CIVIL PROCEDURE — Joinder of Parties — Non-Joinder or Misjoinder — Considerations for Determining Effect
Ratio Decidendi
Per FABIYI, J.S.C., in Cotecna Int'l Ltd v. Churchgate Nig Ltd (2010) NLC-123-181-2004(SC) at pp. 26–27; Paras D–A:
"That which a court must consider in deciding the effect of non-joinder or misjoinder of a party... the court should ask itself the following questions:-(a) Is the cause or matter liable to be defeated for non-joinder? (b) Is it possible to adjudicate on the cause or matter unless the 3rd party is added as a defendant? (c) Is the 3rd party a person who should have been joined in the first instance? (d) Is the 3rd party a person whose presence before the court as a defendant will be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter? It goes without saying that a judgment given with an order against a person who ought to be a party but was not duly joined is to no avail. It cannot be allowed to stand."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes the test for determining the effect of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties. The court considers whether the cause can be defeated, whether adjudication is possible without the party, whether the party should have been joined, and whether presence is necessary for complete adjudication. Judgment against a person who ought to be a party but was not joined cannot stand. The principle applies where joinder is challenged. It ensures that necessary parties are before the court. The principle reflects the need for complete adjudication. It prevents judgments against absent parties. The court must apply the test. The principle provides guidance on the effect of non-joinder.