CORAM

---

TASLIM O. ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

DANIEL O. IBEKWE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF A. O. UKU & 4 ORS. ETC.

APPELLANTS 

---

D.O. OKUMAGBA & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, COURT, EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiffs at the trial court instituted this action against the 1st and the 2nd defendants/appellants seeking for the court’s order directing the 1st and the 2nd defendants/appellants to pay over to the plaintiffs all monies and/or compensation collected from the 3rd Defendant, Shell BP Petroleum Development Corporation. The trial court has initially made an order allowing the 1st and the 2nd defendants/appellants to defend the suit in representative capacity for the families of Olodi, Oki and Ighogbadu families of Okere. The 4th defendant/respondent filed an application at the trial court to be joined as a party to defend the suit on behalf of Emakro, Olodi, Itifo and Ologho families. The 1st defendant/appellant filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the 4th defendant /respondent cannot represent Olodi family as the interest of the said family was adequately represented by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant/ appellants by an order of the honourable Court, which said order was still binding. The trial court granted the 4th defendant/respondent’s application without calling oral evidence to resolve the apparently and patently conflicting affidavit evidences of the 1st defendant/appellant and the 4th defendant/ respondent. Aggrieved, the 1st and the 2nd defendants/appellants appealed to the Federal Supreme Court where the Supreme Court held that the learned trial Judge wrongly amended the previous order which was made by another Judge thereby constituting himself into a Court of Appeal against the order of a Judge of competent and concurrent jurisdiction.

 

---

HELD

---

The appeal was allowed and the ruling of the trial Court allowing the joinder of the 4th defendant/respondent was set aside.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the High Court of the Mid-Western State has jurisdiction as to the joinder of the Respondent in exercise of its powers under the Civil Procedure Rules

2. Whether the trial court was competent to act on apparently and patently conflicting affidavit evidence without taking oral evidence with a view to testing and evaluating such evidence for the purpose of resolving such conflicts

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JOINDER OF PARTIES-PURPOSE OF

---

“The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled therefore must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. This is purely a question of jurisdiction”. PER UDO UDOMA, JSC

 

---

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE-EXISTENCE OF CONFLICT-HOW RESOLVED

---

“There are authorities for the proposition that as a matter of practice an application which is supported by an affidavit against which there is also a counter-affidavit where the facts deposed to in such affidavits are irreconcilably in conflict then in order to resolve such conflicts the judge ought to invite the parties thereto to call oral evidence if they wish. Such oral evidence would enable him to test the affidavit evidence and thereby be enabled to resolve such conflicts before acting on such affidavit evidence”. PER UDO UDOMA, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons. Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 273

Government of Ashanti v. Adjuah Korkor and Ors. 4 WACA 83;

Akinsete v. Akindutire (1966) 1 All NLR 147

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Rules of the High Court, Laws of Western Nigeria, 1958

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT