Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: January 27, 2016 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/05/2014 BETWEEN ENGINEER JOSIAH WUKARI WASA - CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. SEAFORCE SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED 2. ZENON PETROLEUM & GAS LIMITED DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS 3. PHILIP AKINOLA 4. FEMI OTEDOLA REPRESENTATION Tokunbo Davies for claimant/respondent. Chike Oguejiofor for the defendants/applicants. RULING This is a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the defendants on the 23rd April 2015. It is brought pursuant to Section 6(6) (A) and (B), Section 254C of 1999 Constitution as amended, Section 7(1) and 24(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Order 11 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction 2012. The defendants by this objection contend that the Court is precluded from entertaining claims (e) (f) and (g) on the statement of claim. The grounds upon which the objection is made are: (1) That the National Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims arising from or relating to defamation. (2) That the National Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to disputes over title or ownership of a property. The Notice of Preliminary Objection is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Nehita Okoduwa, Legal Practitioner and a written address in support. In opposing the objection the claimant filed a counter affidavit sworn to by Tola Oni a litigation clerk on the 8th October 2015 and a written address. The defendants filed a reply on points of law on the 16th October 2015. Learned counsel to the claimant informed the court that he has conceded to the 1st ground on defamation and in furtherance of this he has filed a motion to amend the statement of facts. In light of this, the objection is restricted to the 2nd ground pertaining to the dispute over title or ownership of property. In arguing the objection learned counsel to the defendants/applicants submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether this court can exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for ownership of property. He submitted that in order to ascertain whether a Court has jurisdiction to try a claim, the Court only needs to look at the complaint and the statement of claim. He cited Murifor Works v Tomas (Nig) Ltd [2002] 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 740 at 750, Baka v Dandare [1997] 4 NWLR (Pt. 498) 244, NICON Insurance v Olowofoyeku [2007] 7 NLLR 252. He referred to Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution as amended and submitted that it does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain claims regarding ownership of property as the claimant is inviting the Court to do in relief (e). He urged the Court to uphold the objection and transfer the claim to the appropriate court pursuant to Section 24(2) of the National Industrial Court 2006. In response learned counsel to the claimant/respondent submitted the following issue for determination: Whether in view of the peculiar facts in this suit, the applicants have made out a case for the grant of the instant application? He began by submitting that a Court cannot grant reliefs not sought by the party; and that parties are bound by the reliefs sought on an application citing Eagle Super Pack (Nig) Ltd v ACB Plc [2006] 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20, Mr. John Ayoade v Spring Bank Plc & Anor [2013] LPELR-20763 (CA), Multibrans S.A. v PZ Company Plc (UK) [2006] 8 NWLR (Pt. 997) 420. He argued that the objection is fundamentally defective as it is devoid of any prayers or reliefs. He urged the Court to discountenance it as the Court cannot speculate on the reliefs being sought citing Literamed Publications Ltd v Nanie Akpenji [2014] LPELR-24082 (CA), Polycarp Onhoha v Guardsmark Nig Ltd [2006] LPELR-CA/A/112/2004, Spring Bank Plc v Babatunde [2012] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1292) 83. It was his submission that this objection amounts to a mere academic exercise and has been overtaken by events with the filing of a motion to amend the statement of facts. He further submitted that the Court by virtue of Section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended has jurisdiction to deal with issues of property which are incidental thereto or connected with the employment of the claimant. He argued that relief (e) gets its roots from the claimant’s employment with the 1st defendant and submitted that in interpreting statutes, words must be given their ordinary meaning. He cited NNPC v Famfa Oil [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 148 and then urged the Court to dismiss the application. Replying on point of law, the applicant’s counsel submitted that when a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim, the only option is to strike it out citing Tyonzughul v A.G Benue State [2003] 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 226, Ilori v Benson [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 570. He further submitted that the phrase “incidental thereto or connected therewith” used in Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution can only be read as relating to the payment or non-payment of the entitlements. He contended that specific performance or a transfer of ownership has nothing to do with the payment or non-payment of the claimant’s entitlements. Having considered the written submission of the parties, the law is settled that it is the originating processes and in this instance the complaint and statement of facts that determine whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter. The claims of the claimant are as follows: (a) A declaration that the purported termination of employment of the claimant as allegedly conveyed in the letter dated January 27, 2009 is in breach of the contract of employment between the 1st defendant and the claimant. (b) A declaration that the claimant is entitled to remain and be in the employment of the 1st defendant in his position as the acting or substantive Managing Director of the 1st defendant until the claimant attains the age of retirement or until his resignation or until his earlier retirement on grounds of ill health or other lawful cause or until his employment is otherwise lawfully determined by the 1st defendant. (c) A declaration that the 1st and/or 2nd defendant having wilfully and wrongfully terminated the claimant’s employment are estopped from laying any claim to the property known as Plot 9, Block 80, Lekki Peninsula, Lagos which property was agreed to be absolutely assigned to the claimant upon his attainment of 10 years in the 1st defendant company. (d) The sum of N916,000,000.00 (Nine Hundred and Sixteen Million Naira Only) representing special and general damages calculated as follows: a. Salary that would have been earned between the period of the purported improper termination of the claimants employment with the 1st defendant and the claimant’s age of retirement calculated at the present net income of N24,000,000.00 (Twenty Four Million Naira Only) per annum … N192,000,000.00 (One Hundred and Ninety Two Million Naira Only). b. Gratuity calculated at one month gross pay per year from the inception of the claimant’s employment till his age of retirement … N24,000,000.00 (Twenty Four Million Naira Only). c. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum on (a) & (b) above representing upward review of the claimant’s salary from the period of the purported termination of his employment till age of retirement. d. The sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira Only) representing general damages for wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment. e. Damages including exemplary damages in the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira Only) for libel contained in the 1st & 3rd defendants’ letter of 10th February, 2009 and 2nd & 4th defendants’ letter dated January 27, 2009. (e) An order of specific performance against the 1st and/ or 2nd defendants commanding them to execute in favour of the claimant a deed of transfer of ownership (or any other like instrument) in respect of property known as Plot 9, Block 80 Lekki Peninsula Phase I, Lagos and to forthwith deliver to the claimant all the original copies of the title documents in relation to the property. Now, the jurisdiction of this Court as provided in Section 254C (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution states as follows: 254C-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters – (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment. Trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; A close look at paragraphs 11, 22 and 25 of the statement of facts clearly show that reliefs (e) emanates from the claimant’s employment as the property in question is connected to and incidental to his employment. The paragraphs are reproduced as follows: 11. In recognition of the high-octane performance of the claimant as pleaded in paragraph 10 above, the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant effected a conditional transfer of their ownership of the property known as Plot 9, Block 80, Lekki Peninsula, Lagos (“the property”) in favour of the claimant to hold unto the claimant absolutely on the condition that the claimant continued to be in the employment of the 1st and/or 2nd defendant for a period of 10 years from the date of its grant. 22. Furthermore, the claimant shall contend that the purported termination of his employment by the 2nd defendant is malafide and intended by the 1st/or 2nd defendant to evade their obligations to the claimant in relation to the property which by the agreement of the parties forms part of the remuneration and/or entitlement of the claimant. 25. The 1st defendant by its letter of 10th February, 2009 requested the claimant to yield up vacant possession of the property within 6 months of the date of that letter unless the claimant was prepared to negotiate payment for the property. On the issue raised by the claimant’s counsel that no relief is sought on the face of the objection, it is settled that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised, the court has two options – assume jurisdiction or strike out the matter. In this regard, I hold that this Court is empowered by Section 254C (1)(a) to entertain this issue of the property in question which is part of the claimants terms and conditions of service. The objection succeeds in part on the issue of defamation and fails in the issue of property. The matter is to proceed to hearing. No order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. _____________________________ Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae