Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">C. C. Chikere Esq. for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">M. C. Ejiamike (Mrs.) with E. N. Duru for the Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This Ruling is predicated upon 4 (Four) Motions on Notice. The first Motion is the Claimant’s application for interlocutory injunction filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> February 2015, the second is the Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on the 29<sup>th</sup> April, 2016, the third is the Defendant’s Motion filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> May 2015, seeking to strike out the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant from this suit, and the fourth is the Claimant’s Motion to file his witness Statement on Oath out of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant’s application for interlocutory injunction is brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court wherein the Claimant prays for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:57.75pt;mso-add-space: auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, officers or privies howsoever from intimidating, harassing, threatening of arrest or arresting the Claimant pending the determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:57.75pt;mso-add-space: auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, agents, officer or privies howsoever from demanding by any means the Tundra Vehicle with registration number KTU 703 AH in the custody of the Claimant pending the determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:57.75pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Any Order or other Orders the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which this motion was made are based on the facts that the Claimant has been inundated with threats of arrest by the Defendants without lawful reason also intimidating/harassing him in other to recover the Tundra vehicle in his possession and all this has caused emotional breakdown to the Claimant who has been disturbed by the intention of the Defendants and has even refused to go to his house due to the said threats, intimidation and harassment by the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The application is supported by a 30 (Thirty) paragraph affidavit deposed by the Claimant himself (Mr Dave Ugwuanya) of No. 4 Grace Close, Gulf Estate 2, Rumuodara, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. In the accompanying written address, Counsel proffered a lone issue for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction against the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In arguing this issue Counsel submits that in the determination of an application of this kind, the Court must exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously, and will consider the competing rights of the parties. Counsel cited the case of<b> GOVERNOR, LAGOS STATE vs. OJUKWU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621</b>, and submitted further that an interlocutory application is aimed at maintaining status quo pending the determination of issues before the Court. He also stated that it is an equitable jurisdiction which the Court is called upon to exercise, upon the facts presented before it; and for the Court to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the Applicant must present convincing facts which in themselves indicate the well laid down principles for granting the injunction. Counsel cited the case of <b>BUHARI vs. OBASANJO (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 510 at 648, PARA C-E. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In submitting the laid down principle of subsisting action/legal right recognisable in law, Counsel stated that the Claimant has a subsisting action pending before the Court through a Complaint against the Defendants which discloses reasonable and legal issues triable before the Court. He further stated that the legal right which the Claimant seeks to protect by an order of interlocutory injunction is to prevent the Defendants from arresting him or taking possession of the Tundra vehicle which has been in the Claimant’s possession, and which he has maintained for more than 4 years with his resources.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that in considering if there exists a legal right in an application for interlocutory injunction, the Applicant need not establish a prima facie case, all he has to establish is that he has a good and arguable claim to the right he seeks to protect. Counsel referred to the case of <b>EDOSOMWAN vs. EREBOR (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.730) 265 at 290, PARAS E-F</b> where the Court of Appeal held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“While interlocutory injunction cannot be granted merely because there is a dispute between two parties, it will be granted in support of a legal right cognisable in law. In other words, an interlocutory injunction will be granted to protect the violation of a legal right.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He further submitted that it is a trite law that before a Court can grant an application for interlocutory injunction, it must be shown and the Court must be satisfied that the action is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious issue to be tried. Counsel cited the case of <b>OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 232) 1580 at 1599, PARAS G-H.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s affidavit in support has disclosed a serious issue of fact and law to be tried by the Court and by virtue of Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended; the Court is urged to take judicial notice of the Complaint and statement of fact before it. Therefore, unless restrained by the Honourable Court the Defendants will proceed in arresting, intimidating, harassing, and retrieving the Tundra vehicle thereby rendering nugatory any pronouncement or decision the Honourable Court may make at the end of the substantive matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Further, Counsel stated that the balance of convenience in favour of the Applicant is one of the laid down rules in granting interlocutory injunction to be fulfilled by the Applicant before the Court can grant an injunction. Counsel referred to the case of <b>BUHARI vs. OBASANJO (SUPRA)</b> where the Supreme Court held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“In determining balance of convenience in the consideration of an application for interlocutory injunction, the trial Court is expected to pose one or two questions: who will suffer more inconvenience if the application is granted? Who will suffer more inconvenience if the application is not granted? The trial Court has a duty to provide an answer to the questions, and in doing so it must allow itself to be guided by the facts before it. The balance of convenience between the parties is a basic determinant factor in an application for interlocutory injunction…it is the intention of the law that the pendulum should really tilt in favour of the Applicant.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the Applicant has shown this in his affidavit in support at paragraphs 24 and 25, that he will suffer serious inconvenience if the application is not granted, i.e. the balance of convenience is in his favour as he has been the person maintaining the Tundra vehicle with his huge resources and the threat will continue if the Defendants are not restrained. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He further submitted that it is the law that where damages will be adequate to compensate a party for the wrong done to him, an order of injunction will not be granted. However, where the wrong being perpetuated or feared is irreparable or outside the scope of pecuniary compensation, then the order will be granted. Also Counsel submitted that the Claimant has shown in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support that he is ready, able and capable of satisfying any undertaking as to damages in the event that any interlocutory Orders obtained by him is found to be unmeritorious by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally, Counsel submitted that the Claimant has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by law for the grant of an order of injunction, and he has established good and substantial reasons to be granted the order sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He<span style="color:red"> </span>urged the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Claimant and grant the Order of interlocutory injunction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposing the application the Defendants through their Counsel filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the Claimant’s motion for interlocutory injunction. The said 6 paragraph counter affidavit was filed on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2015 with a written address. In the written address the Defendants Counsel raised 2 (two) issues for the Court to determine:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant can seek and obtain an injunctive relief to keep in <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">his custody the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Toyota Tundra with registration number Lagos KTU 703AH pending the determination of the substantive suit.(SIC)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether damages can be an adequate compensation to the Claimant if <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">his claim succeeds. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel argued the issues by stating that the Claimant does not have a legal right to keep in his custody the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s Toyota Tundra with registration number Lagos KTU 703 AH pending the determination of the substantive suit. He cited the case of <b>UNION BEVERAGES LIMITED vs. PEPSICOLA LIMITED REPORTED IN (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 330) Pg.1 at P.6 RATIO 11 AND 10. </b>He cited further, the case of <b>ODOM vs. P.D.P. (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.1456) Pg. 527 at 537 RATIO 9 </b>where the Supreme Court that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“An injunction is only issued to restrain a threatened wrong to a right and not to restrain the lawful enjoyment of a legal right.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is further submission of the Counsel that damages can be an adequate compensation to the Claimant if his claim succeeds, as the Defendants deposed in paragraph 3(f)(vi) that they are financially able to pay damages that would be awarded in the substantive suit and 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is the undisputed owner of the res in issue, and not the Claimant. He submitted that under Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has the legal right to enjoyment of its Toyota Tundra which the Claimant has deprived the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant of the lawful use and enjoyment. Counsel referred to the case of <b>NWOSU vs. MINISTER OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 937) Pg. 441 at 445 RATIO 3</b> where Court of Appeal held:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“An Order of injunction certainly does not lie to restrain a Defendant who is an undisputed owner of property from disposing the same in the absence of any agreement hindering such an unrestricted disposal with the Plaintiff or where the Defendant has ceased to own the property.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel also argued that the Claimant carried the Toyota Tundra of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant by self-help and without the consent or permission of the Defendants and in law self-help is not recognise, therefore the Claimant who trespassed on the res belonging to the Defendants cannot obtain injunctive relief to perpetuate his trespass and illegality and the balance of convenience is not in the favour of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Upon the counter affidavit being served on the Claimant, he filed an 8 paragraph further affidavit in support of his motion on notice deposed by Claimant himself and a reply on point of law. On the said reply on point of law no issue was raised rather he replied on the issues raised by the Defendants in their written address in support of their counter affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that an Order of interlocutory injunction is granted basically to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the hearing and determination of all issues before the Court and from the further affidavit the Claimant stated that the Defendants are still harassing and intimidating him with threats of arrest despite the pendency of this suit before this Court. Counsel further stated that it is trite law that where parties have submitted their disputes before the Court, parties are restrained from taking steps that will impose a situation of helplessness on the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the arguments of the Defendants and their authorities cited and relied upon because they are not applicable in the instant case. Also the Claimant did not resort to any self-help but has submitted the issues for the Court to decide.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally, he urged the court to grant the application pending the determination of the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The second application is a motion on Notice dated and filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> day of May 2015, and brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, seeking for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order striking out the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant from this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">And for such further Order(s) this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The application is supported by an 11 (eleven) paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Francisca Onuorah, a secretary at the law firm of M. C. Ejiamike & Co of 184c Trans-Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the accompanying written address a sole issue was raised for the Court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a necessary party to this suit</span></i></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is the submission of Counsel that the concept of corporate entity of a company is a legal entity or juristic person that can be sued and can sue, therefore it is not the contemplation of the law that a person or an agent of the company be sued for an act done on behalf of the company. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Further, it is Counsel’s contention that the Chairman or Director of a limited liability company is an agent of a disclosed principal and need not be sued jointly or made liable. Counsel cited the case of <b>ESSANG vs. AUREOL PLASTIC LTD & ANOR (2002) FWLR (Pt.129) 1471 at 1489</b>. Counsel referred to the case of <b>OKOLO & ANOR vs. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD (2004) All WLR (Pt.197) 981 at 1002 SC; (2004) 1 SC (Pt. 1) 3 NWLR (Pt.859) 87 RATIO 5</b> where the principle of the company being liable/binding for a contract entered by its Director in the company name was approved. Counsel submitted that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is the proper and only Defendant in an action for wrong done by it through its accredited employees, also that no employee whether the alter ego of a company shall be answerable personally for any wrong he/she might have committed in the cause of discharging his/her official duties. He cited <b>FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC & ANOR vs. MR DIBO ABOKO (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt.1014) Pg. 129 at 145, PARAS C-F.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that Mr Tony Eze, the 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant is the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and has no personal relationship with the Claimant to warrant the Claimant initiating this suit against him. Counsel argued that from the totality of the processes before the Court, the Claimant did not state where the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant acted in his personal capacity throughout the Claimant’s relationship with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally, counsel submitted that the Claimant joining the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in this suit is not supported by law; therefore he urged the court to strike out the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant from this suit with a substantial cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposing the second motion to strike out 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s name from the suit, the Claimant on the 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2015 filed a 8 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Tochukwu Nkwocha of 7A Bishop Dimieri street, GRA phase II, Port Harcourt Rivers State and a written address. Claimant Counsel in his written address raised 2 (two) issues for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a necessary party in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether this suit can be effectually and effectively determined without <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel argued both issues raised together by stating the definition of necessary party according to Supreme Court decision in the case of <b>BABAYEJU vs. ASHAMU (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt.567) Pg. 546 at 555 PARAS A-E</b> thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action, and the question to be settled therefore must be a question in that action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that from the above decision 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant being the alter ego of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant company is a necessary party and also such a party that must be present for an effectual and complete determination of this suit. Counsel also referred to the case of <b>GREEN vs. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) Pg. 480 at 482</b> where per <b>Eso JSC</b> held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceeding but also who in their absence, the proceeding could not be fairly dealt with.”</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted further that the question as to whether the suit can be effectually and completely settled in the absence of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant will be answered in the negative by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of <b>DR. OLISE IMEGWU vs. UGO RUDOLF ASIBELUA & ORS (2012) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1289) Pg. 119 at 131 PARAS E-G.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is the further submission of Counsel that striking out the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s name from the suit will entirely affect/thwart the fair, effectual and complete determination of the action; therefore the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant must by all means be made a party in these proceedings, following the decision of the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that it will be prejudicial to the interest of justice that the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is struck out as a party in this suit. He urged the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Claimant and refuse the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s prayers as contained in its motion. According to counsel, it is in the interest of justice that this application should not be granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The 3<sup>rd</sup> application is a Notice of preliminary Objection brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 4 (iv) and (7) of the National Industrial Court 2007 as amended by National Industrial Court of Nigeria practice Direction, 2012 No.1 and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Honourable Court dated and filed on the 29<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2016 seeking for the following relief:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> An Order striking out this suit for being incompetent <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> And such further Order(s) this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The ground(s) upon which this objection is brought are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Complaint filed by the Claimant on the 25<sup>th</sup> February, 2015 is not accompanied by written statement on oath of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Complaint is not properly before this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The application is supported with 5 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Chiamaka Onwuka a secretary in Liber chambers at No 11 Eastern By-Pass, Ogbunabali, Port-Harcourt and a written address. In the said written address a sole issue was raised for Court determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether in the circumstance, this Complaint should not be struck out for incompetence.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that for the Complaint to be competent it shall be accompanied by written statement on oath of the Claimant, therefore the Claimant’s Complaint was not accompanied by a written statement on oath and is therefore incompetent. He cited the case of <b>ABE vs. SKYE BANK PLC (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt.1450) Pg. 512 at 535 -536, PARAS H-B </b>and the<b> National Industrial Court Practice Direction, 2012.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He<span style="color:red"> </span>finally submitted that the Complaint having not been accompanied by written statement of oath of all the witnesses listed to be called by the Claimant renders the Complaint incompetent and liable to be struck out and urged the court to grant this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In reaction to the Notice of Preliminary Objection the Claimant’s Counsel filed a 5 paragraph Counter affidavit deposed to by one Ekere Akpan of No. 7a Bishop Dimieri Street, GRA, phase 2, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, and a written address in which one issue was raised for Court’s determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Honourable Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and entertain this Complaint.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and entertain the Complaint; that non filing of a witness statement on oath along with the Complaint is an irregularity that can be regularized by the Court and does not rob the Court of Jurisdiction to hear the suit. He cited the <b>Order 5 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 </b>and the case of<b> UBA vs. DIKE NWORA (1978) 11 NSCC 512 at 523 PARAS 25-30.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further urged the Court to discountenance the argument of the Defendants and the case of <b>ABE vs. SKYE BANK (supra)</b> cited and relied on by the Defendants that the case is not applicable in the instant case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the objection of the Defendant is not of substance but on technicality which the Supreme Court has long ago frowned at, and that Courts are more inclined to doing substantial justice. Counsel referred to the case of <b>NWOSU vs. IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AUTHORITY (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.135) 688 at 717 paras F-H.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the Claimant complied with Order 3 Rule 4 of the NIC Rules 2007 but omitted to file the witness deposition along with the Complaint. Counsel referred the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of <b>M.M.A. INC. vs. N.M.A. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1333) 506 at 540-541 paras G-C </b>while interpreting a similar provision of the Federal High Court Rules, held:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“…….where in beginning or purporting to begin any proceeding or at any stage in the course of or in connection with any proceeding, there has by reason of anything done or left undone being a failure to comply with the requirements of these rules whether in respect of time, place, manner, form, or content or in any other respect the failure may be treated as an irregularity and if so treated will not nullify the proceedings or any document, judgment, or order therein….the combined effect of the provisions of the rules of the Federal High Court is that failure to comply with Order 26 r. 5 is an irregularity which would not nullify the proceedings or judgment or order of the Court.” </span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that the Defendants have waived their right to complain about the irregularity since they noticed it upon receipt of the Complaint, failed to take steps to set it aside in compliance with Order 5 Rule 2(1) of NIC Rules 2007, and went ahead to file their statement of defence and other processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is the submission of Counsel that the Defendants have not shown any miscarriage of justice suffered by them in filing the witness deposition late, and the witness statement has been filed. Counsel urged the Court to accept the process notwithstanding that it was filed out of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel urged the Court to hold that the objection lacks merit and same should be dismissed with substantial cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In reply to the counter affidavit, the Defendant filed a 7 paragraph further affidavit on the 6<sup>th</sup> of June 2016 deposed to by one Miss Opara Delight, and a reply on points of law where the Counsel submitted that it is trite law that where there is a specific provision and a general provision over the same issue the specific provision overrides. Counsel further stated that the case of <b>MMA INC vs. NMA (supra)</b> is not applicable in this case as Order 25 Rule 5 of the Federal High Court Civil Rules is not in pari materia with Order 3 rule 7 of NIC Rules 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The fourth application is a Motion on Notice dated 28<sup>th</sup> April 2016 but filed on the 6<sup>th</sup> May 2016 brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of NIC Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court wherein the Claimant sought the following Orders from the Court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order granting leave to the Claimant to file his witness statement on oath out of time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order deeming the Claimant’s witness statement on oath as duly filed and served.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Any Order or further orders the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The grounds upon which this application is made are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant commenced this suit against the Defendant by filing a form of Complaint on the 25<sup>th</sup> of February 2015.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant filed along with the Complaint a statement of facts, copies of every document he intends to rely on, and the list of witnesses to be called.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant did not file along with the Originating process his witness statement on oath.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">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="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant witness statement on oath has now been filed and served and leave of this Honourable Court is required to deem same as been properly filed and served.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo8"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans 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 lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It will be in the interest of justice that this application be granted by this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The application is supported by 7 (seven) paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Ekere Akpan of No. 7a Bishop Dimieri Street, GRA, phase 2, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, and a written address.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the accompanying written address, Claimant Counsel proposed a lone issue to be determined thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel stated that the Claimant is seeking for leave to file and serve his witness statement on oath which did not accompany the Complaint at the time of filing it; that Order 3 Rule 4 of the NICR 2007 did not provide for it; however the Practice Direction of 2012 makes provision for filing witness deposition but Counsel erroneously and inadvertently omitted to file the witness deposition alongside with the Complaint. Counsel referred to case of <b>F.B.N PLC vs. OBIECHINA EJIKEME & ORS (1994) 4NWLR (Pt.340) 583 at 593. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that non filing of the witness deposition on time is a mere irregularity occasioned by the inadvertence of the Counsel. He cited Order 5 Rule 1 and 3 NICR 2007; also Order 25 Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court permits for extension of time within which a party may take any step in a proceeding.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that it is trite law that blunders must happen from time to time and it is unjust to hold that because a blunder has been committed, the party blundering is to incur the penalty of not having the dispute between him and his adversary determined on merits. <b>AGBOKABA vs. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489 SC. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Finally, he urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Claimant as sin of the Counsel cannot be visited on the litigant in the interest of justice and the Court should take judicial notice of the witness deposition as duly filed. See Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In opposition to the Claimant’s Motion on Notice filed on 6/5/16 to regularise his witness statement on oath filed out of time, the Defendants filed a 7 (seven) paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Miss Opara Delight a secretary in Liber chambers at No 11 Eastern By-Pass, Ogbunabali, Port-Harcourt, and a written address accompanying same wherein the Counsel to the Defendants raised one (1) issue for Court to determine:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant has filed a competent Complaint for the determination of his Honourable Court. </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel submitted that the failure of the Claimant to comply with Order 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of this Court is a monumental blunder which goes to the root of Claimant suit therefore robs the Court of the competence to entertain the matter, that non-filing of witness deposition is not a mere irregularity as it made the alleged Complaint not a proper Complaint for the Court to determine.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is Counsel’s contention that Order 5 Rules 1 & 3 of the Rules of this Court cannot support the Claimant’s argument since there is no Complaint commenced before this Court for determination. He cited Order 3 Rule 7 of the NIC Rules 2007, therefore this Court lacks competence to entertain both the suit and the application of the Claimant and that any defect in the competence of Court renders its proceedings a nullity. Counsel referred to the case of <b>OLOWU vs. NIGERIAN NAVY (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) Pg. 659 at 686 PARAS D-F.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Counsel further submitted that the Claimant Counsel did not inadvertently forget to file the witness statement on oath as at the time he filed the alleged Complaint because he said in his argument that Order 3 rule 4 did not provide for it, that is to say Counsel cannot approbate and reprobate.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">He therefore urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Defendants and refuse the application of the Claimant as grant of same will prejudice the Defendant who will labour in vain to defend an incompetent Complaint.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT’s DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Having reviewed the different applications involved in this ruling and the submissions of counsels for the parties in respect of the applications, I will now consider the merit of the respective applications in order of their exigency in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 29/4/2016, the Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection wherein they pray for an Order striking out the suit for being incompetent. From the grounds and the affidavit in support of the Preliminary Objection, the basis they so pray the court is that the Originating Complaint filed on 25<sup>th</sup> February 2015 is not accompanied by a written statement on oath of the Claimant. In the affidavit in support of the Preliminary Objection, it was deposed that the compliant was not filed along with a written statement on oath in disregard of Order 3 Rule 4 (iv) of the rules of this court 2007 and the practice direction 2012. The complaint is consequently incompetent and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the compliant. The Claimant filed a counter affidavit in which he averred that the Complaint was filed in accordance with the rules of the court but the claimant inadvertently omitted to accompany the complaint with a written statement on oath at the time the complaint was filed. The Claimant has now filed his written statement on oath together with an application to regularise it. It is further deposed in the Claimant’s counter affidavit that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because non-compliance with the rules of the court ought to be treated as a merely irregularity which can be cured by the court.<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On 6/5/2016 when the Claimant was filing his counter affidavit to the Preliminary Objection, he also filed a motion seeking the leave of this court to file his witness’s written statement on oath. In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed that the Claimant’s Complaint was filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> of February 2015 along with a statement of facts, copies of every document he intends to rely on and the list of witnesses to be called but his counsel inadvertently forgot to include the witness statement on oath. The omission was realised when the statement of defence was served. The Claimant’s Counsel took immediate steps to file the witness deposition but could not get it filed because the claimant was then out of jurisdiction. Although the witness deposition has now been filed and served on the Defendants, the leave of court is however required to file the process and to deem it as properly filed and served. I observe that the witness statement of the Claimant was annexed to the affidavit and marked Exhibit A. It was sworn on 29/4/2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Defendants opposed the Claimant’s motion in a counter affidavit filed on 6/6/2016. It was contended therein that the Claimant’s witness statement filed on 29/4/2016 was filed 1 year 6 months after the complaint was filed. According to the Defendants, the failure to file the witness statement with the complaint was not as a result of inadvertence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The fact which is not in dispute is that the Claimant did not file any witness statement on oath together with the Originating Complaint. There are now two applications on the issue. One is the Defendants Preliminary Objection seeking to have the suit struck out for failure to comply with Order 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of this court in filing the Complaint. The other application is the Claimant’s motion to correct the defect by filing the missing statement on oath of the witness.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Order 3, Rule 4 (iv) of the Rules of this court 2007 (see paragraph 1 of NIC Practice Direction 2012) requires that, at the time of filing the Complaint, list of witnesses and their written depositions must be filed along. This rule was not observed by the Claimant when he filed the Complaint but he later filed the witness statement on oath and also brought an application to have the deposition properly on record. I do not think that the omission to accompany the Complaint with a written statement on oath of the Claimant’s witness is enough to strike out the entire suit as the Defendants want this court to do. Order 5 Rule (1) of the rules permits this court to treat any non-compliance with the rules as an irregularity and in such a situation, the court is to give any direction it deems necessary to correct the irregularity. Rule (3) of the Order even permits this court to depart from the rules where the interest of justice requires. Therefore, failure of the Claimant to accompany the Complaint with a witness statement on oath is a mere irregularity and </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">the appropriate order the court ought to make in the circumstance is not to strike out the suit but to order the Claimant to file the witness statement. This is in accordance with the principle of fair hearing and justice. Since the Claimant has already taken steps to correct the lapse by filing and serving the witness statement on oath and then brought a motion seeking leave of court to regularise the process, I am inclined to allow the Claimant’s application in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Preliminary Objection is dismissed. The Claimant’s motion is granted. Leave is granted to the Claimant to file his witness statement out of time and the Claimant’s witness statement already filed on 29<sup>th</sup> April 2016 and served is deemed as properly filed and served.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The third application is the Defendants motion dated 25<sup>th</sup> May 2015 wherein they seek an order striking out the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant from this suit. It was averred in the affidavit in support of the motion that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is a limited liability company while the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as the Managing Director. All the actions of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant relating to the subject matter of the suit was taken on and on behalf of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant has no personal relationship with the Claimant. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant, who was merely discharging his duty as staff of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in the relationship between the Claimant and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, is not a proper or necessary party to the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant’s counter affidavit contains that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is the alter ego of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and takes all major decisions for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant took some actions and decisions affecting the Claimant’s employment which did not reflect the instruction of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant refused to issue the Claimant an appointment letter contrary to the provisions of Article 11 of the collective agreement between the Claimant and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant informed the Claimant that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has confirmed his employment with instruction to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to issue the Claimant a letter of confirmation but the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant has not done so. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a necessary party to this suit as he, for personal reasons and in his personal capacity, refused to issue the Claimant an employment letter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><em><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";font-style:normal; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The factors which makes a person a necessary party to a suit has been explained in plethora of authorities. The Supreme Court held in</span></em><em><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> <b>AKUNWATA OGBOGU MBANEFO vs. NWAKIBIE HENRY MOLOKU (2014) 6 NWLR (PT.1403) 377 at 410</b> thus:</span></em><em><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";font-style:normal; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><o:p></o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><em><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">“A "necessary party" to a proceeding is a party whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the claim before the court. It is a party in the absence of whom the claim cannot be effectually and completely determined.”<o:p></o:p></span></b></em></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Court of Appeal in <b>DAAR COMMUNICATIONS (NIG.) LTD. vs. WASA DELMA NIG. LTD. (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1287) 370</b> stated the principle this way:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;tab-stops: 63.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“It is only a necessary party, that is, a person in whose absence as a party a question in the action cannot be effectively and completely settled that can be joined. The person to be joined must be somebody whose presence is necessary as a party, and the only reason which makes him a necessary party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled. There must be a question in the action which cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is a party.”</span></i></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is thus trite that what makes a party a necessary party to a suit is that there must be a cause of action disclosed by the plaintiff against the party which cause of action cannot be effectively and completely settled unless the party is in the suit<b><i> </i></b>and t</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-font-width:111%;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">he reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action. See also </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:113%;mso-bidi-language:HE">IGE vs. FARINDE (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.354) 42;</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> <b>EFFIOM vs. IRONBAR (2001) FWLR (Pt. 53) 137.</b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:#2A2E24;mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE"> I have examined the statement of facts of the Claimant and the reliefs he sought against the Defendants and I find that he made direct allegations against the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant which are connected to his cause of action in this suit. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant cannot respond to those allegations unless he is made a party to the suit. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The totality of these facts shows that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a necessary party to this suit. The issues involved in this matter are such that cannot be effectively and completely settled unless he is made a party. Therefore, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant has been properly made a party to this suit. The name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant cannot be struck out of this suit. The Defendants’ motion is dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; color:#2A2E24;mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The last of the applications is the Claimant’s application for interlocutory injunction filed on the 25<sup>th</sup> February 2015 where he prays for two main orders. They are an order restraining the Defendants from intimidating, harassing, threatening of arrest or arresting the Claimant pending the determination of the substantive suit and an order restraining the Defendants from demanding by any means the Tundra Vehicle with registration number KTU 703 AH in the custody of the Claimant pending the determination of the substantive suit. The brief facts upon which he sought the injunctive orders, as averred in the affidavit in support of the motion, are that he was an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and during his employment, the Defendants assigned a Toyota Tundra vehicle with registration number Lagos KTU 703 AH to him and he was required to maintain the vehicle. He expended his money in the repairs, maintenances and fuelling of the vehicle but the Defendant refused to refund him the expenses on the invoices he submitted to the Defendants. The expense invoices total the sum of <s>N</s>1,181,900.00 for maintenance and <s>N</s>1,088,000.00 for fuelling. On 26<sup>th</sup> January 2015 the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant informed him that he has been declared redundant and his services were no longer required. Thereafter, the Defendants gave him a cheque in the sum of <s>N</s>171,600.00 as his terminal benefit and demanded that he returns the Tundra Vehicle without paying him the expenses he incurred on the vehicle. The Defendants have since then been threatening to use force to take possession of the vehicle and have threatened to have the Claimant arrested by the police if he fails to return the vehicle. The Claimant further averred that there are serious legal issues to be resolved in the suit and the balance of convenience in the application is in his favour. He also averred that he will suffer great inconvenience if the Defendants are not restrained. While urging the court to grant his application, the Claimant said he will satisfy any undertaking as to damages the court requires of him in the event the order of injunction was found unmeritorious. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Defendant averred in their counter affidavit that the Claimant was not an employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as such there was no employment which was terminated by the Defendants on 30/1/2015. On 30<sup>th</sup> June 2011, the Claimant had a contract with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant whereby the Claimant was to secure contracts for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant from multinational companies for a period of 3 years from 1<sup>st</sup> July 2011 to 30<sup>th</sup> January 2015. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant agreed to pay the Claimant on monthly basis for the contract. The Claimant however failed to secure any contract for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant from any multinational company and on 30<sup>th</sup> January 2015, the Claimant’s contract with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant expired. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant did not give the Toyota Tundra vehicle to the Claimant but the Claimant drove the vehicle away from the Defendant’s premises without the consent or permission of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. When the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant demanded for the return of the vehicle, the Claimant promised to do so but failed. The Defendants were preparing to institute an action to recover the vehicle from the Claimant when they were served the processes in this suit. The Defendants did not arrest the Claimant with police and did not harass or threaten the Claimant in order to recover the vehicle. At no time did the Claimant repair or fuel the said vehicle because the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant has its auto repair department and fuel depot in its premises to serve its vehicle. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant did not instruct the Claimant to repair or fuel the vehicle. The Claimant cannot maintain the vehicle and if his application is granted, he will destroy the vehicle before this suit is determined. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant will suffer great hardship if the Claimant’s application is granted and the Claimant, being unemployed, cannot satisfy the undertaking he made as to damages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In an application for interlocutory, there are laid down principles the court usually considers in deciding whether to grant or refuse the application. The applicant for interlocutory injunction must satisfy the court of following:</span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">1. That he claims a legal right in the subject matter for which protection he needs the injunction<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">2. That there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">3. That the balance of convenience is on his side or in favour of granting the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">4. That his conduct is not reprehensible or that the applicant is not guilty of delay.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">5. The applicant makes an undertaking as to damages, and <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">6. That damages will not be adequate compensation for the injury that will result if the order is not granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">KOTOYE vs. CBN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1567; ADEYEMI vs. OLADAPO (2003) FWLR (Pt. 155) 775; AGBA vs. B.H.I HOLDINGS LTD (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 535) 696;</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> IDOKO vs. OGBEIKU (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 819) 275</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. However, it is not absolute that once these requirements are shown, an order for interlocutory injunction must be made. The grant or refusal of an application for interlocutory injunction by a court rests largely on the exercise of the court’s discretion. See <b>SARAKI vs. KOTOYE (Supra); IDOKO vs. OGBEIKU (supra).<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the exercise of the discretion of the court, the court usually draws a conclusion from the facts and circumstances placed before the court by the parties. Having gone through all the facts of this application, I observe that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">the injunctive orders sought by the Claimant in this application are in connection with the Toyota Tundra vehicle. It is in connection to the vehicle he alleged the Defendants have threatened to arrest him with the aim of recovering the vehicle from him. It is also clear to me from the averments in paragraphs 12, 13, 13, 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support of the motion that the Claimant is only holding on to the vehicle as a lien because the Defendants are indebted to him to the sums he expended in maintaining and fuelling the vehicle.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Upon carefully going through the facts of the application in line with the criteria required to be satisfied in an application of this nature, I find that the Claimant has not satisfied the requirements. It is clear from the averments in paragraphs </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">12, 13, 13, 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support of the motion that the car belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant but the Claimant is only holding on to it because the Defendant has not settled the expenses he incurred on the vehicle. The Claimant did not seek any relief to title to the vehicle in this suit. Thus, the Claimant has not shown a legal right in the vehicle which right this court can protect. It is for this reason I do not find the balance of convenience to be in his favour. Again, I also observe that the Claimant’s reliefs in the suit include an order for the payment of the sums he expended in maintaining and fuelling the vehicle. That is to say monetary payments will adequately take care of the reason the Claimant is holding on to the vehicle. In addition,<span style="color:red"> </span>the Claimant has not shown that damages will not be adequate compensation for the injury that will result if the injunctive order is not granted. In my view, the Claimant has not made out a case for the exercise of the court’s discretion in granting the application. I therefore refuse the application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Parties shall bear their costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Ruling is delivered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p>