LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ADIKWU v. IGBUDU & ANOR (2022)

ADIKWU v. IGBUDU & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16061(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, May 20, 2022

CA/MK/37/2018(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal

Cordelia Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muslim Sule Hassan Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MR. RABO ADIKWU SEEKING TO BE JOINED AS INTERVENER/RESPONDENT APPELANT(S)

And

1. MRS. DOROTHY SHIMINENGE IGBUDU 2. IORCHIR MATHAIS RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE CATEGORIES OF PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS

Parties to proceedings are broadly categorized into desirable party; interested party and necessary party; desirable party is the party who has an interest in or who may be affected by the result of the action. A person who has an interest in an action which has two distinct rights, viz: the right to apply to be joined as a party in the trial Court and the right to seek leave to appeal pursuant to Section 242 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). His failure, refusal or neglect to pursue his right in the trial Court will not bar him from seeking and obtaining leave against a decision which is detrimental to his interest. See Jadesimi v. Okotie-Eboh; In re- Lessy (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 113 at 128-129. Interested party is a person who could have been joined as a party to the suit. It includes a person affected or likely to be affected or aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the proceedings. See Section 243 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). E.F.P Co. Limited v. NDIC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1039) 216 at 251. Necessary party on the other hand is a person who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also on who in their absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. See Jadesimi v. Okotie-Eboh; In re Lessy (Supra) page 113 at 126. A necessary party is a person who would be bound by the result of the action; the question can’t be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. Ojo v. Ogbe (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 542 at 551. Its someone whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issue before the Court. It is a party in absence of whom claim cannot be effectually and completely determined in such a way as to bind him. See Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assembly (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 50 at 81. A person is a necessary party to an action where it is desirable that he should be bound by the result and where the question in controversy cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. See Adefarasin v. Dayekh (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) page 89 at 116-117. In any proceedings, necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. See Biyu v. Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 981) 1 at 35. PER HASSAN, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT AND OTHER COURTS

Sections 241(1), 2(c) and 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic 1999 (as amended), provide for right of appeal from the High Court and other Courts specified in Section 240 of the Constitution to this Court either as of right or by leave of Court. Section 243(1) (a) provides, inter alia, that such right of appeal is exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a part, (to the case) or with leave of Court at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter. Under Section 243 (a) of the Constitution (Supra) an Applicant must not only show that he is a person interested in the matter but also that the order, decision or judgment of the lower Court prejudicially affects his interest.
Thus, for a person who was not a party to a civil suit or matter to be able to exercise a right of appeal in the matter, he must first obtain leave of court to appeal as a person having interest. To be able to obtain such leave, I verily think he must show that he is a person having interest in the matter, and whether from the conduct of the Applicant, there is any genuine and recognizable interest to warrant the grant of this application. 
PER JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.

THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “A PERSON HAVING INTEREST”

Who then is “a person having interest?” ​In Ikonne VS. Commissioner of Police, Imo State (1986) 2 NSCC 185, 1130, 1153 Karibi -Whyte, JSC held that;
“the expression “person having interest” has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved”. In Re: Sidebotham, EX. P. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D at p.. 465, James, LJ said
“A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something”.
IN RE-UGADU (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 93) 189, 202 Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated that:
“Concisely stated, the interest which will support an application under the provision must be genuine and legally recognisable interest in respect of a decision which prejudicially affects such interest”.
PER JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): The Applicant by this Motion dated the 28th of June, 2021, and filed on the same date is praying this Honorable Court for the following reliefs:
1. An Order joining the Applicant/Party seeking to be joined to this appeal as an intervener/Co-Respondent.
2. Such other order(s) as this Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The grounds upon which the application is being brought are copiously spelled out on the face of the motion paper. The application is supported by 16 paragraphed affidavit deposed to by one Samuel Anthony Nas, of Plot 417, Apo Re-settlement, Zone C Apo, Abuja, who is a property assistant to the Applicant. Annexed to the Application is Deed of Assignment between Mathias Terngu Iorchir and Rabo Adikwu marked as EXH A.

​The Appellant/Respondent upon receipt of the Applicant’s motion filed a 5 paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by Robert Iorbee, the Litigation Secretary at the law firm of Mbafan Ekpendu & Co. The Respondent to the appeal did not file any Affidavit in opposition to the grant of the application.

The Applicant upon receipt of the Appellant/Respondent’s counter-affidavit and written address, filed Written Reply on point of law on the 17th of September, 2021. At the hearing of the application, Counsel to the Applicant moved the motion and adopted the affidavit and further and better affidavit and urged this Court to grant this application. Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent on the other hand adopted their counter-affidavit and written address and urged this Court to refuse the application.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS
The gist of this application from the prayer on the face of the motion paper which is summarized in the affidavit evidence before this Court is that, the Applicant is seeking to be joined as a Respondent to the instant appeal. Applicant’s prayer stems from the fact that the reliefs sought in the appeal are directly against him and affects him because he purchased the subject matter of the suit sometimes in 2018 from the Respondent by virtue of EXH A.

​Applicant explained that before he purchased the property in dispute, he conducted a search at Ministry of Land and survey and the property was not encumbered, and he was informed by his lawyer that there was no appeal at the registry of this Court or any pending application for stay of execution on the land. That even though some workers he engaged to fence the site were invited to B division police station Makurdi, he only came to be aware of this appeal only in December, 2018 when Respondent’s counsel called him and informed him that he was served with the instant appeal.

That when the Appellant reported the matter to B Division Police station, and the Applicant’s workers were invited, he could not provide any evidence of a pending appeal against the judgment of the trial Court and on that note, the police discharged the workers and asked them to continue work. That however, there is now pending an application before this Court seeking to restrain the Respondent from giving effect to the judgment of the lower Court and also interfering with the land, hence, the need to join the Applicant as a party as his interest in the subject matter is likely to be adversely affected if he is not made a party in the appeal.

​The Appellant/Respondent in opposing the application contended that the judgment subject matter of this appeal was delivered on the 27th July, 2017, and by 7th of May, 2018, the Record of Appeal has been entered before this Court and Appellant’s brief was already filed. That the Applicant only had interest in the subject matter of this appeal after judgment was entered at the trial Court, and this appeal was filed, record transmitted and Appellant’s brief was served on the Respondent, because the Respondent sold the subject matter to him on the 25th of August, 2018, by virtue of EXH A.

That the gravamen of the Applicant that the instant appeal does not affect him directly is false as he is a stranger to the appeal. That the Applicant did not conduct any search at the Appeal registry as alleged and neither has he filed any appeal or cross-appeal to warrant him having a say in the instant appeal. That the Applicant having obtained title from the Respondent during the pendency of this appeal, his interest (if any) over the disputed land is tied to that of the Respondent and cannot be separated therefrom, as the doctrine of lis pendis applies. Therefore, the grant of this application will affect the expeditious hearing and determination of this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Applicant in his written address accompanying the Application filed on the 30th of July, 2021, formulated two issues for determination in urging this Court to grant the application as follows:
Whether the Applicant is an interested party to be joined in this suit?
Whether this application is unmeritorious on grounds that it is caught up with doctrine of lis pendens?

The Appellant/Respondent in her written address filed on the 2nd of September, 2021, accompanying her counter-affidavit formulated a single issue to wit:
Whether the application for joinder brought by the applicant has any dint of merit and ought not to be dismissed.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of this application, the subject matter of the judgment of the Benue State High Court in the instant appeal, and the submissions of Counsel in their respective written addresses, and I believe the single issue formulated by the Appellant/Respondent will determine this application, I shall adopt the first issue submitted by the Applicant as the proper issue arising for the just determination of this application. On that note, I shall proceed to consider Counsel submissions and resolve these issues canvassed under issue one.

SUBMISSION OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL UNDER ISSUE ONE FORMULATED
Whether the Applicant is an interested party to be joined in this suit?
Counsel urged this Court to answer the issue in the affirmative as by the authority of Green v. Green (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) at 814 paragraph G, the Court has succinctly made it clear that the need to join a party in a matter is necessary especially where the interest of such a party is important for the effectual and complete determination of the matter. That the Court should order joinder of a party whether Defendant or Claimant whose presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the matter. See Attorney General Federation v. Attorney General Abia (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) p. 689 SC at p. 745–746 paras A–B, Per Ogundare JSC. See also Anyanwoko v. Okoye (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) page 479 SC at P. 519–520 para H–B.

​Counsel submitted that it is trite law while relying on the authority of Mr. Michael Agbekoni v. Alhaji Ibrahim A Karem (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 406) 1970, 1988 paras A–B, that persons against whom complaints are made or reliefs are claimed before a Court of law must be joint as parties if not the action may be held to be improperly constituted. According to Counsel, the situation of the Applicant fits the provision of the law above as the Appellant/Respondent’s motion on notice dated 5/11/2018 and filed on 13/11/2018 is directed at the Applicant.

Counsel submitted that his application is predicated on the ground of interest in the subject matter and the doctrine of fair hearing as it applies to courts or tribunals under S. 36 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, Applicant urge the Court to invoke its powers to protect the res by joining the Applicant as it is only when he is joined as a party that he can appeal the judgment of the Court or vary the orders of the Court in EXH A. According to counsel, the contention of Appellant/Respondent that Applicant did not file a Respondent’s Notice does not hold water as a party may join an appeal where he shows sufficient interest in the subject matter. See Nwankwo v. FBN (Supra).

That although the judgment is in favor of the Respondent, he has transferred his interest to the Applicant who currently is vested with possession of the land under appeal. That the Appellant failed to serve him the processes in this appeal and same is in violation of his fundamental right to fair hearing.

That the grant of this application is at the discretion of this Court and this Court has powers to do so. Counsel referred to the authority of Suleiman v. COP (2008) Vol. 5 M.J.S.C 90 at 98 paras B–E, and urge this Court to grant this Application as the gravemen of this appeal directly affect the interest of the Applicant.

SUBMISSION UNDER ISSUE TWO FORMULATED
Whether this Application is unmeritorious on grounds that it is caught up with doctrine of lis pendens?
Counsel on this issue submits firmly that the doctrine lis pendens does not apply as the facts of the case fall within the exclusionary circumstance where this doctrine will not be applicable. Counsel referred to the cases of Olori Motors & Co. Ltd v. UBN Plc (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 318) 732 SC; BUA v. Dauda (2003) FWLR (Pt. 172) 1892 SC; Barclays Bank Nig Ltd v. Ashiru (1979) 6 & & SC at 99; ENekwe v. IMB Nig Ltd (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 349) 105 SC.

According to Counsel, lis pendens is a latin word applied to render void the transfer or sale of a legal estate in real property while litigation is pending. See Oronti v. Onigbanjo (2012) vol. 5–7 M.J.S.C (Pt. III) at 81 paras C–E where the Apex Court held that for the doctrine of lis pendens to apply, the four condition listed in the case of BUA v. Dauda (Supra) must apply. The conditions are that at the time of the sale of the property, the suit regarding the dispute must be pending, the action must be against a real property, the object must be recover or assert title to a specific property, and the other party must be served the processes in the pending action or suit.

Counsel submitted that the circumstance of this case differ from the condition itemized by the Apex Court for the doctrine of lis pendens to apply and the Applicant was not availed with the processes filed in this suit. Even though Appellant/Respondent stated in his counter affidavit that Applicant interfered on the disputed land, he did not show that Applicant was served any process in this matter.

Counsel submits that the doctrine of lis pendens does not also apply because there exists a valid judgment of a competent Court declaring title which warranted the transfer of same to him. That the judgment of the lower Court is final except where same is upturned and there is no evidence of any application of stay of execution by the Appellant/Respondent.

Counsel relied on Applicant’s affidavit evidence to submit that Applicant has established that he conducted his due diligence at Ministry of Lands Makurdi, and the High Court Appeal registry and established that the property, subject of the judgment appeal herein was not encumbered before he purchased same. Therefore, his application to be joined is bound by the judgment of the lower Court as the decision of this Court will affect his title.

According to Counsel, Applicant having acquired the title in the subject of this appeal by EXH A spontaneously became an interested party in this suit, therefore, this Court can exercise her discretion in granting this application to avail the Applicant the opportunity to participate and be bound by the final outcome of the appeal.

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SUBMISSION
Whether the application for joinder brought by the Applicant has any dint of merit and ought not to be dismissed.
The Appellant/Respondent’s counsel in her written address urged this Court to dismissed this application because Applicant’s application herein seeking to be joined as an intervener/Co–Respondent is not permitted by any procedural rule or law. Counsel stated that how and what makes the Applicant an intervener in this appeal and what he intends to achieve by intervening in the appeal was not disclosed. Therefore, the Applicant cannot be joined as a co–respondent as he has nothing to do with the subject matter, proceedings and judgment at the lower Court when the suit was pending before the lower Court.

Counsel relied on the authority of PPA v. INEC (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1317) 215 SC and Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 172 to submit that it is settled law that an appeal is an invitation to the appellate Court to review the decision of a lower Court to find out whether or not upon the proper consideration of facts before it and the applicable law, it arrived at the right decision. Therefore, an appeal is a continuation of the original suit rather than inception of a new action. See Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 1) (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) SC and Jumbo v. Bryanko Int Ltd (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 403) 545.

That the Applicant is just a busy body who acquired a pending litigation from the Respondent and cannot be allowed to intervene in the appeal as he has nothing to do with the appeal as an intervener, as the law does not recognize the position of an interveners in an appeal. And neither can he be joined as a co-respondent being a total stranger to the suit leading to the appeal. According to Counsel, Applicant cannot be allowed to join the appeal as his interest is tied to that of the Respondent who he purchased the land from, as if the Respondent succeeds or fails, the same fate applies to the Applicant.

Counsel referred this Court to the definition of lis pendens by the 10th Edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary which defines the term as a pending lawsuit, jurisdiction, power or control which Courts acquire over property in litigation pending action and until final judgment. That the Court in Akiboye v. Adeko (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1244) 415 held that where litigation is pending between parties as to rights to a particular estate, the necessities of mankind require that the decision of the Court in the suit shall be binding not only on the litigants but also those who derive title under them by alienation made pending the suit whether such alienation had or had no notice of the pendency of the proceedings.

That the Court further held in Akiboye’s case that the doctrine of lis pendens evolved for the purpose of preventing one party from fraudulently overreaching the decision of the Court on the basis that he has divested himself of the title before the decision was made. Thus a party who purchased a property subject matter of litigation does so at his own peril if it turns out from the litigation that his predecessor in title has no title in the property.

That the substantive Respondent had argued in his Respondent’s brief of argument before this Court that the instant appeal is incompetent on the basis that he has alienated the land to the Applicant. Counsel submit that it is clear that the objective of the Respondent is to overreach the Appellant and render this appeal nugatory.

Counsel also submitted that a party cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrong as expressed in the latin maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur action” as alienation or acquisition of land during the pendency of a lawsuit is illegal and contrary to public policy. Counsel submitted that Applicant’s submission that he conducted search at the Appeal registry before purchasing the subject of this suit is preposterous as he has not furnished any evidence of his search. Thus he cannot benefit from his wrong by seeking to be joined as a party in the appeal. Counsel referred to the authorities of Enekwe v. I.M. B (Nig) Ltd (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 349) 1053 at 1081 and Adedeji v. Obajimi (2018) LPELR 44360 (SC) in support of her submission and urged this Court to dismiss this application.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
‘’Whether the Applicant is an interested party to be joined in this suit.’’
Parties to proceedings are broadly categorized into desirable party; interested party and necessary party; desirable party is the party who has an interest in or who may be affected by the result of the action. A person who has an interest in an action which has two distinct rights, viz: the right to apply to be joined as a party in the trial Court and the right to seek leave to appeal pursuant to Section 242 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). His failure, refusal or neglect to pursue his right in the trial Court will not bar him from seeking and obtaining leave against a decision which is detrimental to his interest. See Jadesimi v. Okotie-Eboh; In re- Lessy (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113) 113 at 128-129. Interested party is a person who could have been joined as a party to the suit. It includes a person affected or likely to be affected or aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the proceedings. See Section 243 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). E.F.P Co. Limited v. NDIC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1039) 216 at 251. Necessary party on the other hand is a person who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also on who in their absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. See Jadesimi v. Okotie-Eboh; In re Lessy (Supra) page 113 at 126. A necessary party is a person who would be bound by the result of the action; the question can’t be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. Ojo v. Ogbe (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 542 at 551. Its someone whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issue before the Court. It is a party in absence of whom claim cannot be effectually and completely determined in such a way as to bind him. See Adeleke v. Oyo State House of Assembly (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 50 at 81. A person is a necessary party to an action where it is desirable that he should be bound by the result and where the question in controversy cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. See Adefarasin v. Dayekh (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1044) page 89 at 116-117. In any proceedings, necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. See Biyu v. Ibrahim (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 981) 1 at 35.

​For a person to be joined as a party in an action, it must be shown that the person is entitled to some share or interest in the subject matter or lays claim to such share or interest or is likely to be affected by the result of the action or is a necessary party and/or it is just and convenient to join him. See Yakubu v. Gov. Kogi State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 367 SC; Ogunbule v. Adebanjo (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 964) 319 CA. 

In the instant appeal, it is beyond dispute that the Applicant bought the land the subject matter of this appeal from the Respondent by virtue of a deed of Assignment See Exhibit A attached to paragraph 4 (b) of the affidavit in support of the instant application, the Applicant’s interest in the subject matter of this appeal will be adversely affected if he is not joined as a party in this appeal. I am satisfied in the circumstance of this case and on grounds of fair hearing that the Applicant from the deposition in the affidavit in support of this application has disclosed sufficient interest in the subject matter of this appeal that entitled him to be joined as a party. The failure, refusal or neglect of a party to pursue his right in the trial Court will not bar or prevent him from seeking and obtaining leave against a decision which is detrimental to his interest. Where an Applicant seeking to be joined as in the instant case establishes to the satisfaction of the Court by affidavit evidence that he has an interest in the subject matter of the action the application for joinder on grounds of fair hearing will be granted. Having regard to the foregoing this application is hereby granted as prayed.

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading before now, the draft ruling just delivered by my learned brother, HON. JUSTICE MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of my Lord in his ruling on all the issues raised.
I also abide by the consequential orders made in the Ruling.

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft, the ruling delivered by my learned brother HON. JUSTICE MUSLIM SULE HASSAN JCA. I shall make few comments for the sake of emphasis.

​Sections 241(1), 2(c) and 242(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic 1999 (as amended), provide for right of appeal from the High Court and other Courts specified in Section 240 of the Constitution to this Court either as of right or by leave of Court. Section 243(1) (a) provides, inter alia, that such right of appeal is exercisable in the case of civil proceedings at the instance of a part, (to the case) or with leave of Court at the instance of any other person having an interest in the matter. Under Section 243 (a) of the Constitution (Supra) an Applicant must not only show that he is a person interested in the matter but also that the order, decision or judgment of the lower Court prejudicially affects his interest.
Thus, for a person who was not a party to a civil suit or matter to be able to exercise a right of appeal in the matter, he must first obtain leave of court to appeal as a person having interest. To be able to obtain such leave, I verily think he must show that he is a person having interest in the matter, and whether from the conduct of the Applicant, there is any genuine and recognizable interest to warrant the grant of this application. 

Who then is “a person having interest?” ​In Ikonne VS. Commissioner of Police, Imo State (1986) 2 NSCC 185, 1130, 1153 Karibi -Whyte, JSC held that;
“the expression “person having interest” has been defined as synonymous with “person aggrieved”. In Re: Sidebotham, EX. P. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D at p.. 465, James, LJ said
“A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something”.
IN RE-UGADU (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 93) 189, 202 Karibi-Whyte, JSC, stated that:
“Concisely stated, the interest which will support an application under the provision must be genuine and legally recognisable interest in respect of a decision which prejudicially affects such interest”.
The applicant in this appeal bought the land (the subject matter of this appeal) from the Respondent, the deed of assignment between the parties is annexed to the application and marked as Exh A.
The length and breadth of the Appellant’s contention is that the Applicant, having obtained title from the Respondent during the pendency of this appeal, his interest (if any) over the land is tied to that of the Respondent and cannot be separated therefrom. This appears to be a dear admission by the Respondent that the Applicant in deed bought the land the subject matter of the suit. It can therefore be safely held and I so hold that the Appellant in deed bought the land the subject matter of the suit.
In Enyibros Foods Processing Co. Ltd VS. Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1039) 216, 251, Tobi, JSC, stated that:
“The test of interest to determine a person interested is whether the person could have been joined as a party to the suit”.
On that account, the Applicant qualifies as a person having interest and therefore ought to be granted leave to appeal as such.

The Applicant having shown that he has a genuine and legally recognizable interest, sufficient to qualify him as a person having interest within the contemplation of Section 243(1) (a) of the Constitution, has therefore moved me to answer the sole question which forms the issue for determination of this application as to whether the Applicant is an interested party to be joined in this suit, in the affirmative. I also grant this application as prayed in the interest of justice.

Appearances:

DR. C.M. EKPENDU ESQ., with him T. IHO ESQ. For Appellant(s)

J.T. JINGE ESQ., with him J.S. AWUNDE ESQ. For Respondent(s)