Chief P. O. Anatogu & Ors V. The Hon. Attorney-general Of The East-central State Of Nigeria & Ors (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MADARIKAN, J.S.C

In Suit No. O/101/74, the twelve persons whose names were shown on the particulars of claim as plaintiffs took out a writ of summons against the Attorney-General of the former East-Central State. The claim was for:-

“1. A Declaration of Title to that piece or parcel of land on which is situate the OTU-NKWOR-EZE-ONITSHA otherwise known as THE ONITSHA MAIN MARKET, ONITSHA in this Judicial Division.

2. Possession of the said piece of land.
3. A declaration that the Deed of Lease between the Government of Eastern Region of Nigeria and the Onitsha Urban County Council which was registered as No.58 at page 58 in Volume 163 in the Lands Registry at Enugu is void and of no effect.
4. An Order of Injunction to restrain the defendant, his servants, and agents from interfering with the management and /or control of the said Onitsha Main Market, Onitsha.”

The action was instituted by them in a representative capacity, namely, “for themselves and on behalf of the Obi and the entire people of Onitsha”. This point was further emphasized in paragraph 1 of their statement of claim dated the 14th of November, 1974. It reads as follows:-

“1. The plaintiffs comprise of Red Cap Chiefs, members of Agbalanze Society of Onitsha and market women and bring this action for themselves and as representing the Obi and the people of Onitsha.”

The first defendant joined issue on this point in paragraph 1 of his statement of Defence which reads as follows:-

“1. The first defendant admits that the plaintiffs are Red Cap Chiefs and that they include some members of Agbalanze Society of Onitsha and some market women but denies that they bring the action as representing the Obi and people of Onitsha and at the trial will put the plaintiffs to strict proof of that allegation.”

Similarly, the Mgbelekeke Family averred in paragraph 1 of their Statement of Defence as follows:-

“1. The co-defendants admit that the plaintiffs are Red Cap Chiefs and that they include some members of Agbalanze Society of Onitsha and some market women but deny that they bring the action as representing the Obi and people of Onitsha and at the trial will put the plaintiffs to strict proof of that allegation.”

The Mgbelekeke Family claimed ownership of the land in dispute. They contended that they were not represented by the plaintiffs and consequently sought to be joined as co-defendants. In a reserved ruling, their application in this regard was granted by Nnaemeka-Agu, J., on the 29th of November, 1974 in the following terms:-

“I hereby order that the applicants be and are hereby joined as defendants in Suit No.0/101/74. I hereby further order as follows:-

1. That the applicants be designated second set of defendants.
2. That the plaintiffs shall within 21 days make any consequential amendments they may wish to make to their claim, and Statement of Claim, and file same for service upon the other parties to this suit.
3. That the defendant, hereinafter called the 1st defendant shall within 60 days of service of the amended statement of claim upon them file for service upon the plaintiffs and the second set of defendants their defence and other necessary documents and processes in this suit.
4. That the second defendant shall within 30 days of service upon them of the Statement of Claim and defence of the 1st defendant file their defence with plan, if necessary, and indorse them for service upon the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant.”

and for the following reasons:-

“In the result I shall grant the application of the applicants to be joined in the suit for the following reasons:-

1. Because the applicants are from among the class of people the plaintiffs purport to represent, and are now saying that the plaintiffs do not in fact represent them. Their best remedy is to join as defendants, otherwise the plaintiffs on record, being dominus litus may go ahead and get judgment which may be prejudicial to their interests. If they should stand by and are not joined, whatever judgment the plaintiffs on record get binds them.
2. Because from the uncontradicted affidavit of the applicants they have proprietory interests in the subject matter of the suit which interest on the showing of the said affidavit will be seriously and adversely affected if the applicants are not joined and the plaintiffs’ claims are established.
3. That in the circumstances of this application I consider that to make an order for joinder will settle once and for all the issue as to who have the title to the land on which Onitsha main market is situated – the whole of Onitsha, excepting the applicants, or the Mgbelekeke Family. Such an order will avoid proliferation of litigation and enable the court to settle in this suit the main issues in controversy in the suit.
4. I am satisfied that on the authorities, principles, and the criteria enunciated above, this type of application is the one contemplated by Order IV Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules supplemented by Order 16 Rule 11 of the RSC 1959.”

It appears that on the strength of that ruling the plaintiffs filed an amended Statement of Claim on the 30th of November, 1974. Paragraph 1 of the amended Statement of Claim reads as follows:-