Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">H. B. Williams, with Olabamiji Adeyeye, for the claimant.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Olusina Sofola SAN, with Simon James, for the defendant/applicant.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">RULING</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimant filed this action on 19th January 2016 vide a General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of facts, list of witness, written statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendant for the following reliefs –</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">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 lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s purported letter of termination of employment dated 12th January 2016 against the claimant is wrongful and constitutes permanent loss of employment.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">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 lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the staff pay-slips for the month of December 2015 showing the deduction from the building loan in the sum of N345,708.79 and a unilaterally reduced loan periodic payment schedule from 16 years repayment timeline to 13 years repayment timeline by the defendant contrary to the mutually agreed monthly deductions of N296,519.00 and 16 years prepayment timeline between the claimant and the defendant in July 2013 constitute a flagrantly breach of the extant stipulations/terms of the Housing Loan and Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">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 lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment has frustrated her repayment obligations under the Housing Loan and Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">d)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">A </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">declaration that the defendant cannot resort to self-help to repossess, auction, sell, dispose of or otherwise deal with any right, title or interest or advertise for sale the claimant’s property at House 2, Hon. Yahya Adeniyi Dosunmu Close, Off Ajiran Road, Agungi, Lekki Lagos State until parties concerned reconcile and mutually agree on the prepayment timeline on the ascertained mortgage debt.</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:PT"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">e)<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";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendant to retract the termination letter and accept a letter of retirement from the claimant and for the defendant to pay the claimant her full benefits for the twenty years that she had been in the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s service.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">f)<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"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Damages in the sum of N100 </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Million (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">One H</span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DA">undred </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Million) for abrupt termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant which has left an indelible stain on her hard earned professional integrity in the eyes of the society.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">g)<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";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Damages in the sum of N150 </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Million </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(One Hundred and Fifty Million) for the immensely suffered psychological trauma and battled depression due to the permanent loss of payment.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">h)<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";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court for Specific damages in the sum of N23,041,956 (Twenty-Three Million, Forty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira) against the defendant being the gratuity owed to the claimant calculated as 300% of her basic salary, transport, housing and lunch voucher as at the time of retirement.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court for general damages in the sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty-Five Million Naira) against the defendant for flagrantly breaching the Housing Loan and Deed of Legal Mortgage Agreement by unilaterally varying, importing and enforcing alien terms outside of the Housing Loan and Deed of Legal Mortgage Agreement.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">j)<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"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendant to engage the clamant to reconcile and mutually agree on the prepayment timeline on the ascertained mortgage debt.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">k)<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";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Moratoriums on the Housing Loan and Deed of Legal Mortgage until parties concerned reconcile and mutually agree on the prepayment timeline on the ascertained mortgage debt.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">l)<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"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants to write an apology to the claimant with respect to their wrongfully terminating her employment in two nationally recognized newspapers.</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">m)<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";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its privies, staff, assigns, agents and officers from entering into possession, auctioning, selling, disposing of or otherwise dealing with any rights, title, or interest or advertising for sale the claimant’s property at House 2, Hon. Yahya Adeniyi Dosunmu Close, Off Ajiran Road, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos State until parties concerned reconcile and mutually agree on the prepayment timeline on the ascertained mortgage debt.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. In reaction, the defendant entered formal appearance and then filed on 3rd February 2016 a preliminary objection pursuant to section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The preliminary objection is supported by an affidavit and a written address. By the preliminary objection, the defendant is paying for the following reliefs:</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1) An order of this Honourable Court striking out this suit for being frivolous, vexatious and premature thereby ultimately robs this Court the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">IN THE ALTERNATIVE</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2) An order of this Honourable Court striking out prayers b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) of the claimant’s complaint in so far it relates to the Housing Loan granted to the claimant/respondent for being frivolous, vexatious and premature.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3) And for such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. The grounds upon which the preliminary objection is based are as follows: </span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1) The parties freely entered into the Deed of Mortgage and same was executed by both parties.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2) By clause 16 of the Deed of Mortgage, the mortgagor (the claimant) undertook and covenanted that no legal action or suit shall be instituted howsoever, instigated and/or sustained by the mortgagor against the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant/</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">applicant without first giving the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant/</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">applicant a sixty (60) day prior written pre-action notice of the mortgagor’s intention to so proceed against the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant/</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">a</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: IT">pplicant.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3) The claimant filed this action on the 19th January 2016 without giving the defendant any prior notice as covenanted by the claimant in the Deed of Mortgage entered to by both parties.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4) This action/suit is, therefore, premature and same ought to be struck out by this Court for lack of jurisdiction.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5) In the event that this Court is not mindful to strike out the entire suit, prayers b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) of the claimant’s complaint which relate to the Housing loan taken by the claimant/respondent are incompetent and same ought to be struck out, the claimant/respondent having failed to serve the defendant the pre-action notice as agreed in clause 16 of the Deed of Mortgage.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6) In any event, the substantive claim of the claimant is the Mortgage Deed of the parties.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. In reaction, the claimant filed a counter-affidavit and a written address, to which the defendant filed a further affidavit and a reply on points of law.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The defendant framed a lone issue for the determination of the Court i.e. whether this suit AND/OR prayers b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) of the claimant’s complaint is not premature, frivolous and vexatious, the claimant having failed to fulfill the condition precedent as contained in clause 16 of the Deed of Mortgage entered into by the parties as shown in Exhibit A. To the defendant, it is elementary law that jurisdiction is the life wire of any judicial proceedings and no matter how well conducted a proceeding might be, without jurisdiction it is an exercise in futility, referring to </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">AG Kano State v. AG</span></i><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span></i><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">Federation</span></i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2007]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 6 NWLR (Pt</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. l029) 164. That before a court can assume jurisdiction, it must follow the conditions laid down in <i>Madukolu v. Nkemdilim</i> [1962]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 2 SCNLR 341.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> The defendant proceeded to consider the semantics of jurisdiction and judicial power, citing a number of authorities indicating the difference between the two terms, and then submitting that in the circumstance of this case, the pre-action notice as contained in clause 16 of Exhibit A robs this Court the jurisdiction to hear this matter,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Ntiero v. NPA</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 129 SC where the Supreme Court defined a pre-action notice as follows:</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">A pre-action Notice connotes some form of legal notification or information required by law or imparted by operation of law, contained in an enactment, agreement or contract which requires compliance by the person who is under legal duty to put on notice the person to be notified, before the commencement of any legal action against such a person.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. The defendant went on that since both parties have executed Exhibit A, they have in fact given each other terms upon which both parties must be bound; therefore, in the absence of any vitiating element, the law is that none of the parties can renege on any term of the contract because such term is not favorable to it, citing <i>UBA PLC v. Comrade Cycle Limited & anor</i> [2013] LPELR-20737(CA) and </span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE">AG R</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ivers </span></i><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">v, AG A</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">kwa Ibom</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31. That going by the clear provisions of clause 16 of Exhibit A, this suit is premature and a gross abuse of court process. Clause 16 provides thus: </span><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="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The Mortgagor hereby irrevocably undertakes and covenants that no legal action or suit shall be instituted howsoever, instigated and/or sustained by the Mortgagor against the Mortgagee without first giving the Mortgagee a Sixty (60) day prior written pre-action notice of the Mortgagor’s intention to so proceed against the Mortgagee, such notice to be served at the Mortgagee’s registered office address. Any action filed, instituted, sustained, undertaken or taken over by the Borrower against the Mortgagor in default of the pre-action notice obligation herein contained shall be incompetent, null and void.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That the duty of this Court in respect of interpretation of clause 16 is to give its plain meaning as stated in </span><i><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DA">Amede v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. UBA</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2008]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 8 NWLR </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 1090) 623 at 659 - 660, <i>African Re-insurance Corporation v, Fantasy</i> [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 113, <i>Anason Fanns Ltd. v. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd</i> [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt. 331) 241 and <i>UBN Ltd. v. Ozigi</i> [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385. The defendant then submitted that even this Court is bound by the clear provisions of clause 16 of Exhibit A,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>S.P.D.C (Nig.) Ltd v. Emehuru</i> [2007]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 5 NWLR </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 1027) 347 at 266, which held that even a court of law is bound by the contract of the parties.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. To the defendant, the claimant in this case has clearly shown that it is aggrieved by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s action but it has not shown whether by affidavit or by any means that it has complied with the pre-condition precedent to the filing of this suit as prescribed by clause 16 of Exhibit A. That the effect of this non-compliance with clause 16 of Exhibit has been subject of many judicial pronouncements such as </span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">Vinchiem International Limited v. Eleme Petrochemicals Company </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Limited</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2010]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-5087(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, <i>Governor of Ebonyi State v. Isuama</i> [2003] FWLR (Pt. 169) 1210 at 1220 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Society-Generale Bank (Nig.) </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">L</span></i><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">td v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">.</span></i><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> John Adebayo Adewunmi</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[2003]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> FWLR (Pt.</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">158) 1181 at 1192, all of which acknowledge pre-action notice confers jurisdiction and failure to serve means that the Court cannot competently assume jurisdiction. Relying on </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Ntiero v. NPA</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>), the defendant submitted that this sit ought to be struck out, or at least prayers b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) relating to the housing loan should be struck out. On the principle that a Court will strike out a premature action, the defendant</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">red to the cases of </span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">Magit v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. University of Agriculture, Markurdi</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2005]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 19 NWLR </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 959) 211, <i>Professor Greg I. Anyanwu v. University of Jos</i> [2014]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-22556(CA)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> and <i>Ajibi v. Olaewe</i> (2003)</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 8 NWLR </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(Pt. 822) 237. Accordingly, that this action does enjoy any support of law and same is instituted to spite and irritate the defendant. In effect, that this action is an abuse of court process, relying on <i>Ntuks v. NPA</i> [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 13, 419 - 420. The defendant then submitted that this action ought to be struck out for being frivolous, vexatious and premature. In the alternative, that prayers b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) be struck out for being premature. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to </span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DA">uphold </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">its arguments and strike out this suit.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. The claimant in reaction also framed a sole issue for the determination of the Court i.e. having regard to the salient facts of this suit particularly with reference to the reliefs being sought by the claimant, whether this suit was properly instituted to clothe this Honourable Court with the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. To the claimant, what this Court would have to consider in arriving at a just decision when its jurisdiction to adjudicate on a dispute is challenged is the General Form of Complaint and statement of facts, referring to </span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Adigun v. AG</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, Oyo State</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1987</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 4 SC 272.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> That having regard to the salient facts of this suit particularly with reference to the reliefs being sought by the claimant, this Court has jurisdiction over this suit by virtue of section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of 1999 Constitution, as amended. That contrary to the submission of the defendant, the main crux of instituting this suit is hinged on the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment which does not require a pre-action notice as mischievously portrayed by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">; and the Deed of Legal Mortgage that was executed between the claimant and the defendant in the course of the employment relationship forms part of the claimant’s contract of employment with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> To the claimant, her contract of service and employment with the defendant guaranteed her mortgage, which is enshrined in clause 6.3 of the Employee Handbook; thus section 254C(1)(a) and (k) is relevant because the issues in dispute in this suit are incidental and connected to her employment,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on this suit. The claimant also relied on paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter-a</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">ffidavit.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. The claimant went on that the word “Notwithstanding” has been defined by the <i>Black’s Law Dictionary</i> 9th Edition page 1168 to mean “despite”: “in spite of”. That the word “Notwithstanding” has also been given judicial interpretation in <i>Adebayo & ors v. PDP & ors</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2013</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> LPELR</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">-20342(SC), wherein the apex Court adopted the interpretation given to same in the case of <i>Peter Obi v. INEC</i> [2007) All</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> FWLR (Pt.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> 378) 1116 at 1166 as excluding any impending effect of any other provision of the statute or other subordinate legislation so that the said section may fulfill itself. That the word “Notwithstanding” as used in section 254C excludes the powers of the Federal High Court, FCT High Court or High Court of a State in s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">ection</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">s 251, 257 and 272 as regards the jurisdiction of this Court as provided for in the said section so that the section can fulfill itself. That the Court is enjoined when faced with such statutory provision that requires interpretation to give it a liberal meaning and is estopped from reading into the provision what was not the intention of the legislature. That the Court cannot add to or narrow down the law. That the tenor and content of section 254C reveals that the intention of the legislature is to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the National Industrial Court (NIC) in matters relating to employment and matters incidental thereto to the exclusion of all other Courts, urging the Court to so hold.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. The claimant further submitted that the constitutional provision particularly section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, empowers this Court to adjudicate on cases involving employment, labour and all other matters incidental thereto. It is the claimant’s contention that the subject matter of this suit, which is the wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment and the incidental housing loan granted in her capacity as the former Assistant General Manager 1 (CFO) in the Accounts Department of the defendant, was guided by the Employee Handbook which regulated her terms and condition of employment with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">; hence her claims are properly constituted under the exclusive purview of this Court and requires no pre-action notice as alleged by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to hold that section 254C has excluded the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, FCT High Court and State High Court from issues bordering on the instance case. The claimant then reiterated that the subject matter in this suit is the wrongful termination of her employment by the defendant and the incidental matter of the housing loan granted to the claimant was granted to her as part of her conditions of service and thus forms part of the terms of her contract of employment irrespective of whether or not she is still in the employment of the defendant and hence is covered by section 7 of NIC Act 2006 and section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. In conclusion, the claimant</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urge</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to uphold her argument as canvassed herein and dismiss the preliminary objection with substantial</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> cost.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. The defendant first reiterated that its objection is hinged on the fact that the claimant filed to comply with the provision of clause 16 of the Deed of Legal Mortgage executed by the parties; but that the claimant by her submissions seeks to cleverly steer the argument away from the main issue of their failure to comply with clause 16 of the Deed of Legal Mortgage and instead have argued the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, in an attempt to change the goal post in the middle of the game. That if the Court takes a closer look at the reliefs contained in the General Form of Complaint and statement of facts, it would reveal that seven (7) reliefs out of the twelve (12) contained in the General Form of Complaint and also seven (7) of the thirteen (13) reliefs contained in the statement of facts are predicated upon the Deed of Legal Mortgage. That it follows, therefore, that the main claim of the claimant is based on the Deed of Legal Mortgage (Exhibit A) executed by the claimant and the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> To the defendant, as long as the main claim of the claimant is predicated upon the Deed of Legal Mortgage, the claimant must of necessity comply with the terms and conditions of the said Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage freely and voluntarily entered into, referring to <i>Lupo v. Royal Exchange Assurance Plc & anor</i> [2015] 54 NLLR (Pt. 183) 338. That it follows that the requirement of clause 16 of the Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage, which mandates the claimant to serve a sixty (60) day pre-action notice on the defendant prior to commencing an action is mandatory; and failure to do so is fatal to the action and it is liable to be struck out, relying on <i>Nigercare Development Company Ltd v. Adamawa State Water Board & ors</i> [2008]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR"> LPELR</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">-</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">1997(SC)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">; [2008]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 9 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1093) 498, </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Mobil Producing Nig. Un</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ltd. v. LASEPA & ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2002]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> LPELR-1887(SC)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; [2002]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE"> 18 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 798) 1 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Bello & </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ors v. Nigerian Customs Service Board</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] 53 NLLR (Pt. 179) 343.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. The defendant agreed with the clamant that the position of the law is that the reliefs being sought by the claimant in any case would determine whether the Court has jurisdiction over that particular matter. In other words, that in determining the jurisdiction of the Court, the originating processes particularly the claim and reliefs should be looked at, referring to <i>Olaleye v. Afribank Nig. Plc</i> [2012] NLLR (Pt. 77) 277 at 300 and <i>Turku v. Government of Gongola State</i> [1989]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 4 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt.117) 517 at 561. However, that where the reliefs sought for by the claimant fails the test as stated above, or contains in it any feature capable of robbing the Court of jurisdiction, then the Court must decline jurisdiction and steer clear of the matter. That a consideration of the reliefs being sought by the claimant shows that claims b), c), d), i), j), k) and m), which amount to more than half of the reliefs sought, are based on the Deed of Legal Mortgage, which by virtue of clause 16, requires a pre-action notice; and drawing from the position of the Supreme Court in <i>Madukolu v. Nkedilim</i> [1962] 1 All NLR 587 at 595, once there is any feature in the case that robs the Court of jurisdiction (in this case, the failure to fulfill a condition precedent to commencement of the action), this Court cannot assume jurisdiction over the suit,</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> urg</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ing the Court to so hold.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. Furthermore, that a look at claims b), c), d), i), j), k) and m) clearly shows that they seek to determine issues based on the Deed of Legal Mortgage between the claimant and the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; as such this Court only has jurisdiction on issues as contained in s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). That the use of the word ‘notwithstanding’ as contained in s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">C does not confer this Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters not clearly stated in the s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">C. That the issues in reliefs b), c), d), i), j), k) and m) cannot be said to be connected to or with the issues stated in s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">C(1), (a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution given that the reliefs contained in prayers b), c), d), i), j), k) and m) do not fall within the purview of s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">C(1), (a) and (k). That the reliefs are not incidental to or connected with any issues arising from labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations, workplace, conditions of service, health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, or worker. Neither is it incidental to or connected with any dispute arising from the payment or non-payment of salary, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits, or any other entitlement of an employee, worker, politician or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the federation.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. The claimant also argued that the Deed of Legal Mortgage forms part of her contract of employment and that the contract of employment guaranteed her mortgage loan. To this, the defendant submitted that this is grossly incorrect and a mischievous misconception. That the contract of employment of the claimant does not incorporate the Deed of Legal Mortgage; neither did the Deed of Legal Mortgage guarantee the claimant’s employment with the defendant in any manner or form. That neither document contains any clause or provision to that effect. That the Deed of Legal Mortgage even provides under paragraph 4.2 of clause 4 for a situation wherein the claimant would have resigned or ceased to be in the employment of the defendant, such as to protect the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s money secured by the mortgage deed. The defendant then asked how such a document can be said to guarantee the employment of the claimant. To the defendant, the Deed of Legal Mortgage and the claimant’s contract of employment are separate and independent of each other - one can survive where the other is no longer in existence. That the Deed of Legal Mortgage can survive (and indeed has) beyond the claimant’s contract of employment. It is also the defendant’s submission that the Deed of Legal Mortgage constitutes a private or external arrangement between the claimant and her erstwhile employers, the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">That it is irrelevant that the Deed of Legal Mortgage was executed while the claimant was an employee of the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">15. The defendant continued that the Deed of Legal Mortgage cannot be argued to be incidental to the claimant’s contract of employment, as the document does not provide for the claimant’s terms of employment, conditions of service, safety, welfare, health, pensions, gratuity, allowances, or other entitlement of a worker which are all issues squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court as contained in s</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ection 254</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). That it follows, therefore, that any action predicated upon the Deed of Legal Mortgage placed before this Court or any claim/relief drawing its life line from the said Deed of Legal Mortgage in an action before this Court falls outside the purview of this Court’s </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">jurisdiction</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, citing </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Ogbamola & </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">anor v. First Spring Realtors & anor</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] 54 NLLR (Pt. 185) 719 at 732, which </span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">held</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> that the NIC has jurisdiction over employment matters and not over simple debt arising from private or external arrangement between employer and employee. That t</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">he crux of</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Ogbamola</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> was an agreement for commission between the parties, which was not honored and, therefore, led the claimants to institute an action at the NIC. That the NIC declined jurisdiction over all issues which were not employment matters, holding at page 732 as follows:</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Without prejudice to the rights of the claimants, the said letters of employment did not contain the 5% commission on net sales of properties as envisaged in the claimants Statement of Facts. The claimants might have gone into separate arrangement with the respondents which existed independently of their letters of employment but that does not come under the jurisdiction of this court.</span><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Also cited by the defendant is <i>Aloysius v. Diamond Bank Plc</i> [2015] 58 NLLR (Pt. 199) 92. The defendant then submitted that any matter relating to the Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage, which by its nature is a separate and distinct document and private or external arrangement between the claimant and the defendant falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court going by the authority cited above. That this Court was set up strictly for the resolution of employment issues between employers and their employees, terms and conditions of service and not for separate or external arrangements or agreements executed between the employer and employee. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to discountenance the arguments of the claimant and uphold the defendant’s and consequently grant the prayers sought for. That the claimant is bound by the Deed of L</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">egal </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Mortgage which is distinct from her employment and she cannot freely resile from her commitments therein, referring to <i>Rtatqon v. Yusuf</i> [2015] 52 NLL</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE">R (Pt</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. 176) 457.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">COURT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span></u><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">S DECISION</span></u><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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">16. I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed and submissions made in this suit. The defendant’s preliminary objection seeks from this Court an order striking out this case in its entirety or at least striking out reliefs b), c), d), i) and j), k) and m) as prayed for by the claimant. The key ground upon which the defendant rests its case is that the mortgage deed stipulates for a pre-action notice before the claimant can sue on it, and the claimant did not provide the said pre-action notice. In answer, the claimant contends that the main crux of her case is the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s wrongful termination of her employment, which does not require a pre-action notice as portrayed by the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">; and that the Deed of Legal Mortgage that was executed between her and the defendant in the course of the employment relationship forms part of her contract of employment with the d</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">efendant</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. Two main issues arise here. The first is the actual cause of action of the claimant; the second, whether the claimant’s cause of action requires a pre-action notice before she can sue on it. There is the ancillary issue of the quality of the pre-action notice as per clause 16 of the mortgage deed between the parties; but this ancillary issue depends on a finding that the main cause of action of the claimant rests on the mortgage deed itself, for if a finding is made that the main cause of action is other than the mortgage deed, clause 16 of the mortgaged deed will thereby become inconsequential.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">17. What exactly is the cause of action in this case? A look at the reliefs claimed by the claimant in this case will reveal that the complaint of the claimant in this case is that the defendant terminated her employment (reliefs a and e); which termination entitles her to recompense (reliefs f, g, h and l), and which termination frustrated her repayment obligations under the housing loan and mortgage deed (relief c). It is also the case of the claimant that the defendant, given the wrongful termination of her employment, then unilaterally altered the terms of the mortgaged deed in terms of the quantum of periodic sum payable and the repayment timeline (relief b), all of which must be remedied as per reliefs d), i), j), k) and m). To my mind, therefore, the claimant’s cause of action, given the reliefs she seeks, is that her employment was wrongly terminated by the defendant and because of this wrongful termination of employment, the housing loan she took from the defendant and for which a mortgage deed was entered into by the parties (all in virtue of her employment with the defendant) was put in jeopardy given the defendant’s unilateral alteration of the terms as per the quantum of the periodic sum payable and the repayment timeline. Does this Court accordingly have jurisdiction over this? I think so, if the housing loan (and hence mortgage deed) inured to the claimant as a condition of her employment.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">18. The question whether this Court has jurisdiction over scenarios similar to the case at hand have been grappled upon by this Court. To start with, section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution bestows on this Court exclusive jurisdiction over ALL and ANY labour/employment matter and matters connected with or incidental thereto. See <i>Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited & ors v. Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya</i> </span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">[2013] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 255; [2013] 1 ACELR 28; [2013] 36 NLLR (Pt. 109) 338 CA</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">. In <i>Mr. Ojeka John Ashibene v. Access Group of Schools & anor</i> unreported S</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">uit No. NICN/CA/18/2013</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> the judgment of which was delivered on 8th March 2016, Her Ladyship Agbakoba J of this Court refused to accommodate claims relating to tenancy issues because the claimant did not show them to be </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">condition</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">s of his employment. The claims in the case were for declarations as to the legality of the defendant’s act of forcefully ejecting the claimant; the defendants sealing and locking up the claimant’s apartment for 3 years; and an order for the payment of sum of Ten Million Naira for trespass and unlawful seizure and sealing of properties. In declining jurisdiction, <i>Nwana v. FCDA</i> [2004] 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 128 SC was relied on and applied. Additionally, in <i>Mr. Oyebanji Julius Odeniyi & 11 ors v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/648/2013 the ruling of which was delivered on 2nd July 2015, this Court rejected jurisdiction (even under the matters incidental to labour or employment argument) where the claimants prayed for orders proclaiming them owners of the houses they occupy, refund of excess money paid in respect of the houses, declaration that the attempted sale of the houses by the defendant contrary to the Federal Government Housing Scheme 1977 is illegal, refund of part-payment deposited in respect of the houses and payment of retained severance benefits, which were retained in relation to the said houses. Two grounds (amongst others) upon which this Court rejected jurisdiction were that these</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL"> orders</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> sought for by the claimants were not shown to be resolvable under employment or labour law; and in describing themselves as retirees, the claimants did not show to the Court that what they claim appropriately come within their post-employment rights.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">19. From these authorities, the key question regarding the instant case is whether the housing loan (and hence mortgage deed) inured to the claimant as a condition of her employment. In determining this issue, <i>Zenith Bank Plc v.</i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT"> Mr. Obaro Odeghe</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/342/2014 the</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT"> decision</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> of which was delivered on 12th January 2016 may first be distinguished. In that case, Her Ladyship Obaseki-Osaghae J declined jurisdiction and so refused to accommodate the claimant’s claims in respect of mortgage and personal loans, which the claimant granted the defendant whilst he was still in its employment. The claimant, the employer Bank, had sued the defendant (the employee) for the total principal sums plus interest of mortgage and personal loans taken by the defendant “in the cause of his employment with the claimant”. Other than merely stating that the loans were taken “in the cause of his employment with the claimant”, the claimant did not show to the Court that the mortgage and personal loans collected inured in virtue of the defendant’s conditions of service. Her Ladyship accordingly rightly declined jurisdiction.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">20. For the case at hand, the averments of the claimant as to the housing loan and hence mortgage deed can be found at paragraphs 10 to 20 of the statement of facts. In particular, she pleaded as to applying for the housing loan (paragraph 10); the conditions for accessing the loan (paragraph 11); management agreement that she met the conditions for the loan (paragraph 12); management recommendation of her entitlement for the loan (paragraph 13); approval for the man granted (paragraph 14); the loan periodic payment schedule (paragraph 15); the execution of the legal mortgage deed (paragraph 16); liquidation of the loan indebtedness through deductions form salary (paragraph 17); receipt of pay-slips showing deductions for the building loan (paragraphs 18 and 19); and the drastic hike in the reduction from the building loan and unilateral reduction of the loan periodic payment timeline from 16 to 13 years. There is no gainsaying that there pleadings show that the housing loan and hence the mortgage deed inured to the claimant in virtue of her employment. Did the loan inure to her as a condition of her employment? This remains the question. The claimant frontloaded the <i>Employee Handbook</i>. Section 6 of the Handbook deals with “Staff Loan Policy”; and section 6.3 specifically deals with “Housing/Building Loan”, making provisions as to the loan amount, repayment, interest rate, and conditions, security and documents required for the loan. What this signifies is that the housing loan and hence the mortgage deed the claimant secured from the defendant inured to the claimant as a condition of her employment. In the instant case, therefore, the claimant was given the housing loan (and hence the mortgage deed) in virtue of her employment with the defendant. This being the case, this Court has jurisdiction over this action. I so find and hold.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">21. The arguments of the defendant: a) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage cannot be said to guarantee the employment of the claimant especially as the Deed of Legal Mortgage and the claimant’s contract of employment are separate and independent of each other (one can survive where the other is no longer in existence); b) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage constitutes a private or external arrangement between the claimant and her erstwhile employers, the defendant; c) that it is irrelevant that the Deed of Legal Mortgage was executed while the claimant was an employee of the defendant as to be held to be incidental to the claimant’s contract of employment; and d) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage does not provide for the claimant’s terms of employment, conditions of service, safety, welfare, health, pensions, gratuity, allowances, or other entitlement of a worker which are all issues squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court as contained in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended); all misconstrue the factual issues before the Court and so go to no issue. There is thus the need to correct an assumption by senior counsel to the defendant, which I think is erroneous. The issue is not whether the mortgage deed provides for the claimant’s terms of employment but whether the claimant’s conditions of employment make provision for a housing loan/mortgage as an entitlement of the employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant; in which event the mortgage deed is then treated as part of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment, an employment right so to speak, and regulated as such by the conditions of service. Section 6.3 of the Handbook, like I indicated earlier, squarely makes the housing loan and hence mortgage deed an employment right issue of the claimant, a product of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">22. Having found and held that the housing loan (and hence mortgage deed) inured to the claimant as a condition of her employment, the termination of which put the mortgage deed in jeopardy, the cause of action being the termination of her employment and its consequences, the requirement of pre-action notice is actually not necessary for purposes of this suit. But even if it were, there is the key issue of the validity of the pre-action notice in issue itself. </span><span lang="DA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DA">Clause</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> 16 of the mortgage deed upon which the defendant rests its case provides as follows:</span><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="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The Mortgagor hereby irrevocably undertakes and covenants that no legal action or suit shall be instituted howsoever, instigated and/or sustained by the Mortgagor against the Mortgagee without first giving the Mortgagee a sixty (60) day prior written pre-action notice of the Mortgagor’s intention to so proceed against the Mortgagee, such notice to be served at the Mortgagee’s registered office address. Any action filed, instituted, sustained, undertaken or taken over by the Borrower against the Mortgagee in default of the pre-action notice obligation herein contained shall be incompetent, null and void.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">23. In relying on this clause 16, the defendant assumed its validity and cited a number of case law authorities including <i>Nigercare Development Company Ltd v. Adamawa State Water Board & ors</i> [2008]</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> LPELR</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">-</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">1997(SC)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">; [2008]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> 9 NWLR (</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Pt. 1093) 498. The thing is that all the cases cited by the defendant deal with pre-action as a statutory requirement. In <i>Chief John Eze v. Dr Cosmas Okechukwu Okechukwu</i> [2002] LPELR-1194(SC), for instance, Uwaifo, JSC talked of the requirement of pre-action notice being a prescription of law, “a procedural requirement, albeit statutory, which a defendant is entitled to before he may be expected to defend the action that may follow”. In the instant case, clause 16 of the mortgage deed (the pre-action notice clause) is not a prescription of a statute but of the mortgage deed itself. There is authority, <i>Dominic E. Ntiero v. NPA</i> [2008] LPELR-2073(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 129 SC; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 1, which suggests that pre-action notice may be a product of a contract. The case held that though the non-service of a pre-action notice is an irregularity, it connotes some form of legal notification or information required by law or impacted by operation of law, contained in an enactment, agreement or contract which requires compliance by the person who is under legal duty to put on notice the person to be notified, before the commencement of any legal action against such a person. On a closer reading, however, the case itself dealt with the requirement of pre-action notice as enjoined by the enabling law (not a mere contract) of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA). The contract in issue was thus as enjoined by the NPA law. In the instant case, the mortgage deed is not enjoined by statute law, but by the mortgage contract. The considerations for the validity of a pre-action notice enjoined by statute law cannot, therefore, enjoy same strength as that by contract or agreement between the parties, as is the case in the instant suit.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">24. The law is that, as <i>Chief Berthrand E. Nnonye v. D. N. Anyichie & ors</i> [2005] LPELR-2061(SC); [2005] NWLR (Pt. 910) 623; [2005] 1 SC (Pt. II) 96 (a case where section 41(1) of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Law, branded by the Supreme Court as a section enjoining a pre-action notice, was interpreted) puts it, non-service of a pre-action notice does not abrogate the right of a plaintiff to approach the Court or defeat a cause of action; it merely puts the jurisdiction of the Court on hold pending compliance with the pre-condition. In other words, the case is incompetent given that the requirement of pre-action notice is a condition precedent which must be met before the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. By these authorities, the non-service of a pre-action notice is an irregularity which can be cured by, say, waiver by the defendant. It is when the defendant does not waive it that it then becomes a condition precedent and so has the capacity of rendering the suit incompetent. Once again, the point must be noted that even here, <i>Nnonye</i> dealt with pre-action notice as enjoined by statute law.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">25. What then is the actual nature and hence effect of clause 16? Clause 16 states that any action filed in default of the pre-action notice obligation shall be incompetent, null and void. By this, clause 16 has the effect of rendering null and void an action filed in default of pre-action notice. In this sense, the defendant has arrogated to itself the power of precluding the claimant from filing any action even in default of the pre-action notice. There is no question that the defendant has more bargaining power than the claimant in the contractual relationship between the two of them. Like I indicated earlier, the complaint of the claimant in this case is that the defendant terminated her employment, which termination frustrated her repayment obligations under the housing loan and mortgage deed. It is also the case of the claimant that the defendant unilaterally altered the terms of the mortgaged deed in terms of the quantum of periodic sum payable and the repayment timeline. Now, it is ironic that the defendant who is accused by the claimant of unilaterally changing the terms of the mortgage deed itself is the one presently keen on the claimant keeping to the terms of the mortgage deed in terms of the requirement of pre-action notice. In <i>James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/41/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on 12th July 2016, given the stronger bargaining power of the employer, and relying on <i>Mr. Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited</i> [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt. 78) 374 NIC, this Court rejected arguments calling for a blind reliance on the sanctity of contract principle especially where such reliance would be most unfair on the employee who incidentally was not instrumental to framing the terms calling for interpretation. See also </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Mr. Patrick Aimiosior v. IGI Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/184/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on 3rd June 2014. This is the scenario within which the defendant is placing great reliance on clause 16.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">26. Incidentally, pre-action notice has been the subject of commentary by commentators. My brother of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Hon. Justice Peter O. Affen, writing extra-judicially in a paper titled, “The Law on Pre-action Notice in Nigeria: The Search for a New Outlook”, and published as Chapter 13 in C. C. Nweze, et al (eds.) - <i>Beyond Bar Advocacy: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Anthony Okoye Mogboh, SAN</i> (Umuahia: Impact Global Publishers Ltd: Umuahia), 2011 at pages 251 - 275 </span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">underscore</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">d the point that there is a yawning need to rethink the present judicial posture on pre-action notice and lamented how trial courts are routinely confronted with an infinite miscellany of disquieting scenarios on this thorny issue of pre-action notice. In the main, His Lordship examined the desirability or otherwise of the continued retention of the requirement of pre-action notice in our <i>corpus juris</i> and then made a case for a new judicial outlook towards pre-action notice by adverting attention to certain factual situations or circumstances in which the requirement ought to be discounted in appropriate proceedings. I think the instant case is one such instance.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">27. On the more specific issue of whether pre-action notice applies to cases of breach of contract, His Lordship Affen J first gave the historical antecedents but asserted that this issue is shrouded in some uncertainty. To him, some earlier cases like <i>NPA v. Construzioni</i> [1974] All NLR (Reprint) 945 and <i>Katsina Local Authority v. Makudawa</i> [1971] 7 NSCC 119 at 126, held that the requirement was not intended by the legislature to apply to cases of specific contracts; while in <i>NBC v. Bankole</i> [1972] All NLR 331 at 338, the Supreme Court adopted the views expressed by Crossman, J in <i>Compton v. West Ham County Borough Council</i> [1939] 3 All ER 193 at 198 – 200 to the effect that only “the breach of a contract which a public authority has the duty to make or is by statute bound to make comes within the protection of the Act”. However, as His Lordship continued, that distinction appears to have disappeared in recent decisions (such as <i>Ntiero v. NPA</i> [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1094) 129 at 142), with the expression </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">No suit shall be commenced...” being construed as wide and all embracing, </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">covering all suits and whatever causes of action and not limited to anything done pursuant to any act or statute... and relates to all types of action”. I earlier commented on <i>Ntiero</i>. I must reiterate that even in the “recent decisions”, contracts upon which pre-action notice needed to be given before a suit can be filed were not the contracts that made pre-action notice a pre-requisite; it was a statutory provision that made the pre-action notice a pre-requisite.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">28. In fact, other case law authorities have created qualifications to the application of pre-action notices in cases. For instance, in <i>International Tobacco Co. Plc v. NAFDAC</i> [2007] LPELR-8442(CA); [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 613 CA, Ogunbiyi, JCA (as Her Ladyship then was) opined that in cases of necessity pre-action notice may not be a requirement; for example, that where a speedy remedy by injunction is sought, the requirement of pre-action notice may not apply. In the instant case, relief m) claimed by the claimant is for “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its privies, staff, assigns, agents and officers from entering into possession, auctioning, selling, disposing of or otherwise dealing with any rights, title, or interest or advertising for sale the claimant’s property at House 2, Hon. Yahya Adeniyi Dosunmu Close, Off Ajiran Road, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos State until parties concerned reconcile and mutually agree on the prepayment timeline on the ascertained mortgage debt”.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">29. When clause 16 of the mortgage deed, therefore, provided that any action filed, instituted, sustained, undertaken or taken over by the Borrower against the Mortgagee in default of the pre-action notice obligation herein contained shall be incompetent, null and void, it seeks to abridge the claimant’s right rather than stipulate a condition for the exercise of the claimant’s right to bring an action. Referring to <i>Anambra State Government & ors v. Marcel & ors</i> [1996] 9 NWLR (Pt.213) 115, <i>Yaki & anor v. Bagudu & ors</i> [2015] LPELR-25721(SC) held that a pre-action notice has been held to be a condition for the exercise of the right to bring the action and not as abridgment of that right. Given the circumstances of this case, and for the reasons given, I am of the humble opinion that the requirement of pre-action notice as per clause 16 of the mortgage deed is inapplicable as to render this case incompetent. I so hold. This being the case, this suit is competent and shall accordingly proceed to trial.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">30. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><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="Body" 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="Body" 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="Body" 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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><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="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><o:p></o:p></p>