Download PDF
By a way of Complaint dated 2nd July, 2015 and filed same day, the Claimant instituted this suit asking for the following reliefs: i. A DECLARATION that the purported dismissal of the Claimant by the Federal Ministry of Transport is unlawful, void and of no effect, the dismissal letter stating no reasons and the Claimant not given any opportunity to defend himself of any allegation of wrong doing. ii. AN ORDER of this Honourable court converting the purported dismissal of the Claimant to retirement on attainment of the 35years in service rule which was effective from 26th April, 2006. iii. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing that the Claimant should be paid his monthly salaries from 23rd June, 1995 to 26th April, 2006 being the period the Claimant should have remained in service but for this purported dismissal. iv. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing that the Claimant be paid his gratuities and Pensions (including the arrears of his Pensions from 26th April, 2006 being the date the Claimant should have regularly retired from service on attainment of 35years in service). v. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the refund of the sum of £27,000 (Twenty Seven Thousand Pounds), the savings of the Claimant with his bank in Liverpool with the following details: Bank: - Halifax Building Society Ltd, Address: - Brunswick Street, Liverpool, L2 OPN Account No: - 00403445 Sort Code: - 11- 04—65 Which savings was forcefully transferred to the Account of National Maritime Authority (NIMASA) illegally. vi. AN ORDER directing the release of the two accounts at Vereins Undwest Halburg in Germany and Barclays Bank. Edgeward Road in London which accounts have remained blocked and inaccessible to the holders on the authority of the Defendants. vii. General damages in the sum of N300,000,000 (Three Hundred Million Naira). viii. Legal/professional fees in the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira). By an application brought by way of Motion on Notice dated 15th April, 2016 and filed same day brought pursuant to Order 5 Rule 3 and Order 25 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, Applicants pray the Court for the following: AN ORDER for an extension of time within which the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants shall enter appearance and file their matter, out of time. 2. AN ORDER deeming the memorandum of Appearance filed and served as properly filed served. 3. AN ORDER for an extension of time within which the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants shall file their joint Statement of Defence in this matter, out of time. 4. AN ORDER deeming the joint Statement of Defence, filed and served as properly filed and served. In support of the Application is an 11-paragraph affidavit APPLICANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION In Applicants’ written address, Counsel on behalf of Applicants submit that the reasons adduced by the lst and 2nd Defendants/Applicants for their inability to file the said Court Processes are genuine and their counsel could not file them as required by the Rules of Court within time. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants deemed it expedient to approach the Honourable Court to seek for an extension of time to enable them file and serve their Memorandum of Appearance and the joint Statement of Defence out of time. He therefore urged the Court to grant the prayers on the motion paper. CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT On receipt of the 1st and 2nd Defendants Application, Counsel to Claimant filed a 4-paragragh affidavit in opposition to Applicants’ with a written address CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN OPPOSITION TO 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION In Claimant’s written address in opposition to 1st and 2nd Defendants’ motion, Claimant’s Counsel formulated three issues for determination, to wit: Whether O. James Esq. Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Defendants can validly file and/or sign any processes of the court without affixing his NBA stamp on any of the process or processes? Whether order 25 rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 have been duly complied with to entitle the applicants to the relief sought? Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants have placed material facts good and substantial enough before this Honourable Court in other to entitle them to the relief sought? ARGUMENT ON ISSUE 1 Learned Counsel submits that under the NBA new regime, processes cannot be validly filed without affixing the NBA stamp/seal. A circular to this effect had been passed by the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria to all heads of courts in Nigeria and this is strictly been enforced for the betterment of the legal practice in Nigeria. This is connected to Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Rules of Professional Conduct which inter alia provides that all processes must carry the NBA stamp/seal. That failure to affix the NBA stamp invalidates the processes filed in a court of law. That on the processes filed by Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, G. James Esq., there is an NBA stamp affixed thereon but the said stamp is that of one Anya Nicholas Onyia with Supreme Court of Nigeria No. SCN016992. In other words, the Legal Practitioner entitled to sign the said process is Anya Nicholas Onyia and not G. James Esq. who indeed signed the processes. That since the signatory, O. James Esq. has not demonstrated that he is a Legal Practitioner entitled to practice under the Rules, the said processes are not valid and are in-fact not before the Honourable Court. He refers Court to the Supreme Court decision in MEGA PROGRESSIVES PEOPLES PARTY V. INEC, Suit No. SCC 655/2015 (Unreported). ON ISSUE2 Learned Counsel submits that an Application for extension of time under the rules of this Honourable Court can only be brought before the Honourable Court for consideration if order 25 rule 4 of the Rules of this Court has been duly complied with. The said Order 25 Rule 4 states as follows: The court may as often as it deems fit, and either before or after the expiration of the time appointed by this Rules or by any judgment or order of the court, extend or adjourn the time for doing any act or taking any proceeding: Provided that any party who defaults in performing an act within the time authorized by the Court or under these Rules, shall pay to the court an additional fee of N50. 00 (Fifty Naira,) for each day of such default at the time of compliance” (Underlining by Claimant’s Counsel) Learned Counsel, while conceding that government agencies like the 1st and 2nd Defendants do not pay filing fees, however contended that they do pay default fees. He refers Court to BRIEL BROWN NIG. LTD V. BASSA LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL, SUIT NO. FICL/15/2010(Unreported) where Hon. Justice R.O. Ayoola of the Kogi State High Court had this to say on the responsibility of Government and its agencies to pay default fees to wit: “...A Government body or department is not excluded from paying the default fees as provided for under order 10 Rule 5, otherwise there will be anarchy and a travesty of justice in the administration of Justice. A Government body may ignore court processes as anyhow as it likes since it will not be damned. I do not think Order 55 Rule 8(2) of the Rules of this Court is designed to condone this Lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Government. The Applicant therefore is liable to pay fees where there is default on its part. Flowing from the foregoing, Learned Counsel urged this Honourable Court to discountenance, disregard and strike out the application of the lst and 2nd Defendants as they have not duly complied with order 25 rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 in other to entitle them to the reliefs sought. ON ISSUE 3 Learned Counsel submits that it is trite that an Application of this nature is not granted as a matter of course but the party seeking an application for extension of time must place before the court material facts and/or special circumstances good and substantial enough to warrant the Honourable court to exercise its discretion in his favour. He refers Court to N.I.W.A. V.SHELL (2008) 34 NSCQR (PT.1) 618 638-639. That the Applicant did not only `fail in this regard but also from the face of the affidavit in support of the Application, the signature thereat is a photocopy. Therefore, the Deponent did not sign the affidavit in the presence of the commissioner for oath. Learned Counsel therefore urged the Court to ignore, reject and discountenance the entire arguments and submissions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants Application and dismiss same. COURT Having gone through the Applicant’s motion, affidavit and written address in support of the motion and also that of the Claimant in opposition to the Applicants’ motion, this Court has distilled a sole issue for the just determination of this Application to wit: Whether it is in the interest of justice to grant this Application It is trite that an Application of this nature is at the discretion of the Court, a discretion that must be exercised judicially and judiciously so that it will not occasion injustice on the parties before it. Judicial discretion must be exercised in accordance to the relevant rules of law and practice coupled with the rules of reason and justice. The guiding principle is that discretion, being judicial, must at all times not only be judicious but also judicially based on sufficient facts before the Court. See I.T.N.A.G.P.P.E V. PCN (2012) 2NWLR (Pt.1284)262. Therefore, where there are discrepancies/irregularities in the process before the Court it would not be judicial and judicious for the Court to overlook the discrepancies/irregularities and grant the Application. The point this Honourable wishes to make is that it cannot properly determine this Application without considering the concerns raised by the Claimant. Therefore, while putting into consideration the concerns of the Claimant, this Court wishes to state that it also noticed that apart from the fact that the name of the owner of the stamp/seal put on the process is not on the process, the seal/stamp expires on march, 2016 a time before the process was filed, being that the process was filed in April, 2016. It would suffice to state that on the face of these irregularities, the registry ought not to have accepted the Applicants’ processes for filing. Accordingly, the Applicants’ motion for extension of time fails and same is hereby struck out pending when 1st and 2nd Defendant’s Counsel regularize their process. Moreso, having determined the motion for extension of time on whose shoulder all other processes of the 1st and 2nd Defendants ride, all other such processes collapse with it inclusive of the 1st and 2nd Defendants preliminary objection. 1st and 2nd Defendants Counsel is to do the needful to bring their processes properly before this Court, and I so hold. Ruling is entered accordingly. ………………………………….. HON. JUSTICE M.N. ESOWE