Download PDF
The claimant instituted this action in the Federal High Court on the 27th July 2007 by a motion inter alia to enforcement of the decision /orders of the Chief Registrar of Cooperative Society. Following an order of the Federal High Court Abuja the matter was transferred to the National Industrial Court on the 30th April 2015. The Claimant filed on 27th October, 2015 via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents against the defendants for the following reliefs: 1. An Order directing the defendants to implement the decisions of the Chief Registrar of Cooperative Societies, FCT. To wit; A. The undeserved Interdiction to which the Treasurer (The Claimant) — has been subjected to, with effect from 6th November 2006, be formally withdrawn with immediate effect. B. All the emoluments due to the Treasurer (The Claimant) which the Commission have withheld from him for the entire period of the Interdiction, be released to him forthwith. C. The event of the formal withdrawal of the Interdiction, be accorded the same publicity as the event of the Interdiction. D. An order invalidating the Special General Meeting and Annual General Meeting of the 2nd defendant, purportedly convened and held on the 16th October 2006 and November 2006, respectively by the Officers Elect of the 2nd defendant. E. An order invalidating the authority and powers, delegated to the Officers Elect of the 2nd defendant, by the Trustees of the 2nd defendant, it having lapsed by operation of Law. All actions after 2nd February 2006, became Null and Void. F. An order directing the Trustees of the 2nd defendant as recorded in section 6.4 of the Minutes of the Inaugural General Meeting held on the 18th 23rd 29th and 30th November 1999, shall assume responsibility for the affairs of the 2nd defendant forthwith and for a further period of two years with effect from the date of the 3rd Annual General Meeting of the 2nd defendant. 2. An Order directing the 1st defendant to pay; a. The sum of N50 million (Fifty Million Naira) to the Claimant as general damages. b. The sum of N2 million (Two Million Naira) being the cost of this action. The defendant filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION filed on 2nd February, 2016 and dated same day supported by a 21 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Hodo Samuel Bassey, praying the Court for AN ORDER striking out the Complaint of the Claimant/ Respondent filed on the 27th day of October 2015 for want of competence. With the following GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION 1. The complaint/statement of facts filed on the 27th day October 2015, constitutes a different and separate suit from the transferred pending cause and is incompetent. 2. The matter as constituted in the complaint is improper as to parties and subject matter. 3. The case as presented is radically altered and different from the case at the Federal High Court before same was transferred to this court. 4. The Claimant has abandoned the pending cause and in its place filed a fresh suit while the transferred matter is pending. 5. Suite No: NICN/ABJ/117/15 amounts to an abuse of the processes of this HonourabLe court. WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION ISSUES 1. Whether this is a transferred cause or matter from another court? 2. Whether the matter was a consolidated suit of two different applications at the previous court? 3. Whether there are claims in this matter as re-filed different from the cases at the Federal High Court? 4. Whether the Respondent can alter the claim, disregard the constitution of the case as to parties and issues in the consolidated matter, and change the nature of the case in a manner that undermines the constitution of the case as to its nature, as to the claim before the court and the form of the case as constituted originally? Learned Counsel for the Defendant Offeoshi Esq. submitted that it is the law that consolidated matters are deemed combined or unified into one mass or body through a court order and that consolidation of actions is the process whereby two or more distinct actions pending in the same court are by order of court joined and tried together at the same time, the matter though separate and distinct are tried simultaneously in the same proceeding. KALU VS. CHIMA (2007)17 NWLR (PT 1062) at 187, per Galadima, JCA (as he then was). He submitted that the motion for enforcement of the decision of the Registrar of the Cooperatives; No: FHC/AB)/M/471/07 is not the same claim as the present case before this court by way of (Writ) Complaint where the claim for (N50, 000,000) damages is made in Suit No: NICNIABJ/1l7/15, therefore, it cannot therefore be countenanced. Furthermore, that it is the law that a transferred matter starts de novo and that when a matter starts de novo, either for want of jurisdiction or transferred on any other cause, it does not start by filing a new Writ or a different form of action or different claim initiated. UTTA VS. INDEPENDENT BREWERY LTD. (1974) 25C 7; SAMUEL OGUEBE & ANOR. VS. CHUKWUDI DILE & ORS. (1979) ANLR 38. The Claimant filed a 14 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVIT on 6th December, 2016. With a WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMANT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT 1. Whether the claims of the claimant is or are radically different from his prayer before the FHC. 2. Whether the parties are different as they are presently constituted from the parties before the FHC. ON ISSUE 1 Whether the claims of the claimant is or are radically different from his prayer before the FHC. Learned Counsel for the Claimant I. M. Ebikwo Esq submitted that the power of the court to make a declaration when it is a question of defining the right of the parties is almost unlimited and subject to only the discretion of the court and the court is bound to adopt a construction which is just, reasonable and sensible. BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) 2NWLR (PART 910) 241 R 75278. EWARAMI VS. ACB LTD (1978)4 SC 99. On the issue of parties, counsel referred the Court to Exhibit A, stating that the parties are the same and the present Applicants admitted same by filling this application by the title they are seeking the court to regularize, and that the clamant has no case against any other apart from the listed defendants. He urged the court to discountenance this preliminary objection as it is frivolous, vexatious and the normal game of the applicants calculated to further delay this matter as they have done over the course of 9 years. On the 23rd January, 2017 parties adopted their respective written addresses and adumbrated their positions accordingly. The matter was reserved for this ruling. 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 Preliminary objection. The defendants are asking the court to strike out the claimant complaint of on the basis that it is fundamentally different that the process filed in the Federal High Court. The claimant on their part content with the question of fundamentally different and maintain that the claimant merely regularized their processes in line with the provision of the rules governing NICN. Order 28 rule 3 now Order 62 rule 3, 2017 Rules provides that where in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24(3) of the Act any cause or matter has been transferred to the Court from the Federal Court of a State, the Registrar shall on receipt of the order making the transfer enter such cause or matter in the Order Book and notify the parties concerned and shall henceforth, subject to any directions that may be given in any particular case by the President of the Court, or, as the case may be, the Presiding Judge, or in the absence of the Presiding Judge, another Judge of the Court, treat the cause or matter as if it had been originally filed in the Court in accordance with these Rules, as may be appropriate. From the court record the proceedings in this case are record as follows; This case was transferred from the Federal High Court on the 30th April 2015 and called up on six separate adjourn dates 6th October 2015, 3rd February 2016, 10th March 2016, 27th January 2017 and 2nd February 2017. The process transferred to this court indicate a Motion for inter alia the enforcement of the decision /orders of the Chief Registrar of Co-operative Society filed the claimant at the Federal High Court filed on the 27th July 2007 That the matter was listed for mention at the National Industrial Court and on the 27th October 2015 the process now in contention, the claimant sought to regularize this complaint and the defendant in opposition brought their preliminary objection on the basis that the process is different from what was originally filed in the Federal High Court. Now Order 28 rule 3 of the 2007 Rules provides that in transferred matters this court is to treat the transferred case as if it had been originally filed in this Court in accordance with the rules of this Court. See Order 62 rule 2. And this court has a practice of directing parties in transferred cases to regularize their originating processes in line with the rules of this court. This practice can be summed up as the ‘direction that may be given’ by the President of the Court, the Presiding or any Judge of the court, with the directive given in Or 62 rule (3)and (4). A cursory look at the two sets of reliefs would reveal that indeed the reliefs in the complaint of 27th October 2015 were not the same as found in the Federal High Court;- Now Order 3 rule 3 provides that a claimant may alter, modify, or extend the claim without any amendment of the endorsement on the complaint: provided that the claimant may not completely change the cause of action endorsed on the Complaint without amending it. So the questions is, can the changes introduced by the claimant qualify as alterations, modifications or extensions of the original reliefs contained in the processes transferred from the Federal High Court Abeokuta. Do these new changes create a completely different action, I would think so as they go beyond the realm or altering, modifying and extending to create new cause of action for which a leave of court would be required to apply for such and an order of court to make the amendment absolute. CHIEF RUBEN O. OZIGBO Vs. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF EZI-OGANIRU SOCIAL CLUB OF NIGERIA [2008] LPELR (CA) established the general rule that party to a suit may amend his pleadings before close of pleadings without the requirement of leave by or from any court” Now in the case of ALFRED YAHAYA Vs, FELIX CHUKWURA [2001] LPELR 6966 CA Mangaji JCA had this to state “Pleadings properly filed are only amended when leave to do so is duly applied and expressly granted by the court. It is not a matter of free for all or a process by which a party with fine tricks on his side would over reach the other”. at P19 para A-B. The changes made by the claimants require the leave of court and none was sought, yet these changes were brazenly paraded in court without reserve, these changes would have the effect of overreaching the defendant and altering the whole case. The court in the case of SUIT NO: NICN/AB/09/2013 DR. SUNDAY OLUSOLA PETERS Vs. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE ABEOKUTA delivered on the 2nd April 2013 where the claimant, on parties being ordered to regularize their processes in line with the rules of this court, filed a complaint with five additional reliefs than were found in the original process held that a directive to regularize the originating process is not an invitation to a claimant to willy nilly add and subtract reliefs”. And went on to hold that “that the claimants supposedly regularized process evolved out of context of the court’s order and is a strange development and constitutes an abuse of court process”. In this case the court did not give any such order to regularize processes before the claimant filed his complaint neither did he obtain any leave from this court to amend their processes. The court would ordinarily regard the filing of such a complaint in these circumstances as the claimant being commendably proactive but in view of the changes to this process I find that the complaint cannot relate back to the process filed in the Federal High Court and as such, and in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in AFRICAN REINSURANCE Vs. JDP CONTRUCTION NIG. LTD [2003] 4SCM 1 where it was held; “that when a court comes to the conclusion that its process has been abused the proper order is dismissal of the process.” In this instance, the defendant’s preliminary objection has merit and succeeds. Claimant’s process dated 27th October 2016, is hereby struck out. This matter shall proceed with the processes as filed in the Federal High Court, this order is made without prejudice to the claimant right to formerly apply to this court for the requisite leave to make any amendment he may require under the relevant rules. Ruling is entered accordingly. ___________________________ E. N. Agbakoba Judge