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 13, 2016 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/185/2015 BETWEEN MERCY THERESA EGO MOSES - CLAIMANT AND OMOTAYO HOSPITAL LIMITED - DEFENDANT REPRESENTATION Mrs. Mary Ovie Whiskey-Martins for claimant. Miss Valentina Onianwa for defendant. RULING This is a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd September 2015 filed by the defendant praying that the suit be struck out on the following grounds: 1. That the subject matter of this suit squarely falls outside the jurisdictional competence of this court. Particulars: a. The claimant’s case being rooted, founded and hinged on the tort of negligence, the appropriate forum for ventilation of the claimant’s rights is the State High Court. 2. That the statement of claim dated the 15th day of May, 2015 and filed on the 15th day of May, 2015 as well as the Motion on Notice dated the 6th day of July and filed on the 8th day of July, 2015 were signed by “claimant counsel” who is not a Legal Practitioner recognized by law. Particulars: a. The processes were signed by T.A. Omagbai who is in salaried employment with the St. Leo Catholic Church and as such, incapable of franking/settling pleadings. The objection is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Ayeni Adeviriku Monday, Administrative Manager and a written address. In opposing the objection, the claimant filed a counter affidavit sworn to by Eunice Benedict, Administrative Secretary on 9th September 2015 and a written address. The defendant in reaction filed a further affidavit and a reply on point of law on 2nd October 2015. Learned Counsel to the defendant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the claim as presently constituted and endorsed on the writ of summons, complaint and statement of facts is competent. 2. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 3. Whether T.A. Omaghai, who is in a salaried employment with St. Leo’s Catholic Church can prepare, sign or frank pleadings and other court processes. She argued that the subject matter of this suit is not a trade dispute and it is not within the contemplation of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution. She submitted that the claimant’s claim is rooted in negligence and the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the suit. Counsel submitted that the statement of claim and motion on notice to amend were signed by the claimant’s counsel’ who is in salaried employment and is not a legal practitioner recognized by law. He cited Okafor v Nweke [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 521, Braithwaite v Skye Bank Plc [2013] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1. She referred to Rule 8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 and urged the Court to strike out the entire suit. Learned Counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. 2. Whether this suit as endorsed is competent before the Court. She submitted that jurisdiction is determined by the claimant’s claim; that the claim as endorsed on the complaint and statement of claim discloses a cause of action against the defendant and the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of this court. She referred to Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 7 (1) (a) – (i) of the NIC Act 2006, Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 2 SCNLR 341, Ameh v Nwankwo [2007] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 552. Counsel submitted that the applicable law to a cause of action is the law is existence when the cause of action accrued and that the combined effect of the Third Alteration Act 2010 as contained in Sections 6 (1) and Section 254 C (1) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the NIC Act 2006 has given this Court jurisdiction to entertain this suit. She cited Obiuweubi v CBN [2011] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1201) ……, SCC (Nig) Ltd v Seidi [2011] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465 at 495. Learned Counsel further submitted that this application is incompetent as demurer proceedings are no longer allowed. She referred to the counter affidavit and stated that T.A. Omogbai who signed the processes is a private legal practitioner who offers free legal services to the Legal Unit of the Justice Development and Peace Commission of St Leo’s Catholic Church; that the defendant is simply pursuing technicalities to defeat the course of justice which the Courts now frown at citing Fagunwa v Adibi [2004] 12 MISC 1 at 8. He then urged the Court to assume jurisdiction. Replying on point of law, defence counsel argued that this suit has not been brought under the Employees Compensation Act 2010 and therefore ought not to be entertained. Having considered the processes filed and the submissions of counsel, it is trite law that it is the claims of the claimant that the court will look at to determine jurisdiction. In this instance, the court will only consider the endorsement on the complaint and the statement of facts. The jurisdiction of this court is governed both by Section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 and in the main governed by the wider provision of Section 254C (1) (a-l) (2), (3) (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution. Section 254C (1) (a) and (b) provides 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; (b) Relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; The complaint before the Court is a labour issue arising from the work place. This is clearly seen in Paragraph 3 of the statement of facts. It bothers on the safety of the worker, and in this instance the claimant who has complained that she was injured while sitting in her office and the ceiling fan detached itself, fell on her and injured her causing grievous damage to her eye and face. It is surprising that defence counsel will submit that this suit not being a trade dispute cannot be entertained by this Court as the intention of the legislature was to restrict Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution as amended to trade disputes. Obviously, this shows a poor understanding by defence counsel of the purport of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010. I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the claimant having been conferred with jurisdiction by Section 254C (1) (a) and (b). On the issue of claimant’s counsel’s competence to sign the processes, it is clear from the affidavit evidence before me that the claimant’s counsel T.A. Omogbai is in private legal practice and is not an employee of St Leo Catholic Church Ikeja. He is simply a volunteer offering free legal services to the Legal Aid Unit of the Justice Development and Peace Commission. He has signed the processes but has not affixed his seal as a Legal Practitioner on the processes. He must be given the opportunity to prove his call to Bar and enrollment at the Supreme Court by affixing his seal to the processes now that an objection is raised. The Supreme Court in the case of General Bello Sarkin Yaki Rtd & Anor v Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu & 2 Ors LER [2015] SC: 722/2015 has held that legal processes without stamp or seal are voidable. They are deemed not to have been properly signed and not that they are invalid and are redeemed by the directive of the Judge to counsel to affix stamp and seal as provided in Rule 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Consequently, the claimant’s counsel, T.A. Omogbai is directed to go to the Registrar of this Court and affix his seal and stamp on the processes already filed within 60 days from today. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. _____________________________ Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae