Christopher Medukam V. Uchenna Egemole (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the Ruling delivered on 13/4/2005 by Honourable Justice D.O.C. Amaechina of the Anambra State High Court, Onitsha Judicial Division. The High Court will hereinafter simply be referred to as ‘the lower court’.

The Ruling of the lower court appealed against is at pages 34 – 43 of the Record of Appeal. The facts of the case as gathered from the Ruling of the lower court, put briefly are that on 13/12/1995, one Sylvanus Medukam as Plaintiff commenced Suit No. 0/782/95 – a land case against one Uchenna Egemole as Defendant. The dispute in the case is over the ownership of two landed properties known as Nos. 9 and 10 Ede Road, Okpoko, Ogbaru LGA, Anambra State. The Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership of the properties in dispute; while the Defendant alleged joint ownership of the properties with the Plaintiff. The original Plaintiff – Sylvanus Medukam died sometime in December 1998 in the course of the proceedings, and the present Plaintiff on record – Christopher Medukam was subsequently substituted for him.

The original Defendant also died sometime in June 2001 in the course of the proceedings and the present Defendant on record – Charles Egemole was subsequently substituted for him. After pleadings have been settled and I exchanged by parties, and issues joined, the Intervener/Applicant/Appellant (who will hereinafter be simply referred to as ‘the Appellant’) by a motion on notice dated 26/3/2001 and filed on 27/3/2001 sought for an order joining him as a Co-Plaintiff in the suit. The application for the joinder of the Appellant as a Co-Plaintiff was made by C.A. Nwokike of counsel. C.A. Nwokike of was the counsel who filed Suit No: 0/782/95 on behalf of the deceased original Plaintiff therein. The said Suit No. 0/782/95 will hereinafter be simply referred to as the ‘instant action’. Indeed, Nwokike of counsel settled the Statement of Claim in the case.

The application for the joinder of the Appellant was opposed by both Plaintiff/Respondent and Defendant/Respondent who respectively filed counter affidavits for this purpose. The lower court in its Ruling delivered on 13/4/2005 found no merit in the application for the joinder of the Appellant as a Co-Plaintiff in the case. The lower court therefore refused the order sought and dismissed the application.

The Appellant being aggrieved with the Ruling of the lower court lodged an appeal against the same by a Notice of Appeal dated 25/4/2005 and filed on 26/4/2005. The Notice of Appeal contains three grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal with their particulars are re-produced here under:-

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The court erred in law in holding that the Intervener/Appellant is not a necessary party to join in Suit No. 0/782/95.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW

The Court despite making a finding based on the affidavit and counter-affidavit of the parties to the proceedings that the Appellant once purchased the subject matter of the suit still hold (sic) that the Appellant is not a necessary party to join in the suit.

2. The Court erred in law in holding that C.A. NWOKIKE, ESQ the Counsel for the Intervener/Appellant is not competent to appear for the Intervener/Appellant in Suit No. 0/782/95 when there is no application before the lower court over the competence or otherwise of C.A. NWOKIKE, ESQ to appear in the suit.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW

The Court despite the fact that there is no application before it by any of the parties to the suit on the competence or otherwise of C.A. NWOKIKE, ESQ to appear in the Suit No. 0/782/95 on its own ruled on non-existing application over the competence of the said C.A. NWOKIKE, to appear in the suit.

3. The Court erred in law in holding that the purchase made by the Intervener/Appellant of the subject matter of the Suit No. 0/782/95 is null and void when there is no application before the court for the nullity (sic) or otherwise of the purchase made by the Appellant.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN LAW

The Court, despite the fact that there is no application before it by any of the parties to the suit on the effect of interest acquired by the Appellant over the subject matter of the suit on its own made out a case, canvassed same and ruled that the Appellant’s interest in the subject matter of the suit is null and void.

In compliance with the Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief of argument dated 10/11/2005 and filed on the same date was settled by C.A. Nwokike Esq.; that of the Plaintiff/Respondent dated 2/5/2006 and filed on 6/3/2006 but deemed as properly filed and served on 19/4/2006 was settled by E.O. Maduka Esq.; while the brief of argument of the Defendant/Respondent dated 6/3/2006 and filed on the same date but deemed as properly filed and served on 6/6/2006 was settled by B.C. Uzuegbu. The appeal was entertained on 4/3/2010 and learned counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the briefs of argument as identified above, filed on behalf of their respective clients as their arguments in the appeal.