Facts:

The appellants filed an action against the 1st and 2nd respondents at the Lagos State High court. The suit was predicated on the allegation that the 1st and 2nd respondents were unlawfully in possession of and holding on to certain documents and files belonging to the appellants. The appellants claimed ownership of the files and documents on the ground that the original owner who is deceased, one Mr. Aderinokun alleged to have died intestate, was the director of the appellants before his demise and acquired certain properties using the appellants as proxies to which the files and documents relate. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the named executors and trustees of the deceased last will and testament.

The 3rd respondent, a beneficiary of the will, filed an application for joinder and incorporated a counter-claim seeking the removal of the executors and trustees and requiring them to render account and also the appointment of a receiver/ administrator by the trial court to manage the estate of the deceased. The appellants contested the application for joinder on the grounds that their action was in detinue for the recovery of the files and documents from the 2nd and 3rd respondents and that it was unnecessary to join the 3rd respondent in the suit. After hearing the parties, the trial court gave its ruling in favour of the 3rd respondent and ordered that she be joined. The court relied on the fact that the 3rd respondent is a beneficiary of the will and as such is a necessary party in the suit. Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, the appellants filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging it to reverse the trial court.

One of the issues raised by the appellants is that by the court’s ruling allowing the joinder of the 3rd respondent, the trial court wrongly pronounced on the substantive action by holding that the 3rd respondent derived a right as well as residuary interest in the subject matter of the suit contrary to established authorities stating that in determination of interlocutory actions, the court must refrain from making pronouncements which may affect the substantive suit.