Download PDF
REPRESENTATION J. U. Efekimo Esq, for the claimant. Duke Akomi, for the defendants. RULING 1. On 29th July 2016, the claimant filed a complaint and a statement of claim alongside other originating processes praying jointly and severally from the defendants for: (1) Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) damages for libelous publication to persons and offices outlined in paragraphs 6 and 16 above. (2) Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and or privies from further publication of the libelous article. 2. The defendants entered formal appearance and filed their defence processes. Additionally, the defendants filed a preliminary objection wherein they challenged “the competence or jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to entertain this suitâ€, and praying that same be struck out with cost. The grounds upon which the objection is based are: (a) The Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. (b) The National Industrial Court is a special court with specific jurisdiction to entertain only industrial and labour related matters. (c) The provisions of section 254C(1)(a) & (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) defines the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). (d) Claims of the claimant are in libel and not industrial or labour related. (e) Suit of the claimant as is presently constituted is an abuse of court process. 3. In reaction, the claimant first filed a written address; then he filed a motion on notice (with an affidavit in support and a written address) praying that the suit be transferred to the High Curt of Lagos State, Lagos Division, Igboshere, Lagos State. The claimant gave two grounds for this application, namely: that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant; and the application is necessary for the file to be transferred to the High Court and it is permitted by the Act and the Rules of Court. The defendants did not file any formal reaction to this application, nor did they file any reply on points of law in reaction to the claimant’s written address reacting to their preliminary objection. 4. The defendants submitted a single issue for determination, to wit: whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as is presently constituted. To the defendants, citing Abubakar v. Akar [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 231) - no page; [2006] 13 NWLR (Pt. 996) at 127, it is the claim of a party that determines jurisdiction, not extraneous factors invented by counsel. The defendants then referred to section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, which grants jurisdiction to this Court, and then submitted that there is nothing in the claimant’s statement of claim suggesting that this is a matter within the contemplation and scope of the jurisdiction of this Court as provided in the said section 254C(1)(a) and (k). The defendants concluded by urging that the suit be struck out for being frivolous, baseless, diversionary and abuse of court process. 5. The claimant adopted the issue submitted by the defendants for determination and first argued for the jurisdiction of this Court over the case given that this Court under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution has jurisdiction over trade unions and the Trade Unions Act (TUA), submitting in the process that the claimant and the 2nd defendant are all members of the 1st defendant union, effectively bringing the dispute within the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court. In, however, filing the motion for transfer of this case to the Lagos State High Court, the claimant recanted on its stance as to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this suit. In paragraph 3(a) of the affidavit in support of the motion for transfer, the claimant acknowledged that his case is one of libel, and that this Court has no jurisdiction over libel. In the written address, the claimant, relying on Order 62 Rule 1 of the NICN Rules 2017, urged this Court to transfer the case to he Lagos State High Court since the Court has no jurisdiction over the case. 6. As acknowledged by the parties, the case at hand is one for libel (defamation); and this Court has severally declined jurisdiction in claims for defamation even when the defamatory imputation was said to have arisen from the workplace. See Mr. C. E. Okeke & 2 ors v. UBN Plc [2011] 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 161 at 183, Dr E. G. Ayo Akinyemi v. Crawford University [2011] 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 90 at 110, Mr. Lawrence Idemudia v. The Lagos State University unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/08/2009, the ruling of which delivered on 28th September 2010, Esther Ogbodu v. Global Fleet Oil & Gas Ltd & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/32/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 5th December 2014, Vincent Ikechukwu Okeke v. West African Ventures Ltd (WAV) [2015] 62 NLLR (Pt. 218) 435 and Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014, the judgment of which delivered on 24th January 2017. There is accordingly no doubt that regarding the instant case, this Court has no jurisdiction over it. The only outstanding issue is whether to transfer the case as prayed. The defendants left the issue to the discretion of the Court but asked for cost should the Court accede to the prayer for transfer. 7. The power of this Court to transfer cases to other courts is governed by section 24(2) of the NIC Act 2006, which provides thus: No cause or matter shall be struck out by the Court merely on the ground that such cause or matter was taken in the Court instead of the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in which it ought to have been brought, and the court before whom such causes or matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in accordance with Rules of Court… This section does not appear to give any discretion to this Court on the matter. Accordingly, the prayer of the claimant succeeds; and I so find and hold. 8. Once this Court decides to make the order of transfer, Order 62 Rule 1 of the NICN Rules 2017 proceeds to provide what should be done. It states thus: Where the Court has in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 24(2) of the [NIC] Act directed that any cause or matter be transferred to the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or the High Court of a State, the Court shall make an order to that effect and shall specify in the order the High Court to which the cause or matter is transferred. 9. On the whole, and for the reasons given, I hold that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. This being the case, it is hereby ordered thus: the instant suit is hereby transferred to the High Court of Lagos State, Lagos Division, Igboshere, Lagos State. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD