Hon. Engineer Kube Akila Dwana V. Hon. Ismaila Ibrahim & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal is predicated on the Ruling of the Adamawa State High Court in Suit No. ADSN/6/2010 delivered on the 21st day of July, 2010. Therein, Nathan Musa, J., the learned trial Judge, struck out the suit of the Plaintiff, (now Appellant), on the ground that the action of the Plaintiff was incompetent due to the non-joinder of Guyuk Local Government as a party to the suit.

Troubled by that decision, the Plaintiff through his erstwhile Counsel, A.B Panyi Esq., filed an Appeal on the 26-07-10 challenging the decision on nine Grounds. Subsequently, the Plaintiff, through his newly engaged Counsel, Innocent Daa’gba, Esq., vide a motion on notice, filed on the 05-05-11, sought and obtained leave of this Court to amend the original Notice of Appeal. The Amended Notice of Appeal was thus filed on the 08-07-11, wherein the Grounds of Appeal were reduced to five.

By way of a brief background of the facts – the Plaintiff, at the Lower Court, commenced his suit via an Originating Summons filed on 24-03-10 against the Respondents herein as Defendants, challenging the propriety or otherwise of his removal from office as the elected Chairman of Guyuk Local Government Council of Adamawa State. He prayed the High Court to declare as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void the action of the Defendants and sought for re-instatement and the payment of the entitlements due to him as Chairman.

Upon being served the Plaintiff’s processes, the Defendants, through their various Counsel, filed two sets of preliminary objections challenging the competence of the Plaintiff’s suit and prayed the Court to strike out or dismiss same. The objections of the Defendants were predicated on two main planks, to wit:

a) Abuse of court process

b) Non-joinder of a necessary party.

Both objections were taken together, and learned Counsel marshalled their arguments thereto. Thereafter, on 21-07-10, the Lower Court sustained the objection on the second ground only, and so struck out the Plaintiff’s suit on the second ground of objection, which is that Guyuk Local Government was a necessary party to the suit and its non-joinder rendered the suit incompetent.

Arising from the amended Grounds of Appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellants, the 1st-12th Respondents, as well as the 13th Respondent distilled two issues each for determination, which issues are virtually identical in content. Since I consider the issues formulated by the 1st-12 Respondents as more apposite, I adopt them in addressing this Appeal. The issues are:

1. Whether Guyuk Local Government Council was a necessary party, the non-joinder of which rendered the action incompetent.
2. Whether, having held that Guyuk Local Government Council was a necessary party, the Lower Court suo motu should have made an order for its joinder to save the action.

Under the first issue, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, by Section 6 of the Adamawa State Local Government System Establishment and Administration Law, No. 4 of 2000, (as amended), Guyuk Local Government is a different entity from Guyuk Local Government Legislative Council. He makes further reference to Sections 40 (1) (2); & 3 and 37 (1) of the same law to reinforce his point that there is a clear distinction between a Local Government Area simpliciter and a Local Government Legislative Council.

Counsel argues that the action commenced in the Originating Summons is predicated on the actions of the 1st-11th Defendants/Respondents who are legally constituted as members of the Guyuk Local Government Legislative Council and who acted as such when they impeached the Appellant, contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the Adamawa State Local Government Law, No. 4 of 2000. He submits that that the Council is a body distinct from Guyuk Local Government.

Counsel further submits that the 15 reliefs sought by the Appellant in his Originating Summons are against the Respondents before the Court and argues that all the questions raised therein can be settled effectively without the joinder of Guyuk Local Government. It is his submission that the learned trial Judge came to the erroneous conclusion that Guyuk Local Government Council is a necessary and desirable party because, the Notice of impeachment, Exhibit Kube 1, the Reply of the Appellant to the said Notice of impeachment, Exhibit Kube 3, and the Letter of impeachment, Exhibit Kube 4, all bear the letter-head of Guyuk Local Government Legislative Council. He therefore found that this fact made Guyuk Local Government a necessary and a desirable party, as the 1st-10th Respondents were acting as agents of Guyuk Local Government Council.

Counsel further submits that the law is trite that a Plaintiff who complains that he has a cause of action against a particular person should be allowed to pursue his remedy against that defendant alone. He should not be compelled to sue or do battle with persons against whom he alleges no injuria, no legal wrong, or against whom he has no quarrel and does not wish to sue. He argues that a party cannot be forced or compelled to sue another party against whom he has no claim. He relies on Ogele V Saliu (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 328) 796 @ 804, para F-H.

Counsel contends that the grievance of the Appellant is against the 1st-12th Respondents, as allegedly reflected in the questions for determination and the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. He submits that all the questions/issues raised at the trial Court can be effectively and completely determined without the joinder of Guyuk Local Government.