Download PDF
The Claimant commenced this action vide Amended Complaint filed on 29th June, 2016 accompanied by the Statement of Facts, Witness Statement on Oath, List of Witnesses and List of Documents, claiming against the defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the deduction and in extension, the non-payment of the daily rates by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally for all categories of Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 is unlawful, illegal, and a gross violation of breach of contract of employment by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally. 2. A DECLARATION that the unilateral downward review of the daily rates for Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally without the consent of all the Service Contract Personnel from 23/10/2012 to the date all the Service Contract Personnel were purportedly disengaged by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally is unlawful and illegal to that extent of such unilateral downward review of the daily rates. 3. A DECLARATION that the payment of the monthly salary by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally which is far less than the approved daily rates for 22 days per month as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 to all the purported disengaged Service Contract Personnel is unlawful, illegal and fraudulent. 4. A DECLARATION that non-compliance to issue a valid letter of termination by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel is unlawful to that extent. 5. A DECLARATION that the withholding and non-payment of the Claimant(s) arrears of balance on salary is unlawful, a breach of the contract of employment and an act of irregularity by the Defendants jointly and severally. 6. AN OREDR nullifying all the unlawful and illegal steps taken by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally for unlawful deduction and non-payment of the daily rates for Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013. 7. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to all the Service Contract Personnel the arrears of the unlawful deduction on the daily rates for 22 days per month from 23/10/2012 to date as balance of salaries/daily rates been and being unlawful and illegally owed to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally. 8. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to immediately calculate the daily rates for 22 days per month as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 for each category of Service Contract Personnel from 23/10/2012 to date in accordance with their individual years of experience and their academic qualification and pay the said calculated rates within 22 days after judgment of this Honourable Court. 9. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to comply with global best practices to issue a valid letter of termination or disengagement of services to all the affected Service Contract Personnel. 10. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel their severance package in accordance with the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013. ALTERNATIVELY to Prayer 8 above, an order mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant(s) individually the sum specifically accruable to individual Service Contract Personnel on the basis of minimum and maximum years of experience in TOTAL cum educational qualification respectively the arrears of their salaries based on daily rate as provided for in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 and all other entitlements from the month of November, 2012 till the date their employment is properly determined. 1st defendant filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION on 15th November, 2016 and dated 17th November, 2016, supported by a 14 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Arnold Ushiado, praying the Court for AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing and/or striking out this suit against the 1st Defendant/Applicant. GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION Claimant cannot bring this action in a representative capacity on behalf of the 257 disengaged employees as the contracts of employment of the Claimant and each the 257 disengaged employees are personal to each individual and there cannot exist a commonality of interest or grievance among the Claimant and the 257 disengaged employees to form a basis for a representative action. There is no privity of contract between the Claimant on record and the 257 disengaged employees he purports to represent as the claims in this suit relates to alleged breach (es) of the various individual contracts of employment between the Claimant and the 257 disengaged employees and either one of the 2nd to 6th Defendants/Respondents or other companies not named as parties in this suit who are their employers. In law, only a party to a contract of employment can sue or be sued in respect of the contract. There is no reasonable basis for making the Applicant a party to the suit. A fortiori, no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the Applicant. This Honourable Court lacks and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant as it is not the employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged employees purportedly represented by the Claimant. The Defendant/Applicant also filed a WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016, wherein the raised the following ISSUES a. Whether the Claimants’ suit commenced as a representative action is not incompetent, there being no commonality of interest and grievance as between the Claimant on record and the people he purports to represent? (Absence of Commonality of Interest/Grievance Issue) b. Whether the Claimants’ suit is not incompetent as against the Applicant, the Claimants having not disclosed any cause of action against the Applicant? (Absence of Cause of Action Issue) c. Whether this Honourable Court lacks and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant not being an employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged employees purportedly represented by the Claimant. ON ISSUE 1 Whether the Claimants’ suit commenced as a representative action is not incompetent, there being no commonality of interest and grievance as between the Claimant on record and the people he purports to represent? (Absence of Commonality of Interest/Grievance Issue). Learned Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant Inam Wilson Esq. submitted that commonality of interest and grievance have always been the fundamental precondition for commencing an action in a representative capacity. Of which in their absence, an action cannot be properly commenced nor competently maintained in a representative capacity. OFIA Vs. EJEM (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 992) 652 @ 664 – 665, PARAS. G-A; OLATUNJI Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (1968) NMLR 393. It is the Defendant/Applicant’s counsel’s submission that our superior courts have repeatedly held that cases involving breaches of contracts of employment are not amenable to being brought or constituted in a representative capacity because of the inherent absence of a common right, interest and grievance between parties to the contracts and non-parties thereto. Reason being that the typical contract of employment is a personal or domestic contract and the interests of each of the parties is directly tied to his individual contract of employment with his employer. CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK NIGERIA PLC V. ROSE (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 544) 37 @ 46, PARAS. C-D; 50, PARAS. A-B; BOSSA V. JULIUS BERGER (2005) 15 NWLR (PT. 948) 409 @ 429-430, PARAS. H-A; P. 430, PARAS. C-D; ANIFOWOSHE V. WEMA BANK PLC. (2015) LPELR – 24811 (CA). He further argued that it is trite law that where an action is wrongly commenced or constituted as a representative action for want of common interest and grievance, such an action is incompetent and ought to be dismissed and/or struck out. H.K.S.F. Vs. AJIBAWO [2008] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1087) 511 at 526 paras C — D. ON ISSUE 2 Whether the Claimants’ suit is not incompetent as against the Applicant, the Claimants having not disclosed any cause of action against the Applicant? (Absence of Cause of Action Issue). Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant also submitted that a cause of action is the entire set of circumstances which give rise to an enforceable claim. It is in effect, the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue, consisting of two elements, namely: the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the claimant his cause of complaint; and the consequent damage. RICMO CONSTRUCION CO. LTD. V. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD. (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 929) 85 @ 95, PARAS. C-H; OJUWKU V. YAR’ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50 @ 132; ONUEKWUSI V. R.T.C.M.Z.C. (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1243) 341 @ 359-360; BELLO V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 45) 828 @ 876, Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. Defendant/Applicant Counsel submitted that in determining whether or not a suit discloses a cause of action against a defendant, the court is bound to look at the Statement of Facts. ESEIGBE V. AGHOLOR (1990) 7 NWLR (PT. 161) 234 (which confirms this extant position of the law. Contending that documents pleaded or attached to pleadings (statement of Facts or Statement of Defence) form part of the pleadings. SPDCN LTD. V. JOHN [2O11] 2 NWLR (PT. 1231) 236 AT 252, PARAS. F — H and IFEADI V. ATEDZE {19983 13 NWLR (PT. 581) 205 AT 225, PARAS. E — F. He submitted further that a contract of employment just like every other contract), does not confer a right to sue or be sued on third parties or strangers, even though the contracts may be of some benefit to them. CHEMICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCT PLC V. VITAL INVESTMENTS LTD. (2006) 6 NWLR (PT. 976) 220; NWUBA V. OGBUCHI (2008) 2 NWLR (PT. 1072) 471 @ 473; OWODUNNI V. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CCC (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 675) 315; U.S.A. PLC V. JARGABA (2007) 11 NWLR (PT. 1045) 247 @ 266-267; ILESA L.P.A. V. OLAYIDE (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 342) 91 @ 104, PARAS. D-G. It is counsel’s contention that the terms of a contract of employment, whether statutory or under common law, is the bedrock on which an aggrieved employee must found his case. And where there is a written or documented contract of service as it is the case presently, the court will not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights or obligations of the parties. RECTOR, KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC V. ADEFILA (2007) 15 NWLR (PT. 1056) 42. Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant also submitted that where a suit fails to disclose any cause of action against a party, the court is obliged to dismiss and/or strike out the suit against the party. OJUKWU V. YAR’ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50; N.C.C. V. MTN (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1086) 229 @ 263, PARAS. B-C. ON ISSUE 3 Whether this Honourable Court lacks and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant not being an employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged employees purportedly represented by the Claimant. Defendant/Applicant Counsel submitted that no matter how beautifully conducted, a proceeding and any finding and order made pursuant to it would amount to a nullity where the court proceeded without jurisdiction. EMEKA v. OKADIGBO (20123 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) S.C.; MADIJKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. The claimants in response filed their “CLAIMANTS WRITTEN ADDRESS IN OPPOSITION TO 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRELIMINARY OBJECTION” dated and filed on 9th December, 2016. With the following ISSUES for determination; Whether the Claimant on record can maintain this suit in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and the 257 claimants (the representative capacity issue). Whether the Claimants action discloses a cause of action against the 1st Defendant/Applicant to warrant its joinder (the cause of action issue). ON ISSUE 1 Whether the Claimant on record can maintain this suit in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and the 257 claimants (the representative capacity issue). Learned Counsel to the Claimant Respondent Bunmi I Aimola Esq. submitted that the position of law canvassed by Defendant / Respondent Counsel in their Issue I (absence of commonality of interest/grievance issue) was good law until the revolution in Nigerian Labour Law, that since the passing of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, and the Third Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in 2011, the landscape of Labour Law has experienced a radical change. Thus, what this means is that the host of pre—2011 cases cited by the 1st Defendant/Applicant no longer represent the position of the law. It follows therefore, that OFIA V EFEM, OLATUNJI V REGISTRAR OF CO—OP SOCIETIES, CO—OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK NIGERIA PLC V ROSE, BOSSA V JULIUS BERGER PLC, ANIFOWOSHE V WEMA BANK PLC, AND HKSF AJIBAWO (supra) all cited in support of the arguments on their Issue (i) are all inapposite to the issue before the Court. He argued that the only seeming exception being ANIFOWOSHE V WEMA BANK PLC (2015) LPELR – 24811(CA) which was decided by the Court of Appeal Lagos Division in June 2015 post the 2011 Alteration. He maintained that the National Industrial Court has decided on the basis of the above provisions of law that despite the general position of the law; on commonality of interest/grievance, the NIC is empowered under its enabling laws to depart from that position in the interest of the special jurisdiction conferred on it. OLUKAYODE V TIMBUKTU MEDIA LTD. (Unreported Ruling in Suit No: NIC/LA/25/2011 delivered on 25th January, 2012. Cited in Aturu B., Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court, Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd, 2013, Pp. 218-219; RUNYI KANU &ORS V THE AG CROSS RIVER STATE (Unreported Ruling in NICN/CA/39/2012 delivered on 13/03/2013; also reported in Aturu B. (Supra) @ 219. ON ISSUE 2 Whether the Claimants action discloses a cause of action against the 1st Defendant/Applicant to warrant its joinder (the cause of action issue). Learned Counsel to the Claimant/ Respondent in answering the question posed: “Can Privity of Contract be considered at this Stage?” Submitted that the arguments of the 1st Defendant/Applicant Counsel on privity of contract is an attempt to have a trial— before—trial by dragging the Court into substantive issue at an interlocutory stage. Furthermore, that the argument goes beyond the clear purport of the pleadings and throws up issues that can only be determined after evidence has been heard. This the law forbids. GOODHEAD V ANACHREE On the 14th December 2016 parties adopted their written addresses and adumbrated their respective positions. The court after listening to both parties directed that they file and serve within 14 days respectively their further addresses on to the applicability of the concept of triangular employment of co employment, starting with the defendants. 1ST DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF TRIANGULAR EMPLOYMENT RAISED SUO MOTU BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT ON DECEMBER 14, 2016 (filed on 26th January, 2017). Learned Counsel to the 1st defendant, submitted that in complex situations in addition the normal two parties: the employer and the employee where one or more third parties are involved, may be termed a “triangular employment relationship Furthermore, that the doctrine of triangular employment relationship presupposes a relationship where employees of an enterprise (the ‘service provider’) perform work for a third party (the ‘user enterprise’) to whom their employer provides Labour services. The principle of triangular employment relationship is not novel to our jurisprudence as it has long been recognized under our laws. ILO REPORT TILED, THE SCOPE OF THE EMPLOYMENT REALTIONSHIP (ILO OFFICE: GENEVA), 2003 PAGES 37 – 39; SEC. 48 (2) OF THE LABOUR ACT, 2004.And submitted that they were not unmindful of several decisions of this Honourable Court on triangular employment, notably AYAOGO V. M.P.N. UNLTD. [2013] 30 NLLR (PT. 85) 95; PENGASSAN V. M.P.N. UNLTD. [2013] 32 NLR (PT. 92) 243; OYETAYO V. ZENITH BANK PLC [2012] 29 NLLR (PT. 84) 370; LNIMGBA V. INTEGRATED CORPORATE SERVICES LTD [2015] 57 NNLR (PT. 195) 268; OSONDU PRINCE V. ASO MULTI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING CO. LTD [2015] 62 NLLR (PT. 216) 137. Arguing that none of the judicial authorities considered the Guidelines on Outsourcing and The issue of the employment relationship can be determined in limine or at the trial Defence Counsel also submitted that a claimant seeking the declaratory relief that — a user enterprise in a triangular employment relationship is his employer (just like the first relief in Claimant’s AS0F) must demonstrate through his pleadings and frontloaded documents OSONDU PRINCE V. ASO MULTI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION & CONSULTING CO. LTD (SUPRA) and that the Claimants still have to discharge this evidentiary burden. AYAOGO V. M.P.N. UNLTD (SUPRA); PENGASSAN V. M.P.N. UNLTD [20131 32 NLR (PT. 92) 243. It is counsel’s submission that in the absence of nexus between the supposed employer (the 1st Defendant in this case) and the supposed employees (the Claimants in this case), it is baseless for this Honourable court to hold that the 1st Defendant is the employer of the Claimants. ERIJOGUNONA V. OMARTEK GROUP OF COMPANY (2010) 29 NLLR AT 262, 275. The CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS ON THE ISSUE OF TRIANHULAR EMPLOYMENT RAISED SUO MOTU BY THE COURT ON 14-12-16 was dated and filed on 6th February, 2017. With the following ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Can the Court determine the substantive claim of a party in .limine? Does the Claimants allegations made out ex Lacie on the originating processes disclose a sham triangular employment relationship between the Claimants and the 1st Defendant? ON ISSUE 1, Claimant Counsel submitted that a Court must resist the temptation to delve into and attempt to determine the substantive claim prematurely and cannot resolve the substantive claim in limine. GOODHEAD V AMACHREE [2004] 1 NWLR (PT 854) P.352 8 375 PARAS C-C, per IKONGBEH, JCA. He submitted that for the Court to uphold the P.O. on the basis that the 1st defendant is not the employer of the claimants but rather the 2nd – 6th defendant under a triangular employment relationship will shut the door against the Claimants and deny them the opportunity of substantiating their allegations at plenary trial. Stephen AYAOGO & ORS V MPN UNLTD. (2013) 30 NLLR (PT. 85) 95 @ 102; PENGASSAN V. MPN UNLTD. (2013) 32 NLLR (PT. 92) 243. It is counsel’s submission that the issue of triangular employment could not be determined in limine, only a full trial will reveal the facts and grant the Court a basis to determine whether the employment relationship was a legitimate triangular employment or a sham. OSONDU PRINCE V ASO MULTI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (2015) 62 NLLR PT. 216) 137. ON ISSUE 2 Does the Claimants allegations made out ex Lacie on the originating processes disclose a sham triangular employment relationship between the Claimants and the 1st Defendant? Counsel maintained that it is imperative to understand what triangular employment is and whether it justifies the 1St Defendants objection that no nexus has been established in the pleadings to show it as the employer of the Claimants. PENGASSAN V MPN UNLTD (2013) 32 NLLR (PT. 92) 243. He submitted that like every principle of law, the matter never ends with looking at the general position, the exceptions are usually where the gravamen is to be found. STEPHEN AYAOGO & ORS V MPN UNLTD. Court’s Decision 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 defendant’s application. I find that issues as formulated by the defendant better address the areas in controversy in this matter, these issues are hereby adopted as the issues for determination by the court. a. Whether the Claimants’ suit commenced as a representative action is not incompetent, there being no commonality of interest and grievance as between the Claimant on record and the people he purports to represent? (Absence of Commonality of Interest/Grievance Issue). b. Whether the Claimants’ suit is not incompetent as against the Applicant, the Claimants having not disclosed any cause of action against the Applicant? (Absence of Cause of Action Issue) c. Whether this Honourable Court lacks and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant not being an employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged employees purportedly represented by the Claimant. With regard to the 1st issue; whether the Claimants’ suit commenced as a representative action is not incompetent, there being no commonality of interest and grievance as between the Claimant on record and the people he purports to represent? (Absence of Commonality of Interest/Grievance Issue). The defendants have argued that that commonality of interest and grievance are the fundamental precondition for commencing an action in a representative capacity. And in their absence, an action cannot be properly commenced nor competently maintained in a representative capacity. To the defendants cases involving breaches of contracts of employment are not amenable to being brought or constituted in a representative capacity because of the absence of a common right, interest and grievance between parties to the contracts and non-parties thereto. As the typical contract of employment is a personal or domestic contract and the interests of each of the parties is directly tied to his individual contract of employment with his employer. CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK NIGERIA PLC V. ROSE (Supra ) To the defendants it is trite law that where an action is wrongly commenced or constituted as a representative action for want of common interest and grievance, such an action is incompetent and ought to be dismissed and/or struck out. H.K.S.F. Vs. AJIBAWO [Supra]. Whereas the claimants maintain that the defendants position was the law pre National Industrial Court Act, 2006, and the Third Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in 2011, arguing that all the authorities save one were inapposite to the issue before the Court. Contending that NIC is that empowered under its enabling laws to depart from that position in the interest of the special jurisdiction conferred on it. OLUKAYODE V TIMBUKTU MEDIA LTD. (Supra ). 218-219; RUNYI KANU &ORS V THE AG CROSS RIVER STATE old citation now found in [2013] 32 NLLR (Pt. 91) 63 NIC, Arguing that the National Industrial Court has decided on the basis on commonality of interest/grievance. The position of the law would require a trip down memory lane so as to better situate the rationale and legalese of the subsisting jurisprudence, also this issue was thoroughly treated in the case of DANJUMA EMMANUEL ESUGA & 2 ORS. Vs. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF DANGOTE FOUNDATION NICN/IL/01/2013 (unreported) delivered on the February 10th 2014 And I shall liberally quote there from Now “in the principle of CCB Vs. ROSE [1998] 4NWLR (pt. 544) 37 (also cited by the defendant (in this as well as ) in this instant case inter alia) where the Court of Appeal stated “In the realm of master and servant relationship, although ten or one hundred persons are given employment the same day under the same condition of service, the contract of employment is personal or domestic to each of the persons. In the event of a breach, the persons do not have a collective right to sue or be represented in a suit. The claimants in the cited case on their part urged the Court to follow the direction of this court in (unreported) NIC/30/2008 MR. OLABODE OGUNYALE & 64 ORS Vs. GLOBACOM NIG LTD delivered on 11th March, 2009 This was a case involving 65 claimants seeking relief from inter alia what they termed wrongful termination and sought their due leave and other allowances etc. The defendants in that suit brought a preliminary objection that The issue before the court, being a trade dispute, cannot be jointly maintained by the claimants in their individual capacities. The issue is incompetent for misjoinder of claimants. The condition precedent under the Trade Disputes Act was not fulfilled before activating the jurisdiction of the court. To the defendant, in that case, respondents are not a trade union neither are they representatives of a trade union, the issue between the parties is that of breach of contract and that contract of employment is personal to each of the claimants. The court reasoned that, the issues between the parties are covered by the National Industrial Court Act. Citing ECO BANK (NIG) PLC V. GATEWAY HOTELS (NIG.) LTD, [1999] 11 NWLR (PT. 627) 397.the court in that case restated the principles governing joinder of parties to an action as held by the Court of Appeal;- that the person to be joined is entitled to some shares or interest in the subject matter, or lays claim to such share or interest, is likely to be affected by the result of the action, is a necessary party i.e. one whose joinder as a party is vital for the purposes of adjudicating effectually and completely upon the matter in dispute, and it is just and convenient to join them. The NIC went on to state that the claimant/respondents in their claims, have an interest that is common. Each of them is individually entitled to some share or interest in the claims. The court conceded to the fact each of them could have brought an action against the defendant/applicant, but asking the sixty-five of them to institute their actions separately will be very tedious and cumbersome. In any event, that court concluded, the court has the power to consolidate cases where the cause of action is similar. That court went on to hold that it is just and convenient for the court that the claimants/respondents jointly sue the respondent/applicant as they have done. I find that the above dictum is applicable to this case as the objections and the contexts are somewhat similar in parts. In this court, the combined effect of Sections 36 and Section 37 of the Trade Dispute Act and Sections 12 and Section 14 of NICA 2006 create a special atmosphere. Section 36 (3) (a) TDA Provides that the National Industrial Court …may regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit, and shall not be bound to act in any formal manner. Section 37 Provides In any proceedings before the National Industrial Court ….. the Court may, at its discretion, permit any interested person to appear before it by a legal Practitioner. Section 12 of NICA 2006 provides that “ “1. The jurisdiction vested in the court shall, as far as practice and procedure are concerned, be exercised in the manner provided by this Act or any other enactment or by such rules and orders of court as may be made pursuant to this Act or, in absence of such provisions, in substantial conformity with the practice and procedure of the Court existing before the commencement of this Act. 2. Subject to this Act and any rules made thereunder, the Court May regulate its procedure as it thinks fit, and Shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice” And Section 14 provides thus;- “the court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act, in every cause or matter have power to grant either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and a multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matter be avoided”. A community reading of these sections empowers the court to decide all matter in dispute between parties in such a manner to avoid multiplicity of suits or legal proceedings. The court on Section 14 alone permits employees with complaints if wrongful determination of their employment or wrongful computation of their entitlements to file a joint action, See OGBOLU Vs. ZENITH BANK PLC. (unreported) NIC/LA/124/2012 delivered on 1st March 2012 Also, this court held in HON. RUNYI KANU Vs. TH E A.G. CROSS RIVERS STATE [2013] 32 NLLR (Pt. 91) 63 NIC a case involving 24 claimants, it was held that it would be tedious to come individually given that the same facts gave rise to the claims of the claimant. In fact, the combined effect of these sections stated above give the court the discretion to permit a collective suit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found nothing wrong with this procedure following OLORUNTOBA OJU Vs. DOPAMU [2008] LEPLR 2095 SC the popular case of the Ilorin 74 SC had this to say : where they held. “The only way the present suit may be justified in law, is that, it was brought by the appellants in order to determine their complaints against the respondents.” See also unreported cases of SUIT NO: NICN/IB/62/2012MR. ADETOLA A. AYOKUNNU & 20 ORS Vs SKY BANK PLC delivered on 19th December 2014 and SUIT NO: NICN/IB/44/2012 MR. MURITALA SAIDU & 2 ORS Vs. YALE FOODS LIMITED delivered on 2nd June 2014 From the foregoing I find that the claimants are within their rights and are on legal firma terra in bringing their action in the manner which they have are issue a. I resolve this issue for the claimants. As regards issues b and c which I shall take together, b, whether the Claimants’ suit is not incompetent as against the Applicant, the Claimants having not disclosed any cause of action against the Applicant? (Absence of Cause of Action Issue) and c, whether this Honourable Court lacks and cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant not being an employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged employees purportedly represented by the Claimant. Being a question as to whether the claimant has disclosed a cause of action against the defendant and if the 1st defendants not being their employer, can the court exercise jurisdiction over him. The defendants have argued that the court is bound to look at the Statement of Facts in determining whether the claimant has a cause of action arguing that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant not being an employer of the Claimant or any of the 257 disengaged in that a contract of employment (just like every other contract), does not confer a right to sue or be sued on third parties or strangers, even though the contracts may be of some benefit to them. To the defendants where a suit fails to disclose any cause of action against a party, the court is obliged to dismiss or strike out the suit. The claimants on their part appropriated the issues of the defendant to raise the question of Privity of contract and submitted that to raise arguments as to privity of contract at this stage would be tantamount to determining the substantive issue at this threshold stage which the law forbids. GOODHEAD V ANACHREE The position of the law is that in determining whether or not the claimants case discloses a Cause of action it is the claim of the plaintiff vis-à-vis his pleadings or the originating summons and the facts in support. S.P.D.C.N. LTD. v. AJUWA (2015) 14 NWLR (PT. 1480) C.A. 403 @ 431. The court went on to define a Cause of action as “the fact or facts which establishes or gives rise to a right of action. It is the factual situation which gives a person a right to judicial relief. A cause of action is the right to enforce presently a cause of action … it is an aggregate of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in court for a remedy. It is the factual situation which a plaintiff relies upon to support his claim. A set of facts can contain one or several causes of action” Relying on EGBE v. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 47) 1; ASABORO v. PAN OCEAN OIL (NIG.) LTD. (2006) 4 NWLR (PT. 971) 595. Also in EDMUND v. NIGEIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD (2014) 48 NLLR (PT. 157) 401 NIC @ 407. It was held that “a cause of action consists of two elements to wit: The wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint. The consequential damage. This means it would be necessary to determine what really the cause of action is in the instant case and then determine when it arose. In the unreported SUIT NO. NICN/LA/114/2013 COMRADE ISHOLA ADESHINA SURAJUDEEN V. MR. ANTHONY NTED & ANOR the ruling of which was delivered on July 10, 2014 this Court (relying on ‘lai Oshitokunbo Oshisanya’s An Almanac of Contemporary Judicial Restatements – With Commentaries – The Basebook, Vol. ia, Administration of Justice and Evidence (Spectrum Books Limited: Ibadan), 2008 at page 3 paragraphs 10 – 13) defined cause of action as – …the cause of action is said to announce a conclusion of law i.e. that the known facts meet the requirements of a particular, recognized legal basis for obtaining relief from a Court. Cause of action is accordingly the aggregate of facts giving rise to or upon which an enforceable claim is anchored. It is the fact(s) that establish or give rise to a right of action. Cause of action, therefore, consists of all those things necessary to give a right of action. The things so necessary must have happened and so includes every material thereof that entitles the plaintiff to succeed that the defendant has the right to traverse. See also AG, FEDERATION V. AG, ABIA STATE & ORS [2001] 11 NWLR (PT. 725) 689 AT 733. The likelihood of success of the claimants case not a relevant consideration in determining a cause of action. The relief sought by the claimant are as follows; 1. A DECLARATION that the deduction and in extension, the non-payment of the daily rates by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally for all categories of Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 is unlawful, illegal, and a gross violation of breach of contract of employment by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally. 2. A DECLARATION that the unilateral downward review of the daily rates for Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally without the consent of all the Service Contract Personnel from 23/10/2012 to the date all the Service Contract Personnel were purportedly disengaged by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally is unlawful and illegal to that extent of such unilateral downward review of the daily rates. 3. A DECLARATION that the payment of the monthly salary by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally which is far less than the approved daily rates for 22 days per month as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 to all the purported disengaged Service Contract Personnel is unlawful, illegal and fraudulent. 4. A DECLARATION that non-compliance to issue a valid letter of termination by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel is unlawful to that extent. 5. A DECLARATION that the withholding and non-payment of the Claimant(s) arrears of balance on salary is unlawful, a breach of the contract of employment and an act of irregularity by the Defendants jointly and severally. 6. AN OREDR nullifying all the unlawful and illegal steps taken by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally for unlawful deduction and non-payment of the daily rates for Service Contract Personnel as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013. 7. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to all the Service Contract Personnel the arrears of the unlawful deduction on the daily rates for 22 days per month from 23/10/2012 to date as balance of salaries/daily rates been and being unlawful and illegally owed to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel by the Defendant(s) jointly and severally. 8. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to immediately calculate the daily rates for 22 days per month as contained in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 for each category of Service Contract Personnel from 23/10/2012 to date in accordance with their individual years of experience and their academic qualification and pay the said calculated rates within 22 days after judgment of this Honourable Court. 9. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to comply with global best practices to issue a valid letter of termination or disengagement of services to all the affected Service Contract Personnel. 10. AN ORDER mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to all the disengaged Service Contract Personnel their severance package in accordance with the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013. ALTERNATIVELY to Prayer 8 above, an order mandating the Defendant(s) jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant(s) individually the sum specifically accruable to individual Service Contract Personnel on the basis of minimum and maximum years of experience in TOTAL cum educational qualification respectively the arrears of their salaries based on daily rate as provided for in the LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES GRID OF RATES FOR 2013 and all other entitlements from the month of November, 2012 till the date their employment is properly determined. The defendants maintain that the 1st defendant never employed the claimants. It is the law that a reasonable cause of action is determinable from the originating processes, not from the defence of the defendant. See COOKEY V. FOMBO [2005] 22 NSCQR 411, OGBIMI V. OLOLO [1993] 7 NWLR (PT. 304) 128 and DR IRENE THOMAS & ORS V. THE MOST REV. OLUFOSOYE [1986] 1 NWLR (PT. 18) 669, which held that when an objection is raised that the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, it is the statement of claim that has to be examined to ascertain whether or not there is a reasonable cause of action. The claimants in their statement of fact describe themselves as service contract personnel employed by the 1st defendant, and that the 2nd -6th defendant are sub contractors, that the 1st defendant was in the habit of transferring them to other third parties who introduced themselves as employers of the contract service personnel without their buy in. In their pleadings the claimants complain of non-payment of daily rates, various deductions, short payment in monthly salaries, withholding and non-payment of balance of salaries arrears, non-issuance of letter of contracts of employment as well as arbitrary transfer to third parties without their consent, inter alia . The court had in open court invited parties to address the court on the applicability of the concept of co employment also known as triangular employment, as the pleadings here raise issues of the relationship between the parties (the 1st defendant, the claimant and the 2nd – 6th defendants) i.e. whether it one of a triangular employment relationship. In PENGASSAN V. MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED [2013] 32 NLLR (PT. 92) 243 NIC, this Court acknowledged the reality of triangular employment relationships. See also the case of ONUMALOBI V. NNPC AND WARRI REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY [2004] 1 NLLR (PT. 2) 304, MADUKA v. MISCROSOFT NIG. LTD & ORS. (2014) 41 NLLR (PT. 125) 81. AMEH v. INDORAMA ELEME PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (2014) 43 NLLR (PT. 137) 639 NIC @ 643. Considering the submissions of counsel on co employment and in situ the role of the 1st defendant; creates a triable issue at best. Be that as it may be I find that from the above and in the circumstances the argument of the defendants that the claimants case does not disclose any reasonable cause of action fails and so is accordingly rejected. This case shall proceed to trial accordingly. I make no order as to costs. This is the court’s ruling and it is hereby entered. .......................................... Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba. Judge.