Download PDF
RULING 1. The claimant filed this action on 29th March 2016 vide a General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness written statement on oath of the two witnesses, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendant the following reliefs – (1) A declaration that their (the claimants’) arrest and detention at the instance and instigation of the defendants were unlawful. (2) A declaration that the acts of the defendants towards them (the claimants) were defamatory. (3) A declaration that their (the claimants’) appointments with the 1st defendant were terminated wrongfully and constitute breach of contract of employment. (4) The sum of Twenty-Five Million, One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Naira for damages hereunder stated for unlawful instigation of their (the claimants’) arrest and detention, oppressions, defamation of their (the claimants’) characters and wrongful termination of their (the claimants’) appointments. PARTICULARS OF DAMGES a) Cost of securing police bail at Nigeria Police, Sagamu Area Command, Ogun State - N45,000.00. b) Solicitor’s fees for letter to the defendants - N50,000.00 c) Solicitor’s fees for service of the letters on the defendants - N20,000.00. d) General damages - N25,000,000.00 2. In reaction, the defendants filed a statement of defence, list of witness(es), written statement on oath and list of documents. The defendants did not file the memorandum of appearance; nor did it frontload the document listed in the list of documents. The defendants went on to file on 31st August 2016 a motion on notice praying that this suit be struck out in its entirety on the ground that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. In support of the motion is an affidavit and a written address. 3. The Court had at its sitting of 20th May 2016 noted that the claims of the claimant relate to his arrest and detention at the instigation of the defendants and defamation, with a third claim as to wrongful termination. Parties (starting with the claimants) were then asked by the Court to address it on this issue by filing written addresses. The claimants in compliance filed their written address on 21st September 2016. On 6th February 2017, the defendants filed a reply on points of law. 4. The defendants framed a sole issue for the determination of the Court, to wit: whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Citing Madujolu v. Nkemdilim [1962] 1 All NLR (Pt. 4) 587 at 595, the defendants recited the standard refrain as to when a court is competent to hear a matter. To the defendants, by section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, this Court can only exercise jurisdiction bin civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and any other matter arising therefrom. That the claimants’ claims as presently constituted do not fall within the purview of civil suit or matter in respect of which this court can exercise jurisdiction. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to strike out the case 5. The claimants on their part framed three issues for the determination of the Court, namely: (i) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain relief one of this action having based on unlawful arrest and detention of the claimants at the instance and instigation of the defendants which arose from workplace and related to/connected with the claimant’s employment. (ii) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain relief two of this action having based on defamation of the claimant’s character that arose from workplace and related to/connected with the claimants’ employment with the 1st defendant. (iii) Whether the Court can decline jurisdiction in this matter having regard to relief three of the claimants’ claim against the defendants that borders on wrongful termination of claimants’ contract of employment with the defendant which this Honourable Court has the exclusive jurisdiction as a matter of law to entertain. 6. In arguing their case, the claimants first schooled the Court on the general principles of jurisdiction in terms of it being the lifeblood of adjudication, it being statutorily conferred, when a court can be said to have jurisdiction, and what must be considered (the processes filed by the claimant) in order to determine whether a court has jurisdiction. The claimants then considered the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of section 254C(1)(a) to (d) of the 1999 Constitution. Referring to paragraphs 1 - 21 and 23 - 26 of the statement of facts, the claimants submitted that the facts and circumstances that led to their arrest at the instance and instigation of the defendants arose from the 1st dependent’s premises (workplace) and so is connected with the claimants’ employment with the first defendant, hence it occurred within the scope of the claimants’ employment with the 1st defendant. Accordingly, that the arrest and detention of the claimants was related to and connected with their employment; as such this Court has jurisdiction over this case, urging the Court to assume jurisdiction. The claimants advanced the same argument regarding their claim for defamation, referring to paragraphs 1 - 16 and 28 - 30 of the statement of facts. To the claimants, the unfair treatment and defamation of their character by the defendants were done within the scope of the claimants’ employment and same was connected with the claimants’ employment. In any event, that if the claimants were not employees of the 1st defendant in the first place, the defendants would to have wrongfully accused them of stealing of iron rods belonging to the 1st defendant, a fact that subsequently led to the claimants’ wrongful dismissal from employment. That it will be a wrong assumption of the law to think that this Court only has jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of wrongful dismissal from employment but not for defamation emanating from labour or employment relationship, urging the Court to assume jurisdiction. The claimants continued that the issue of wrongful dismissal is their principal claim against the 1st defendant in this suit, while the issues of unlawful arrest, detention and defamation are ancillary claims against the defendants. That a court cannot assume jurisdiction over ancillary claim when it has no jurisdiction over the main claim, citing FGN v. Oshiuomhole [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt. 860) 305 and Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State [1989] NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. That this Court is the only Court vested with the jurisdiction to hear the instant case. The claimants concluded by praying the Court to resolve all issues in their favor and assume jurisdiction over this case. 7. In their reply on points of law, the defendants referred to section 7 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 and then submitted that reliefs (1), (2) and (4) claimed by the claimants are actionable in tort and not within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court. On relief (3), the defendants contended that it is not a principal claim; that it is ancillary, over which this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction, citing Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State [1989] NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to decline jurisdiction to hear this matter and strike it out and/or dismiss it in its entirety. 8. The issue for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case as couched by the claimants. I agree with both parties that in determining the jurisdiction of the Court over a cause of action, it is the originating processes of the claimant that must be considered. In determining the competence of a suit. WAEC v. Akinola Oladipo Akinkunmi [2008] LPELR-3468(SC); [2008] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1091) 151 SC; [2008] 4 SC 1 held that the determining factor is the plaintiff’s claim. However, it is not the manner in which the claim is couched, nor the categorization given to the claim by the defendant, that matters; what matters is that the Court has the duty to carefully examine the reliefs claimed to ascertain what the claim is all about. And by Alhaji Tsoho Dan Amale v. Sokoto Local Government & ors [2012] LPELR-7842(SC), referring to Adeyemi v. Opeyori [1996] 10 SC 31, “the appellant’s claim should determine the nature of the suit and a fortiori its competence” See also Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nigeria) Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017. The reliefs claimed by the claimant have earlier been enumerated. Reliefs (1), (2) and to a large extent (4) are reliefs in trespass to the person (arrest and detention) and defamation, all claims in tort. Only relief (3) and to the extent that damages for it is included in relief (4), is a claim for wrongful termination. To the claimants, the claim for wrongful termination is their principal or main claim, and the claims for trespass to the person and defamation are ancillary claims. I think that the claimants are trying to be clever by half. Paragraphs 8 - 27 of the statement of facts are averments as to the arrest and detention of the claimants; paragraphs 28 - 35 are averments as to the defamation of their character and the negative effect of that on them as well as their request for retraction and apology. It is only in paragraphs 36 - 41 that the claimants averred as to the termination of their employment. With this scenario (and even the order in which the claimants presented their case), how can it be said that the claim for wrongful termination is the main claim in this suit? I am of the firm opinion that the claims for arrest, detention and defamation constitute the main or principal claims of the claimants as regards this suit. The claimants merely claimed for wrongful termination so as to give this case a semblance of a labour/employment case in order to file same in this Court. I so find and hold. 9. This being the case, the question remains whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case even if, as argued by the claimants, the arrest, detention and defamation complained of occurred in the workplace. Except for workplace injuries i.e. injuries occasioned by negligence at the workplace where employers are sought to be held liable under tortious principles of employer’s liability, where this Court always assumes jurisdiction given that section 254C(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution specifically confers jurisdiction on the Court over the Workmen’s Compensation Act or any other enactment replacing it (a fact recently confirmed by the Court of Appeal in SCC (Nig.) Ltd & 2 ors v. Yusuf Sedi [2013] 1 NWLR 230 per the lead judgment of His Lordship Eko, JCA), this Court has generally declined jurisdiction over other heads of liability in tort, which are all sui generis. This Court has been reluctant to assume jurisdiction even when the “matters incidental thereto or connected therewith” argument has been raised. In this respect, this Court had declined and still declines jurisdiction in claims for defamation even when the defamatory imputation was said to have arisen from the workplace. See Lawrence Idemudia v. LASU unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/08/2009 the ruling of which was delivered on September 28, 2010, Dr E. G. Ayo Akinyemi v. Crawford University [2011] 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 90 at 110 and Mr. C. E. Okeke & 2 ors v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2011] 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 161 at 183. This is because Agbo v. CBN [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370 CA held that where a master accuses a servant of misconduct, whether proved or not, but decides merely to terminate his appointment in accordance with the service agreement without reference to the fact of misconduct in the latter of termination, the servant cannot rely on wrongful termination of appointment as cause of action to clear his name for his future, among other purposes. His recourse in an appropriate case may be in an action for defamation. Additionally, Geoffery v. Setraco Nigeria Ltd & ors unreported Suit No. NIC/ABJ/296/2012 the ruling of which was delivered on 4th March 2013 is a case where an applicant was assaulted by fellow workers or superior officers and verbally abused. This Court declined jurisdiction to entertain the matter under section 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution. See also Francis v. Bedebede & ors [2012] 26 NLLR 38. 10. On the whole, and for the reasons given, I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction over this suit as couched. This case is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. 11. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD