First, the pith of appellant's complaint that it was not a necessary party to 1st and 2nd respondents' action and so deserved to be struck out from their suit revolve around matters it had already joined issues with them in its defence already filed in that Court. There was therefore no need for the interlocutory application it filed to compel the lower Court to, as it were, it to decide in limine those same issues on affidavit evidence. The proper course was for the trial to proceed on the issues joined and a decision then given. See Tigris v. Ege (1991) 10-12 S.C. 64 @ 79 where the apex Court (Ogundare, J.S.C.) had this to say: "Surely where a defendant is disputing an averment of fact made in a statement of claim. the proper way to do so is not by filing an application to have the plaintiff's action dismissed in limine but to file a defence traversing that averment of fact and establishing evidence at the trial on which the trial Court will make a finding for or against the plaintiff on such averment.

Per UGO, J.C.A. in UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC v. HON. JUSTICE J. F. GBADEYAN (RTD) & ORS. (2018) LPELR-44859(CA)