Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">REPRESENTATION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A. U. J. UDOH for the claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">S. A. MUSTAPHER for the 1<sup>st</sup> 2nd and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US">R U L I N G <o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The claimant, by a General Form of Complaint filed on 12<sup>th</sup> October, 2016, with the accompanying frontloaded documents, approached the Court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">1. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported Letter of Termination of the Claimant’s employment dated 23rd August, 2016 is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, irregular, null and void because it was not issued and or signed by the appropriate authority as required under the contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">2. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully acted in procuring the breach of the claimant’s contract of Employment with the 1st Defendant by issuing the letter of “Advice†dated 23rd August, 2016 purporting the terminate the employment of the Claimant with the 1st Defendant “effective immediately†when they have no powers under the claimant’s contract of Employment with the 1st Defendant, to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">3. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported termination of the Claimant’s Contract of Employment for the stated false specific reasons: “The review of staff performance Bank wide by the appraisal committee and the review of your personal record†by the Defendants is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Terms and Conditions of the Claimant’s employment, the rules of natural justice and the Claimant’s right to Fair Hearing and is therefore illegal, unlawful, irregular, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">4. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the Claimant is entitled to continue to enjoy the existing loan facilities granted to him by the 1st Defendant by virtue of being a staff of the 1st Defendant, at the agreed rate and based on the terms and conditions upon which the facility were granted and it shall be unlawful or illegal for the Claimant or its Agents to vary, deny or terminate the running facilities of the Claimant until the final determination of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">5. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported “Termination of Employment’ of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant through the 2nd and 3rd Defendants memo dated 23rd August, 2016, based on the false allegation that the Claimant’s performance was adjudged satisfactory and excellent in his latest staff appraisal, prior to the unlawful termination wherein the Claimant scored 19 1.10% out of the possible 210.00 performance measurement rating (Grade A-Excellence Rating). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">6. <b>INJUNCTION</b> restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from procuring the breach of Claimant’s employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">7. <b>AN ORDER REINSTATING</b> the Claimant to his employment, the office of ASSISTANT MANAGER of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant forth with.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">8. <b>AN ORDER</b> compelling the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to pay all outstanding salaries and allowances due to the Claimant from the 23<sup>rd</sup> August, 2016 to the date of Judgment and thereafter 13% interest per annum until the payment is effected.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">9. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the “Caution Letter†issued by HadizaBala, Manager, Human Capital Management Department and Zara I. Musa, Head, Human Capital Management of the Defendant an Internal Memo dated 26th September 2014 being a contravention of Section 12 particularly 12.3.2., 12.3, 12.10 and 12.11 (page 68-84) Jaiz Bank PLC Human Capital Management Policy Manual and Employee Handbook as null and void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot form part of any present and future reference or consideration by the Bank or any other party<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">10. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported “Final Warning Letter†issued by HadizaBala , Manager, Human Capital Management Department and Zara I. Musa, Head, Human Capital Management Department of the 1st Defendant via an Internal Memo dated 29th February 2016 being a contravention of Sectionsl2 particularly 12.2, ,12.3.2, 12.3.4. , 12.10, 12.11, 12.12, 12.13. 12.4, 12.7, 12.7.1 (pages 64-8 1) 1st Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy Manual and Employee Handbook as null and void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot form part of any present and future reference or consideration by the Bank or any other party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">11. <b>GENERAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES</b> of N500, 000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million naira) only against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for procuring the Breach of Claimant’s contract of Employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">12. N3, 500,000.00 COST of the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">ALTERNATIVELY<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">1. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported Letter of Termination of the Claimant’s employment dated 23rd August, 2016 is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, irregular, null and void because it was not issued and or signed by the appropriate authority as required under the contract.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">2<b>. A DECLARATION</b> that in purporting to terminate the Claimant’s employment for the stated specific reasons: “the review of staff performance Bank wide by the appraisal committee and the review of your personal recordâ€, the Defendants acted in breach of the rules of Natural Justice and the Claimant’s Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing by virtue of the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">3. <b>GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES</b> of the total sum of N295,956,608.56 (Two Hundred and Ninety Five Mil1ion, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight Naira fifty Six Kobo) for breach of the terms of contract of employment leading to the unlawful Termination (for false and/or nonexistent stated specific reasons) and outstanding entitlements, salaries and allowances due to the Claimant from the 23rd of August, 2016 as contained in the table of emoluments along with the Claimant’s status as Assistant Manager effective 1st January, 2015 to date of Judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">4. 13% interest rate per annum on the Judgment sum until the Judgment sum is paid.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">PARTICULARS OF SPECIFIC DAMAGES<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The sum of <b>N195, 956,608.56 (One Hundred and Ninety Five Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight Naira, Fifty Six Kobo)</b> on the basis of the Claimant’s last salary increment effective 1st January, 2015, being the sum of N8, 164,858.69 (Eight Million, One Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand Naira, Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira Sixty Nine Kobo) multiplied by Twenty Four Years (24) Years from the 23rd August, 2013 till the 23rd August 2041 (being 24 Years) when the Claimant could have lawfully retired and/or disengaged from the employment of the Defendant voluntarily. As 23’ August, 2016 the Claimant is only 35 years old and has about 25 years of unexpired services years under the employment contract with the Claimant. The retirement age of the Claimant is fixed for 60 years as per section 14.7 of the HCMMD. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">ALTERNATIVELY<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The sum of <b>N 680,404.10</b> on monthly basis from the 23rd August, 2016 until the date the final the judgment on this matter is delivered, representing the gross monthly income accruable to the Claimant on monthly basis (net of any statutory deductions, which Defendants had stopped remitting 23rd August, 2016) receivable by the Claimant if he was allowed to continue with his employment with the Defendants as an Assistant Manager.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">N8, 164,858.69 /l2months = N 680,404.10 x for judgment is delivered every month until<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">5. 13% Court Judgment interest rate on alternative relief 3 per-annum until the judgment debt is liquidated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">6. <b>N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira)</b> Damages for Libel occasioned the claimant by the Defendants and their servants, agents and privies in the cause of occasioning the breach of contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">7. <b>RETRACTION AND APOLOGY</b> of the offensive words complained of herein as contained in the purported letter of termination of employment dated 23rd August, 2016, to be published in the Guardian Newspaper and Daily Trust Newspaper, twice with prominent headlines.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">8. <b>PERPETUAL INJUNCTION</b> restraining the Defendant whether by itself, servants, privies, agents, whomsoever and however defined from further publishing defamatory words of and concerning the person of the Claimant either by way of his employment and/or generally.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">9. <b>N3, 500,000.00 (Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira)</b> only <b>COST </b>of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants filed a <b>MOTION ON NOTICE </b>on 6<sup>th</sup> December, 2016 accompanied by a 16 paragraph affidavit in support deposed to by Abdullah Abdulmumeen Duro, praying the Court for An order of this Honourable Court striking out the names of the 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup>Defendants/Applicants from the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">i. There is no cause and/or reasonable cause of action disclosed by the Claimant/Respondent against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">ii. The 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup>Defendants/Applicants are improper and unnecessary parties to the Claimant/Respondent’s suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">iii. The Claimant/Respondent’s suit is brought mala fide against the 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">iv. The suit of the Claimant/Respondent is, in the circumstance, only maintainable against the 1st Defendant as the 1st Defendant is the principal/employer of the 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup>Defendants/Applicants who are mere agents of the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">‘Whether from the totality of the averments of the Claimant/Respondent as contained in his Statement of Facts, this suit is sustainable in law against the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants who at all material times are agents of a known and disclosed principal and acted under the authority of the 15<sup>th</sup> Defendant and in the cause of their duties to the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted that the suit of the Claimant/Respondent is not sustainable against the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants for failure to disclose any cause and/or reasonable cause of action in her thirty one (31) paragraph Statement of Facts that is sustainable against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants. <b><span style="color:red">MILITARY GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE & ORS. VS. JAMES OLUGUNJU KOLAWOLE & ORS. (2008) 35 NSCQR, 506 AT PAGE 534</span></b>, per <b>Tabai JSC.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">On the definition of cause of action, counsel relied on the following authorities: <b><span style="color:red">AKILU V. FAWEHIMI (NO. 2) (1998) 2 NWLR (PT.102) P122 @169</span></b>, per <b>Karibi Whyte JSC</b>; <b><span style="color:red">AMODU V AMODU (1990)5 NWLR PT 150 P. 356 @367; HERNAMAN V. SMITH (1855) EXCH. 659 @ 666; ABUBAKAR VS. BEBEJI OIL LTD. (2007) 29 NSCQR. P 1634.</span></b>He submitted that the Claimant/Respondent in his Thirty-One (31) paragraph Statement of Facts admitted that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants are employees of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, thus that the law is trite that admitted fact need no further proof. <b><span style="color:red">AYOKE VS. BELLO (1992) 10 NWLR (PT. 218) 380. </span></b>Arguing that by the averment and admission of the Claimant/Respondent that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants are employees of the 1st Defendant, the provisions of <b><span style="color:red">Section 37 and 38 (1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, LFN, 2004</span></b> preclude the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants from being sued by the Claimant/Respondent or any other person or entity for that matter for acts and deeds they carried out under the authorization of the 1st Defendant/Applicant in the course of their duties.Furthermore, that by the clear provision of <b><span style="color:red">Section 63 (1) the Companies and Allied Matters Act, LFN, 2004</span></b>the Claimant is allowed in law to proceed against the 1st Defendant only for every perceived, real or imaginary infraction of his contract with the 1st Defendant irrespective of the roles played by the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants in the course of discharging their daily duties as employees/agents of theist Defendant.<b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">He submitted that the direct import, implication and intendment of the provisions of CAMA particularly, Section 63 (1), is that the fiction of corporate legal personality insulates members, directors and officers from, legal proceedings for the individual role they played towards the attainment of the objective of the corporate entity. <b><span style="color:red">SALOMON VS. SALOMON (1897) AC 22.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">It is counsel’s submission that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant being an abstract but a juristic personality can only act through her officers such as the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants who are employees, agents and servants of the Defendant. <b><span style="color:red">KATE ENTERPRISES LTD VS. DAEWOO (NIG.) LTD (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 5) 116.</span></b>Furthermore, that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants are improper and unnecessary parties to this suit as they are mere employees, agents and servants of the Defendant. <b><span style="color:red">AYODELE JAMES VS. MID-MOTORS LTD (1978) 11-12 SC, 31 AT 68</span></b>, per <b>Aniogolu, JSC.</b>Defendant Counsel further submitted that the law is settled that there cannot be a cause of action against the agent of a disclosed principal as the Claimant/Respondent in paragraph 15 of his Statement of Facts clearly admitted that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3rd Defendants/Applicants are agents of the 1st Defendant. <b><span style="color:red">Okolo vs. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (2004) 3NWLR (Pt. 859) 87.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Furthermore that where the principal of an agent is known and disclosed, the correct party to sue for anything done or omitted to be done by the agent is the principal. <b><span style="color:red">LEVENTIS TECH. LTD. VS. PETROJESSICA ENTERPRISES LTD (1992) 2 NWLR (PT 224) 459 AT 468 PARAS A-B.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The Claimant filed a 3 paragraph <b>COUNTER- AFFIDAVIT</b> on 9<sup>th</sup> January, 2017 deposed to by Esther Michael.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Supported by a <b>WRITIEN ADDRESS</b>wherein the claimant raised one sole <b>ISSUE</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">Whether this application is competent, prima-facie and assuming (without conceding) that it is, is it true that the Statement of Claim does not disclose any cause of action against the Applicants and as a result they are not necessary parties to this case?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Learned Counsel to the Claimant, submitted that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this motion because the purported applicants have not properly appeared before this court as required by the law. <span style="color:red">ANON &<b>ORS V. ELEMO & ORS (1983) 1 SC P13</b></span>, Iguh, J.S.C.He submitted that proper appearance before this court as required by Order 8 (1) of NIC Rules is condition precedent that cannot be waived and that by this application they have divested themselves as parties as presumed by the law, even before asking the court to do so. Therefore, that amounts to an abuse of court process. <b><span style="color:red">Ajewole V. Adetimo (1994) 3 N.W.L.R (pt. 335) P. 739 at 577</span></b>, per <b>Mukhtar, J.C.A (as he then was).</b>He argued further that contrary to the instant application, an application must be brought under appropriate rules of court. C<b><span style="color:red">.C.B v. M.C.L. (2000) 6 W.R.N. 104 at 112</span></b>, per Olagunju, J.C. A.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">It is counsel’s contention that different considerations may arise if what the Applicants are challenging is a defective Originating processes and/or service of same on them, rather, that in the instant application they are attacking the merits of the case against them. Thus, that the options open to a defendant who intends to object to the regularity of proceedings against him was stated in the case of <b><span style="color:red">ADEWUNMI V. A.G ONDO STATE (1996) 8 NWLR (PT. 464) P. 73. AT 85 — 86</span></b>, per <b>Nsofor, J.C.A.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Claimant’s Counsel submitted that a cause of action is the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim and is also a combination of the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements; the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage. It is every fact that it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. <b><span style="color:red">SAVAGE & ORS. V. UWAECHIE (1972) 3 SC 214, 2216.</span></b>Furthermore, that these facts or circumstances that enables a Plaintiff to make a claim against a defendant can only be garnered from the Plaintiff’s writ of summons, particulars of Claim or Statement of Claim and clearly not from the statement of defence (if any). <b><span style="color:red">FADARE V. A.G. OYO STATE (1982) NSCC P. 52 AT 60; THOMAS V. OLUFOSOVE 91986) 1 NWLR (PT. 18) P. 669.</span></b>Again, that it is immaterial or irrelevant that the claim appears weak or not likely to succeed. <b><span style="color:red">S. G.B LTD V. BURAIMOH (1991) 1 N.W.L.R (PT. 168) P. 428 AT 436</span></b>where <b>Sulu-Gambari J.C.A</b>.<b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Counsel to the Claimant further submitted that at law, procuring a breach of contract which forms part of the allegations against the Applicants is an actionable tort, separate from breach of contract of employment alleged against the 1st Defendant. <b><span style="color:red">TORGUAY HOTEL CO. LTD V. COUSINS (1969) 2 CH. 106, 137 — 138</span></b> (relied upon by <b>Ogundare J.C.A (as he then was</b>) in <b><span style="color: red">T.A.S.A LTD V. I.A.S (ARGO AIRLINES (NIG) LTD (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 202) P. 156 AT 173</span></b>, per <b>Lord Denning.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Learned Claimant’s Counsel also submitted that the Applicants are both Necessary and Proper parties to this case. <b><span style="color:red">OLUJITAN V. OSHATOBA (1992) 5 NWLR (PT 24) P. 326 AT 335</span></b>, per <b>Musdapher, J.C.A.</b>He submitted that the definition of a party under <b><span style="color:red">Order 8 Rule 1(1) (supra) and section 45(1) of NIC Act</span></b> (supra) by scope and purport are wider than that envisaged in the conventional courts. And that the law and the rules of practice meant for one court, cannot be binding on other court, that Courts must therefore restrict themselves to the express provisions of the specific rules regulating their Courts. <b><span style="color:red">NNEII V. CHUKWU (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 81) P.184 AT 204; KOMONIBO V. N.A. (2002) 6 NWLR (PT. 672 P. 94 AT 117.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">It is Claimant counsel’s submission that master and servant may be joint tort-feasors in cases of recovery of damages. <b><span style="color:red">IFEANVICHUKWU OSONDU & CO. LTD V. SOLEH &NEH (NIG) LTD (2000) 5 NWLR (PT. 656 (P. 322 AT 366</span></b>, per <b>Iguh, J.S.C.</b> Submitting that a person will be joined as a party to an action if his presence before the court is necessary to enable the Court properly determine the matter before it once and for all, or where the person would be bound or is likely to be affected by the result of the decision of the court. <b><span style="color:red">Re Ojukwu (1998) 5 N.W.L.R (pt. 551) P. 673 at 683; Onabanjo V. Ewetuga (1993) 4 N.W.L.R (pt 288)445 at 458.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">The 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS’ REPLY ON POINT OF LAW AGAINST THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT AND WRITTEN ADDRESS OF 9TH JANUARY, 2017 </span></b><span lang="EN-US"> was dated and filed on 30<sup>th</sup> January, 2017)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Replying paragraphs 4.0 to 4.6 of the Claimant/Respondent’s Written Address, the 2 and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants submitted that they are not proper and necessary parties to the Claimant/Respondent’s case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Furthermore, that all of paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Claimant/Respondent’s Statement of Fact and his reliefs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11 on his Complaint and specific averments in paragraphs 15 - 28 which the Claimant/Respondent refers to as tort of inducing the’ breach of contract, etc. do not help his case as they are not included in the civil causes and matter upon which this Honourable Court would assume jurisdiction.Submitting that the 2nd and 3’’ Defendants/Applicants are not necessary parties to the dispute between the Claimant/Respondent and the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <b><span style="color:red">OJOKOLO VS. GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (PT.1152) 394.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Arguing further that the dispute between the Claimant/Respondent and the 1st Defendant can be fairly adjudicated upon by this Honourable Court without the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Applicants. <b><span style="color:red">GREEN vs. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 480.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">REPLY ON POINT OF LAW AGAINST THE CONTENT OF THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Counsel submitted that it is trite that an affidavit must not contain legal argument, conclusion or other extraneous matter. <b><span style="color:red">SECTION 115 (1) AND (2) of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011; BAMAIYI VS. STATE (2001) 4 SC PT I AT PAGE 30</span></b>. And that in the circumstance of breach of the provision of the Evidence Act, the proper order to make by the court would be to strike out the offensive paragraphs. <b><span style="color:red">BANQUE DE’ L’AFRIQUE OCCIDENTALE VS. ALHAJI BABA SHARFADI ORS. (1963) NRNLR 21.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">On 6<sup>th</sup> February 2017parties adopted their respective written addresses and adumbrated their positions accordingly. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">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. The issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether there is any merit to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>defendants application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">Before I delve in to the merits of the2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup>defendants application, it is necessary to address some of the questions raised by the counsel on both sides during with their submissions on the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">The claimant counsel raised the contention, as to the competence of the defendants motion on two flanks: The first that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants had not entered appearance contrary to Order 8 rule (1) and secondly that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants processes were not duly stamped and sealed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">Now order 8(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 deals with filing a memorandum of appearance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants filed their motion on notice on the16th December 2016, the claimant counter affidavit was filed 9<sup>th</sup> January 2017.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">The position of the law as regards Appearance and filing of a memorandum of appearance and the implication of not filling a memorandum of appearance has been long settled in our jurisdiction. See the case of <span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="color:red">DIKE V. UBN (1987) 4 NWLR 958 AT 963</span></b> paras. G-C. per Onnoghen, JSC; Where the Apex Court held that " the purpose of filling Memorandum of Appearance is to let the other side know that the writ of summons had been received but the action may be defended and the address for service of other documents be known to the other side or the address of the solicitor who is appearing for the defendant. Furthermore, the filing of an appearance is the strongest evidence that service has been effected the Defendant. See<b><span style="color:red">GUINNESS NIGERIA NIG. PLC V. UFOT (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 2070) 51 (CA), EBE V. COP (2008) 4 NWLR (PT. 1076) 189 AT 211-212</span></b><span style="color:#000099">.</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US">Order 8(1) provides that “Every person served with an originating process shall, within the days stipulated therein or if no day is stipulated within 14 days of the originating process file a Memorandum of Appearance in the Registry of the Courtâ€<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US">The law and the rules are clear, I agree with the claimant, the recipient of a complaint is required to file a Memorandum of Appearance within the period specified in the complaint, not filing of a Memorandum of Appearance especially with the non-filing of any other processes I deem to mean that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants do not intend to file a defence or defend this action and probably rely on their motion. The law is clear too according to the Court of Appeal:<b> “the party must at least enter a conditional appearance which signals his protest, and then follow up with a preliminary objectionâ€. See Eti-Osa Local Govt vs. Mr. Rufus Jegede (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) @pg. 537.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination: widow-orphan no-line-numbers"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">As regards the absence of Stamp and seal, permitted the practice of this court, is that parties who show proof of payment for the NBA stamp and seal would in the registry be to file their processes, furthermore the absence of these endorsement has been held to be voidable. See the cases of <b><span style="color:red">NICN/UY/04/2015 INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF RETIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF, AKWA IBOM STATE. Vs. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors Vs. </span></b>delivered on 16<sup>th</sup> February 2016 and <b><span style="color:red">NICN/AK/22/2015 CHIBUZOR ONYE-NSO Vs. FIRST MAXIMUM POINT INDUSTRIES LIMITED</span></b>delivered on the 9<sup>th</sup> February 2016, considered that the National Industrial Court is not a court cut out for highly technical preserves especially as the court had taken judicial notice of the fact that many legal practitioners where yet to obtain the said stamp for sealing in line with the rules.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">This position stems from the practice direction notification issued by the President of this Court that evidence of Nigeria Bar Associations payment should be presented in lieu of the stamp and seal, thus the court has variously held for the time being at least the absence of a stamp and seal is voidable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The court went on in <b><span style="color:red">INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE WELFARE OF RETIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF, AKWA IBOM STATE. Vs. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 Ors</span></b>to hold that “the document could be saved and its signing and filing regularized by affixing the approved seal and stamp on it. That failure to affix the stamp does not render the process incompetent but irregular or voidableâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants on their part called on the Court to examine critically the contents of the claimant’s counter-affidavit and to find that, upon the test prescribed in <b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">SECTION 115 (1) AND (2) of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011; BAMAIYI VS. STATE (2001) 4 SC PT I AT PAGE 30</span></b><span lang="EN-US">. To the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant </span>the claimant’s counter affidavit contain matters which only counsel may urge upon the Court, being legal conclusions and are not evidence which a witness is competent to place before the Court. I looked through the paragraphs of the claimant’s counter-affidavit, and the deponent had clearly deposed that she had been informed by the Counsel in their chambers of the substance of her averments in i-viii. That being the case the submissions of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants, I find are of no moment. <i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> filed their reply on point of law.I want to spare a few moment to look at the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants reply on point of law. A reply on point of law is required to address only the issues raised by the other party in the counter affidavit /written address on point of law, it is not supposed to join issues with the statement of fact or any other process, neither is it an opportunity for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant to introduce new argument <b><span style="color:red">ALI v. BAYERO UNIVERSITY (2014) 42 NLLR (PT. 130) 258 NIC @ 266 ,</span></b>neither does it afford another chance for the re-arguing of beautifying the original written address. A reply on point of law should pin-point the exact point of law been replied to. To reply on points of law, the points of law being replied to must be clearly identified by way of rephrasing and then the reply follows. The reply is to show that that point of law newly raised in the address of the other counsel is misconceived or not applicable to the case at hand or distinguishable or has been overridden by new or later authoritative statement of the law. See the Supreme Court case of<b><span style="color:red">BASINCO MOTORS LTD. V. WOERMANN-LINE & ANOR. [2009] LPELR – 756 [SC] PP. 41 – 42, </span></b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I have therefore most carefully combed through the so-called reply on points of law in juxtaposition with the claimants’ counter affidavit and written address and cannot find anything that resembles a reply on points of law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I accordingly discountenance the so-called reply on points of law for being otiose.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Now to the merit of this application, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants are praying the Court to strike out the names of the 2<sup>nd</sup>and 3<sup>rd</sup>Defendants/Applicants from the suit, as t no cause and/or reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against them,that they improper and unnecessary parties to this suit, that the suit is brought mal fide and finally, that they are agents of a known principal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The claimant on their parties maintain that the defendants are proper parties to the suit<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The position of the law is that in determining whether a party is a proper party, the Court will make recourse to the claimant’s claim which gives him the right to initiate the action for the alleged wrongful act and that the purported alleged wrongful act in this case was the purported wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment. <b><span style="color:red">OGBEBO v. INEC (2005) 15 NWLR (PT. 948) 376 @ 400, PARAS. A-B.</span></b>The cause of action is a critical factor that must be considered by the court before joining a party in a suit. See the case of <b><span style="color:red">ADIMORA v. AJUFO (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 80) 1 <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">In the case of <b><span style="color:red">L.S.B.P.C. v. PURIFICATION TECH. (NIG.) LTD. (2013) 7 NWLR (PT. 1352) 82 @ 87-88</span></b> the Supreme Court held that “ A cause of action refers to the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim, comprising of every fact which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove to entitle him to judgment. This consists of two elements:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 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"">a)<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 wrongful <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 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"">b)<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">act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 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"">c)<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 consequent damage.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">When these facts have occurred, a cause of action is said to accrue to the plaintiff because he can then prosecute an action effectively. Thus, the accrual of a cause of action is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete so that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his cause of action. A cause of action does not accrue or become due to the plaintiff at the date of judgment but by the time the action is filed in court. <b><span style="color:red">EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (NO. 1) (1985) 1 NWLR (PT. 3) 549.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">In determining whether or not a suit should be struck out due to non-disclosure of cause of action, the court must restrict itself to the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim without resort to any extraneous facts <b><span style="color:red">NNOSIRI & ORS. v. EASTERN BULKCEM CO. LTD. (2014) 44 N.L.L.R. (PT. 138) 113</span></b>. See also the case of <b><span style="color:red">MOHAMMED v. BABALOLA SAN (2011) LPELR-CA</span></b>, per <b>Tsammani, JCA referred to.] P. 136, paras. B-F.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The claimant’s reliefs in this suit are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">1. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported Letter of Termination of the Claimant’s employment dated 23rd August, 2016 is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, irregular, null and void because it was not issued and or signed by the appropriate authority as required under the contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">2. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants unlawfully acted in procuring the breach of the claimant’s contract of Employment with the 1st Defendant by issuing the letter of “Advice†dated 23rd August, 2016 purporting to terminate the employment of the Claimant with the 1st Defendant “effective immediately†when they have no powers under the claimant’s contract of Employment with the 1st Defendant, to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">3. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported termination of the Claimant’s Contract of Employment for the stated false specific reasons: “The review of staff performance Bank wide by the appraisal committee and the review of your personal record†by the Defendants is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Terms and Conditions of the Claimant’s employment, the rules of natural justice and the Claimant’s right to Fair Hearing and is therefore illegal, unlawful, irregular, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">4. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the Claimant is entitled to continue to enjoy the existing loan facilities granted to him by the 1st Defendant by virtue of being a staff of the 1st Defendant, at the agreed rate and based on the terms and conditions upon which the facility were granted and it shall be unlawful or illegal for the Claimant or its Agents to vary, deny or terminate the running facilities of the Claimant until the final determination of this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">5. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported “Termination of Employment’ of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant through the 2nd and 3rd Defendants memo dated 23rd August, 2016, based on the false allegation that the Claimant’s performance was adjudged satisfactory and excellent in his latest staff appraisal, prior to the unlawful termination wherein the Claimant scored 19 1.10% out of the possible 210.00 performance measurement rating (Grade A-Excellence Rating). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">6. <b>INJUNCTION</b> restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from procuring the breach of Claimant’s employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">7. <b>AN ORDER REINSTATING</b> the Claimant to his employment, the office of ASSISTANT MANAGER of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant forth with.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">8. <b>AN ORDER</b> compelling the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant to pay all outstanding salaries and allowances due to the Claimant from the 23<sup>rd</sup> August, 2016 to the date of Judgment and thereafter 13% interest per annum until the payment is effected.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">9. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the “Caution Letter†issued by HadizaBala, Manager, Human Capital Management Department and Zara I. Musa, Head, Human Capital Management of the Defendant an Internal Memo dated 26th September 2014 being a contravention of Section 12 particularly 12.3.2., 12.3, 12.10 and 12.11 (page 68-84) Jaiz Bank PLC Human Capital Management Policy Manual and Employee Handbook as null and void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot form part of any present and future reference or consideration by the Bank or any other party<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">10. <b>AN ORDER</b> of this Honourable Court setting aside the purported “Final Warning Letter†issued by HadizaBala , Manager, Human Capital Management Department and Zara I. Musa, Head, Human Capital Management Department of the 1st Defendant via an Internal Memo dated 29th February 2016 being a contravention of Sectionsl2 particularly 12.2, ,12.3.2, 12.3.4. , 12.10, 12.11, 12.12, 12.13. 12.4, 12.7, 12.7.1 (pages 64-8 1) 1st Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy Manual and Employee Handbook as null and void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot form part of any present and future reference or consideration by the Bank or any other party.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">11. <b>GENERAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES</b> of N500, 000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million naira) only against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for procuring the Breach of Claimant’s contract of Employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">12. N3, 500,000.00 COST of the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">ALTERNATIVELY<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">1. <b>A DECLARATION</b> that the purported Letter of Termination of the Claimant’s employment dated 23rd August, 2016 is unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, irregular, null and void because it was not issued and or signed by the appropriate authority as required under the contract.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">2<b>. A DECLARATION</b> that in purporting to terminate the Claimant’s employment for the stated specific reasons: “the review of staff performance Bank wide by the appraisal committee and the review of your personal recordâ€, the Defendants acted in breach of the rules of Natural Justice and the Claimant’s Constitutional Right of Fair Hearing by virtue of the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">3. <b>GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES</b> of the total sum of N295,956,608.56 (Two Hundred and Ninety Five Mil1ion, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight Naira fifty Six Kobo) for breach of the terms of contract of employment leading to the unlawful Termination (for false and/or nonexistent stated specific reasons) and outstanding entitlements, salaries and allowances due to the Claimant from the 23rd of August, 2016 as contained in the table of emoluments along with the Claimant’s status as Assistant Manager effective 1st January, 2015 to date of Judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">4. 13% interest rate per annum on the Judgment sum until the Judgment sum is paid.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">PARTICULARS OF SPECIFIC DAMAGES<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The sum of <b>N195, 956,608.56 (One Hundred and Ninety Five Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Eight Naira, Fifty Six Kobo)</b> on the basis of the Claimant’s last salary increment effective 1st January, 2015, being the sum of N8, 164,858.69 (Eight Million, One Hundred and Sixty Four Thousand Naira, Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Naira Sixty Nine Kobo) multiplied by Twenty Four Years<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">(24) Years from the 23rd August, 2013 till the 23rd August 2041 (being 24 Years) when the Claimant could have lawfully retired and/or disengaged from the employment of the Defendant voluntarily. As 23’ August, 2016 the Claimant is only 35 years old and has about 25 years of unexpired services years under the employment contract with the Claimant. The retirement age of the Claimant is fixed for 60 years as per section 14.7 of the HCMMD. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><u><span lang="EN-US">ALTERNATIVELY<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The sum of <b>N 680,404.10</b> on monthly basis from the 23rd August, 2016 until the date the final judgment on this matter is delivered, representing the gross monthly income accruable to the Claimant on monthly basis (net of any statutory deductions, which Defendants had stopped remitting 23rd August, 2016) receivable by the Claimant if he was allowed to continue with his employment with the Defendants as an Assistant Manager.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US">N8, 164,858.69 /l2months = N 680,404.10 x for judgment is delivered every month until<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">5. 13% Court Judgment interest rate on alternative relief 3 per-annum until the judgment debt is liquidated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">6. <b>N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira)</b> Damages for Libel occasioned the claimant by the Defendants and their servants, agents and privies in the cause of occasioning the breach of contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">7. <b>RETRACTION AND APOLOGY</b> of the offensive words complained of herein as contained in the purported letter of termination of employment dated 23rd August, 2016, to be published in the Guardian Newspaper and Daily Trust Newspaper, twice with prominent headlines.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">8. <b>PERPETUAL INJUNCTION</b> restraining the Defendant whether by itself, servants, privies, agents, whomsoever and however defined from further publishing defamatory words of and concerning the person of the Claimant either by way of his employment and/or generally.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">9. <b>N3, 500,000.00 (Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira)</b> only <b>COST </b>of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">From the foregoing I find that the claimants cause of action is the wrongful termination of his employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant following the unlawful activities of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant and the non-payment of his outstanding salaries, due allowances and entitlements.<b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">In law,a party is said to be a proper party though not interested in the claim of the plaintiffs, is nonetheless made a party for some good reason. See the case of <b>ADEBAYO v. ANL & ANOR. (2015) 52 NLLR (PT. 175) 374 NIC @ 377,</b> following the pronouncement in <span style="color:red">GREEN v. GREEN (1987) NWLR (PT. 61) 481. </span>A necessary party is one who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also in whose absence the question to be settled between the existing parties cannot be properly settled. <b><span style="color:red">ADEBAYO v. ANL & ANOR. Supra </span></b>also referring to the case of <span style="color:red">GREEN v. GREEN (1987) NWLR (PT. 61) 481.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">In the case of <b><span style="color:red">AUPCTRE v. IMO TRANSPORT CO. LTD & ORS. (2014) 45 NLLR (PT. 142) 53 </span></b>this court classified the meaning of the various types of parties to an action as follows;-<b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">“ Parties to an action have been classified into three namely:<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: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">Proper Parties – proper parties are those who, though not interested in the plaintiff’s claims are made parties for some good reasons.