CORAM
OPUTA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ESO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF ABUSI DAVID GREEN
APPELLANTS
CHIEF DR. E. T. DUBLIN GREEN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PARTIES-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE-LATIN MAXIMS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff sued the defendant for disturbance of and the injury to the use and enjoyment of the Jeky House stool coupled with an injunctive relief. The Court found in his favour. Aggrieved, the defendant appealed to the Appeal Court which allowed same by making an order of striking out of the suit. The plaintiff has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Dismissing the appeal.
ISSUES
The appropriate order to make in a case where there was a failure to join as a party to a pending suit, a person who claims to have an interest in the subject-matter of the suit or who may be affected by the result.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ORDER FOR AN INJUNCTION
An order for an injunction cannot be made in vacuo. The aim of an order of injunction is usually to protect an established legal right. If the substantive right had not been established. Per Oputa JSC
LATIN MAXIMS: ACCESSORIUM NON DUCIT SED SEQUITUR SUUM PRINCIPALE
Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale (the accessory right does not lead, but follows its principal) Per Oputa JSC
WHERE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE HIS CASE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
If a plaintiff failed to prove his case before the trial Court what order would that Court make? The obvious answer is – an order for dismissal. Per Oputa JSC
PARTIES TO AN ACTION
In legal proceedings the parties, generally speaking, are the persons whose names appear on the record as plaintiffs or defendants. Per Oputa JSC
LIMITATION OF PARTIES
A plaintiff who conceives that he has a cause of action against a particular defendant is entitled to pursue his remedy against that defendant only and should not be compelled to proceed against other persons whom he has no desire and no intention to sue. Per Oputa JSC
LIMITATION WHEN A SUIT HAS BEEN FILED
When the suit has been filed the trial Judge becomes dominus litis and then assumes, under Order IV Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules cap 61 of the Laws of Eastern Nigeria 1963 still operative in the Rivers State, the duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings accord with the justice of the case by joining either as plaintiff or defendants “all the persons who may be entitled to, or who claim some share or interest in the subject-matter of the suit, or who may be likely to be affected by the results” if these had not already been made parties. This joinder by the court suo motu can be done at any state of the proceedings. Per Oputa JSC
IMPORTANCE OF PARTIES
One 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. Per Oputa JSC
BINDINGNESS OF DECISIONS ON INTERESTED BY STANDER
A person whose interest is involved, or is in issue an action and who knowingly chose to stand by and let others fight his battle for him is equally bound by the result in the same way as if he were a party. Per Oputa JSC
MEANING OF PROPER PARTIES
Proper parties are those who, though not interested in the plaintiff’s claim, are made parties for some good reasons e.g. where an action is brought to rescind a contract, any person is a proper party to it who was active or concurring in the matters which gave the plaintiff the right to rescind. Desirable parties are those who have an interest or who may be affected by the result. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence the proceedings could not be, fairly dealt with. Per Oputa JSC
MIS-JOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
In every case of mis-joinder or non-joinder the court, after commenting on the issue of joinder, should deal with the matter in controversy as far as it relates to the rights and interest of the parties actually before it. Per Oputa Jsc
CASES CITED
Me Cheane v. Gyles (No.2) (1902) 1 Ch. D. 911 at p. 917
Dollfus Mieq et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England (1950) 2 All. E R, 605: at p 608
Ezenwa v. Mazeli & 5 Ors. (1955) 15 WACA. 67 at p. 69
Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd (1969) 1 Q.B.D. 357 at p. 380
re Lart (1986) 2 Ch. D. 788
Leeds v. Amherst 16 L.J. Ch. 5
Esiaka v. Obiasogwu 14 W.A.C.A. 178
Abuakwa v. Adanse (1957) 3 All. E. R. 559
Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons (1956) 1 W. B. 357
Settlement Corporation v. Hoshschild (No.2) (1959) 1 W.L.R. 1664
Re Vandervills (1971) A C. 812
Re Vandervelle Trust (1969) 3 All E R. 496.
In Peenok v. Hotel Presidential (1993) 4 NCLR. 122
Byrne & Anor v. Brown Diplock, Third Party (1889) 22 O.B.D. 657 pp. 666-669
Lajumoke v. Doherty (1969) NMLR. 281 at p. 287
In Uku & Ors. v. Okumagba & Ors. (1974) 1 All. N. L. R. 475 at p. 495
Sanchez & Compania S. L. v. Owners of Result (Nello Simoni Ltd. Third Party)
lbeneweke v. Egbuna (1964) 1 W.L.R. 219
Morris v. Luton Corporation (1964) K. B. D. 114
Tidy v. Battman (1934) 1 K. B. 319 at p. 322
King v. Hoare 13 M & W. 494
The Duke of Bucclench 1992 Probate 201
Sun Insurance Office Ltd v. Victoria Ojemuyiwa (1965) N. M. L. R. 451
STATUTES REFERRED TO
High Court Rules cap. 61 of 1963- Laws of Eastern Nigeria