Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">J.O.N. Ikeyi, SAN, appeared with N.C. Ezedum (Mrs) and B.O. Anagu (Miss) for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Vincent O. Ene Esq. appeared with Chioma Egbuniwe (Miss) for the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant commenced this action on 10<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2014 praying for the following reliefs against the defendants jointly and severally:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A declaration that the suspension and subsequent dismissal of his confirmed and pensionable appointment from the Enugu State Housing Development Corporation vide a letter Ref.: MD.12/VOL.VIII dated 11<sup>th</sup> February, 2013 is unlawful, unconstitutional, contrary to the rules of natural justice and fair hearing, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A declaration that the claimant is still a staff in the service of Enugu State Housing Development Corporation and is still entitled to his full remunerations and all other entitlements accruing to him as such officer from the dates of suspension and dismissal up to the date of judgment in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, officers, servants or staff from interfering with the claimant’s performance of the functions and duties of his office and his enjoyment of the rights, privileges and benefits attached to the said office.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of the court reinstatingthe claimant to his post and office and to all the rights, privileges and benefits attached thereto.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order setting aside the purported letters of suspension and dismissal dated 30<sup>th</sup> November, 2012 and 11<sup>th</sup> February, 2013 respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ALTERNATIVELY, the claimant prays the court to make an order that the defendants jointly and severally, pay the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten million Naira) to him, being special, general and aggravated damages for the unlawful dismissal, harassment, embarrassment and loss of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendants did not initially enter appearance in the matter until the 10<sup>th</sup> of December, 2014 when they filed their processes in defence of the suit. Amongst the processes filed was a Notice of preliminary objection dated 23<sup>rd</sup> day of September, 2014 but filed on 10<sup>th</sup> December, 2014. The said preliminary objection was for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(i)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER striking out the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant sued in person as a party to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER striking out the entire suit on ground of incompetence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AND for such further order(s) the Honourable Court may feel deem to make in the circumstance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds for the objection are:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant was sued in a personal capacity instead of being sued in his official capacity as the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1<sup>st</sup> defendant and the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant were not given pre-action notice as required by law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The notice of preliminary objection is supported by an affidavit of 16 paragraphs deposed to by Chijioke Nnaji, an assistant chief legal officer with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. There is also a written address in support of the preliminary objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Upon receipt of the said notice of preliminary objection the claimant on 5/2/2015 filed a Counter-affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to by Mrs Chinasa Oluagu, a Secretary in the law firm of the learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant. Thereafter the claimant on 19/3/2015 filed a further affidavit of 7 paragraphs, deposed to by Miss Chisom Idoko, a counsel in the law firm of the learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant. Attached to the said further affidavit are Exhibits A, A1, B and B1, copies of pre-action notices served on the defendants by the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter, precisely on 17 April, 2015 the learned Defendants’ counsel filed a notice of discontinuance in respect of the notice of preliminary objection of 10<sup>th</sup> December, 2014; and on 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015 the said learned Defendants Counsel filed another Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 20/04/2015, with a supporting affidavit and exhibits attached as well as a written address attached thereto. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter on 20<sup>th</sup> November, 2015 the Claimant filed a Counter affidavit of 23 paragraphs to both the Notice of Discontinuance of 17/04/2015 and Notice of Preliminary objection dated and filed on 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015. The said counter-affidavit is accompanied with a written address of 22 pages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 17<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2016 the learned counsel for the defendants after moving his motion to regularize his memorandum of conditional appearance and statement of defence drew the court’s attention to his notice of discontinuance of the notice of preliminary objection dated 23/9/2014 but filed on 10/12/2014. The said notice of discontinuance was dated and filed on 17/04/2015. He referred the court to the provisions of Order 19 rule 17(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. The claimant however objected to the withdrawal of the notice of preliminary objection dated 23/09/2014 but filed on 10/12/2014. The learned claimant’s counsel then opposed the notice of withdrawal and at that point the court adjourned for the hearing of arguments on the issue as well as other pending applications in the matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The court then sat on the 1/02/2017 and heard the applications of the parties. The learned senior counsel for the claimant adopted all his processes on the preliminary objections as well as the opposition to the notice of discontinuance. On the other hand the learned defendants’ counsel was not in court but his processes were deemed adopted pursuant to the provisions of Order 45 rule 7 at p. B179 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the processes filed as well as the arguments and submissions of counsel to the parties. The first issue for determination is that of the notice of discontinuance of preliminary objection of the defendants filed on 10/12/2014. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his written address in opposition to both the notice of discontinuance and preliminary objections to the suit, the learned senior counsel submitted that the said notice of discontinuance should be disregarded and refused by the Court. The ground for the opposition is that the notice of discontinuance dated 17<sup>th</sup> April, 2015 and the notice of preliminary objection dated 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015 constitute abuse of court process and are incompetent. Learned senior counsel cited and relied on the dicta of Oputa JSC in the case of <b><i>Amaefule vs The State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) p. 128 at 177, </i></b>Karibi-Whyte JSC in <b><i>Saraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) p. 156 at 188-189</i></b>on what constitutes an abuse of court process. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Although the term abuse of court process is not of any precise definition, learned senior counsel submitted that the defendants’ notice of discontinuance and the preliminary objection of 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015 have elements of malice in them. That it is a malicious perversion of the claimant’s regularly filed processes for a purpose and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby. He referred to <b><i>Saraki vs Kotoye (1992), supra.</i></b> The learned Silk further submitted that the notice of discontinuance and the 2<sup>nd</sup> notice of preliminary objection were filed by the defendants after obtaining substantial interim advantage or some unjust enrichment in the claimant’s argument which is primarily presented to delay the hearing of the case, to the prejudice of the claimant, relying on the case of <b><i>The Vessel of ST. Roland vs Osinloye (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 500) at 387.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned senior counsel in his arguments in paragraphs 4.05 to 4.22 of his written address made the point that the notice of discontinuance and the 2<sup>nd</sup> preliminary objection ought not to be allowed by the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned defendants’ counsel did not file any written address in response to the written arguments and submissions of the learned senior counsel on the issue of notice of discontinuance and 2<sup>nd</sup> notice of preliminary opposed by the claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having carefully considered the arguments and submissions of the learned senior counsel for the claimant as well as having perused the authorities cited and relied upon by him, it is my humble view that the notice of discontinuance and 2<sup>nd</sup> preliminary objection do not amount to an abuse of court process. The main criteria for determining whether a step taken by a party in a proceeding amounts to an abuse of court process or not has been given as “proceeding which is wanting in bona fide and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process”, per Oputa JSC in <b><i>Amaefule vs The State (1988), supra.</i></b> Karibi-Whyte JSC also in <b><i>Saraki vs Kotoye (1992), supra, </i></b>also stated the criteria as “(t)he employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when the party properly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues.” The recurring decimal in the criteria is that a party must take steps that would be lacking in <i>bona fides</i>, frivolous, vexatious, irritation and annoyance of the opponent, etc. However, the most important point is that the step taken must seek to affect the efficient and effective administration of justice. In the instant case, the defendants filed their first notice of preliminary objection on 10/12/2014 which they sought to discontinue by the notice of discontinuance dated and filed on 17/04/2015, clearly to be replaced by the notice of preliminary objection dated and filed on 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015. The learned counsel for the defendants in drawing the court’s attention to the said notice of discontinuance on 17/02/2016, relied on the provisions of Order 19 rule 17(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. This rule allows a party to discontinue all or any of its claim before the court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, the main contention of the learned senior counsel is that the defendants could not discontinue the said preliminary objection because it had already been fixed for hearing. But as rightly stated by the defendants in their further affidavit of 10/03/16, the preliminary objection of 10/12/2014 had not yet been fixed for hearing as at the time the notice of discontinuance was filed on 17/04/2015. The record of proceedings of the court of 8/12/2014 shows that the case was adjourned for adoption of parties’ final written addresses. The court sat next on 18/05/2015 when it now adjourned to 25/05/2015 for hearing of the outstanding applications, including the preliminary objection in question. Therefore, I am in no doubt that the notice of discontinuance was filed before the preliminary objection of 10/12/2014 was fixed for hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Nevertheless, the Claimant had argued that processes had been exchanged in relation to the said preliminary objection of 10/12/2014. Here, the Claimant has accepted that the 2<sup>nd</sup> preliminary objection of 20/04/2015 has the same content as the first one of 10/12/2014. The only difference is that there is an additional ground ‘c’ of the new objection as well as additional paragraphs 13 and 14 to the affidavit in support. Having considered this, it is my humble view that the Claimant has not been disadvantaged in any way as he has had the opportunity of addressing the extra points made in the new preliminary objection. In the circumstance therefore, I am of the view, which I so hold that the notice of preliminary objection dated 23/09/2014 but filed on 10/12/2014 be and is hereby discontinued pursuant to the notice of discontinuance filed by the defendants on 17/04/2015. It is accordingly hereby struck out.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 1<sup>st</sup> of February, 2017 the processes filed by the defendants in relation to their preliminary objection dated and filed on 20/04/2015 were deemed adopted. I have also taken note of the learned senior counsel’s counter-affidavit and written address filed on 20<sup>th</sup> November, 2015 which he adopted on the said 1/02/2017. I will therefore consider and determine the said preliminary objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed on 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2015 is for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER striking out the name of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant sued in person as a party to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">AN ORDER striking out the entire suit on ground of incompetence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The grounds of the objection are:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoSubtitle"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant was sued in a personal capacity instead of being sued in his official capacity as the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup>defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The 1<sup>st</sup> defendant and the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant were not given pre-action notice as required by law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Complaint does not qualify as a Complaint as mandatorily prescribed by the rules of court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The preliminary objection is supported by an affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Chijioke Nnaji Esq., an Assistant Chief Legal Officer with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. There is also a written address in support of the preliminary objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned Senior Counsel for the Claimant filed a Counter-affidavit of 23 paragraphs deposed to by Chinasa Oluagu, a secretary in the law firm of the Claimant’s learned senior counsel. There is attached to it a written address.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned defendants’ counsel did not file any reply on points of law to the counter affidavit and written address of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his written address, the learned defendants counsel formulated and argued the following issues:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Defendants/Applicants are public officers entitled to pre-action notice?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether in the circumstances of this case, the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to entertain this suit has been effectively invoked?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimant can proceed against the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant in his personal capacity as the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether Exhibit A qualifies as Complaint as prescribed by the Rules of this Court and this suit has been competently commenced?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, the learned senior counsel responded to each of the issues raised by the defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the processes filed, the arguments and submissions of the parties, the issues formulated and argued by the defendants shall be used in determining the preliminary objection. On the first issue, the defendants’ case is that there was no pre-action notice given to the defendants by the Claimant. Here the Claimant has filed an affidavit in which the said pre-action notices served on the defendants were exhibited. The defendants have not disputed that the said exhibited notices were indeed served on them. Therefore I have no difficulty in holding that the issue has been laid to rest. SeeNwachukwu & ORS. vs Dimgba & ORS(2009) LPELR-8414(CA), Ogbowu vs Aigbo (2013) LPELR-21196(CA). That issue is resolved against the defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The second issue essentially says that the jurisdiction of the court has not been activated by the failure of the defendants to give the required pre-action notice. But with the holding above that the pre-action notice was indeed given by the Claimant to the defendants, there is nothing left to hold other than that the jurisdiction of the court has been properly invoked in that regard.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 3<sup>rd</sup> issue, the defendants contended that the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant has been wrongly sued in his personal capacity for acts done in his capacity as the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. That the Claimant does not have any cause of action against him as such and therefore has been mis-joined to the suit. In his response to the issue however, learned senior counsel maintained that the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant has been properly sued by the Claimant in his personal capacity. This is because by the provisions of Chapter 12 rule 12.01 of the Conditions of Service of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant had exceeded his powers in the disciplinary process leading to the dismissal of the claimant. Learned counsel relied on other principles of law in relation to ultra vires acts of a public officer, relying on decisions such as <b><i>Nwana vs Nigerian Ports Authority (1981) 1-3 CCHCJ 282, Ojukwu vs Government of Lagos State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 10) 806, Enyi Brothers Food Processing & Ors vs BDIC & Ors (2007) 3 SC 175, </i></b>amongst others. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant is a necessary party to the suit, without whom the issues in dispute cannot be completely and effectively determined. He relied on <b><i>Lead Merchant Bank Ltd vs Salami (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 404) 1587 at 1598, paras C-A, Okukuje vs Akiwido (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 700) 261 and Azeanya vs Okeke (1995) NWLR (Pt. 288) 142.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having considered the arguments and submissions of both parties on the issue, as well as reading the authorities cited and relied upon by them, it is my view that the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant has been mis-joined in this suit. To start with, none of the reliefs as sought in this suit have specifically been made personal to the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant. The more important point, however, is that the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant was acting as the Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. He was its officer and therefore was at best its agent in the discharge of his functions. As an agent of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, a disclosed principal, it is the principal that should be sued and not the agent. The Complaint itself simply states the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant in his personal capacity and there is nothing to indicate that he was being sued for the acts or decisions he took while in office as Managing Director of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. Rather he is being sued in his personal capacity to be made personally liable.See <b><i>Patrick Izuagbe Okolo & Anor vs Union Bank of Nigeria Limited (2004) LPELR-2465(SC); (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt.859) 87</i></b>and <b><i>Laah v. Opaluwa [2004] 9 NWLR (Pt.879)558.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The other point here is that the position of the Claimant that the presence of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant in the suit is necessary for the complete and effective determination of the suit cannot be correct. What is involved here is the wrongful termination by dismissal of the contract of employment of the Claimant with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. It is the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant that is the only necessary party in this suit. The 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant may be a desirable party, but I do not see how he can be a necessary party without whom the issues in dispute in this suit cannot be completely and effectually determined. This I so hold. See <b><i>Emman Okafor vs John Nwoye Ezenwa (2002) LPELR-2417(SC), (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt.784)319. </i></b>The 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant is therefore hereby struck out from this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="37DD931" style='width:467.25pt;height:643.5pt;visibility:visible; mso-wrap-style:square'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\MBR\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png" o:title="37DD931"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img width="623" height="858" src="file:///C:/Users/MBR/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg" alt="37DD931" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_1"><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>