Download PDF
RULING This action was commenced by way of Complaint filed on the 4th day of July 2016 wherein the Claimant claimed against the defendants jointly and severally, the following reliefs: a. A Declaration that the Defendants having consciously disengaged the Claimant from their employment have no right and/or authority to thereafter hold the Claimant hostage in any form whatsoever and howsoever in his subsequent employment(s) and career pursuit within the banking industry or elsewhere, under the guise of a purported “Outstanding Obligation” allegedly owed by the Claimant to the Defendants in the course of the erstwhile employment with the Defendants. b. A Declaration that the continued withholding of the Claimant’s “Former Employer’s Reference” by the Defendants on grounds of the alleged “Outstanding Obligation” is inexcusable, unreasonable, victimizing and constitutes an unfair labour practice of immense jeopardy to the Claimant’s subsequent employment with Skye Bank Plc and also damaging to the Claimant’s banking career. c. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, either by themselves and/or through their servants, agents and officers, from further interfering with, jeopardizing and/or otherwise witch haunting/blackmailing the Claimant in any manner whatsoever while in the employment of his subsequent employers, whether it be founded upon the purported “Outstanding Obligation” allegedly owed to the Defendants by the Claimant or at all. d. An Order mandating the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as exemplary and aggravated damages for deliberately and unjustly causing unwarranted inconveniences, expenses, harassment, career threat, losses and difficulties to the Claimant through the aforesaid protracted vexatious and extremely annoying and unfair labour practices by the Defendants towards the Claimant. e. N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of this avoidable suit. By a Motion on Notice filed on the 4th day of July 2016 and brought pursuant to Orders 14(1) and 11(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 16 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, and Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. An Order directing the Defendants/Respondents to show cause why they should not be immediately restrained by the Order of this Honourable Court from further withholding and/or refusing to release the Claimant/Applicant’s reference letter to the Claimant’s employers, i.e. Skye Bank Plc; pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. 2. An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their servants, agents and officers or any person acting howsoever for or through them, from henceforth taking any step(s) and or continuing with any act(s) that is jeopardizing to the Claimant/Applicant’s current employment with Skye Bank Plc., whether it be in respect of an alleged “Outstanding Obligation” purportedly owed by the Claimant to the Defendants or at all; pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. The grounds upon which the application are brought as follows: i. The Claimant has filed a substantive action to enforce his right against industrial victimization and unfair labour practice by the Defendants against him. ii. The Defendants are under a professional duty and obligation to release the Claimant’s reference letter to his new employers, and have no known right to withhold same in order to compel the Claimant into doing their official functions when the Claimant is no longer in their employment. iii. The Defendants without reasonable cause are unjustly withholding the Claimant’s reference letter, and have refused, neglected and failed to release same to the Claimant’s current employers despite repeated demand in that respect. iv. The Claimant’s current employment with Skye Bank Plc is under imminent danger of termination for failure and refusal of the Defendants to release the Claimant’s reference letter to his new employers. v. There is need to restrain the Defendants from further jeopardizing the Claimant’s employment with Skye Bank Plc through the continued unfair labour practice by the Defendants/Respondents in unjustly withholding the aforesaid reference letter, until final hearing and determination of all issues in controversy in the instant action. vi. The Honourable Court has the requisite powers to grant this application. In support of this application is a 21-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant. In the supporting written address, counsel nominated one issue for determination, as follows: Whether the discretion of the court should not be exercised to grant this application. In arguing this sole issue, Counsel stated that the instant case is a proper case where the discretion of the court ought to be exercised in favour of the Claimant/Applicant, for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from taking any step(s) and/or continuing with any act(s) that is jeopardizing to the Claimant/Applicant’s current employment with Skye Bank Plc, whether it be in respect of an alleged “Outstanding Obligation” purportedly owed by the Claimant to the Defendants or at all; pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. Counsel argued that an application for interlocutory injunction, is a discretionary one and the court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously. See EZEBILO vs. CHINWUBA (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 108. Similarly, counsel submitted that in the exercise of the court’s discretion in an application such as this, the court has to consider the following conditions: a. Whether there is a legal right capable of being protected. b. Whether the act complained of has been completed c. Whether there is delay that may hamper the grant of the injunction. d. Whether damages would be adequate compensation e. Conduct of parties f. Applicant’s undertaking as to damages g. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant See KOTOYE vs. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325. Furthermore, counsel submitted that there exists in the Claimant’s application, an established legal right in favour of the applicant which is capable of being enforced by this court. Counsel relied on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the supporting affidavit that discloses the legal right the claimant seeks to protect from industrial victimization, as well as his right to employment sought to be preserved from adverse interference by the defendants. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant’s above stated right is enforceable by the court because it discloses triable issues and serious actions to be tried. It is counsel’s opinion relying on the case of AYORINDE vs. AG OYO STATE (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt. 434) 20 at 23, that where a serious question as to the existence or otherwise of a legal right, has been submitted for determination before a court; there is an imperative need for the court to preserve the res, ensuring its final judgment is not rendered nugatory. In this vein, counsel argued that the acts of the Defendants in the instant application, as deposed to in the supporting affidavit; if not restrained will destroy the subject matter of the main action and render the entire judicial process nugatory. Similarly, counsel contended that there is nothing in this application that will hamper its grant. Counsel contended further that the Defendants withholding of the Claimant’s reference letter during the pendency of this suit amounts to undesirable conduct which necessitates the grant of this application. Also, counsel contended further that in this case, the balance of convenience is on the side of the Claimant/Applicant who will suffer most if the Defendants are allowed to prejudice the Claimant’s employment. The Defendants have nothing to lose if the application is granted. Counsel submitted that where an applicant has shown that the justice of the case is more in granting the application than in refusing same, then the balance of convenience is said to be in favour of the applicant. See KOTOYE vs. CBN (supra). It is counsel’s opinion that if the Defendants are allowed to jeopardize the Claimant’s interest in the substantive action, the prejudice the Claimant shall be exposed to, cannot be compensated for by damages. More so, counsel submitted further that the Claimant/Applicant has undertaken to compensate the Defendants if the application is found to be frivolous and was not meant to be in the first instance. Finally, counsel argued that the Claimant/Applicant has made out a prima facie case for the court to restrain the Defendants pending the determination of the substantive action. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to grant this application in the interest of justice. On 29/9/2016, the Defendants filed a Counter Affidavit of 22 paragraphs deposed to by the 1st Defendant. In the accompanying written address, counsel formulated one issue for determination, which is: Whether the applicant has furnished material facts for justifying the grant of the interlocutory injunction against the respondents. In counsel’s argument, he aligned with the Claimant counsel’s submission that an applicant must satisfy the conditions enunciated in OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (supra) which have been listed above and do not need to be repeated here. Counsel argued further that it is the law’s requirement in respect of the grant of an injunction that in order for an applicant to succeed; a right capable of being defended must be manifest in the affidavit to attract the court’s discretion to grant the interlocutory injunction. In counsel’s words, the affidavit in support of such application must clearly indicate the interest of the Applicant and the real possibility of that interest being under threat of being vitiated or extinguished. See ADENUGA vs. ODUMERU (2003) 110 LRCN 1655 at 1658. Similarly, counsel submitted that the Applicant in this extant case has no prospect of seeking an order of this Court to compel the Defendants to issue him a reference letter to his new employer because there is no recognizable legal right that can be gleaned from the Applicant’s supporting affidavit. It is the further contention of counsel that there is no Nigerian Law that makes it obligatory for a former employer to issue a reference letter or testimonial to a former employee. Counsel asserted that the orders sought by the Applicant in this motion are vague and are not predicated on any legal right, there is no right to be protected by this court and this court cannot act in vain. See HEDLEY BRYNE & CO LTD vs. HELLER & PARTNERS LTD (1964) AC 465. Again, counsel argued that the law in relation to interlocutory injunctions is that the court must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried. Having done so, if the court finds out that it is a type of act that should be restrained by an injunction, then it should grant it. See OYEYEMI vs. IREWOLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 462. It is the contention of counsel that from the affidavit evidence before the court, it is clear that there are no substantial questions to be answered by this court because the Applicant in the substantive suit has no cause of action against the Respondents. Counsel submitted that this court is entitled to consider the whole circumstances of this matter to determine if there are issues that require answer, and that in this instance, the court will find that there are no questions to be resolved in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, counsel contended that the Applicant’s suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process; having not shown the existence of a real legal right. Counsel referred the court to the case of IDEOZU vs. OCHONMA (2006) Vol. 4 Pg. 91 at 96, where it was held that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation from destruction pending the determination of the matter. It is counsel’s submission that the subject matter of the substantive suit is the issuance of the reference letter by the 3rd Defendant, which is the same thing that the extant application seeks to achieve. Thus, counsel asserted that granting this application is tantamount to deciding the substantive suit at the preliminary stage. Learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents urged the court to refuse this application because the right claimed is unknown to any labour law. He urged the court to dismiss this application for lacking in merit. COURT’s DECISION The Claimant’s cause of action against the Defendants in this suit is the refusal of the Defendants to release a document referred to as “Former Employer’s Reference” to the Claimant’s current employer, Skye Bank Plc. The Claimant did also aver in his Statement of Facts that the reason given by the Defendants for refusing to release the said reference is that the Claimant has “Outstanding Obligation” with the Defendants. It is on this basis that the Claimant sought, among other reliefs in the Complaint, a declaration that the act of the Defendants in continuing to withhold the reference letter on grounds of alleged outstanding obligation is unreasonable and an unfair labour practice. I have also read the Statement of Defence of filed by the defendants, and I see that the Defendants, besides contending that they are not under any obligation to issue any testimonial or reference letter to the Claimant, also maintained that the Claimant has outstanding issues with regards to a loan he disbursed to one of the 3rd Defendant’s customers, Noble Global Link Ventures, to regularise with the Defendants. The pleadings of the parties have raised contentious issues, which issues have direct bearing on the instant application of the Claimant. In my view, whether or not the Defendants should be made to issue the reference letter to the Claimant depends on how the issues are resolved. The orders sought by the Claimant in the motion is not merely to restrain the Defendants from doing any act which will jeopardize the Claimant’s current employment with Skye Bank Plc; but it will also have the effect of ordering the Defendants to release the reference letter to the Claimant. This is because, the act being complained of by the Claimant, both in the substantive suit and in this motion, as affecting the Claimant’s employment with Skye Bank is the refusal of the Defendants to release the reference letter to the Claimant. That is to say, the orders sought by the Claimant in this application have the effect of releasing the reference letter to the Claimant, even when the controversy with regards to the Claimant’s entitlement to the reference letter has not been resolved. It seems to me that delving into the merit of the application is no more than determining the substantive suit at an interlocutory stage. I do agree with the Defendants counsel’s submission that granting this application will amount to deciding the substantive suit through this motion. The duty placed on a court in the determination of an interlocutory application pending the trial of a substantive suit is that care should be taken not to make pronouncements which may prejudice the claims in the substantive suit. The law is trite that at the stage of interlocutory applications, the court should avoid the resolution of complex and intricate issues of fact which touch on the merit of the matter in controversy, else it is tempted to determine the case at that stage, thus leaving nothing for the just and proper determination of the suit after hearing. See DUWIN PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL CO. LTD vs. BENEKS PHARMACEUTICAL AND COSMETICS LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1420 at 1437; ONYESOH vs. NNEBUDUN (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315 at 348; AGBOGU vs. OKOYE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1494 at 1524. It is the law that where an issue comes up in an interlocutory application and same issue is likely to come up in the substantive suit, courts have been admonished that the correct action to be taken in such a situation is to refuse the application and hear the substantive suit. See NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ESSIEN (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 306; OBIDIEGWU ONYESOH vs. NZE CHRISTOPHER NNEBEDUN (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315. In the circumstance of this case, the Claimant’s motion must fail. In view of the foregoing reason, the application is dismissed. An order for accelerated hearing of the suit is however hereby made. This is to see that the determination of the Claimant’s case is not unduly delayed. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge