Download PDF
RULING. 1. This deals with a preliminary objection to the application for joinder. The Notice of Preliminary objection was dated 14/3/19 and filed on 21/3/19. Vide the objection the claimant is Praying for an order of this Honourable court dismissing this application/suit of applicants with cost on the grounds stated below:- 1. This court lacks the requisite substantive jurisdiction to entertain the application/suit. 2. This application/suit is an abuse of the processes of this Honourable Court 3. The issues and/ or claims subject matter of the applicants application or suit having been dully heard and determined/dismissed between the parties in this suit cannot be re-litigated before this same Honourable court 2. The Notice of preliminary objection is supported by a 6 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Miriam Alfred, a Litigation Secretary in the law firm of Onyeka Robert Eze, & Co. counsel to the claimant. A written Address in support of the Notice of preliminary objection was filed along with the Notice of Preliminary Objection. Three issues were raised for resolution. They are: A. Whether this Honourable Court has the requisite substantive Jurisdiction to entertain this application/suit bearing in mind the subsisting ruling delivered on the 22nd day of June, 2018 by Hon. Justice Z.M. Bashir B. Whether the re-institution of the same matter involving the same parties and claims not a flagrant ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS the suit having been heard and determined or settled and defendant having complied with no issue to be determined by the said National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja with same jurisdiction C. Whether the applicants to be joined can re-litigate the ISSUES, CLAIMS or same applications between it and Claimant/Objectors the same subject matter having fully heard, argued and finally determines/dismissed in suit NO; NICN/ABJ/210/2016 3. In arguing issue A; counsel contended that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit taking into cognizance the fact that; there is only one National Industrial Court of Nigeria. To buttress his contention counsel placed reliance on the case of UBA PLC VS TSOKWA MOTORS NIG.LTD (2000) F.W.L.R PART 22 PAGE 1057 @ PAGE 1079-1080, PARAS H-C. 4. It is the contention of counsel that the jurisdiction of this court will be determined by X-Raying the nature of the applicants claims bearing in mind that the issue is so crucial to be kept in abeyance pending any judgment rather, it should be treated before taking any judicial step otherwise and step taken will result in nullity. Counsel contended that that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application and in the circumstance, urged the court to dismiss same. 5. In arguing issue B; it is contended that the act of re-litigation by the Applicants/Respondents and/or multiplication of this suit already heard or settled by parties in the suit and for which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th defendants complied having agreed before the court that issues had been settled for adoption of terms NV. SCHEEP VS MUV “S ARAZ” (2001) F.W.L.R. PART 34, PAGE 543. 6. On issue C; counsel submitted that this Honourable Court has no legal competence to entertain this application of applicants in its entirety otherwise; this court will be assuming an Appellate Status in its own subsisting ruling/judgment yet to be set aside on appeal. To support this assertion counsel relied on the case of MBAKWE VS. R.S.M AFRICA (2001) F.W.L.R PART 59, PAGE 1343 @ 1355, PARAS. E-F Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application for being abuse of court process. 7. The counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendant informed the court that they are not opposing the objection by the claimant. 8. In reaction to the preliminary objection, the Applicants i.e parties seeking to be joined as claimants filed a counter affidavit supported with a written address wherein Femi Aborishade, Esq; counsel for the applicants’ parties seeking to be joined argued that the notice of preliminary objection is incompetent. Counsel insisted that the notice of preliminary objection of the Objectors is incurable, incompetent and liable to be discountenanced and struck out as if nothing had been filed. It is further argued that a preliminary objection is not suitable to challenge a Motion on Notice and that a Counter Affidavit and Written address are the appropriate processes to be filed 9. It is also the submission of counsel that the notice of preliminary objection of the Objectors constitutes an abuse of court process and it needs no citation that dismissal is the penalty to punish a process that adjudged to be an abuse of court process. To support this contention counsel relied on the case of ARUBO V AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (PT.280) 126 AT 142. 10. The parties seeking to be joined humbly join issues with the Claimant/Objector on the substantive issues raised in his Written Address, as argued below; 1. ‘’Whether any member of the group the Claimant purports to represent has the right to independently or individually challenged the claim of proper representation or the representative capacity in which the claimant has sued.’’ 2. ‘’Whether the Application by the parties seeking to be joined dated 7/12/2018 and filed on 12/12/2018 is caught by the principle of issue estoppel or estoppel per rem judicata on the strength of the Ruling dated 22/6/2018 delivered by this court in a similar application thus rendering the Application filed on 12/12/2018 to be an abuse of court process, which deprives the Honourabe court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the Motion for joinder.’’ 