Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court sitting at Lagos on 13TH March 2016 gave a ruling allowing TAXIFY to be joined in a suit in the case of Oladayo Olatunji & Another v. Uber Technologies System Nigeria Limited.
The claimants filed this suit on 7th November 2017 by way of an originating summons. By the originating summons, the claimants are praying for the following reliefs inter alia:
- A declaration that the claimants and members of their class are employees of the d
- A declaration that by virtue of nature of the defendant’s control over the claimants and members of their class, they are not meant to be classified as independent contractors.
While the hearing of this case is yet to commence, the party seeking to be joined as a defendant filed on 24th November 2017 a motion on notice for joinder praying this Court to be joined as a defendant.
The motion was brought pursuant to Order 13 Rules 4, 11(3) and (4) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In the motion for joinder, the applicant is seeking for the following orders: An order of this Honourable Court joining the applicant herein, Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited, as a defendant in this lawsuit. An order of this Honourable Court directing parties hereto to serve all processes already filed and served in this lawsuit upon the applicant.
The defendant reacted by filing on 5th December 2017 a written address on points of law in opposition to the application for joinder. The claimants on 11th December 2017 filed a written address in support of the applicant’s motion for joinder, but withdrew it on 13th December 2017. The said written address was accordingly struck out on same date by the Court. In reaction to the defendant’s written address, the party seeking to be joined filed on 12th December 2017 a reply on points of law.
The applicant further submitted that being a necessary party or the condition that an applicant has to be someone behind whom the suit cannot be fully and effectively determined is just one of the several instances where a joinder can be made, and not the sole condition for making a person eligible to be considered for participation in a pending lawsuit.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD, expressed thus:
The issue that brought the claimants to this Court is determining whether they are independent contractors or employees in their relationship with the defendant, who incidentally is in the line of same business as the party seeking to be joined as a defendant in this suit, Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited.
I agree with the party seeking to be joined that the case law authorities and submissions of the defendant were given out of context. In fact, the argument of the defendant that the party seeking to be joined must share a common interest and not just a similar interest with the defendant is an unsubstantiated argument, at least not by Onibudo v. Abdullahi (supra) and Green v. Green (supra) cited by the defendant. What all of this means is that the argument of the defendant that the claimants have no case against the applicant must be read as misconceived.
I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case to be joined as a defendant in this suit. It (Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited) is hereby joined as the 2nd defendant in this suit. All processes already filed and served in this lawsuit are to be served on the applicant. And all processes are to be amended to reflect the fact of the joinder of Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited as the 2nd defendant in this suit. I so order.
For full ruling, click here…
