CaseLaw
Rinco Const. Co V. Veepee Ind Ltd (2005) CLR 3(c) (SC)
Judgement delivered on March 4th 2005
Brief
Facts
The Appellant sometime in 1985, paid the sum of N11,925.00 to the 2nd Respondent as capital contribution for a 300 KVA electricity transformer which was installed in its name by the 2nd Respondent at the Appellant's temporary factory premises at No. 18 Idiroko Road, Sango-Otta. Apart from the capital contribution paid, the Appellant allegedly incurred several other expenses amounting to about N25,000.00 as cost of materials, etc. for the installation of the transformer. After the transformer was so installed, the Appellant in 1987 wanted to have it moved to its permanent site. According to the Appellant, it is claimed that it was when the arrangement for the movement of the transformer was in progress that the 1st Respondent started making representations to the 2nd Respondent that it had become the owner of the transformer and that it should not therefore be moved for the benefit of the Appellant at its new factory site. It is part of the case of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent made the false claim of ownership of the transformer because the temporary premises (land and buildings only) where the Appellant was operating had just then been assigned to the 1st Respondent by the owner, Alhaji Olundegu, a director in the Appellant's company. The 1st Respondent then fraudulently laid claim to the transformer as part of the land assigned to it.
By this appeal, the Appellant is seeking to have this Court reverse the judgment of the Court below. Before that Court, the Appellant had appealed unsuccessfully against the ruling of the trial Court which had held that the 1st respondent was improperly Joined in the claim of the Appellant for an order commanding the 1st Respondent and their agents to withdraw any representation they might have made to the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Respondent has any claims to the 300 KVA Transformer presently situated at Plot No.18, Idiroko Road, Sango-Otta and a farther order perpetually restraining the 1st respondent, their agents, privies and assigns from ever making any such claim to any person or authority whatsoever. Appellant further claimed the sum of N269, 500.00 as special damages and the sum of N200, 000.00 as general damages. The Appellant, in addition to the writ of summons, also filed a 22 - paragraph Statement of Claim, which was served on the respondents.
In response, a Statement of Defence was filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent did not however file a Statement of Defence. Rather than filing a Statement of Defence, the 1st respondent brought a motion on notice wherein it prayed the Court to make an order setting aside the Appellant's specially endorsed writ of summons as it did not disclose any triable cause of action against the 1st Respondent. The learned trial Judge, after due consideration of the submission made to him by the learned counsel for the parties, delivered a ruling and upheld the contention of the 1st Respondent. The learned trial Judge in effect held that the 1st Respondent was not a necessary party to the action as it was improperly joined in the action. As the Appellant was not satisfied with that ruling of the trial Court, he appealed to the Court below. From the decision of that Court, the Appellant has further appealed to this Court.