Parties (79)
HELD:
"The Act, in Section 132 (3) prohibits the joinder of Electoral Officer, Returning Officer and other staff or agents of the Commission. The Commission has the duty to answer for the conduct of "its Officers or such other persons. By doctrine of Ejusdem generis, those referred to as "such other persons", permanent or temporary staff of the Commission exclude non employees of the Commission, The Commission answers for the conduct of its officers and "such other persons" even if the allegation or complaint against them is of criminal offence. Any person or group of persons outside the Commission's "officers and such other persons" not employed for the proper conduct of the election getting involved in the election process does/do so at his/their own risk. They are on a frolic of their own and the Commission has no duty to answer for their conduct." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC) Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (Pp. 48-49, paras. E-B)
FACTS:
HELD:
"Generally, a necessary party is one not only interested in the dispute but the matter cannot be decided fairly in his absence. See Chief Abusi David Green v. Chief Dr. E. T. D. Green (1987) 3 NWLR at 480 pages 492 and 493." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC) Per NGWUTA, J.S.C. (P. 47, paras. E-F)
FACTS:
HELD:
"... it is axiomatic that only a natural or juristic person can sue or be sued. This same time honoured rule applies in respect of joinder of parties.The general rule therefore requires that the plaintiff and the defendant should be juristic persons or natural persons existing or living at the time the action is instituted." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per ADEREMI, J.S.C. (Pp. 32-33, paras. G-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The law is also trite that a non-existing person natural or legal personality, cannot institute an action. Nor will an action be allowed to be maintained against a Defendant, who as sued, is not a legal person. See unreported decision of this Court in Manager SCOA, Benin City v. G. S. Momodu, appeal number SC.23/64 delivered on 17th November, 1996 quoted and relied upon by Obaseki, JSC in his lead judgment in Nurses Association v. Attorney General (1981) 11 - 12 S.C 1 at 21 - 22." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per MOHAMMED, J.S.C (P. 52, paras. B-E)
FACTS:
HELD:
"As a general rule, only natural persons, that is to say, human beings and juristic or artificial persons such as bodies,corporate are competent to sue and be sued before any law Court. In other words, no action can be brought by or against any party other than a natural person or persons unless such party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly or by common law either a legal personality under the name by which it sues or is sued or a right to sue or be sued by that name. See Fawehinmi v. Nigerian Bar Association (No.2) (1989) 2 N. W.L.R. (Pt. 105) 558 at 595. This is because a law suit is in essence, the determination of legal rights and obligations in any given situation. Therefore only such natural and juristic persons in whom the rights and obligations can be vested are capable of being proper parties to law suits before Courts of law." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (P. 50, paras. B-F)
FACTS
HELD:
"Let me say that competency or legal capacity to defend an action is an essential or indeed a desideratum in deciding the competency to institute an action being in itself a vital factor in determining the competency of the action itself." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC) THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC) Per ADEREMI, J.S.C. (P. 34, paras. C-D)
FACTS:
HELD:
"Following this general rule, where either of the parties is not a legal person capable of exercising legal rights and obligations under the law, the other party may raise this fact as a preliminary objection which if upheld, normally leads or results in the action being struck out." THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (P. 50, paras. F-G)
FACTS:
HELD:
"It should also be noted that the name of a competent party to a suit must be the real name by which he is known in the case of a natural person and, its corporate name, in the case of a non-natural legal personality". THE ADMINISTRTORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) V. SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS.(2009) LPELR-3152(SC)Per MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (P. 51, paras. A-B)
FACTS:
HELD:
"In an action before a Court or a tribunal, parties are not added to a suit just to increase or swell up the number. Parties are joined in an action based on their indispensability to the action. If their presence in the action is necessary for the proper, complete and effectual determination of the action then they can be joined as parties to the action." REV. FR. ALEXANDER ANAGOR & ORS v. LAWRENCE ILOKA(2019) LPELR-47985(CA)Per UMAR, J.C.A. (P. 14, Paras. E-F)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The Appellants have prayed that this Court should dismiss the suit for the non-joinder of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission by the Respondents as the effect of same robs the Court the jurisdiction to entertain the action. The law is trite that an action cannot be rendered incompetent simply because all the necessary parties have not been joined in the suit. It suffices if the parties before the Court are competent parties and the cause of action if substantiated by the plaintiff entitles him to a remedy against the defendant. On the effect of failure to join a necessary party in an action, this Court, Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A in the case of ASONIBARE V MAMODU & ANOR (2013) LPELR-22192 (CA) held thus: "...failure to join a necessary party is only an irregularity which does not affect the competence of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it. See Okoye v. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & Ors (1991) 6 NWLR part 199 p.501. An irregularity that leads to unfairness may however result in the setting aside of the judgment on appeal. See Okoye's case (supra). On the strength of the above, I agree with the learned trial judge when it held at page 127 of the record that: "However, the fact that a necessary party has not been joined will not render the action a nullity. The proceedings of a Court of law will not be a nullity on the ground of lack of competence of the Court or lack of jurisdiction simply because a plaintiff fails to join a party who ought to have been joined....................I do not think that the present suit of the Plaintiff is defeated by non-joinder of a necessary to the proceedings. This motion cannot be granted and same is struck out accordingly"." REV. FR. ALEXANDER ANAGOR & ORS v. LAWRENCE ILOKA(2019) LPELR-47985(CA) Per UMAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 22-23, Paras. C-F)
FACTS: