Download PDF
REPRESENTATION T. N. T. Okonkwo, for the claimant. Peter Edokpayi, for the defendant. RULING 1. The instant suit is one of several suits filed by the claimant Bank against the respective defendants who were advanced loan facilities when they were in the employment of the claimant Bank. The sister suits to the instant suit are Suits Nos. NICN/LA/247/2016 to NICN/LA/252/2016, NICN/LA/341/2016 to NICN/LA/352/2016 and NICN/LA/355/2016 to NICN/LA/359/2016 (collectively referred to as sister cases in this ruling). The instant ruling shall accordingly abide all these cases since the issue addressed is common to all the suits. 2. In the instant suit, the claimant had on 15th April 2016 a complaint against the defendant praying for the following reliefs: (i) The sum of N6,296,477.37 (Six Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Seven Naira, Thirty-Seven Kobo) only being the total sum due and payable to the claimant by the defendant as a result of the various loan facilities which the claimant granted to the defendant when the defendant was in the employment of the claimant but which the defendant have refused, failed and/or neglected to pay back for the said various loan facilities till date despite having utilized same. (ii) Interest on the amount claimed in (i) above i.e. N6,296,477.37 at the rate of 19% per annum from 1st September, 2015 until judgment and thereafter at the same rate until final liquidation of the entire debt. (iii) Cost of prosecuting this action to be borne by the defendant. 3. When the case came up for mention, the Court suo motu raised the issue wether it has jurisdiction over the case given that the claimant is seeking for the repayment of various loan facilities advanced to the respective defendants in this suit and the sister suits. Parties were asked to address the Court on the issue of jurisdiction by filing written addresses. The claimant’s written address is dated 22nd May 2017 but filed on 24th May 2017, while the defendant’s is dated and filed on 6th June 2017. In both addresses, counsel agued that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this case and urge the Court to, therefore, assume jurisdiction over the case. K. U. Okoro Esq counsel for the claimant in NICN/LA/355/2016 to NICN/LA/359/2016, although did not file any written address on the issue of jurisdiction, adopted the position of counsel in the instant case, which is that this Court has jurisdiction ever this case. All counsel are agreed that the loan facilities granted the defendants were granted in the course of the defendants’ employment with the claimant; as such that under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, this suit involves a matter, raising from the workplace, may also be said to be incidental or connected thereto, relying on Kano State Government & ors v. Nasiru Muhammad [2016] LPELR-41334(CA). 4. I took a closer look at the statement of facts in the instant case. Paragraph 3 describes the defendant as former staff. Paragraph 6 pleads that the defendant as a former staff requested and was granted various staff loans, which loans by paragraph 8 he enjoyed but is yet to fully liquidate. It is not in doubt that section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution bestows on this Court exclusive jurisdiction over ALL and ANY labour/employment matter, and matters connected with or incidental thereto. See Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited & ors v. Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya [2013] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 255; [2013] 1 ACELR 28; [2013] 36 NLLR (Pt. 109) 338 CA. Is the recovery of a loan and advances granted an employee while in employment, which thereby becomes a debt, one that is a matter connected with or incidental to labour and employment? This to me remains the key question in determining whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over this case. 5. Where an employee, often a disengaged one, sues his/her employer, and the employer counterclaims for the recovery of loans/advances, this Court has often assumed jurisdiction on the basis that the counterclaim is a matter connected with or incidental to labour or employment. In James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/41/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 12th July 2016, for instance, the defendant employer counterclaimed against the claimant for N38,052,678.40 being the total outstanding and unpaid sum due to and retained by the claimant in respect of various unamortized allowances, loans, costs and indebtedness, comprised of sums specifically owing and due from the claimant to the defendant; N1,041,666.70 being the prorated monthly rent paid on the official residence given to the claimant by the defendant; US$1,365.52 (or its Naira equivalent) being the lease charges for the family car, Toyota Corolla 1.8ltr Reg. No. HU 445 EKY; a mandatory injunction compelling the claimant to deliver up the official residence with all the furniture and other household items therein; a mandatory injunction compelling the claimant to deliver up possession of the family car Reg. No. HU 445 EKY; exemplary damages in the sum of N100,000,000.00; and pre- and post-judgment interest. This Court assumed jurisdiction, heard and determined the counterclaim. 6. As it is, this Court has had no issue with assuming jurisdiction over counterclaims of employers against disengaged employees for the recovery of debts incurred while in employment. By law a counterclaim is treated as an action of its own. See Maobison Inter-Link Associated Ltd v. UTC Nigeria Plc [2013] LPELR-20335(SC), which held a counterclaim to be an independent and separate action; and Ogiren v. Olufunmilayo & ors [2015] LPELR-24295(CA), which also held a counterclaim to be a separate and distinct action, and then stressed that there is no need citing any authority in support of this well known principle of law because there is a rain of authorities. So if this Court assumes jurisdiction over counterclaims seeking to recover debts, is the instant case any different? I do not think so despite that there are NIC decisions that appear to have taken a different course. See Mr. Ojeka John Ashibene v. Access Group of Schools & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/CA/18/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 8th March 2016 (dealing with tenancy), Mr. Oyebanji Julius Odeniyi & 11 ors v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/648/2013, the ruling of which was delivered on 2nd July 2015 (dealing with ownership and refund of excess money paid in respect of the houses in question) and Zenith Bank Plc v. Mr Obaro Odeghe unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/342/2014, the decision of which was delivered on 12th January 2016 (dealing with mortgage and personal loans). 7. It was Lord Steyn who said, “In law, context is everythingâ€. See R v. Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] 3 All ER 433; [2001] 1 AC 532; [2001] 2 WLR 1622; [2001] UKHL 26. As such in Mrs Kikelomo Kola-Fasanu v. Prestige Assurance Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/25/2016, the ruling of which was delivered on 24th January 2017, this Court distinguished all these cases and assumed jurisdiction over reliefs relating to the unilateral reduction of loan periodic payment schedule contrary to the mutually agreed monthly deductions and prepayment timeline between the parties under the Housing Loan and Deed of Legal Mortgage, frustration of repayment obligations under the Housing Loan and Deed of Legal Mortgage and the attempt to repossess, auction, sell, dispose of or otherwise deal with any right, title or interest or advertise for sale the property in question. The arguments of the defendant: a) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage cannot be said to guarantee the employment of the claimant especially as the Deed of Legal Mortgage and the claimant’s contract of employment are separate and independent of each other (one can survive where the other is no longer in existence); b) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage constitutes a private or external arrangement between the claimant and her erstwhile employers, the defendant; c) that it is irrelevant that the Deed of Legal Mortgage was executed while the claimant was an employee of the defendant as to be held to be incidental to the claimant’s contract of employment; and d) that the Deed of Legal Mortgage does not provide for the claimant’s terms of employment, conditions of service, safety, welfare, health, pensions, gratuity, allowances, or other entitlement of a worker which are all issues squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court as contained in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), were all rejected by the Court. 8. As it is, therefore, it is my finding and holding that this Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the claimant in the instant case as well as the sister cases. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD