDI v. HANGIYA & ORS (2023) LPELR-60585 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: TUESDAY, 16TH MAY, 2023

JUSTICES: HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JCA
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, JCA
MOHAMMED LAWAL ABUBAKAR, JCA

DIVISION: YOLA

PRACTICE AREA: ACTION – PARTY(IES) MISJOINDER/NON-JOINDER

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Adamawa State.

The controversy in the suit that generated this appeal revolves around succession to the stool of the village head of Kerau Tudu of Kola District in Guyuk Local Government Area of Adamawa State. The stool is rotated between the Bwanyamba Clan and the Bantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan, which are the two ruling clans in Kerau Tudu. The last occupant of the stool, Danzariya Kalabusi (whose demise on 8/2/13 triggered the succession tussle), hailed from the Bwanyamba Clan, so the order of rotation tilted the scale in favor of the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan to produce the next village head of Kerau Tudu.

The Appellant and the 1st Respondent are members of the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan, which has two ruling houses or families: Sambwaima and Kwankwawi. The Appellant hails from the Sambwaima ruling house, while the 1st Respondent is from the Kwankwawi ruling house. The Respondents alleged that according to their tradition, the stool is alternated between the Sambwaima and Kwankwawi ruling houses whenever it is the turn of the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan to produce the Village Head of Kerau Tudu, and that it was the turn of the Kwankwawi ruling house since the last occupant of the stool from the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan was from the Sambwaima ruling house. They maintained that the Appellant (from Sambwaima ruling house) laid claim to and paraded himself as the new village head of Kerau Tudu in violation of established procedure, whereupon the district head of Kola (4th Respondent) set up a 6- man Committee which submitted a report (dated 21/1/15) affirming that it was the turn of Kwankwawi ruling house to produce the next village head.

By an amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim filed on 20/2/19 (which relates back to 20/6/18 when the original writ of summons was issued out of the Registry of the High Court of Adamawa State holden at Yola along with the accompanying original statement of claim), the 1st – 3rd Respondents (as Plaintiffs) initiated Suit No. ADSY/85/2018: Jaranyala Samuel Hangiya & 2 Ors v Malyam Habindi & Anor, claiming against the Appellant and the 4th Respondent.

The Appellant and 3rd Respondents filed separate statements of defence, and the matter proceeded to trial. The Appellant conceded that it was the turn of the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan to produce the next village head but denied that there was a rotation of village headship within the Bwantsaba/Barkinbaraba Clan between the Kwankwawi family and any other family. He maintained that sequel to his unanimous nomination by the Elders of Bwantsaba clan (“Ubanai”) as a suitable person to be presented as the Village Head of Kerau Tudu, his name was forwarded to the Kingmakers (“Bilama” and “Neketebe”) who endorsed and forwarded same to the District Head of Kola (4th Respondent/2nd defendant) on 23/11/14 for onward transmission to the Kwandi Nunguraya, but the District Head of Kola “deliberately and mischievously” refused to do so, whereupon the elders of Bantsaba clan, by a letter dated 13/1/18, re-submitted his name directly to the Kwandi Nunguraya, who verified the nomination through the Wakilin of Kerau Tudu and turbaned him as the new Village Head of Kerau Tudu on 10/2/18; and that a letter of appointment dated 31/8/18 was subsequently issued to him and he accepted same.

The 1st – 3rd Respondents (Plaintiffs) fielded four witnesses (including the 1st Respondent who testified as PW2) and tendered Exhibits A1 – A3 and Exhibits B1 – B4. The Appellant (1st Defendant) called two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and testified as DW3. He tendered Exhibits C and C1, whilst Exhibits D1 – D3 were tendered through him under cross-examination. The 4th Respondent (2nd defendant) testified as DW4, and Exhibit E was tendered through him under cross-examination.

In a reserved judgment, the High Court judge delivered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal by adopting the issues formulated by the appellants which are:

1. Whether the Chairman Lunguda Traditional Council – HRH Dr. Wilfred K. Kimde (now deceased) and the Lunguda Traditional Council are bound by the outcome of the case and as such ought to be made necessary parties at the trial Court?
2. Whether the trial Court (Judge) by inserting on the Respondents’ original relief sought for at No. 21 (1) of the Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’ Joint Statement of Claim) did not descend into the arena of conflict thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice?
3. Whether the Appellant and the Respondents are not from one and the same Ruling Clan of Kerau Tudu Village, Kola District of Guyuk Local Government Area of Adamawa State?
4. Whether the Kingmakers of the Kerau Tudu Village of Guyuk Local Government Area of Adamawa State were not usurped off of their legitimate responsibilities by the trial Court’s Order?
5. Whether at law, the Respondents’ (Plaintiffs’) success at the trial Court ought to be based on the strength of their case and not otherwise?

COUNSEL SUBMISSION(S):
In this case, the Appellant is arguing that the Lunguda Traditional Council and its Chairman, the Kwandi Nungaraya, should have been joined as parties to the lawsuit because they were closely related to the primary relief sought, which was the appointment of the 1st Plaintiff as the Village Head of Kola Tudu. The Appellant contends that their non-joinder infringes upon their right to fair hearing. They reference legal precedents and insist that the Lunguda Traditional Council’s involvement in the appointment of the Village Head warrants their inclusion in the case.

The Respondents, on the other hand, claim that mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties doesn’t automatically defeat a lawsuit, except when the rights to fair hearing are breached. They argue that the Appellant could have applied for the inclusion of the Lunguda Traditional Council and its Chairman but failed to do so, and they didn’t seek any relief against them. The Respondents cite legal cases to support their position and argue that non-joinder of necessary parties doesn’t affect the court’s jurisdiction or render the decision invalid. They contend that an affected party can appeal as an interested party.

The lower court, in its judgment, supported the Respondents’ position, stating that the matter could be effectively adjudicated without the involvement of the Lunguda Traditional Council and its Chairman. The court emphasized that the non-joinder wouldn’t vitiate the case or affect its jurisdiction, and it proceeded to make its decision based on the existing parties in the dispute.

Ultimately, the lower court’s decision on the non-joinder issue favored the Respondents, stating that it was unnecessary to involve the Lunguda Traditional Council and its Chairman as parties in the case, and the court could decide the matter with the existing parties.

DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

RATIO:
ACTION – MISJOINDER/NON-JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether a cause or matter can be defeated by reason of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties

“It bears pointing out that Order 13 Rule 16 (1) of the High Court of Adamawa State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2013 makes it clear beyond per adventure that “No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties and the Court may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it” whilst Rule 2 thereof permits applications by existing parties to add third parties as plaintiffs or defendants. The Appellant who failed or neglected to take advantage of the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 thereof to apply for the joinder of the Lunguda Traditional Council and its Chairman (whose presence in the proceedings he obviously considered necessary) cannot be heard to complain.” Per AFFEN, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol