MISNOMER AND ITS EFFECT IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

A misnomer is said to occur in a case where a competent and identified party sues or is sued in an incorrect name by way of mis-description or mistake in the description of its name in the initiating processes of the case. It arises when a mistake is made as to the name of a person, natural and artificial, who sues or is sued in an action or when an action is brought by or against the wrong name of a person.

In every legal proceeding, the proper identification of parties is very important. The court needs to know who is making the claim and who is defending it. This clarity helps the court avoid confusion, ensures that the right person receives court notices, and guarantees that justice is done between the actual people involved in the dispute. 

However, because legal processes are handled by human beings, mistakes often happen. One common mistake is when a party’s name is written incorrectly on a court document. This may be a small spelling error, the wrong initials, a missing middle name, or even the use of a trading name instead of an official name. When such an error occurs, but it is still obvious who the case is truly meant for, the law refers to it as a misnomer. A misnomer does not mean that the wrong person has been sued; it simply means that the right person has been given the wrong name. The crucial point is that the identity of the party is not in doubt because the mistake is only about the name and not the actual party. 

Misnomer is generally treated as a minor defect and instead of dismissing the case, the court allows the error to be corrected so the matter can proceed.

For clarity on the principle of misnomer, focus would be made on the case of THE VESSEL MT. SEA TIGER V. A.S.M. (HK) LTD. (2020) 14 NWLR (PT. 1745) 418; and the fact that led to the decision of the Court in this case is that: 

The 2nd appellant and the 1st respondent, both foreign entities, entered into a ship management agreement on 18 February 2012 in Hong Kong for the management of the 1st appellant vessel. Clauses 23 and 25 of the agreement required that any dispute arising from the agreement be referred to international arbitration in London. A dispute eventually arose concerning payment of management fees, and instead of going to arbitration as agreed, the 1st respondent filed Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1789/2013 before the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking the arrest of the 1st appellant vessel. The 1st respondent sued the vessel and its owners, and also gave an indemnity as to damages in case the arrest later proved frivolous.

On 27 February 2014, the 1st respondent withdrew the suit by filing a notice of discontinuance, and the court ordered the release of the vessel. Counsel for both sides confirmed in court that the matter had been settled. As a result of the vessel’s arrest from 31 December 2013 to 27 February 2014, the appellants later sued the respondents at the Federal High Court, Lagos, claiming US$1,975,703.42 as damages for wrongful arrest, alleging that the arrest violated Clause 23 (arbitration clause) of the agreement and relying on the indemnity earlier given by the 1st respondent. They also sought 21% post-judgment interest. The trial court dismissed the appellants’ claim, holding that the appellants had effectively submitted to the court’s jurisdiction in the earlier suit when they settled the 1st respondent’s claim to secure the release of the vessel. Toward the end, the trial court also held that the 2nd appellant (owner of the vessel) was properly sued, despite the fact that its actual name “Sea Tiger Tankers S.A.” was not written in the earlier suit, thus treating the error as a misnomer rather than a case of suing the wrong party.

The court held, in it’s ruling, that:

A misnomer is said to occur in a case where a competent and identified party sues or is sued in an incorrect name by way of mis-description or mistake in the description of it's name in the initiating processes of the case. It arises when a mistake is made as to the name of a person, natural and artificial, who sues or is sued in an action or when an action is brought by or against the wrong name of a person. In the instant case, the non-description of the 2nd appellant by it's known or correct name or the description of the 1st appellant acknowledged and expressly admitted being in fact the owners of the 1st appellant.

The 1st respondent meant to sue the owner of the vessel, and the 2nd appellant is that owner. Even though the name “Sea Tiger Tankers S.A.” was not correctly written, the right party was still sued and actually responded. Therefore, if there is a misnomer in an action, but the correct person is before the court, the lawyer will make an application to rectify the name.

By way of conclusion, misnomer exists to prevent simple naming errors from defeating justice. The goal is to ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than on avoidable mistakes and technicalities.

About the Authors:

Mohammed Khadijat Ometere and Ummulkhair Adam Abdulaziz are members of Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. They can be reached via 09124018355 and 07044411140 respectively.