- Rinco Const. Co. Ltd. vs. Veepee Ind. Ltd.
- ₦ 200
Rinco Const. Co. Ltd. vs. Veepee Ind. Ltd.
RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO.
VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD.
SUPREME COURT OF
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU JSC (
UMARU ATU KALGO JSC
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNMI JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
NIKI TOBI JSC
DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE JSC
FRIDAY, 4TH MARCH,
ACTION - Cause of action - Meaning and constituent of
ACTION - Liability in civil proceedings - What plaintiff must prove to
find defendant liable therein
ACTION Parties - Joinder of parties to an action -
Rationale for - Proper
party to an action
- Reasonable cause of action - Meaning of
EVIDENCE - Liability in civil proceedings - What plaintiff must prove
to find defendant liable therein
PLEADINGS - Statement of claim - When can be held to disclose
reasonable cause of action
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Cause of action -
Documents court will examine in determining the disclosure or otherwise of a
cause of action - Relevance of only plaintiffâ€™s pleadings
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Joinder of parties to an action Rationale for
- Proper party to an action
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Liability in civil proceedings - What
plaintiff must prove to find defendant liable therein
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Reasonable cause of action - Meaning of
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Statement of claim - When can be held to
disclose reasonable cause of action
WORDS AND PHRASES - â€˜Cause of actionâ€™ - Meaning and constituent of
AND PHRASES - â€˜Reasonable cause of actionâ€™ - Meaning of
WORDS AND PHRASES - â€˜Reasonableâ€™ - Meaning of in the context of the
phrase â€˜reasonable cause of actionâ€™
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were
correct in holding that the writ of summons and statement of claim did not
disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 1st respondent.
Sometime in 1985, the appellant
paid for and incurred other expenses as regards the purchase and installation
of a 300KVA electricity transformer which was installed in its temporary
factory premises at No. 18 Idiroko Road, Sango Ota by the 2nd respondent.
While the appellant was in the
process of having the transformer moved to its permanent site and arrangement
for the movement was in progress in 1987, the appellant alleged that the 1st
respondent started making representations to the 2nd respondent that it had
become the owner of the transformer, following the assignment of the temporary
factory premises by the owner to it and thus, the transformer should not be
moved for the benefit of the appellant to its new site. The appellant thus sued
the respondents seeking an order of court commanding the 1st respondent and
their agents to withdraw any representation they might have made to the 2 nd
respondent, a restraining order, restraining the 1st respondent, their agents,
privies and assigns from ever making such claims as well as damages.
Although the appellant filed a
statement of claim and the 2nd respondent a statement of defence, the 1st
respondent did not file any statement of defence, but brought a motion on
notice praying the court to set aside appellantâ€™s writ for failing to disclose
any triable cause of action against it. The trial Judge in his ruling upheld
the contention of the 1st respondent, holding that the 1st respondent was not a
necessary party to the action and was improperly joined. Dissatisfied with this
ruling, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision
of the trial court.
Further dissatisfied, the appellant has appealed to the