Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">C.S.AGBO Esq. appeared for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">C. P. Omeje Esq. appeared for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">HRH Eze Dr Ejike Ume SAN appeared with C.V. Ejike Ume Esq. for the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:262.65pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant in this suit commenced the action by way of an Originating Summons dated 17<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2015 but filed on 18<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2015, wherein he prays the Honourable Court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l33 level1 lfo3"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of the Court directing the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents to allow the applicant to perform his constitutional duties of becoming one of the signatories to all the bank accounts belonging to the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian University (SSANU), University of Nigeria, Nsukka Branch at Access Bank, United Bank for Africa (UBA), or any other bank.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l33 level1 lfo3"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of the Honourable Court directing the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent to surrender all the property of the Branch, which includes but not limited to the Branch’s bus and the keys to the Branch’s Petrol Filling Station and which are in his possession to the applicant in accordance with the constitution of the Association.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l33 level1 lfo3"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents from interfering with the applicant’s performance of the duties assigned to him as the TRUSTEE of the Association.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Filed along with the Originating Summons is an Affidavit of 29 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Thankgod Ikenegbu, the Claimant in this suit. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibits A, B, C, and D. There is also a written address in support of the Originating Summons.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon receipt of the processes of the Claimant, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents filed a preliminary objection which is undated on 11<sup>th</sup> May, 2015, wherein they prayed the Honourable Court to grant the following relief:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo27"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order striking out the originating summons dated 17/2/2015 and motion on notice for interlocutory injunction dated 27/12/2014 for being incurably defective and incompetence in that same were not initiated by due process of Law and were improperly instituted.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds for the application are that:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l20 level1 lfo28"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Originating Summons was not issued: Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 (Form 1).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l20 level1 lfo28"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The wrong persons were sued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l20 level1 lfo28"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Necessary parties were not sued.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l20 level1 lfo28"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No reasonable cause of action was disclosed.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Accompanying the said Objection is an affidavit of 19 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Paul Obodike, the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent in this suit. Annexed to the said Affidavit is Exhibit A. There is also a written address in support. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon being served with the notice of preliminary objection learned counsel for the Claimant on the 19<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2015 filed a Counter affidavit of 15 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Thankgod Ikenegbu, the Claimant himself. He equally filed a written address in opposition to the said preliminary objection. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Subsequently, precisely on 4<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2015 the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents filed a Counter Affidavit of 28 paragraphs deposed to by Paul Obodike Erua, the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent in this suit. Annexed to the said counter affidavit are Appendices A, B, C, D and E. There is also a written address in opposition to the Originating Summons. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, on 4<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2015, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents filed a further affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Paul Erua, the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent. The said further affidavit was accompanied by a reply on points of law dated 1<sup>st</sup> day of June, 2015 in relation to the preliminary objection filed by the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is also the preliminary objection filed by the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent on the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of June, 2015 wherein it contended that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter because it is incompetent on the following grounds:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The suit is incompetent on the ground that the Applicant failed to comply with the condition precedent for initiating an action in the National Industrial Court of Nigeria as envisaged by Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo16"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is no proper party before the Honourable Court as agents of a disclosed principal cannot be sued for the acts of the disclosed principal.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against all the Respondents.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned Senior Counsel for the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent presented his written address in support of the preliminary objection along with the notice of the objection. The learned counsel for the Claimant on his part filed a reply address to the preliminary objection of the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent which is dated 29<sup>th</sup> of October, 2015 but filed on 3<sup>rd</sup> November, 2015. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In relation to the Originating Summons, on 3<sup>rd</sup> November, 2015 the Claimant filed a further affidavit in answer to the counter affidavit of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents in opposition to the Originating Summons. The said further affidavit of 24 paragraphs was deposed to by Comrade Thankgod Ikenegbu, the Claimant. It is accompanied with a written address on points of law dated 29<sup>th</sup> day of October, 2015.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Subsequently and finally on filing of processes, the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent on 28<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2016 filed a reply on points of law to reply address filed by the claimant in opposition to the preliminary objection.The said reply on points of law is dated 24<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2015.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Parties adopted their respective processes.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The facts of the case simply put are that the Claimant happens to be an elected officer of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), University of Nigeria Chapter. He was elected the Chapter’s Trustee as provided for under the Constitution of the trade Union. Since his election he has not been able to perform his functions as he understands them enshrined under the Constitution of the Union. He alleges that it was the Respondents that prevented him from the performance of his constitutional duties. Hence this suit, commenced by Originating Summons, seeking interpretation and application of the Constitutional provisions in his favour. On their own part the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents, who are officers of the Union contended that he was not prevented from discharging his functions, but found him wanting, suspended him but later the suspension was lifted following the intervention of the National Zonal Officers of the Union.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Most importantly, however, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as well as the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents filed a separate preliminary objection to the suit attacking its competence and claiming that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit as it is presently constituted. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is trite that in a situation where a preliminary objection is raised the Court must first of all sort out the preliminary objection, determine it one way or the other before proceeding to the substantive suit, where necessary. See <b>FIRST FUELS LIMITED v. NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION & ANOR (2006) LPELR-5647(CA) pp. 29-30 paras G-D; (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1018) Pg.276</b> where the Court of Appeal per Adekeye JCA (as he then was) held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A defect in competence is extrinsic to adjudication. The court must first of all be competent, that is having jurisdiction, before it can proceed on any adjudication.When an objection to the issue of jurisdiction is raised it ought to be resolved first one way or the other before the court proceeds to hear the case on merit. Any failure by court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which shall render any further steps taken in the proceedings a nullity. Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Sofekun v. Akinyemi (1980) 5 - 7 SC p. 1; (1981) 1 NCLR 135; N.D.I.C. v. C.B.N. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) p. 272; Afro - Continental Ltd v. Co-op Association of Professionals Inc. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) p. 303. NDIC V S.B.N. Plc (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) p. 311.</span></i><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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In that regard therefore, the preliminary objections of all the Respondents shall first be determined. I have earlier on stated the nature of the objections as well as the grounds of same. For the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents their learned Counsel formulated and argued the issues for determination as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether this suit was initiated by due process upon fulfillment of condition precedent?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the action was properly constituted?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Claimant has disclosed any reasonable cause of action?<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing Issue 1, counsel stated that the manner in which actions are commenced in various courts is governed by the Rules of Courts. That Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 governs the manner in which suits are initiated in this court. It provides as follows: <i>Any action for determination by the court <b><u>shall</u></b> be commenced by way of a complaint which shall be filed and <b><u>sealed</u></b>. The complaint <b><u>shall</u></b> be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require.</i> According to counsel the Claimant did not use Form 1 in any manner whatsoever. The purported Originating Summons does not in any way resemble Form 1 and cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a modification of Form 1. It is couched like a motion. The language of originating process is usually a command. What the Claimant filed does not have the mandatory memorandum; it is also not sealed. It is therefore a document not known to law. He referred to the case of <b>Monokpo V Shell Petroleum Unlimited (2003) 12 SCNJ.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That before the judicial powers of the court can be invoked there must be a properly constituted action before the court. Thus if there is no properly constituted action before the court, the court cannot exercise the power vested on it by Section 6(6) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is only by filing a competent action that the judicial powers of the court can be activated. Where the action is not properly constituted, in that a condition(s) precedent for the exercise of judicial powers of the court is not fulfilled, the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel cited<b>MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) I ALL NLR (pt. 4), 587 at 595.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Order 3 Rule 1 which enjoins a Claimant to adapt Form 1 in initiating an action was breached in this case. The breach is so fundamental that it goes to the root of adjudication. The purported originating summons had no memorandum and not sealed. In fact, Form 1 was not used at all nor adapted or modified in any manner whatsoever. This breach is so fundamental and cannot be cured as same goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Counsel submitted that the implication of not using Form 1 is that the coercive power of the court to summon the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants to appear to the court to answer to the claim against them has not been activated. That what the Registrar is required to Seal is the complaint as in form 1. None was presented to him and he sealed none. This is fatal to the sustenance of this suit.In interpreting sub-paragraph 4(3) (b) of the 1<sup>st</sup> schedule to the Electoral Act 2002, Fabiyi JCA in the case of <b>Nwancho Vs Elem (2004) ALL FWLR (part 225) 93 at 104 paragraph E – G</b> said: <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">It appears to me that the appellant failed to accede to the required condition precedent for initiating this petition. To put it bluntly, the petition was rightly struck out as it was not initiated by due process of Law. Refer to Madukolu V Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Issue 2 which is whether the action was properly constituted, learned counsel stated that Order 4 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 provides as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Where a Claimant sues, or a defendant or any of several defendants, is sued in a representative capacity, the original process shall state that capacity.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel stated that both the purported originating summons and the motion on notice filed by the Claimant does not indicate or suggest that the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants are sued in a representative capacity. Thus, the only conclusion available is to regard the action as a personal action. The complaints of the claimant against the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants arose from their transactions in the course of their duties or functions as officers of the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU), University of Nigeria Branch. That Senior Staff of Nigeria Universities is a corporate body.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant/Respondent and the Respondents/Applicants are all agents and servants of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU). It is trite law that the acts of an agent or servant in the course of his duties/functions are, at law, deemed or attributed to that of the principal. He referred to the case of <b>MR. EMMANUEL AGBENELO V. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (2000) 4 SC Part 1,p. 233 at 242, 256-257</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) has not been joined in this suit. According to counsel it is a necessary party in this case and its absence may result in the entire proceedings being an exercise in futility. This is because the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondents/Applicants cannot do any of those acts the Claimant/Respondent complains of. If the Claimant/Respondent succeeds in both the motion on notice for injunction and the originating summons, the order of the court thereto will affect the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) which will occasion a grave injustice to it and thousands of its members who would be affected by the order. That the Supreme Court in <b>Ayorinde V Oni (2000) 2 SCN 1 at 12 – 13,</b> held that <i>“if there is no competent defendant on record, before the case went to trial and throughout the trial, certainly the action in respect thereof would be struck out on the ground that it is improperly constituted. Anything to the contrary will be absurd and unacceptable”</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thus, the best option available to a court faced with a situation where a competent defendant is not joined in a case is to strike the suit out, counsel submitted relying onthe case of <b>Ayorinde V Oni Supra at p. 14</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Similarly, the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondents/Applicants at paragraphs 16 and 17 of their affidavit in support of this motion averred that there is a third party interest in the case as it concerns the Petrol Station Project.The Claimant/Respondent did not join the said Glory Petroleum Limited as a party in both the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction and the originating summons. To be sure, if the court finds for the Claimant/Respondent in this case, Glory Petroleum Nigeria Limited would be adversely affected and it would occasion a grave injustice to it as well as Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities and the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondents/Applicants. That it is trite law that for a competent court to dispose of a matter before it with finality, all the necessary parties to the case must of necessity be before it. The essence of this is to avoid multiplicity of cases and to enable the court dispose of the case effectually.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Issue 3, which is whether a Reasonable Cause of Action has been disclosed, learned counsel continued that as he stated above, the Claimant/Respondent brought this in his personal capacity. He has sued the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondents/Applicants in their personal capacities. The acts of the Respondents/Applicants he has complained of were in their capacities as agents or servants of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities – a corporate body which the Claimant/Respondent did not join.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The suit as it stands does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>Respondents/Applicants given the status under which the transactions that occasioned this suit arose. The Supreme Court Per Ayoola JSC in the case of <b>ALHAJI USMAN DANTATA & ANOR V. MOUKTAR MOHAMMED (2001) 5 SC. 1 at 7</b> quoting with approval the words of Diplock L.J. in <b>LETANG V COOPER (1964) 2 ALL ER 934</b> held that the <i>“cause of action means ‘simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain… a remedy against another person”</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, Oputa JSC of blessed memory in the case of <b>ADIMORA V. AJUKO (1988) 6 SCNJ 127 at 30 – 31</b> defined cause of action as <i>“…(consisting) of every <b><u>fact</u></b> which it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment of the court”</i>. According to learned counsel therefore, the Claimant/Respondent in this case has not disclosed all the facts that would enable the court enter judgment for him. None disclosure of the capacities in which the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants are sued is fatal to the maintenance of this suit. If the suit is concluded as presently constituted, and the Claimant/Respondent gets judgment, the outcome would be an exercise in futility as the Respondents who are personally sued cannot be stopped from performing their official functions and duties. Indeed, it is only in their capacity as servants or agents of Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities could they do those things the Claimant/Respondent has complained against and it is in that capacity that the court can stop them from doing those things the Claimant complained against. Thus, in the absence of Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), the Claimant/Respondent does not have any case against the Respondents/Applicants.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the light of the foregoing, counsel urged the Honourable Court to resolve issue 2(sic) in favour of the Defendants/Applicants.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel summarized all his arguments and submissions as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The action was initiated without following due process.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The action as constituted is a personal action, whereas the claimant and the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants are officers of the Senior Staff association of Nigerian Universities.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The transactions that gave rise to the action arose in the cause(sic) of their duties as officers of the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities is not joined in the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Glory Petroleum Limited has a subsisting BOT/Lease Agreement with the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities over the latter’s Petrol Station project.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Glory Petroleum is not joined in the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l28 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant/Respondent cannot claim a formal right over issues concerning the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities from the agents or servants of the Association in a personal action.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then urged the Court to strike out this suit on grounds that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is not properly constituted; and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo10"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No reasonable cause of action has been disclosed.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, the learned Claimant’s counsel formulated and argued the following issues against the preliminary objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo20"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of this suit is competent on its own part?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the originating summons is properly presented before this Honourable Court?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this process is not an abuse of judicial process?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">As a preliminary remark learned Claimant’s counsel stated that for charity purposes, Issue No. one is an objection to the competence of this process and this objection is incorporated in this opposition for the purposes of expediency. If the Court agrees with them in their objection or contention, the notice of preliminary objection will be struck out and if the Court over rules them, it will then go ahead to determine the notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing Issue One,whether this notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of this suit is competent on its own part, counsel submitted that this notice is filed in violation of the provisions of the rules of this Honourable Court. It is trite position of the law as has been enunciated in a long line of decided cases that the Rules of Court are meant to be obeyed. He referred the Court to the case of <b>Hon. Rabiu Musiliu Adesola & Anor. V. Barrister Yisau Adesope Azeez & 14 Ors. (2013)1 WRN 47 at 63 line 45.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel submitted further that their objection is very simple and straightforward. This notice of preliminary objection is filed out of the time stipulated by the Rules of this Court. By the provisions of <b>Order 9 Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court</b>, where the opposing party who is served with an originating summons intends to contest it, he shall, not later than 14 days or any time prescribed, file a counter affidavit thereto. That even by the affidavit of the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent in support of this notice, he admitted being served with a copy of the originating summons and a copy of motion of notice on the 8<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2015 while this process was filed on the 11<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2015, which is more than 20 days after service as admitted by them.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is true that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents purported to have filed memorandum of appearance which they tagged memorandum of conditional appearance but this has not in any way helped the situation in view of the provisions of <b>Order 8 Rule 5(1) of the Rules of this court </b>which provides thus: <i>“where a defendant or respondent fails to file a memorandum of appearance within the stipulated time, <u>or fails to file appropriate processes in defence of the action within the prescribed time</u>, . . , the court may proceed to hear the matter and give judgment”</i><b>.</b> (The underlining is learned counsel’s). That a careful perusal of <b>order 8 Rule 5(1) of the Rules</b> will show or reveal that in the case of originating summons, no memorandum of appearance is required. This contention is fortified, according to counsel, by the provisions of <b>order 9 Rule 3</b> which simply provides that in opposition to an originating summons, the respondent is expected to file a counter affidavit, which shall be accompanied by:(a) other relevant documents(s), if any (b) a written address countering the argument advanced by the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is, therefore, counsel’s contention that both the memorandum of conditional appearance and the notice of preliminary objection are incompetent as the former is not required while the latter is filed out of time. Furthermore, that it is still his contention that even if memorandum of appearance is required to be filed in defence of an originating summons, filing same on time and failing to file the other relevant processes on time as provided by order 9 Rule 3 of the Rules of this court, cannot save those processes filed out of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He, therefore, prayedthe court to discountenance this process filed out of time and there is no order of this court prescribing longer time than 14 days to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents to file a reaction to the originating summons, if the notice of objection can be seen as a reaction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Issue No. 2 which is whether the originating summons is properly presented before this Honourable Court, learned counsel submitted that this suit is properly presented before this Honourable court for determination. That the contention of the learned Respondents/Applicants counsel and his reliance on Order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules of this court in challenging the commencement of this suit is misconceived.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, his contention that the process was not sealed is also neither here nor there. That the applicant in this case never relied on Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, which counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents is making heavy weather of. That may be, the learnedRespondents/Applicants counsel did not read the originating summons vis-à-vis the provisions of Order 3 Rule 5(A) of the Rules of this court properly. That the provision of <b>Order 3 Rule 5 (A)(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 </b>is very clear. It provides that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-32.25pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo30"><!--[if !supportLists]--><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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Any person claiming to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument, may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Rules went further to state how to commence a suit by originating summons in <b>Order 3 Rule 5(A) (2), </b>which provides thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. The originating summons shall be accompanied by:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(a) An affidavit setting out the facts relied upon;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(b) Copies of the instrument sought to be construed (other than an enactment) and other related documents;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(c) A written address containing the issues to be determined and succinct argument of the issues;<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Provided that a suit which raises substantial dispute of facts or where substantial dispute of facts is likely to be involved shall not be commenced by an originating summons, but by complaint as provided in Rule 4 of this order</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that it is a fact that cannot be contested that there are different ways of commencing a suit in our various courts. For instance, in the High Court Rules of Enugu State, four different ways have been provided for, which are: (1) by writ of summons; (2) by originating summons; (3) by originating motion and (4) by petition. In the case of this court the Rules have provided for only two, to wit: by complaint and originating summons. This position is fortified by the provision of the interpretation section of the Rules of this court in <b>Order 1 Rule 3</b> which interpreted the words: <b>“Originating process”</b> to mean a complaint or any other court process by which a suit is initiated. This is also supported by the proviso to order 3rule 5(A) (2) cited above.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is no point also stating that Order 5(A) (1) of the Rules of this Court did not in any way demand that Form 1 should be used while filing an originating summons. What is required was clearly stated and there is no ambiguity as to the wordings of the provisions of the Rules. It is trite law that no imputation should be made in interpreting the provisions of a statute where the words used in the statute are clear. They should be given their ordinary meaning. He referred to the case of <b>Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2005) 123 LRCN 256 at p. 284 para. EE and p. 285 para. K.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That assuming but without conceding that an originating summons is required to be sealed, and same is not sealed as is being contended by the learned counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup>respondents, it is the duty of the Registrar of this Court to seal processes. If there is any failure to seal a process it is the fault or mistake of the Registrar and not that of the litigant.It is trite law that the fault or mistake of the Registry or even counsel cannot be visited on the litigant. He referred to:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l19 level1 lfo21"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(i)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RMAFC v Onwuekweikpe (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 528) 947. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l19 level1 lfo21"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Alhaji Fatai Ayodele Alawiye v. Mrs Elizabeth Adetokunbo Ogunsanya (2013) 28 WRN 29 at p. 70 lines 35 – 45.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l19 level1 lfo21"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(iii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">UNILORIN v. Dunmade (2013) 2 WRN 129at p. 183 line 15 – 25.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, learned counsel stated that it is only a suit commenced by complaint that is required to be sealed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He thenprayed the Court to discountenance the case of <b>Nwancho Vs. Elem (2004) All FWLR (pt. 225), 93</b> cited by the learned counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents as same is inapplicable in this case. He submitted that the contention of the respondents/applicants counsel under his issue two of his written address is very funny with due respect to him. Counsel is unnecessarily dragging in the issue of representative capacity into this matter. The complaint of the applicant is a wrongful infraction of his rights under the constitution by the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents who have prevented him to function or do his duties as the trustee. It cannot be part of the duties of the 1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup> respondents to determine which and how the duties of an elected officer should be performed. It is the duty of the constitution of the Association. There is no evidence that either the Branch of the Association or the parent body had directed the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents to prevent the applicant from performing his duties as to say that they were acting on behalf of the Association.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Secondly, even under our law of Agency, where an agent goes outside the scope of his duties and purportedly acts for and on behalf of the principal, he is on his own and the principal cannot be held liable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thirdly, still under the law of Agency, even where the agent acts within the scope of his duty on behalf of a principal and in the course commits a wrong, both the principal and the agent can either be jointly or severally liable. It is, therefore, within the discretion of the injured person to determine who to sue. He can sue the principal jointly with the agent or he can sue the agent alone. Whichever decision cannot be challenged by the defendant but this is what the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants is trying to do. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is counsel’s further contention that it is not part of the constitutional duties of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents to dictate the duties of the claimant or any other elected officer of the Branch and so, the decision of the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, who is basking in the euphoria that he is the alter ego of SSANU, UNN Branch, that the applicant, who is duly elected as the Trustee of the Branch cannot be allowed to perform his own duties is clearly beyond the scope of his functions and cannot be said to be an action on behalf of either the Branch or the parent body.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel therefore contends that it is not necessary to join the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities since it is not a necessary party, unless if the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents think that they have a claim against SSANU, they can then proceed against the Union. As for the applicant, the Union has not in any way injured him. He submitted that it is also a misconception for the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents or their counsel to raise the issue of non joinder of Glory Petroleum Limited or any other company as a party. The Claimant has no claim against the company and is not claiming to be the owner of the petrol filling station. What he is asking the court to do for him is to allow him be in custody of the property of the SSANU, UNN Branch which includes the keys to the filling station. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted finally on this issue that the suit has raised a prima facie case and disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents have not said that the applicant did not contest for the post of a Trustee or that they did not prevent him from performing his constitutional duties.Counsel said further that he finds it difficult to agree with the contention of his learned friend that non disclosure of the capacities of the parties, assuming they had any outside those in which they are sued without conceding that there is any other capacity amounts to non disclosure of cause of action. The representative capacity has nothing to do with the cause of action. It merely goes to affect those who will be affected by the order of the court at the end of the trial and nothing more.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the Honourable Court to reject this application this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Issue no.three, <i>Whether this process is not an abuse of judicial process<b>, </b></i>counsel submitted that this notice of preliminary objection constitutes an abuse of judicial process or abuse of process of court being frivolous, vexatious and having been filed mainly to annoy, provoke, embarrass, intimidate and oppress the applicant- the Respondent in that notice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That this notice is also an abuse of process of court having been filed in perversion of judicial system and purely to achieve some ulterior motives.An abuse of process or court does not only arise when it constitutes a multiplicity of an action or process or matter but arises under many circumstances, which includes deployment of the said process for purposes other than those intended by law. He referred to the case of <b>The Owerri Municipal Council &2 Ors v. Innocent Onuoha & Ors (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 538), 896 at pp. 910 paras. H to 911 Para. A.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the case of <b>British American Tobacco Nig. Ltd. V. International Tobacco Co. PLC & Anor. (2013) 6 WRN 26 at p. 53 lines 25 to p. 54 line 5,</b> the court of Appeal clearly put it thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Abuse of process of Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding, which is wanting in bonafide and frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process as in this case means abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process. An abuse of process always involves some bias, malice, some deliberateness, and some desire to misuse or pervert the system. There is said to be an abuse of the process of Court when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent… The Supreme Court defined the term ‘abuse of process of Court’ to connote that the process of the court must be used only bonafide and not improperly as a means of vexation and oppression</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">H also referred the Court to the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l34 level1 lfo22"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(i)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Senator Barigha v. PDP & Ors (2013) 17 WRN 1 at p. 27 lines 10-15.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l34 level1 lfo22"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Senator Saror & Anor. V. Hon. Suswam & Ors (2013) 2 WRN 63 at PP. 97 line 45 to 98 line 5.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l34 level1 lfo22"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iii)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Alhaji Tailor & Ors v. Alhaji Balogun &Ors. (2013) 10 WRN 137 at pp. 155 lines 15 to 156 lines 1-25.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l34 level1 lfo22"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iv)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">CBN v. Ahmed (2001) 87 LRCN 2035 at p. 2089 para. A.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l34 level1 lfo22"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(v)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 11 -12 SCN 26 at p. 45 lines 19-41.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued further that it is a fact ascertainable from the circumstances of this case that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents in this suit are employing all manners of delay strategies to frustrate this suit from being heard on the merit, which is the primary and major motive and aim of this application. This is in line with the definition of what constitutes an abuse of process by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in the decided cases cited above.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He finally submitted on this issue that having shown vividly to this Court that this notice is an abuse of Judicial process; it is his contention that it is trite law that where a process constitutes an abuse of process like this notice, it is usually dismissed and not merely struck out, referringthe court to the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(i) Onyebuchi v. INEC (2002) 97 LRCN 959 at p. 972para. JJ.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(ii) Kode v. Yusuf (2001) 84 LRCN 521 at P. 545. G<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l19 level1 lfo21"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iv)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">African Reinsurance Corporation v. JDP Construction Nig. Ltd. (2013) 103 LRCN 539 at o. 560 Para P.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is counsel’s humble contention that a Court does not have a discretion once it holds that a process constitutes an abuse of process. If a process amounts to an abuse, the Court is duty bound to dismiss same as has been held in the case of <b>the Owerri Municipal Council & Ors v. Innocent Onuoha & Ors (Supra) at p. 911 paras. A-B </b>thus: <i>“where abuse of process of court occurs, the Court has not only the power but also a duty to dismiss the offending process.”</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That for the purposes of argument, it is even trite and commonsensical that where a process is fraught with two vitiating features, one greater than the other, the smaller is subsumed into the greater and therefore an order striking out this notice has been subsumed into an order dismissing same.<b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By way of conclusion, he stated that the notice of preliminary objection is ill conceived and extraneous. It has no bearing with the suit and therefore, constitutes an abuse of court or judicial process. He urged this Honourable Court to dismiss same with punitive cost to discourage such future abuse in this case and pave the way for speedy disposal of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his reply on points of law to the Claimant’s reply address in opposition to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents/applicants submitted that paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 14 of the Counter affidavit offend against section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011. That paragraph 3 of the said counter affidavit is a legal argument and a conclusion in breach of section 115(2) of the Evidence Act. That the paragraph reads inter alia <i>“that the deponent is as confused as his counsel…as both of them seemed not to have really (sic) understood the gravamen of my complaint”.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That paragraphs 4 and 13 offend against section 115(2) of the Evidence Act supra as the paragraphs contain a conclusion to wit <i>“that paragraph 4 of the affidavit is trash”</i> and did not disclose the name of his informant nor did it state ‘reasonable particulars of the informant, time and place of the information’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He stated that it is trite law that an affidavit should contain only facts referring to Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act. Certainly, the statement <i>“the deponent is as confused as his counsel…as both of them seemed not to have really understood the gravamen of my complaint”is both extraneous, legal argument and a conclusion.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the case of <b>APLOKINIOVO vs GAS (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 227) 427 at 450</b> it was held that <i>“an affidavit should contain only statement of facts and circumstances. Prayers, legal arguments and conclusion, or inferences are not permitted in an affidavit. When the section is breached, the offending paragraph must be struck out.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thus, such an affidavit <i>“raises no fact which needs to be controverted but is simply regarded as extraneous to the determination of factual disputes”.</i> Reference was made to <b>GENRAL & AVIATION SERVICES vs THAHAL (2004) ALL FWLR (Part 211) 1368 at 1390 paras E-G.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel therefore urged the Honourable Court to strike out paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Continuing, counsel stated that Issue one raised by the Claimant/Respondent is misconceived. Order (sic) of Rule 3 and Order 8 Rule 5(1) he referred to apply only if the Defendants/Applicants had joined issues and the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The notorious position of the law is that a notice of preliminary objection can only be maintained if the objector filed it before taking any step in the substantive suit. He referred to Order 5 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of this Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On abuse of Court process, learned counsel stated that he is at a loss as to how the Claimant/respondent’s counsel’s reference to Order 8 Rule 5(1) and Order 9 Rule 3 of the Rules as the authorities for saying that memorandum of appearance is not required in an originating summons is a clear manifestation of his misconception of the Rules. That Order 8 generally deals with appearance Order 8 Rule 1(1) of the Rules enacts thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Every person served with <b>an originating process </b>shall, within the time stipulated therein or if no day is stipulated, within 14 days of the service of the originating process, file a memorandum of Appearance in the Registry of the court. </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(Emphasis added by counsel).<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel then stated that originating process is an originating process.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Order 9 generally deals with defences. It is trite law that it is the memorandum of appearance that entitle a party to a defence. It is a condition precedent to taking any other step in an action by a defendant. In the case of <b>GUINNESS NIG. PLC vs UFOT (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 412) 113 at paragraphs E-F </b>the Court of Appeal noted the definition of “enter an appearance” as defined by the learned authors of the 1979 Rules of the Supreme Court under Order 12 in the second paragraph of the notes that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Appearance is the process by which a person against whom a Suit had been commenced:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l30 level1 lfo31"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Shows his intention to defend the suit and<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l30 level1 lfo31"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">That an Appearance duly entered, whether conditional or not prevents a judgment in default being signed, <u>but until an appearance is duly entered, the defendant is not entitled to take any steps in the action or proceedings.</u>”</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(Emphasis by learned counsel).<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Order 5 Rule 2(1) provides that an application to set aside for irregularity any step taken in the course of any proceedings, may be allowed where it is made within a reasonable time and before the party applying has taken any step after becoming aware of the irregularity.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of whether the purported originating summons satisfies the clear provisions of the Rules of this Court, counsel stated that the learned counsel for the Claimant/respondent clearly misconceived the legal issue involved in the notice of preliminary objection. That Order 3 Rule 5A(1) of the Rules of this court merely stated that when the suit is concerned with interpretation or construction of a document, it shall be commenced by originating summons. He referred to the High Court Rules of Enugu State 2006 to show that suits are commenced by either a writ of summons or originating summons, or originating motion or by petition. His position is that since the Rules of this Honourable Court did not expressly provide for a format for an originating summons, any other process would be acceptable. He called in aid, the interpretation Section Order 1 Rules 3 which defines “Originating Process” to mean <i>“a complaint or any other process by which a suit is initiated.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the position of the law by virtue of Order 26 Rule 13 of the Rules of this Court is that where there is a lacuna in the Rules of this Court recourse should be had to the Federal High Court Rules. Order 3 Rule 9 of the Federal High Court Rules 2009 makes provision for form of commencing suit by originating summons (Form 3). Even the High Court Rules of Enugu State which the Claimant/Respondent’s counsel referred to provides for the form of initiating a suit by an originating summons-see Order 3 Rule 8 (Form 4) of High Court Rules of Enugu State 2006.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On what is a Summons, learned counsel stated that the Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition defines summons thus: to command (a person) by service of a summons to appear in court.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Summons, n.1 Formerly a writ directing a sheriff to summon to defendant to appear in court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. A writ or process commencing the Plaintiff’s action and requiring the defendant to appear to answer.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thus a summons is not a mere notice as in this case, it not only commands the defendant to answer the claim, it also stipulates the time within which the defendant must enter appearance to answer to the claim(s) against him. See Form 3 of the Federal High Court Rules 2009 and Form 4 of the High Court Rules of Enugu State 2006. Therefore, the means by which Originating summons are commenced in the National Industrial Court Enugu Division is by use of either Form 3 of the Federal High Court Rules 2009 or Form 4 of the High Court Rules of Enugu State 2006, by virtue of Order 26 Rule 13 (of the rules) of this Court.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, it is trite law that where the rules prescribe a particular procedure for enforcement of a particular right or remedy non-compliance with such a procedure is fatal to the enforcement of the right or remedy. The action is bound to be struck out. See <b>MR MEDEYINCO A.A. vs MR JEMBI & Anor (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 625), 363 at 377.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That where a court finds out that a condition precedent for the activation of its jurisdiction has not been met, the proper order to make is to strike out the case, relying on <b>Medeyinco’s case, at page 378.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It has also been held that “<i>where the statute and subsidiary legislation prescribed the mode of initiating a process of proceedings before the court and it is not followed, the only reasonable conclusion is that the party affected which fails to comply with the requirements cannot be taken seriously.”</i><b>CHIEF SUNDAY EVONG vs MESSRS OBONG, OBONG AND ASSOCIATES (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 636) 579, 592.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Agency, counsel stated that the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent also misconceived the law of agency. That an Agent is <i>“one who is authorized to act for or in place of another/a representative. The word agent or agency denotes one who acts, a doer, etc. that accomplishes a thing or things. The agent normally binds his principal and certainly not himself by the contract he makes. (He) is also a person authorized by another to act for him, one entrusted with another’s business. One authorized to transact all business of his principal, all of principal’s business of some kind, or all business of some particular place, etc”.</i><b>OSIGWE vs PSPLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM LTD (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 470) 607 at 628.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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"">Thus, whenever one person has the authority of another to act for him, agency relationship exists. <b>OSIGWE’s case supra.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the circumstance, the agent does not incur a personal liability to himself but to the principal. It is settled that <i>“a defendant acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no liability even where the disclosed principal is a foreigner”.</i><b>OSIGWE’s case supra pp. 268-269.</b> That it is not in contention that the parties are all agents of SSANU and that transactions that gave rise to this suit arose in the course of their duties as officers of SSANU and otherwise, by virtue of Article 7(g) and Article 14(ii)(iii) and (iv) of its Constitution which the Claimant annexed to the motion as Appendix D.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Moreover reliefs (a), (b) and (c) sought on the motion for interlocutory injunction and reliefs a and b of the purported originating summons will affect the operations of the SSANU both at the National and local levels and Glory Petroleum. It is trite that a court does not make an order against a person who is not a party to a suit either personally or in a representative capacity. Where the Principal of an agent is known or disclosed, the correct party to sue for anything done or omitted to be done by the gent is the Principal. He referred to the case of <b>LEVENTIS TECH. LTD vs PETROJESICA ENT LTD (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) 459 at 469.</b> That the act of an agent is deemed at law, to be that of the Principal and is expressed in the latin maxim <i>Qui Per Alium facit per seipsam facere videtur</i> which means <i>He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.</i> See case of <b>LEVENTIS, supra.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel continued that there is no doubt that if the Claimant succeeds in his motion for injunction and in the ‘originating summons’ the interest of SSANU and that Glory Petroleum Limited would be adversely affected. These third parties have not been made parties to the suit. It is trite law that it is uncautionable for a court to make an order against someone who was not before it and who was not given the opportunity to be heard. He referred to <b>ALHAJI MUDASHIRU KOKORO-OWO & ORS vs LSG & ORS (2001) % SC Part II, 50 at 57; BABALOLA vs ALADEJANA (2001) 6 SC 124 AT 134-135.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That it is also not in doubt that the transaction that gave rise to the suit were in the course of their interaction as officers of SSANU, the union.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On admission, that the Claimant/respondent has not denied the existence of third party interest in the subject matter in dispute. He thus admits same. It is trite law that any averment in an affidavit which is not expressly denied is deemed admitted. He referred to <b>A.G. OF ONDO STATE vs A.G. EKITI STATE (2001) 9-10 SC 116 at 135-136.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Summarily counsel itemized his submission as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Preliminary objection is only sustainable if it is filed before the objector takes any step in the proceedings.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Memorandum of Appearance is a condition precedent for filing a defence to a claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is unlawful for a court to make an order against someone it had not heard and given the opportunity to be heard.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Affidavits must contain only facts within the knowledge of the deponent of facts which knowledge he derived from another person whose particulars must be disclosed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An agent bind his principal and the principal is liable as he personally transacted the business from which liabilities were incurred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The parties are agents of SSANU.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">SSANU and Glory Petroleum Limited have interest in the subject matter of this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo32"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Third parties whose interest would be affected by the order of this court have not been made parties to the case nor given the opportunity to be heard.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then urged the Court to strike out the Originating motion dated 17/2/2015 for being incurably defective and incompetent in that same was not initiated by due process of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent filed its notice of preliminary objection dated 2/5/2015 on 2/6/2015 contending that the Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter because it is incompetent on the following grounds:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l24 level1 lfo33"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The suit is incompetent on the ground that the Applicant failed to comply with the condition precedent for initiating an action in the National Industrial Court of Nigeria as envisaged by Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l24 level1 lfo33"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is no proper party before the Honourable Court as agents of a disclosed principal cannot be sued for the acts of the disclosed principal.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l24 level1 lfo33"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against all the Respondents.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the first ground of objection 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent’s learned Senior Counsel submitted that jurisdiction is cardinal in any judicial proceedings, for a trial without jurisdiction however eminent it might be is a complete exercise in futility and a precious waste of judicial time and energy. That before a court assumes jurisdiction in a matter it must ensure that the case comes before it initiated by due process of law and upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, relying on the case of<b>Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR (pt.4) 587 at p. 595.<u><o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the so – called “Originating Summons” filed by the Claimant is not an originating process which the Honourable Court can place any reliance on as conferring jurisdiction on it to try the suit asthere is no suit before the Court by any stretch of imagination.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Senior Counsel continued that Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 states as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Any action for determination by the Court shall be commenced by way of complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The complaint shall be in Form I with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require.</span></i><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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Sealing of an originating process is fundamental and critical for an unsealed originating process is dead on arrival (DOA). No jurisdiction can be conferred on the Honourable Court therefore. It is not a document known to law. That the word “Shall” in the subsection is mandatory. The Registrar shall Seal every originating process. The sealing of this originating process is a condition precedent. Where the Registrar fails to Seal an originating process it robs the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the unsealed process. A writ issued without the Registrar’s Seal is incompetent and cannot be cured. Where the word “shall” is used in any legislation it means it is mandatory. There is no other meaning that can be ascribed to it. The word “Shall” means that any failure on the part of the Registrar to seal the originating process invalidates the suit, referring to the case of<b>NNPC V. Elumah (1997) 3 NWLR (pt. 492) page 195; BBN. V. Olayiwola (2001) 6 WRN page 141.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That again the Supreme Court in the cases of <b>Nwabueze V. Obi Okoye (1988) 3 NSCC PAGE 53; Kida V. Ogunmola (2006) ALL FWLR (pt.327) page 402</b> held that the validity of the issue of the originating process is fundamental to the competence of the suit. Therefore, failure to commence a proceeding with an originating process validly issued goes to the root of the case and any order emanating from such proceeding is liable to be set aside as incompetent and a nullity. Such a flaw clearly borders on the issue of jurisdiction and the competence of the Court to adjudicate on the matter.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the Honourable Court to strike out the suit for being grossly incompetent as no suit whatsoever is before the Court.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the second ground of objection, namely, that agent of a disclosed principal cannot be sued for acts of the disclosed principal, learned Senior Counsel submitted that all the Respondents were sued jointly and severally and whatsoever affects one affects the rest. That the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are merely agents of a disclosed principal and an agent is not liable and cannot be sued or joined in a suit for the wrongs of his principal where the principal is disclosed. The law is settled that an agent/agents acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no personal liability/liabilities, relying on the authority of<b>James V Mid – Motors (Nig) Co. Ltd (1978) 11 NSCC 536.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Senior Counsel stated that it is on record that on 29<sup>th</sup> day of June 2005, the then Registrar of Trade Unions Mr. I.A. Fagbemi signed a certificate with registration number 0105 thereby recognizing the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU) as a registered body. Thus, from the said day, SSANU became a registered body with perpetual succession and a Common Seal. That Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 9 page 4, article 3 as per the definition of a corporate aggregate says as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A corporation aggregate has been defined as a collection of individuals united into one body under a special denomination having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with the capacity of acting in several respects as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation or any subsequent period of its existence.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then submitted that the acts of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents being complained about by the Claimant are acts done by them as mere agents of the Association (SSANU). In the eyes of the law, the general principle of principal and agent would apply. Thus, the principal not the agents should be sued. Again this suit border primarily on the activities of SSANU University of Nigeria Chapter. Since, the wrong parties were sued, no proper Defendant is before the Court as the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent on record was merely sued without any cause of action being disclosed against it. The proper Defendant was not sued and there is thus absolutely nothing for the Honourable Court to adjudicate upon.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That in the case <b><i>Samuel Osigwe V. Privatisation Share Purchase Loan scheme Management Ltd & Ors (2009) 3 NWLR (p.1128) 378,</i></b> the Supreme Court held as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Again, it is clear from the Applicant’s pleading that each of the Respondents herein are merely agents of the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE) solely appointed for the registration of would be purchasers of the shares of the public companies to be privatized. The Respondents also by the pleading of the Appellant are unmistakably agents of a revealed principal and as agents cannot be liable under all the circumstance of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He also referred to <b>Qua Steel Products Ltd. & Anor V. Akpan Bassey (1992) 5 NWLR (PT. 239) 67 AT P.69; Okafor V. Ezenwa (2002) 12 NWLR (pt. 784) pg. 319; Ukpanah Vayaya (2011) 11 NWLR (pt. 1227) 61.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that the affidavit in Support of the Application leaves no one in any doubt whatsoever that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are unmistakably agents of a revealed or disclosed principal (SSANU) and thus cannot be liable under all the circumstance of this case. The principal not the agents should have been the proper party.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then urged the Honourable Court to hold that the suit is grossly incompetent and incurably bad as agents of a disclosed principal were sued for the acts of the principal. That the suit was dead on arrival (DOA).<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> ground of objection, namely, that no cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against the Respondents, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Claimant merely added the University as the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent without more. A careful look at the defective originating process filed will reveal the fact that no cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent.That the 3 reliefs being sought by the Claimant made no mention whatsoever of what exactly he wants from the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent. The 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent is at sea as to why it was sued jointly and severally in the 1<sup>st</sup> place with the other Respondents.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That as earlier argued, the Claimant has made certain allegations against an Association (SSANU) yet inexplicably failed to sue it. The result is that he sued the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as mere agents of a disclosed principal instead of suing the disclosed principal thereby failing to disclose any cause of action against them. Then he proceeded to join the University as the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent without disclosing any cause of action whatsoever against it. The effect in its totality is that jointly and severally no cause of action has been disclosed by the Claimant.That the law is settled that where no reasonable cause of action is disclosed all a Court can do is to strike out the suit,<b>NBC PLC. V. Ezeifo (2001) 2 NWLR (pt. 726) 11; (2002) FWLR (pt.97) pg. 772.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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"">Finally, he submitted that since the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action against any of the Respondents on record, the Honourable Court cannot grant any of the reliefs sought by the applicant. One cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand<i>“Ex nihilo nihil fit”.</i>He referred to the case of<b>Akaji V. Udemba (2009) 2 – 3 S.C. 11 at 14 – 18.</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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the Honourable Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action against the Respondents and thus the suit is grossly incompetent and incurably bad.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion, learned Senior Counsel stated that in the premises of the foregoing, the Honourable Court is urged to uphold the Preliminary Objection and strike out the suit for being grossly incompetent, untenable, unmeritorious and lacking in substance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Responding to the preliminary objection of the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent, learned counsel for the Claimant stated that even though the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent did not formulate issue(s) for determination, it stated three grounds upon which the objection is based. The argument or legal submissions were then made based on those grounds. He therefore responded to same based on those grounds as stated by the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the first ground of objection, whether the Claimant failed to comply with the condition precedent for initiating the suit, learned counsel contended that the Claimant has not violated or breached or left any condition precedent required for instituting an action in this suit. That the contention and reliance on <b>order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules of this court</b> by the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent in challenging the initiation of this suit is misconceived.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then conceded that jurisdiction is cardinal in any judicial proceedings and also that a court can only assume jurisdiction when the suit is initiated by due process of law and upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent but this suit in hand is properly initiated. That the Claimant in this suit never relied on Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, which the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent is laboring hard to drag into this case. The 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent’s counsel seems not to have read the provisions of order 3 Rule 5A of the Rules of this Honourable Court and if he did, may be has not read same properly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The provision of <b>Order 3 Rule 5(A)(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007</b> is very clear. It provides thus: <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Any person claiming to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument, may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He stated that the Rules went further to state how to commence a suit by originating summons in <b>Order 3 Rule 5(A) (2), </b>which provides thus: <i>“The originating summons shall be accompanied by:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l31 level1 lfo23"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An affidavit setting out the facts relied upon;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l31 level1 lfo23"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Copies of the instrument sought to be construed (other than an enactment) and other related documents;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l31 level1 lfo23"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A written address containing the issues to be determined and succinct argument of the issues;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Provided that a suit which raises substantial dispute of facts or where substantial dispute of facts is likely to be involved shall not be commenced by an originating summons, but by complaint as provided in Rule 4 of this order”</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that there is no point also stating that Order 3 rule 5 (A) (1) of the rules of this Court did not in any way demand that Form 1 should be used while filing an originating summons. What is required was clearly stated and there is no ambiguity as to the wordings of the provisions of the Rules. It is trite law that no imputation should be made in interpreting the provisions of a statute where the words used in the statute are clear. They should be given their ordinary meaning. He referred to the case of <b>Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2005) 123 LRCN 256 at p. 284 para. EE and p. 285 para. K.</b> Thus, in the case of <b>Hon. Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb & anor. V. The Hon. A-G of the Federation & 2 Ors. (2012) All FWLR (pt. 629) 1011 at p. 1060 paras. E-H</b>,the Supreme Court held thus: <i>“Over the years of its existence as the apex court of Nigeria, the Supreme court has laid down several guidelines on the interpretation of not only statutes but also the provisions of our constitution in many of its land mark decisions: A-G Bendel State v. A-G Fed. (1981) 10 S.C. 1, Obaseki JSC laid down 12 guidelines to be observed in the interpretation of statutes, most especially the constitution, where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain and evident meaning.” </i> The Court went further at p. 1061 para. F to hold thus: <i>“The golden rule governing the interpretation of constitutional provisions is that the words used in the provisions must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning where such words are not ambiguous…”</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that a pertinent question here is: can a suit be commenced by way of originating summons? If the answer is in the affirmative, which he thinks it is,does it require the Seal of the court? However, his answer to the latter question is in the negative. In the case of <b>Hon. Justice Raliat Elelu-Habeeb & Anor. V. The Hon. A-G. of the Federation & 2 ors. (supra) at p. 1054 paras. E-G,</b> the Supreme Court held thus: <i>“This court has decided in many cases, some of which are<b>keyamo v. L.S.H.A. (2002) 18 NWLR (pt. 799) 605 at p. 613and Pam v.Mohammed (2008) 16 NWLR (pt. 1112) 1 at 51, </b>that originating summons can be used in matters that involve the interpretation of contracts, documents, constitutions and other statutes where matters or facts are not in dispute. In the present case, the real issues raised are centered around the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 prescribing the procedure for exercising disciplinary proceedings dealing with the exercise of powers under the same constitution to remove a chief Judge of a state from office. I entirely agree that the 2 courts below were on very firm ground that the action at the trial court was correctly and rightly begun by originating summons procedure.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Similarly, in the case of <b>Mrs. Susan O. S. Olly v. Hon. Olukolu G. Tunji & 2 Ors (2013) 13 WRN. 34 at p. 70 lines 20-40, </b>the Court of Appeal lends its voice thus: <i>“I have to agree with the learned 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s counsel that where total reliance for the reliefs sought from the court is placed on the provisions of the law and written instruments or documents, the appropriate procedure to ventilate such claim is by originating summons as contained in Order 3 Rules 6 & 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009…There is no doubt that from the originating summons and the reliefs sought therein that the issue in controversy and the questions the court must answer were not in controversy or not clear to both parties.”</i>The Court of Appeal went further to state at p. 54 lines 15-20 thus: <i>“It is the position of the law that in cases commenced by way of originating summons, like cases commenced by writ of summons, the originating summons takes the place of the writ and the affidavit evidence in support take the place of oral evidence. <b> See Agbakoba v. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (pt.1119) 489 at p. 549.”</b></i><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel also referred the Honourable Court to the case of <b>Milky Way Investment (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor. V. Alhaji Isa Usman (2014) 40 WRN 159 at p. 177 lines 25-35.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is Counsel’s further submission that assuming an originating summons is required to be sealed, without conceding, it is the duty of the Registrar of the court to do so and not that of the Claimant. Be that as it may, therefore, failure to Seal this process in this case as contended by the Counsel to the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent is the fault or mistake of the Registrar. That it is trite law that the fault or mistake of the Registry or even counsel cannot be visited on the litigant. He referred to the following cases:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <b>(i) RMAFC v. Onwuekweikpe (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 528) 947.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> (ii) Alhaji Fatai Ayodele Alawiye v. Mrs. Elizabeth Adetokunbo <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <b>Ogunsanya (2013) 28 WRN 29 at p. 70 lines 35 – 45.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <b>(iii) UNILORIN v Dunmade (2013) 2 WRN 129 at p. 183 line 15 -25.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then submitted that it is only a Suit commenced by Complaint that is required to be sealed. Thus, in the case on <b>Ndubuisi Nsude v C. O. P. (2014) 26 WRN 89 at pp.199-120 line 45-5, </b>the Court of Appeal held thus:<i>“It would amount to the height of travesty of justice to put the blame of ineptitude of the lower court’s registry on an Innocent litigant, I must insist without any equivocation.”</i>The court went further to hold at p. 127 line 45 thus: <i>“…the sins of the Registrar nay the chief magistrate’s court cannot and should not be visited on an innocent litigant who had done all that the law required of him to do but the registry and the court failed to perform their judicial functions.”</i> Similarly, in the case of <b>Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission v. Chidi Onwuekeikpe Esq.(2010) All FWLW (pt. 528) 947 at p. 959 paras. F-G.,</b>the Court of Appeal held thus<b>: </b><i>“The Supreme Court in the case Duke v. Akpabuyo (2005) 12 SCNJ 280 at 293 held further that: “The court will not visit the sin or mistake of the court’s Registry on a litigant or his counsel, unless it is shown that the litigant and/or his counsel was a party thereto or had full knowledge of the sin or mistake and encouraged the said action.” The respondent, i.e., the plaintiff at the lower court, was not shown to be a party to the mistake of non-signing the writ, and there was nothing to show that he encouraged the said mistake.”</i>This contention is fortified by the provisions of <b>Order 5 Rules 1 and 3 of the Rules of this court.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He therefore urgedthe Honourable Court to discountenance the case of <b>NNPC v. Elumah (1997) 3 NWLR (pt. 492) p. 195; BBN v. Olayiwola (2001) 6 WRN p. 141; Nwabueze v. Obi Okoye (1988) 3 NSCC P. 53 and Kida v. Ogunmola (2006) All FWLR (pt. 327) p. 402</b> cited and relied upon by the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent’s counsel as they are all not applicable in this instant case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> ground of objection, whether agents of a disclosed principal cannot be sued for the acts of the disclosed principal, learned counsel stated that before delving into full argument on this issue, some pertinent questions to be asked and which are very necessary are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">What is the nature of the wrong complained of by the applicant against the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents in this case – Is it bothering on contract or is it a tortuous wrong?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are seen as agents, how or what was the mode of creating the agency relationship?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Can the applicant be said to be a third party with regard to his relationship with the principal, which is SSANU, or is he also an agent of the same principal?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If the answer to question No. 1 above is that it is a tortuous wrong, and the act can properly be said to be within the scope of the authority of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents can they (1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents) be jointly and severally liable along with the principal?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If the answer to question No. 2 above is that it is by express/written agreement can such act against the applicant be said to be within the scope of their authority?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l23 level1 lfo24"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If the answer to question No. 3 above is that the applicant is a co-agent of the same principal, can the applicant still bring an action against the same principal on whose behalf all the agents, that is, both the applicant and the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are acting and/or with whose authority they are all acting? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then stated that the term “Agency” has been explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of <b>United Bank for Africa plc. V. Hon. Sunday Johnson & Anor. (2010) All FWLR (pt. 525), 321 at p. 334 paras. E-F </b>as follows: <i>“In Vulcan Gases Ltd. v. G.F.I.G. at p. 53, Uwaifo JSC. Speaking for the Supreme Court said:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> “Agency exists between 2 persons when one of whom expressly or impliedly consents that the other should act on his behalf and the other of whom similarly consents to so act. The authority thereby created is called actual authority, in general, no formalities are required for the creation of agency. So, unless otherwise provided by or pursuant to any statutes, an agent may be appointed by deed, by writing or by word of mouth.”</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That according to Prof. M.C. Okany in his book: <b>Nigerian Commercial Law (Africana-Fep publication ltd, 1992) at p. 352, </b><i>“There are various ways of creating principal/agent relationship. The relationship of principal and agent may arise in any one of the following ways, namely:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo25"><!--[if !supportLists]--><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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By agreement, express or implied.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo25"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By virtue of the doctrine of estoppels;<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo25"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By subsequent ratification by the principal<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo25"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By implication of law-necessity; and<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo25"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By presentation of law. The last two are usually referred to as agency created by operation of law…However, in some cases, the appointment is required to be in writing, as in the case of an appointment by a corporation…”</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel then submitted that it is an undisputable fact that the agency relationship can create 3 different liabilities with a 3<sup>rd</sup> party, to wit:- liabilities arising from contract created by the agent; tortuous liability against a 3<sup>rd</sup> party; and criminal liability against a 3<sup>rd</sup> party. That from the foregoing, therefore, the answer to the 1<sup>st</sup> question raised above is that the nature of the wrong complained of by the applicant in this suit cannot in any way be said to have arisen from breach of contract. It is clearly a tortuous wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That again, in answer to the 2<sup>nd</sup> question raised above, counsel stated that it is created by expressly written agreement and the said agreement is the Constitution of the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU). By the provisions of <b>Article 6(ii) of the constitution, 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition, 2011, </b>the constitution is the basic instrument of authority and nothing more including any bye-law made by any Branch can determine the rights and obligations of members to one another. It provides: <i>“The constitution shall be the basis of a contract between members of the union, between individual members among themselves, between the union and its officials.”</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That even though the constitution authorizes a branch to promulgate a by-law, before same becomes operational, it must be sent to the National secretariat for the consideration and approval by the National Executive Council and if any provision of the bye-law is inconsistent with any provision of the constitution, the National Executive Council has the power to declare same null and void. He referredthe Court to <b>Article 6(iv) – (vi) of the SSANU Constitution, 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition, 2011 at pp. 6-7. </b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to the provisions of <b>article 14(ii) of the SSANU Constitution, </b>there shall be a Branch Executive committee of the Union. The composition of the said Branch Executive committee is provided for in <b>paragraph (ii) of article 14 </b>thus: - <b>chairperson; vice chairperson; Secretary, Treasurer; financial secretary; public Relations Officer; Assistant secretary; Trustee; Ex-officio and Women Leader.</b> From the above, therefore, it is clear that the applicant, as the Trustee of the branch, cannot be said to be a third party, rather both the applicant and the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are all agents of the same principal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is counsel’s contention that all of them are working for the principal and none of them has involved a third party as to bring in the said principal, on whose behalf they have involved the 3<sup>rd</sup> party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">As it is counsel’s submission that answer to No. 1 above is that the complaint of the applicant is a tortuous wrong and assuming the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents were acting within the scope of their authority, without conceding that they are, both the principal and the agents are jointly and severally liable for the torts committed by the agents. Thus, Street in his book:<b>law of torts, 6<sup>th</sup> edition at p. 420</b> has this to say: <i>“The obiter dicta of the <b>House of Lords in Heaton Transport (St. Helens) Ltd. V. Transport and General workers Union (1973) A. C. 15 at p.99</b> that the test to be applied in determining the responsibility of a master or principal for the act of a servant or an agent is the same: was the servant or agent acting on behalf of and within the scope of the authority conferred by the master or principal?”</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That, one of the characteristics of agency relationship is that the agent must act lawfully and within the scope of his authority. Thus, <b>Prof. M.C. Okany (supra) at p. 345</b> has this to say, <i>“In agency relationship, the agent represents the principal. This means that, provided he acts lawfully and within the scope of his authority, the actions of the agent in relation to 3<sup>rd</sup> parties are ascribed to the principal. One consequence of this is that, as already stated, when the agent enters into a contract on behalf of the principal, a direct contractual relationship (or privity of contract) exists between the principal and the other party to the contract.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From all the authorities cited above both judicial and textual, it is clear that it is only in contract that the agent is obviated from liability as far as he acts within the scope of his authority and as an agent. It does not relate to torts. In the case of torts, in some situations, the agent alone will be liable and in some situations both the agent and the principal will be liable but in no situation will the principal alone be liable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That for such situations where both the principal and the agent will be held liable, <b>Prof. M.C. Okany</b> put it thus: <i>“The principal is liable for any tort committed by his agent when acting in the course of his employment, if the tort was authorized or ratified by the principal. Generally, it is no defence to an action against a tortfessor for him to prove that he acted under authority, instructions or orders of another. Therefore, the agent is also liable. However, if both principal and agent are liable, their liability will be joint and several.”</i>Prof. Okany went further, in support of the above principle, to cite the following cases:<b>A C B Ltd. V. Agbanyim (1960) 5 FSC 19; Dosumu v. Lamboye (19710 I N. C. L. R. 1313; Pan Bros. Ltd V. Landed Property Ltd. (162) 2 All NLR 22</b> and <b>Sagoe v. John Walkden & Co. (1931) 1WACA 157.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Similarly in the case of <b>Asafa Foods Factory Ltd. V. Alraine Nig. & Anor. (2002) 99 LRCN 1517 t p. 1530 paras Z-EE </b> the Supreme Court held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The position of the law is clear that a person may decide to act by another as his agent and get the benefit or bear the liability of that arrangement. One who authorizes is the principal while the one authorized is the agent. The agent acts as if it is the principal who does that act. In case of default, the agent normally becomes directly liable while the principal may as well be liable. It has been held that the fact that a person is an agent and is known to be so does not therefore of itself necessarily prevent his incurring personal liability. Whether he does so is to be determined by the nature and terms of the contract and surrounding circumstances.</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The court went further to hold at paras. OO-TT, thus<i>: In Stanley yeung kai young v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn. (1981) A. C. 787 (p.c), </i><b>Lord Scarman delivering the judgment of the Board observed at p. 795</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is not the law that, if a principal is liable, his agent cannot be. The true principle of law is that a person is liable for his engagement (as for his torts) even though he is acting for another, unless he can show that by the law of agency he is to be held to have expressly or impliedly negatived his personal liability.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that for such situation where the agent alone will be held personally liable,<b> Street on torts</b> has this to say at<b> p. 431:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">If the act which has caused injury to another person is expressly prohibited, the principal will not be held liable……in the case of Twin v. Bean’s Express Ltd. (1046) 175 L.T 131 at p.132, the company was held not liable for the injury suffered by another person who was given a lift by the driver of the company…He quoted the decision of Lord Greene in the case thus: “He was in fact doing two things at once. He was driving his van from one place to another by a route that he was properly taking…And as he was driving the van he was acting within the scope of his employment. The other thing that he was doing simultaneously was something totally outside the scope of his employment, namely, giving lift to a person who had no right whatsoever to be there.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Similarly, the Supreme Court has held, in the case of <b>Mrs. Florence O. Labode v. Dr. Godfrey Otubu & Anor. (2001) 85 LRCN 771 at p. 81`2 paras. E-F,</b> thus: “<i>From the averments in the statement of claim particularly paragraph 5 it is clear that Mrs. Fadipe was engaged for his services, as plaintiff’s agent, to prepare the Deed of assignment and lodge same for the application for the Governor’s consent. Therefore, the pledging of the plaintiff’s certificate was without her authority. It is well settled that any unauthorized tortuous or contractual acts of the agent cannot bind the principal. See Coker v. Wickliffe 17 NLR 110 and Obaseki v. ACB & Ord (1966) NMLR 35.”</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In answer to question No. 5 above, learned counsel’s humble view is that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are agents expressly created by the constitution of SSANU, the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents cannot be said to be acting within the scope of their authority.It cannot be part of the duties of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup>respondents to determine which and how the duties of an elected officer should be performed. It is the duty of the Constitution of the Association. There is no evidence that either the Branch of the association or the parent body had directed the 1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup>respondents to prevent the Claimant from performing his duties as to say that they were acting on behalf of the Association. It is learned counsel’s contention that it is not part of the constitutional duties of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents to dictate the duties of the Claimant or any other elected officer of the Branch and so, the decision of the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, who is basking in the euphoria that he is the alter ego of SSANU, UNN Branch, that the Claimant, who is duly elected as the Trustee of the Branch cannot be allowed to perform his own duties is clearly beyond the scope of his functions and cannot be said to be an action on behalf of either the Branch or the parent body.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel submitted that the primary source of authority of the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents and including the applicant is the SSANU constitution. <b>Article 7 of the constitution </b>provides for the Government of the Union and which includes the local branch Executive Committee. <b>Article 14 (iii)</b> provides for the composition of the Branch Executive Committee and <b>Article 16 of the constitution</b> provides for duties of all officers and staff of the Union. Throughout all these sections or articles or parts of the constitution there is no where it can be inferred that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents have any iota of authority, either express or implied or either apparent or ostensible to determine and/or dictate the duties of any other officer. The duties of each and every officer or even secretarial staff of the Union are clearly and expressly spelt out.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, in answer to question No. 6 above, as I have contended that the applicant herein is a co-agent with the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents, he cannot easily bring an action against the same principal on whose behalf all the agents, including the respondents are acting, unless it is a direct breach or infraction of the terms of the agency by the principal, of which he will adopt any of the suitable remedies available to him as an agent against his principal. In the instant case in hand, the complaint is against his co-agents among themselves, of which the principal has no hand in any form.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel concluded this segment by an illustration thus: Assuming the SSANU (that is National body) has given out certain specific amount of money to the various officers of the Branch Executive Committee as bonuses but the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents confiscated the amount given to the applicant and he intends to recover the money from them, will it be proper to go after the National body instead of those who are withholding his money? The answer to the above is very simple. He should go against those who are withholding his money and not the National body.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel then proceeded to deal with the insinuation raised by the counsel to the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent in paragraph 2.06 of this written address fully under his ground No. 3 as to whether there was any reason for joining the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent or not. As for whether there are proper defendants in this case because the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are agents, it has been well handled above. He therefore prayed the Honourable Court to discountenance the authorities of <b>James v. mid-motors (Nig) Co. Ltd (1978) 11 NSCC 536; Samuel Osigwe v. Privatization Share Purchase Loan Scheme Management Ltd. & Ors (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1128) 378</b> and other similar authorities cited and relied upon by 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent’s counsel as they are not on all fours with this case in hand. In the first place, they relate to contracts and not torts and secondly, they involve 3<sup>rd</sup> parties and not an issue among agents of the same principal, handling their internal squabbles.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the ground of objection on whether no cause of action whatsoever has been disclosed against the Respondents, learned counsel stated that the applicant has a very strong reasonable cause of action against the respondents, especially, the 1<sup>st</sup> –3<sup>rd</sup> respondents. Even though it will be erroneous to say that there is no cause of action against the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent. It will be better said that the applicant does not have a claim against the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent but he has a relief or prayer he is seeking from this Honourable court that will in one way or the other affect the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent if same is granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It cannot be said that an interlocutory relief is not part of proceedings in any suit and if any part of the reliefs sought at the interlocutory level will affect any person; it will not be out of place to include such person for him to be aware that a relief sought in the suit will affect him.He conceded that the applicant has no relief against the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent in the main suit but a relief against the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent in the motion for interlocutory injunction, wherein he is praying the court to order for the stoppage of the operation of the account of the Branch until the proper signatories are submitted to the bank. Thus, in the case of <b>Mr. Samuel Asonibare v. Mohammed Mamodu & Anor (2014)10 WRN 140 at p. 161 lines 15-25,</b> the Court of Appeal held thus:<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">It would be unfair in my view, if the ministry would have to be bound by the result of the action or where the questions that arose in the action, would have been such that could not have been effectively and completely settled unless the ministry was made a party. I say so because it has been held that the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party in an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action …</span></i><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To counsel, as he has been able to show to this court that the wrong complained of by the applicant is tortuous and that both the principal and the agent are jointly and severally liable, in a proper case, which is not even applicable in this case in hand, it cannot be said that the applicant has failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action simply for his failure to join or sue SSANU. This is because even if the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents can be properly said to be agents and the applicant seen as a 3<sup>rd</sup> party, it is then at the discretion of the applicant on who to sue since their liabilities are joint and several.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel therefore prayed this Hon. Court to hold that the applicant has disclosed a very strong and reasonable cause of action against the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In summary, counsel submitted that this preliminary objection should be dismissed on the following points:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Originating summons is one of the modes of commencing a suit at the National Industrial court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Originating summons is not required to be sealed and even if it is, the failure to seal same is the same is the fault of the Registry, which should not be visited on the litigant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The wrong complained of by the applicant in this suit bothers on tort.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iv)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Assuming the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents can be seen as agents, they are still liable along side with the principal, whether a disclosed or undisclosed one.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(v)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The wrong complained of by the applicant is such that the perpetrators should be held personally liable even if they are agents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(vi)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The dispute is among agents of the same principal and as such, the principal should not be involved in the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(vii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The applicant has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l27 level1 lfo26"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(viii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Since the applicant has a relief that will bind the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent, the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent has become a necessary party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion, counselurged the Honourable court to dismiss this preliminary objection as being frivolous and grant the applicant all his relies both in the main suit and in the interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Replying on points of law, the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent submits that all the submissions made by the Applicant in paragraphs 2.01 – 5.02 of his reply to the preliminary objection raised by the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent are misplaced, untenable, unsustainable and dislocated.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent’s counsel maintained thatthis suit is incompetent and the Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 1<sup>st</sup> ground of Claimant’s legal argument,</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">counsel replied that the suit is incompetent; the so-called originating summons having failed to comply strictly with the provisions of the Rules of this Honourable Court and decided Supreme Court cases. The law is settled that the provisions of a statute are not read in isolation. A community reading of the provisions of a statute will reveal the true intentions of the legislature at the time the law was made.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that it is wrong for the Applicant to hinge his argument solely on the provisions of Order 3 Rule 5(A)(1) of the Rules of this Honourable Court in isolation of Order 3 Rule 1. That Order 3 Rule 1 regulates Order 3 Rule 5(A)(1) of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Order 3 Rule 1 commences as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">ANY ACTION for determination by the Court shall be commenced by way of complaint which shall be filed and sealed… …</span></u></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(underlining supplied by counsel for emphasis)<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that the operative words are “any action”. Thus, irrespective of the mode of commencement of any action at this Honourable Court, the originating process must comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Order 3 Rule 5(A)(1) provides <i>for commencement of an action by way of originating summons.</i>The saidOrder 3 Rule 5 (A)(1) has not in any way whatsoever whittled down the mandatory provisions of Order 3 Rule 1. Order 3 Rule 5(A)(1) is merely ancillary to Order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the Applicant is under the illusion that he need not file his originating process as in Form 1 provided for under Order 3 Rule 1. The Rules of this Honourable Court envisaged circumstances under which certain modifications might be required while filing a complaint. This is essential <i>because the mode ofcommencement of an action would necessitate the modification of Form 1.</i> This is strengthened by the 2<sup>nd</sup> arm of the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 which provides as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">“… … - The complaint shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstance may require”<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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""> (Underlining supplied by counsel for emphasis)<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thuscounsel submitted that every complaint filed at this Honourable Court which invariably is an originating process must be sealed by the Registrar of this Court. Then the Form 1 as provided for by Order 3 Rule 1 can then be modified in line with the mode of commencement of the complaint.<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"">Again, counsel submitted that without any shadow of doubt that the originating process which the Applicant has purported to be an originating summons cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed an originating summons.The Honourable Court is most respectfully urged to take a critical look at the originating process which the Applicant filed and discover for itself that the said process is an originating motion contrary to the argument of the Applicant that he commenced his suit by Originating Summons.Thenomenclature originating summons termed the process notwithstanding, it still remains an originating motion. He urged the Honourable Court to so hold.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Continuing, counsel stated that assuming without conceding that the originating process is an originating summons, the authorities cited by Applicant in paragraphs 2.06 and 2.07 of his reply are totally inapplicable in light of the preliminary objection raised by the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent. The authorities cited do not in anyway whatsoever say that an originating summons does not require the seal of the Registrar of the Court as an originating process.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted further that since the originating process is not an originating summons but rather an originating motion the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 applies with full force. The Applicant having failed to comply with the provisions of the said Order; the suit becomes incompetent and totally unmaintainable. The authorities cited by the Applicant in paragraphs 2.08 – 2.09 of his reply are untenable and unsustainable. The Applicant relied on the provisions of Order 5 Rules 1 and 3 of the Rules of this Honorable Court wherein he argued that the defect on the face of the originating process can be treated as a mere irregularity.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">For the avoidance of doubt, counsel stated categorically that Order 5 Rule 1 is not meant to tie the hands of a court in face of a defect which is incurably bad in law. Order 5 Rules 1 and 3 used the word “may”. Thus, the Honourable Court cannot exercise jurisdiction when an originating process is grossly incompetent. The Non-sealing of the originating process renders, the process incompetent and a worthless piece of paper. It is not in the specie of mere irregularity envisaged by Order 5 Rules 1 and 3 of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Non sealing of an originating process is a fundamental vice deserving nothing other than an Order of striking out.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that it is immaterial as per how the irregularity occurred. Once an Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to proceed, the matter ends there. Failure to commence a proceeding with an originating process validity issued goes to the root of the case and any Order emanating from such proceeding is liable to be set aside as incompetent and a nullity. Sealing of an originating process is a condition precedent. Where the Registrar fails to seal an originating process it robs the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this unsealed process. In the case of <b>Echu Igiriga V. Okon Bassey and Ors (2013) LPELR (Law Pavilion Electronic Law Reports) 20346 (CA) </b>it was held as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The seal as envisaged by the Rules is a condition precedent. See <b>Chairman LEDB. V. Adewale & Ors (1966) NWLR page, 72 where Ikeazu J. held:</b>this suit was instituted by means of an originating summons which was not sealed. It is clear in law that an originating summons must be sealed, but this was not done in this case. After the lapse of several months this omission was noticed and an effort was made to put a seal on the unsealed summons which has been in the Court’s file. I have asked Counsel to satisfy me that this late sealing will have the effect of curing the omission retrospectively. This was not done. I do not think that this case is properly before the Court and therefore strike it out.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that the authority cited in paragraph 1.14 herein is without prejudice to our argument that the so-called originating summons filed by the Applicant is an originating motion. Notwithstanding, the law is settled that irrespective of the mode of commencement of an action, the process has to be validly sealed before jurisdiction will be conferred on the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the Honourable Court to hold that it cannot exercise jurisdiction as the defective originating process has robbed it of the requisite jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">As regards the 2<sup>nd</sup> ground of his legal argument</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">, </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">counsel submitted that the arguments contained in paragraphs 3.01 – 3.24 of his reply are contradictory, untenable and unsustainable. That the Applicant has failed to appreciate the nature of the relationship existing between him and the disclosed principal which is the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU) which he inexplicably failed to sue but chose to proceed albeit incompetently against the agents of the disclosed principal.The Constitution of SSANU 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition 2011 Article 6(ii) provided:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The Constitution shall be the <u>basis of a contract</u> between members of the Union, between individual members amongst themselves, between the Union and its Officials.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(underlining supplied by counsel for emphasis)<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The question that readily comes to mind is this: “When certain Executive members of the Association allegedly violate the said Constitution which in itself is a contract binding every member of the Association, has a breach of that contract crystallized?”The answer is a resounding yes. A breach of the Constitution which is a contract has allegedly occurred.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The contention of the Applicant in his reply that the wrong done to him is tortuous is misconceived, untenable and unsustainable. The Applicant has alleged that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are in breach of the provisions of the Constitution of the Association. This alleged breach occurred in the course of execution of their lawful duties as agents of SSANU. The Association not the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents is the proper party to be sued. A breach of the Association’s Constitution is a breach of contract in itself going by the provisions of the Constitution; that is, Article 6(ii) SSANU Constitution 3<sup>rd</sup> Edition 2011.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that every act done by the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as Officers of the Association in the course of execution of their duties in their capacities as officers of the Association is invariably an act of the Association. The Applicant in his reply failed woefully to fully appreciate the fact that SSANU is the proper party to be sued in this suit and not the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is worthy of note to state that the Applicant is not in doubt that the 1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are merely agents of SSANU. In paragraph 3.08 of his reply, he expressly stated that himself and the 1<sup>st</sup>- 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are all agents of the same principal. The disclosed principal ought to have been sued instead of the agents. SSANU is a registered body with perpetual succession and a common seal. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is trite that the acts of an agent or servant in the course of execution of his duties/functions are at law, deemed or attributed to be that of the principal, relying on the case of<b> Agbenelo V. UBN ltd (2000) 4 SC(pt.1)233.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the Honourable Court to hold that the proper Respondent (SSANU) having not been sued, the suit becomes incompetent and unmaintainable. The Applicant cited a host of authorities in his reply that are totally irrelevant and academic. He urged the Honourable Court to discountenance them.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">As regards the 3<sup>rd</sup> ground of his legal argument,</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">counsel for the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent submitted that the Applicant having admitted that no cause of action was disclosed against the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent in the so-called “originating summons”, he does not need to exert any energy on that. The law is settled that whatever is admitted needs no further proof. In paragraph 4.03 of his reply, he stated as follows: “<i>we concede that the Applicant has no relief against the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent in the main suit..?”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Since no cause of action was disclosed in the suit itself against the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent, there is no basis in law for suing it. When no reasonable cause of action is disclosed against a Defendant, the suit ought to be struck out.As submitted previously, the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are not the proper parties to have been sued being mere agents of SSANU a disclosed principal. In the absence of suing the proper Defendant and having not disclosed any cause of action against the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent, there is nothing before the Honourable Court to adjudicate upon.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having failed to disclose any cause of action against the Respondents on record, the Honourable court cannot grant any of the reliefs sought by the Applicant. The suit was dead on arrival (DOA) and ought to be struck out accordingly.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, counsel urged the Honourable Court to hold that on the totality, it is without any shadow of doubt certain that the proper party to be proceeded against by the Applicant is SSANU and having failed to do so, there is absolutely nothing before the Honourable Court to adjudicate upon.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In conclusion, the Honourable Court is urged to uphold the preliminary objection of the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent, its reply on points of law and discountenance the reply of the Applicant and strike out the suit for being incompetent, untenable and unsustainable.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully gone through the processes filed as well as the arguments and submissions of counsel on both sides over the preliminary objections of the Respondents. I will start considering same by dealing with that of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents. The issues for determination in respect of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents are:-<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether this suit was initiated by due process upon fulfillment of condition precedent?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the action was properly constituted?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Claimant has disclosed any reasonable cause of action?<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the first issue for determination the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents’ contended that this suit was not initiated by due process. This is because the originating process in this suit was not duly issued and sealed in compliance with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 as amended. That what the Claimant did was to initiate this suit by way of a motion and even then same was not sealed as required by the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court 2007. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of <b><i>Monokpo vs Shell Petroleum Unlimited (2003), supra. </i></b>Therefore the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents urged the Honourable Court to hold that the suit was not properly initiated and strike it out. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant denied this arguing that he had done all that was required to be done in initiating this suit having regard to the provisions of Order 3 Rule 5A (i) and (ii) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 as amended. He particularly pointed out that there was no requirement of Sealing of the Originating Summons in Order 3 Rule 5A of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 as amended. He added that even if there was need for Sealing it was the fault of the Registrar of Court and not that of the Claimant so that the fault, mistake or sin of the Registrar cannot be visited on the Claimant or his counsel, relying on the case of <b><i>RMAFC vs Onwuekweikpe (2010), supra, Alhaji Fatai Ayodele Alawiye vs Mrs Elizabeth Adetokunbo Ogunsanya (2013), supra, </i></b>and <b><i>Unilorin vs Dunmade (2013), supra.</i></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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties it is quite clear that the Claimant filed a process which he calls originating summons. The question is whether the Originating Summons is an originating process which requires the Seal of the Court for it to be properly constituted in order for it to assume jurisdiction over the suit. Order 1 rule 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 as amended defines an ‘originating process’ to mean “a Complaint or any other process by which a suit is initiated.” In this case the Claimant has argued that he did not initiate the suit by way of a Complaint but rather by an originating motion. The point though is that ‘originating summons’ is one of the well-known processes for initiating a civil suit before the Courts in this country. An originating process must be Sealed and therefore the Claimant had a duty to have the originating summons duly issued with the necessary memorandum as well as a Seal of the Honourable Court. This is quite clear from the provision contained in Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 as amended. The said provision of Order 3 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, as amended provides as follows:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo35"><!--[if !supportLists]--><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-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Any action for determination by the Court shall be commenced by way of Complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The Complaint shall be in Form 1 with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; 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"">This provision makes the filing of a Complaint in initiating a proceeding compulsory and equally the Sealing of same to be mandatory. The Claimant seems to think that the Originating Summons does not have to be sealed by the Court because Order 3 Rule 5A does not say so. I do not think that is the correct position of the law. Every originating process must be sealed. The provision of Order 3 Rule 1 is quite clear that any action commenced for the determination of any dispute before the Court must be sealed. This must be extended to every originating process, including Originating Summons. The Claimant’s submission that Order 3 Rule 5A does not state the requirement of sealing by the Court is not plausible enough. A careful look at the said Order 3 Rule 5A of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 as amended shows that the requirements stipulated thereat relate to the documents to accompany the said originating summons. It does not state how an originating summons can be initiated, but rather it provides for what to accompany the said originating summons. The originating summons being an originating process must be duly sealed. Here let me refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of </span><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">Echu Igiriga vs Okon Bassey and Ors (2013) LPELR-20346 (CA)</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">where it was held, per PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU J.C.A (Pp. 15-17, Paras. F-A). as follows:<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-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">The word shall in this subsection is mandatory. The Registrar shall seal every originating process. The sealing of this originating process is a condition precedent. Where the Registrar fails to seal an originating process it robs the court of jurisdiction to entertain this unsealed writ. It is even more important for the Registrar to seal the process as it is, an originating process. All the subsections of Order 8 are mandatory. A writ issued without the Registrar's seal is incompetent and cannot be cured. Where the word shall is used in any legislation it means it is mandatory. There is no other meaning that can be ascribed to it. The word shall means that any failure on the part of the Registrar to seal the writ of summons, invalidates the writ. A writ unlike other processes is an originating court process and it requires the Registrar's seal. NNPC vs. Elumah (1997) 3 NWLR Pt.492 page 195: BBN vs. Olayiwola (2001) 6 WRN page 141. The seal as envisaged by the Rules is a condition precedent. See Chairman LEDB vs. Adewale & Ors. (1966) NWLR page 72 where Ikpeazu, J., held: "This suit was instituted by means of an originating summons which was not sealed. It is clear in law that an originating summons must be sealed, but this was not done in this case. After the lapse of several months this omission was noticed and an effort was made to put a seal on the unsealed summons which has been in the court file. I have asked counsel to satisfy me that this late sealing will have the effect of curing the omission retrospectively. This was not done. I do not think that this case is properly before the court and therefore strike it out..." Nwabueze vs. Obi-Okoye (1988) 3 NSCC page 53, Kida vs. Ogunmola (2006) All FWLR Pt.327 page 402 where it was held by the Supreme Court that: "...The validity of the issue of the originating process is fundamental to the competence of a suit. Therefore, failure to commence a proceeding with a writ of summons validly issued goes to the root of the case and any order emanating from such proceeding is liable to be set aside as incompetent and a nullity. Such a flaw clearly borders on the issue of jurisdiction and the competence of the court to adjudicate on the matter.</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">..<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-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"">His Lordship further added that:<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-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Failure to seal an originating process is not a mere irregularity. It is a condition precedent that foists jurisdiction on the court. This defect is therefore fundamental and robs the court of the necessary jurisdiction to continue. In order to ascertain whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the court is guided by the claim before it, by critically looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim. Gafar vs. Government of Kwara State (2007) 4 NWLR ( Pt.1024) page 375: Onuonoh vs. K.R.P.C. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) page 393 Tukur vs. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR Pt.117 page 517." PER NDUKWE-ANYANWU J.C.A (P.17, Paras. C-F).<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;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"">This decision of the Court of Appeal clearly settles the issue in this matter. An originating process, whether a writ of summons, an originating summons, originating motion, etc, must be sealed. In the circumstance therefore, I resolve the first issue favour of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as I hold that the failure to seal the Originating Summons was fatal to the action.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The second issue is on the parties before the Honourable Court. It is the case of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents that they have been sued in their personal capacities whereas they acted as officials of the Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU) in the complaint laid by the Claimant. This, the Respondents argued, the claimant cannot do. The 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents acted as agents of the SSANU and had no personal liability by which they could be sued in their personal capacities as in the instant suit. Reliance was placed by them on the case of <b><i>Emmanuel Agenelo vs Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2000) 4 SC, Part 1, p. 233 at 242, 256-257.</i></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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents argued further that the SSANU was not even joined in the suit as it is a necessary party being the union for which all the parties were elected to serve as officials. They further contended that the failure to sue the union means that there is no competent defendant before the court in this matter. This means that the court is being asked to determine issues and make orders that would affect the union and its members but the union and its members are not before the court; that this would occasion grave injustice to it and thousands of its members who would be affected by the order. Reliance was placed on the decision in <b><i>Ayorinde vs Oni (2000) 2 SCNJ 1 at 12-13.</i></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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents equally submitted that the petrol station in question had been leased to Glory Petroleum Limited, a third party which has also not been joined in the suit. This adds to the disability of the suit in that another necessary party was not sued by the Claimant.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part the Claimant responded that the issue of agency between the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents and the union, SSANU does not arise. He argued that the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents were liable in this suit because what is at stake is a tortuous act against them for which both the principal and agent are liable jointly and severally. Furthermore, the Claimant contended that he does not have any claim against the union, SSANU and/or Glory Petroleum Ltd. Therefore there is no need to sue either or both of them. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the facts of the case as well as the arguments and submissions of both parties the issue is whether the necessary parties are before the Court. On the point of the status of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents, it is quite clear from the process filed that they have been sued in their names which fact connotes that they were sued in their respective personal capacities. The question is: can that be lawfully done in the circumstances of the case? I do not think so. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents, they are all elected officials of the union and acted as such. Therefore they do not have any personal liabilities for their actions. Whatever is alleged to have been done by them was actually done in the name of the union, SSANU. Therefore they cannot personally answer for their actions. See <b><i>CARLEN (NIG.) LTD. V. UNIVERSITY OF JOS (1994) 1 NWLR (PART 323) 631</i></b>. Also in the case of <b><i>FGN & ORS v. SHOBU NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (2013) LPELR-21457(CA),</i></b> the Court of Appeal, Per UWA, J.C.A (Pp. 19-20, paras. G-E) held that:<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">This court in U.B.A. PLC v. OGUNDOKUN, (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 450 at 483-484 paragraphs G-A. His Lordship Adekeye, J.C.A. (as he then was) held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">"It is trite that an agent acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no liability. This is because the act of the agent is the act of the principal. It was the principal who did or omitted to do what the agent did or omitted to do. The common law rule is expressed in Latin maxim qui facit per aluim facit per se, a sum facere indepur which means he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself, An action against an agent in its private capacity for acts done on behalf of a known and disclosed principal is incompetent NIGER PROGRESS LTD v. N.E.L. CORPORATION (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) PAGE 68; LEVENTIS TECH. LTD v. PETROJESSICA ENT. LTD. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 214) Pg. 459; FAITH ENTERPRISES LTD. v. B.A.S.F. (NIG) LTD. (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) Pg. 242; ESSANG v. AUREOL PLASTIC LTD. (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt. 795) Pg.155.</span></i><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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is quite clear therefore that as agents of SSANU, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents cannot be sued personally for the acts of the union, SSANU. The argument of the learned Claimant’s counsel that the action of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents was not a breach of contract but rather of a tortuous nature is not convincing at all. The claimant is alleging that the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are in breach of the Constitution of the union by not making him a signatory to the union’s branch account and refusing him custody of the union’s properties, which are all predicated on the provisions of the Constitution of the union, he wants the court to interpret and apply. I do not see any tortuous action here. It is a breach of the constitutional provisions. The elected officials of the union, SSANU, are all bound by the provisions of the Constitution. This is evident from the provisions of the Constitution of the union, annexed as Exhibit D to the Originating Summons, in Article 6(ii) which states that <i>“ (ii) The Constitution shall be the basis of a contract between members of the Union, between individuals among themselves, between the Union and its officials.”</i>Therefore the dispute is over breach of contract and not tort. <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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore on the issue of the necessary parties, the objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents is that the Union, SSANU and Global Petroleum Ltd are necessary parties and should have been sued. Necessary parties are those without whom the dispute before the Court cannot be completely and effectually determined. This is what the Court of Appeal said on the point in JOKOLO V. GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE & ORS (2009) LPELR-8339(CA); (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1152) 394, Per BA'ABA, J.C.A.(Pp. 36-37, paras. E-C):<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A necessary party to a case is a person whose presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the cause or matter. See UKU V. OKUMAGBA (1974) 3 S.C. 35 and AWANI &. ORS V. EKEJUWAU & ORS (1976) 11 S.C. 307 and OBILASO ANABARONYE &. 3 ORS V. NELSON NWAKAIHE (1997) 1 NWLR (PT.482) 374 at 381. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the circumstance, the Union, SSANU and Global Petroleum Ltd are all interested parties in this suit and therefore necessary parties without whom the dispute cannot be completely and effectually determined. On the whole the 2<sup>nd</sup> issue is resolved against the Claimant.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I move to the third issue which has to do with whether or not the suit discloses any reasonable cause of action. Here the learned counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents argued that the suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action because the claimant failed to disclose the capacities in which the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents were sued. The learned claimant’s counsel countered this submission and argued that the failure to disclose the capacity in which the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents were sued does not mean that there was no cause of action. Here having considered the arguments and submissions of counsel, I have no difficulty in dismissing the learned counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents’ objection. The meaning of a cause of action has been well settled by a long line of authorities. It simply refers to the factual situation which a claimant presents and is countered by the defendant which, he has to prove to entitle him to judgment. In other words, it is no more than the injury caused by the defendant to which he may be entitled to a judicial remedy. See <b><i>Dantata vs Mohammed (2001) 5 SC 1 at 7; Adimora vs Ajuko (1988) 6 SCNJ 127; Akilu v. Fawehinmi (NO.2)(1989) LPELR-339(SC), </i></b>where the Supreme Court, Per KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C. (P. 74, Paras. D-F) defined it as:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Cause of action has been held to mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, or all those things necessary to give a right to relief in law or <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p>