Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Damian Uneze 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"; mso-bidi-language:HE">E. S. Njoku for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">E. S. Njoku with the brief of Taiwo Julius for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.5in;text-indent:.5in"><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">This action was commenced by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 4<sup>th</sup> day of February 2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The sum of N5,640,000.00 representing thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[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">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The sum of N900,000.00 being the value of the Passat Wagon Vehicle<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[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">b.<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">N90,000.00 being the value of the HP Laptop<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[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">c.<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">N350,000.00 being the value of the Hyalgan drugs<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo6"><!--[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">d.<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">N4,200,000.00 being profit tag for 12 months<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo5"><!--[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">25% interest of the aforesaid N5,640,000.00 from 29<sup>th</sup> January 2014 until judgment is delivered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The 2nd and 3rd defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain this suit, same being incompetent and incurably defective. <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">The grounds upon which this preliminary objection is based are: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Non-compliance with the Rules of Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Non-compliance with the Sheriff's and Civil Process Act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The crux of the matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">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">The rule of criminal liability <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">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">Failure to serve the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant the originating processes 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-bidi-language:HE">The objection is supported by an affidavit of 3 paragraphs.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> In the accompanying written address,</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:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel distilled the following issues for determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.15pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<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-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the Claimant is competent to commence this action?</span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:39.15pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo3"><!--[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]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Considering the claims and document attached in support, whether this Honourable court has jurisdiction to entertain this claim as constituted considering the facts of the claims.</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">On issue one; Counsel argued that the issue of the competence of a Claimant is so vital and important that it touches on the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is therefore important that where it is raised, the trial court is bound to make a decision on it one way or the other. See <b>JABCOM LIMITED </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">& ANOR vs. OGIMS ELECTRICALS (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 153 at 182</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">. It is Counsel’s contention that the Claimant did not comply with Order 2(1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court. Since the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants have not taken any step in this matter, they are not caught up with the said provisions. Counsel urged the Court to set aside the complaint for non-compliance with the Rules of this Honourable </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Court as same is capable of bringing untold hardship to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants respectively. </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Regarding the second leg of this objection, counsel referred the Court to Order 7, Rule 10 of the Rules of this Court, where it provides as follows:<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">“where any person out of jurisdiction of the court is a necessary </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">proper party in a matter before the court and it is necessary to serve that person with the originating process </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">other document relating to the matter, the court may allow service of the process </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">or </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">such other document out of jurisdiction"<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">He argued that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">this provision allows the Claimant to serve originating processes outside the jurisdiction of court with the leave of court and where that leave is not sought and obtained, enrolled and attached to the processes it goes to the root of the matter and also denies the court of its jurisdiction and the proper steps to be taken by the court is that of setting aside the Complaint for non-compliance - See also Order 5, Rule 1 and 2, Section 97 of the Sherriff's and Civil Process Act LFN 2004 and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <b>B.B.N. Ltd vs. OLAYIWOLA </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">SONS LTD (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 434</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">. He argued further that the service of the complaints upon the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2<sup>nd </sup>Defendants was not accompanied with an order of this Honourable Court granting leave to serve outside jurisdiction, neither was the provision of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act complied with as it appears on the face of the originating process served on the 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant, which robs the court of its jurisdiction. In the same vein, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant was not served neither did she receive the originating processes of this Honourable Court, which is also a matter that goes to the root of this case and same has robbed the court of its jurisdiction. See <b>DAHIM MOHAMMED vs. TAJU MUSTAPHA (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 292)</b>. Counsel referred to the case of <b>TENO ENG. LTD. </b><b>vs. ADISA (2005) 22 NSCQR 858</b> where the court held that, <i>"failure </i><i>to serve process where service of process is required is failure which goes to the root of jurisdiction of the Court.”</i> Counsel submitted, citing the case of <b>ALH. J. A. ODUTOLA vs. INSP. KAYODE (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 324) 1 at 22 paras B-C</b>, that any proceeding in such a case is a nullity.<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:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Further, counsel submitted that based on the claims of the Claimant in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the statement of facts alleging criminal liability on the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendants. The cardinal principle that there </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">is no liability without fault remains extant because there is no criminal liability between the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in this suit as the entire statement of facts did not disclose any personal relationship whether that of master/servant or employer/employee relationship between the Claimant and the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to have to warrant criminal liability on the side of the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">2<sup>nd </sup>and 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant neither was there any proof of connivance, collusion or conspiracy alleged even if same is alleged, it should be properly tried in the criminal court. Generally, criminal liability and/or responsibility are not transferable. Only persons connected with a crime can be liable. See <b>AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK </b><b>vs. OKONKWO & Ors (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 480) 194</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:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted further that it has been established by the Supreme Court, that criminal allegation against an employee as a fact forming his dismissal or for indemnity of whatever damages that may have been incurr<span style="color:#686E6D">e</span>d<span style="color:#686E6D">, </span>need to be proved. Counsel referred the Court to the case of <b>GARBA vs. UNIMAID (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550</b>, where the court stated that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">where </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">person is accused </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:79%;mso-bidi-language:HE">of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">criminal offence he must first be tried in </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">a </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">court of law. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In conclusion<span style="color:#575F5D">, </span>Counsel urged the court to hold that the present suit as constituted lacks merit, is a breach of the fundamental human rights of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendants, robs the court of its inherent jurisdiction and same should be set aside for want of jurisdiction and non-compliance with the required rules and status creating and regulating the 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;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";mso-bidi-language:HE">In reaction, the Claimant filed a Counter affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Dorathy Onyeali, the litigation clerk of Damian Uneze & Co, Ahamefule Chambers. In the accompanying 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"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:120%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether the granting of this application will work hardship on the Claimant/Respondent. </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#575F5D;mso-bidi-language:HE"><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-font-width:117%;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:117%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is counsel’s submission that the granting of this application will work hardship on the Claimant/Respondent. He submitte<span style="color:#454F4D">d further </span>that this suit is brought in compliance with the Rules of this Honourable Court. See Order 2 Rule 3 of National Industrial Court Rules 2007. In determining a preliminary objection to jurisdiction, the Court will consider only the writ of summons and the statement of claim. See <b>GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE vs. LAFIAGI (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt 917) 139 at 151</b>. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE">It is Counsel’s contention that the issue of jurisdiction as raised by the Applicant does not apply in this suit. The whole of Nigeria is the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. See Sections 21 (1) and 12 (2) of the NICN Act 2006. By the Provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Rules of this Honourable Court, there is no where it is made mandatory that leave of court must be sought and obtained before service out of jurisdiction. See the case of <b>CWAY NIG. DRINKING WATER SCIENCE </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:121%;mso-bidi-language:HE">& </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">TECHNOLOGYCOMPANY LTD vs. COMRADE CHIEF CHRIS ORUGE </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:126%;mso-bidi-language:HE">&</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">4 ORS </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-bidi-language:HE">in<b> SUIT No. OW/07/2015</b> a ruling of this Court delivered on 29-9-15, where the Court held that the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:117%">whole federation is the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. Thus, the case cited by the Applicant in this suit does not apply. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 116%;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-font-width:117%"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:117%">It is also counsel’s submission that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was accordingly served as the affidavit of service and evidence of mobilization for the service of the process by speed post on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is available. The essence of service is to bring to the notice of the Defendant that there is a pending suit against him or her<span style="color:#525A59">. </span>The said 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is before this Honourable Court and should therefore not deny been served with the Court's processes. He further submitted that where the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondents were duly informed that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defen<span style="color:#525A59">d</span>ant has converted the Claimant's property into his own personal use and the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants supported the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, there is every presumption that they are all acting together. The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants in their guarantors form signed that they will indemnify the Claimant in the event of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant running away with Claimant's properties. The case of the Claimant before this court is that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants should fulfill the conditions of their guarantorship. Counsel referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of <b>ONUOHA vs. C.O.P (1959) SCNLR 75</b> where it held that it is the duty of the courts to ignore technicalities where they obstruct the primary duty of the Courts to do substantial justice in any matter before it. In conclusion, counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:113%">submitted that this suit complies with the rules of this court and therefore does not rob the court of its jurisdiction. He urged</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:117%"><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%">the Court to dismiss this application with punitive cost as it is brought in bad faith. <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-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant also filed a Preliminary objection </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%">pursuant to Order 2 Rules 1 & 2, of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 97 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:92%">& </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%">99 of The Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap 407 Laws of the Federation 2004 and Section 6(6) (A&B) of The 1999 Constitution seeking for</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:116%;mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:90%">an order </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">of the Honourable Court striking out the Writ of summons and setting aside its service on the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant for being incompetent and incurably defective such that the Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The grounds upon which this Application is brought are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">a.<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"">The Writ of Summons issued in this suit was meant for service on the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant out of the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">b.<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"">The Writ of Summons does not contain the mandatory endorsement as required by Section 97 & 99 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap 407 Laws of Federation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">c.<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"">The conditions precedent for the issuance of the said writ outside jurisdiction of this court was not fulfilled by the Claimant hence the Writ is voidable and liable to be struck out. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">d.<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"">The jurisdiction of the court has not being properly activated to entertain the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The motion is supported by a 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Mrs Uzoma Chibuzo, a litigation secretary at the office of D. O. Agbo Esq., counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. In the accompanying written address, Counsel proposed three issues for determination as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">i.<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 writ of summons issued in this suit and meant for service outside the jurisdiction of this court on the 1<sup>st</sup>defendant, complied with the mandatory endorsement as required by Section 97 99 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap 407 Laws of Federation 2004 and Order 2, Rules 1&2 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:105%">ii.<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"">And if the Writ of Summons meant for service outside jurisdiction of this court on the 1<sup>st</sup> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Defendant, did not comply with the conditions precedent as required by Section 97 & 99 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap 407 Laws of Federation 2004; whether the jurisdiction of the court has being properly activated, especially when it is raised timeously.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:105%">iii.<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 jurisdictional venue to commence this suit was properly activated and complied <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With in Order 2, Rules 1 & 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, especially when it is raised timeously.<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 for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s arguments on the three issues are repetitive of the arguments proffered by the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants’ Counsel. Bearing in mind that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant noted his desire to place reliance on the preliminary objection summarized above, there will be no need to rehash his arguments.<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"">He urged the Court to resolve the issues in the application in the affirmative and to grant this application in the interest of justice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#394241;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The Defendants, in their respective Preliminary Objections, contend that this suit is incompetent and this court consequently lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The grounds upon which the Defendants rely in their contention, as have been set out earlier in this ruling, can be summed up 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: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. That the Complaint, which was served outside jurisdiction of this court, violates the rules of court and the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. That there was non-compliance with the rules of court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">iii. That the subject matter of this suit falls outside the jurisdiction of the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">iv. That the rule of criminal liability affects this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">v. That the 3rd Defendant was not served the originating processes in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I will determine the applications by examining these grounds of the NPOs one after the other.<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"><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">GROUND I:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, he raised 4 grounds, but a look at the grounds show that they are to the same effect. That is that the Complaint, which was served outside jurisdiction of this court, violates the rules of court and the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. The 2<sup>nd</sup> ground of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants is also on this issue. In the affidavit in support of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, I cannot find any deposition of fact therein to support this very ground of their objection. It was however deposed in the affidavit in support of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was served with the Complaint on 21<sup>st</sup> May, 2015 in the police cell at the Area Command Police Station Owerri Imo State. It was also deposed that the Complaint meant for service on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant outside the jurisdiction of this court was not endorsed in accordance with the requirement of the law and that the mandatory period as return date was also not endorsed on the Complaint served on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. In response to the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, the Claimant’s counter affidavit contain that t</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">his suit falls within the jurisdiction of this court as the whole of Nigeria is the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, and that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is only one court and </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">its Divisions </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">are for convenience sake</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">. The submissions of the Defendants counsels in respect of this issue in the respective </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">s is that since the Complaint was to be served on the Defendants outside jurisdiction of this court, leave of court is required to issue and serve the Complaint out of jurisdiction and the Complaint must carry the endorsement stipulated in section </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">97 of Sheriff and Civil Processes Act</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 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 determining this ground of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">, let me first point it out that the cases of </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">NWABUEZE vs. OKOYE, </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">JABCOM LTD vs. OGIMS ELECTRICALS, SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD vs. UKEY, EZOMO vs. OYAKHIRE, ADEGOKE MOTORS LTD vs. ADESANYA</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> etcetera relied on by counsels to the Defendants in their arguments on this issue are cases where the originating processes were issued by State High Courts and the rules of those courts came under consideration. I do not think the principle of law in those cases will apply to this case. This is because going by the NIC Act and the Rules of this court, a different position is obtainable with respect to the originating process of this court. Section 21(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“The court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose, the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the president of the court into such number of judicial divisions as the President may from time to time, by instrument published in the Federal Gazette decide”. </span></i></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:153.0pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:153.0pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This provision makes it very clear that the whole of the Federation of Nigeria is a single jurisdiction for the NIC. This Division is a division of the NIC for administrative convenience only and as such, it does not have exclusive territorial jurisdiction restricted to Imo State as we have with the States High Courts. Therefore, service of the processes of this court on the Defendants in another State of the Federation is not service out of jurisdiction as to require the leave of the court to issue and serve the complaint on the Defendants. Under Order 7 Rule 10 of the rules of this court, leave of this court is only required to serve the process of this court on a Defendant who is out of jurisdiction of this court, that is, outside the territory of Nigeria. Going by this position, it thus implies that processes issued from this court to be served within Nigeria do not require the endorsement in Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil processes Act. <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;">This issue raised by the Defendants with respect to the applicability of the provision 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.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In a judgment of the NIC in 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, His Lordship, B. B. Kanyip, held that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">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. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I have similarly expressed the same view in my ruling delivered on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">28<sup>th</sup> April 2014 in</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> suit No. </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">NICN/OW/38/2013 between UGOALA CHIDINMA JOY (MRS.) vs. ABIA STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD & 4 others</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> where </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I observed that:</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“I agree with the submission of the claimant to the effect that Sections 97 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act do not apply to processes emanating from this Court. The emphasis on service out of the State in which it was issued cannot be applicable to this Court especially if Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, which permits the Court not to be formal, is taken note of. Therefore, </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">objections based on failure of a Claimant to seek leave to issue an originating process or make the endorsement required by S.97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act on the complaint are bound to be dismissed as it was done in OLAMIJU v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE (Unreported) NIC/LA/157/2011…<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">By Section 21(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, “The court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose, the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the president of the court into such number of judicial divisions as the President may from time to time, by instrument published in the Federal Gazette decide”. Given the National geographic jurisdiction of the court, the National Industrial Court generally holds that it is not contemplated under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act 2004 for the purposes of the requirements of especially Section 97 thereof. Besides, it is specifically noted that this division of the court was established to entertain cases emanating from Imo State, Abia State and indeed Rivers State. The thought of issuing processes for service out of jurisdiction in strict compliance with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act would be misplaced.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This position was also taken in </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, in view of the position of this court on the application of Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to the originating process issued from this court and the nationwide jurisdiction conferred on this court in Section 21 of the NIC Act, I find that this ground of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> has no merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:185.25pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:185.25pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Before I let this issue rest, I must comment on the deposition of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in paragraph 3 (b) of his affidavit. It was averred that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was served the Complaint here in Owerri. That is to say he was not served outside this Division. I then wonder whether he has any basis at all to make any complaint about the Complaint served on him. <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"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND II</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">:</span><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In their respective </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">s, the Defendants raised the issue that the Claimant did not comply with the rules of this court with respect to venue where this action was commenced. According to the counsels to the Defendants, this Division of NIC is not the proper Division to hear this matter. They relied on the provision of Order 2, Rules 1 and 2 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-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">Rules 1 and 2 of the said Order 2 of the rules of this court provide-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“1. Subject to the provisions of the Act on transfer of suits, an originating process in respect of a matter in which the court has jurisdiction shall be filed in any registry of court nearest to where the Defendant or Respondent resides or has presence or in which the Defendant or Respondent carries on business.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">2. Where there are several Defendants or Respondents who resides or carry on business in different Judicial divisions, the suit may be commenced in anyone of those Judicial Divisions subject to any order or direction of the Court as the most convenient arrangement for trial of the suit.”<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-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In view of the above provision of the rules, I have difficulty comprehending the essence of this ground of the objection because the Defendants did not direct any facts to that line of their objection. It is only in paragraph 3 (e) of the supporting affidavit of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> the fact was merely stated that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">the proper jurisdictional venue to commence this suit was also not complied with in acco<span style="color:#676E70">r</span>dance with the requirement of the Rules of this Court. There is no averment at all to explain how the proper jurisdictional venue or how the requirement of the rules as per venue was not complied with by the Claimant. Only the counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was a little helpful in his written address in explaining where the Defendants were going with this ground of the objection. According to the counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, the address for service on the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is indicated to be at Lagos but this suit was commence in Owerri Division</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">against the provisions of the rules that an originating process shall be filed in any registry of the court nearest to where the Defendant resides.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"><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;">If I understand the Defendants’ contention on this ground of the objection properly, they are saying that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">this suit ought not to be filed in this Division because the addresses for service on the defendants are not within this Division. The addresses for service on the defendants as indicated on the Complaint are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(1)<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: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">KAREEM IZIAKAYINDE of No. 7, Sanni Street, Near Peninsula Hospital, Awoyaya, Ibeju Lekki, Lagos State.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(2)<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: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">MR. FAGBAMILA ALABA YOMI of national lottery Regulation Commission, Abuja<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(3)<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: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">MISS OMOARELOJIE BRIDGET of Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abuja, Nigeria.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Going by the provision of Order 2, Rules 1 and 2 of the rules of this court, this suit ought to be filed in the court nearest to where the Defendants resides or carry on business. Let me first state that the fact that the addresses for service on the Defendants are stated on the Complaint to be in Lagos and Abuja respectively does not mean that the Defendants resides in those locations. Where the Defendants reside is a matter of fact and the Defendants have not shown to this court that the Defendants reside in those addresses at Abuja or Lagos stated on the complaint. The Defendants merely capitalized on what the Claimant indicted to be the addresses for service. <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;">Secondly, assuming that the Defendants reside in Lagos or Abuja, as they want this court to believe, does it render this suit, filed in Owerri Division, incompetent? </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant’s cause of action arose from the contract of employment entered into with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and which the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s guaranteed. In paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Claimant’s statement of facts, the Claimant averred that the contract was entered into in Owerri and to be performed in Owerri. It is now trite that suits arising from contract may be commenced where the contract was entered into or where the contract was performed or to be performed or where the defendant resides or carries on business. See <b>E.B. CO. LTD. vs. AMOBI (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 381 at 402; F.B.N. PLC vs. IBRAHIM (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 172. </b>It is thus clear that the forum where the claimant may commence this action is not limited to<span style="color:red"> </span>where the defendants reside but includes where the cause of action arose or<span style="color:red"> </span>where the contract was entered into or where the contract was to be performed. The facts in the Claimant’s statement of fact contain that the contract between the parties in this case was entered in Owerri, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s employment was to be performed in Owerri and the cause of action arose in Owerri. For these reasons, it is my view that this suit is competent before this Division of the NIC.<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;">Notwithstanding the forgoing, assuming without not so holding that this suit was filed in the wrong Judicial Division, the jurisdiction of this court to continue to hear the suit is not at all affected. Rule 3 of Order 2 of the Rules of this court states: <b><i>“where any suit is commenced in the wrong judicial Division, it may be tried in that Division unless the President of the court otherwise Directs.”. </i></b>It is thus clear that the fact that a suit is filed in a Judicial Division, in which it ordinarily ought not to be filed, is not a valid ground to object to the jurisdiction of the court or the competence of the suit.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> The only remedy which, in my view, may be available to the Defendants, in respect of this ground of their objection, is to apply for a transfer of the suit and not to seek to dismiss or strike out the suit. And such transfer can only be made by the President of the Court. This ground of the Preliminary Objection also fails.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:red"><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"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND III</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the 3<sup>rd</sup> ground of the Preliminary Objection by the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, they have contended that the subject matter of this suit falls outside the jurisdiction of the court. There is, however, no facts averred in this respect in their affidavit nor did the counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant address this court on this ground of the objection. I will therefore not waste time on this point. After a careful study of the facts of the Claimant’s case, I find that the case is </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">related to or connected with labour or employment matter. The suit </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">comes within the provision of Section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Therefore, I hold that this case comes within the subject matters on which this court has jurisdiction. <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"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND IV</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the argument of the counsel to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants on this ground of the objection, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants appear to misunderstand the Claimant’s claims against them. To them the Claimant’s case alleged a criminal liability and according to their counsel, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants have to be tried first for the alleged offence. I do not buy into this contention of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants. The Claimant’s case against the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, as pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 14 of the statement of facts is that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants guaranteed the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s employment and undertook to indemnify the Claimant of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s liabilities to the Claimant. The Claimant also averred that since the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has run away with the Claimant’s goods, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s are liable for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s liability to the Claimant. I do not see the allegations against the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants amounting to criminal allegation. In my view, the Claimant can sue the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants on the liability arising from their undertaking without necessarily waiting for any criminal trial for any alleged offence arising from the said undertaking.<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"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND V</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 5<sup>th</sup> ground of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants’ Preliminary Objection is that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was not served the originating processes in this suit. In paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of the supporting affidavit, it was deposed on behalf of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was not served with the Complaint but only a hearing notice dated 11<sup>th</sup> May, 2015 was served on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. In response to this allegation, it was deposed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Claimant’s counter affidavit that the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width: 117%;mso-bidi-language:HE">3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant was served the originating process </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">because the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant could not have acknowledged the receipt of a hearing notice without being served the originating processes.<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"">The duty to convince this court that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant has been served the Complaint in this suit is that of the Claimant. The facts of the Claimant’s counter affidavit have not convinced this court that the Complaint was served on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. I have looked at the record of this court for proof of service of the Complaint on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant but what I find is proof of service of hearing notice which she received on 15/5/2015. I cannot find any evidence that the complaint was served on the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant. <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"">But can non-service of the Complaint on only the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant render this suit incompetent? I think not. The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants have been served and they are all before the court. That is to say the suit can proceed against the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants. This suit is not affected by non-service of the complaint on the 3rd defendant. Let me mention that this court is a court of law and equity. It is not over burdened by the technical rules of practice and procedure obtainable in other High Courts of record. Here, we tend more towards substantial justice than technical rules. Having said this bit, since the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant has now complained that the complaint was not served on her, I can only order that she be served, through the counsel now representing her in these proceedings, moreso as the said Counsel had clearly entered appearance for both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants, as shown in the records of this Court (See Page 35 of the case file).<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, having considered all the grounds of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">s, I find that they do not have any substance. I overrule the Defendants’ </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objections</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> to the competence of this suit and they are accordingly 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<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#394241;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p>