Chief Shehu Lawal V. Fed. Ministry Of Environment & Urban Development & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling)

By a motion on notice dated the 27th of October, 2010, filed on 28th of October 2010, and brought under Order 7 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007; Section 243 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court, the Applicants herein prayed for the following orders:-

“1. AN ORDER for extension of time within which the Applicants as Interested Parties in this Appeal shall apply to be joined, in this Appeal as Respondents.

2. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicants as Interested Parties to be joined in this appeal as Interested Respondents.
3. AN ORDER joining the Applicants as Respondents in this Appeal.

AND FOR SUCH order or further orders as the Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.

In support of this application is a 16 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Musa Usman Ibrahim Esq., a legal practitioner in the law firm of M. U. Ibrahim & Co., Solicitors to the Applicants. One exhibit, marked Exhibit A is annexed to the said affidavit.

In opposition to this application, the 1st Respondent filed a 12 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Chief Shehu Lawal, the Appellant/Respondent in this case. Attached to the counter affidavit are four exhibits marked SL1, SL2, SL3 and SL4 respectively.

Upon receipt of the 1st Respondent’s counter affidavit, the Applicants filed a reply affidavit which was deposed to by Lt. Col. Redley Japhet Alexander, an Army Officer and a Legal Practitioner in the services of the Applicants. Exhibits AA1 and AA2 are annexed to the further or reply affidavit.

At the hearing of this application on 26th October, 2011, the learned counsel for the Applicants moved the application and relied on both affidavits filed in support of the motion. He also relied on the exhibits attached. Harping on the need for all necessary and proper parties to be joined in this matter, he referred to the recent case of G. M. Enterprises Ltd. v. C. R. Investment Ltd. (2011) 14 N.W.L.R. (pt.1266) 125 and urged this court to grant this application. He then moved in terms of the motion paper.

In his reply, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent to this application submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to join the applications to this appeal. He gave two reasons for taking this position. The first is that the Applicants do not have any interest in the matter whatsoever. That an interested party can only appeal to the Court of Appeal under Section 243 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He refers to the case of Adeosun v. Akinyemi (2007) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt. 1023) 47 at 61 paras F-H; Bello v. INEC (2010) 3 MJSG 1 at 25.

He submitted further and gave as another reason for urging this court to refuse the application that since this appeal is an interlocutory appeal and the main suit is still pending at the court below, there is no deposition in the affidavit in support that the Applicants have sought the leave of the lower court to be joined and were refused. He urged this court to dismiss this application.

P. C. Ofor Esq. and Ibrahim Bawa Esq., both learned counsel representing the other Respondents to this application told the court that they do not oppose the application at all.

By way of a rejoinder, M. U. Ibrahim Esq., learned counsel for the Applicants, referred to Section 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cited by G. C. Anyafulu Esq., counsel for the 1st Respondent and submitted that the section is quite clear and supports the Applicant’s case.

It is trite and a very fundamental principle of law that where it is apparent to a court that any person not being a party in a case may eventually be liable, either in whole or in part, it may be necessary to allow such person to be joined as a party to the suit. The main reason for this is to make such a party to be bound by the outcome or result of the action.

See Green v. Green (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.61) 480; G. M. Enterprises Ltd. v. C. R. Investment Ltd. (2011) 14 N.W.L.R. (pt.266) 125.