MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI & ANOR. V. ISAAC SUNDAY OLUFEMI ADERINOYE & ANOR.
(2010)LCN/3627(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 17th day of March, 2010
CA/I/M.156/08
RATIO
ACTION: PARTIES TO AN ACTION; CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR AN APPLICATION FOR JOINDER OF PARTIES BE GRANTED
It is trite law that there must be joinder of persons against whom complaints are made or reliefs are claimed before the powers of the Court can be invoked. Where this is not done, the action may be held to be improperly constituted and liable to be struck out. See HENRY AWONIYI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES AMORC (2000) F.W.L.R Part 25 at 1592, (2000) 6S.CN.J 141 and (2000) 10 N.W.LR pt. 676 at 522. Also in the case of SYNERGY TRUST & INVESTMENT LTD VS. THE HON. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY (2007) 11 WRN page 157 a number of reasons were explicitly enumerated and stating the conditions to be satisfied for an application of this nature to earn the favour or consideration by a court They are as follows:
(a) That the party must have the same interest as the existing parties.
(b) There should be the consideration as to whether the party seeking to be joined will be prejudiced if any order joining him as a party is not made.
(c) That necessary parties to a suit are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also must be that in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with.
(d) That where the determination of an action between two parties would directly affect a third party’s legal rights or his pecuniary interest, the court has a discretion to order the third person to be added as a party.
(e) That one of the reasons of joining a necessary party to an action is the issue of estoppels i.e standing by, because if the necessary party knows of the pendency of a suit and keeps quiet, he will be bound by the result.
(f) That a person is regarded as having an interest in the subject matter of a case, so as to be entitled to be joined as a party thereto if he is aggrieved or has been wrongfully deprived of something or is likely to be affected or aggrieved by a decision of Court. PER MODUPE FASANMI, JCA
ACTION: CATEGORIES OF PARTIES TO A SUIT
The Court recognized three categories of parties to a suit. There is a nominal party. A nominal party is a person who though having an interest in the subject matter of a suit before a Court will not be affected by any judgment of the Court but it is none the less joined in the suit to avoid procedural defects. See PADEWA VS. JATAU (2003) 5 N.W.L.R Part 813 at 247.
The necessary or indispensable party is not one who merely has a relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved that will only make him a necessary witness. But is one who not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved and has thought of some relevant arguments to advance and is afraid that the existing parties may not advance them adequately. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and question cannot be settled unless he is a party. There must be question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled or jeopardizes his interest unless he is a party. See P.D.P VS. ABUBAKAR (2004) 16 N.W.L.R Part 900 at 455, BUHARI VS. YUSUF (2003) 4 W.R.N at 124. Only necessary parties need be joined to a suit. There is also a desirable party who is not a necessary party or a nominal party. PER MODUPE FASANMI, JCA
FAIR HEARING: PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING
The denial of fair hearing to the Applicants is in contravention of Section 36 sub-section 1 of the 1999 Constitution. The principle of fair hearing is all about fairness which is the determining factor for the application of natural justice. See NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD VS. ATTA (2006) 12 N.W.L.R Part 993 at 144; DEDUWA VS. OKORODUDU (1976) 9-10 SC at 329 and OYEWOLE VS. AKANDE (2009) 15 N.W.L.R Part 1163 page 119 at 148 para F-G. PER MODUPE FASANMI, JCA
APPEAL: FACTORS FOR GRANT OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
An application for extension of time to appeal is not granted as a matter of course, but on very good and substantial grounds shown in the Applicant’s affidavit. Where good and substantial reasons have not been shown, the application will be refused. See the cases of GENERAL OIL LTD VS. ODUNTAN (1990) 7 N.W.L.R Part 163 at 423 and MICRO-LION INT’L (NIG) LTD VS. GADZAMA (2009) 14 N.W.L.R. Part 1162 page 481 at 501 paras. A-B.
Applicants must show by affidavit evidence:
(1) Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period; and
(2) Grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
The two conditions must co-exist or else the application will not be granted. See IBODO VS. ENAROFIA (1980) 5-7 S.C at 42 or (1980) 12 N.S.C.C. at 195. As regards the second condition, Applicant only needs to show that the grounds of appeal are arguable and not necessarily that they would succeed. See OLOKO VS. IBE (2001) 15 W.R.N at 116. See also Order 7 rule 10 (1)&(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007. PER MODUPE FASANMI, JCA
JUSTICES
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
(1) MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI
(2) MR. MOSHOOD SHITTU MAKU
(For themselves and on behalf of the entire
Shittu Family of Warewa Village) Appellant(s)
AND
1. ISAAC SUNDAY OLUFEMI ADERINOYE
2. MR. MOMODU SHITIU MAKU
For himself and on behalf of the
Shittu Maku Family of Warewa Village) Respondent(s)
MODUPE FASANMI, JCA(Delivering the Leading Ruling): The Applicants moved this court on the 20th of Jan., 2010 with the following prayers:
(1) An order granting leave to the Applicants:
(a) For enlarging the time within which the Applicants may apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice O. O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta judicial division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku.
b) An order for the Applicants MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI and MR. MOSHOOD SHITIU MAKU the above named parties be granted leave to appeal as interested parties against the decision of the Honourable Justice O.O. OLOPADE OF the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no AB272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku.
c) An order of extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice O.O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku.
d) An order joining the applicants MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI AND MR. MOSHOOD SHITIU MAKU as parties to the action to wit Suit No. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku.
e) An order extending the time within which the applicants MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI and MR. MOSHOOD SHITIU MAKU may file the notice and grounds of appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice O.O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v Maku.
(2) An order granting the applicants MR. LIADI ALARAPE ALIMI and MR. MOSHOOD SHITIU MAKU the above named interested parties leave to canvass questions of mixed law and facts in the appeal to be filed against the decision of the Honourable Justice O.O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v Maku.
(3) An order of Injunction restraining the 1st Respondent ISAAC SUNDAY OLUFEMI ADERINOYE who was the Plaintiff from employing self help and using thugs and other unauthorized persons from levying execution of the decision of the Houourable Justice O.O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku and to desist from further trespassing on the land the subject matter of suit no AB/272/2005 Aderinoye v. Maku and from harassing the applicants, members of their family and their tenants with thugs and other social misfit elements on the land the subject matter of this appeal pending the determination of the appeal to be filed in this matter.
(4) And for such further order or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
The application was brought pursuant to Section 6(6)(a), 36, 241 and 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Sections 15 and 24 (4) of the Court of Appeal act, Order 4 rule 6, Order 7 rules 6 & 7 and 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
The application was filed on the 23rd of Sept.,2008 and supported by a seventy five paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 1st Applicant Mr. Liadi Alarape Alimi, a further and better affidavit of 28 paragraphs filed on 30/10/08 deposed to by the 2nd Applicant Mr. Moshood Shittu. Maku, a further and better affidavit of 4 paragraphs filed on 19/11/08 and deposed to by the Applicant’s Counsel Mr. Collistus Aina Chambang and a further and better affidavit of seven paragraphs deposed to by the Applicants Counsel Mr. Callistus Aina Chambang filed on 25/2/09.
On 17/11/08, Mr. Isaac Sunday Olufemi Aderinoye the 1st Respondent in response filed a counter-affidavit of twenty one paragraphs.
At the hearing of the application, learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants were initially made parties at the lower Court. Their names were withdrawn by the 1st Respondent who was the claimant at the lower court. Judgment was obtained which affected their interests. Hence, Applicants have brought this application to be joined as parties. Learned Counsel referred to Section 243 subsection (a) of the 1999 Constitution which states that the Applicants need leave. He referred to the case of LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY COOPERATION VS. DAKURI (1992) 11-12 S.C.N.J. Part 11 at page 217 or (1992) 9 N.W.L.R Part 266 at page 414 where it was held that anybody who is to be affected by any judgment particularly relating to property is a person interested or when a person is aggrieved by any judgment. He also cited the case of WILLIAMS VS. AJAGA (1993) 2 N.W.L.R Part 275 at page 317.
He submitted further that the applicants have exhibited the proposed grounds of appeal in the further and better affidavit of 19/11/2008 where in the issue of jurisdiction had been raised. He referred to grounds 2, 4, 5, 6 & 8 of the grounds of appeal. He argued further that where the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the Court will not border as to the reason for the delay in bringing the application when granting leave. He referred to the case of UKWU VS. BANGE (1997) 7 S.C.N.J at page 262.
The special circumstance warranting the grant of this application are stated in the affidavit in support in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 14A, 15, 16, 17-18A. He argued further that the Applicants gave instructions to his Counsel but the Counsel did not carry out the instructions. Learned Counsel referred to the case of AKINPELU VS. ADEGBERE (2008) 4-5 S.C Part 11 at page 75.
On the relief of granting injunction as stated in prayer 3, learned Counsel submitted that the Applicants have met conditions required for the grant of an injunction i.e there must be a triable issue there must be a legal right, the balance of convenience must be in their favour and serious question for trial. He referred to cases of KOTOYE VS. C.B.N (1998) 1 N.W.L.R Part 98 page 419, AKAPPO VS. AKINMABI (1992) 7 S.C.N.J Part 1 at page 119 and AJEWOLE VS. ADETIMO (1996) 2 S.C.N.J at page 119.
He argued that the Respondent Isaac Sunday Olufemi Aderinoye has not controverted the facts stated in the affidavit and that paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit supported the allegation of fraud made in para 63 of the affidavit in support of the Applicants application. Learned Counsel urged the Court to grant the application;
In reply, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the bone of contention is that the grounds upon which this application is brought is predicated on issues that had been adjudicated upon between the parties and finally resolved against the Applicants family. He went further to state that the grounds upon which the application is brought are the subject matter of a pending appeal. Applicants have not shown any reason why this application was not brought at the lower court. Learned Counsel referred to Order 7 rule 10 sub-rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007. He submitted that the Applicants reasons have been discredited in paras Sea) & (b) of the counter affidavit. He contended that the processes filed at the lower court were to the knowledge and the active participation of the Applicants who appeared as parties in one of the applications at the lower court. Learned Counsel referred to paras 5(a)-(j) of the counter affidavit and 7-11 of the Applicants affidavit in support and exhibit S.M.F attached to the Applicants affidavit. He referred to paragraphs 8-9 of exhibits I.S.O.A at page 20 of the Respondent’s counter affidavit. He cited the case of IKENTA BEST NIG. LTD VS. ATTORNEY-GENERAL RIVERS STATE (2008) 2-3 S.C Part 1 at 28.
Learned Counsel to the Applicants on point of law submitted that where the time for leave to appeal has expired, a lower court does not have the jurisdiction to extend the time.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this application the authorities cited, the affidavits in support and counter affidavit and the exhibits attached by parties.
On relief 1(a), it is pertinent to note that the Applicants are just applying to join as interested parties. They were not parties to the trial at the lower court. The Applicants must have been granted leave as interested parties before the prayer can be considered. It will therefore be premature to seek leave for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Ogun State High Court sitting at Abeokuta delivered on the 2nd of July, 2007 in suit no AB/272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku. This relief is also a repetition of relief 1(c). Relief 1(a) is therefore struck out.
Reliefs 1(b) & (d) will be taken together to avoid repetition. It is trite law that there must be joinder of persons against whom complaints are made or reliefs are claimed before the powers of the Court can be invoked. Where this is not done, the action may be held to be improperly constituted and liable to be struck out. See HENRY AWONIYI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES AMORC (2000) F.W.L.R Part 25 at 1592, (2000) 6S.CN.J 141 and (2000) 10 N.W.LR pt. 676 at 522. Also in the case of SYNERGY TRUST & INVESTMENT LTD VS. THE HON. MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY (2007) 11 WRN page 157 a number of reasons were explicitly enumerated and stating the conditions to be satisfied for an application of this nature to earn the favour or consideration by a court They are as follows:
(a) That the party must have the same interest as the existing parties.
(b) There should be the consideration as to whether the party seeking to be joined will be prejudiced if any order joining him as a party is not made.
(c) That necessary parties to a suit are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also must be that in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with.
(d) That where the determination of an action between two parties would directly affect a third party’s legal rights or his pecuniary interest, the court has a discretion to order the third person to be added as a party.
(e) That one of the reasons of joining a necessary party to an action is the issue of estoppels i.e standing by, because if the necessary party knows of the pendency of a suit and keeps quiet, he will be bound by the result.
(f) That a person is regarded as having an interest in the subject matter of a case, so as to be entitled to be joined as a party thereto if he is aggrieved or has been wrongfully deprived of something or is likely to be affected or aggrieved by a decision of Court.
The Court recognized three categories of parties to a suit. There is a nominal party. A nominal party is a person who though having an interest in the subject matter of a suit before a Court will not be affected by any judgment of the Court but it is none the less joined in the suit to avoid procedural defects. See PADEWA VS. JATAU (2003) 5 N.W.L.R Part 813 at 247.
The necessary or indispensable party is not one who merely has a relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved that will only make him a necessary witness. But is one who not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some questions involved and has thought of some relevant arguments to advance and is afraid that the existing parties may not advance them adequately. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and question cannot be settled unless he is a party. There must be question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled or jeopardizes his interest unless he is a party. See P.D.P VS. ABUBAKAR (2004) 16 N.W.L.R Part 900 at 455, BUHARI VS. YUSUF (2003) 4 W.R.N at 124. Only necessary parties need be joined to a suit. There is also a desirable party who is not a necessary party or a nominal party.
From the above, the pertinent questions for the Court to consider in this application at hand are: (a) Are the Applicants persons having interest in the matter on appeal?
(b) Do they have legally recognizable interest?
(c) Are they aggrieved persons? In other words, have the Applicants suffered a legal grievance.
(d) Has the decision of the trial Court which they seek leave of this Court of Appeal against wrongfully deprived them of something.
(e) Or has the decision of the trial Court prejudicially affected their interests?
The Applicants in the affidavit in support of the application before us averred thus:
(5) That when the 1st Respondent commenced this action as Plaintiff in suit as AB/272/2005 the Applicants were sued as the 2nd & 3rd Defendants respectively and the 1st Respondent alleged that the writ of summons and statement of claim were served. A copy of the writ of summons and statement of claim and affidavit of service are at pages 1-9 of Exhibit “SMF”
(6) That the 1st Respondent subsequently filed an application for substituted service dated the 11th of Feb., 2006 and got an order of Court dated the 3rd of March, 2006 to serve the Applicants by substituted means by pasting the court processes at a conspicuous place on the door of the last known place of abode at No. 1 Old Olowora Road, Warewa Village along Lagos/Expressway.. A copy of the application and order of Court are at pages 10-13 of Exhibit “SMF”
(6a)That no service was effected on the 2nd Respondent at No. 1 Old Olowora Road as the said No. 1 Old Olowora road Ojodu Berger is in Lagos State and not in Warewa Village along Lagos/Ibadan Expressway in Ogun State as stated in the affidavit of service which is at page 1 of Exhibit “SMF”
(7) That the affidavit in support of the motion dated the 14th of Feb., 2006 was sworn to by the pt respondent and the bailiff did not depose to any supporting affidavit to show the time, date, place and attempts at service.
(8) That the 1st Respondent rather than carried out the order of Court, filed a motion dated the 5th of April, 2006 to strike out the names of the Applicants as parties to the suit and the Court granted him the leave. A copy of the motion is at pages 14-18 of Exhibit “SMF”
(9) That thereafter the 1st Respondent proceeded with his case calling his witnesses and judgment was delivered in the 1st Respondent’s favour granting all the 1st Respondent’s prayers on the 2nd day of July, 2007. A copy of the judgment is at pages 19-26 of Exhibit “SMF”
(10) That there was never a time that the 2nd Respondent was served with any Court process in this matter and no hearing notice for the commencement of the trial was ever served on the 2nd Respondent.
(11) That the Applicants became aware of the judgment of the Ogun state High Court when the 1st Respondent pasted copies of the judgment on the wall of the houses of the Applicants and other houses in the area sometimes in September, 2007.
The 1st Respondent in his counter affidavit para 5 also averred thus:
5. I state that paragraphs 12-20, 35 and 36 of the Applicants are after thought since both the 2nd Respondent and the Applicants jointly engaged lawyer Aiyedun of plenary solicitors who had filed many processes on their behalf and still represented the said family to the point of filing this application.
5a. Lawyer Aiyedun having applied for the certified True copy of the proceedings up to the point of Judgment filed a process dated 10th day of Sept., 2007 which expressly stated that he was representing both 2nd Respondent and Applicants herein. The affidavit in support thereof was sworn to by the 1st Applicant herein who was the 2nd Defendant/Applicant thereto Para 7 of the said affidavit refers. See pages 43-45 of Applicants exhibit “SMF”
a. That lawyer Aiyedun also filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the lower court delivered on 2nd July, 2007 on behalf of the 2nd Respondent dated 26th Sept., 2007. Copy thereof is at pages 34 and 35 of Exhibit 1SOA.
(d) That the 2nd Respondent is the head of the family which the Applicants now purportedly intend to represent, a fact that was deposed to by the 1st Applicant in para 8 of the affidavit in support of the application mentioned.
From the totality of the affidavit evidence before the court, it is deducible that the Applicants seeking to appeal as interested parties and joined in the appeal as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicants that the Applicants were not given a hearing at any paint in time despite the fact that their interest was affected by the said judgment in the suit no.AB/272/2005 Aderinoye Vs. Maku and as such they are aggrieved persons. The denial of fair hearing to the Applicants is in contravention of Section 36 sub-section 1 of the 1999 Constitution. The principle of fair hearing is all about fairness which is the determining factor for the application of natural justice. See NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD VS. ATTA (2006) 12 N.W.L.R Part 993 at 144; DEDUWA VS. OKORODUDU (1976) 9-10 SC at 329 and OYEWOLE VS. AKANDE (2009) 15 N.W.L.R Part 1163 page 119 at 148 para F-G. As principal members of Maku family, the decision of the learned trial Judge would certainly affect their common title to the Property in dispute. Their interests have been prejudicially affected by the decision they are seeking leave to appeal against. See the cases of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD VS. OJEMUYIWA (1965) 1 A.N.L.R at page 1 and ADEMOLA VS. SODIPO (1992) 7 N.W.L.R Part 253 at 251. Being principal members of the Shittu Maku Family of Warewa Village, in Obafemi Owode Local Government of Ogun State the action cannot be effectually and completely settled unless they join in the appeal. They should be joined so that they would be bound by the result of the action and being representatives of the Shittu Maku family. Questions as to the common property cannot be settled unless they are made parties. The Applicants are necessary parties whose presence before the Court is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the appeal. The right to fair hearing is a fundamental Constitutional right guaranteed by the Constitution. Reliefs 1 (b) & (d) are hereby resolved in favour of the Applicants.
Reliefs 1(c) & (e) and (2) will also be taken together as well. To justify the exercise of a Court’s discretion in extending the time within which a procedural step has to be taken, there must be some materials upon which to base the exercise of that discretion. See WILLIAMS VS. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY SOCIETY (1982) ALL N.L.R (PT.1) at page 1. An application for extension of time to appeal is not granted as a matter of course, but on very good and substantial grounds shown in the Applicant’s affidavit. Where good and substantial reasons have not been shown, the application will be refused. See the cases of GENERAL OIL LTD VS. ODUNTAN (1990) 7 N.W.L.R Part 163 at 423 and MICRO-LION INT’L (NIG) LTD VS. GADZAMA (2009) 14 N.W.L.R. Part 1162 page 481 at 501 paras. A-B.
Applicants must show by affidavit evidence:
(1) Good and substantial reasons for failure to appeal within the prescribed period; and
(2) Grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause why the appeal should be heard.
The two conditions must co-exist or else the application will not be granted. See IBODO VS. ENAROFIA (1980) 5-7 S.C at 42 or (1980) 12 N.S.C.C. at 195. As regards the second condition, Applicant only needs to show that the grounds of appeal are arguable and not necessarily that they would succeed. See OLOKO VS. IBE (2001) 15 W.R.N at 116. See also Order 7 rule 10 (1)&(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007.
Applying the above conditions to the application at hand, Applicants have shown in paragraphs 12-18 of the supporting affidavit the reasons for the delay. The 1st Respondent’s counter affidavit has not discredited the reasons offered by the Applicants. Applicants have exhibited the proposed grounds of appeal in the further and better affidavit of 19/11/08. The proposed grounds of appeal particularly grounds 2, 4, 5, 6 & 8 have raised issue of jurisdiction. The Courts in exercising its discretion should bear in mind the interest of the parties and the justice of the case. The contents of the supporting affidavit have explained adequately the delay and there is no contradiction in the deposition. There is no tardiness on the part of the Applicants to deny them of the reliefs of extension of time within which to appeal since the overall interest of justice and surrounding circumstances are the guides. See the cases of BOWAJE VS. ADEDIWURA (1976) 6 S.C at 143 and AHMADU VS. SALAWU (1974) 1 S.C. at 43. The remaining grounds of appeal i.e 1, 3, 7, 9 & 10 are of mixed law and fact and Applicants have applied for the leave of the Court; After a careful appraisal of the issues involved in reliefs 1 (c), (e) and 2, the issues are hereby resolved in favour of the Applicants and I so hold.
On relief 3, the Applicants have just been granted extension of time within which to appeal and extension of time to file the notice and grounds of appeal. The notice of appeal is yet to be filed. In the circumstance, it will be premature to grant injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, until the notice and grounds of appeal are filed. Consequently the relief is hereby struck out.
In sum the application succeeds as per reliefs 1 (b), (c), (d), (e) and 2 of the motion paper. I therefore make orders as follows:
(1) Leave is hereby granted to Mr. Liadi Alarape Alimi and Mr. Moshood Shittu Maku to appeal as interested parties against the decision of the Honourable Justice O. O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no. AB 272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku.
(2) Applicants are hereby granted extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice O. O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku.
(3) Applicants are hereby granted order to join as parties to the action to wit: Suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku.
(4) Applicants are granted extension of time within which to file their notice and grounds of appeal against the decision of the Honourable Justice O. O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July, 2007 in suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku. The notice and grounds of appeal must be filed within fourteen days from today in line with the proposed notice and grounds of appeal attached and marked exhibit C.A.C attached to the further and better affidavit filed on the 19th of Nov, 2008.
(5) Applicants are also granted order for leave to canvass questions of mixed law and facts in the appeal to be filed against the decision of the Honourable Justice O. O. Olopade of the Ogun State High Court sitting at the Abeokuta Judicial Division delivered on the 2nd day of July 2007in suit no. AB/272/2005 Aderinoye vs. Maku.
The cost of N30,000.00 (Thirty thousand Naira) hereby awarded in favour of the Applicants against Respondent Isaac Sunday Olufemi Aderinoye.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. I read before now the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother M. Fasanmi, J.C.A.
I agree with all the orders made in the lead Ruling, I adopt same as mine and abide by the order as to costs.
SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A: I sincerely agree with the lead Ruing just delivered by my learned brother, M. Fasanmi, J.C.A.
I abide with consequential orders made in the lead Ruling including Costs.
Appearances
C.A Chanbang Esq.For Appellant
AND
Akintunde M. Akintan Esq.
Olarenwaju AiyedunFor Respondent
