Download PDF
RULING. The Claimant took out a complaint on 6th day of September 2016, accompanied with statement of facts, documents to be relied on at the trial, witness statement on oath, verifying affidavit, list of documents and list of witnesses. Upon being served with the complaint and its accompanying documents the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th Defendants/Applicants 9hereinafter referred to as the Applicants) vide a motion on notice dated 20th day of December 2016, and filed on 23rd day of December 2016, prays for an order of this Court dismissing this suit for being incompetent and for other order (s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. A ten paragraphs affidavit was filed in support of the motion on notice. In compliance with the rules of this Court the Applicants filed a written address along with the motion on notice. In the affidavit in support of the motion on notice, it was averred that the Claimant was compulsorily retired from the service of the Nigerian Army vide letter dated 9th day of June 2016. It was also averred that vide a letter dated 23rd day of June 2016, the Claimant/Respondent wrote to the president, Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces seeking for a redress against his retirement. The letter of complaint was channelled through the Chief of Defence Staff who vide a dated 8th day of August 2016, acknowledged Claimants/Respondent’s complaint and stated that the complaint is receiving due attention. It was also stated that the Claimant/Respondent fled this action on 6th day of September 2016, without following and exhausting administrative remedies or channel of resolution or ventilation of his grievance against the Applicants. The affidavit concluded by stating that the avenue followed by the Claimant/Respondent to seek redress in respect of his grievance was not the proper one and it was not exhaustive. Moses Ukachukwu, Esq; Counsel for the Applicants in arguing in favour of the motion on notice submitted that the law require the Claimant/Respondent to do more than he did before approaching this Honourable Court to ventilate his grievances. Counsel cited Section 178 (1) & (3) of the Armed Forces Act, and submitted that the Claimant/Respondent did not exhaust the procedure provided for an aggrieved officer to follow to ventilate his grievances. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant/Respondent did not make any application to his commanding officer. It is also contended that the Claimant did not make any complaint to the forces Council. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant/Respondent did not first exhaust the internal administrative remedies or mechanism for the resolution of his grievances before he instituted this suit on the 6th day of September 2016. Counsel further contended that the refusal or failure by the Claimant/Respondent to exhaust or even explore the internal mechanism for the resolution of his grievances is fatal to his case. On this submission Counsel relied on the case of OGUNBANBAMIBI V BADAGRY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2009) 9 WRN 156. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant’s letter to the president, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces failed to meet the requirement of section 178 (1) of the Armed Forces Act. According to Counsel the president, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces was neither the Claimant’s Commanding Officer, nor was he the Forces Council. It is the submission of Counsel that since the Claimant/Applicant did not satisfy the requirement of the law in first exhausting the internal mechanism for the resolution of his grievances, this suit is incompetent and this Court lacks jurisdiction to try it. In opposing this application the Claimant filed a 17 paragraphs affidavit on 13/2/2017, wherein it was averred that the letter of retirement of 9th June 2016, indicated that the Claimant was retired based on Disciplinary grounds i.e serious offences pursuant to paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service (2012) Revised. That vide letter dated 23/6/16 attached as exhibit ‘A’ the Claimant/Respondent wrote to the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces for redress in line with paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms & Conditions of Service (2012) Revised. It was stated that upon expiration of 30 days after writing Exhibit A, the Claimant was left with no option than to seek redress in this Court. It was averred in the counter-affidavit that the Claimant has exhausted all channels and avenues for resolution of his grievance by complaining to the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. According to Claimant it is only the president that can reinstate the Claimant back to his job. The Claimant/Respondent also file a written address along with the counter-affidavit wherein two issues for determination were submitted. To wit: 1. ‘‘Whether a Defendant can bring an application challenging the competence of a suit without having filed a statement of defence and if same does not amount to demurrer. 2. ‘‘Whether the Claimant’s suit can be said to be incompetent after a cursory look at the Claimant’s statement of Claim’’. Olayinka Adedeji, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant in advancing argument on the first issue for determination submitted that where a party is opposed to filing of a suit and challenges its competence, such a party can only do so in his pleadings by filing a statement of defence. On this submission Counsel relied on the case of DIAMOND BANK V OLALERU (2008) 14. Counsel contended that the point of law raised by the objection of the Applicants warrants the filing of a statement of Defence. Counsel contended demurrer has been abolished. Counsel also relied on TABIOWO V DISU (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1087) 533. Counsel submitted the Applicants’ motion is incompetent and same should be dismissed. On issue two, Counsel submitted that where a suit is being challenged on ground of incompetence, it is the writ of summons and statement of claim that will be looked into. Counsel cited in support of this contention the case of ETHIOPEAN AIRLINES V AFRIBANK NIG. PLC & ANR. (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1008) 245. Counsel contended that the provision of section 178 of the Armed Forces Act was cited or relied upon out of context by the Applicants in that with his retirement from service the Claimant ceased to be an officer in the Nigerian Army. Counsel contended that the only person that can reinstate the Claimant is the president, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Counsel further submitted that having written to president, Claimant has exhausted administrative remedies available to him. Counsel referred to section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit being one that arises from a matter relating to employment dispute. In concluding his submission Counsel submitted that having exhausted all remedies available in regards to Military law, this Court is vested with Jurisdiction to hear and determine this case. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance and dismiss the Applicants’ application with punitive cost. In reaction to the counter-affidavit of the Claimant/Respondent, the Applicants filed a five paragraphs further and better affidavit wherein it was averred that the letter of retirement with reference AHQMS/GI/300/226, dated 9th day of June 2016, did not state let alone conspicuously, direct that the Claimant may appeal to Mr. President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces through the Chief of Defence Staff or through anybody or authority, for that matter. It was stated that the letter was acknowledged because the letter was channelled through the Chief of Defence Staff. It was also stated that a letter to president, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is not a recognized channel for the resolution of the dispute in the circumstances of this case. That the Claimant did not exhaust the channels provided for the resolution of his complaint. It was also stated that it is only the Armed Forces Council and not the president that can reinstate the Claimant. It was averred, if the Claimant is not subject to Armed Forces Act, then even the president could not have reinstate him into the Nigerian Army. In the written address filed along with the further and better affidavit, Counsel for the Applicants adopted the two issues submitted for determination in the written address filed by the Claimant/Respondent as argument on this application. Counsel in reply to the submission of the Claimant on issue one, submitted that the sole authority relied by the Claimant on issue of demurrer is not applicable to this case. In the case of TABIOWO V DISU (Supra) relied upon by the Claimant, the Court of Appeal was interpreting the provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court of justice of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994. Counsel submitted conversely, the rules of National Industrial Court of Nigeria did not directly or indirectly abolished demurrer. It is the contention of Counsel that a party may through preliminary objection raise issue of jurisdiction at any time or stage of proceedings that is even at its initial, embryonic or incubatory stage. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s contention is therefore misconceived. On this submission Counsel relied on NIIT V DANGE (2008) 28 WRN 124, where it was held issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. Replying on issue two, Counsel for the Applicants submitted that failure of the Claimant to fulfil condition precedent as provided for in section 178 of the Armed Forces Act, rendered this suit incompetent and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. On this contention Counsel relied on ABUBAKAR V AG FEDERATION (2007) 13 WRN 78. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submission of the Claimant and uphold the objection to this suit. COURT”S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly perused the content of the originating process and its accompanying documents, as well as the motion on notice under consideration with its supporting affidavit, further and better affidavit and the written address of the Applicants. I have equally thoroughly examined the content of the counter-affidavit filed by the Claimant/Respondent and the written address filed along with the counter-affidavit. The Applicants in their written address submitted a single issue for determination. While the Claimant/Respondent in his written address submitted two issues for determination. However, it is my humble view that this application can be determined on a lone issue for determination. To wit: ‘‘Whether the Claimant has fulfilled condition precedent before instituting this action in line with section 178 of the Armed Forces Act’’. However, before proceeding to determine the issue for determination, it behoves on me to dispose of the objection raised by the Claimant to this application. In his written address, the Counsel for the Claimant contended that where a party is opposed to filing of a suit and challenges its competence, such a party can only do so in his pleadings by filing a statement of defence. Counsel contended that the point of law raised by the objection of the Applicants warrants the filing of a statement of Defence. According to Counsel Failure to file defence has rendered this application incompetent and same should be dismissed. Counsel for the Applicants in his reply to this submission, contended that the sole authority relied upon by the Claimant on issue of demurrer is not applicable to this case. Counsel went on to submit that the case of TABIOWO V DISU (Supra), is distinguishable from this suit. According to Counsel in TOBIANU’s case the Court of Appeal was interpreting the provisions of Order 22 Rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court of justice of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1994. Counsel submitted on the contrary, the rules of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria did not directly or indirectly abolished demurrer. It is the contention of Counsel that a party may through preliminary objection raise issue of jurisdiction at any time or stage of proceedings. It is to be noted that the motion on notice under consideration is praying this Court to dismiss the Claimant’s action for failure to comply with condition precedent as stipulated in section 178 of the Armed Forces Act. This presupposes that the application is challenging the competence of the action as it is presently constituted. This therefore means that an issue of jurisdiction has been raised by the Applicants. It is settled law that Jurisdiction is fundamental to hearing and determination of an action, without which any determination will be declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Thus, why in the case of UTIH V ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT.166) 166, jurisdiction of Court was described as blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law and without jurisdiction the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will definitely ceased to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise. Therefore, jurisdiction is the pillar upon which an entire case stands. The fundamental nature of Jurisdiction is such that it robs on the competence of a Court to adjudicate on a matter. The issue of jurisdiction, being the nerve centre of a court’s adjudication, can be raised at any time and at any stage of the proceedings, at the trial Court, Court of Appeal or even for the first time before the Supreme Court. The simple reason for this is that trial without jurisdiction is a nullity in its entirety. See A-G OF THE FEDERATION V SODE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT.128) 500, BANKOLE V PELU (1991) 8 NWLR (PT.211) 523, KOTOYE V SARAKI (1994) 7 NWLR (PT.357) 414. Since the application of the Defendants borders on jurisdiction of this Court it is properly raised in the way and manner it was raised, notwithstanding non filing of defence by the Defendants. The procedure adopted by the Applicant was not prohibited by the Rules of this Court. In fact the rules of this Court allows filing of this kind of application. See Order 17 Rule 1(5) (6), (7), (8) and (9) and Order 18 Rules 1 & 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. In view of the foregoing, the objection of the Claimant to the competency of the application under consideration is misconceived and is hereby rejected. I shall now proceed to determine the main issue for determination. The Applicants’ position is that the law require the Claimant/Respondent to do more than what he did before approaching this Honourable Court to ventilate his grievances i.e to exhaust administrative channels of resolving his grievances provided for under Section 178 (1) & (3) of the Armed Forces Act, before approaching this Court for redress. It is also the contention of the Applicants that the letter written by the Claimant to the President, Commander-In-Chief of Armed Forces is not in compliance with the extant provisions of section 178 of the Armed Forces Act. To the Applicants this action is premature and incompetent, until the Claimant fulfilled the condition precedent. However, the Claimant on his part submitted that by writing letter to the President in line with paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service (2012) Revised under which the Claimant was retired, he has exhausted all the available administrative channels of resolving his dispute. It is also the contention of the Claimant that it is only the president, Commander-in-Chief that can order for his reinstatement. It is the case of the Claimant that having been compulsorily retired from service he is no longer bound by the provisions of Armed Forces Act. From the affidavit evidence and the submissions of Counsel for both sides what emerges is the fact that the issue to be resolved bothers on whether the Claimant complied with the provisions of section 178 of the Armed Forces Act, before instituting this suit. There is no doubt that a thorough examination of the provisions of section 178 of the Armed Forces Act will revealed that the section makes provisions for condition precedent to be fulfilled by any officer wishing to ventilate his grievances in respect of any wrong doing occasion to him as far the provisions of the Armed Forces Act are concerned. This means that the Claimant wishing to take advantage of the provision of the Armed Forces Act to seek redress is an officer under the Act otherwise he would have no locus to seek to enforce any alleged infraction of the provisions of the Act by the Applicants. The submission of the Claimant to the effect that having been retired is no longer a officer is misconceived and is hereby rejected. The Claimant is an officer under the Armed Forces Act in so far as this suit is concerned. From the facts and submissions of Counsel for both parties the area of divergence by the parties in this suit is on whether the letter dated 23rd day of June 2016, written to the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces seeking for reconsideration of Claimant’s retirement will suffice in fulfilment of the condition precedent provided for in section 178 of the Armed Forces Act. It is also the position of the Claimant that the said letter of appeal for redress complied with laid down procedure for seeking administrative redress of his grievance regarding his wrongful retirement from service, which was purportedly carried out in line with paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms of Conditions of Service (2012) Revised. This same issue raised in this case has been resolved by the Court of Appeal Abuja Division in the case of ADHEKEGBA V MINISTER OF DEFENCE (2013) 17 NWLR (PT.1382) 126, in that case the Court of Appeal considered the provisions of section 178 of the Armed Forces Act and paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms of Conditions of Service (2012) Revised and held that a letter written to the President and Commander of the Armed Forces through the Chief of Defence Staff, seeking for redress is in substantial compliance with the provisions of section 178 of Armed Forces Act. In the same case on paragraph 09.02, the Court of Appeal opined that if an aggrieved officer followed the procedure stipulated in paragraph 09.02 Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Service (2012) Revised, it means the Claimant has appropriately followed the law and procedure in seeking redress against the wrong perpetrated against him. In compliance with the doctrine of stare decisis, I have no choice that to follow and apply the above quoted Court pf Appeal decision to the facts of this case which are similar. Applying the principle of law enunciated in the quoted Court of Appeal case to the facts of this case, I hold that the letter of 23rd day of June 2016, written by the Claimant to the President, Commander-0in-Chief of Armed Forces seeking for redress regarding his compulsory retirement vide letter dated 9th day of June 2016, has substantially complied with condition precedent set out in section 178 of the Armed Forces Act and paragraph 09.02 of the Harmonized Terms of Conditions of Service (2012) Revised. In the circumstances he cannot be denied access to this Court for redress based on alleged non fulfilment of condition precedent. In view of the foregoing, this application fails and is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit. Sanusi Kado, Judge.