Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-22.5pt;tab-stops: .25in"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation</span></u></b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:22.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -22.5pt;tab-stops:.25in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">J. O. Emelike for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:22.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -22.5pt;tab-stops:.25in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Louis Onyenemezu, with him, Vivian Ibeawuchi (Mrs.), for the Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:2.5in;text-indent:.5in;line-height:15.6pt; mso-line-height-rule:exactly"><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;mso-bidi-language: HE">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">This action was commenced by way of Complaint filed on the 10<sup>th</sup> day of July 2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The sum of <s>N</s>324,850.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira) only, being special damages incurred by the Claimant as medical bills as at 22<sup>nd</sup> May 2015, in treating himself of the injuries sustained as a result of an accident sustained as a result of the negligence of the Defendant’s driver wherein the bucket of the Defendant’s lorry with Registration No XD 194 SSM heavily loaded with chippings fell over the Claimant on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of December 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The sum of <s>N</s>500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) only, being general damages for the permanent/indelible and grevious injuries sustained by the Claimant as a result of the said accident resulting from the negligence of the Defendant’s driver wherein the bucket of the Defendant’s lorry with Registration No XD 194 SSM heavily loaded with chippings fell over the Claimant on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of December 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The sum of <s>N</s>500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) only for the default of the Defendant to be a contributor to the Nigerian Insurance Trust Fund and thereby denying the Claimant the compensation he ought to have obtained from the Nigerian Insurance Trust Fund.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">By a Motion on Notice dated the 5<sup>th</sup> day of October 2015 and filed on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of October 2015, and brought pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1 (1) and 2 (1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 Counsel for the Defendant is seeking for an order striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The grounds upon which this Application is sought are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#3F4442;mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The National Industrial Court could not assume jurisdiction to hear this suit for the reason that no contract of employment exists between the Defendant and the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#3F4442;mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The reliefs claimed in the present suit are not anchored on labour matters <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#3F4442;mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The National Industrial Court is a court of special purpose jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Accompanying the application is an 11- paragraph Affidavit deposed to by one Sir Anthony Nwosu, the Transport Manager of the Defendant/Applicant. Learned Counsel in his written address, formulated one issue for determination thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case and the position of the law, the National Industrial Court could assume jurisdiction to hear this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing this issue, Counsel submitted that it is the requirement of the law that a contract of employment must exist between the parties before the National Industrial Court can assume jurisdiction. It is Counsel's position that the Statement of Claim does not disclose any contract of employment entered into between the Defendant and the Claimant. The Statement of Claim merely stated that the Claimant was engaged on an uncertain day for an unspecified monthly stipend. This, according to Counsel, falls short of a contract of employment with clear and unambiguous terms. Counsel referred to </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED vs. OYEWALE (2014) LPELR-236L2</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> where the Court of Appeal in interpreting the definition of 'employee' as contained in Section 54 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 added the word 'written' to the term 'Contract of Employment' indicating that a written contract of employment is now required to establish an employer-employee relationship. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel further contended that the Statement of Claim in this suit does not plead any form of written contract of employment signed between the Defendant and the Claimant. Thus, there is no contract of employment of whatever form between the Defendant and the Claimant to enable this Court to assume jurisdiction to hear this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Also, Counsel submitted that the reliefs claimed by the Claimant in the suit are not anchored on labour matters and as such the National Industrial Court cannot assume jurisdiction to hear this suit. He went on that it is settled law that where the issue of a court's jurisdiction is raised, it is the Plaintiffs claim that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. He referred to the case of </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">LADOJA vs. INEC & ORS (2007) 40 WRN 1</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">; and went further to cite the case of </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS. vs. ABDUL RAHEEM & ORS (2009) LPELR- 2596 (S.C) 39</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> where the Supreme Court aptly stated that <i>“it has now become legally customary through long practice to determine the issue of jurisdiction of court on the reliefs sought by the Claimant in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim”</i>. Counsel submitted further that the reliefs claimed in this suit as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim are based on non-labour matters. The reliefs are heavily anchored on the incidence of a road accident allegedly resulting from the negligence of the driver of vehicle. It is submitted that the reliefs claimed are unconnected to any existing labour matter between the Defendant and the Claimant. In </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">PAM & ORS. vs. AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY & ORS (2013) LPELR-21406 (CA) PP.32-34</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> the Court of Appeal held that the National Industrial Court could not assume jurisdiction to determine a dispute arising from administrative directive relating to guidelines for promotion of staff in an educational institution because this issue is too tenuous to and almost unconnected with any labour matter or dispute between the parties. Counsel therefore submitted that the reliefs claimed in this suit are unconnected with or too tenuous to any labour matter between the Defendant and the Claimant to enable this court to assume jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Finally, it is the contention of Counsel that the National Industrial Court is a special purpose court established to determine issues arising in the area of labour relations. It cannot be the intendment of the enabling law for the court to be saddled with ordinary every day legal issues which can most conveniently and eminently be handled and determined by other properly constituted courts with equal jurisdiction. In this vein, the apex court has opined in <b>OLORUNTOBA-OJU vs. DOPAMU (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 1 at 30</b> the use of caution in giving jurisdiction to National Industrial Court in all matters relating to dispute in employment. Counsel argued that the present suit being essentially an ordinary road accident case should not be determined by this Court. In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to uphold the Defendant's grounds of objection and strike out this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to this Application, Counsel on behalf of the Claimant, on the 27<sup>th</sup> day of October 2015, filed a Counter-Affidavit of 7 paragraphs. In the accompanying written address, counsel raised an issue for determination, which is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 108%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether this Honourable Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><i><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:108%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel argued that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The Defendant's denial that there is no employment relationship between the Claimant and Defendant is baseless. </span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">He argued further that EXHIBIT "GA" attached to the Counter affidavit shows that the Claimant was in its employment at the material time of the accident. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">He argued further that Section 73 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 2010 defines an employee to include the Claimant in this Suit as it provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> <i>“Employee” means a person employed by an employer under oral or written contract of employment whether on a continuous, part-</i></span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">time, </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">temporary, apprenticeship or casual basis, and includes a domestic servant who is not a member of the family of the employer including any person employed in the Federal, State and Local Governments, and any of the Government agencies and in the formal and informal sectors of the economy.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Also Section 73 of Employee's Compensation Act, 2010 further defines an accident as <i>“</i></span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">an occurrence arising out of or in the course of work which results in fatal or non-fatal occupational injury thatmay lead to compensation under this Act.”</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Furthermore, Section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act, 2004 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Worker" means employee, that is to say any public officer or any individual </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE">(other </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">than a public officer) who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, express or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it is contract of service or apprenticeship.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In the extant case, the said accident occurred in the course of the employment of the Claimant with the Defendant. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the duty of an employer to take reasonable care for the safety of its workmen as was held in </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> I.I.T.A. vs. AMRANI (2004) 3 NWLR Pt. 332 Pg. 296</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> and followed in the unreported decision in Suit No. </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">NICN/LA/324/2013</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> - </span></b><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">MR. SUNDAY AGHAHOWA vs. MIKANO INT'L NIG LTD</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> delivered on the 16<sup>th</sup> day of December 2014 per Hon. Justice K. I. AMADI. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding the defendant’s ground for challenging the suit that the reliefs claimed by the Claimant are not anchored on labour matters, Counsel submitted that this ground is misconceived. This is owing to the fact that Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 provides that <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">“The Court may in all other cases and where necessary make any appropriate order, including: “an award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear.”</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Relying on this section, counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. He urged the Court to discountenance the cases cited and relied upon in paragraph 3:03 of the Defendant's Written Address as being cited out of their context. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to hold that it has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and accordingly dismiss the said Application for striking out this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The defendant on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of November filed a<a name="_GoBack"></a> 9-paragraph Further and Better Affidavit accompanied by a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Reply on Point Of Law. Counsel argued in reply to the Claimant's Counsel Submission that a contract of employment exists between the parties; that the details of such contract ought to have been pleaded. Failure to plead such will saddle the Court with a task of speculating as to the existence or not of the alleged contract of employment. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court case of </span><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">MOROHUNFOLA vs. KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) LPELR-1912 (SC)</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">to the effect that a party relying on a contract of employment must plead with particularity the terms and circumstances of the contract of employment. Further submission of Counsel is that Section 19 of National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides for the ancillary powers of the court which are exercisable only with reference to the jurisdiction of the court. Counsel submitted that the court must have jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Section 7 before it can exercise the powers provided under Section 19 (d). In conclusion, Counsel urged the court to discountenance the facts deposed to in the Claimant's Counter-Affidavit and grant the Defendant's application and strike out the present suit for want of jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Having heard learned counsels to the parties in their arguments for and against the Defendant’s motion, I will now determine the Defendant’s application. The Defendant is seeking order striking out the Claimant’s suit for the reason that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the affidavit in support of the application, it was deposed that the Claimant was not an employee of the Defendant and as such there is no contract of employment existing between the Defendant and the Claimant. The Claimant's injury, although unfortunate, resulted from an ordinary road accident which the Defendant has no hand in and did not emanate in relation to any labor relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. It was further deposed that this court is a special purpose court and cannot assume jurisdiction to hear this suit involving ordinary road accident. In the further affidavit filed in support of the Defendant’s motion, it was deposed </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">that the Defendant never engaged the Claimant neither as a apprentice mechanic nor in any capacity at all and the Defendant did not at any time send the Claimant to repair the Defendant’s broken down vehicles. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Claimant to oppose the Defendant’s motion contain that the Claimant was engaged by the Defendant as an apprentice mechanic and the Defendant has been sending the Claimant in company of its Senior Mechanics to work on the Defendant’s vehicles that broke down in various places and States. It was also deposed in the counter affidavit that there existed an employment relation between the Claimant and the Defendant, and the Claimant’s injury arose from the employment relationship between him and the Defendant. The employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant was confirmed by the Defendant in its lawyer's letter of 24<sup>th</sup> January 2015, annexed to the Counter Affidavit as Exhibit GA, where it was stated that the Defendant provided the Claimant with funds to embark on the journey. The deponent concluded that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The jurisdiction of this court is provided in Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The provisions of the section relevant to the resolution of this issue are contained in subsection 1 (a) thereof. It provides that the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. By this provision, before this court can assume jurisdiction on this case, it must be shown that it is a labour matter or that there is an employment relationship between the parties. The grouse of the Defendant in this application is that the suit does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court because there is no employment relationship between the parties. In my view however, the determination of this issue does not lie in the affidavit evidence of the parties but in the facts averred by the Claimant in the Statement of Facts. It is the facts averred in the statement of facts that will show whether the Claimant’s suit falls under labor or employment matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I have read the Claimant’s statement of facts and paragraphs 1 and 3 are very instructive to the resolution of this issue. In paragraph 1, the Claimant averred that he is an apprentice mechanic with the Defendant at the Defendant’s workshop off Portharcourt/Enugu Expressway, Aba, Abia State. In paragraph 3, the Claimant averred that in the month of November 2014, he was engaged by the Defendant as an apprentice mechanic to work at the Defendant’s said mechanic workshop at an unspecified monthly stipend. From these averments of the Claimant, it is the Claimant’s case that he was engaged by the Defendant as an apprentice mechanic. Whether or not he was actually so engaged by the Defendant is not to be determined at this stage. The facts, as has been presented to this court by the Claimant, are that the Defendant engaged him as an apprentice mechanic. The question raised by the Claimant’s averment is whether an apprenticeship creates an employment or labor relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant? In the determination of this question, some statuary provisions will have to be called to aid. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 91 of the Labour Act defines "contract" to mean:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“a contract of employment and it includes a contract of apprenticeship</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Section defines "contract of employment" to mean:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">"Worker" is defined in the same section to mean:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 48 of the Trade Dispute Act defines a "worker" to mean<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“any employee, that is to say any public officer or any individual (other than a public officer) who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, express or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it is a contract of service or of apprenticeship”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">See also the same definition of ‘worker’ in Section 54 of Trade Unions Act 2004.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 73 of the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 defines "employer" to include: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“<b><i>any individual, body corporate, Federal, State or Local Government or any of the government agencies who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as an employee or apprentice. <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The same Section defines “employee” to mean<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">“a person employed by an employer under oral or written contract of employment whether on a continuous, part time, temporary, apprenticeship or causal basis and includes a domestic servant who is not a member of the family of the employer including any person employed in the Federal, State and Local Government agencies and in the formal and informal sectors of the economy”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">By Section 54 of the NIC Act, an employee is defined as <i>a person employed by another under oral or written contract of employment whether on a continuous, part-time, temporary or casual basis and includes a domestic servant who is not a member of the family of the employer</i>. The section also defines an employee to mean <i>any individual or body corporate or unincorporated who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as an employee or apprentice</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The combined effect of these provisions on the facts averred by the Claimant is that the Claimant, as an apprentice of the Defendant, is a worker in the Defendant company. By virtue of that relationship, there exists between the Claimant and the Defendant, a labour or employment contract. Going by the provision of Section 54 of NIC Act, the Defendant is no doubt the employer of the claimant. I find in the result that this case is a labour matter. A contract of employment <b>does</b> exist between the Claimant and the Defendant. Therefore, I hold that this case comes within the subject matters on which this court has jurisdiction. The Defendant’s motion is dismissed. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Judge</span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>