Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Kissinger Ikeokwu, with him, C. J. Oguzie for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N. J. Mbaba, Principal State Counsel, for the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Chima Boms for the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";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">By a motion on notice filed on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of May 2015 and brought pursuant to Section 97 of The Sheriffs And Civil Processes Act, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant’s Counsel sought an Order of Court setting aside the issuance and service of the Originating Processes in this suit as same is incompetent. The said application is supported by a 10 paragraph affidavit. In the accompanying written address, counsel distilled one issue for determination which is: <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">Whether the issuance and service of the Originating Processes in this suit on the defendants was proper in view of section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil processes Act.<b><u><o:p></o:p></u></b></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In arguing this issue, counsel submitted that leave of Court is required when </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">originating processes emanating from a Court in Owerri Imo State is to be served on the Defendants/Applicants in Rivers State. He submitted further that in the extant case, leave was not obtained for issuance or service thus violating the provision of S<span style="color:#4E5759">ection </span>97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act which provides<span style="color:#4E5759">:</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language: HE">"Every writ of summons for service under this part out of the state or the Capital Territory in which it was issued shall in addition to any other endorsement ornotice required by the law of such state or capital territory have endorsed here a notice to the following </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">effects"<span style="color:#4E5759">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">"This summons (or as the case may be) is to be served out of state (or as the case may be) and in (or as the case may be)"</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-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">Counsel urged the court to set aside the issuance of this Writ/Complaint i.e. the Originating Processes as well as the service in this case. He relied on the case <a name="_GoBack"></a>of <b>Broad Bank vs. Olayiwola & Sons Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 251) 236 at 241 Ratio 8 and 10</b>.<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">Counsel for the 2<sup><span style="color:#353D3B">nd</span></sup><span style="color:#353D3B">, </span><span style="color:#353D3B">3<sup>rd </sup></span>and 4<sup><span style="color:#353D3B">th</span></sup><span style="color:#353D3B"> </span>Defendan<span style="color:#353D3B">ts/</span>A<span style="color:#353D3B">pplicants</span> also on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of June 2015, filed a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to the Rivers State Limitation Law Sections 2 and 24. Law Sections 2 and 24 of Legal Practitioners Act Orde<span style="color:#313937">r 11 Rule 1 of t</span>he Nat<span style="color:#313937">i</span>onal <span style="color:#313937">I</span>ndustr<span style="color:#313937">i</span>al Court Rules 2007 in which he sought an Order striking out the Claimant<span style="color:#353D3B">'</span>s/Respondent<span style="color:#353D3B">'</span>s compla<span style="color:#353D3B">int f</span>o<span style="color:#353D3B">r being </span>incompetent and fo<span style="color:#353D3B">r </span>lack of jurisd<span style="color:#353D3B">i</span>ction<span style="color:#5D6666">. <o:p></o:p></span></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">The grounds for this application a<span style="color:#353D3B">re as f</span>o<span style="color:#353D3B">llows: </span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">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">That the Originating Process or complaint before the Honou<span style="color:#353D3B">ra</span>bl<span style="color:#353D3B">e C</span>o<span style="color:#353D3B">urt is i</span>ncompetent as <span style="color:#353D3B">i</span>t was not signed by the C<span style="color:#353D3B">l</span>aimant or <span style="color:#353D3B">th</span>e L<span style="color:#353D3B">e</span>gal P<span style="color:#353D3B">ractitioner </span>contrary to Section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">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">That <span style="color:#353D3B">t</span>here is no cause of action aga<span style="color:#353D3B">i</span>nst the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd </sup>and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants<span style="color:#353D3B">. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">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">That this action is statute barred<span style="color:#353D3B">, </span>same having been <span style="color:#353D3B">c</span>aught by <span style="color:#353D3B">S</span>e<span style="color:#353D3B">ction 80 </span>of the Limitation Law, Laws of Rivers State 1988<span style="color:#353D3B">. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">4.<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">That the Defendants<span style="color:#353D3B">/</span>Respondents are statutory <span style="color:#353D3B">b</span>od<span style="color:#353D3B">i</span>e<span style="color:#353D3B">s rec</span>o<span style="color:#353D3B">gnised in law t</span>o sue and be sued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">5.<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">That the Claimants are not the employees, privies or servants of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">6.<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">That this suit is an abuse of Court process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">7.<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">That the Claimants sued under field operators Risonpalm Limited which is not a juristic personality.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">8.<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">Flowing from the above, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain 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">The Application was supported by an 8 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Amadi Chijioke G<span style="color:#313937">r</span>an<span style="color:#313937">t, Director, </span>Head of Planning Ministry of Agr<span style="color:#313937">i</span>culture<span style="color:#313937">, </span>R<span style="color:#313937">i</span>vers State.<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 the accompanying address, counsel proposed the following four 4 issues for determination:<span style="color:#19201C"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#19201C;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#19201C;mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">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"; color:#19201C;mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">Whether the Claimants/Respondents Originating Process or complaint before the Honourable Court is competent to clothe the Court with jurisdiction to try the matter same having not been signed by the claimants or their legal practitioner. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#19201C;mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">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"; color:#19201C;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether this suit is not statute barred, the cause of action having exceeded five years as by virtue of Rivers State Limitation Law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#19201C;mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">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"; color:#19201C;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the Claimants/Respondents action amount to an abuse of Court Process. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#19201C;mso-font-width:109%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">4.<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"; color:#19201C;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether by the name the Claimants sued amounts to juristic personality in law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#19201C;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";color:#19201C;mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue one, counsel submitted that the extant action as filed at the registry of National Industrial Court, Owerri</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#3C4542;mso-bidi-language:HE">, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#19201C; mso-bidi-language:HE">Imo State on 23/02/15 is irredeemably incompetent and same liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions. Counsel relied on the case of </span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">TUKUR vs. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR Pg. 577 at 549</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#303837;mso-bidi-language:HE"> and submitted that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#19201C; mso-bidi-language:HE">the law is settled beyond argument that in determining whether or not the Court is vested with jurisdiction, the only document </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">ava<span style="color:#303837">i</span>lab<span style="color:#303837">l</span>e to the Court and on which the Court <span style="color:#303837">i</span>s en<span style="color:#303837">j</span>o<span style="color:#303837">i</span>ned <span style="color:#303837">to l</span>oo<span style="color:#303837">k at is the </span>writ of summons (complaint) and the Statement of c<span style="color:#303837">l</span>aim<span style="color:#303837">. Counsel argued further that an unsigned </span>p<span style="color:#303837">r</span>ocess of Court <span style="color:#303837">is </span>fu<span style="color:#303837">n</span>damentally defective beyond amendment and sa<span style="color:#303837">m</span>e <span style="color:#303837">c</span>a<span style="color:#303837">nn</span>o<span style="color:#303837">t activate </span>the Jur<span style="color:#303837">i</span>sdiction of this Honourab<span style="color:#303837">l</span>e Court thus the <span style="color:#303837">j</span>ur<span style="color:#303837">i</span>sd<span style="color:#303837">i</span>ct<span style="color:#303837">i</span>o<span style="color:#303837">n is the </span>bedrock of judicial adjudication. It is c<span style="color:#303837">l</span>ear<span style="color:#303837">l</span>y shown on the face of the (complaint) tha<span style="color:#303837">t i</span>t <span style="color:#303837">was not signed at </span>al<span style="color:#303837">l, </span>either by a Lega<span style="color:#303837">l </span>Practitioner and/or the C<span style="color: #303837">l</span>aimant<span style="color:#303837">s. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#303837;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">Counsel submitted further that the legal effect of an unsigned Co<span style="color:#303837">urt </span>p<span style="color:#303837">r</span>o<span style="color:#303837">cess which in </span>la<span style="color:#303837">w </span>is void ab<span style="color:#303837">i</span>n<span style="color:#303837">i</span>tio and cannot in law invoke <span style="color:#303837">t</span>he <span style="color:#303837">j</span>u<span style="color:#303837">r</span>isd<span style="color:#303837">i</span>c<span style="color:#303837">ti</span>o<span style="color:#303837">n of this </span>Honourable Court in enterta<span style="color:#303837">i</span>ning and determini<span style="color:#303837">n</span>g o<span style="color:#303837">f th</span>i<span style="color:#303837">s </span>p<span style="color:#303837">resent suit</span>. <span style="color:#303837">Counsel </span>relied on the case of <b>OKAFOR vs. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT<span style="color:#303837">. </span>1043) 521</b>. He argued that <span style="color:#303837">the c</span>o<span style="color:#303837">mplaint issued in the present case </span>violates section 2 and 24 of the Legal Practit<span style="color:#303837">i</span>oner<span style="color:#303837">'</span>s Ac<span style="color:#303837">t, and is incurably </span>bad and void. He submitted further that <span style="color:#303837">t</span>he only jurisdiction vested in the Cou<span style="color:#303837">rt </span>a<span style="color:#303837">t t</span>h<span style="color:#303837">is stage is to </span>determ<span style="color:#303837">i</span>ne whether it has jurisdiction or not, as a Court wi<span style="color:#303837">t</span>hou<span style="color:#303837">t j</span>u<span style="color:#303837">risdiction </span>cannot make any competent order. See <b>UDO vs. AKPAN (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 548) 1</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232A26;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";color:#232A26;mso-bidi-language:HE">More so, it is settled law that Originating processes must be valid; otherwise the Court would lack the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the action. See <b>BRAITWAITE vs. SKYE BANK (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1 at 5 PARAS E - D</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232A26; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue two, counsel submitted that by virtue of Section 16 of the Limitation Law Cap 80 Laws of Rivers State, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">no action founded on contract, that or any other action not specifically provided for in part 1 and 11 of this law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. He argued that the cause of action in the instant case accrued on or before the year 2011, this being the date or year Claimants stated in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim. The Claimants filed this action at the registry of the National Industrial Court Owerri, Imo State on 23/02/15. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thus, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">the Claimants/Respondents action against the Defendants is statute barred and no longer maintainable. Thus, the Claimants have lost right to the cause of action by judicial process. Counsel relied on <b>ADUBEKU vs. FOWLER (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637. </b>Also <b>EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (Supra) </b>where the Court held that a statute of limitation removes the right of action, the right of enforcement the right to judicial relief, and leaves the plaintiff (claimants) with a bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce; and urged the Court to hold<span style="color:#1A211D"> that this suit has become statute barred and therefore cannot be maintained and should be dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;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";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue three, counsel stated that the meaning of abuse of Court process was clearly stated by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in <b>AFRICAN REINSURANCE CORPORATION vs. J.D.P. CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 603 at Pg. 635, PARAS F </b>- H as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">''Abuse of process of Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bonafide and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process as in this case”</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;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";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">In the present case, counsel argued that the ingredients of abuse of Court process are present</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">There has been abuse of legal procedure when the Claimants/Respondents instituted this action that accrued sometime in the year 2003, and filed same on 23/02/15. That is to say the action was filed eleven (11) years after the cause of action accrued. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F2622;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is an abuse of Court process when the Claimants instituted this suit founded on contract outside the statutory five (5) years provided in the statute of Limitation Act Cap. 80 Laws of Rivers State.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F2622;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel relied on the case of <b>ARUBO vs. AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 126 at142, <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F2622;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";color:#1F2622;mso-bidi-language:HE">In view of these above submissions, counsel urged the Court hold that this suit is an abuse of the process of the Court and to dismiss same. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1F2622;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";color:#1F2622;mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue four, counsel relied on<b>EMEKA AKAS vs. MANAGER AND RECEIVER OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN GILLET (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 436 at 444 (PARAS A - B) </b>and submitted that the term </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">Juristic personality is defined as <i>"a natural person in the sense of a human being of the requisite capacity or any entity created by law, which includes an incorporated body and special artificial being created by legislation vested with the capacity to sue and be sued as incidental to the enforcement of rights and discharge of obligations arising from the functions of the entity"</i>. <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";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">Also, it is settled law is that "No action can be brought by or against any party other than a natural person, or persons, unless such a party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly or by the common law either: </span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F2622; 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";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">(a) A legal person under the name by which it sues or is sued or; <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";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">(b) A right to sue or be sued by that name. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#202825;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";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">See the case of <b>ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY vs. ANYAIBE (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 439) 646 at 662 (PARAS D – E). </b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#202825;mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the submission of Counsel that the Claimants sued under the name field operators Risonpalm Limited which is not an incorporated body under the Companies and Allied Matters Act</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#202825; mso-bidi-language:HE">Therefore they have no capacity to sue and be sued. It is not a legal personality under any law or statute. Thus, expressly or impliedly, they cannot sue or be sued. <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";color:#202825;mso-bidi-language:HE">See <b>AGBONMAGBE BANK LIMITED vs. GENERAL MANAGER, G.B OLIVANT LTD. & ANOR (1961) 1 All NLR 116.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Counsel urged the Court to resolve the above is</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#353E3B; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">s</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">ue in favour</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#353E3B; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> of the Defendants and grant this application.<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";color:#2A322D;mso-font-width:116%; 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";color:#2A322D;mso-font-width:116%; mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition, the Claimants’ counsel filed a Counter affidavit of 12 paragraphs deposed to by </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2A322D;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Ogbonnaya Alamba, Lawyer in the Claimants’ counsel Law Office.<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";color:#2A322D;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2A322D;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">In the accompanying address, counsel identified three issues for determination.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2A322D;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2A322D;mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">With respect to issue one as to w</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">hether this action is regular and discloses Cause of Action, it is counsel’s submission that the Claimants/Respondents have proved their claims before this Court and are therefore entitled to all the reliefs as claimed in this action. He submitted further that the Claimants/Respondents proved in paragraph 8 of their Written Deposition that they were junior staff of the Defendants wherein they were issued with Identification Cards. Both parties are ad idem on this point. Counsel argued further that the evidence of the Claimants/Respondents have not been challenged by the other party, therefore the Court has no option than to accept same and to rely thereon. See <b>GOVERNMENT OF EKITI STATE vs. OJO (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) Pg. 130 paras B-C</b>.<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:113%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#2A322D;mso-font-width:90%; 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";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:112%; mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel relied on Order 3 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules and submitted that the Claimants/Respondents complied with the relevant sections of the Rules of this Court, hence this action is properly before the Court. Thus, the submission of the Defendants/Applicants that this complaint is incompetent is a misnomer and is tantamount to misleading the Court. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In the light of the above, counsel submitted that this Honorable Court is clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain this matter, the Claimants/Respondents having strictly complied with the relevant rules of the Court. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:112%; 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:114%;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:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel argued in respect of issue three that the Court of Appeal provided an exception to the general rule on Limitation laws in the case of <b>TEIBOGREN vs. GOVERNOR, DELTA STATE (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 764) P<span style="color:#3E4944">.</span>16<span style="color:#3E4944">, </span>PARAS.D-E RATIO 4</b>, to the effect that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language:HE">"One of the salient exceptions to the general rule of statute of lim<span style="color:#3E4944">i</span>tation is that where there is an admission of liability in the course of negotiation between the respective parties, substantial and equitable justice demands that the action should not be allowed to be statute-barred after the expiration of the statutorily prescribed period. The best possible option or cause for a person whom the right of action has accrued thereto, is to institute an action against the other party within the statutory time limit, so as to protect the interest thereof in case the negotiation fails. In the instant case<span style="color:#3E4944">, </span>where there was no evidence of admission by the respondent, the trial court rightly held that the action of the appellant commenced outside the prescribed period for was incompetent." <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><i><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </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:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that the claimants’ averment in Paragraph 20 of the Claimants/Respondents Statement of Claims shows that there existed a negotiation between the Claimants and the 2<sup>nd</sup></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26; mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> to</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:114%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants geared towards paying the Claimants their 17 months of unpaid salar<span style="color:#3E4944">i</span>es hence this action cannot be said to be caught up with limitation statute. He</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232C27; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> submitted with respect that the period during which the Claimants and the 2nd</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#57615C;mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">- </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232C27;mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">4th Defendants were having meetings and negotiations at the instance of the Defendants served as an exception to the general rule. Submitted further that this action as presently constituted does not amount to an abuse of court process. Thus the submission of the 2<sup>nd</sup></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> to</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232C27; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants borders on technicalities which the Courts are enjoined to eschew in favour of justice. See <b>KABIR vs. ACTION CONGRESS (2012) <br> ALL FWLR (Pt. 647) P.674, PARAS. D-H RATIO 10.</b></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 114%;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"; color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%;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";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%; mso-bidi-language:HE">Again, counsel contended that the Claimants/Respondents sued the 2<sup>nd </sup>to</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";color:#3D4945;mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> 4</span><sup><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE">th </span></sup><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26; mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Defendants/Applicants in this action in a representative capacity, fulfilling the requirements as prescribed in <b>LAWAL vs. ATT.-GENERAL</b></span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%; mso-bidi-language:HE">KWARA -STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";color:#3D4945;mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language: HE">. </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%; mso-bidi-language:HE">618) 991</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#3D4945;mso-font-width:111%; mso-bidi-language:HE">. He </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language: HE">submitted that the Defendants/Applicants have failed to place necessary and credible materials before the Court to warrant its consideration hence this preliminary objection as filed is ill-conceived and same </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#3D4945; mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE">i</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%; mso-bidi-language:HE">s bound to be dismissed. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#262E29;mso-font-width:110%; mso-bidi-language:HE">From the canvassed arguments, counsel urged the Honorable </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#262E29;mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Court </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#262E29; mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">to dismiss the Defendants/Applicants preliminary objection with a punitive cost as same is frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and a sheer waste of judicial time.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#232B26;mso-font-width:111%; 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-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#475050;mso-bidi-language:HE">The 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant, on the 18<sup>th</sup> day of November 2015, filed a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 (1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Counsel sought an Order </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">of Court striking out the name of the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant in this Suit. The grounds for this application are as follows:<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="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[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">That the Claimants/Respondents have not established any nexus linking the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant to their alleged contract of employment purportedly entered into with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent which said employment was even effectively terminated and dispensed with before the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant executed a lease agreement with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[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">That the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant not having taken over or acquired any or all <br> interests of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent and vice versa, cannot be held responsible for the alleged acts or conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent and<span style="color:#515B56">, </span>as such is not a proper and necessary party to this Suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[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">That the Claimants/Respondents have not made out or established a cause of action against the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The said motion is supported by an 18 paragraph Affidavit. In the accompanying written address, counsel identified the following issues for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(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"">Whether the second Defendant is a proper and necessary party in this suit borne out of an alleged employer/employee relationship/transaction between the Claimants/Respondents and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Whether </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the Claimant/Respondent have made out or established a cause of action against the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel submitted on issue one that a person can only be made a party to an action or suit if his presence is necessary to enable the Court properly determine the matter once and for all and so that he will be bound by the result of the action. The issue for determination in such a case must be such that cannot be completely and effectively settled and determined unless he is made a party. See the cases of<span style="color:#3E4744">: </span><b>UKU vs. OKUNMAGOA (1974) 3 S.C 35; KOTOYE vs. SARAKI (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 296) 729; LAWSON vs. AFANI CONST. CO. LTD (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 585</b>.<span style="color:#3E4744"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that it isthe responsibility of the Claimants/Respondents to bring only necessary parties to their grievances to court. Since the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant has clearly stated, shown and maintained that it will not likely be legally and financially affected by the outcome of this su<span style="color:#3E4744">i</span>t not being a necessary or proper party, the name of 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Applicant should be struck out. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With respect to issue two, Counsel submitted that an<span style="color:#283230"> examination of the Claimants/Respondents’ claim reveal that nothing whatsoever was mentioned about what role the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant played or is likely to play in the resolution of this suit arising out of the alleged relationship/transaction between the Claimants/Respondents and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent</span>. <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";color:#283230">Thus, the Claimants/Respondents have not made out or disclosed any cause of action that the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant can understand, in the first place, and be called upon or required to defend or meet</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#283230">Counsel urged the Court to strike out the name of the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant/Applicant in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;tab-stops:0in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;tab-stops:0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> <u>Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></u></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From the foregoing summary of the submissions of counsel to the parties in respect of the various applications, it is clear that three applications are to be considered in this ruling. The sum of the grounds </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or points which the defendants have canvassed in their motions are as follows-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">i. The leave of court was not obtained to issue and served the Complaint in Rivers State and the complaint was not endorsed as required by section 97 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">ii. The Complaint is incompetent as it was not signed by the Claimant or the Legal practitioner.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">iii. No cause of action against the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">iv. The action is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">v. That this suit is an abuse of Court process<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">vi. The name under which the Claimants sued “field operators Risonpalm Limited” is not a juristic personality.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I will consider these points or grounds of the applications one after the other in the order I have listed them out above.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><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""> (I)<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"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant sought to have the issuance and service of the Originating Processes on the 1<sup>st</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants set aside. In the affidavit in support of the motion, one Sir Mike Ejims Enwukwe, the Sole Administrator of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, deposed that the originating processes in this suit were served on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant on 5/5/2015 in Port Harcourt while the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant was served at its Ubima office in Rivers State on 6/5/2015. The Claimants ought to seek leave of court to issue and service the complaint outside Imo State but there was no indication on the Complaint that leave of court was sought and obtained before issuing and serving the complaint on the Defendants. The issuance and service of the Complaint are flawed and should be set aside. In the counter affidavit filed by the Claimants in joint response to all the applications, it was deposed in paragraphs 7 and 9 that the service of the Complaint was regular in that service on the Defendants in Rivers State was not service outside jurisdiction of this court. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">In his written address, counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants have argued that where an originating process is to be served outside jurisdiction, leave of court must be obtained and the process must be endorsed in accordance with section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act. Counsel submitted that since leave of court was not sought to issue and serve the Complaint nor did the originating processes carry the prescribed endorsement, the complaint is incompetent and should be set aside.<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:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The issue raised by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in this instant application with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 97 of Sheriff and Civil Processes Act to the originating process issued from this court and the need to seek and obtain leave to issue and serve the originating processes from the state of issue into another state has received judicial pronouncements in several rulings and judgments of this court. I will briefly lay down the prevailing position of this court on the issue. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Section 21(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 makes it very clear that the whole of the Federation of Nigeria is a single jurisdiction for the NIC. The divisions of the NIC in various states are for administrative convenience only and as such, they do not have exclusive territorial jurisdiction restricted to the division or state as we have with the State High Courts. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It has been the view of this court that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">the provision of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act do</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> not apply to </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">to processes emanating from this Court.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> See the judgment in </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Suit <b>NICN/CA/75/2012: BRIGHT CHINEDU WODI vs. DIFFERENTIAL ALUMINIUM AND STEEL COMPANY LTD & ANOR</b> delivered on the 21<sup>st</sup> day of January 2014; the ruling in suit No. </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">NICN/OW/38/2013: UGOALA CHIDINMA JOY (MRS.) vs. ABIA STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> delivered </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">28<sup>th</sup> April 201</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">; </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Suit No: <b>NICN/EN/14/2012: IFINEDO NORRIS EBIBUM vs. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC. (NOW MAINSTREET BANK LTD)</b> delivered on the 24<sup>th</sup> day of August, 2012 and in suit No: <b>NIC/LA/46/2009. DR. AINA SIMEON ADEODUN & 3 ORS. Vs. GOVERNING COUNCIL, OYO STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION</b> delivered on 8<sup>th</sup> February, 2011. Therefore, service of the processes of this court on any defendant in other states is not service out of jurisdiction as to require the endorsement in Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil processes Act or the need to seek leave to issue and serve the Complaint in another state. Therefore, in view of the position of this court on the application of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to the originating process issued from this court, I find no merit in </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s application. It is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> (II) <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">That the Complaint is incompetent as it was not signed by the Claimant or the Legal practitioner.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">This arose from the first ground of the motion by the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. The 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants have contended in the said ground that the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Originating Process or Complaint is incompetent as it was not signed by the Claimant or the Legal Practitioner. The issue raised in this ground of the 2<sup>nd,</sup> 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ application is whether there is a valid Complaint before his court in the 1<sup>st</sup> place. While the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants deposed to the fact that the complaint is not signed by the Claimant’s counsel in paragraph 6 (i) of the supporting affidavit, the Learned counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants submitted in his written address that none signing of the originating complaint by the Claimant or their counsel renders the Complaint incompetent. It is further submitted that this court cannot assume jurisdiction on the basis of a defective originating process. It is observed that the Claimants did not deny this allegation in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. In any case, it is my view that whether or not the Claimants deny the allegation in the counter affidavit filed does not matter. The defect alleged in the complaint can be viewed on the face of the complaint and the determination of the allegation is based on the provisions of the rules of court.<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:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Let me first examine the provisions of the rules relevant to this issue.<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-font-width:107%;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">Order 1, Rule 3 (2) defines an Originating process to mean:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">“<b><i>A Complaint or any other court process by which a suit is initiated.”</i></b><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">Order 3, Rule 1 of the rules of this court 2007 provides:<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">“Any action for the determination by the court shall be commenced by way of Complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The Complaint shall be in form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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">Order 4 Rule 4 (3) went on to provide that:<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">“An originating process shall be signed by the claimant or by his or her legal practitioner were the claimant sues through a legal practitioner.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></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">Order 3 Rule 4 provides:<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"> <b><i>“The complaint shall be accompanied by:<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">(i)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">a statement of facts establishing the cause of action,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">(ii)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">copies of every document to be relied on at the trial,<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">(iii)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">list of witnesses to be called.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></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">I have also examined the complaint in this suit, which is an adoption of form 1 of the rules, and I observe that it was filed by the legal practitioner for the claimants. The following particulars were endorsed on the complaint:<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">“This Complaint was issued by Kissinger Ikeokwu Esq, whose address for service is plot 133, Ikenegbu Road, opposite GTbank, agent of Chyma Anthony & Co, of legal practitioners for the said claimants whose office is at Owerri-Imo State of Nigeria”</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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: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:107%;mso-bidi-language: HE">The name of counsel is clearly written on the complaint. There is however no signature with the name. Statement of facts, witness statement on oath and list of documents were filed along with the Complaint. The statement of facts was settled by </span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Kissinger Ikeokwu Esq</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 107%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> and there is a signature of the counsel just above the name. </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;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: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">I did also examine the form 1 referred to in order 3 Rule 1. The form is the General Form of Complaint in the rules. It is drafted to state the name of the claimant or counsel but no space or provision for signature. <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">From all the foregoing, although Order 4 Rule 4(3) requires the Complaint to be signed by the Claimant or his legal practitioner, the form of Complaint did not provide for signature. The complaint in this suit contains the name of counsel who filed the complaint. In my view, the complaint in this suit is in substantial compliance with form 1. In addition, by the combined provision of Order 1, Rule 3 (2) and Order 3, Rule 4, the Complaint and the statement of facts together constitute originating processes. The Statement of facts has the signature of the counsel. That suffices to take care of the issue of signing of the processes. In <b>UZIOGWE M.C. vs. AGBOEZE (2011) 22 NLLR (Pt. 63) 443 AT 445,</b> this court held that once the statement of facts is signed by counsel, it will suffice as compliance with the provision of Order 4, Rule 3 of the Rules of this court.<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">Consequently, I find no merit in this ground of the application by the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> (III)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That there is no cause of action against the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><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">I have considered the facts deposed by the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants on one hand and the 5<sup>th</sup> Defendant on the other hand in respect of this ground of the applications. Let me first say that the depositions in support of the 5<sup>th</sup> defendant’s motion are more or less a discussion of the facts of the case. It will be prejudicial to the merit of the case if this court is to dabble into those facts. From the averments of the Claimants in the statement of facts, the Claimants have shown they have a cause of action against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> (IV)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the action is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><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";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">Although a ground of the motion by the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants, there is no deposition in the supporting affidavit to found the ground. It was only in the written address where the counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> argued that by the averment in paragraph 7 of the statement of facts, the Claimants’ cause of action arose 18 months </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#212824;mso-bidi-language:HE">prior to 2011 being the time they were being owed unpaid salaries. Counsel cited submitted that by Section </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">16 of the Limitation Law Cap 80 Laws of Rivers State, the Claimants suit is statute barred having been filed more than 5 years after the cause of action arose. The said Section 16 of the Limitation Law Cap 80 laws of Rivers State provides:<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";color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">"No action founded on contract or any other action not specifically provided for in parts </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:131%;mso-bidi-language:HE">1 </span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">and </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D; mso-font-width:131%;mso-bidi-language:HE">11 </span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:107%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of this law shall be brought after the expiration of five </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:125%;mso-bidi-language:HE">(5) </span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-font-width:107%; mso-bidi-language:HE">years from the date on which the cause of action </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1A211D;mso-bidi-language:HE">accrued.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><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">The question arising from the provision is: whether the Claimant’s filed this suit within 5 years from when their cause of action arose? The answer to this question can be seen in the averments contained in the statement of facts. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><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">The claim of the Claimants in this suit is for arrears of salary owed to them before the privatization of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The particular facts on which the claim is founded are contained in paragraphs 7 to 22 of the statement of facts. The Claimants’ case as seen in these paragraphs is that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was privatized in 2011 and they were driven out of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s farm sometimes in the year 2011. The Claimants’ aver that their salaries for 18 months before then were not paid to them. The Claimants’ claim is for salaries up to the period of the privatization or when they were ejected from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s premises in 2011. Having considered the facts of the Claimants’ case, it is my view that their cause of action commenced in 2011. They filed this suit in 2015. The period between the cause of action and filing of the suit is only 4 years. This suit is not statute barred as alleged by the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> (V) <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That this suit is an abuse of Court process<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><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">When I considered the submissions of the counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants on this ground of the objection, I find that his contention is on the same ground as argued under the issue of statute bar. My view on that ground also applies here. I cannot find any element of abuse in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> (VI)<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">That the name under which the Claimants sued “field operators Risonpalm Limited” is not a juristic personality.<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: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Let me say straight away that the Claimants did not sue under the name </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">“field operators Risonpalm Limited” The 1<sup>st</sup> to 30<sup>th</sup> Claimants sued in their personal names and they are described as representing other field operators Risonpalm Limited. I find no merit in this ground of the application.<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;">In the result, all the applications fail and they are hereby 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: 12pt; 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;"> </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><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p>