Download PDF
The claimant filed this Complaint on 22nd October, 2013 claiming against the defendants as follows: 1. A declaration that the purported dismissal of the claimant from the employment of the 1st defendant on 15th July, 2013 via letter bearing reference number AKWCLTD/P,CON/024/52 was unlawful invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. An Order setting aside the letter by which the 1st defendant purported to dismiss the claimant from employment. 3. An order compelling/directing the defendants to reinstate the claimant to work forthwith. 4. An order directing the 1st defendant to pay the arrears of salary owed the claimant when he was placed on half salary from December, 2012 to June, 2013. 5. #50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) damages for unlawful termination of employment. The 2nd defendant filed a PRELIMINAY OBJECTION on 24th June, 2016 and dated same day, supported by a 7 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Samuel Eno Okon, praying for An Order of this Honorable Court striking out this suit for being incompetent, which incompetence robs this Honorable Court of jurisdiction to heat and determine this suit; as the Compliant in this suit is unsigned. GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION 1. The Complaint in this suit is unsigned and thereby incompetent. 2. The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. ON ISSUE 1 The Complaint in this suit is unsigned and thereby incompetent. Learned Counsel to the 2nd defendant Usen Usen esq, submitted that a document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law, it is void and of no effect, and worthless too. OMEGA BANK (NIG.) PLC v. OBC LTD. (2005) FWLR (PT. 249) 1964 @ 1994, per Tobi, JSC; AG ABIA STATE v. AGBARANYA (1999) 6 NWLR (PT. 607) 362 @ 371.H2nd defendant counsel continued that the mere signing of a name on a process does not satisfy the requirement of signature. ONWARD ENTERPRISE LTD. v. PLAM INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 531) 1503 @ 1515; BRAITHEWAITE v. SKY BANK PLC. (2013) 5 NWLR (PT. 1346). 2nd defendant Counsel submitted that the law is that once an initiating process, be it Writ of Summons or notice of appeal (or Complaint, as in the instant case) is not signed or authenticated either by the litigating party or the legal practitioner on his behalf, then the process is invalid and the jurisdiction of the court ousted; the defect is taken as incurable. OKARIKA v. SAMUEL (2013) NWLR (PT. 1352) 19 @ 25 HELD 11. ON ISSUE 2 The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Learned Counsel to the 2nd defendant submitted that failure to commence a suit with a valid Complaint goes to the root of the action since the condition precedent to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction would not have been met to duly place the suit before the Court. BRAITHEWAITE v. SKY BANK PLC (Supra); KIDA v. OGUNMOLA (2006) 13 NWLR (PT. 997) 337. It is counsel submission that jurisdiction is the life wire of adjudication which is constitutionally conferred and no court or party/parties can by consensus confer jurisdiction and because of its fundamental nature, jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of a proceeding even if for the first time in the Supreme Court. OKARIKA v. SAMUEL; MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. The Claimant/Respondent filed a 9 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVIT on 30th September, 2016 and dated same day. WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT ISSUE Whether the Complaint of the claimant before this Honorable court is signed and therefore competent to be heard by this Court. Learned Counsel to the Claimant Mfon Asanyeni Esq. submitted that the institution of suits before this Honorable Court is regulated by the rules of Court that. ORDER 4 RULE 4 (3) of the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES, 2007 (with 2012 amendment); ORDER 6 RULE 1 (2) and that nowhere in the above cited Rules of Court is there a requirement as to stamping by the Legal Practitioner as raised in Issue No. 1 by Counsel to the 2nd defendant. She submitted that the issue of a Legal Practitioner’s stamp and seal as a requirement for filing of legal documents as contained in Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 became enforceable upon the issuance of seals and stamps approved by the NBA in 2015 and that they are bound by the Court’s record which shows that this suit was filed in 2013. He urged the Court to hold that the issue of stamp canvassed by 2nd defendant goes to no issue. Claimant Counsel further argued that the claimant’s Complaint in this suit has been signed. KANO v. IGALEON (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 613) 1968 @ 1969 HELD 1. Counsel to the claimant also submitted further that in determining the regularity, authenticity or genuineness of a court’s process whether as to signature, seal and stamp of the NBA or proper filing in terms of payment of filing fees, recourse can only be had to the copy of the processes contained in the Court’s file as it is only such a file that the Court can look at. BANA v. ALIYU (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1447) 523, per Mbaba, JCA, at P. 541, PARAS. G-H. She maintained that it is only the copy of the claimant’s Complaint in the Court’s file that can be used to determine whether the said Complaint was signed or not. AGBASI v. ESIKOREFE (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 502) 630; NASCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. v. A.N. AMAKU TRANSPORT LTD. (2003) 2 NWLR 290 @ 299 – 300 HELD 10; AITEIDU v. OBI (2010) ALL FWLR (PPT. 533) 1891 @ 1895 RATIO 5. Counsel assuming but not conceding that the Complaint was not signed, submitted that failure does not make the Complaint void as canvassed by the Learned Counsel to the 2nd defendant. BURAMOH v. ALEJO (2014) LPELR-23203 P. 271 HELD 3. The parties adopted their written addresses on the 13th October 2016 and the matter was reserved for this ruling. THE 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. The defendants have objected that the claimants processes were not signed by the claimant his legal practitioner as is required by order 4 rule 3 of the National Industrial Court rules 2007, a careful perusal of the originating process reveal that the General Form 1 Complaint actually bears a signature but of whom cannot be determined at this time, while the Statement of Fact establishing the cause of action and the List of Documents were duly dated and signed by the claimants Counsel. The National Industrial Court General Form of complaint which can be found in B418-B420 of the NIC rules does not require the signature of counsel and order 3 rule1 or rule 5A of the NIC Rule stipulates “that the action for determination of court shall be filed and sealed. The complaint shall be in the form 1 with such modifications as the circumstances require.” Since form 1 does not require the signature of counsel it means there is no forma requirement of the signature of counsel. Now this court has held in ALHAJI M.A. LAMINA VS. ODU’A INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED NICN/IB/56/2013 (unreported) delivered on 13th March 2014 there is no compulsion to sign the complaint and failure to sign cannot be fatal to the case in the terms of jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine suit for the following reasons. Order 4 rule (3) provides that an originating process shall be signed by him or her Legal Practitioner where the claimant sues through a Legal practitioner. Order 1 rule 3(2) defines an originating process as a complaint or any other court process by which a suit is initiated. Now Order 3 rule 4 provides that the complaint shall be accompanied Statement of Fact establishing cause of action, Written Statement on oath, List of witnesses copies of every document relied on. This court has held in the case of SIR SOLOMON UZOIGWE M.C. & ANORVs. CHIEF UCHEY AGBOEZE & 2ORS NICN/EN/04/2010 (unreported) delivered on the 20th December, 2010 that the cumulative effect of these provisions is that the originating process is made up of all these processes referring to the processes enumerated above. See also ADEDOYIN OLAYINKA & 5 ORS Vs WEMA BANK NICN/6/2009 (unreported) delivered in May 2009. The Court in CHIEF SOLOMONS CASE supra had this to say “In a situation where the complaint is the only documents not signed, has the claimant not satisfied the requirements enjoined by the rules? I think so, especially as the pro forma Form 1 the General Form Complaint has no designated position on which a Counsel may actually sign.” In SIR SOLOMON UZOIGWE M.C. & ANOR Vs. CHIEF UCHEY AGBOEZE & 2ORS supra it was held that “……..the claimant or his counsel had no duty to sign the complaint itself”. I see no reason to depart from these authorities. Unlike what is applicable in the regular High Court General Form 1 Complaint has no specific provision where a counsel is supposed to sign. Furthermore the other processes, which also constitute the originating processes in this suit were duly signed by the claimants counsel to satisfy the provisions of Order 4 rule 3. I find. I find and hold that the signing by Legal Practitioner is not required on the General Form claim The claimants maintain that the General Form 1 Complaint in this instant case was signed by the claimants counsel. As modifications go the claimant counsel modified the General Form 1 Compliant by inserting a signature this, signature not traceable to any one person. I hold although falls short of the requirement of the writ being signed by Counsel, the statement establishing facts having been duly signed by counsel more than adequately satisfies the rules of this court I resolve this issue for the claimant. From the foregoing I find and hold that this preliminary objection lack merit and is hereby struck out. Cost of N30, 000.00 to be paid by the 2nd defendant to the claimant before the next adjourn date. Ruling is entered accordingly. --------------------------------------- Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge RESEARCHED AUTHORITIES ELEPHANT INVESTMENT LTD. v. FIJABI (2015) 6 C.A.R. 473 @ 477 On Purpose of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act – The purpose of Sections 2 (1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act is to sanitize the legal practice by ensuring that only legal practitioners whose names are on the Roll of the Supreme Court have authority to sign processes on behalf of litigants. This also serves as a protection to the legal profession from invasion by marauders, quacks and impostors who may pose as legal practitioners. F.B.N. MAIWADA (2013) 32 WRN 31 @ 43 referred to.] On Effect where a court process is signed by a legal practitioner – Where a court process is signed by a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the roll of the Supreme Court of Nigeria such process is exempted from the scrutiny set out in OKAFOR v. NWEKE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1043) 521; OKETADE v. ADEWUNMI (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1195) 63, per Tijani Abubakar, JCA (P. 526, PARAS. A-B) On How court processes are to be signed – The position of the law as it stands is that a legal process signed and issued by a law firm is definitely incompetent and is liable to be set aside. In effect, the processes used in court must be signed and issued by a person and in the proper name of the person as enrolled to practice law in Nigeria under the Legal Practitioners Act – see ALAWIYE v. OGUNSANYA (2012) SC (PT. III), per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC: “This case is on all fours with SLB Consortium V. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1252) 317. In that case, the Originating Summons and the Amended Statement of Claim complained of were signed by “Adewale Adesokan & co.” Since Adewale Adesokan & co is not a legal practitioner, whose name is on the roll, the originating processes were defective and the appeal arising from the proceedings initiated and conducted, without jurisdiction, was incompetent. In this matter, the originating processes were signed by “Chief Afe Babalola, SAN & CO.” It is clear that those processes were not signed by a person known to law, the name not being on the roll, and so the originating processes were signed contrary to Sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act….” OSAYE v. HONDA PLACE LIMITED (2015) 53 NLLR (PT. 177) 51 NIC @ 66 On Whether any weight or probative value can be accorded an unsigned document It is trite that the courts cannot accord any weight or probative value to an unsigned document or an exhibit. Such will be discountenanced by the court. EDILCO (NIG.) LTD. v. UBA PLC (2000) FWLR (PT. 21) 792 referred to.] On Whether an employee accused of gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality must first be tried in a court of law before he can be disciplined “A similar argument, to the effect that in a dismissal based on an allegation of crime, the allegation must first of all be proved before the dismissal can stand or that it is trite that conduct amounting to crime must first of all be a matter for the Court of criminal tribunal before disciplinary issues or action can be raised, was advanced in IKE EDWARD CHUKWUEMEKA v. ENTERPRISE BANK unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/181/2011, the judgment of which was delivered on May 13, 2014. In reviewing the authorities, this is what this Court said at pages 16 – 17 – The claimant was invariably relying on the old dispensation as evinced by case law authorities such as BISHI v. THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (1991) 6 NWLR (PT. 197) 331 CA, which were to the effect that where a criminal offence is alleged against an employee, he must first be prosecuted for the offence before disciplinary measures if necessary are taken against him. The new dispensation is, however, exemplified by cases such as ARINZE v. FIRST BANK (NIG.) LTD. (2000) 1 NWLR 9PT. 639) 78 CA, which laid down that it is not an immutable principle that where the act of misconduct by an employee also amounts to a criminal offence, the employee must first be prosecuted before the employer can exercise his power of summary dismissal of the employee. The Supreme Court in same case, ARINZE v. FBN LTD. (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 888) 663 SC affirmed this principle when it held that an employer can dismiss an employee where the accusation against such employee is of gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality; and in such a case, it is not required under Sec. 36 (1) of the Constitution that an employee must first be tried in a court of law. That it is therefore, erroneous to contend that once crime is detected, the employer cannot discipline the employee unless he is tried and convicted first. The Supreme Court went on that in cases of misconduct bordering on criminality, all that is required of an employer before summarily dismissing an employee is to give him fair hearing by confronting him with the accusation made against him and requiring him to defend himself; and to satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected directly by the disciplinary proceedings must first be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to afford him the opportunity for representation in his own defence. The Court of Appeal in ATA POLY v. MAINA (2005) 10 NWLR (PT. 934) 487 CA reiterated and applied this principle. FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY v. NWOYE (2015) 53 NLLR (PT. 180) 446 CA @ 455 On termination of employment with statutory backing Employment with statutory backing must be terminated in the way and manner prescribed by the statute and any other manner inconsistent with the relevant statute is null and void and of no effect. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD. v. CHUKWUETO CHARLES OGBONNA (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 380) 647 referred to.]