Christopher John Jaja & Ors V. George Peterside & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAFARU MIKA’ILU, J.C.A.

At the trial court the case of the appellant as plaintiff is that between 1st day of September to October 1999, the 1st Respondent as defendant entered into the appellant’s land drove away plaintiff’s tenants, destroyed economic trees and crop without the consent of the appellant.

On 29th day of April 2002, the 2nd Respondent filed an application for joinder. The 3rd Respondent also filed a motion for joinder as co-defendant.

Thus both the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed application as interveners for joinder as co-defendants in the suit. The court below gave its ruling on the issue of joinder on 18th July 2005 which is the subject of this appeal.

Before this court briefs of argument have been filed and exchanged. In the appellant’s brief of argument the following issues have been formulated for determination:-

I. Whether in the circumstances of this case the trial Judge rightly joined the 2nd and 3rd respondents as co-defendants with the 1st Respondent in view of their divers, in consistent and incompatible claims of root of title without considering the issues and legal authorities cited by counsel especially, appellants counsel. (This issue relates to ground 1 and 4 of the grounds of appeal).

II. Whether the trial court was right in joining the 2nd set of respondents (1st set of interveners at the trial court) on the basis that appellants did not deny the averment by the 2nd set of respondents that the area of land in dispute is bigger than that which was the subject matter in the WACA case. (This issue relates to ground 2 of the grounds of appeal).

III. Whether the 3rd respondent (2nd set of interveners in the trial court) was properly joined as co-defendant when they did not show the nature of it’s interest in the subject matter. (This issue relates to ground 3 of the grounds of appeal).

iv. Whether the trial court was right in joining the 2nd and 3rd set of respondents as co-defendants on a sole and isolated consideration of the provision of Order 11 Rule 5(1) without taking into consideration other issues and rules relevant in the case.

The 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents have filed their joint brief of argument.

Therein they have raised only one issue for determination which is whether their joinder as defendants in suit No HAB/50/99 was proper and in accordance with the law. They have submitted that the trial judge rightly joined the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents in suit HAB/50/99. They have submitted that the argument that the 1st respondent had divers, inconsistent and incompatible claims with that of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondent having had different roots of title could be a very good reason warranting the court to join 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents. They have added that the “divers, in consistent and incompatible claim” could be a very good reason warranting the court to join the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents. That is the court alone could assist the parties to determine the ownership of the land. That also there could be another litigation in future if all the parties that shall be affected by the judgment are not joined as defendants. They have further submitted that it is not at the interlocutory stage that the court would have determined the true owners of the land but at the trial. They have concluded that it was therefore proper for the court to give opportunity to all the parties to state their case.

It is to be noted that each of the parties joined is claiming right over the land in dispute and therefore the outcome of the case would probably affect each of them. It is the duty of the court to ensure joinder of all the parties likely to be affected by result of an action. See OKUKEJE VS. AKWIDO (2001) 83 LRCN 225. It is to be noted that here each of the parties joined is claiming right over the land and as such it was proper for the trial court to join each of them.

In conclusion I find that this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Other Citations: (2009)LCN/3306(CA)