<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: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">Desirable Parties – Desirable parties are those who may have an interest in the suit or who may be affected by the result thereof.<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: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">Necessary Parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. That is to say, the issue or question to be determined in the matter between the existing parties should be one which cannot be properly settled unless they are parties to the action. <b><span style="color:red">GREEN v. GREEN (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 61) 480; BABAYEJU v. ASHAMU (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 567) 546.</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">Also in <b><span style="color:red">EKEUZOR v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2014) 42 NLLR (PT. 133) 758 NIC. </span></b>This court held: that A necessary party to an action is one who will aid the court in the effectual determination of the action. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">In the instant case the claimant has laid averments of complicity of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant in the unlawful and illegal terminationof his employment and by law.In such a situation the claimant is required to prove his case against the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants,</span><span lang="EN-US">having raised a reasonable cause of action, And especially considering the Supreme Court pronouncement that is the prerogative of the plaintiff to determine the defendant in a suit. <b><span style="color:red">CHIEF EMMANUELBELLO Vs. INEC & 2ORS [2010] 2-3 SC (PT. II) 128</span></b>, I find in the circumstancesthat the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants are indeed proper and necessary parties to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">As regards the suit being brought mal fide I find is a triable issue which the court cannot determine at this stage, See <b><span style="color:red">WOHEREM V. EMEREUWA [2004] 13 NWLR (PT. 890) 403and KASANDUBU V. ULTIMATE PETROLEUM LTD. [2008] 7NWLR (Pt. 1086) pg.281<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The defendants in support of their argument as to the roles of the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant sought to lay reliance on certain sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2014 particularly sections; 37, Section 38 and Section 63(1) all reproduced below: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">SECTION 37 CAMA As from the date of incorporation mentioned in the certificate of incorporation, the subscriber of the memorandum together with such other persons as may, from time to time, become members of the company, shall be a body corporate by the name contained in the memorandum, capable forthwith of exercising all the powers and functions of an incorporated company including the power to hold land, and having perpetual succession and a common seal, but with such liability on the part of the members to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up as is mentioned in this Act.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">SECTION 38 (1)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">Except to the extent that the company's memorandum or any enactment otherwise provides, that every company shall, for the furtherance of its authorised business or objects, have all the powers of a natural person of full capacity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">SECTION 38(2)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">A company shall not have or exercise power either directly or indirectly to make a donation or gift of any of its property or funds to a political party or political association, or for any political purpose; and if any company, in breach of this subsection makes any donation or gift of its property to a political party or association, or for any political purpose, the officers in default and any member who voted for the breach shall be jointly and severally liable to refund to the company the sum or value of the donation or gift and in addition, the company and every such officer or member shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine equal to the amount or value of the donation or gift.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">SECTION 63 (1)<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US">A company shall act through its members in general meeting or its board of directors or through officers or agents, appointed by, or under authority derived from, the members in general meeting or the board of directors.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The sections being relied upon I find do not allude to the situation the defendants are seeking to create, Section 37 and 38 especially considering the present stage of this case at this time and that the defendant maintain that the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants are employees and not members.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">The argument of Agents of a Disclosed Principal cannot avail the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants in the light of <span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="color:red">FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA & ORS v. DR. (MRS) ADAEZE G.N.C. OKOLI(2011) LPELR-9053(CA) </span></b>where the Court of Appeal held that<b>“</b>Merely because both a disclosed principal was sued along with his agents in a suit does not render the suit incompetent for the mis-joinder of the agentsâ€. See also <b><span style="color:red">SOLID UNIT NIG. LTD & ANOR v. GEOTESS NIG. LTD(2013) LPELR-20724(CA)</span></b></span><b><span style="color:red"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US">All in all I find that the2nd and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants are necessary and proper parties in the context of this case. The 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants’ application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. This case shall proceed to trial accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US">..............................................<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US">Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span lang="EN-US">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>