Mr. Shola & Ors V. Chief Nwankwo Sunday (2016)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Judicial Division (“the trial Court” for short) in Suit No FCT/HC/CV/589/2013, delivered on 16/4/2014. In the said judgment, the trial Court found that the respondent (qua plaintiff) had proved its case against the appellants (qua defendants). Consequently it;
“(i) Ordered that the appellants must ensure that the sum of N300,000:00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) wrongly paid into an account be paid back to the respondent;
(ii) Awarded N500,000:00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages against the appellants.”
The trial Court assessed the costs of the action at N100,000:00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) in favour of the respondent.
It is pertinent to state in brief some of the facts of the case leading to this appeal. The respondent is a businessman while the 1st and 2nd appellants are members of staff of the 3rd appellant. A dispute arose between the respondent and the appellants as to payments of sums of money totalling N300,000:00 into the 3rd appellant
1
which sums were meant to be paid into the account of ACCTRIS but were paid into the account of AGIS. The respondent took out a writ of summons with a statement of claim endorsed claiming as follows:
“(i) AN ORDER of this Hon. Court awarding the sum of N2.5 Million (Two Million, five hundred thousand naira) only as General and Aggravated damages against the 1st to 3rd Defendants.
(ii) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court awarding the sum of N300,000:00 (three hundred thousand naira) only plus interest against the 1st to 3rd Defendants as special damages.
(iii) Cost of this Suit.
(iv) Any other OROER OR ORDERS that the Hon. Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance”.
After taking oral evidence and admitting documents as exhibits, and also addresses by counsel on both sides, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the respondent as set out above.
Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants have appealed to this Court by way of a notice of appeal filed on 11/7/2014 which bears 11 (eleven) grounds of appeal. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, the appellants filed;
“(i) The appellants’ brief of argument which was filed on
2
10/11/2014; and
(ii) The appellants’ reply brief of argument which was filed on 19/22/015.”
The respondent filed the respondent’s brief of argument which was filed on 12/2/2015 but was deemed as property filed and served on 3/2/2015.
At the hearing of the appeal on 20/4/2016, John O. Adele, Esq; of counsel, for the appellants adopted and relied on the appellants brief of argument and reply brief. He urged the Court to allow the appeal. Anthony Chukwura, Esq; of counsel, for the respondent adopted the respondent’s brief of argument. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
In the appellant’s brief of argument settled by John O. Adele Esq, the following issues are formulated for the determination of the appeal:
“(a) Whether the final judgment/decision of the Lower Court (trial High Court) Gwagwalada is not unreasonable, unwarranted and against the weight of evidence.
(b) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when it formed the opinion that the proper order to make is whether AGIS is a party to the Suit before the Court or not the defendants/appellants is ordered to make sure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was
3
originally paid into AGIS account instead of ACCTRIS be paid back to the plaintiff/Respondent.
(c) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when he held that plaintiff /Respondent should make sure that N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into AGIS Account instead of ACCTRIS be paid back to plaintiff even when the plaintiff/Respondent never claimed any reliefs in that regard in the suit.
(d) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when it ordered that the defendants/Appellants should make sure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into AGIS account be paid into ACCTRISS without the plaintiff/Respondent amending his Statement of Claim.
(e) Whether the learned trial High Court judge was legally right when he suo-motu ordered the defendants /Appellants to make sure that the sum of N300,000:00 paid by the plaintiff/Respondent into AGIS Account instead of ACCTRIS be paid back to the plaintiff/Respondent even without affording the parties and in particular the appellant the opportunity to address the Court on it before it made the findings even when none of the parties adduced any evidence in that
4
regard.
(f) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when it entertained and determined Suit No. FCT/HC/GWD/CV/589/13 when it lacks the substantive jurisdiction to have entertained and determined same due to want of a proper party and /or a desirable and necessary party in suit No.FCT/HG/GWD/CV/589/13 since plaintiff/Respondent did not join AGIS in suit No.FCT/HC/GWD/CV/589/13 before same was determined.
(g) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right to have breached AGIS’ Right to fair hearing in suit No.FCT/HC/GWD/CV/589/13 to the extent that the entire final judgment is a nullity.
