REV. FR. ALEXANDER ANAGOR & ORS v. LAWRENCE ILOKA (2019)

REV. FR. ALEXANDER ANAGOR & ORS v. LAWRENCE ILOKA

(2019)LCN/13618(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 2019

CA/E/153/2017

RATIO

JURISDICTION: WHEN A COURT IS SAID TO HAVE JURISDICTION

The Court in the case of MADUKOLU & ORS v. NKEMDILIM (1962) LPELR-24023 (SC), Per BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C, at Pp. 9-10, paras. F-D stated thus:
A Court is competent when (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction: and (3) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.” PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.

WHETHER AN ACTION CAN BE RENDERED INCOMPETENT BECAUSE ALL NECESSARY PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN JOINED

The law is trite that an action cannot be rendered incompetent simply because all the necessary parties have not been joined in the suit. It suffices if the parties before the Court are competent parties and the cause of action if substantiated by the plaintiff entitles him to a remedy against the defendant. On the effect of failure to join a necessary party in an action, this Court, Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A in the case of ASONIBARE V MAMODU & ANOR (2013) LPELR-22192 (CA) held thus: “…failure to join a necessary party is only an irregularity which does not affect the competence of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it. See Okoye v. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & Ors (1991) 6 NWLR part 199 p.501. An irregularity that leads to unfairness may however result in the setting aside of the judgment on appeal. See Okoye’s case (supra).” PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. REV. FR. ALEXANDER ANAGOR
(The Parish Priest of Christ the King Catholic Parish, Akpo)
2. STEPHEN OKPALAONWUKA
3. CYRIL IBEH
(For themselves and on behalf of Christ the King Parish, Akpo Town Local Government Area) Appellant(s)

AND

LAWRENCE ILOKA
(for himself and on behalf of
Chukwubuike Iloka family,
Umuokpalanu Kindred, Uhuala
Village, Akpo Town, Aguata Local
Government Area) Respondent(s)

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the ruling of the Anambra State High Court, Aguata Judicial Division, delivered by C.N Mbonu Nwenyi J. on the 18th day of November, 2016. In the said ruling, the Court below dismissed the Appellant?s preliminary objection in motion No.AG/161m/15 filed by the Appellants challenging its jurisdictions to hear the matter.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts that led to the institution of this interlocutory appeal are that by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated the 15th day of May, 2015, the Respondent (for himself and on behalf of Chukwubuike Iloka Family, Umuokpalanu Kindred, Uhuala Village, Akpo Town, Aguata Local Government Area) as Plaintiff in the Court below instituted this action, the subject of this appeal against the Appellants as Defendants, jointly and severally claiming against them the following reliefs to wit:
a. ?A Declaration by the Honourable Court that the Plaintiff?s family is the owner of Iheohaju land in Uhuala village, Akpo town, Aguata Local Government Area.

b. One Million Naira (N1, 000, 000.00) general damages.
c. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies and workmen from further trespassing on said land or doing anything inconsistent with the Plaintiff?s family interest on the said land.?

Upon being served with the originating processes, the Appellants on the 1st day of July, 2015, filed their Joint Statement of Defence dated the 22nd day of June, 2015. The Appellants also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated the 16th day of June, 2015 and filed on the 1st day of July, 2015 challenging the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the suit on the ground that the Respondent failed to sue the necessary parties in the suit. Attached to the said Notice of Preliminary Objection is an Affidavit and an address as argument in support. (See pages 77-88 of the Record)

?The Respondent on the other hand, in opposition to the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed a Counter Affidavit and a Written Address as argument in support, both dated the 8th day of January, 2015 and the 31st day of July, 2015 respectively. (See pages 101-106 of the Record). The Appellants in turn

filed a Further Affidavit dated the 27th day of Jan, 2016 and an undated Reply Brief filed on the 27th day of Jan, 2016. (See pages 108-113 of the Record).

The crux of the Appellants? preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the matter was that the Respondent left out the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka, a necessary party and sued the wrong parties. It is the case of the Appellants that the said Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is in possession of the said land.

?The Respondent on the other hand, contends that the persons or people that committed the act of trespass on his land are the Appellants and not the said Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka. The Respondents contend further that it is not enough for the Appellants to state viva voce that the land belongs to the said Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka without credible evidence establishing that the land which belongs to the Christ the King Church, Akpo Catholic Community now belongs to the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka, rather that the Agreements and Survey

Plans filed by the Appellants in the lower Court clearly showed that the land belongs to Christ the King Church, Akpo Catholic Community.

After hearing the addresses of counsel to parties on their different postures in respect of the said Application, the learned trial judge on the 28th day of November, 2016 dismissed the Appellants Notice of Preliminary Objection and assumed jurisdiction to entertain the suit (see pages 122- 127 of the records). The Court at page 127 of the record held thus:
?It does appear that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka are necessary parties to this proceeding. However, the fact that a necessary party has not been joined will not render the action a nullity. The proceedings of a Court of law will not be a nullity on the ground of lack of competence of the Court or lack of jurisdiction simply because a plaintiff fails to join a party who ought to have been joined? I do not think that the present suit of the Plaintiff is defeated by non-joinder of a necessary to the proceedings. This motion cannot be granted and same is struck out accordingly.?

Aggrieved by the ruling of the Court below, the Appellants appealed to this Honourable Court vide a Notice of Appeal containing two grounds of appeal dated the 7th day of December, 2016 and filed on the same date. The grounds of Appeal without their particulars are:
?GROUND ONE?
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to try the matter as the parties currently before the Court are not competent to defend the suit.
?GROUND TWO?
ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to hold that the failure to sue the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka, in this suit robs the Court of jurisdiction in this matter.

In line with the rules of this Honourable Court, parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs. The Appellants? brief dated and filed on the 8th day of May, 2017 was deemed properly filed and served by an Order of this Honourable Court made on the 8th day of May, 2019. A Reply Brief dated and filed on the 26th of July, 2017 was filed by the Appellants. The said Reply Brief was deemed properly filed

and served by an Order of this Honourable Court made on the 8th day of May, 2019. Both briefs were settled by L.C. MUONEKE ESQ.

The Respondent?s brief dated the 5th day of July, 2017 and filed on the 7th day of July, 2017 was deemed properly filed and served by an Order of this Honourable Court made on the 8th day of May, 2019. The said Brief was settled by S.U. ANYIA ESQ.

The appeal was taken on the 8th day of May, 2019 wherein both counsel adopted their respective briefs and made oral submissions supporting their diverse postures in the appeal.

Learned counsel for the Appellants distilled two issues for the determination of this appeal to wit:
1. ?Whether the trial Court was right in dismissing the appellants application challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court and assumed jurisdiction when it was clearly held and not challenged in the affidavit of the preliminary objection that the Registered Trustee of the Catholic diocese of Awka is in possession, occupation and indeed developing the land which the respondent is alleging trespass (Ground 1)
2. Whether the trial Court can actually proceed in this suit and

the issues before the Court fairly disposed without breaching the right to fair hearing of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic diocese of Awka having made a finding of fact that the Registered Trustee of Catholic Diocese of Awka is a necessary party in this suit (Ground 2).?

Learned counsel to the Respondent on the other hand distilled four issues for the determination of this appeal to wit:
1. ?Whether it is not the claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Whether the Plaintiff has no right to institute an action against any person or defendants he is convinced he has a claim against.
3. Whether from pages 39-46 and pages 83-85 of the Record of Appeal the land in issue was granted to Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka or to Akpo Catholic Community that make up Christ King Catholic Church as shown in their Survey Plans that were annexed as Exhibits in their Statement of Defence
4. Whether the Non joinder of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is fatal to this case.

?Before I go into the summary of the arguments and submissions of counsel, it is

important to state that the Notice of Appeal upon which this appeal was initiated as can be gleaned at pages 128 -130 of the records contains two grounds of appeal. However, the Respondent in his brief distilled four issues for the determination of this appeal. This is in flagrant violation of the established rule frowning against the proliferation of issues. I think it is elementary to state that the law is long settled that issues for determination cannot be more than the grounds of appeal. On the other hand, the grounds of appeal can be more than the issues. On this note, the Supreme Court per, ADEKEYE J.S.C in the case of NWANKWO & ORS v. YAR’ADUA & ORS (2010) LPELR-2109 (SC) held that:
?It is trite law that issues for determination must flow from the grounds of appeal. An appellant is therefore not permitted to raise in excess of his grounds of appeal. Having one issue more than the seven grounds of appeal is totally not in line with the contemplation of the law relating to the formulation of issues for determination in an appeal. It amounts to proliferation of issues which is not acceptable. The multiplicity of issues more than the

grounds of appeal is discountenanced. Unilorin v. Oluwadare (2003) 3 NWLR pg. 808 pg.557; Padawa v. Jatau (2003) 5 NWLR pt. 813 pg. 247; Sogbesan v. Ogunbiyi (2006) 4 NWLR pt. 969 pg.19?
It is settled and well defined that no more than one issue can be distilled or formulated out of a single ground of appeal. While a single issue can be formulated out of several grounds of appeal, it is patently undesirable to split a ground of appeal to allow more than a single issue to arise therefrom. The idea here is to avoid proliferation of issues for determination in an appeal. PTI v. MATTHEW & ORS (2011) LPELR-4848(CA)

It is not the duty of the Court to make a choice for the Respondent between the four issues allegedly framed from two ground of appeal. As a matter of fact, the Respondent did not even state which issue was distilled from which ground. Therefore Respondent?s issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 distilled out of grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal are hereby struck out for being incompetent.

However, despite having struck out the issue distilled by the Respondent for the determination of this appeal on the ground of proliferation,

I am not unmindful of in deciding this appeal based on the Appellants? brief alone, I am not unmindful of the position of the law that an Appeal can only succeed on the strength of the arguments vis–vis the position of law and not on the weakness or failure of the Respondent in filing his brief of argument. In the instant case, the Appellants still have a duty to establish to the conviction of this Court that the judgment of the trial Court was actually perverse. See CAMEROON AIRLINES V OTUTUIZU (2011) LPELR-827 (SC).

APPELLANT?S ARGUMENT ON ISSUE 1 &2
Counsel relied on the case of GREEN V GREEN (1987) 3 N.W.LR pt. 61 p.480 and argued that the Apex Court clearly set it out that necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but who also in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. He referred this Honourable Court to Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

?Counsel submitted that the Respondent sued the Appellants but left out the owner of the land in issue who incidentally is in occupation and is currently developing the

same land and therefore the possible tort feasor if any. Counsel submitted further that the suit will determine the rights and liability of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka, the owner of the land in dispute, the occupant and the developer.

It is also the submission of counsel that going by the Affidavit deposed by the Appellants, the Appellants have stated clearly that they do not have the consent of the Registered Trustee to represent them in the action which is the subject matter of this appeal. He referred this Honourable Court to paragraph 4-10 of the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed at the Court below. Counsel submitted further that at page 127 of the record, the learned trial judge agreed with the Appellants that the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is a necessary party, so therefore, the Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is a necessary party in this action and that its absence would affect the proceedings such that it would not be fairly dealt with.

?With respect of the second issue, the argument and submissions of which to me are no different from the first issue,

learned counsel to the Appellants referred this Court to the case of HON. GODWIN ESHI ESHI V SULEIMAN ABDULMALIK AFEGBUA & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22662 (CA) where this Court held that the failure to join a necessary party in an appeal was fatal to the case of an appellant as the right to fair hearing of the necessary party will be breached if the matter proceeded without the necessary party.

It is also the contention of counsel that the Affidavit in support of the preliminary objection, the Appellants had informed the Court and it was not contested by the Respondents that it is the Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka that is in occupation, that it is the Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka that is developing the land and that they do not have the consent of the Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka to defend the suit. Counsel submitted that the Respondent did not challenge these facts and has not made any application to join the necessary party for fair adjudication of the issues before the Court.

On the whole, he urged this Court to resolve the issues in favour of the Appellants, to set aside the ruling of the Court below and dismiss the

substantive suit.

As said earlier in this judgment, the Appellants filed a Reply Brief but having struck out the issues distilled by the Respondent on the ground of proliferation, considering the submissions and arguments contained in the Reply Brief is no moment and a waste of judicial time as there is nothing before this Honourable Court the brief is replying to.

RESOLUTION
I have painstakingly read through the pages of the record of appeal before this Honourable Court and the adopted brief of argument of counsel for the Appellants in support of his contention in this appeal. The issues for determination canvassed by the learned counsel are undoubtedly clear to me. However, I consider the issue stated below as apt and germane for the determination of this appeal:
?Whether the trial Court was right to have dismissed the Appellants? Preliminary Objection challenging its jurisdiction to hear the suit on the ground that the necessary parties were not before it?”

Before I go into the determination of the issue distilled proper, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a Court to entertain an

action. The Court in the case of MADUKOLU & ORS v. NKEMDILIM (1962) LPELR-24023 (SC), Per BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C, at Pp. 9-10, paras. F-D stated thus:
?A Court is competent when (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction: and (3) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.”

In an action before a Court or a tribunal, parties are not added to a suit just to increase or swell up the number. Parties are joined in an action based on their indispensability to the action. If their presence in the action is necessary for the proper, complete and effectual determination of the action then they can be joined as parties to the action. In the

instant appeal, to establish whether or not the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is a party whose presence is necessary for the just determination of the matter before the Court below is an issue to be determined after revisiting the Affidavit in support of the said Application. (See pages 79 to 85 of the record). It is equally important to state that the Appellants have a Further Affidavit at pages 108-110 of the record. This Court is also duty bound to consider the Respondent?s counter affidavit at pages 101 to 103 of the record, opposing the granting of the Appellants? Application praying the Court below for an Order dismissing the suit which is the subject of the instant appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Respondent failed to sue the necessary party in the suit.

Consequent upon the above, I have gone through the Appellants? Notice of Preliminary Objection, the relevant deposition in the affidavit are to wit:
3. ?That the land and the boundary in dispute does not belong to myself or any of the defendants on record in this suit.
4. That the families of Okpalaononobi and Uzochukwu

that donated the land to the Registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka. The record of transaction between Okpalaononobi and the registered trustee of the Catholic Church of Awka is hereby attached as Exhibit A.
5. That the plaintiff is a member of our Church and is fully aware that the land was donated to the registered trustee of the Catholic Church.
6. That I do not have the consent of the registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka to defend this suit. It is the registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka that is developing the land.?

?However, the following relevant facts were deposed in the Respondent?s counter Affidavit to wit:
3. ?That paragraphs 3 of their affidavit in support is correct, that is why I am surprised that they are contesting the ownership of the land with me; when the owner of the land that donated the land to them and share a common boundary with me is not contesting same. However, the Defendants/Respondents are holding the land on trust of the Akpo Catholic Community.
4. That paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 are not correct there (sic) can be best described as tissues of

falsehood and are vehemently denied forthwith. In answer to the above paragraphs I state that:
a. ?Exhibit A? attached to the Notice of Preliminary Objection is res ipsa loquitur – the facts speaks for itself; the land was granted to the Akpo Catholic Community and not Registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka. I refer my Lord to paragraph 1 of Exhibit ?A? line 8.
b. Registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka was mentioned in ?Exhibit A? merely as ?Care of? which translate to the address of the Akpo Community and nothing more.
c. My Counsel S.U Anyia Esq. of Counsel informed me and I verily believed him that ?care of? Registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka does not make the person or object ?Care of? a party to the said transaction.
d. In most Court cases, their Counsel Office addresses are often use to send Court processes to the parties like their address for service on the Defendant(s) ?Care of? their Counsel; that does not make their Counsel party to the Suit, it is the same thing here.
e. The Applicants are only

trying to mislead the Court by pulling wool in the eyes of the Honourable Court.?

The relevant depositions of the Appellant?s Further Affidavit are to wit:
5. ?That paragraph 3 of their affidavit is misleading to the extent that the families of Uzoh and Okpalaonobi that donated the land to the Registered Trustee of Catholic Diocese of Awka, made it clear in their witness statement on oath accompanying statement of defence already filed that their land which they donated to the Registered Trustee of Catholic diocese of Awka have no boundary with any land belonging to the Plaintiff on record whatsoever.
6. That paragraphs 4 of their counter affidavit is false. The plaintiff sued the defendants for themselves and on behalf of Christ the King Catholic Community, Akpo and not Akpo Catholic Community. Christ the King Catholic Community is different from Akpo Catholic Community.
7. That the trustee of the Catholic diocese of Awka is the developer and the grantee of the land.?

?Now the question I ask myself is that from the depositions contained in the Affidavit, Counter Affidavit and the Further Affidavit of the

parties, what makes the Registered trustee of the Catholic Diocese of Awka a necessary party to this suit or what makes it connected to this suit that the Appellants feel that their presence is so necessary for the just determination of the issues before the Court below?

I have read with understanding Exhibit A which is referred to by the Appellant as the record of transaction between Okpalaononobi and the registered trustee of the Catholic Church of Awka. Permit me to reproduce the relevant provisions of the clauses as contained in Exhibit A to wit:
1. ?That on January, 1978, MESSRS CORNELINUS OKPALAONOBI and FELIX OKPALANOBI (alias Akuezumpa) all of Uhuala village Akpo in Aguata L.G.A of Anambra State of Nigeria; hereinafter referred to as the ?GRANTOR? (which expression shall where the con so admits include their heirs, successors, assigns executors, administrators and their personal representatives) on the one part; for themselves and on behalf of their respective families JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY GRANTED to Akpo Catholic Community care of the REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF THE CATHOLIC MISSION of the Diocese of Awka of the Diocesan

Catholic Secretariat P.M.B. 5021 Awka, Anambra State of Nigeria; hereinafter referred to as ?THE GRANTEE? of the other part?
3. That the said piece or parcel of land was granted to the Akpo Catholic Community care of the Registered trustee of the Catholic Mission of the Diocese of Awka, Diocesan Secretariat P.M.B. 5021 Awka, Anambra State of Nigeria, in consideration of the welfare and good work the Catholic Church of Awka Diocese is doing in Akpo and for the welfare of Akpo Catholic Community.

Flowing from the Exhibit A placed by the Appellants before this Honourable Court, I have no doubt in mind that the land was granted to the Akpo Catholic Community. Going by clause 3 of Exhibit A, I am of the opinion that the basis upon which the land was placed in care of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission of the Diocese of Awka was because it was a larger platform upon which the Akpo Catholic community developed in Akpo community. To my own understanding, I am of the opinion that although the land was not granted to the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission, the said Registered Trustee of the Catholic

Mission is holding the land in trust for the Akpo Catholic Community and is said to be the one developing the land in question. The propriety of the said development is not a subject of this appeal so this Court will not make any comment in this regard. This Court is only concerned with whether there is evidence on record, no matter how minute linking with Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission with the suit and by reason making its presence necessary for the just determination of issues in controversy before the Court below.

The trial Court in this regard held at page 127 of the record that:
?It does appear that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka are necessary parties to this proceeding. However, the fact that a necessary party has not been joined will not render the action a nullity.”

The Court should always be circumspect when determining the rights of parties and must ensure that all parties connected to an action and whose rights may be affected in one way or the other by its decision must be before it. This is to afford the party or parties the opportunity to present its case notwithstanding the weakness of

its defence or its chances of success. This to me only accords with the dictates of the sacrosanct provisions of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
By reason of the forgoing, I too, feel that no matter how slightly connected, the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission is a necessary party and should be joined in this suit for the just determination of the conflicting claims between the parties.

The Appellants have prayed that this Court should dismiss the suit for the non-joinder of the Registered Trustee of the Catholic Mission by the Respondents as the effect of same robs the Court the jurisdiction to entertain the action. The law is trite that an action cannot be rendered incompetent simply because all the necessary parties have not been joined in the suit. It suffices if the parties before the Court are competent parties and the cause of action if substantiated by the plaintiff entitles him to a remedy against the defendant. On the effect of failure to join a necessary party in an action, this Court, Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A in the case of ASONIBARE V MAMODU & ANOR (2013) LPELR-22192 (CA) held thus:

“…failure to join a necessary party is only an irregularity which does not affect the competence of the Court to adjudicate on the matter before it. See Okoye v. Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd. & Ors (1991) 6 NWLR part 199 p.501. An irregularity that leads to unfairness may however result in the setting aside of the judgment on appeal. See Okoye’s case (supra).”
On the strength of the above, I agree with the learned trial judge when it held at page 127 of the record that:
?However, the fact that a necessary party has not been joined will not render the action a nullity. The proceedings of a Court of law will not be a nullity on the ground of lack of competence of the Court or lack of jurisdiction simply because a plaintiff fails to join a party who ought to have been joined..I do not think that the present suit of the Plaintiff is defeated by non-joinder of a necessary to the proceedings. This motion cannot be granted and same is struck out accordingly?.

Considering the fact that trial is yet to commence and the rights of parties yet to be

determined, I am of the opinion that the proper consequential order which the learned trial judge ought to have made having previously held that ?It does appear that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka are necessary parties to this proceeding?, was to direct the Respondent to join the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka as a party to the suit.

Having held that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is a necessary party no matter how minutely connected to the just determination of the rights of the parties at the Court below, this Court leans towards doing substantial justice in the matter and looking at the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has the power to order the joining of Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka as a party to the suit for a just determination of the rights of the parties in the suit at the Court below. This Honourable Court is fortified by the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, which provides that:
?The Court of Appeal may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in

controversy in appeal, and may amend any defect or error in the record of appeal, and may direct the Court below to inquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Court of Appeal thinks fit to determine before the final judgment in the appeal, and make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorized to make or grant and may direct necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken, and, generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance and may re-hear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for purposes of such re-hearing or may give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court, or, in the case of an appeal from the Court below, in that Court?s appellate jurisdiction, order the case to be reheard by a Court of competent jurisdiction. (Underlining mine)

?I have no doubt in my mind that instead of dismissing or striking out the action, making an order of the joinder of the Registered

Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is more appropriate and accords with doing of substantial justice.

Flowing from the heels of the above, this appeal succeeds in part. The part of the decision of the Court below holding that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka is a necessary party is hereby affirmed. In addition, it is hereby ordered that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka be joined by the Respondent in this suit. The parties shall bear their respective cost.

MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead Judgment prepared by my learned brother ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JCA allowing this appeal in part only. I too hereby order that the Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Awka be joined as parties in the suit for the just determination of the conflicting claims of the respective parties.
No order was made as to cost in the lead Judgment. I also make no order as to cost.

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my

learned brother ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusion therein.

For the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment of my learned brother, I equally agree that the trial Court ought to have made an order of joinder in the circumstances. I therefore allow the appeal in part while adopting the consequential orders in the lead judgment as mine.

Appearances:

L.C. Muoneke, Esq.For Appellant(s)

S.U. Anyia, Esq.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

L.C. Muoneke, Esq.For Appellant

AND

S.U. Anyia, Esq.For Respondent