Parties (79)
"My lords, I am unable to agree with the learned respondents' counsel that the decision of the trial court as affirmed by the court below does endure on the basis of order 9 rule 14 (1) of the trial court's rules which provide that:- "No proceeding shall be defeated by reason of ... non joinder of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before him." Lest we forget, it is a cardinal principle of interpretation that provisions of a statute should not be read in isolation. To avoid violence, the provisions must be read together.
"It is settled law that a court may, on application, or suo motu order the joinder of a party where: (i) The party is aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the result of the litigation to the extent that he will be directly, legally or financially affected by the result of the litigation.
"The law is settled that where a necessary party who ought to be joined is not joined in an action, any judgment obtained against such a party is not a nullity but shall be to no avail. In AZUH VS UBN PLC (2014) LPELR - 22913 (SC), this Court had reiterated the clear position of the law that non-joinder of a necessary party in a suit is an irregularity that does not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it." Per BAGE, J.S.C. (Pp. 17-18, Paras. E-A) COMRADE MIKE ALIOKE v. DR. VICTOR IKE OYE & ORS(2018) LPELR-45153(SC)
"It is now fairly settled law that it is the cause of action as endorsed on the writ of summons that determines the proper parties before the court. - See Okoye v. NCFC (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 501; Afolayan v. Ogunrinde (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.127) 369." Per KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.(DISSENTING) (P. 95, paras. B-C) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & ORS.(2001) LPELR-631(SC)
"A distinction should be made and this counsel for the defendants have also pointed out, between a party who is merely interested in the outcome of the suit against who there can be no claim or relief sought.
"It is settled law that a necessary party to a suit is one who is not only interested in the dispute but one whose presence is essential for the effective and complete determination of the claim before the Court. See: Green v. Green (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 519: In re Mogaji (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 579: Panalpina World Transport (Nig.) Ltd, v. J.B.O. International & Ors. (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 1: Ige v. Farinde (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 354) 42; Okwu & Anor. v. Umeh & Ors. (2016) LPELR-SC.565/2014." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 74-75, Paras. F-B) B.B APUGO & SONS LIMITED v. ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD(2016) LPELR-40598(SC)
An interested party is a person who is not a party in a suit or to the decision on appeal. Any person who has interest in a case but is not a party is an interested party. Green v. Green (1987) 2 NSCC P 1115,' Re:Madaki (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) P 153,' Chukwu v. INEC (2014) 10 NWLR(Pt.1415)P 385.
Assams & 2 ors vs Ararume & 3 ors [2015] 12 M. J. S. C [Po 172] Paras. A-B
By the provisions of order 9 rule 14(1), (3) of the Federal High Court (Civil procedure) Rules, 2009, no proceeding shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non joinder. of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before him and also a judge may order that the name of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the proceedings be added.
Okwu & Anor vs Umeh & 4 ors [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 22] Paras. E-G
A necessary party is that person whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the court. It is a party in the absence of whom the whole claim cannot be effectually and completely determined.
Okwu & Anor vs Umeh & 4 ors [2016]1 M. J. S. C (Pt. II) [Po 22] Paras. C-D