Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATE JANUARY 13, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/1/2010 BETWEEN DR. E. G. Ayo Akinyerni Claimant AND Crawford University Defendant REPRESENTATION M. A. Savage, for the claimant/respondent. A. O. Okulaja SAN, for the respondent/applicant and with him are Messrs S. A. Lateef and Tunji Oduntan. RULING The claimant took up a complaint dated 6th January 2010 against the defendant praying the following reliefs — (a) The sum of N48,707.35k (Naira, forty-Eight Thousand) being payment of balance of July 2009 salary. (b) Payment of N45,00.00k wages on Foundation Program job. (c) Payment of 56 working days leave deemed to be enjoyed in the long vacation of August and September 2009 by clause 6.1.2 of the condition of service of the defendant totaling N335,952.84k. (d) Payment of three months’ salary and house allowance in lieu of notice for October, November, December 2009 totaling N 503,924.26k.. (e) Libel for unlawful and careless distribution of the panel of enquiries report to the University community thereby lowering the image and reputation of the claimant in the eyes of right thinking persons in the University community amounting to N 10,000,000.00 (Naira, Ten Million). (I) Refund of the sum of N103,647.36 comprising of to the claimant being deemed total deduction from the claimant’s salary for period of November 2008 to August 2009 and the defendant’s contribution which ought to have been remitted to the Pension Fund Agent along with equal part contribution of the defendant. (g) Interest on the above amount at 21% per annum from November 2008 till paid. (h) General damage of N5, 000,000.00 (Naira, Five Million). (i) An order compelling the Nigeria Police Force or other relevant government agencies to investigate and prosecute any culpable persons involved. (j) Reversal of wrongful allegation for Termination. Accompanying the complaint is a statement of claim a list of the witness to be called and a list of together with, the documents to be relied upon at the trial. The statement of claim provides as follows — 1. The claimant at all material time was in the emp1oment of the defendant as a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing. College of Business and Social Sciences on CUASS 5 step I by virtue of the defendant’s offer of appointment letter dated 22nd August, 2008. 2. The defendant is a private university within jurisdiction licensed by the National Universities Commission. 3. The claimant worked with the defendant for period on or about 22nd August 2008 to 14th August 2009. 4. The claimant avers that he served the defendant at all relevant times to the best of his ability and complied with the terms of the letter of appointment and Senior Staff Conditions of Service handbook. 5. The claimant was the only academic and professional expert as marketing lecturer in the Marketing Department and thus the Head of Department in marketing. 6. The claimant upon resumption of duty observed the low standard in the marketing department and hitherto award of cheap high grades which he restructured to standard and thus the students performance resulting in a drop in grade level. Official Memo dated 22nd June 2009 of an effort of the claimant at improvement of standard is pleaded in support. 7. This position of improving standard, maintaining proper/right assessment and grading did not augur well with the four students in the 400 level first semester examination in the marketing department which gave rise to their open protest and boycott of lectures conducted by the claimant at the beginning of the second semester. 8. The four students are Miss Tope Ogebule, Miss Funmilayo Owa, Miss Seun Ojo and Miss Adefisayo Akinsanya. 9. The said students’ misconduct was reported by the claimant to the College Board of Examiners and the Dean, Professor Funmi Adewumi, directed Mr .J. B. Osho to warn the students before the four students resumed classes in the second semester. 10. That in a crooked counter plan to manipulate over the result in the second semester examination which is the final year examination of these 400 level students, Miss Tope Ogebule stole the project grading sheets and scripts from the claimant’s office. 11. The claimant avers that Miss Temitope Ogebule also stole the then current/just concluded examination scripts with the intention to make modification on her own and thereafter make a case for undergrading thereon but she was disappointed that her particular script was not among the script she could get access to in the act of stealing within the short moment that the claimant stepped out briefly to visit the toilet. 12. The claimant avers that he made a hand written report of stolen scripts and grading sheets by a female student, Miss Tope Ogebule to the Chief Security Officer of the defendant dated 4th July 2008. 13. The claimant avers that the CSO never made an official response to the report of the claimant. 14. The four students including Miss Temitope Oluwamayowa Ogebule matriculation No. 050201022 had shown animosity to the claimant and openly threatened to deal with him. 15. The said threat was manifested by Miss Ogebule in the sexual harassment filegation which the claimant has denied in writing by his documented responses dated 14th August 2009. 16. The claimant was surprised to receive a letter of invitation to a panel of enquiry to investigate a case of sexual harassment from the Acting Registrar on the instruction of the Vice Chancellor of the defendant dated 13th July 2009. 17. The said invitation letter was met by the claimant on his table in his office when he returned from outside official engagement there about 7:00pm on the same 13th July 2009 for the belated sitting to be held at the Council chamber at 2.00pm prior. 18. The claimant on the same day responded to the invitation letter in writing by his letter dated same 13th July 2009 but delivered the following morning complaining that he had earlier made a criminal report to the Chief Security Officer without a response and also requested for copy of the petition and details of the allegation. 19. The chairman to the panel, Professor Olusola Ojo, telephoned the claimant late on the same l3th July 2009 that the panel had rescheduled the sitting till 9.00am the next day being 14th July 2009. 20. The claimant responded to the chairman on the telephone at about 8:00pm on Monday 13th July 2009 that the notice was too short and why the haste, requesting for at least two (2) days to prepare, appear and receive documents referred to in paragraph 18 above which was turned down by the said panel Chairman. 21. After all persuasive effort by the claimant on Tuesday 14th July 2009 proved abortive, the claimant visited the Vice Chancellor of the defendant in the early morning on Wednesday 15th July 2009 to persuade him in order to prevail over the panel to reschedule appropriately in view of elements of bias, lapses and improper process already highlighted in the response to Prof. Olusola Ojo head of the panel; but the VC along with Prof. B. A. Babalola stated that it was late as the panel had concluded the sitting and presented its report directly to the senate on the same Tuesday 14th July 2009. 22. Indeed the panel sat on Tuesday 14th July 2009 and presented its report to the Senate meeting of the defendant on the same day. 23. The normal channel of report should be to the management committee headed by the Vice Chancellor of the defendant which was not followed. 24. The panel’s report was circulated to extensive members in attendance of the senate on the said date, which is the largest and highest constituted assembly/body in the University which comprises of all heads of department, key officers, representatives of members of units and colleges of the defendant and thus the report can be said to have been circulated to the entire University community. 25. The claimant on the following day 15th July 2009 picked a copy of the Panel’s report on the corridor of the 2nd floor of the offices of the College of Business & Social Science of the defendant as the report had already been circulated to the general University community by the extensive/widest composition of membership of the senate. 26. The claimant avers that the statement of the panel members that “Dr. Akinyemi actually took Miss lope Ogebule to Grace Court Hotel” without concrete and positive evidence that saw the claimant truly convey the student to the hotel, constitutes libel and discredit to his image in the University Community. The report of the panel of enquiry pleaded. 27. The claimant avers that the proper/true administrative procedure to disciplinary provision and investigation is to channel or forward the petition of Tope Ogebule to the Dean of the college, Prof. Funmi Adewumi, who was the claimant’s superior officer; but the administrative procedure was boycotted by the Vice-chancellor. 28. The panel members are Prof. Olusola Ojo, Dr. P. O. Yalokwu, Dr. Bimpe Adenuga, Dr. M. O. Abe and the secretary, Mr. Dotun Oduwole. 29. The claimant avers that he has been libeled by unjustifiable circulation of the committee’s report to the defendant’s report to the defendant’s community and beyond. 30. The claimant however responded to the allegation foremost to the Registrar and the panel by his letter dated 13th July and also to the Management Committee and the Council by his letter dated 14th August 2009. 31. The claimant states that he had as at 4th July 2009 made a report of stealing of scripts and grading sheets from his office to the Chief Security Officer (CSO) of the defendant with mischievous demand for manipulation of result in his personal hand writing duly acknowledged. 32. The above report was officially brought to the attention of the Dean of the College of Business & Social Sciences by the claimant through his internal memo dated 7th July 2009 which the said Dean directed that he should keep pending the outcome of the security unit’s report. 33. Upon the directive of the Dean to follow up the security unit’s report, the claimant contacted the security unit and met with Mr. Moses Ituama (Assistant CSO) who as at date still said that the security unit had no official report to submit on the incident, 34. The claimant avers that on students’ projects, marks are not awarded by the Board of Examiners, the Board of Examiners only meet over sat examinations and the computed semester’s results approval, which is contrary to the false statement of the Registrar’s reply that the Board of Examiners gave marks to Tope Ogebule’s project. 35. The Marketing department of the College of Business where the claimant was the Head of Department (HOD) at the material time, lacked additional qualified academic Marketing personnel apart from the claimant and on the Project Defence panel, the department had to engc :rsonne from ano:her specialty to hair the panel with the claimant and scrdnate as members. The project Jefence panel chairman’s result is subject to ratification and. final decision of the HOD which the claimant had to ratify in his capacity as HOD marketing, particularly because the borrowed chairman is not an expert in marketing. 36. The claimant avers the Project grading marks for Miss Tope Ogebule was not final as yet to be presented officially to the Dean of the College/Board of Examiners when the said student stole the grading sheets that were still under assessment. The defendant was supposed to hand over the student to the police for prosecution on stealing, if the defendant had not been bias and partial. 37. In evidence to the standard that were introduced by the claimant, the claimant avers that he developed, designed and produced the stolen Project Sheet that was used to measure level of quality in standard performance that is expected from marketing students on their project. The defendant never had any particular standard of project grading sheet before the claimant’s tenure and no other department of the college developed grading sheet up to such standard introduced by the claimant in the 2008/2009 academic session. Copy of the grading sheet designed pleaded. 38. The claimant avers that Prof. B. A. Babalola, being a management committee member and the godfather of Miss Tope Ogebule, had once interfered into marketing program schedule before the second semester examination, with demand that the claimant should lower standard/measures which the 400 level students (including Tope Ogebule) were complaining upon. And the claimant did not submit to his request. Hence it is easy for Prof. B. A. Babalola to conspire or/and to support fictitious allegation of Miss Tope Ogebule. 39. The defendant is only persecuting the claimant through conspiracy with and/or support the student to the false allegation of sexual harassment when the godfather of the student who is a top management committee member of the defendant discovered the hard stand of the claimant that the student should be handed over to the police for prosecution. 40. The claimant avers that he worked till 29th July 2009 for the defendant executing and signing official assignments/documents. Thereafter, the claimant along with other academic members of staff commenced the annual leave with the August and September 2009 long vacation as stipulated in the conditions of service, to be the period of leave deemed spent. Copy of official document signed along with other University Functionaries dated 30th July 2009 pleaded. 41. The claimant avers that he is entitled to 56 working days leave deemed to be enjoyed in the long vacation of August and September for senior staff. 42. The defendant is in gross inadequacy of infrastructures and personnel as such there is just one small room (not up to 10 x 10 ft office which the claimant and his subordinate shared as office for the whole marketing programme administration. There is no extra/waiting room where marketing programme students could be attended to separately. There was also no administrative support staff for the office of the HOD which the claimant held. 43. The claimant avers that he contributed so much sacrifice in service to the defendant in doing extra job of at least two support staff that should have been provided i.e. the secretary and office assistance. As such the claimant always worked late hours which was not appreciated by the defendant. 44. The above inadequacies led to the easy stealing by the student Tope Ogebule. 45. The claimant’s demand that the defendant should pay compensation for conveniences, sacrifices and stress suffer in service to the defendant was rebuffed. 46. The claimant avers that the defendant is unjustifiably determined to relieve the claimant of his services with the defendant when he suffered with her to secure her interim accreditation by Nigeria Universities Commission at the time of her teething financial and infrastructural problems and send him away empty handed which is at variance with the labour law. 47. The claimant avers that being the HOD of marketing program he was the legitimate custodian of scripts and grading sheet of students that are still undergoing courses in marketing program. This true position contradicts and exposes the willful and wrong view of the defendant’s legal officer that Miss Tope Ogebule (a student at the material time) who stole grading sheets and scripts should not be accused of stealing since the defendant’s management got the material delivered to them through another illegitimate custodian. 48. The claimant avers that the defendant’s usual act of non-compliance with administrative rules and procedures was the basis of her wrong allegation against the claimant and evidence of similar act of non-compliance with administrative rules has been established through another confusion that occurred in “foundation class examination”. The confusion was created by non-adherence to administrative rules and route in similar partiality in favour of the Vice Chancellor’s friend (Dr. R. I. Akindele). The claimant was a member of the committee that investigated the confusion and recommended strict adherence to administrative routes and procedure as part of the decisions reached. Committee’s report pleaded. 49. The claimant avers that the defendant is generally poor in standard and administrative setting, procedure and its compliance; while the claimant have stepped on toes when he maintained stand that administrative rules and procedures must be followed even in investigation of allegation. 50. The claimant further avers that the defendant has also been defrauding by not remitting the monthly pension deduction along with the employer’s equal part contribution to the claimant’s pension fund agent (PTA), FUG Pensions Limited since the end of March 2009 after notification letter of the pension account opened for the claimant was advised to the defendant. Copy of notification letter pleaded. 51. The claimant avers that the total sum of about N5l,823.68k Naira, Fifty-One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty-Three and Sixty Eight Kobo) has been deducted from his salary over a period of about nine months which the defendant ought to have remitted to the PFA along with the equal part contribution of the employer, and the bursar in his official capacity bluntly told the claimant that the defendant did not remit the claimant’s pension fund to the PFA and the defendant will not remit it until the end of this case which had not even been instituted then. The empty statement of account as at 10/12/2009 from FUG is pleaded. 52. The defendant refused to heed to the warning even when she reminded of the provision of the Pensions Act No. 2 (2004) clause 11.5b which stipulated not later than seven working days to remit full pension contribution to PFA every month. 53. The claimant avers that by the provision of Pensions Act No. 2 (2004), the claimant’s pension funds should have been accruing on his pension account but the defendant deprived the claimant of same. Hence the defendant should pay penalty and total amount due (i.e. N103,647.36) as stipulated in section 11.7 of the Pensions Act and pay compensation/damages for agony suffered in depriving him of functional pension account. 54. The defendant telephoned the claimant midway in the annual leave period on 14th August 2009 and served the claimant with backdated Letter of Termination dated 20th July 2009 with effect from 23rd 2009; despite record of official functions which the claimant executed till 30th July 2009, which exposed the falsehood and mischievous calculation to deprive the claimant of his due entitlement. 55. The claimant avers that the letter of termination was backdated to deprive him of balance of July 2009 salary and the fifty-six working days annual leave period salary. 56. The claimant avers that the reason given for termination on allegation of gross misconduct is untrue an unjust since the defendant refused the claimant’s call for correction to the illegal process and non-provision of the specifics of the allegation. 57. The claimant avers that the unjust reason for termination was devised by the defendant in order to avoid payment of three months’ salary in lieu of notice. 58. The claimant by his response dated 14th August 2009 also demanded that the defendant should review, reverse and make restitution in the interest of peace within the 21 days ultimatum given and the defendant headed not to it. 59. The defendant has also refused to pay about N45,000.00 wages due to the claimant for the Foundation Programme Academic Schedule job carried out. 60. The claimant further made complaint of cheating against the defendant to the Federal Ministry of Labour and the Ministry arranged a meeting with both parties in attendance before the Ministry arrived at the conclusion that the defendant is liable to settle the claimant’s arrears of salary in lieu of notice apart from outstanding salaries yet unpaid. The Ministry’s letter dated 19th November 2009 is pleaded. 61. The defendant has refused to heed to the advice of the Ministry to invite the claimant for amicable settlement in spite of the fact that the legal officer of the defendant who represented the defendant at the meeting was communicated by the Ministry’s letter dated 11th November 2009, and was directed to deliver the decision of the Ministry to the defendant before the letter follows. Ministry’s invitation is pleaded. 62. The claimant’s solicitor wrote a letter dated 12th October 2009 to the defendant on the claimant’s mode of termination of appointment which was responded to by the defendant’s Acting Registrar S. O. Adeoye dated 11th November 2009 with written comments by S. A. Lateef, legal officer. 63. The claimant has also made further clarification to the false presentation in the defendant’s reply to the claimant’s solicitor and the clarification dated 23rd November 2009 is pleaded. 64. The claimant made complaint of crimes of stealing, examination malpractice offences along with conspiracy and abetting of crime to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Zone 2. Headquarters, Nigeria Police Force, Lagos by his letters dated 11th September 2009. 65. The claimant further made complain: to the Commissioner of Police, State Head Quarters, Abeokuta by his petition dated 1st September 2009. 66. The claimant avers that prior to the institution of this suit he had taken the painstaking steps towards amicable resolution to which the defendant have failed, refused and or neglected to heed. 67. The claimant shall at the trial rely on all above referred and relevant documents at the trial. The defendant entered and filed a memorandum of appearance dated 2nd February 2010. The defendant also filed a preliminary objection dated 2nd February 2010 challenging the jurisdiction of this court. The grounds of the objection are that— (a) The subject matter of this action falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court. (b) All parties necessary for the effective and complete resolution of the issues thrown up by the claimant’s statement of claim are not before the court, accordingly the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the case. The defendant then urged that at the hearing of the preliminary objection, it will rely on the statement of claim and some of the documents filed by the claimant in this case. The preliminary objection is supported by a 6-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Tunji Oduntan, a counsel in the Chambers of Messrs M. A.O. Okulaja & Co., the counsel to the defendant. For present purposes, the critical paragraph of the said affidavit is paragraph 5 wherein the deponent deposed that — (5) Mr. M. A. O. Okulaja SAN the lead counsel to the defendant informed me and I verily believe in him that: a. The case which the claimant has brought to court is a purely master and servant matter. b. The case involves purely interpretation of the terms of contract between the parties as evidenced by the letter of appointment. c. The live issues to be resolved in this case concern the amorous relationship of the claimant with one of the students in the defendant University namely Miss Tope Ogebule. d. Miss Tope Ogebule features prominently in the statement of claim of the claimant. Indeed she is mentioned directly or indirectly in at least 37 paragraphs out of the 68 paragraphs of the statement of claim. e. Miss Ogebule is a NECESSARY PARTY to this suit and without her presence and participation in this case vital issues in this case cannot be resolved. f. This case cannot be completely and effectively resolved if Miss Tope Ogebule is not joined as a defendant in this suit. g. The onus is on the claimant to join all the parties necessary to invest the court with jurisdiction. h. The claimant deliberately and maliciously out of mischief omitted to include Miss Tope Ogebule from this case kwnowing fully well that the inclusion of Miss Tope Ogebule will expose the emptiness and frivolity or the claimant’s ease. In reaction to the preliminary objection, the claimant filed an 11-paragraphed counteraffidavit deposed to by the claimant himself. For present purposes, the critical paragraphs of the counter-affidavit are paragraphs 4 — 10, which are as follows- 4. That I am informed by my counsel M. A. Savage Esq. that paragraphs 5(a), (b), (c), (e), (I), (g) and (h) excluding (d) are incorrect, unfounded or mischievous. 5. That my claims are as contained in the endorsement on the general form of complaint dated 6th day of January 2010. 6. That having read the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and rules 2007 I verily believe this Court has jurisdiction on the subject matter of this action to entertain this suit. 7. That the necessary party for the effective and complete resolution of this suit is before the court. 8. That the suit is centred around labour relations. 9. That I am informed by M. A. Savage Esq., my counsel, that Miss Tope Ogebule though mentioned in the suit is not a necessary party for the effective and complete resolution of the suit and that issue of proper parties can only be an irregularity and not fatal though same is denied. 10. That I am desirous for a speedy resolution of my claims by this Court. Parties orally argued the preliminary objection. To the learned SAN, the jurisdiction of this court is governed by section 7 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006. The learne SAN went on to refer the court to section 7(6) of the NIC Act. To him, in determining jurisdiction, it is the claims and pleadings of the claimant that are relevant, referring to Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul Raheem [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 at 126. The learned SAN then submitted that regarding claim (j) of the claimant, he does not really know that the claimant expects the court to do. Furthermore, that claims (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) are all claims in debt and so this court has no jurisdiction. The learned SAN continued that the other leg of his argument is that all the parties necessary for the resolution of this matter are not before the court, referring to Santa Fe Drillin Nig. Ltd v. Awala [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 623 at 629 and Ayorinde v. Oni [2000] 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 348 at 361 and urging the court to look at the claims of the claims of the claimant more closely especially claims (e) and (i). In any event, that the claimant did not actual indicate against whom the claims are. In reaction, the counsel to the claimant opposed all the prayers of the preliminary objection and then relied on all the depositions in the said counter-affidavit. Counsel agreed that the relevant provision on jurisdiction of this court is section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 especially section 7(l)(a)(i) and (ii) and (6). To counsel, there is only one defendant in this case, Crawford University. That by necessary implication, the claims can only be against that one defendant, referring to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the statement of claims. Citing section 7(1) (a)(i) of the NIC Act 2006, counsel submitted that the relationship between the parties dwells on the issue of labor . For the definition of “trade dispute”, counsel referred to section 47 of the Trade Dispute) Act Cap. 432 LFN 1990; submitting that a trade dispute as so defined is applicable to the present dispute in issue. To counsel, claim (j) is a labour related claim and, therefore, comes within the jurisdiction of this court. Regarding the other claims, particular (a)-(h) excluding (e), counsel submitted that those claims are incidental or ancillar to claim (j) and, therefore, by virtue of section 7(1)(a)(ii), they come within the jurisdicon of this court. On leg of the learned SAN’s argument dealing with parties, counsel referred to Green v. Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 at 482 — 483 and submitted that the necessary party ir this case is the defendant before the court. To counsel, nonjoinder of proper or desirab parties cannot be fatal to deciding a case. That Miss Tope Ogebule referred to by lean ad SAN and first referred to in paragraph 8 of the statement of claim cannot be a necessa y party as the claimant has no claim against her. At best she can only be a desirable party or a witness. That even the case of Santa Fe supports his contention that non-joinder of desirable and proper parties is not fatal to a case. Counsel then submitted that the competent party is the defendant on record. Counsel concluded that all the ingredients for this court to assume jurisdiction have been satisfied and urged the court to assume jurisdiction. He also urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection with cost. In reacting on points of law, the learned SAN submitted that if the court holds that claim (j) is meaningless then it presupposes that all the claims must fail, urging the court to grant the a preliminary objection. We have carefully considered all the processes filed in this matter and the oral submissions of the parties. The key issue for the determination of this court is whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at hand. As pointed out by the parties themselves, it is the originating processes (the complaint and the statement of claim) if the claimant that determined the cause of action and hence whether or not the court h s jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court is essentially statutory and in the case of this ourt, as again pointed out by the parties, is provided for in section 7 of the NIC Act 2006. A look at that provision will reveal that this court inter alia has jurisdiction over ct .ises and matters relating to labour, trade unions, industrial relations, environment and cc iditions of work, health, safety and welfare of labour, and matters incidental thereto For any matter falling within the purview of section 7 of the NIC Act, this court will have the jurisdiction to entertain same. But the Supreme Court had cautioned that for a court to have jurisdiction, the main issue at stake is what will determine the Jurisdiction of the court. See Oloruntoba-Oju v. AbdulRaheem, supra The question that arises, therefore, is what is the main issue at stake regarding the originating processes of the claimant? In claim (j), which counsel to the claimant acknowledged in open court as the gravamen of their claims against the defendant, the claimant is claiming for the ‘Reversal of wrongful allegation for termination’. A careful look at this claim reveals that what the claimant is concerned with is allegation that resulted in the termination of his employment. The claimant is not concerned about reinstatement, as this is not even prayed for, but to have the court reverse the wrongful allegation against him. This explains why the claimant is categorical in claim (e) about being ompensated to the tune of 10 million Naira for the libel against him. A look at paragraphs 1-39, 42, 44, 46-49, 63-65 of the statement of claim shows that they relate more to the issue of libel than employment or labour. In fact when asked in open court, counsel to the claimant acknowledged that the claimant is primarily concerned with his traduced reputation. If this be the case, then the claimant is in the wrong court. This court has no jurisdiction over matters relating to libel. Nowhere in section 7 of the NIC Act will anything be found related to or associated with libel, slander or defamation. In cIaim (i), the claimant wants this court to order the Nigeria Police Force or other government agencies (the agencies are not specified) to investigate and prosecute any culpab e persons. This court under section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 does not have criminal jurisdiction over any matter. So, we wonder how and by what process the claimant expect us to arrive at the conclusion of culpability of any person for purposes of the order compelling the police or other relevant government agencies to investigate and prosecite sought for by the claimant. Claim (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) are couched as salary/wages and allowances and interest thereon. To the learned SAN they represent claims in debt, which this court has no jursdiction to entertain. Salaries/wages and allowances due to an employee can be claimed before this court. To that extent, we do not agree with the learned SAN that this court cannot entertain a claim for salary and wages by an employee. The problem here is that the claimant is not pursuing claims (a), (b), (c), (d), (i and (g) as the main cause of action. The statement of claim as indicated earlier is replete with paragraphs that have little nothing to do with these claims. Even in those paragraphs that these claims are indicated, not much can be discerned. For instance, in paragraph 40 of the statement of claim, the claimant admitted that he worked for the defendant till 29th July 2009 and thereafter along with other academic members of staff commenced the annual leave for the period August — September 2009. Yet, the claimant in claim (c) is claiming for payment of 56 working days leave deemed to enjoyed in the long vacation of August and September 2009, which sum is N335,952.84k. The learned SAN also argued that since the claimant did not specifically state against whom he is claiming in both the complaint and the statement of claim, the action of the clainn.if must be declared incompetent. Here we agree with the claimant’s submissionthat thre is only one party on the face of the originating processes and so it must be taken that it is that party that the claims are made against. The learned SAN made an issue in his second leg of argument that Miss Tope Ogebule is copiously referred to in the statement of claim that she ought to have been made a party to this action since those issues relating to her cannot be resolved if she is not a party. The bulk of the matters averred to by the claimant in the statement of claim and which relate to Miss Ogebule are all matters that relate to libel and the conduct of examination, not emaloyment or labour — matters that this court has no jurisdiction over. So, the argument regarding the suitability or otherwise of Miss Ogebule as a necessary or desirable party in this suit goes to no issue. On the whole, we hold that the cause of action of the claimant in the main deals with libel, not employment for which this court does not have jurisdiction. The claims for salary are merely incidental. We, therefore, decline jurisdiction to hear and determine the case at hand. The case is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ruling is entered accordingly. We make no order as to cost. ___________________________ Hon. Justice. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge _______________________ _______________________ Hon. Justice U. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge