Representative Action

As regards the contention of the 5th co-appellant regarding the representative capacity of the 2nd and 4th appellants, I have considered the authority of Otapo Vs Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.58) 587 relied on by learned senior counsel. The law as espoused in that case is as follows:
"a representative plaintiff is the sole plaintiff is Dominus litis until judgment. He can discontinue, compromise, submit to dismissal and other things as he decides during the Court of the proceedings.
If he falls out with any of the represented parties for any reason, the Court has power to add or substitute any person represented though unnamed in the representative action and to bring him in as at the date of the original writ... Where several sue, they have the like power as a single representative plaintiff, but they must act together."
@ 604 F-G per Obaseki, JSC.

It is a settled principle of law that persons who join up as plaintiffs in an action can not set up conflicting claims between themselves.
In other words, in the same suit the plaintiffs must act together. See EJEZIE & ANOR. v CHRISTOPHER ANUWU & ORS (2008) 4-5 SC (pt.1) 31.

That is; a party who has, either by his declaration or act, caused or permitted another to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person's representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing. He must accept the new legal relationship as modified by his own words or action, whether or not it is supported by any point of law, or by any consideration but only by his word or conduct. See A.G. RIVER STATE V. A.G. AKWA-IBOM STATE (2011) 8 NWLR (pt. 1248) 31 SC.