Facts:

The 2nd defendant is a project owner of the development of luxury apartments
under a public/private initiative for mass housing programme with the Federal
Capital Territory Administration (FCTA). Under the arrangement, the FCTA granted 16.81 hectares of land located at Plot 319, Galadimawa District, Cadastral Zone
C07, Abuja to the 2nd defendant for development. The 1st defendant is a developer
who entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with the 2nd defendant to
develop the land into various luxury apartments. The JVA contained a clause
allowing the 1st defendant to assign the whole or part of its interests to a third
party and to engage independent contractors to carry out any part or aspect of
the project. Pursuant to this clause, the 1st defendant signed several Memoranda
of Understanding (MOU) with the claimant for the development of luxury apartments
on specific plots of land. Consequently, the claimant moved to site and commenced
work. The 4th defendant is the general manager of the 3rd defendant who is the
holding company of the 2nd defendant.

Following a dispute that arose between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant,
the 2nd defendant sent a three months’ notice of termination of the JVA to the 1st
defendant alleging violation of certain parts of the JVA. Consequently, the 4th
defendant mobilized Policemen and other security personnel to the site and
forcefully ejected the 1st defendant’s workers. The parties eventually met at Ilorin,
Kwara State where it was agreed that the claimant should pay the sum of
N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) which was an outstanding fee owed
to the 1st defendant, as condition for returning to site. The claimant eventually
paid the money and returned to site to continue work. After resuming work, the
claimant discovered that the items it left on the site had been damaged and some
missing. The claimant was aggrieved and filed a suit against the defendants at
the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja claiming damages for the
forceful eviction, damages for money paid to workers and damages for the items
damaged and removed from the site. The claimant also sued for specific
performance of the contract and declarations that the defendants were in violation
of the JVA.

The 2nd defendant denied liability on the ground that the claimant was not a party
to the JVA between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant and as a result
cannot sue to enforce same. One of the issues for determination is whether the
1st and 2nd defendants are not bound by or jointly and severally liable to the
claimant under the MOU between the 1st defendant and the claimant.