Facts:

Following the winding up of the respondent, the appellant appointed a receiver to take over and administer the assets and liabilities of the respondent. In a bid to effectively carry out his mandate, the receiver filed an originating summons, in the name of the appellant, against the respondent and her directors, agents and assigns at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division seeking an order to restrain them from obstructing, hindering or interfering with the powers of the receiver.

After hearing the parties on the application, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the proper parties were not before the court. The court further held that the appellant is an agent of the respondent for the purpose of the winding up and that the suit should have been against persons whose acts or omissions may hinder the exercise of the receiver’s mandate. The court also held that it is only the board of directors that can hinder the work of the receiver and that by the provisions of the applicable law, once a receiver is appointed, the powers of the board are suspended but that the appellant did not sue the board instead sued its principal, the respondent.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, the appellant filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging the court to set aside the decision of the trial court. The parties filed their briefs of argument and the respondent incorporated a preliminary objection in its brief wherein it challenged the competence of some grounds of the appeal as incompetent, having not emanated from the decision appealed.

One of the issues for determination is whether dismissal of a suit is the proper order to make where a court finds that the proper parties are not before it in the suit.