(h) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when he awarded N500,000:00 general damages against the defendants/Appellants even when the trial High Court Judge was of the opinion that no receipt was tendered by the plaintiff/Respondent to show by documentary evidence what was incurred by him in the course of prosecuting this Suit No.FCT/HC/GWD/CV/589/13.
(i) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when he proceeded to also award N100,000:00 to the plaintiff/Respondent as general
5
damages after it was of the opinion that the defendants/Applicants should ensure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid by plaintiff/Respondent into AGIS Account should be paid into ACCTRIS Account which said act amount to an award of double compensation.
(j) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right to have awarded cost of N100,000:00 against the Appellants even when the trial High Court Judge lacks jurisdiction to have entertained & determined suit No.FCT/HC/GWD/CV/598/13 in the first instance for failure to join the proper necessary and desirable party such as AGIS in the said suit.
(k) Whether the learned trial High Court Judge was legally right when it was of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/Respondent had proved its case in Suit No.FCT/HC/GWS/CV/589/13 even when the plaintiff/Respondent was unable to discharge the burden of proof as required by law.”
In the respondents brief of argument settled by Anthony O. Chukwura, Esq; the issues formulated by the appellants are adopted by the respondent.
I must pause here to state that it is unusual and indeed curious for eleven issues to be
6
formulated from eleven grounds of appeal. This is especially so in this matter which, as shall be seen later in this judgment is simple and uncomplicated. It is not the number of grounds of appeal and issues that determines the success of an appeal but the quality of the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated therefrom as well as the arguments thereon.
Issues arise ordinarily from a combination of grounds of appeal and so it is undesirable for counsel to formulate an issue in respect of each ground of appeal. See WILLBROSE NIGERIA LIMITED V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF AKWA IBOM STATE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT.1081) 484, 498 – 499 AND NWAKEARU V. STATE (2013) 15 NWLR (PT.1380) 207, 233. I shall therefore take a closer look at the issues formulated by the appellants.
Issue (d) has been set out above. I shall at the pain of repition set it out again at this point. It states:
“(d) Whether the learned trial High Court judge was legally right when it ordered that the defendants/appellants should make sure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into AGIS Account be paid into ACCTRIS without the plaintiff/Respondent amending his statement of
7
claim.”
The issue is stated by the appellants to be derived from ground 4 of the grounds of appeal. Ground 4 (without its particulars):
“The learned trial High Court Judge erred in law when he ordered the defendants/Appellants to make sure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into AGIS Account be paid back to the plaintiff/Respondent without the plaintiff/Respondent amending his statement of claim or relief in that regard which had occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
Whereas the ground of appeal asserts that the trial Court ordered the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into AGIS Account instead of ACCTRIS be paid back to the respondent, the issue asserts that the trial Court ordered that the sum of money be paid into ACCTRIS. This certainly amounts to a disconnect between issue (d) and ground 4 of the grounds of appeal from which it is said to be derived. I therefore strike out issue (d).
At page 8 of the appellant’s brief of argument, issues (g) (h) (i) (j) and (k) are said to relate to ground 7 of the grounds of appeal. One ground of appeal can not give birth to more than one issue. Where one ground of appeal gives
8
birth to more than one issue as in this appeal, there is a proliferation of issues. The result is that the five issues are liable to be struck out. See INEC V. NYAKO (2011) 12 NWLR (1262) 439, 537 and SOCIETY BIC S.A V. CHARZIN INDUSTRIES LTD. (2014) 4 NWLR (1398) 497, 531 – 532. It is of no moment that in the arguments of the issues, the relevant grounds are married to them. This is because the appellants at pages 7 to 8 of the brief of argument clearly married the issues to the ground. The appellants are bound by it. The appellants ought to have sought for an amendment of their brief of argument to reflect the proper grounds from which the issues were formulated. Consequently, I hereby strike out issues (g) (h) (i) (j) and (k).
We are now left with issues (a) (b) (c) (e) and (f) for the determination of the appeal. I shall first deal with issue (a) and thereafter take issues (b) (c) and (e) together since they constitute an attack on the order of the trial Court that the appellants should ensure the repayment of the sum of N300,000:00 to the respondent. I shall separately take issue (f).
I shall however effect slight modifications to the
9
manner some of the issues are couched to attain precision and conciseness. Before considering the issues, I observe that the reply brief of the appellant spans 28 pages and is in the main a rehash of the arguments in the appellant brief as well as addition to them. This is not the function of a reply brief. I shall therefore discountenance the arguments therein except those that constitute a reply properly so called.
ISSUE A
Whether the final judgment/decision of the Lower Court (trial High Court) was against the weight of evidence.
Appellants’ counsel submitted that there was no legally admissible evidence at the trial Court that was relied upon in arriving at its judgment as evidence offered was weak. He urged the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
For the respondent, it was submitted that the trial Court carefully evaluated evidence that was led before it before reaching its conclusion. Counsel for the respondent stated that in cross-examination the 1st appellant (as DW1) stated that the 2nd appellant undertook payment into the AGIS account and further admitted making a note on Exhibit 42. It was his further submission
10
that since the trial Court had unquestionably and justifiably evaluated evidence, this Court could not set aside the judgment of the trial Court unless it is satisfied that the trial Court’s findings are wrong. He cited and relied, inter alia, on the case of NSIRIM V. NSIRIM (2002) FWLR (96) 433 in support of his submission. He added that the paramount consideration for this Court is whether the decision is right and not necessarily whether the reasons are right.
The contention of the appellants is that the judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence adduced before that Court. Where the complaint is that a judgment is against the weight of evidence, the appellant is in essence saying that when the evidence adduced by him is balanced against that adduced by the respondent, the judgment given in favour of the respondent is against the weight which should have been given to the totality of the evidence. In the face of such a complaint, the appellate Court is to consider the admissibility, relevance, credibility, conclusiveness and probability of the evidence by which the weight of the evidence of both parties is determined. See the case of
11
NWOKIDU V. OKANU (2010) 3 NWLR (PT.1181) 362, 394 – 395.
Evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to it are the primary functions of a trial Court. Where the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court is borne out by evidence on record, an appellate Court will not interfere even if it concludes that the trial Court should have evaluated the evidence of witnesses differently. Where however the trial Court failed to use the opportunity afforded it to properly evaluate the evidence adduced, the appellate Court is competent to re-evaluate the evidence on record in order to obviate a miscarriage of justice. See IWUOHA V. NIGERIAN POSTAL SERVICES LTD (2003) 8 NWLR (PT.822) 308, 343 – 344 and NGUMA V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IMO STATE (2014) 7 NWLR (PT.1405) 119, 140.
The evidence of the respondent was that he made inquiries from the 1st and 2nd appellants (members of staff of the 3rd respondent) at the Gwagwalada Branch of the 3rd appellant as to the appropriate place to make payment for a Certificate of Occupancy in respect of property in Abuja. The said appellants answered him that such deposits were receivable by the 3rd appellant. He
12
(respondent) gave them N300,000:00 in respect of three clients to be credited to ACCTRIS account but the deposit was wrongly routed to AGIS account. The appellants, in the evidence given by 1st appellant, denied any such inquiry by the respondent and answer, and stated that the respondent intentionally or knowingly paid the money into AGIS account with the 3rd appellant. It was also stated that the respondent wrongly or mistakenly made the payments to AGIS instead of ACCTRIS.
The trial Court summarized the evidence led on both sides and the address of counsel from pages 189 to 199 of the record. Immediately thereafter at page 199, it held as follows;
“The Honourable Court is in total agreement with the plaintiff and holds that he has proved its case against the defendant before the Honourable Court looking, at Paragraphs 5-16 of the statement of claim/statement on oath having very much relied on the advise of the 1st and 2nd defendant before making the said payment which was later discussed (sic; discovered) that instead of making payment to acctris account, it was paid to Agis account…”
It is clear that the trial Court only summarised the
13
evidence led before it but did not appraise and evaluate the same before reaching its conclusion or finding. There is a difference between summary or re-statement of evidence, and appraisal and evaluation of the same. The former involves a summation of the evidence led before the trial Court while the latter involves assessment to determine material evidence to be placed on the imaginary scale of justice, the placement of legally admissible evidence adduced on both sides on the opposite sides of the scale of justice and evaluation to determine on which side the scale tilts not by the quantity of witnesses or evidence but by the quality or probative value of the same. Whichever side weighs heavier succeeds. See MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91, 93 -95, ABUBAKAR V. JOSEPH (2008) 13 NWLR (PT.1104) 307, 360 AND IIOKSON AND COMPANY (NIG) LIMITED V. UNION BANK PLC (2009) NWLR (PT.1122) 276, 316.