11. In arguing issue one, counsel contended that the law is settled, as established by the apex court in ELF PETROLEUM V UMAH & ORS (2018) LPELR-43600(SC) that, once the claimant expresses on an originating process that the action is brought in a representative capacity, the court is to presume the truth that the said claimant has authority from the members of the group he/she claims to represent, unless and until any member of the group disputes or challenges or intervenes claiming that his or her consent or authority was not obtained or properly obtained before the suit was instituted. It is the contention of counsel on the above particularly in paragraphs 4(b) & (c) of their Counter Affidavit, that the parties seeking to be joined have deposed that their consent was never sought by the Claimant/Objector and they never gave their consent to the Claimant/Objector, 12. It is submitted that the Claimant/Objector (Chief Temple Ubani), in the heading of the Originating process he filed and in the Affidavit in support of his preliminary Objection avers that he has the authority of the parties/Applicants seeking to be joined to institute his suit in a representative capacity, however, the Claimant/objector did not exhibit any document evidencing the fact that the parties/Applicants seeking to be joined gave their consent or authority in the institution of the Originating process marked Exhibit E.01 referred to in the Affidavit supporting his preliminary objection. 13. It is contended that on the strength of the authorities herein cited, the parties/applicants seeking to be joined are humbly urging this Honourable Court to resolve issue No.1 in favour of the parties seeking to be joined, by finding and holding that any member of the group the claimant purports to represent has the right to independently or individually challenge the claim of proper representation or the representative capacity in which the claimant has sued. 14. In arguing Issue No. 2 counsel contended that the Application by the parties seeking to be joined dated 7/12/2018 and filed on 12/12/2018 is not caught by the principle of issue estoppel or estoppel per rem judicata on the strength of the Ruling dated 22/6/2018 delivered by this court in a similar application and that the motion filed on 12/12/2018 is neither an abuse of court process nor does it deprive the Honourable court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Motion for Joinder. 15. Counsel further contended on the case of Ranking Udo & 5 Ors v. Mbiam Obot & 2 Ors (1989) 1 SC (pt.1) 64, which held that the question of issue estoppel arises only in a subsequent suit when that issue had been raised and distinctly determined in a previous suit between the parties. 16. It is the submission of counsel on the case of OKAFOR ADONE & ORS V. OSO GABRIEL IKEBUDU & ORS (2001)7 SC (PT. 111)22, where the apex court established the conditions that must exist before the question of issue estoppel can be successfully pleaded, as follows: “the issue of estoppel applies whether the point involved in the earlier decision is one of fact or law or one of mixed fact and law. However, for the principles to apply, in any given proceeding, all the preconditions to a valid plea of estoppel inter parties per rem judicatam must apply…………………………. 17. It is the contention of counsel that the Applicants seeking to be joined in the instant Motion for joinder are different from the applicants in the motion on notice dated 10/1/2018 and filed on 11/1/2018 as reflected in the Application exhibited and marked as E.02 in the Affidavit in support of the Claimant’s/Objector’s NPO. It is argued that that the Applicants seeking to be joined are different from the applicants in the Motion on notice dated 6/2/2018 and filed 9/2/2018 and that the parties in the instant application were never part of the Application for joinder dated 6/2/2018 and filed 9/2/2018 brought by Comrade (Elder) Benjamin Amako and Comrade (Alhaji) Ibrahim Nock (on behalf of themselves and 12,000 other pensioners of Defunct PHCN) in the Application, exhibited and marked as E.03 in the Affidavit in support of Claimant’s/Objector’s NPO. 18. It is also the contention of counsel that the Ruling delivered by this Honourable Court on 22/6/2018 is in no way connected to the Application dated 7/12/2018 and filed on 12/12/2018 filed by the Applicants’ seeking to be joined. To buttress his position counsel cited and relied on the case of ELF PETROLEUM V. UMAH & ORS (SUPRA). 19. On the submission that every member of a group in a purported representative or class action whose consent was never obtained has a right to challenge the claimant who claims to be acting on the authority of others, therefore, that member “A” in a class action is denied the right to be joined does not necessarily mean that member “B” must also be denied. It would depend on the circumstances and facts placed before the Honourable Court as shown in the Affidavit in support of the Motion for Joinder and the Counter Affidavit in opposition to the Claimant’s/Objector’s NPO. 20. It is submitted that the instant motion for joinder is not an abuse of court process and also the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant Motion for Joinder filed on 12/12/2018. On the authority of ARUBO V. AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) 126, counsel humbly urged the court to dismiss this objection for being frivolous and lacking in merit. COURT’S DECISION: 21. I have considered the motion on notice challenging the motion on notice of 7/12/18, seeking to join Applicants as Claimants in this suit. From the processes so far filed, it is clear that the application under consideration is contending that the parties seeking to be joined as Claimants in this suit are estopped from re-litigating issue of joinder as same having been dealt with by this court in a previous decision delivered on 22/6/18. It was also contended that the application for joinder constitute abuse of process of court. The counsel for the applicants has in opposition to the objection to the motion for joinder contended that the objection to the application for joinder is incompetent in that what should have been done is to file counter affidavit and not objection. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection. 22. Counsel in reaction to the objection has argued that the ruling of this court attached as exhibit A to the affidavit in support of this application is not caught by the doctrine of estoppel in that there is no second suit filed, the parties are not same. Counsel also contended that abuse of court process cannot not arise as the application for joinder has not been argued. According to counsel doctrine of estoppel will only arise when the motion for joinder is heard and determined. 23. On propriety of filing of objection instead of counter-affidavit. The rules of this court requires a party served with motion on notice and supporting affidavit is expected to react by filing counter–affidavit to contradict or controvert the averments contained in the affidavit in support. However, that did not happen in this case. The Claimants decided instead of filing counter-affidavit, filed a notice of preliminary objection to the motion on notice for joinder. The grounds for objection is that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion on notice for joinder as the same issue has been decided and settled by this court in its earlier ruling of 22/6/18. 24. Generally a party in a suit is free to file objection to challenge jurisdiction to determine a particular issue before the court. An issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceeding even on appeal for the first time at the Supreme Court. It is to be noted that question of jurisdiction is radical and crucial question of competence, because if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an issue presented to it, once raised it must be determined before proceeding or taking any steps in a proceeding. Because any decision reached in absence of jurisdiction is a nullity no matter how well the proceeding was conducted and brilliantly determined. See TRADE BANK V BANILUX NIG. LTD 2003 9 NWLR PT.825 416, ONUORAH V KRPC LTD 2005 6 NWLR PT.921 393, ADEYEMI V OPEYERI 1976 9-10 SC 31, GAFAR V GOV KWARA STATE 2007 4 NWLR PT.1024 375, TUKUR V GOVT OF GONFGOLA STATE 1989 4 NWLR PT.117 517, NURTW V RTEAN 201`2 10 NWLR PT.1070 , OLOBA V AKEREJU 1988 3 NWLR PT.84 508, USMAN DANFODIO UNIVERSITY V KARAUS THMPSON ORGANIZATION LTD 2001 15 NWLR PT.736 305. 25. It is important to note that jurisdiction is the very basis on which any court tries a case. It is life wire of any case. As a trial without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is because of the importance of the issue that it can be raised at any stage of a case be it at trial, on appeal to Court of Appeal or to the Supreme Court. A fortiori the Court can suo motu raised it. It can even be raised viva voce. It is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction, so as to save time and cost and to avoid a trial in nullity. See AJAYI V ADEBIYI 2012 11 NWLR PT. 137, ODOFIN V AGU 1992 3 NWLR PT.229 350, WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD V IRON & STEEL WORKERS UNION 1986 3 NWLR PT.30 617. 26. The law is well settled that when there is a challenge to the jurisdiction of a court, the court must first assume jurisdiction to consider whether it has or lacks jurisdiction. See AJAYI V ADEBIYI (2012) 11 NWLR (PT.137) SC. The court is duty bound not to give order against any party once issue of jurisdiction is raised. Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised in any suit, the court must not give an order in suit affecting the defendant until the issue of jurisdiction is settled. See AJAYI V ADEBIYI supra. It is against this background that I hold that the preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the motion on notice for joinder is competently before the court and same deserves to be considered and determined by the court. 27. Coming to the main issue calling for resolution, it raised the issue of applicability of the doctrines of res judicata and that of abuse of court process. The objector has stoutly argued that the motion on notice for joinder if allowed will mean that the Applicants for joinder are allowed to re-litigate the issue of joinder as same has been settled in the ruling of this Court delivered on 22/6/18. It was also contended that allowing the applicants for joinder to argue their motion for joinder will amount to this court sitting on appeal over its own decision. Counsel for the objectors concluded that the Applicants for joinder are estopped from re-litigating the issue of joinder. 28. For counsel for the Applicants for joinder the applicants for joinder are not estopped from arguing their application as the said application is not affected by the doctrine of res judicata. Counsel contended that the conditions for applicability of the doctrine are absent in this case as there is no subsequent suit on the same issue. Furthermore, parties in the previous application and in the present application for joinder dated 7/12/18 are not same. 29. The principle of law dealing with this issue is the doctrine of Res judicata' otherwise fully known as 'res judicata proveritate accipitur' (is Latin for a thing adjudicated is received as the truth) means an issue that has been definitely settled by judicial decision or judgment, an affirmative defence barring the same parties from litigating a second law suit on the same claim, or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been but was not raised in the first suit. The doctrine of estoppel is a common law principle, but it has been enacted into our statute. See section 151 of the evidence Act. The doctrine is intended to preclude a party from having second bite at a cherry. This means that once there is a decision which settled to finality the issue submitted to the court for resolution parties affected will not be allowed to assert the contrary or have the issue determined for the second time. It is based on public policy which demands an end to litigation. See A. G, NASARAWA V A. G. PLATEAU STATE (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt12…..) 419(SC). 30. The estoppel created by a successful plea of res judicata, is a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contravenes what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true; it is a bar that prevents the re-litigation of issues see Oyede v. Olusesi (2005) 16 NWLR (Pt.951) 341, Okposin v. Assam (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 495 SC. 31. It is trite law that estoppel can arise even in respect of an issue that has been determined by a Court of competent Jurisdiction. In Ikeni v. Efamo (2001) 10 NWLR (pt.720) 17 SC, Ayoola, JSC, (as he then was) made the distinction between issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel, as follows:- "For cause of action estoppel to arise, the cause of action in the latter proceedings must be identical with the cause of action in the earlier proceedings. When a defence of cause of action estoppel is raised, the defence connotes that the legal rights and obligation of the parties in respect of the subject matter of the action are conclusively or deemed to have been conclusively determined by the earlier action. Cause of action estoppel requires identity not only of the subject matter but also of parties and issues in the latter and earlier proceedings. However, where a plea of cause of action estoppel cannot be raised because the causes of action in the two proceedings are not the same, a party can still plead that the other party is precluded from contending the contrary of any precise point; provided that the point in question (i) has been distinctly put in issue, and (ii) has been necessarily determined directly and certainly in the first action. The principle is stated thus in Volume 16 Halsbury's Law of England (4th Ed.) para. 977- "- - Even if the objects of the first and second actions are different, the finding on a matter, which come directly (not collaterally or incidentally) in issue in the first action, provided it is embodied in a judicial decision that is final, is conclusive between the same parties and their privies". 32. Be that as it may, issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel are both species of res judicata estoppel - see Ikeni v. Efamo (supra), and it is well settled that for the principle to apply, the following pre-conditions must be present; (a) The parties/privies must be the same in both the previous and present proceedings; (b) The claim or the issues in dispute in both proceedings must be substantially the same; (c) The "res" or subject matter of the litigation in the two cases must be the same; (d) The decision relied upon to support the plea of res judicata must be valid, subsisting and final; and... (e) The court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea must be a court of competent jurisdiction - see Nigergate Ltd. V. Niger state Govt. (supra). 33. In this case, it is abundantly clear from the material before the court that the this Court has determined issue of joinder of Claimants in the ruling of 22/6/18, wherein it was settled that this action being in representative capacity, the Claimants already representing retirees of PHCN Pensioners. The issue being canvassed in the motion on notice of 7/12/18 and the application dealt with in the ruling of 22/6/18 are same. Since the action is in representative capacity the Applicants for joinder are in law parties to this suit though their names were not stated on the Originating Process. The decision in the ruling of 22/6/18 was given by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the decision is final on the issue of joinder. This means that the conditions for applicability of issue estoppel had been fulfilled. See Ikeni v. Efamo (supra), Achibong v. Ita (2004) 2 NWLR (pt.858) 590 SC; Afolabi v. Govt. of Osun State (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt.836) 119, Onajoko v Odulami (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.667) 71. 34. Let it be noted that "issue estoppel" arises where an issue had earlier on been adjudicated upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the same issue comes incidentally in question in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties or their privies. See Oyerogba v. Olaora (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.583) 509. Akujobi v Ekenam (1999) 1 NWLR (pt. 585) 96. Ito v. Ekpe (2000) 2 SC 98, Ebba v. Ogodo (2000) 6 SC (pt. 1) 133." Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (P. 19, Paras. A-E 35. From the above exposition, it will also be correct to say that allowing the Applicants to prosecute the present application for joinder as it is constituted will amount to re-litigating the issue which had been disposed off or decided by this Court in the ruling of 22/6/18. 36. The law is well settled that an issue that has been definitely settled by judicial decision or judgment is an affirmative defence barring the same parties from litigating a record on the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been but was not raised in the first suit. It is instructive to emphasis that issue estoppel once established by the existence of a valid, competent and existing decision of Court or Tribunal, operates against all persons both parties and none parties to the litigation which gave rise to such decision. See - IKOKU VS EKENKWU (1995) 7 NWLR PART 410 PAGE 637. 37. Albeit, the law is that for issue estoppel to apply the parties and the subject matter must be the same, in the case of Ikemi v. Efamo (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.720) 1, the Supreme Court has held that this does not mean that all the parties in the previous suit must be made parties in the latter suit. Where there are several parties in the previous suit, it is sufficient that those who were necessary parties to the issue in the previous suit are the same as in the later suit. See also the cases of EBBA VS OGODO (2000) 10 NWLR (PT 675) 387, INAKOJU VS ADELEKE (2001) 1 SC (PT 1) page 1 at 127. 38. From the processes so far filed and with the ruling of this court the proper thing for the claimant to do in the circumstances is to appeal, so as to have the decision of 22/6/18, reversed since in law they are parties to the action and not by rushing to this court with fresh processes to commence another application based on same facts. I entirely agree with the Claimants that to allow this suit to proceed will amount to allowing the Claimants re-litigate his claim which has been determined by the Court. It will also mean lodging an appeal against the judgment of the Court in the same court that made the decision, which is unknown to law. 39. In view of all I have been saying above, the Applicants application amount to abuse of court process as well as an attempt to have a second bite i.e have the matter tried twice which will not be allowed. The issue had already been determined and put to rest by this court vide ruling of 22/6/18. 40. In law, abuse of court process is a term generally applied to a process or proceeding which is wanting in bona fide and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process of a court and can manifest itself in so many ways. However, it always involves some deliberateness or willful desire to misuse or pervert the system of administration of justice or improper use of the judicial process to the irritation or annoyance of another party. See Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (264) 156 at 188; Ohitirin v. Agaka (1998) 6 NWLR (554) 366 at 375; Okafor v Attorney General, Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (200) 659. The law is also settled that the court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent or stop the abuse of its process. See Orubo v Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (280) 126; Onyeabuch v INEC (2002) 8 NWLR (769) 417; Olawore v. Olanrewaju (1998) 1 NWLR (534) 436. 41. In Messrs NV Scheep & anor V. The MV 'S Araz' & anor (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 622 at page 664 Karibi-Whyte JSC said of the concept thus: "The legal concept of the abuse of the judicial process or the abuse of the procedure of the court is very wide. The scope and content of the circumstances of the material facts and conduct, which will result in such abuse, are infinite in variety. It does not appear that the category can be closed. New unforeseen conduct from the stratagem of the plaintiffs can give rise to the abuse. An abuse may be constituted through a proper and legitimate conduct in bringing actions even in the exercise of an established right in the manner or time of instituting actions. It may be constituted by irregularities in the pursuit of actions.’’ 42. Applying the above principles of law enunciated by the apex court to the facts of this case. One will be justified to conclude from a careful perusal of both the motion on notice of 7/12/18 and ruling of 22/6/18, that the issue of joinder of parties has been settled by this court. Therefore, the Applicants are precluded from bringing fresh application connected with the previous application. 43. This means that the filing of motion on notice amounts to abuse of court process of this court and shall be deprecated. The Application is an abuse of process because the process of court has not been used bona fide and properly. This is also employment of judicial process by the Applicants to in improper use to the irritation and annoyance of the defendants. See JOKOLO V GOV KEBBI STATE (2009)11 NWLR (PT1152) 394. 44. In the circumstance I have no choice than to dismiss the application for being abuse of process and lacking in merit. The objection is therefore sustained and the Application for joinder amount to abuse of Court process. 45. I make no order as to cost. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Onyeka Robbert Eze. Esq; for the claimants/Respondents C. J. Iwuoha, Esq; for the 1st defendant Tamuno Tonye Festus-Abiko, Esq; for the 3rd defendant Femi Aborishade, Esq; for the Applicants seeking to be joined as claimants, appearing with Ineh Amaka Ekese, Esq;