Whether the Mere Mention of a Person in Pleadings, Without a Direct Connection to The Cause of Action, is Sufficient Grounds for Joinder to Such Action

CASE TITLE:  ARIBISALA v. AMCON (2025) LPELR-80552(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on joinder of parties.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, dismissing the application of the appellant, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The 1st Respondent was the Claimant before the trial Court in suit no. FHC/L/CS/127/2015, which birthed this appeal. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were the 1st and 2nd Defendants, respectively. The Appellant was not a party to the suit. The said suit was instituted for recovery of sums allegedly owed by the 2nd Respondent to some banks, which it refused to pay, and they were classified as non-performing loans. The loans were subsequently acquired by the 1st Respondent in the performance of its statutory duties. The 3rd Respondent is the majority shareholder in the 2nd Respondent.

In its Statement of Claim, the 1st Respondent averred that it had previously appointed one Prince Babington Ashaye and later the Appellant as Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Respondent, but both had been discharged. The Deeds of Discharge and letters from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) confirming the discharge were pleaded. It was also averred that Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, had been appointed as the Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Respondent.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a joint Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, while the 1st Respondent filed a Reply to Statement of Defence and Defence to counterclaim.

Meanwhile, the trial Court on 23rd March, 2015, had granted a Motion ex-parte filed by the 1st Respondent for, inter alia, an order granting interim possession of the 2nd Respondent’s movable and immovable properties to one Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

On 2nd April, 2015, the Appellant herein applied, the direct subject matter of the appeal before the trial Court. The grouse of the Appellant in his application was that he ought to be joined as a Defendant to respond to allegations purportedly made against him by the 1st Respondent. He contended that he had not been discharged as the Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Respondent. He stated that he intended to bring a counterclaim against the 1st Respondent to claim damages for interference with the performance of his duties as Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Respondent. On its part, the 1st Respondent stated that it had no claim against the Appellant, that the questions arising in the case could be resolved without the presence of the Appellant as a party, and that the Appellant had no interest in the subject matter of the suit.

In its ruling, the trial Court upheld the arguments of the 1st Respondent herein and dismissed the application. The Appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was equally dismissed, hence this further appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on these issues, thus:

a. Whether the lower Court was not in grave error when it held that the Appellant’s right would not be violated by the non-joinder of the Appellant to the suit?

b. Whether the lower Court has not violated the Appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing when it failed to consider and determine the issue as to whether the Appellant does not qualify as a desirable party?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Principles governing the issue of joinder of parties
• ACTION- NON-JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether the non-joinder of a party can defeat an action
• ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Factors to be considered by a Court in determining whether a party should be joined to a suit
• ACTION- PARTY(IES) TO AN ACTION: Whether a plaintiff has the right to maintain an action against whoever it so desires and cannot be compelled to proceed against a party he has no desire to sue
• ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): What an applicant must show in the affidavit in a motion for joinder
• ACTION- NON-JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): What is the legal effect of non-joinder of parties
• ACTION- PROPER/DESIRABLE/NECESSARY PARTY(IES): Distinction between “proper parties” “desirable parties” and “necessary parties”
• ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether the mere mention of the name of a person in the pleadings of a party to an action is a consideration for joinder to such action
• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Guiding principles in determining whether a ground of appeal is that of law, fact(s) or mixed law and facts
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING: Whether a person who is considered not to be a party to an action can complain of lack of fair hearing in such action

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