The trial Court did not engage itself in the appraisal/evaluation of evidence before plunging into its conclusion quoted above.
I shall therefore step into the shoe of the trial Court to evaluate or re-evaluate the evidence on record on the authority of IWUOHA V.
14
NIGERIAN POSTAL SERVICES LTD supra and NGUMA V. ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF ABIA STATE supra. This is more so as this undertaking will not involve assessing the credibility of witnesses. See OKONKWO V. OKONKWO (2014) 17 NWLR (1435) 18, 69. Additionally oral evidence on record can be tested by documentary evidence admitted at the trial Court. It must be stated that an appellate Court is in as good a position as the trial Court to evaluate documentary evidence. See IWUOHA V. NIGERIAN POSTAL SERVICES supra 337.
The first point is that the trial Court found as a fact that the respondent relied very much on the advise of the 1st and 2nd appellants before making the payments. Issues were joined on this point and so the burden fell on the respondent to prove the same since he asserted the positive of the issue. See Sections 131, 132 and 133 (i) of the Evidence Act His evidence in this regard was countered by the evidence of the 1st appellant (DW1). It is noteworthy that the appellants pleaded and led evidence that the 1st and 2nd appellants are not designated and scheduled officers at the inquiry desk of the 3rd appellant. This evidence was neither contradicted nor
15
challenged by the respondent. I therefore believe it to be true. The respondent is a business man who operates a savings account with the Fidelity Bank Plc. He would certainty know or ought to know who to inquire from at the bank. I do not therefore believe that he inquired from and received advice from the 1st and 2nd appellants which he relied upon to make the payments.
The crux of the case of the respondent is that he gave the sum of N300,000.00 to the 1st and 2nd appellants to be credited to the account of ACCTRIS but the money was wrongly routed to the account of AGIS. The appellants defence was that the respondent paid the money by himself into the account of AGIS instead of ACCTRIS. In other words that the fault or error was that of the respondent, solely and wholly. In Exhibit A4 written by the respondent lo the General Manager, AGIS, Abuja, the opening paragraph reads:
“I mistakenly made a payment which was for ACCTRIS to AGIS.”
Certainly, the respondent thereby admitted that he was the one who paid the money into AGIS account instead of the account of ACCTRIS. This gives the lie to his case and supports, and vindicates the case of the
16
appellants. Where there is conflict in the evidence of witnesses on both sides, documentary evidence will serve as a hanger to determine where the truth lies. This is because documents do not embark on falsehood unlike some mortal beings. See OBIAZIKWOR V. OBIAZIKWOR (2008) 8 NWLR (PT.1090) 551, 579, INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. OSHIOMHOLE (2004) NWLR (PT.1132) 607, 671, BFI GROUP CORPORATION V. BPE (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1332) 209, 236, NDULUE V. ORJIAKOR (2013) 8 NWLR (PT.1356) 311, 328 and ODUNLAMI V. NIGERIAN ARMY (2013) 12 NWLR (PT.1367) 20, 54.
I must quickly state that the contention of the respondent that he wrote Exhibit A4 on the advise of the 1st and 2nd appellants is an after-thought as there is no credible evidence to support it. In any event, having written and signed the letter, he is bound by its content and cannot run away from it.
In Exhibit A1 (respondent’s solicitor?s letter) it is no where alleged that the sum of N300,00.00 was given to 1st and 2nd appellants Rather in Paragraph 2 thereof it is staled that ?…my client made the said deposit of N300,000.00 in respect of three of his clients to be
17
accredited to ACCTRIS Account. This further gives the lie to respondent?s position.
It was argued by respondent’s counsel that the DW1 (1st appellant) admitted in cross-examination that 2nd appellant undertook the payment (of the money) into the account of AGIS. At page 184 of the record of appeal, the DW1 stated in cross-examination that:
“It was the 2nd defendant that went to the 3rd defendant to pay to the AGIS.”
That does not tilt the scale in favour of the respondent as the respondent has already admitted in Exhibit A4 that he was the one who mistakenly paid the money into the account of AGIS. It is noteworthy that in Paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim, it is not averred that the appellant (2nd defendant) was the one who wrongly touted the money to the AGIS account, Again reference was made by respondents counsel to Exhibit A2 (AGIS online payment report) with the endorsement by 1st appellant that;
“Note: Please disregard payment original copy has been submitted for payment refund.?
That does not prove that the respondent gave money to 1st and 2nd appellants to pay to ACCTRIS. It simply shows that the original
18
copy of the documents had been submitted for refund of wrong payment. It does not prove who made the wrong payment.
Even if the contention of the respondent is true that he gave 1st and 2nd appellants money to pay into the account of ACCTRIS (Which is not so) the 3rd appellant bank would not be bound by that transaction as it is the duty of a customer or anyone seeking to pay money into an account in a bank to seek out the person designated by the bank to pay to. The 1st and 2nd appellants were not such persons. See the case of TSOKWA (NIG) LTD V. UBN (1996) 9 NWLR (PT.471) 129.
Going back to Exhibit A4, it is my view that its opening paragraph quoted earlier in this judgment amounted to an admission by the respondent that he was the one who mistakenly made the payment to AGIS. It is an admission against interest. It serves as evidence against him of the truth of the fact asserted by him therein and the appellants are entitled to rely on it to defeat his claim. See INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION V. OSHIOMHOLE supra. 662, Exhibit A1 (respondent’s Solicitor?s letter) offers no help to the respondent as it was an attempt, in part, to
19
wriggle out of the effect of the admission in Exhibit A4.
Since what was involved in the case was payment of moneys into an account in a bank, it would be expected of the respondent, for the purpose of showing details of the payment to tender bank tellers in respect thereof or make efforts to ensure their being tendered by issuance of subpoena or notice to produce to the appropriate person/s. This was not done by the respondent who had the burden of proof.
The finding by the trial Court that the respondent had proved its case against the appellants was therefore perverse having ignored what was obvious as set out above. The same is hereby set aside.
Issue (a) is resolved in favour of the appellants.
ISSUES B, C and E
Whether the trial Court was right when it ordered that whether or not the AGIS is a party to the Suit the appellants were to ensure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was paid into the account of AGIS instead of ACCTRIS be paid back to the respondent.
Whether the trial Court was right when it ordered that the appellants should ensure that the sum of N300,000:00 which was wrongly paid into the account of AGIS instead of
20
ACCTRIS be paid back to the respondent when the respondent did not claim the relief.
Whether the trial Court was right when it suo motu ordered the appellants to ensure repayment of the sum of N300,000.00 to the respondent without affording the appellants the opportunity to address it before making the order.
Appellants counsel argued that since the error in paying the money into AGIS account was that of the respondent and not the appellants’, it was wrong for the trial Court to order the appellants to ensure repayment to the respondent. It was his contention that the respondent did not make any such claim and the same should not have been granted. He called in support the case of EKPENYONG V. NYONG (1975) 2 SC 71 among other cases. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have given the appellants the opportunity to address it on the order before making it.
For the respondent, it was submitted that Exhibit A1 strengthens the assertion that Exhibit A4 was written on the advise of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Reference was made to relief No.3 in the Statement of Claim and it was submitted that the submissions of the appellants are founded on
21
the manner the trial Court couched the order to give effect to relief No.3. It was further submitted that the Courts duty is to do substantial justice. It was argued that issue (e) is merely academic.
In his reply, counsel for the appellants submitted as follows: that Exhibit A1 was an expression of demand by the respondent and could not bind the appellants that couching an order wrongly is not in the spirit of substantial justice
There can generally be no liability except there is fault. In other words, it must be proved that it was the action or omission of a defendant that led to the loss for which a claimant is seeking relief. Since the appellants were not responsible for the error of the respondent in paying money into the account of AGIS instead of ACCTRIS, the order that they should ensure that the sum of N300,000.00 which was paid in error by the respondent into the account of AGIS be paid back to the respondent was not justified. I therefore resolve issues (b) (c) and (e) in appellants’ favour.
ISSUE (f)
Whether the trial Court was right to have entertained and determined the Suit in the absence it AGIS as party thereto.
22
Appellants counsel slated that when the respondent wrongly pad the money into the account of AGIS instead of the account of ACCTRIS, he wrote Exhibit A4 to the General Manager of AGIS. He submitted that necessary parties against whom reliefs must be claimed must be sued to property invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and that non-joinder of AGIS made the trial a nullity.
Respondent’s counsel in response argued that the complaints and claims of the respondent were directed at the appellants. It was his further argument that non-joinder would not be taken as a ground for defeating an action. In support he cited and retied on GREEN V. GREEN (2001) FWLR (PT.76) 795.
Parties to a suit are either (i) proper parties (ii) desirable parties or (iii) necessary parties. A proper party is one who though not interested in a plaintiffs claim is made a party for some good reason. A desirable party is one who has an interest or who may be affected by the result of the suit. A necessary party is one who not only is interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in his absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. It must be that the
23
question to be settled in the action between the existing parties must be a question which cannot be properly settle unless he is a party to the action. See GREEN V. GREEN (2001) FWLR (PT.76) 795.
It has been held that in civil actions, all parties necessary for the invocation of the judicial power of the Court must be before the Court so as to give the Court jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought. See AWONIYI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ROSICRUCIAN ORDER, AMORC (NIGERIA) (2000) 10 NWLR (PT.676) 522, 533.
To determine who a necessary party is, recourse must be had to the claim of the plaintiff. See OLUWANIYI V. ADEWUMI (2008) 13 NWLR (PT.1104) 387, 410. The claim of the respondent was that he gave sums of money totalling N300,000.00 to the 1st and 2nd appellants for payment into the account of ACCTRIS but that the money was wrongly routed into the account of AGIS. The respondent therefore claimed against the appellants (i) the sum of N2,500,000.00 as general and aggravated damages (ii) the sum of N300,000.00 plus interest etc.
The respondent did not complain that AGIS had a hand in the payment. He did not also seek any relief against AGIS.
24
In the case of PORTS ANO CARGO HANDLING SERVICES LIMITED V. MIGFO NIGERIA LIMITED (2009) 11 NWLR (PT.1153) 611, 648-649, it was held that it is unnecessary to join a person in a Suit if the plaintiff has no complaint or direct relief against him In otherwords, by the manner the claim of the respondent was formulated, AGIS might have been a desirable but not a necessary party to the Suit.
In any event, it is the law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or mis joinder. Failure to join a necessary party will not render the proceedings a nullity on ground of lack of jurisdiction of competence. Such failure is an irregularity which does not affect the competence of the action. However the irregularity may lead to unfairness which may result in setting aside the Judgment. See BELLO V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2010) 8 NWLR (PT.1196) 342, 388 – 389. That is not so in this instance. It suffices if the parties before the Court are competent and the Court may deal with the matter in controversy as regards the rights and interests of the parties before it
25
See IYERE V. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILLS LIMITED (2008) 18 NWLR (PT.1119) 300, 336, PORTS AND CARGO HANDLING SERVICES LIMITED V. MIGFO NIGERIA LIMITED supra. 649, SAPO V. SUNMONU (2013) 10 NWLR (PT.1205) 374, 399 and ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE V. ATTORNEY-GEREAL OF AKWA IBOM STATE, supra, this was what the trial Court did in this instance.
The case of AWONIYI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ROSICRUCIAN ORDER AMORC supra cited by appellants’ counsel is not applicable to the instant case. In that case the complaints and reliefs in the application were directed against the Registrar of the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Inspector – General of Police but they were not joined in the application. This is not the position in the matter at hand.
Consequent upon the above, I enter an affirmative answer to issue (f) and resolve it against the appellants.
Having resolved issues A, B, C and E in favour of the appellants, I reach the conclusion that the appeal has merit and it is therefore allowed. The judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside and in its place the case
26
of the respondent is dismissed.
The parties shall bear their costs.
Other Citations: (2016)LCN/8612(CA)
