Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado, Abuja Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, on Wednesday 25th April in a ruling refused the application to join Economic and Financial Crime Commission as Joinder to the suit in a case of MaiyakiGodwin Sambo V. INEC & Anor
Vide motion on notice dated 19th day of October 2017, filed on the 25th day of October 2017, the Claimant through his counsel is praying the Court among other for An order of Court joining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as the 2nd Defendant this suit
The ground for seeking the above reliefs is for the necessary parties from whom the Claimant’s claims are made to be joined for the final determination of the matter.
Claimant counsel averred that the claim before the Court cannot be effectively determined against the Defendant without joining the party sought to be joined.
In arguing the issue for determination Counsel submitted that in law as to who should be a party in a given case is a matter of preliminary consideration that has to be settled before a relief can properly be adjudicated upon. Counsel referred to Order 13 Rule 14 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, and submitted that a judge may order that the name of any party who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settled the questions involved in the proceedings to be added.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado expressed thus;
“It is to be noted that the Defendant despite being served with the motion on notice did not file counter-affidavit nor file written address in opposition to this application. Counsel for the Defendant submitted before the Court that he is not objecting to the grant of this application.
A necessary party to a proceeding has been said to be a party whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the claim before the court. It is the party in the absence of whom the claim cannot be effectually and completely determined.
The Claimant has also not produced the alleged directive of the party sought to be joined which led to his interdiction. It is to be noted that in law the mere fact that a party is in possession of evidence to prove a case is not a good ground for joining the party to a suit.
In view of the above findings it is my humble view that the party sought to be joined in this suit is not a necessary party, the party cannot add or subtract to the proceedings.
Consequently, the party sought to be joined is not appropriate party to be joined in this suit. In view of the reasons given above the prayer for joinder is hereby refused.
