Sylvester Odili Akubeze V. Chief Frank Onwudiwe Obi & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.

The appellant together with late Anthony Ikechukwu Akubeze (whose name was struck out by this Court on the 17th day of June, 2015) instituted Suit No. 0/667/2004 against the 1st set of respondents at the High Court, Onitsha on the 16th day of December, 2004 claiming the following reliefs:
?1. An Order of injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his servants and agents from collecting from the 2nd to the 22nd defendants the rents due from them for their holdings and the areas they occupy at 1A, Sokoto Road, Onitsha.
2. An order of injunction restraining the 2nd to the 22nd defendants from paying to the 1st defendant the rents due from them to the plaintiffs for the holdings and areas they occupy at 1A, Sokoto Road, Onitsha.
3. An order of the Court requiring the 2nd to the 22nd defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the rents due from them to the plaintiffs for the holdings and areas they occupy at 1A Sokoto Road, Onitsha.
4.As against the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs claim the sum of N1,469,961.00 (One Million four Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-One

1

Naira) being the balance of the rents up to the end of 2002 which the 1st defendant collected for the plaintiff from the tenants occupying various holdings and areas at 1A, Sokoto Road, Onitsha.
5.As against the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs claim the sum of N204,000.00 (Two Hundred and Four Thousand Naira) being the rent due from him to the plaintiffs for the year 2003 for the six stores and the two flats in the second floor of the two storey building which the 1st defendant occupies at 1A, Sokoto Road, Onitsha.
6. As against the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs claim the sum of N715,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Naira) being the balance of the rents for the year 2003 which the 1st defendant collected for the plaintiffs from the 2nd to the 22nd defendants for the holdings and area they occupy at 1A, Sokoto, Road, Onitsha.
7. In the alternative to (6) above the plaintiffs claim against the 2nd to the 22nd respondents the total sum of N715,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Naira) being the balance of the rents due from them to the plaintiffs for the year 2003 the liability of each of them being limited to that person?s

2

rents for the said year 2003.
8. The plaintiffs claim severally against all the defendants payment of their respective rents as herein before set out for the year 2004 in respect of their holdings and areas they occupy at 1A, Sokoto Road, Onitsha.?

The appellant?s statement of claim is at pages 8 to 12 of the record of appeal.

On the 12th day of July, 2005, the 2nd set of respondents as applicants filed a notice of motion dated 12th July, 2005, praying the Court for an order joining them as the 2nd set of defendants in Suit No. 0/667/2004 and for them to defend the suit for themselves and as representing the Rebecca John Ogene Chinekwe family of Ndoni in Rivers State of Nigeria excluding the plaintiffs. The appellant filed various counter-affidavits in opposition to the application.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge on the 11th day of April, 2006, delivered his ruling and granted the application for joinder. The appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court below has appealed to this Court.

?The appellant?s brief of argument dated 22nd October, 2015 and filed on 24th October, 2015 was

3

settled by J. A. Okwe, Esq. for G. R. I. Egonu, SAN. In it, four (4) issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal, namely:
(1) Whether by the nature of the reliefs sought by the appellant in this case, the 2nd set of respondents are necessary parties to the suit?
(2) Whether the 2nd set of respondents discharged the onus on them as to their locus standi to be joined in the suit?
(3) Whether the learned trial Court was right in introducing into this case a non-existent issue as to who between the appellant and 2nd set of respondents is entitled to rents accruing from the property the subject matter of the litigation?
(4) Whether the learned trial Court was right in failing to consider and properly apply Order 3 Rule 10 of the High Court Rules of Anambra State, 1988?

The Amended 1st ? 22nd Respondents? brief of argument, settled by O. J. Nnadi, Esq., SAN, was dated and filed on 23rd October, 2015. He identified a sole issue for the determination of the appeal, thus:
Whether the trial Court was right in the Ruling of the court joining the 2nd set of defendants in the above suit as parties.
A notice of

4