Parties (79)
HELD:
"Indeed, it is settled, that a defendant, cannot benefit from his own default." AG RIVERS STATE V UDE [2006- SUPREME COURT]
HELD:
"The thrust of appellant's submission in this issue is that the Garnishee proceedings were improperly constituted, as proper parties were not before the Court.
HELD:
"where a suit can be effectually determined without the presence of the absent party and the said party would need to be bound by the judgment/order made by the Court and as such the conditions upon which the necessity for bringing in as parties the persons absent do not exist then the Court as in this instance has acted correctly in reaching its decision and making the necessary orders against the 3rd and 4th respondents who were technically not parties in the initial suit.
HELD:
"It is also pertinent that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court or Judge may in every cause or matter deal with matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it." See A.G EDO STATE v. AKERE & ORS (2018) LPELR-45260(CA)Per MUKHTAR, J.C.A. (P. 19, Paras. E-F)
HELD:
"The factors for joinder of parties is, in my view, not as shallow as appraised by the lower Court and Learned Counsel in their respective arguments before this Court. It is not merely a question of disclosure of the extent of interest that guides the Courts in the principle of joinder of parties.
HELD:
"So long that the originating summons of the Respondents at the deals with the interpretation of Section 7 paragraph 1(j) to the 4th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which deals with the establishment and functions of the Local Government Councils (parties sought to be joined), the applicants have made out sufficient case to be granted an application for joinder and I hereby so hold.
HELD:
''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 effectively and completely settled unless he is a party.'' See RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. V. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANOR. (2005) LPELR-2949(SC) Per TOBI, J.S.C (P. 15, Paras. C-E)
HELD:
''Anyone whose presence is crucial and fundamental to the resolution of a matter before the court must be made a party to the proceedings.'' Per TOBI, J.S.C (P. 15, Para.C)
HELD:
"It is trite law that proper parties must be before a Court for a Court to have competence and jurisdiction to determine a matter. See COTECNA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHURCH GATE NIG LTD ANOR (2010) 18 NWLR PT. 1225 p. 346 where Adekeye J.S.C. had this to say on this point:
HELD:
"As the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents' rightly argued, I think the learned Counsel for Appellants greatly misconstrued the decision of the trial Court when it held on pages 465 to 466 as follows: "As can be seen from a review of the evidence and address (sic) of Counsel...