Download PDF
RULING: This ruling is in respect of three applications, two filed by the defendants, while the other one filed by the claimants. The motion on notice dated 18/1/18 and filed on 19/1/18, was filed by the defendants praying for: 1. An order extending the time within which to file their memorandum of appearance, counter affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion for interlocutory injunction and statement of defence and other accompanying processes required under the rules of this Honourable Court. 2. An order deeming as duly filed and served the memorandum of appearance, counter affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion for interlocutory injunction and statement of defence and other accompanying processes which have been separately filed appropriate default and filing fees having been paid. 3. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The application is supported by a 4 paragraph affidavit in support sworn to by one Attah Okolo Isaac, a legal practitioner in the law firm of E. A. Haruna & Co. A written address was also filed a long with the motion on notice. E. A. Haruna, Esq; counsel for the defendants/applicants in making oral submission before the court relied on the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. The facts based on which this application was based are to the effect that vide exhibit ‘A’ which is a letter dated 7th day of December 2017, which was received on 20th day of December 2017, the law firm of E. A. Haruna & Co, was engaged to provide legal representation in court on behalf of the defendants. It was also stated that though the office of E. A. Haruna & Co, remained opened till 22/12/17, counsel in the chambers proceeded on Christmas and New year holiday on 18th December 2017, leaving behind only non-lawyers members of staff on duty. That information for defence was made available to the chambers on 16/1/1 8. In the written address one issue was distilled for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the motion is in compliance with the provisions of requirements of the rules’’ In arguing the issue for determination counsel submitted that by Order 9 rule 1 and Order 15 Rule 1 of the rules of this court, defendants have 14 days from the date of service on them of the originating process in this case to enter appearance and file their defence. Failure to file the said processes after the expiration of 14 days upon service on them of the originating process attract default fees until processes are filed. Order 57 rule 6(6). It is the submission of counsel that vide paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support, and exhibit A, the defendants have provided good and sufficient reasons for the failure to file defendants memorandum of appearance, counter affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion for interlocutory injunction and statement of defence within the period prescribed by the rules. In addition the defendants have paid the required penalty or default fees apart from filing fees. In conclusion counsel urged the court to grant the application. In opposing this application Lucky C. Durueke, Esq; counsel for the claimants/respondents submitted that there is an existing order and the defendants did not ask for vacating of the order. It is also submitted that there are no proposed processes attached based on which extension of time is being sought. Counsel contended in the absence of the proposed counter affidavit or statement of defence the application is not validly before the court because the documents are not exhibited. The second application is a notice of preliminary objection to the motion of 26th day of March 2018 and filed on the same day. This application is seeking for striking out of the motion on notice of 26/3/18 for being incompetent and an abuse of court process which have robbed this court of jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The grounds for the objection are: 1. The application by the defendants is tantamount to suspension or arrest of ruling of the Honourable court is unknown to the rules of this court. 2. The application is an abuse of court process. 3. This court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. Lucky C. Durueke, Esq; counsel for the claimant in adumbration before the court adopted the written Address filed along with the notice of preliminary objection as his argument. In the written address lone issue was submitted for determination, thus: ‘‘Has the Honourable court the requisite jurisdiction to arrest its ruling and allow the defendants to file a counter affidavit after the claimants have argued their application’’. In arguing the issue counsel contended that the application dated 26/3/18 by the defendants is tantamount to seeking an arrest of the delivery of the ruling of the honourable court. It is argued that this procedure adopted by the defendants is unknown to law. Counsel further contended the position is as same as in application to arrest judgment of a court. It is submitted that the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction was no longer pending when the defendants filed their said counter affidavit and the motion on notice for extension of time having been heard. Counsel submitted according to the Supreme Court the application is cynical attempt to taunt this honourable court. It is forcefully argued that the application is alien. Counsel submitted the principles against delivery of judgment will apply in this matter which is an application to ‘arrest’ the ruling of this honourable court. The defendants seeking to arrest the ruling were duly served but they stayed away from the hearing of the application. Counsel submitted Supreme Court has declared application to arrest judgment as incompetent and that the procedure is not known to our civil jurisprudence. BOB-MANUEL V BRIGGS (19995) 7 NWLR (PT.409) 537, NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD V ALHAJI ALIYU IBRAHIM ATTA (2006) 34 WRN 1. Counsel urged the court on the strength of these decisions to dismiss the defendants’ application and the ruling of the court be delivered in respect of the interlocutory injunction. It is also the submission of counsel that the counter affidavit and the written address which the defendants are seeking the leave of court to regularise and utilise cannot be used, since the claimants have already relied and argued their application, and the counter-affidavit and written address filed on 19/1/18 after argument. The law is settled the counter-affidavit and the written address are worthless. ALHAJI RISKATU RAMON V NOFUI AKANNI JINNADU (1986) 5 NWLR (PT.39) 100 @ 106, BIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V IMANI LIMITED (2007) 3 MJSC 217 @ 204, N. N. B. PLC V SANNI (2007) 7 NWLR (PT.713) 544. In concluding his argument counsel urged the court to hold that the application of the defendants is irregular, incompetent and abuse of judicial process. OPPOSITION BY THE DEFENDANTS In opposition to the claimant’s notice of preliminary objection dated 30/5/18 and filed on the same day, filed a reply on points of law. In the written address single issue was submitted for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether defendants’ motion of 26/3/18 is to arrest ruling’’. Counsel commenced argument by submitting that absence of any counter affidavit to defendants’ affidavit in support of their motion of 26/3/18 is admission of facts contained therein. Counsel submitted that on 4/12/17 when interlocutory injunction was argued court adjourned the application to 25/1/18 for reply by the defendants. It is argued that on 19/1/18, the defendants filed processes in defence of the substantive suit and application for interlocutory injunction. At the same time application for extension of time to file the said processes out of time and deeming same as duly filed and served was filed. The processes were duly served on the former counsel for the claimants that filed this suit and the application for extension of time. This is because no change of counsel was filed until 5/3/18. It contended that before the sitting of 25/1/18, counsel for the claimants was duly served with the defendants processes to regularise their position. But this fact of service was never brought to the attention of the court by counsel. Instead counsel dwelt on the non-appearance of the defendants in urging the court to rule on application for interlocutory injunction, when the matter came up on 25/1/18 for reply. It is argued that given these facts counsel was neither fair to the court nor to the defendants when he pointed out their absence but kept silent on the fact that the reply of the defendants was already duly served on him. It is contended that this conduct of counsel misled the court to adjourn the application for ruling. It is also argued that the notice of preliminary objection is, with due respect, a brazen attempt to take advantage of the lack of candour exhibited on 25/1/18. The circumstances that led to the late filing of the processes by the defendants on 19/1/18 as pointed out earlier and the reason for late arrival of their counsel in court on 25/1/18 have not been controverted. It is the argument of counsel that this court cannot close its eyes to what transpired in court in this case on 25/1/18. And that the motion of 26/3/18 was anchored on order 47 rule 22 (1) (a) of the rules of this court. It is argued the order adjourning the application for interlocutory injunction for ruling could not have been made on 25/1/18, if the attention of the court had been drawn to the facts that defendants have filed their processes on 19/1/18 and that the said processes were duly served on counsel for claimants before 25/1/18. It is submitted that the argument that the motion of 26/3/18 tantamount to suspension or arrest of ruling which is unknown to the rules of this court is misconceived, considering the circumstances that gave rise to filing of the motion on notice of 26/3/18. It is the contention of counsel that the cases of RAMON V JINADU (supra), BIL CONSTRUCTION LTD V IMANI LTD (supra) relied in the notice of preliminary objection are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. In the former, the principle that courts have always frowned at parties filing at their own option, affidavits in support of a motion once the argument of the motion has opened was restated. It is also argued that it is not proper to receive affidavit evidence after the court had adjourned for a ruling. In the instant case, the defendants/applicants did not file their own processes on 19/1/18 at their own option but pursuant to the order of 4/12/17, which gave them the opportunity to be heard in reply to claimants/applicants application for interlocutory injunction. Nor were the processes filed after the application was adjourned for ruling. In the later case, counsel for the opposing side was in court when the application was moved or argued. It was after when he was called upon to reply that he indicated that he needed an adjournment to file counter affidavit. It was in that circumstances that it was held that to grant the adjournment sought would have amounted to a breach of the right to fair hearing of the applicant as there would be no further opportunity to address any new facts arising from the counter affidavit filed. But, in this case claimants/applicants’ were yet to engage the services of counsel when claimants/applicants’ application was argued on 4/12/18. REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW Counsel for the claimants begun the reply on points of law with objection to the alleged use of uncouth and derogatory language. Counsel submitted that it is improper for counsel to use uncouth and derogatory language against a colleague. Counsel contended that it is wrong for the defendants’ counsel to freely pour these tireds on the claimants counsel. Counsel submitted this court was never mislead by counsel for the claimants. This court has remained in good control of the proceedings and utilizing the documents in the case file. It is also contended that counsel for the claimants has not demonstrated any lack of candour to be so accused. According to counsel the accusation being unreasonable is impolite. CHUKWU V INEC 2014 10 NWLR PT.1415 385. Counsel submitted that counsel should have been cautious on his accusation more particularly when the processes were served on former counsel. Counsel contended that the processes commencing this suit were duly served on the defendants. The defendants counsel was on 7/12/17 briefed three days after the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction had been argued. According to counsel this is a clear demonstration of lack of interest in the case. It is also an admission that on 4/12/17 that the claimants’ motion on notice was argued and the defendants have not filed counter affidavit and/or written address in opposition to the application for injunction. It is argued that the defendants cannot file such processes after argument. Counsel submitted there is nothing to reply even though the court adjourned for reply. It is submitted leave of court will not avail the defendants to file a counter affidavit and written address to a motion on notice that has been argued. It is submitted that order 47 rule 22 of the rules of this court being relied by counsel for the defendants is inapplicable. Pursuant to order 47 rule 22(1) this court has the power to suo motu rescind its order for the defendants to reply to the claimants’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction and is accordingly urged. There is no counter-affidavit no written address to anchor reply. Counsel contented this court like nature does not act in vain. As held in MACFOY V UAC (1962) AC 152 you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. Counsel contended vide submission of the defendants at page 4 of paragraph 1.09 is an admission against interest of the defendants. It agrees with the claimants that there was no legal substratum for the order for the defendants to reply. Counsel submitted that the order was made erroneously and the court can rescind its order, but failed to brief counsel until 7/12/18 after the motion for interlocutory injunction had been argues. The third application was a motion on notice dated and filed on 26/3/18, by the defendants, seeking for an order setting aside the order of the court made on 25/1/18 adjourning the application for interlocutory injunction to 12/3/18 for ruling and allowing the defendants to argue in opposition to the motion for interlocutory objection. E. A. Haruna Esq; counsel for the defendants argued that this court has the power pursuant to Order 47 Rule 22 of the rules of this Court to set aside the order for having been made when the facts that the defendants have filed motion on notice to file counter affidavit which had been served on the claimants have not been brought to the attention of the court. The claimant argued to the contrary that the application is incompetent and urged the court to dismiss it. COURT’S DECISION. Having carefully gone through the processes filed so far in this suit and in particular the processes regarding the three applications under consideration. It is my view that the issues to be resolved are: 1. ‘‘Whether the defendants/applicants are entitled to grant of motion on notice dated 19/1/18’’. 2. ‘‘Whether the motion on notice dated 26/3/18 is irregular, incompetent and abuse of court process’’. I shall begin this ruling with the disappointment expressed by the counsel for the claimant on the alleged uncouth and derogatory language used by the counsel for the defendants in the written address in support of his application before the court. Counsel for the claimants considered as improper and wrongful the use of uncouth and derogatory language against a colleague. According to counsel this court was never mislead by counsel for the claimants. This court has remained in good control of the proceedings and utilizing the documents in the case file. It is also contended that counsel for the claimants has not demonstrated any lack of candour to be so accused. According to counsel the accusation being unreasonable is impolite. Counsel submitted that counsel should have been cautious on his accusation more particularly when the processes were served on former counsel. My short response to the complaint of counsel is that use or deployment of insulting or foul language does not help the resolution of dispute before the court. It rather engender enmity and destroy the fraternity of the legal profession. Counsel should always be weary of use language in unjustifiable manner to ridicule a colleague. Counsel should avoid use of strong angry language in response to the position of their opponent, no matter how annoyed they are with the position of their opponent or no matter the level of disapproval of a point canvassed by an opponent, the rules of professional conduct and ethics requires that lawyers use decent language and exhibit decorum. Another issue worthy of consideration before delving into the main issues for determination, is the status of order of 4/12/17, adjourning the matter for reply by the defendants to the application of interlocutory injunction. To the defendants they argued that the defendants did not file their processes on their own option, but, pursuant to the order of 4/12/17. For the claimants their position is that the order adjourning for reply was erroneous made without jurisdiction. My take on the positions taken by counsel for both parties is that they both fell in deep misconception of the purport and intendment of the order of 4/12/17. The argument that the order of 4/12/17, adjourning the application for interlocutory injunction for reply was misleading. It must be appreciated that when the matter was adjourned, it was for reply by the defendants and not for filing of any process. The said never gave the defendants licence or authority to file counter affidavit and written address. The argument by the defendants that they filed the processes they filed before the court pursuant to the said order was a clear distortion of the order. The said order was made to give the defendants opportunity to be heard in oral response to the submission of the claimants on the interlocutory injunction on grounds of law, if any. The argument of the counsel for the claimant that the order of 4/12/18 was erroneous was equally based on total misapprehension of law. The rules of this court has allowed this court to permit a party to address it in response to any application before the court even where the party has not filed any counter-affidavit before the court. See Order 17 Rule 1 (12) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Coming to the main issues for resolution, it was argued in respect of issue one, by counsel for the claimant that by Order 9 rule 1 and Order 15 Rule 1 of the rules of this court, defendants have 14 days from the date of service on them of the originating process in this case to enter appearance and file their defence. Failure to file the said processes after the expiration of 14 days upon service on them of the originating process attract default fees until processes are filed. Order 57 rule 6(6). It is the submitted that vide paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support, and exhibit A, the defendants have provided good and sufficient reasons for the failure to file defendants memorandum of appearance, counter affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion for interlocutory injunction and statement of defence within the period prescribed by the rules. In addition the defendants have paid the required penalty or default fees apart from filing fees. The claimants counsel on his part argued that there is an existing order adjourning the suit for ruling and the defendants did not ask for vacating of the order. It is also submitted that there are no proposed processes attached based on which extension of time is being sought. Counsel contended in the absence of the proposed counter affidavit or statement of defence the application is not validly before the court because the documents are not exhibited. Subject of this application have already been filed. A search in the case file clearly established that there is a memorandum of appearance, counter-affidavit, written address and joint statement of defence, all separately filed on 19/1/18. These are the processes the defendants are seeking to regularise before the court. A part from the separate filing of these processes there are no similar or equivalent processes exhibited to the affidavit in support. However, this omission may not be fatal to the application in view of the processes separately filed before the court. Furthermore Order 5 Rule 1 of the rules of this court has empowered the court to deem non-compliance with rules of this court to be an irregularity. In the circumstance of this case I consider the omission as irregularity and capable of being cured by the processes already filed before the court. However, this holding cannot be a relief to the defendants/applicants, they still have to face the hurdle of satisfying the court that they have good and substantial reasons why they are entitled to the extension of time. The facts based on which this application was based are to the effect that vide exhibit ‘A’ which is a letter dated 7th day of December 2017, which was received on 20th day of December 2017, the law firm of E. A. Haruna & Co, was engaged to provide legal representation in court on behalf of the defendants. It was also stated that though the office of E. A. Haruna & Co, remained opened till 22/12/17, counsel in the chambers proceeded on Christmas and New year holiday on 18th December 2017, leaving behind only non-lawyers members of staff on duty. That information for defence was made available to the chambers on 16/1/1 8. The reasons adduced in the affidavit in support which has not been contradicted or controverted by a counter-affidavit the excuses may be accepted for the memorandum of appearance and joint statement of defence. But for the counter-affidavit, the reasons given in the affidavit has not explained why the counter affidavit was not filed before the hearing of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The law is trite that a counter-affidavit cannot be filed before the court after argument had been taken. Having concluded the argument of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction which was duly served on the defendants, it will be too late in the day to cry. The defendants having failed and neglected to respond at the appropriate time would have themselves to blame. For an order of extension of time to granted in respect of counter-affidavit the applicant must provide materials facts that caused the delay, but in this case there were no such facts adduced why the defendants could not file their counter-affidavit within the time stipulated by the law. Having failed to convince the court on their entitlement to file counter-affidavit after argument on the application had been concluded the prayer for extension of time to file counter-affidavit is hereby refused. On the memorandum of appearance and joint statement of defence the court is satisfied with the reasons adduced in the affidavit in support. In the circumstances extension of time is granted to the defendants to file their memorandum of appearance and joint statement of defence out of time. An order deeming the memorandum, of appearance and the joint statement of defence properly filed and served is also granted. Turning to issue two, it is argued by counsel for the claimant that the application dated 26/3/18 by the defendants is tantamount to seeking an arrest of the delivery of the ruling of the honourable court. It is argued that this procedure adopted by the defendants is unknown to law. Counsel further contended the position is as same as in application to arrest judgment of a court. It is submitted that the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction was no longer pending when the defendants filed their said counter affidavit and the motion on notice for extension of time having been heard. Counsel submitted according to the Supreme Court the application is cynical attempt to taunt this honourable court. It is forcefully argued that the application is alien. Counsel submitted the principles against delivery of judgment will apply in this matter which is an application to ‘arrest’ the ruling of this honourable court. The defendants seeking to arrest the ruling were duly served but they stayed away from the hearing of the application. For the defendants, it is argued that absence of any counter affidavit to defendants’ affidavit in support of their motion of 26/3/18 is admission of facts contained therein. Counsel submitted that on 4/12/17 when interlocutory injunction was argued court adjourned the application to 25/1/18 for reply by the defendants. It is argued that on 19/1/18, the defendants filed processes in defence of the substantive suit and application for interlocutory injunction. At the same time application for extension of time to file the said processes out of time and deeming same as duly filed and served was filed. The processes were duly served on the former counsel for the claimants that filed this suit and the application for extension of time. This is because no change of counsel was filed until 5/3/18. It contended that before the sitting of 25/1/18, counsel for the claimants was duly served with the defendants processes to regularise their position. But this fact of service was never brought to the attention of the court by counsel. Instead counsel dwelt on the non-appearance of the defendants in urging the court to rule on application for interlocutory injunction, when the matter came up on 25/1/18 for reply. It is argued that given these facts counsel was neither fair to the court nor to the defendants when he pointed out their absence but kept silent on the fact that the reply of the defendants was already duly served on him. It is contended that this conduct of counsel misled the court to adjourn the application for ruling. I shall observe here that the procedure adopted by counsel for the claimant in not filing counter-affidavit to counter and contradict the averment in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice of 26/3/18, which is the normal things to do, to indicate intention to oppose the application. The claimants chose to file notice of preliminary objection to contest the competency of the motion. It could have been neater and avoided filing more processes before the court. Resort to filing a separate application to contest the validity of the motion on notice is rather cumbersome procedure that ought not to have been adopted. I should not be understood to mean that counsel does not have the right to file any application he deems appropriate in the circumstance of his case or position he intends to project. The filing of motion to challenge another motion after filing of counter-affidavit to the motion being challenged has been recognized and sanctioned by the Court of Appeal in the case of HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC V ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD 2016 LPELR-40221 CA. The objection of the claimants to the motion of 26/3/18 was hinged on ground of incompetency. Because the application was unknown to law, an abuse of court process and absence of jurisdiction to hear and determine same. The rules of this court has made ample provision allowing a party to a suit to file this kind of application. A party before the court has the right to have his application determined. See Order 18 Rule 1 Order 17 Rule 2(2), (3) and (4) (a-c), Order 17 Rule 14(6) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. This has shown beyond dispute that contrary to the submission of counsel for the claimant that this application is not known to law is based on gross misconception of law. Therefore, I hold that the motion of the defendants filed on 26/3/18 is known to law as it was authorised by the rules of this court. With the earlier holding in this ruling to the effect that the defendants have not satisfied the requirement of grant of extension of time to file counter-affidavit on an application that has been argued, has rendered the prayers contained in the preliminary objection as well as those in the motion of 26/3/18, otiose, they have become moot and academic. Courts are enjoined not to engage in academic exercise, but focus on live issues in controversy between the parties. This is because the defendants’ counter-affidavit is no longer before the court, as the court has refused to grant extension of time and deeming it properly filed and served. All I have been saying from the foregoing is that both the preliminary objection and the motion on notice have failed, except the prayers in respect of the memorandum of appearance and joint statement of defence with all its accompanying documents, which have been found in this ruling to have been meritorious and accordingly granted. This means leave is granted to the defendants to file out of time the memorandum of appearance and joint statement of defence with its accompanying documents. The said processes already filed on 19/1/18, separately are hereby deemed properly filed and served. All other prayers in the three motions having been found not to be meritorious are hereby refused. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.