INEC & ANOR. V MUSA & ORS.
June 17, 2025MILTON PAUL OHWOVORIOLE SAN VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS
June 18, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (CA) 52211
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT CALABAR
Tue Jan 21, 2003
Suit Number: CA/B/9/2001
CORAM
PARTIES
CHIEF MOSES EDEWOR APPELLANTS
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant as Plaintiff in the High Court of Delta State, Effurun Judicial Division filed an action against the Respondent as Defendant wherein they sought for “a declaration that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to a right of occupancy over all that piece or parcel of land lying and situate in Umah Village, New Port Express Way, Ekpan, within the jurisdiction the Honourable Court, among other reliefs. The Appellant also filed a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant and his privies from trespassing on the land in dispute, among other reliefs. The interlocutory application was granted in favour of the Appellant and despite the granting of the order, Texaco Overseas (Nigeria) Petroleum Company Unlimited which was not a party to the suit at the time, was seen working on the land. This prompted the Appellant to file a motion exparte praying for the joinder of Texaco Overseas (Nigeria) Petroleum Company Unlimited as co-defendant to the suit, among other reliefs. This subsequent application was taken but not granted by the trial judge who held that the Plaintiff’s case could be effectively and effectually determined without joining Texaco Overseas (Nig) Petroleum Company Unlimited who is the party sought to be joined. Being aggrieved by the finding and ruling of the trial judge, the Appellant has appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in declining to join Texaco Overseas (Nig) Petroleum Company Unlimited (TOPCON) as Co-defendant having regard to the circumstances of this case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JOINDER OF PARTIES -CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ISSUE OF JOINDER OF PARTIES
“The Supreme Court has laid down the principles which a Court should follow when it is deciding on the effect of non-joinder of a party to a Suit. Oputa J.S.C. postulated the following questions which a Court should ask itself when considering the issue of joinder of parties namely:-
1)Is the cause or matter liable to be defeated by the non-joinder?
2) Is it possible for the Court to adjudicate on the cause of action set up by the plaintiff unless the third party is added as defendant?
3)Is the third party a person who ought to have been joined as a defendant?
4)Is the third party a person whose presence before the Court as defendant will be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate on and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter?
See Green V Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61)480 at page 498.”
PARTY TO AN ACTION – REASONS FOR JOINING A PARTY TO AN ACTION
“[I]t is necessary to state that under the law, 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. See Osho V Foreign Finance Corporation (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt.184)157 at 188; Klifco Limited V Philipp Holzmann A.G. (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 436)276.”
INJUNCTION – REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING INJUNCTION IN AN ACTION FOR TITLE TO LAND
“In any land Suit in which an injunction is being claimed, be it perpetual, interlocutory or interim, a Survey plan must either be filed, or the boundaries of the land described in such a way that a Surveyor could with reasonable certainty draw a plan from it. See Anabaronye V Nwakaihe (1997)1 NWLR (Pt. 591)437.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|
