IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD

 

DATE: MARCH 13, 2018                                                               SUIT NO. NICN/LA/546/2017

 

BETWEEN

  1. Oladayo Olatunji
  2. Daniel John

  (Representing themselves and other

  Uber Drivers in Nigeria in a Class Action)                   -                                                 Claimants

 

AND

Uber Technologies System Nigeria Limited                   -                                                 Defendant

 

AND

Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited          -      Party Seeking to be Joined as Defendant/Applicant

 

REPRESENTATION

Olamide Babalola, for the claimants.

Mrs C. Unaegbunam, with Mrs B. Omaghomi and A. S. Agbada, for the defendant.

  1. O. Abbas, for the party seeking to be joined.

 

RULING

  1. The claimants filed this suit on 7th November 2017 by way of an originating summons. By the originating summons, the claimants are praying for the following reliefs:
  • A declaration that the claimants and members of their class are employees of the d
  • A declaration that by virtue of nature of the defendant’s control over the claimants and members of their class, they are not meant to be classified as independent contractors.
  • A declaration that the defendant is liable for the acts of the claimants and other members of their class while acting in the course of his employment with the d
  • An order mandating the defendant to provide all relevant benefits, including but not limited to .health insurance, pensions and other benefits to the claimants and members of their class.
  • Perpetual/Injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, from further denying liability for the claimants’ acts done in the course of their employ with the d
  • Such other consequential order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstance.

 

  1. In supporting these reliefs, the claimants posed the following questions for determination:
  • Whether or not considering the circumstances of the facts of this case, the claimants and members of their class are independent contractors of the d
  • Whether or not by the interpretation and construction of “worker” under section 91 of the Labour Act, the claimants and members of their class are employees of the d
  • Whether or not the employment relationship between the claimants and the defendant has created an agency relationship.
  • Whether or not the defendant as the claimants’ employer ought to be vicariously liable for the claimants’ malfeasance.

 

  1. While the hearing of this case is yet to commence, the party seeking to be joined as a defendant filed on 24th November 2017 a motion on notice for joinder praying this Court to be joined as a defendant. The motion was brought pursuant to Order 13 Rules 4, 11(3) and (4) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In the motion for joinder, the applicant is seeking for the following orders:
  • An order of this Honourable Court joining the applicant herein, Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited, as a defendant in this lawsuit.
  • An order of this Honourable Court directing parties hereto to serve all processes already filed and served in this lawsuit upon the a
  • Any further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

 

  1. The defendant reacted by filing on 5th December 2017 a written address on points of law in opposition to the application for joinder. The claimants on 11th December 2017 filed a written address in support of the applicant’s motion for joinder, but withdrew it on 13th December 2017. The said written address was accordingly struck out on same date by the Court. In reaction to the defendant’s written address, the party seeking to be joined filed on 12th December 2017 a reply on points of law.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT (PARTY SEEKING TO BE JOINED)

  1. To the applicant, when the instant suit came to its knowledge, it thought it wise to join the instant suit as a defendant since it operates the same business model with the defendant and any judgment delivered in this lawsuit is likely to affect its business operations in Nigeria. That the 1st claimant is also registered as a driver on the application software of the party seeking to be joined; and the vehicle, which the claimants claim belongs to them, is also registered on the software application of the party seeking to be joined. That it is, therefore, clear that the only way by which the party seeking to be joined can present its position to this Court regarding the legal status of the claimants is for this Court to grant an order joining Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited as a defendant in this lawsuit. This is because Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited is also of the view that the drivers who are registered on its software application (including the 1st claimant) are independent contractors and not employees, as being contended by the claimants.

 

  1. The party seeking to be joined submitted a sole issue for determination, namely:

The law provides that a party who has an interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit or who would be affected by the outcome of the lawsuit may apply to be joined as a party in the lawsuit. The applicant and the defendant carry on the same type of business and operate a similar business model in Nigeria. Can this Honourable Court grant an order joining the applicant as a defendant in this lawsuit?

The applicant answered the question in the affirmative arguing that it would be affected by the judgment in this lawsuit. The applicant then submitted that it is generally the position of the law is that the Court cannot force a defendant on an unwilling claimant who has no case against the defendant, yet there must be situations where a defendant can insist that he be allowed to join the fray against the claimant to protect himself against the ill effects of that which the claimant might obtain from the Court, referring to Reg. Trustee of National Ass. of Community Health Practitioner of Nigeria & ors v. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors [2008] LPELR-319(SC). That in the instant suit, the applicant brought this application for joinder to protect itself from the adverse effects which the determination of this lawsuit in its absence might have on its business operations and to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits. The applicant continued that where the determination of one of the claims between the claimant and the defendant will affect the legal rights of an interested party, the Court has a duty to prevent the expensive luxury of having two separate lawsuits where it can by joinder settle the whole matter in one action. That this should be the policy of the Court to avoid as much as possible a multiplicity of suits, referring to Order 13 Rule 11(3) of the Rules of this Court, which provides as follows: “a person who has an interest in the determination of a matter by the Court may apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings”.

 

  1. Aside from the foregoing, that paragraphs 7 - 16 of the supporting affidavit show the facts and circumstances in the suit which demonstrate the existence of some common questions of fact and law to be determined by this Court between the party seeking to be joined and the 1st claimant. That joinder of parties, whether as a claimant or a defendant is dependent on whether the right to relief arises out of a similar transaction or series of transactions and whether there exists some common question of facts or law to be decided between the parties, citing Reg. Trustee of National Ass. of Community Health Practitioner of Nigeria & ors v. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors (supra). That it is settled law that an applicant who desires to be joined as a party to a suit is required to show that he will be bound by the ultimate result of the action, as the orders in the judgment will affect it, and its interest will be prejudiced if it is not joined as a party. That another test is that the action may not be completely settled without the party sought to be joined as a party in the suit, referring to Green v. Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 61), Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation [1991] 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 157 at 188 and Klifco Limited v. Phillip Helzman A.G [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt. 436) 276. Furthermore, that it is enough to make a person a party to a suit where that person has a stake or is interested in the outcome of the question being considered by the Court, referring to Onibudo v. Abdullahi [1991] 2 NWLR (Pt. 172) 230 CA at 246. That the applicant presently seeking to be joined as a defendant in this suit has a stake in the subject matter before the Court because the 1st claimant is also registered as a driver on its software application and it was also in the process of instituting an action before this Court so that this Court can make a final pronouncement on the legal status of drivers who are registered on its software application.

 

  1. Additionally, that since the applicant and the defendant operate the same type of business and business model, the applicant is most likely going to be affected by the decision of this Court in this lawsuit and it is, therefore, important that the applicant joins this lawsuit as a party so that it can present its case before the Court in order to safeguard its business interest, referring to CMI Trading Services Ltd v. Yurry [1998] 11 NWLR (Pt. 573) 289 CA. The applicant concluded by urging the Court to decide the sole issue it raised in its favour by granting an order joining it as a defendant in this lawsuit.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT

  1. To the defendant, from the originating summons, the depositions in the claimants’ affidavit and the arguments in the written address in support of the originating summons, the claimants’ claims are strictly against the defendant under a purported employment contract and do not disclose any bearing or connection to the applicant’s interests. That the applicant has, however, contended that its interest will be adversely affected by the decision of the Court in the instant case and on that ground, it is entitled to be joined as a party to defend the suit. That the application does not disclose a cognizable interest and how same will be affected by a determination in this case. It is, therefore, the defendant’s contention that the applicant’s application does not satisfy the criteria for joinder and should accordingly be dismissed.

 

  1. The defendant submitted a sole issue for determination, which is: whether the applicant’s application satisfies the conditions for joinder of a party to a suit. To the defendant, Aromire v. Awoyemi [1972] 2 SC 1 has stated that a person should not be joined as a defendant against whom there is no case by the plaintiff. That the principles guiding the decision of the Court to grant or refuse an application for joinder as stated in Green v. Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 are as follows:
  • Is the cause or matter liable to be defeated by the non-joinder?
  • Is it possible for the Court to adjudicate on the cause of action set up by the plaintiff unless the third party is added as a defendant?
  • Is the third party a person who ought to have been joined as a defendant?
  • Is the third party a person whose presence before the Court as defendant will be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter?

 

  1. To the defendant, the instant application does not meet any of these principles as set out in Green v. Green. First, that there is no factor in the instant case between the claimants and the defendant which directly or remotely suggests that the case will be defeated unless the applicant is joined as a defendant to the case. Secondly, that the claimants’ purported cause of action in the instant case is strictly against the defendant, which bears no connection or relation to the applicant. Thus the non-joinder of the applicant as a defendant will not in any way affect the adjudication of the claimants’ case. Furthermore, that the applicant is not a party who ought, in the first instance, to be joined as a defendant. That while it may be that the defendant and the applicant are in a similar line of business, they do not run the same business. That the defendant and the applicant are separate legal entities and it cannot be argued that one ought to be joined in any action against the other for the simple reason that they are in a similar line of business. In any event, that the defendant is not privy to the contract between the 1st claimant and the applicant and the instant suit cannot serve as the appropriate medium to determine the status and/or rights of the 1st claimant under the said contract. Finally, that the applicant is not a party whose presence is necessary for the complete and effectual determination of the case between the claimants and the defendant. That the applicant’s presence in the case will play no role in enabling the Court to effectually determine the questions raised in this suit.

 

  1. The defendant went on that in Onibudo v. Abdullahi (supra) referred to by the applicant, the Court of Appeal per Kalgo, JCA (as he then was) emphasised the fact that the character of a person seeking to join or being proposed to be joined as a necessary party, is an overarching consideration in the decision granting or refusing an application for joinder. That in the instant case, the applicant can at best only be described as a person who is merely interested in the correct resolution of the questions raised by the claimants in a manner that is favourable to its interests, and is afraid that the defendant on record will not adequately advance the relevant arguments for the resolution of those questions. That the applicant is definitely not a person that would be adversely affected or bound by a decision in the suit which makes its presence necessary for the complete and effectual determination of the issues in the case. That on the basis of the principles in Green v. Green and in the light of the facts of the instant case, the claimants have no case against the applicant and the applicant ought not to be joined as a defendant to the suit. The defendant then referred to Adefarasin v. Dayekh [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 89, where the necessary test, purpose and reasons for joining a party to a suit were comprehensively explained in terms of being bound by the result of the action, avoidance of multiplicity of suits, the need to effectually and completely adjudicate the matter at hand, the need not to prejudice the interest of the party to be joined and the fact that it is just and convenient to join the said party. The defendant, therefore, submitted that the non-joinder of the applicant will not prejudice the interest of the applicant. That it is trite that only parties to a case are bound by a decision in the case, citing Ma’aji v. Suleiman [2017] LPELR-43149(CA). Thus, that even if the claimants’ case against the defendant succeeds, the decision of the Court will not be binding on the applicant and a fortiori, the applicant’s interest will not be prejudiced by a non-joinder.

 

  1. The defendant acknowledged the fact that one of the basic principles for joinder is the need to avoid multiplicity of actions. However, that the principle is only relevant and applicable when the parties share some interest in the subject matter of the suit or the person seeking to join is a necessary party. In the instant case, that the defendant and the applicant do not share a common interest in the subject matter of the case. That it is not enough that a party seeking to be joined in a suit as defendant runs a business similar to that of the defendant on record to be entitled to be joined to an action against the defendant on record. That the party seeking to be joined must share a common interest and not just a similar interest with the defendant. Indeed, that the instances where the Courts have held joinder of a person as a party to be proper, have been instances where the person sought to be joined has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. Thus, the presence of the person joined as a party or ought to be joined as a party was necessary for the effectual and complete determination of the suit. That in the instant case, the applicant has no demonstrable interest in the subject matter of the suit and should, therefore, not even be considered a desirable party to be joined. In any event, that the applicant has not made out a case that it is a necessary party in the matter between the claimants and the defendant, and the applicant’s application should accordingly be refused, citing CMI Trading Services Ltd v. Yurry [1998] 11 NWLR (Pt. 573) 289 CA.

 

  1. To the defendant, it is clear from the authorities that for a person to be joined as a party to an action, such a person must have a direct interest in the subject matter of action which will be prejudiced by a non-joinder. That the applicant has not demonstrated the nature of the interest it has in the subject matter of the instant suit and how a determination of the case in its absence will prejudice its interest. Again, that the applicant has not shown that except it is joined as a party to the suit, the Court will not be able to effectually and completely determine the issues in the case. That what the applicant has so far demonstrated from its affidavit and written address in support of the motion for joinder is an apprehension that the issues in the case will not be correctly resolved in its absence. However, that this is not a factor that accounts for a decision to join a person as a party to a suit. In conclusion, the defendant submitted that the instant application does not satisfy the conditions for joinder, urging the Court to dismiss it.

 

THE APPLICANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

  1. In relying on points of law, the applicant urged the Court not to place any reliance on the arguments canvassed in the defendant because all the legal arguments and judicial authorities, which were cited by the counsel to the defendant were either misapplied to the facts of this case or quoted out of context in a deliberate attempt to prevent this Court from granting the applicant’s application. To the applicant, it satisfied the conditions for joinder of a party. On the issue of being a necessary party as stressed by the defendant relying on Green v. Green (supra), the applicant submitted that though it is not contending that it is a necessary party in this suit, its submission is that it can nonetheless be joined as a party interested in the outcome of the proceedings given the fact that the 1st claimant and his Toyota Camry vehicle with registration number AGL 733 EJ are both registered on the mobile ride-hailing software application of the party seeking to be joined just the same way they are registered on the defendant’s ride-hailing mobile software application. That although it is correct that the case of Green v. Green states that only a necessary party ought to be joined as a party to a suit, the provisions of the Rules of this Court, which the applicant has invoked as the basis of its application for joinder is different from the issue which the Supreme Court was called upon to decide in Green v. Green and the other cases relied upon by the defendant. That the Rules of this Court empower a party who is interested in the determination of a matter to bring an application for joinder, citing Order 13 Rules 11(3), which provides: “A person who has an interest in the determination of a matter by the Court may apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings”. That this provision allows the applicant, who honestly believes that it has sufficient interest in the questions submitted before the Court for determination, to apply to the Court to be joined as a party. That it is instructive to also note that Order 13 Rules 11(3) does not make it a condition precedent that the party seeking to be joined must be a necessary party behind whom the suit cannot be effectively and eventually determined. That a party seeking to be joined as an interested party need not be a necessary party to the lawsuit, as an interested party is only required to establish that he would be affected or he is likely to be affected or aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the outcome of the lawsuit, referring to Isiyaku Musa Jikantoro & ors v. Alhaji Haliru Dantoro & ors [2002] LPELR-7111(CA), which held that a person having interest has been judicially defined as including a person affected or likely to be aggrieved, relying on Re Afolabi [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 63) 18 at 28, Akinbinu v. Oseni [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) 97 and Re Madaki [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 143) 266. The applicant then urged the Court to hold that it can be joined as an interested party since it has been able to establish that its interest is likely to be affected by the decision of this Court and since it has been able to show that both the 1st claimant and his Toyota Camry vehicle with registration number AGL 733 EJ are also registered on its ride-hailing mobile software application just like they are both registered on the defendant’s ride-hailing mobile software application.

 

  1. The applicant further submitted that being a necessary party or the condition that an applicant has to be someone behind whom the suit cannot be fully and effectively determined is just one of the several instances where a joinder can be made, and not the sole condition for making a person eligible to be considered for participation in a pending lawsuit. That other conditions for making a person a party is so as to avoid multiplicity of suits and to make the party seeking to be joined bound by the judgment of the Court in the pending suit, referring to Olufeagba v. Abdulraheem [2009] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 384 at 458.

 

  1. The applicant went on that its joinder would prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits on the same issue. That in paragraph 13 of its affidavit in support of the application for joinder, the applicant stated that it was already contemplating commencing a lawsuit before this Court to make a pronouncement on the legal status of drivers registered on its mobile ride-hailing software application when it became aware of the pendency of this is lawsuit it. That the joinder of the applicant as a party in the instant lawsuit will help to avoid multiplicity of lawsuits and afford the applicant the opportunity to canvas its position on the legal status of the drivers (including the 1st claimant) who are registered on its mobile ride-hailing software application. Furthermore, that the applicant and the numerous drivers on its mobile ride-hailing software application (including the 1st claimant) would be bound by the outcome of the decision of this Court in this lawsuit, which would definitely constitute a locus classicus on the legal status of drivers who are registered on the mobile ride-hailing application of ride-hailing service providers in Nigeria.

 

  1. Finally, the applicant submitted that the defendant will not be prejudiced or suffer any disadvantage if the applicant is joined as a party to this lawsuit. That the applicant’s application for joinder is a harmless one, which would not negatively affect the interest of the defendant. That the proper party with the vires to challenge the application of the applicant is the claimants who were the ones who instituted this lawsuit and not the defendant who is merely a nominal party in respect of the application for joinder. Thus, that since the claimants have not opposed the application, the defendant, who is merely a nominal party in respect of the application for joinder and against whom the party seeking to be joined makes no claim, has no authority to challenge the right of the applicant to participate in the proceedings. The applicant then invited the Court to hold that the applicant has sufficient interest in the subject of the instant lawsuit, as its interest and business operations would clearly be affected by the outcome of the instant lawsuit. The applicant concluded by urging the Court to discountenance the arguments of the defendant and grant the reliefs the applicant is seeking in its motion for joinder.

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. The issue that brought the claimants to this Court is determining whether they are independent contractors or employees in their relationship with the defendant, who incidentally is in the line of same business as the party seeking to be joined as a defendant in this suit, Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons described the defendant as a company established to engage in the business of transportation related services and sundry matters. The defendant on its part in paragraph 4 indicated that “the claimants signed-up for the use of Uber Services, being an electronic service provided by UBER BV via a digital technology application, and an intermediary service (“UBER Services”) to enable independent transportation providers (hereinafter referred to as “Customers”) to seek, receive and fulfil on-demand requests for transportation services by persons seeking transportation services (hereinafter referred to as “Riders”). In paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the motion for joinder, the party seeking to be joined described itself as “a company that provides ride-hailing services through a software application that creates a market for independent people willing to provide transportation services with their vehicles (Drivers) to meet and provide transportation for people seeking transportation services (Users). The Drivers and Users generally access the party seeking to be joined’s software application on their smartphones”. The defendant did not file a counter-affidavit to this affidavit in support of the motion for joinder for it filed only a written reaction on points of law. I take it, therefore, that the line of business of the defendant and that of the party seeking to be joined is similar in all fundamental respects. In fact., the party seeking to be joined said this much in paragraph 5 of its affidavit in support of the motion for joinder. The claimants in this case sued for themselves and as representing other Uber Drivers in Nigeria in a class action. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the motion for joinder, the applicant indicated that the 1st claimant is also a registered driver with it and has even completed 72 trips on the software application of the party seeking to be joined. So if the issue that brought the claimants to this Court is to determine if they are independent contractors or employees in their relationship with the defendant, the same question will equally be true of the relationship of the drivers registered on the platform of the party seeking to be joined including of course the 1st claimant. Is this sufficient to give the party to be joined an interest in this suit as to be joined? I think and I hold so.

 

  1. The defendant in opposing this application for joinder referred to a number of case law authorities, a good number of them of fair age and date especially Green v. Green where four conditions were laid down for the grant of an application for joinder. More recent case law authorities do not insist on the presence of those four conditions before a party can be joined. Hon Justice Aloma Mariam Muktar, JSC (as s/he then was) had in the leading judgment in The Reg. Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & ors v. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors [2008] LPELR-3196(SC); [2008] 1 SC (Pt. III) 1; [2008] 34 NSCQR (Pt. I) 321; [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 412) 1013 SC held thus:

…an applicant who desires to be joined as a party to a suit is required to show that he will be bound by the ultimate result of the action, as the orders in the judgment will affect it, and its interest will be prejudiced if it is not joined. Another test is that the action may not be completely settled without the party sought to be joined as a party in the suit.

However, it was His Lordship Ogbuagu, JSC, who in his concurring judgment, and relying on Ibigbami v. Military Governor, Ekiti State [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 243, that laid down, not a four-prone test but a two-prone test, in determining whether a party is to be joined or not. In his words:

Joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, it is subject to two conditions: (i) The right to relief must in each case be in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. (ii) There must be some common question of law or fact.

His Lordship Ogbuagu, JSC even went on to quote with approval Ikongbe, JCA (of blessed memory) when he said:

…it is generally the law that the court cannot force a defendant on an unwilling plaintiff who has no case against that defendant. Yet there must be situations where a defendant can insist that he be allowed to join the fray against the plaintiff to protect himself against the ill effect of the relief that the plaintiff might obtain from the court.

 

  1. A number of points need to be made. In the first place, we see here a qualification to the statement of principle the defendant indicated in paragraph 3.2 of its written address was held in Aromire v. Awoyemi (supra), which is to the effect that a person should not be joined as a defendant against whom there is no case by the plaintiff. Secondly, the argument of the defendant that the applicant did not meet the 4 requirements set out in Green v. Green (supra) must be thus be rejected given that The Reg. Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & ors v. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors, a case latter in time, has laid down a two-prone test. Thirdly, the holding of Kalgo, JCA (as he then was) in Onibudo v. Abdullahi (supra), which the defendant stressed, and which made the defendant to submit that the applicant in the instant case can at best be described as a person who is merely interested in the correct resolution of the questions raised by the claimants in a manner that is favourable to its interests, because it is afraid that the defendant on record will not adequately advance the relevant arguments for the resolution of the questions, appears qualified in the concluding part of the quoted holding of His Lordship, which is the emphasis on the necessity of the fact that the person to be joined as a party would be bound by the result of the action. Fourthly, even Adefarasin v. Dayekh [2007] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) 89 cited by the defendant emphasized the factors of being bound by the result of the action, avoidance of multiplicity of suits, the need to effectually and completely adjudicate the matter at hand, the need not to prejudice the interest of the party to be joined and the fact that it is just and convenient to join the said party as the considerations the Court must consider before joining a party to a suit. The truth of the matter is that if the party seeking to be joined is not joined as prayed, there is a strong likelihood that once the instant suit is concluded by this Court another involving the party seeking to be joined may be in the offing, of course depending on the outcome of the instant suit.

 

  1. I agree with the party seeking to be joined that the case law authorities and submissions of the defendant were given out of context. In fact, the argument of the defendant that the party seeking to be joined must share a common interest and not just a similar interest with the defendant is an unsubstantiated argument, at least not by Onibudo v. Abdullahi (supra) and Green v. Green (supra) cited by the defendant. What all of this means is that the argument of the defendant that the claimants have no case against the applicant must be read as misconceived.

 

  1. I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case to be joined as a defendant in this suit. It (Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited) is hereby joined as the 2nd defendant in this suit. All processes already filed and served in this lawsuit are to be served on the applicant. And all processes are to be amended to reflect the fact of the joinder of Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited as the 2nd defendant in this suit. I so order.

 

  1. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.

 

 

 

……………………………………

Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD