Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">C. P. OCHEJA for the Applicant/ Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">P. A. AKUBO SAN for the 1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">R U L I N G<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Applicant filed Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) on 4<sup>th</sup> May, 2016 for an order granting the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the Acts of the Respondents: to wit: intimidation and threats of further arrest of the Applicant is illegal, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant as enshrined in Sec. 35(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the suspension of the Applicant by the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant is illegal, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant as enshrined in Sec. 36(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">of this Honorable Court directing the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent to withdraw the suspension letter against the Applicant and to restore the Applicant to the status quo ante.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant from suspending and or terminating the Appointment of the Applicant and to restore the Applicant to status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the respondents, their agents or privies from arresting and or detaining the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the Respondents, their agents or privies from further acts of harassment, intimidation and any other form of infringement of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN AWARD </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">of #10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only against the Respondents jointly and severally as exemplary damages for the unbearable hardship and psychological trauma caused to the Applicant and the cost of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Applicant’s process was accompanied by a <b>WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION </b>wherein the Applicant raised the following <b>ISSUES</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether there was a breach of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l7 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought having recourse to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights) Reinforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents filed a <b>NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION</b> on 7<sup>th</sup> June, 2016 and dated 6<sup>th</sup> June, 2016 urging the Court to strike out the suit for being incompetent and for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION <o:p></o:p></span></b></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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The originating process filed by the applicant is invalid there being no such procedure under the Rules of this Honorable Court.<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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The originating process was not served directly or personally on the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> & 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents as envisaged by Order V Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 neither was leave to effect service by substantial means obtained by the Applicant pursuant to Order V Rule 7 of the Rules.<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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The application was not fixed for hearing within 7 days with effect from the date it was filed, to wit, 4<sup>th</sup> May, 2016 in compliance with Order IV Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 and as such a spent force.<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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Importantly, the case of the applicant is statute barred by virtue of Sec. 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.<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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">By reason of grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this application and/or grant the reliefs sought by the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents also filed a <b>WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION </b>with the following <b>ISSUES<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the originating process filed by the applicant in this case on 4<sup>th</sup> May, 2016 on the basis of master and servant relationship between the applicant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent was initiated by due process let alone valid and competent such that this Honorable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the claim of the applicant is not statute barred having regard to Sec. 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act such that this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether the originating process filed by the applicant in this case on 4<sup>th</sup> May, 2016 on the basis of master and servant relationship between the applicant and the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent was initiated by due process let alone valid and competent such that this Honorable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain it.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents P. A. Akuba SAN, submitted that a glance at the purported originating process filed by the applicant undoubtedly confirms that the originating process is not only strange but an abuse of court process. He urged the court to take judicial notice of the said originating process pursuant to <b><span style="color:red">Sec. 122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act, 2011. UZODINMA v. IZUNASO (NO. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (PT. 1275) 28 @ 75.</span></b> Contending further that the issue of employment is not a fundamental right under Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended<b><span style="color:red">). F.B.N. v. A.G. FED. (2014) 12 NWLR (PT. 1422) 470 @ 503, PARA. F</span></b>, per <b>AKomolafe-Wilson, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">TUKUR v. GOVT. OF TARABA STATE (1997) 6 NWLR (PT. 510) 549 @ 576-577, PARAS. H-A</span></b>, <b>Ogundare, JSC;</b> <b><span style="color:red">AMALE v. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVT. (2012) 5 NWLR (PT. 1292) 181 @ 199, PARA. A, </span>Fabiyi, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">GAFAR v. THE GOVT. OF KWARA STATE & 2 ORS. (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1024) 375 @ 398, PARAS. E-G</span></b>, per <b>Muhammed, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">EFFIONG v. EBONG (2006) 18 NWLR (PT. 1010) 109N @ 131-132, PARAS. H-C</span></b>, per <b>Omokri, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">DANGOTE v. C.S.C. PLATEAU STATE (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. 717) 132 @ 162, PARA. E</span></b>, per <b>Karibi-Whyte.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the superior courts have in different cases deprecated inappropriate and arbitrary resort to Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules in matters that are strictly contractual, tortious and/or in which the principal claim transcends breach of fundamental rights. <b><span style="color:red">OKECHUKWU v. ETUKOKWO (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 562) 513 @ 534, PARAS. E-G</span></b>, per <b>Niki Tobi, JCA (as he then was</b>); <b><span style="color:red">OPARA v. S.P.D.C.N. LTD. (2015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1479) 307 @ 357-358, PARAS. G-B,</span></b> per <b>Adah, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">ABDULHAMID v> AKAR (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 996) 127 @ 147, PARAS. C-F</span></b>, per <b>Acholonu, JSC.</b> Arguing that the Applicant cannot have the benefit of the Court exercising jurisdiction over his case having miserably failed to meet the condition precedent for the commencement of an action before this Honorable Court, as the law is settled on the importance of validity of originating processes in a proceeding. <b><span style="color:red">BRAITHWAITE v. SKYE BANK PLC (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1346) 15, PARAS. C-D,</span></b> per <b>Muhammad, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">OKARIKA v. SAMUEL (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1352) 37, PARA. C</span>, per I.T.</b> <b>Muhammad, JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is also the contention of Counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant that failure to effect service of the originating process on the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> & 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents directly or personally is fatal as it deprives this Honorable Court of jurisdiction to enter the case, as service of court process is one of the fundamental conditions precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction. <b><span style="color:red">SKEN CONSULT & ANOR. V. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6 @ 26.</span></b> Defence Counsel submitted that the operative word ‘shall†in Order IV Rule 1 of the Rules (Supra) is settled that it has mandatory connotation. <b><span style="color:red">NWANKWO v. YAR’ADUA (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) 518 @ 588</span></b>, per <b>Adekeye, JSC</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 2<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether the claim of the applicant is not statute barred having regard to Sec. 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act such that this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this case.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Learned SAN submitted that when an action is statute barred, it deprives the litigating party the right of action, the right of enforcement and the right to any judicial relief leaving the claimant with an empty right. <b><span style="color:red">FRED EGBE v. THE HON. JUSTICE J.A. ADEFARASIN (1987) ALL NLR 1 @ 21</span></b>, per <b>Oputa, JSC.</b> He argued that the applicant did not maintain the action within three (3) months when the purported cause of action arose, to wit, June, 2015, thus, this is fatal to this action as failure of the applicant so to do renders his action completely stature barred. <b><span style="color:red">IBRAHIM v. JUDICAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KADUNA STATE (1998) 14 NWLR (PT. 584) 1 @ 32; CRUTECH v. OBETEN (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1271) 588 @ 608-609</span></b>, per <b>Oredola, JCA</b>; <b><span style="color:red">YARE v. N.S.W. & I.C. (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) 173 @ 191-192</span></b>, per <b>Galadima, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">HASSAN v. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (PT. 1223) 547 @ 619</span></b>, per <b>Adekeye, JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Submitting that the law is settled that the issue of jurisdiction is radically fundamental. <b><span style="color:red">ELELU-HABEEB v. A.G. FED. (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1318) 423 @ 511-512</span></b>, per <b>Adekeye, JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">UTIH v. ONOYIVEWE (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 @ 49, per Bello, CJN; ADETAYO v. ADEMOLA (2010) 15 NWLR (PT. 1215) 169 @ 189, PARAS. C-F</span></b>, per <b>Muhammed, JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The applicant in reaction filed a </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">REPLY TO THE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE 1<sup>ST</sup> – 3<sup>RD</sup> RESPONDENTS </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">filed on 27<sup>th</sup> October, 2016 and dated 24<sup>th</sup> October, 2016.with the following <b>ISSUES:<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the respondents have not misconceived this suit as a labour matter exclusively and not a Fundamental Right Enforcement issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Counsel to the Applicant, Ocheja Esq. submitted that it is trite that jurisdiction is the authority which a court has to decide a matter before it. It connotes the entire basis of taking cognizance of matter presented to the court formally for the purpose of adjudication. <b><span style="color:red">ANYANWU v. OGUNUWE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 738) 1012 @ 1044, PARA. D.</span></b>And that furthermore that jurisdiction is the live wire of any proceeding in court and everything done in the absence of jurisdiction is simply a nullity. <b><span style="color:red">MUSACONI LTD. V. ASPILALL (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 710) 1276 @ 1292-1293, PARAS. D-F.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel to the Applicant submitted that the provision of the Rule as to commencement of action in Fundamental Right issues are flexible and prescribed in Order 2 Rules, 2, 3 & 4, urging the Court to hold that the originating process is proper before this Court particularly as the matter was transferred from the Federal High Court, Lokoja. Contending that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondents are only dwelling on technicalities. <b><span style="color:red">OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 497) 1 @ 29, PARAS. G-H.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Learned Applicant’s Counsel on the issue of Public Officer’s Protection Act, submitted </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the Fundamental Right proceedings enjoys a distinct position in our laws that no limitation law applies, citing Order III of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. Learned Counsel to the applicant went on to arguing that the process filed on the 4<sup>th</sup> May 2016 doesn’t constitute a new suit<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 2<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether the respondents have not misconceived this suit as a labour matter exclusively and not a Fundamental Right Enforcement issue.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Learned Applicant’s Counsel argued that where a law provides for a procedure for doing a particular thing, it must be followed with all intent and purposes hence, the procedure to be adopted to actualize and activate Rule 030411 (even not applicable in this circumstance) is procedurally provided for in Rules 030305 which the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent woefully neglected. Furthermore, that it re-echoes the provision of Sec. 36 of the 1999 Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the applicability of the doctrine of fair hearing to proceedings of administrative bodies, counsel relied on the case of <b><span style="color:red">J.S.C. CROSS RIVER STATE v. YOUNG (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 714) 40 @ 54, PARAS. C-E. </span></b>and Applicant’s Counsel cited the case of <b><span style="color:red">ORANEZI v. NGIGE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 760) 1350 @ 1384, PARA. D</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>for the definition of fair hearing. Urging the Court to hold that the question complained of by the Applicant is solely the refusal of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent to hear him and verify the content of the letter from the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent and not any labour matter whatsoever. <b><span style="color:red">CADBURY (NIG.) PLC. V. ONI (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 665) 251, PARAS. A-D.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">The </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup> defendant filed their reply on point of law tagged ‘</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">1<sup>ST</sup> – 3<sup>RD</sup> RESPONDENTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW TO REPLY OF THE APPLICANT DATED 26<sup>T</sup></span></b><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">H</span></sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> October, 2016’ (filed on 1<sup>st</sup> November, 2016).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 1<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether this Honorable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Learned SAN argued that the Applicant’s contention is thoroughly misconceived, submitting that it is settled law that the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights does not fall within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court and as such, this Court is incompetent to determine this case. <b><span style="color:red">S.S.A.U.T.H.R.I.A.I. v. OLOTU (NO. 2) (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1531) 1</span></b>, per <b>Adumein, JCA @ Pp. 17 -19, PARAS. C-A;</b> <b><span style="color:red">MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 241.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">ON ISSUE 2<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether the respondents have not misconceived this suit as a labour matter exclusively and not a Fundamental Right Enforcement issue.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Learned SAN submitted in rebuttal that it is settled law that courts cannot widen or expand the extent of power expressly defined by the Constitution. <b><span style="color:red">ANSA v. R.T.P.C.N. (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1086) 421 @ 446, PARA. B,</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>per <b>Omokri, JCA.</b> He submitted that Sec. 36 (1) of the Constitution; <b><span style="color:red">Rules 030305, J.S.C. CROSS RIVER STATE v. YOUNG (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 714) 40 @ 54, PARAS. C-E; ORANEZI v. NGIGE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 760) 1350 @ 1384, PARA. D; CADBURY (NIG.) PLC. V. ONI (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 665) 251, PARAS. A-D</span></b>, relied upon by the Applicant are of no moment, urging the Court to discountenance same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">On the 13<sup>th</sup> December 2016 parties adopted their written statements on oath and the matter was adjourned for Ruling.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Having carefully summarized the position of both sides, the arguments of opposing counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%">Before I deal with the merit of this application I need to address a contention of the 1<sup>st</sup> - 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants in the 2<sup>nd</sup> ground of their objection as to personal service. The Learned Authors <b>Offornze D. Amucheazi and Paul U. Abba in their book “<u>THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA – LAW, PRACTICE and PROCEDDURE.â€Â© 2013 Wildfire Publishing House </u></b>at page128 addressed this very point in their treatment of the manner of Service of origination processes in this court, thus “ The manner of service of originating processes or any other process in the NIC is relatively flexible and less rigid than the requirement for service in the High Court. There is no mandatory requirement for personal service of processes on the defendant and the party is slowed to adopt the easiest means of service of the process on a defendant without the need for leave of courtâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Or 7 Rule 1 NICR Rule 2007 provides<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l8 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(1) Any notice or any other documents required or authorized by these rules to be served or delivered to any person may be served on that person personally or sent by registered post or courier or left at that persons address for service or, where no address for service is given, the registered office, principal place of business or last known address…..<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(2)……<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(3)……<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l8 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> (1)…….<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(2) Where a party is represented by a Legal Practitioner, service of court process may be made on such Legal Practitioner or person under his or her control. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">See the case of</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;color:red"> </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;color:red">SUIT NO: NICN/CA/118/2013 MR. OYAMA PIUS Vs. SEAWARD VENTURES LTD & ANOR.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The 2017 rules retains these basic provisions:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">(1) Any process or document required or authorized by these Rules or ordered by the Court to be served on any person who is a party in a matter may be served as follows :<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>a</i>) by handing a copy of the process or document to the person or to the person’s counsel ; or<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>b</i>) by leaving a copy of the process or document at the person’s or the person’s counsel’s residence or place of business ;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>c</i>) by leaving a copy of the document or process at the person’s place of employment ;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>d</i>) by sending a copy of the document or process by registered post or courier to the last known address of the party or the party’s counsel ; or<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>e</i>) by sending a copy of the document or process to the person concerned or to the person’s counsel through the e-mail address(es) or any electronic mailing device provided by the parties concerned ;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>f </i>) by sending a notification by way of hearing notice through a telephone short message services (SMS) of a process filed before the Court in which the person has been named as a party ; or<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(<i>g</i>) by leaving at that person’s address for service or, where no address for service has been given, at the registered office, principal place of business or last known address ;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;color:red"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">All this means is that in this court the National required there is no provision for Personal service I find,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is<i> </i>:-Whether or not this court has been empowered by law to assume jurisdiction in this present case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I shall first of all address the 2<sup>nd</sup> area of contention of the defendants whether this suit is indeed statute barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The issue raised by the 1<sup>st</sup> – 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant was weather the applicant suit was of statute barred by virtue of Section 2A of the Public Officer Protection Act arguing that the applicant did not maintain the action within three (3) months when the purported cause of action arose, to wit, June, 2015, thus, this is fatal to this action as failure of the applicant so to do renders his action completely stature barred.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The applicant on his part contends that the Fundamental Right proceedings enjoy a distinct position in our laws that no limitation law applies, citing Order III of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. And that the process filed on the 4<sup>th</sup> May 2016 doesn’t constitute a new suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The statute in question is section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004, which provides as follows –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(a) 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="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Provided that if the action, prosecution or proceeding be at the instance of any person for cause arising while such person was a convict prisoner, it may be commenced within three months after the discharge of such person from prison.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I agree with the applicant that Fundamental Right Enforcement suit are not susceptible to limitation laws. Order III states categorically that “An application for the enforcement of Fundamental Right shall not be affected by any limitation law whatsoever†see the case of </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://localhost:8888/lawpavilion_personal/latestlawreport_ca.jsp?suite=olabisi@9thfloor&sd=lp&yr=2012&pk=64812" target="_parent"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;color:red;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none">MRS. ENDURANCE ODUBU V. LIEUTENANT OLORUNDUYILEMI STEPHEN & ORS</span></b></a></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">(2012)LPELR-19792(CA).</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:red"><br> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The position of the law as regards transferred case has been well stated in the case of </span><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">KJANG Vs, NATIONAL AGENNCY FOR THE CONTROL OF AIDS (NACA) NICN/ ABJ/ 230/ 2012</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">delivered on the 20<sup>th</sup> March 2013 held that “in determining whether an action transferred to the court by another court commenced …….the court will take into consideration when the action was first filed and not the date of transfer from the other court.†<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">That being the case the process of 4<sup>th</sup> May 2016 even if the process were subject to limitation law would not be the process to which the court would rely to determine when the suit was instituted for purposes of determining statute bar. This matter from a perusal of the court’s file was in fact instituted on the 10<sup>th</sup> June 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now to the question of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement procedure and its propriety in this court Jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The position of the law is as was stated in the case of </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">UGBA V. SUSWAM (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1345) 427,</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Held: that “The jurisdiction of a court is granted by statute or the Constitution but not by the court. No court has the jurisdiction to go beyond the provisions of the enabling law; otherwise any action by it will be ultra vires<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> The jurisdiction of this court is as of now and in the main governed by Section 254 C (1), (2), (3), (4) AND (5) of the 1999 CFRN and Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">Section 7 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006,<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Furthermore, section 7 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act, states: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">“The Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(a) relating to –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(i) labour, including trade unions and industrial relations; and <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">(ii) environmental and conditions of work, health, safety and welfare of labour, and matters incidental thereto<b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:12.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red">Section 254(C) of the 1999 Constitution </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">as amended;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:12.0pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:12.0pt;mso-add-space: auto;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">relating to or connected with any labor, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labor, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </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:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labor Act, Employees' Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labor, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws;<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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters Connected therewith or related thereto;<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:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(d)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labor, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(j) Relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising there from; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -72pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising there from;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -72pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -72pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span>iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labor, industrial relations or work place;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(5) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in criminal causes and matters arising from any cause or matter of which jurisdiction is conferred on the National Industrial Court by this section or any other Act of the National Assembly or by any other law.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">See FEMI BABALOLA Vs. ACCESS BANK NICN/LA/123/2012 (unreported) delivered on the 23<sup>rd</sup> January 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">It is also the position of the law that in determining whether a matter falls within the court’s jurisdiction recourse is had to the originating processes. See the case of </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">OLORUNTOBA-OJU V. ABDUL-RAHEEM 2009) LPELR-2596(SC), (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1157) 83 S C. </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">The Supreme Court held that “it has now become legally customary through long practice to determine the issue of jurisdiction of court on the reliefs sought by the claimant, in the writ of summons and statement of claim. Also in the case of <b><span style="color:red">TRADE BANK PLC V. BENILUX (NIGERIA) LTD (2003) 9 NWLR PT.825 PAGE 416</span></b>. The Supreme Court held that "It is only on careful examination of the pleadings filed by the parties in a cause or matter namely the statement of claim not the defence that the court can ascertain whether or not the Federal High Court have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to section 251(1) (p) (q) (r) of the 1999 Constitution<b><span style="color:red">. </span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The supreme court in <b><span style="color:red">ONUEKWUSI Vs REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHRIST METHODIST ZION CHURCH</span></b>. Held that the law is well settled, that the nature of the claim placed before the court that determines whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. <b><span style="color:red">ADEYEMEI & ORS Vs OPEYON [1976]10 DC 31 at p51.</span></b> The court only needs to consider the complaint and the statement of facts <b><span style="color:red">A. G. ANAMBRA Vs. A.G. FEDERATION [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 692, A.G. FEDERATION Vs. OSHIOMOLE [2004] 3NWLR (Pt.860) 305</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Now looking at the claimant applicants reliefs;-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the Acts of the Respondents: to wit: intimidation and threats of further arrest of the Applicant is illegal, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant as enshrined in Sec. 35(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A DECLARATION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the suspension of the Applicant by the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant is illegal, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant as enshrined in Sec. 36(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">of this Honorable Court directing the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent to withdraw the suspension letter against the Applicant and to restore the Applicant to the status quo ante.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant from suspending and or terminating the Appointment of the Applicant and to restore the Applicant to status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the respondents, their agents or privies from arresting and or detaining the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">restraining the Respondents, their agents or privies from further acts of harassment, intimidation and any other form of infringement of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo9"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">AN AWARD </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">of #10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only against the Respondents jointly and severally as exemplary damages for the unbearable hardship and psychological trauma caused to the Applicant and the cost of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The Applicant has argued that his reliefs are </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">solely on the refusal of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent to hear him and verify the content of the letter from the 4<sup>th</sup> Respondent and not any labour matter but <i>bordering on abuse of fundamental rights; </i>raising the applicability of the doctrine of fair hearing to proceedings of administrative bodies; -the definition of fair hearing. <i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The question before the court then becomes: whether the Applicant’s suit can be competently determined by this court in view of the originating process adopted by the Applicant in commencing this action or in other words whether the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, or in fact the Applicant’s Notice of an Application for an Order Enforcing a Fundamental Right can activate this courts originating jurisdiction. It is also necessary to note that the applicants case is required to be considered both as regards the substance the reliefs and the form / procedure adopted<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The dictum of the Muhammed Bello CJN Supreme court in OGUDU Vs STATE [1994] 9 NWLR (Pt.366) 1 is most apposite at this juncture, I find.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> ‘It appears to me that upon careful examination of the fundamental rights in chapter IV of the Constitution, they may be classified into two categories for the purpose of their observance and their enforcement. Firstly they are the rights that must be observed whenever the occasion of their observation has arisen. Endorsing the submission of Mr. Agbakoba, they are intrinsic to the occasion and cannot be divorced from the occasion. They are generally procedural rights and are an embodiment of fair trial in courts and tribunals of a democratic society, thus the right to fair trial and the right of an accused to defend himself under section 33 of the constitution are intrinsic to the trial and failure to observe such rights is a valid ground of appeal. The second category of fundamental rights comprises those rights that are enforceable by the High Court under Section 42 of the Constitution. Because the Constitution expressly confers original jurisdiction for their enforcement on the High Courts, this court (referring to the Supreme Court) has no jurisdiction as a court of first instance over them.’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Section 254C(1)(d) CFRN as amended provides that the National Industrial Court shall have jurisdiction…….<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of chapter IV of this constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relation, trade unionism, employer association or any other matter which the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">As far as the claimants claim relates to a labour dispute and the alleged breach of fundamental right occurred is related or connected to an employment matter or is procedural and an intrinsic part of a substantive claim this court can hear it as an ingredient of a labour issue and as long as the suit has clothed the court with jurisdiction See <b><span style="color:red">Unreported ruling NIC/ ABJ/296/2012 GEOFERY Vs SETRACO NIGERIA LTS. & ORS</span></b> delivered on 4<sup>th</sup> March 2013. <b><span style="color:red">Unreported ruling NIC/ABJ/32/2012 ANICHA Vs. NIGERIAN ARMY 7 ORS</span></b><span style="color:red"> </span>delivered on 2<sup>nd</sup> July 2012. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">It should be noted that section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, talks of “any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him, may apply to a High Court in that State for redressâ€. By this provision, the application is to be to a High Court for purposes of section 46 of the Constitution and the Rules made there under. The NIC is not a High Court. An application may nevertheless be made to the NIC given the provision of section 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, but it cannot be an application under the Rules made pursuant to section 46 of the Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Now section S254 C1 (l) gives the National Industrial Court jurisdiction in (ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour , trade unions or industrial relations’<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Such appeals would be required to be commenced in line with the provisions of Order 3<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">This court has held in several case that the Fundamental enforcement Procedure Rules do not contemplate the National Industrial Court, <b><span style="color:red">Unreported NICN/EN/10/2011COMRADE (EVANG) OLOWO PREYE GRACE VS PENGASSAN & 3ORS</span></b>, and that section 254C(1)(d) cannot be used as the basis of filing claims under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules I this court See <b><span style="color:red">Unreported NICN/LA/333/2012</span></b><span style="color:red"> <b>ALHAJI LATEEF</b> <b>AKINSOLA Vs. NURTW & ORS. </b></span>delivered 20th March 2013. See also <b><i><span style="color:red">THOMAS INEBUI V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA [2014] 47 N.L.L.R PT.152 155-315 @P.221, PARAS A-C.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In the circumstances the fundamental right issue can only be entertained when evaluating the procedure complained of, i.e. a substantive labour issue, which would be entertained </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">but such a case must be initiated by writ of summons or more appropriately by a complaint where parties will exchange pleadings and adduce evidence on the propriety or otherwise of the claimant’s claims.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I find that the Applicant’s case as presently couched and in the procedure adopted squarely pronounces like a case for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights. Now the claimant / applicants have asked this court not to allow technicalities to clogg the wheels of justice but this court has held in the Unreported</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <span style="color:red">SUIT NO: NICN/CA/03/2015 EDET AKPAN UMOREN & 13 ORS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR & 3 ORS </span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">delivered on the 25<sup>th</sup> June 2015</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">;-</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">that the Fundamental Rights Provisions, unlike when a case is instituted by an Originating summons and the court find that process unsuitable the court can with reliance on Supreme Court direction such as<b><span style="color:red"> OSANBADE V OYEWUMI [2007] 18 ALL FWLR (PT. 368) 1004 AT 1015 PARA.</span></b><span style="color:red"> <b>–E.</b> </span>and <b><span style="color:red">ADEYELU II V. AJAGUNGBADE III [2007] 14 NWLR</span></b><span style="color:red"> <b>(PT. 1053) PAGES 3-4,</b> </span> and order parties to file pleadings. There exists no such apex court precedent to enable the conversion of a Fundamental Rights Enforcement process to a process capable of activating this court’s jurisdiction. Learned Author of blessed memory B. Aturu in his book “<u>The Law and Practice of National Industrial Court</u>†First Edition 2013 Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd at p30.states that applicants seeking to activate the fundamental rights relating to jurisdiction of this court “must comply with Order 3 of the Rules and not by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, otherwise the matter would be struck out†See <b><span style="color:red">NICN/EN/12/2012 FADIRO Vs. ADEYEMI (unreported)</span></b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Contrary to the submission of the Claimant Counsel, I find that the case of <b><span style="color:red">SSUATHRIAI Vs OLOTU (NO. 2) SUPRA</span></b> is not only relevant and applicable but also binding as stare decisis. I resolve this issue of jurisdiction for the defendants.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The defendants had urged the court to strike out this suit, when the court posed the question in open Court as to the proper order to be made in the event that the court finds itself lacking jurisdiction. The Applicant on the other hand preferred not to make any submission but chose to leave the matter to the Court’s discretion.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Now considering the provisions of Section 24 (5) of the NICN Act 2006 the question arises as to the proper order to be made and the questions to be formulated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Section 24(5) provides that <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">“Where the court to which any cause of matter has been transferred pursuant to sub section (2) or (3) of this section, above is of the opinion that the cause or matter ought in law to be delt with by the Court which transferred the cause or matter, the first mentioned Court shall, after hearing Counsel on behalf of the parties, state a case on a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appealâ€<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Also se Order 62(4)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I, in consequence, find and hold that the matter at hand qualifies under section 24(5) of the NIC Act 2006 for the Court to “state a case on a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appealâ€. This being a matter that was a transferred from the Federal High Court of Kogi State sitting at Lokoja and so I cannot sit on appeal over it by striking it out. The prayer of the 1<sup>st</sup> -3<sup>rd</sup> defendant counsel that I strike out the matter cannot, therefore, be granted as that would be tantamount to holding that the Federal High Court was wrong in transferring this matter to this court, this I hold does not lie in the mouth of this court so to do; that would mean sitting on appeal over the decision of a judge of coordinate jurisdiction. Section 24(5) of the NIC Act 2006 accordingly enjoins that in the circumstance, the Court makes a case stated to the Court of Appeal for its opinion. In consequence, I most humbly and hereby “state a case on a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal†to wit –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether, given the facts of this case, the reliefs sought and the statutory jurisdiction of this court is it not the Federal High Court of Kogi State that should hear and determine this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Court of Appeal is accordingly and humbly called upon to give its opinion as to whether it is the Federal High Court of Kogi State or this Court that has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;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:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">…………………………………<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></i></p>