Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Obiode V. Orewere (1982) CLR 2(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 26th 1982

Brief

  • Joinder of parties
  • Raising fresh point of appeal

Facts

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, which reversed a decision of the Bendel State High Court, Ughelli. In 1971, the plaintiffs (now respondents) brought a representative action against ten defendants (six of whom are now the appellants).

As a preliminary step the plaintiffs applied to the High Court under Order 7 rule 9 of the Bendel State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (Cap.65 of the Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976) seeking leave for the defendants to defend the action for themselves and on behalf of the people of Owodokpokpo village. Igbide in Isoko Division. The following ruling was given:

  • "For the representation to be effective, the named defendants should have an opportunity for consultation and discussions on matters affecting the action with the class of people they are ordered to represent. Further the representatives of that class should also be able to control the proceedings in the interest of their people. Where such opportunity is not available for the represented to have consultations with their representatives, it is my view that it would be most improper for a representation order to be made.
  • Applying the above tests to this application, I am clearly of the view that it is inequitable unfair (sic) for the people of Owodokpokpo who are going to be bound by the judgment in this case to be represented by 4th - 10th defendants with whom they have not been shown to have any access; and who may also, as a result of the physical handicaps - caused by their imprisonment, not be able to contest the action effectively.
  • In this circumstance, I hereby refuse the order in respect of 4th - 10th defendants. The order of this court is that leave is granted for the 1st - 3rd defendants only to defend the action for themselves and on behalf of Owodokpokpo village people in Igbide Isoko Division. The order is refused in respect of 4th - 10th defendants who are to defend the action for themselves only. Leave is hereby granted to the plaintiffs to file and serve an amended writ of summons setting out the new title of the action within fourteen days."

An amended writ of summons was filed in accordance with the ruling, except that the title of the suit as originally contained in the writ was left unaltered. That is to say all the ten defendants were again shown as defending the action for them-selves and on behalf of the people of Owodokpokpo village the same error was compounded in the statement of claim and the statement of defence filed by the plaintiffs and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively. However, the 4th to the 10th defendants who filed a joint statement of defence (after their application for enlargement of time was granted) used the correct title by showing themselves as defending on their own behalf only. Subsequently, the case was heard and at its conclusion the claim against all the defendants was dismissed by the High Court

Not satisfied with the decision the plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal succeeded in part. That is to say while judgment was given to the plaintiffs against the 4th to the 10th defendants; the appeal against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants was dismissed.

Issues

  • 1
    What is the procedure for joinder of parties in a representative action in...
    • Read More