"Before, I consider the appropriateness of the issues formulated by the Appellants and Respondent respectively, for the determination of the appeal, I consider it pertinent to dwell on the necessity of the 3rd Respondent on record, as a party in the instant appeal. The 3rd Respondent as it appears in the record of appeal is - The Commissioner of Police, Imo State. This Respondent was the 4th Respondent in the process by which the instant action was instituted by the 1st Respondent and against whom the 1st Respondent, having regard to the reliefs sought as reproduced hereinbefore, never sought any relief. This apparently informed the position taken by the lower Court in its judgment, when it stated thus: "On liability, with respect to the 4th respondent, no mention of any sort was made of him all through the affidavit evidence and the proceedings. I cannot in the circumstance hold him liable for the said breach of the applicants (sic) fundamental rights. There is no affidavit evidence that the 3rd respondent was acting on his behalf." The finding of the lower Court as stated above, in my considered view not only go to show that the 1st Respondent did not disclose any cause of action against the 4th Respondent before it, but that the 4th Respondent cannot by law be held to be vicariously liable for the deeds or misdeeds of the 3rd Respondent before the said Court, solely on account of the said 4th Respondent being a superior officer to the 3rd Respondent. This in my considered view would appear to be in keeping with the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Police Service Commission (Establishment) Act, 2001 which show that both the 3rd and 4th Respondents respectively, are Police Officers employed into the Nigeria Police Force by the Police Service Commission. The provisions in question state thus: "6(1) The Commission shall (a) be responsible for the appointment and promotion of persons to offices (other than the office of the Inspector-General of Police) in the Nigeria Police Force; (b) dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over persons (other than the Inspector-General of Police) in the Nigeria Police-Force;" The 1st Respondent who initiated the instant action and who included the 4th Respondent was certainly not aggrieved with the finding of the lower Court in respect of the said 4th Respondent as re-produced above. This is because she never filed any appeal against the said party in respect of that part or finding of/in the judgment of the lower Court. Similarly, the Appellants (who given their case in their counter affidavits filed in opposition to the case of the 1st Respondent as disclosed in the affidavits filed before the lower Court), never claimed to have had anything to do in respect of the alleged infraction or violation of the fundamental rights of the said 1st Respondent in conjunction with the 3rd and 4th Respondents, either jointly or severally. In the counter affidavits which the Appellants filed in controverting the case of the 1st Respondent, it was only to the 3rd Respondent (now 2nd Respondent in the appeal) they claimed to have lodged a report against the 1st Respondent and consequent to which the said 1st Respondent was arrested. Given this situation, it therefore become totally incomprehensible to me how the 4th Respondent (now 3rd Respondent in the instant appeal) qualifies as a person that is directly affected by the appeal and thus to qualify as a party in the appeal. The Appellants would appear to have simply dragged the 4th Respondent before the lower Court, into the instant appeal as the 3rd Respondent, simply because he was a party in the 1st Respondent's suit as initiated before the lower Court. There is no law or rule of practice that stipulates that every, and all the parties in a case at the lower Court should be railroaded as it were, into an appeal, whether or not such a party or parties will be affected by the appeal. I am of the considered view that it not only shows a poor understanding of the law in respect of who qualifies as necessary or desirable party or parties to an appeal, to simply force an appeal on a party against who a lower Court never made a finding of liability or non-liability in a case before it and against which there is no appeal, but also a clear misconception of the purpose of an appeal. The 4th Respondent before the lower Court (now 3rd Respondent in the instant appeal), is therefore on very firm grounds in not participating in the instant appeal."

Per LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A. OBIUKWU & ANOR v. OKWUDIRE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45066(CA).