CORAM
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)
IRIKEFE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF P.O. ANATOGU (The Onowu of Onitsha) CHIEF J.A. UKPABI (The Ajie of Onitsha) CHIEF I.A. MBANEFO (The Odu of Onitsha) CHIEF E.N. NWOKEDI (The Ogene of Onitsha) CHIEF NNAMDI AZIKIWE (The Owelle of Onitsha) CHIEF L.O.V. ENWEONWU (The Adazie of Onitsha) CHIEF F.N. IWENOFU (The Omodi of Onitsha) CHIEF I.A. OMEKAM (The Agba of Onitsha) AKUNNIA B.C. ARAH NNANYELUGO S.I. BOSAH MADAM UMEKWULU ODOGWU MADAM OMESU BOSAH (For themselves and on behalf of the Obi and entire people of Onitsha except Mgbelekeke Family) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants sued the respondent on behalf of the people of onitsha over ownership of the land which comprises the Onitsha main Market. The second sets of defendants (Mgbelekeke Family) applied to be joined and were joined as co-defendants. The plaintiff/appellants thereby filed an application to continue the matter in a representative capacity. The application was refused.
HELD
The court upheld the appeal and granted the reliefs of the appellant to continue the suit in a representative capacity (except the second sets of defendants
ISSUES
None.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
1. Where one multitude of persons were interested in a right, and another multitude of persons interested in contesting that right, and that right was a general right – and it was utterly impossible to try the question of the existence of the right between the two multitudes on account of their number – some individuals out of the one multitude might be selected to represent one set of claimants and another set of persons to represent the parties resisting the claim, and the right might be finally decided as between all parties in a suit so constituted. MADARIKAN, JSC
JOINDER OF PARTIES
The scope of Order 4 rule 3 allows all persons having a common right which is invaded by a common opponent to seek approval to join in attacking that common opponent in respect of the common right provided the essential conditions set out in the rule are satisfied. MADARIKAN, JSC
CASES CITED
City of London v. Gellatly (1876) 3 Ch.D.610
Harrison v. Abergavenny (Marquis of) (1887) 3 TLR 324
Bedford (Duke of) v. Ellis (1901) AC1
John v. Rees (1969) 2 WLR 1294
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Order IV Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules supplemented by Order 16 Rule 11 of the RSC 1959