Download PDF
<p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">G. C. Opara for the Claimant/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">O. S. Akinola for the Defendant/Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:116%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:116%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">RULING/JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:116%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">This action was commenced by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 20<sup>th</sup> day of August 2014 wherein the Claimant has cited various statements purportedly contained in the Defendant’s memo dated 22<sup>nd</sup> May 2013 which the Defendant has published concerning the Claimant, and therefore seeks the court’s declaration that the purported publication of the said statements concerning the Claimant is defamatory of, and a libel on the Claimant. The Claimant also seeks an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant whether personally or through his agents or privies, from further publication or in any manner or form further disseminating the libelous accusations of the false and disparaging statements. The Claimant claims damages in the sum of <s>N</s>200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) being cumulative, general, special and aggravated damages against the Defendant in Libel. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:116%;mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width: 116%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">This ruling is premised on an application dated and filed on 16<sup>th</sup> of September, 2016 brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 praying the Honourable Court for:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">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-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">An Order of Court striking out this suit (NICN/OW/66/2014) for incompetence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">The grounds upon which the application is brought are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">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-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">This action is predicated on tort of defamation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this action which is not essentially a labour matter by virtue of the provisions of Section 254C(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (third alteration) Act No.3 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.7pt;margin-right:1.2pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">The application is supported by a 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by <br> Carol Mbagwu, a Secretary in the Defendant/Applicant solicitor's law office and a written address wherein a lone issue was raised for determination, to wit: <br> "WHETHER THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO <br> ENTERT AIN THIS SUIT.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that this Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this action. It is the further submission of the Counsel that whenever the issue of competence of Court to entertain an action comes up for determination, the relevant process to be considered are the originating processes - Writ of Summons and Statement of claim. See <b>ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC vs. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1293) Pg.<i> </i>219 at 236 E - F</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel stated that ex facie, from the originating processes before the Court, in particular the Statement of Claim filed by the Claimant in this suit, it is obvious that the Claimant's cause of action is hoisted on the tort of defamation. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are damages and injunction based on tort of defamation and by the provision of Section 254C (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act No.3 2011, the tort of defamation is not included in the list of matters this Honourable Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Counsel submitted that the issue of jurisdiction is a matter of law, and once it is clear that a court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a matter, at that very point the action abates and the Court is enjoined to strike same out. <b>See A.G. LAGOS STATE vs. A.G. FEDERATION (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) Pg. 217 at 273 B - D. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:.45pt;margin-right:.2pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the further argument of Counsel that the issue of jurisdiction, being the life-blood of every adjudication can be raised at any stage of an action. See <b>ARJAY LTD. vs. A.M.S. LTD. (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) Pg. 577 at 601 G.,</b> therefore this issue has been raised timeously in this suit so as to save the Honourable Court from expending its precious judicial time on a matter outside its jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.2pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:91%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Counsel urged the court</span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE"> to resolve the sole issue for determination in favour of the Defendant/Applicant and grant the application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.4pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.4pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to the application, the Claimant/Respondent filed a six (6) paragraph affidavit deposed to by Kalu Chidinma, a litigation secretary in the Claimant/Respondent's law office and a written address. In the accompanying written address, the following two issues were raised by the Claimant Counsel for the determination of the Court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:69.6pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-34.55pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232329;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this <br> suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.25pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:69.35pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-33.8pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#232329;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">Assuming without conceding that this Honourable Court lacks the <br> jurisdiction to entertain this suit, whether the justice of this case <br> will demand that this suit be struck out. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-width:105%;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Counsel </span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">argued issues (a) and (b) together because of their peculiar interrelationship, stating that the law has long been well settled that jurisdiction is the life wire of every litigation, without which the entire judicial and adjudication process will be deemed a nullity. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel citing the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 2011, in its 3<sup>rd</sup> alternation, specifically under Section 254C (1)(a), has <br> granted the National Industrial Court the wider powers to look into <br> matters or causes of action <i>"relating to or connected with any labour, <br> employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from <br> workplace ... and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith."</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.5pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel pointed out that in the instant case, the Defendant in his bid to protect or voice out his unfounded right over his failure in the rectorship contest with the Claimant, made serial scandalous and blackmailing publications which <br> caused severe injuries to the reputation of the Claimant. The Defendant <br> at the time of the incidences that gave rise to the Claimant's cause of action was still in the employment of the Claimant. Counsel posited that it is therefore, in the above regard that he submits that all communication, disputes or <br> publications made between parties in an employment contract fall <br> within the constitutional and statutory contemplation of "incidental or <br> connected matters" which the National Industrial Court has powers to <br> adjudicate on - See<b> Section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 CFRN (3<sup>rd</sup> <br> alteration) (Supra). <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.15pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:2.15pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, Counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this matter, by Section 24 of the National Industrial Court, Act, 2006, the proper order this Honourable <br> Court can make in such circumstance such as this is an order, <br> transferring the matter to the appropriate Court clothed with jurisdiction. Counsel stated that the Act went further to provide under Section 24 (2) and (3) as follows:- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.7pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:67.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">S24(2): <i>No cause or matter shall be struck out by the court <br> merely on the ground that such cause or matter was taken in the court instead of the federal high court or high court of a state or of the federal capital territory, Abuja in which it ought to have been brought and the court before whom such cause or matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate federal high court or the high court of a state or of the federal capital territory Abuja in accordance with Rules of Court to be made under Section </i>36 <i>of this Act." <o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.7pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:67.2pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.7pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:67.45pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">S24(3): <i>Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any <br> enactment or law, no cause or matter shall be struck out by the <br> Federal High Court or the state high court or of the federal <br> capital territory, Abuja on the ground that such cause or matter was not brought in the appropriate court in which it ought to have been brought, and the court before whom such cause or matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate judicial division of the court in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force in that high court or made under any enactment or law empowering the making of rules of court generally which enactment or law shall by virtue of this subsection be deemed also to include the power to make rules of court for the purposes of tit is subsection."</i></span></b><i><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel therefore relied on the basis of the foregoing statutory provision to submit that the authorities cited by the Applicant do not apply and urged the Court to discountenance same while making the appropriate order of transfer in this regard. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel referred to the cases of <b>MOKELU vs. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS AND HOUSING (1976) 3 SC 60; ALUMINIUM <br> MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. vs. NPA (1987) LPELR, SC <br> 119/1985; FASAKIN FOODS (NIG.) LTD. vs. SHOSANYA (1999) <br> 9 SCNJ 263, </b>to the effect that where there is a provision or rules <br> enabling Courts to transfer matters, the proper Order the Court should <br> make is one transferring such matter to the appropriate Court clothed with jurisdiction. Counsel therefore urged the Court to so hold and resolve the two issues in favour of the Claimant/Respondent and discountenance the arguments of the Defendant/Applicant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.45pt;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language: HE">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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In determining this motion, I will adopt the sole issue formulated by the Defendant’s counsel in his written address. The issue is: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s suit</span></i></b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was briefly deposed on behalf of the Defendant that the Claimant’s action is predicated on the tort of defamation. As such, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. In the counter affidavit of the Claimant, it was admitted that the Claimant’s cause of action, subject matter of the suit and her claims in the suit are based on the tort of defamation. However, at the time the Defendant published the defamatory materials, he was still in the employment of the Claimant. Since the defamatory act occurred during the employment of the Defendant, the court has jurisdiction to entertain matters incidental to the employment. It was further deposed in the counter affidavit that instead of striking out, if the court does not have requisite jurisdiction; the court has the power to transfer the suit to the court which has jurisdiction to hear it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The causes or subject matters which this court can entertain are set out in Section 254-C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By the provision of subsection 1 thereof, the subject matters in which this court is vested with jurisdiction are causes founded on industrial relationship or contract of employment. That is to say the suit must be</span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> connected with <b>“labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith”.</b> </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Accordingly,<i> </i>before this court can assume jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Claimant’s suit, the subject matter of the suit must be shown to be a labour matter or matter bothering on contract of employment or industrial relationship. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is the law that jurisdiction of a Court of law is determined by the Claimant’s claim. In other words, in order to ascertain whether the case comes within the jurisdiction conferred on the Court, the facts and claim of the Claimant are what are to be examined. See <b>ADEYEMI vs. OPEYORI (1976) 9- 10 S.C. 51;</b> <b>WESTERN STEEL WORKS vs. IRON & STEEL WORKERS (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 49) 284; TUKUR vs. GOVT. GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 549.</b> I have examined the facts of the Claimant’s case and the reliefs she sought upon those facts. I see that her case is founded on the tort of defamation. She has alleged that the Defendant made some libellous statements concerning the Claimant and she consequently sought this court’s order to declare the statements to be defamatory. She also sought a perpetual injunction against the Defendant restraining him from disseminating the libellous material, and the sum of <s>N</s>200 Million as damages for libel. There even seems to be no dispute in this application on the facts that the Claimant’s suit is founded on defamation. The Claimant did admit in her counter affidavit that her case is on defamation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Notwithstanding this clear admission as to the subject matter of her action, the Claimant contended however that the defamatory actions of the Defendant took place while the Defendant “</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">was still in the employment of the Claimant”. According to the Claimant, the defamation was accidental to the employment. The Claimant’s counsel did argued that communications, disputes or publications made between parties in employment contract come with “incidental” or “connected” matters as used in Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution. Let me ask, what was the relationship between the parties? The Claimant has alluded, in paragraph 3 (i) of her counter affidavit, that the Defendant was her employee at the time of the libellous publication. In paragraph 1 of the statement of facts, the Claimant described herself as the Rector of the Federal Polytechnic Nekede, Owerri and in Paragraph 4, the Defendant is said to be a former academic staff of Federal Polytechnic Nekede. In paragraph 5, it was averred that both of them taught together as academic staff of the Polytechnic. It is clear from these averments that it was the Polytechnic who employed both the Claimant and the Defendant. The Defendant was not an employee of the Claimant as alleged by the Claimant. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">There was </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">no employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. Therefore, the alleged defamatory conducts of the Defendant cannot be said to be incidental or connected to the subject matters which this court has jurisdiction in Section 254C (1) of the Constitution. The case of the Claimant is purely a claim in tort of defamation. In my view, the matters on which this court is permitted to exercise jurisdiction in Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) does not extend to actions in defamation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Clearly, this court does not have jurisdiction on the case brought before this court. There is merit in the application of the Defendant but I will make the order of striking out sought by the Defendant. The Claimant has urged this court in her averments in paragraph 4 of her counter affidavit that instead of the court to strike out the suit, it should rather be transferred to the court with jurisdiction. This prayer is in line with the provision of Section 24 (2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which provides that no cause or matter shall be struck out by this Court merely on the ground that such cause or matter was brought before it instead of the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory in which it ought to have been brought. The provision further enjoined this court to transfer such a matter to the appropriate Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory. See also Order 62 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017 which has the same provision as Order 28 Rule (1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. In view of these provisions, it will not be appropriate to strike out the case. The necessary order to make in the circumstance is to transfer the suit to the High Court of Imo State which has jurisdiction on the matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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 the result, I decline jurisdiction to hear this suit. The suit is hereby transferred to the High Court of Imo State for hearing and determination.<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"">No order as to cost.<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"">Ruling is entered accordingly.<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""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-right:.45pt;text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Comic Sans MS";color:red"> </span></u></b></p>