Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">REPRESENTATION</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">S.A. IBEREME, N.O. IGUODALO, FOR THE CLAIMANT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">C.A.ERHAHON (MRS), T.A. DELE BADMUS, S.I. ABASHIN AND EUGINE EKE FOR THE DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> RULING/JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant by a General form of complaints filed before this court on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2015 claims against the defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the trial of the applicant by the SSDC of the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent for registration of one Miss Grace Itsemekhona Imomoh after the panel investigating Admission Racketeering was a clear display of bias and therefore a breach of her fundamental rights fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and chapter xii Section 5II(C &D) of the Regulations Governing the service of Senior Staff, 2003, of the University of Benin.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the respondents made up their minds to punish the applicant and set out to build a case against her, starting with her appearance before the panel of investigation up to when the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent decided to terminate her appointment, without according her fair hearing/ trail thereby breaching her fundamental rights as provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(1999) as amended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the trial of applicant relying on a document allegedly prepared by her, a document which she described as forged and not signed by her, without allowing her to confront or cross-examine the tenderer thereof was a breach of her Fundamental Right as provided by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the trail of Applicant by the domestic tribunal of 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent for an offence whose major ingredient is forgery (a crime) is a breach of her Fundamental Right to fair trial, as guaranteed her by the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 as amended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the Report and recommendations of the SSDC of the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent on the Applicant are illegal, null, void and of no legal effect.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the procedure adopted by the Respondents in reaching the decision to terminate the appointment of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the termination of the appointment of Applicant is null, void and of no legal effect.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">8.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the Respondents’ letter purporting to terminate the appointment of the applicant is incurably defective and therefore void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">9.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">An order of this Honourable Court directing the 4th Respondent at its 138<sup>th</sup> Regular meeting held on 17<sup>th</sup> and 18<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 as it affects the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">10.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant to her duty post together with all salaries and allowances from and including 18<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 and promotions to which she is entitled.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant also filed another process by an application for an order for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights on the 13th February, 2015. together with an amended statements of facts, affidavit in support and documents to be relied upon. The defendants entered appearance by filing a memorandum of conditional appearance on the 19<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2015 in response filed their defence to both Originating Processes and also separate Preliminary Objection to same on the 19<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2015. The first Preliminary Objection is praying the Order of the court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the action was not initiated by the due process of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> That the action is an abuse of the judicial and court processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> That this Honourable Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Alongside this Notice of Preliminary Objection is a Written Address. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The second Preliminary Objection filed on the same date with the first Preliminary Objection prays for the Order of the court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the action is statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That there is no cause or reasonable Cause of Action against the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Alongside this Notice of Preliminary Objection is a Written Address and a counter Affidavit deposed to by one Imagbe Wilfred on the 19<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2015 and in response to the claimant’s application on Fundamental Enforcement Action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The court, on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2016 ordered parties in this suit to address it on the competence of this suit, same having been commenced by Complaint and Fundamental Human Rights Actions at the same time. The claimant did not file any written address in this regard, while the defendants filed their written address on the 9<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendants in responding to the issue raised by the court submitted that the procedure adopted by the claimant in filing two originating processes with same suit number is alien to our legal system. The defendants argued that the proper thing the claimant would have done is to withdraw the entire suit NO.NICN/BEN/08/2015 which includes both the complaint and the Fundamental Rights Action. They submitted that this action was not initiated by due process of law. On this they rely on the case of: <b>GABRIEL MADUKOLU V. JOHNSON NKEMDILIM [1962] ALL NLR PART 2, 581 AT 590.</b> They contended that the court cannot pick and choose the originating processes neither can the claimant reduce the court to this situation. Defendants further submitted that this court is not a legal surgeon that can be called upon to embark upon the process of severing one process in order to go on with the other as the Applicant/Claimant is praying this Court to do. They submitted that the whole action as it is presently constituted should be struck out as it was not by the due process of law. They also submitted with respect to Fundamental Human Rights that it has its rules under the <b>Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009</b> which must be followed to its letter. They argued that Order II of this Rule deals with the commencement of action, which the claimant has failed to adhere to in commencing this action. That the condition precedent to the exercise of Court’s jurisdiction in respect of the application under <b>Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules</b> is to the effect that it must be the main claim, that the position in this case is not so, which according to defendant is most incompetent and ought to be dismissed and they urged the court to dismiss the action. The defendants cited the case of <b>Sokoto L.G. v. Amale [2001] 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 224 at 228 in support.</b> They further submitted that the action of the claimant as presently constituted was dead on arrival, for its cluster of two sets of action into one writ. On this they relied on <b>OKECHUKWU V. EFCC [2015] 18 NWLR (Pt.1490) 1 at 12</b>. They argued that the application of the applicant is incompetent having not been initiated by due process of law. They further argued that for an action to be legally and competently maintained in a Court of Law, it must be initiated by due process of law. See <b>Oloruntoba–Oju v. Abdulraheem [2009] ALL FWLR (pt. 4971) at para 6. </b>It was further submitted that the claimant/applicant initiated this case by way of motion on notice for an order to enforce her Fundamental Human Rights under the <b>Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement) Procedure Rules 2009</b> made pursuant to the constitution of the Nigeria as provided for by <b>Sections 36 and 254 C(I)</b>. They submitted that the right of claimant/applicant to enforce his right is not in dispute, that however, this court is not the proper court to do so. They referred the court to <b>Section 46(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.</b> That this court is not the High court as envisage by the constitution. Cited in support is the case of <b>JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI [2004] 14 NRN 91; ALHAJI TUKUR V. GOVERRNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE [1999] 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517 AT 556-557.</b> They argued that with a close look at the case of the applicant shows clearly that it is about her employment which was terminated by the Respondent/ Defendants. The reliefs sought at paragraphs 1-6 are also within the adjudicatory powers of the National Industrial Court vide a Complaint which she has to prove before the court this in essence makes the fundamental rights enforcement procedures unsuitable. Defendants further submitted that this suit is both an abuse of Judicial and Court Process. The respondent first instituted suit no: NICN/BEN/17/2013 by way of complaint before this court seeking same reliefs as in this application. That they raised preliminary objection on the grounds that pre-action notice was never served before the action was filed. That in a well considered ruling on 30<sup>th</sup> day of October, 2014 this court on February 10, 2014 struck-out the suit for non service. That the applicant latter served pre-action notice, and sought by way of motion application for the case to be re-listed which was latter struck-out by this court upon objection by the defence. That the claimant originating processes dated 6<sup>th</sup> February, 2015 and filed on the 13<sup>th</sup> February, 2015 are an abuse of both the Judicial and Court processes. They cited <b>NURUDEEN ADIO BADRU & 2 ORS. V. SAULAAMUSA OLORUN FEMI &ORS. [2006]ALL FWLR (PT.324)1867 AT RATIO 8; ABUBAKAR V. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD [2007] ALL FWLR (PT 362) 1855 AT 1871 RATIO 11.</b> They submitted that the multiplicity of the Applicant’s actions in this Fundamental Right suit and Complaint also before this Court as suit no: NICN/BEN/08/2015 is a clear abuse of the Judicial and Court processes and urged the court to so hold and dismiss this suit. They finally submitted that this action having not been brought by the due process of law and being an abuse of the Judicial and court processes, they submitted that this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction in the circumstance to entertain same. They placed reliance on the case of <b>DAIRO V. UBN [2007] 11 MJSC 74</b>. Therefore, they urged the court to strike-out or dismissed this suit as incompetent, for its failure to be initiated by due process of law and lacking in merit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Upon a careful consideration of processes filed by parties, submissions and authority cited with regards to the order of the court, on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2016, it is my humble view that the issue for determination in this suit is whether or not the suit of the claimant vide both Complaint and Fundamental Human Rights Action is competent before this court. It is also important for the court to decide on the preliminary objections raised by the defendants/respondents on the 19th June, 2015, which is that this suit is statute barred and that there is no reasonable cause of action against the defendants. Before delving into these issues, it is pertinent to state that the claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance dated the 10th of February, 2016 and later withdrew it. The claimant did not file any written address/or response to any of the issues raised before this court in spite of ample opportunities given to her to do so. Ditto the question <i>suo moto</i> raised by the court on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2016. This means the claimant has admitted to the submission of the defendants, I say so in view of the basic position of the law, which is to the effect that unchallenged/uncontroverted facts is deemed admitted and should be relied upon by the court. </span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">MRS. ESTHER IGHRERINIOVO v. S.C.C. NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS.[2013]LPELR-20336SC;</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#CC0000;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">However, it does not mean that the defendant has escaped the burden placed on them by law in proving the merit of their application. The onus is still on the defendants to prove their case but with minimal proof. See <b>UNITY BANK PLC. V. OLATUNJI [2013] 15 NWLR (PT. 1378) 503, P.531 (Paragraphs D-G); OGUNYADE V. OSHUNKEYE [2007] ALL FWLR (PT 389) 1179</b>. I so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Now, delving into the issue <i>suo moto</i> raised by this court as to the competence of an action vide Complaint and Fundamental Human Rights Action. The modes of commencement of action before this court has been highlighted by the rules of this court under <b>Order 3 rule 1(1) (a-g) of the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2017.</b> Where a suit is commenced by Complaint in this court, it shall be accompanied by a statement of facts establishing the cause of action, list of witnesses to be called and their written statement on oath, copies of every documents. The two originating processes used by the claimant in this suit are inclusive on the list under the above mentioned rules of this court. There is another mode of initiating action in this court which is by application for judicial review, Notice of appeal or Petition based on an IAP award, this is to come by way of a referral by the Minister of Labour to this Court. The question is what is the propriety or otherwise of using two originating processes to seek same reliefs against the same opponent on the same issues at the same time. When an action is to be commenced against a party, it is the duty of the claimant to commence the action, vide an originating process that best suit her case. It is trite <b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0cm;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <tbody><tr> <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that, to bring two different originating processes against the same opponent, on the same issues or a multiple action on the same matter as this may amount to an abuse of court processes on the part of the claimant which can make his action before the court incompetent and at the same time play fowl of an action filed out of due process of law <b>See UNITY BANK PLC. V. OLATUNJI Supra @ 503, P.533 (Paragraphs C-G)</b>; <b>CONOIL PLC. V. ALHAJI MOHAMMED INUWA DUTSE [2016] LPELR-40236(CA)</b>. It is observed that the claimant on the same date she filed the complaint also filed under the Fundamental Rights enforcement. She equally filed along with this procedure another statement of facts, which is in all fours with the statement of fact she filed with the Complaint. Attempts by parties to ventilate their grievances in this court under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules(Hereafter called ''The FRE) has severally been refused by this court. In <b>Comrade (Evang) Olowo Preye Grace v. PENGASSAN & 3 ORS, an unreported Suit No. NIC/EN/10/2011, delivered on July,5th, 2011</b>, it was held in that case that Section 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, cannot be used as the basis for filing claims under the FRE rules; and that this court is not contemplated under the FRE Rules. In <b>Alhaji Akinsola V. NURTW & ORS, an unreported suit No. NIC/LA/333/2012, a ruling delivered on March,20th 2013, </b>this court held that <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"AR BLANCA"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">while a person unlawfully suspended from work can seek redress in the court and claim his full salary(ACB Ltd v. Ufondu[1997]10 NWLR(PT.523)169CA), this can be only by writ of summons, not by an application under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement (Enforcement Procedure) Rules(Effiong v. Ebong[2006]18 NWLR(PT.1010)109), I really do not think there is a fundamental right to an office. The rule is stretched further in the recognition of an employer’s right to suspend an employee when necessary, with or without pay or at half pay, which by <b>Ayewa v. University of Jos (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 659) 142, Akinyanju v. University of Ilorin (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 87 and Longe v. FBN Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1 SC</b>, cannot amount to breach of the employee’s fundamental rights as it has no bearing with issues of fundamental right under the constitution. At the case of <b>West African Examination Council v. Akinola Oladipo Akinkunmi (2008) 4 SC </b>held that in ascertaining the justiceability or competence of a suit commenced by way of an application under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979, the court must ensure that the enforcement of the fundamental rights under Chapter IV of the Constitution is the main claim and not the ancillary claim. Where the main or principal claim is not the enforcement of a fundamental right, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be said to be properly invoked and the action will be liable to be struck out for incompetence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This decisions was followed by this court again in the case of <b>Obed Enikuomehin v. University of Lagos & 4 Ors, suit No. NICN/LA/173/2013, a judgment delivered on the 16th January, 2014,</b> where this court held amongst other things thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"AR BLANCA";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">The guidance giving by the Apex Court in that regard is expedient to follow thus, In ascertaining the justiceability or competence of a suit commenced by way of an application under Fundamental Rights ( Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the Court must ensure that the enforcement of the Fundamental rights under Chapter 1V of the Constitution is the main claim and not an ancillary claim. See ERONINI V ERONINI [2013] 14 NWLR, (PT.1373) P 32 @ P55; WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL V AKINOLA OLADIPO AKINKUNMI [2008] 4 S.C; In other words where the main claim is not the enforcement of a fundamental right the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be said to be properly invoked and the action will be liable to be struck out for incompetence. It is obvious in the instance case that none of the paragraphs of the Claimant's claim specifically mentioned the issue of fundamental right enforcement. It thus, does not form part of the suit as constituted and the Court cannot formulate a different claim for the Claimant; it was an afterthought and as stoutly stated in this ruling, this Court is not envisaged as one of the Courts that can handle such cases. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is obvious by the decisions supra coupled with the provisions of both the NIC rules and the FRE rules that first this case is not qualified to be initiated by FRE and secondly this court is not contemplated under the FRE. </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">The proceedings and competence of this Court to adjudicate on any matter before it is guided by the Constitution and other statutory provisions on employment matters, but not on enforcement of human rights issues and the National Industrial Court of Nigeria cannot arrogate to itself that power. The judex in this clime is not emotive, affectional and stirring in its decision on any issue. The provision of the law must and should be followed by the judex as an arbiter at all times. It is consequent upon all said above that I find that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as constituted. I so find and hold. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Also, having examined the two processes before me vide the parties in the two originating processes and the reliefs sought on each of the processes by the claimant, I find that the parties are the same, and the relief sought are against the same defendants in this suit, therefore, an abuse of court process, and this raises the issue of the competence of this suit before me. It is trite that for a court to have jurisdiction over a cause of action, the action must be competent. This means the action must come before the court by due process of law. <b>See. M.O. MOUDKAS (NIG.) ENT. LTD. AND ANOR. V. EMIKO ISRAEL OBIOMA AND 2 ORS.[2016] LPELR-40165(CA).</b> And it is also trite that before a party can be admonished for an abuse of court process, it is the duty of the court to establish that the erring party had abused the process by improper use of Judicial processes<b>. See CBN V. AHMED [2001] 11NWLR (PT.724) 3698. 486 PARA. D-E.</b> The conduct of the Claimant by commencing this suit, vide Complaint and Fundamental Right Action both at the same time goes to the competence of this suit before me. It is plain on record that the claimant's counsel is confused and his confused state is as exhibited by the filing of both processes on the same day. Therefore, I hold that the General form of Complaints filed before this court on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of February, 2015 and the Originating motion/application for an order for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights filed on the same date against the defendants are not competent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Finally, which is whether or not this suit is caught up by the Section 2 (a) of Public Officers Protection Act, Cap p. 41, LFN 2004 ( hereafter called 'POPA' ). Aptly put, is this suit statute barred? It is the defendants contention that this suit is statute barred and thus offends Section 2(a) of POPA, having been filed more than 3 months after the accrual of the cause of action. The Section is hereunder reproduced thus;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:16.0pt; line-height:115%"> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"AR BLANCA"">where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any Act or Law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"AR BLANCA""> The action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It was the contention of the 1st -3rd defendants in this suit that the failure of the Claimant to commence the action against the defendants within a period of three months is fatal to her case, as same is statute barred. Claimant as stated supra, did not file any response to this objection. It is a basic principle of law that where a statute makes provisions for institution of an action within a prescribed period, any action instituted after the prescribed period is statute barred, as the right or injury of the Claimant have been extinguished by the above law. See the case of <b>FRED EGBE VADEFARASIN(NO2) <span class="apple-style-span">[1987] 1 NWLR (Pt.47) 1;</span> CBN V ADEDEJI. </b><span class="apple-style-span">the most crucial consideration is when the cause of action arose. A cause of action arises the moment a wrong is done to the Claimant by the Defendant for which he has a legal right of enforcement. Limitation of action is also determined by looking at the complaint and the statement of facts alleging when the wrong was committed which gave the Plaintiff the cause of action and by comparing it with the date on which the writ of summons was filed. See the locus clasicus on the subject; <b>EGBE V HON. JUSTICE ADEFARASIN </b></span><b>Supra,<span class="apple-style-span">; ADEKOYA V. FHA [2008] Vol. 6 M.J.S.C 66 at 79-80 paras. G-D;</span></b><span style="color:#009933"> </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b>Forestry Research Institute of Nig. v. Gold [2007] 5 S.C 213 at 223 - 225; Paras 40 - 25 (SC); MILITARY ADMIN EKITI STATE v. ALADEYELU (2007) 4-5 S.C. 201. <o:p></o:p></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Hereunder highlighted are the relevant averments of the claimant's statement of facts from which the cause of action is distilled thus-<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">22. Claimant was, by letters dated 5<sup>th</sup> April and 16<sup>th</sup> April, 2013, summoned or invited to appear before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee (a quasi-judicial committee of the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant) to defend herself on allegations of registering Miss Gloria Imomoh as a student and preparing her 100 level result, and she appeared before the Committee on 8<sup>th</sup> and 16<sup>th</sup> April, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">23. The claimant says that she denied the allegations before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">24. The claimant also denies knowledge and authorship of the list of students, with their matriculation numbers, allegedly tendered by Dr (Mrs) Akortha when she appeared before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee. Claimant believes that the paper was an afterthought manufactured by a desperate, drowning Dr (Mrs) Akortha who found herself in a tight corner and was looking for straws to hold on to.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">25. The claimant avers that when she appeared before the Senior Staff Disciplinary Committee, her accuser was never brought forward to enable her confront or cross-examine such accuser face to face.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">26. The claimant avers that she received a letter dated 14<sup>th</sup> May, 2013 from the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant terminating her appointment with effect from 18<sup>th</sup> April, 2013, with an offer of three months’ salary in lieu of notice. Claimant has since rejected the notice of termination and requested the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant to keep the three months; salary in lieu of notice pending the outcome of her appeal to Council.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:2.0cm;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">27. The claimant, believing that the Governing Council was misinformed on her role in the matter, appealed to the Council, through its Chairman, vide a letter dated 5<sup>th</sup> June, 2013, to reverse the termination of her appointment and reinstate her to her post. The letter dated 5<sup>th</sup> June, 2013 is pleaded and shall be founded upon during the trial of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.45pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -1.0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "AR BLANCA";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is apparent from the above paragraphs of the Claimant's Statement of facts that the cause of action arose as revealed by paragraph 26 of the claimant's statement of facts on the 14th May, 2013, the date she received the letter terminating her appointment with effect from 18th April, 2013. The action became statute barred three months after this date. When this date is compared with the date of filing this suit, i.e. on the 13th of February, 2015. It apparent that the claimant waited for 21 months after the cause of action accrued before the claimant woke up from slumber and filed this suit. It is in consequence that I find that this suit is statute barred as it is contrary to the provision of Section 2(a) of POPA. Accordingly, this court is estopped from assuming jurisdiction in this case. I thus find merit in the defendants preliminary objection. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is from all stated above that I find that this case is both an abuse of court process and statute barred, which robs off the jurisdiction of this court. It is therefore, dismissed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Ruling is accordingly entered.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"AR BLANCA""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Hon. Justice Oyebiola O. Oyewumi<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:16.0pt;line-height:115%"> </span></b></p>