Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: Hon. Justice L B. Kanyip - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki - Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J T. Agbadu - Fishim Judge DATE: March 8, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/15/2010 BETWEEN Mr. Kurt Sevinsen (suing through his Lawful attorney Charles Edeki) - Claimant AND Emerging Macets Telecommunication Services Limited - Defendant REPRESENTATION V. O. Ogude, for the claimant B.M. Ette, for the respondent and with him is Mrs. N. Okhai-Akhigbe. RULING The claimant look up a complaint against the defendant dated and filed on 22nd November 2010 clairning, the sum bf $99,000 (Ninety nine thousand United States Dollars) being the accrued perfo. mance bonus earned by the claimant prior to the determination of his employment which sum the defendant has refused to pay despite the claimant’s repeated demands and interest of the aforesaid sum at the rate of 15% per annum from the 1st of December 2009 until the judgment debt is fully liquidated. Attached to the complaint are the statement of ‘acts establishing the case, the list of claimant’s witness and the list of documents accompanying the complaint. Also accompanying the complaint is a power of attorney dated 9th November 2010 from Mr. Kurt Severinsen nominating and appointing Mr. Charles Edeki is his lawful attorney to — 1. Bring or defend any action or other proceedings in [Mr. Kurt Severinsen’s] name for any person whatsoever. 2. To enforce all remedies open to [Mr. Kurt Severinsen] against [Mr. Kurt Severinsen’s] previous employer for [Mr. Kurt Severinsen’s] unpaid terminal benefit. 3. To entertain any agreement for the purpose of protecting [Mr. Kurt Severinsen’s] interest in connction with [Mr. Kurt Severinsen’s] previous employment. The power of attorney is certified by one Jette Dahl, a Notary Public in The Court in Hjorring, Denmark. The certification is dated November 9, 2010. When the matter came up for mention, the court raised the issue of the propriety or otherwise of the donation of a power of attorney to Charles Edeki to prosecute and defend this action on behalf of Mr. Kurt Severinsen. Parties were then asked to address the court on the issue at the next adjourner date. On the appointed date, only the counsel to the claimqnt appeared in court. The defctdanr did not show up, neither was there any legal representation for it despite the defendant eing served with hearing notice. On the authority of Order 19 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court (NTIC) Rules 2007 the court permited the claimant to address the court on the said issue. In addressing the court, the claimant’s counsel submitted that an action brought by a party through a power of attorney is properly constituted in law. Counsel then referred the court to the follownig cases: Vulcan Gases Ltd v. GE Industries Gasverwerlung AG (GIV) [2001] 9 NWLR (Pt, 719) 610 at 640 659; Laah v. Opaluwa [2004] 9 NWLR (Pt. 879) 558; Melwani v. Five Stars Industries Ltd [2002] 3 NWLR (Pt. 753) 217 Sc; and United Nig. Co. Ltd v. Nahman [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) 177 at 188 CA. Counsel then submhted that the action they brought is properly constituted in law, urging the court to so hold. The court then adjourned its ruling. In between the last adjourned date and today, the date the ruling is billed to be read, one of the Judges on the panel hearing the matter was transferred to Abuja. A new Judge was then empanelled to sit on the panel of Judges hearing the matter. At today’s hearing, the court asked the caimant’s counsel to readopt his submissions which submissions the court read out in open cort. This the counsel did. The respondent’s counsel, Mr. B. M. Ette who is in court today was then asked if he had any reaction. He said he did not have one but reserved the right to hear his preliminary objection. A careful consideration of the submission of the claimant’s counsel especially the case law authorities cited reveals that this action as brought is properly constituted. Having to sue through the donee of the power of attorney is exactly the manner in which, for instance, the case of Melwani v. Five Stars industries Ltd was constituted, which the Supreme Court sanctioned. Approving in the process its earlier decision in Vulcan Gases Ltd v. GF Industries Gasverwernung AG (GIV). For this reason, therefore, we hold that the present action as brought is properly constituted. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice B. B Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O.A Obaseki-Osagae Hon. Justice J.T Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge