Download PDF
JUDGMENT/RULING This action was commenced by way of Originating Summons filed on the 8th June, 2016; wherein the Claimant raised a question for determination, to wit: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the payment of gratuity, pension and other terminal benefits in respect of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine, being his lawfully nominated next of kin and only surviving child, and being entitled to the letters of administration over the estate of her late father. Upon the resolution of this question, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the Claimant is the next of kin of late Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine and is entitled to the letters of administration over the estate of her late father. 2. A Declaration that it is unlawful and illegal for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to pay the terminal benefits, gratuity and pension for the estate of late Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine without recourse to his appointed Next-of-Kin while he was alive. 3. A Declaration that it is illegal and unlawful for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to permit or alter the nomination of the Claimant as the appointed Next-of-Kin to the late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine without recourse to the Claimant after the death of her father. 4. An Order nullifying the Letter of Administration by the Federal High Court FCT in favour of the 3rd and 4th Respondents individually or respectively, for the purpose of claiming the terminal benefits accruing to the estate of late Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine same having been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 5. An Order restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from paying any terminal benefits, whether as accumulated pension arrears or gratuities to the 3rd and 4th Respondents, arising from the Letter of Administration obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 6. An award of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as punitive damages against the 1st Respondent for wrongfully and wilfully altering late Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine’s records to pay the 3rd and 4th Respondents what belongs to the Claimant. The Originating Summons was supported by a 29 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant. In the supporting written address, counsel nominated one issue for determination, as follows: Whether the Claimant being the lawful administrator and nominated Next-of-Kin to her late father’s estate, is entitled to the payment of pension, gratuity, and all other retirement benefits. Counsel went further to argue by reiterating the facts deposed to in the supporting affidavit to the effect that the Claimant is the only child of her father who died intestate in 2012. Prior to his death, he was in the employment of the 1st Respondent and nominated the Claimant and her late mother (before her death in 2013) as his Next-of-Kin. Counsel argued further that at the death of the Claimant’s father, she was contacted by the 1st Respondent, who informed her that she was her late father’s Next-of-Kin and therefore entitled to receive his terminal benefits. She then, with their guidance, commenced processes to claim his terminal benefits, to wit: pensions and gratuities. Recently, the Claimant was informed by the 1st Respondent that either the 3rd or 4th Respondent had claimed and collected her late father’s gratuities amounting to over N3,000,000.00, having produced a letter of administration obtained from the Federal High Court of FCT. It is counsel’s opinion, that by the provisions of the Pension Act 1982, the applicable law at the time of the termination of the Claimant father’s employment; the Claimant is the only person entitled in law to her late father’s benefits. Thus, the court was enjoined by counsel to grant the reliefs claimed in the Originating Summons. Again, Claimant’s counsel on 8th June 2016, filed a motion on notice pursuant to Orders 11(1), (8) (1),(2), and (3) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and prayed for the following : 1. An Order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents, their agents, privies, assigns or representatives from paying gratuities, accumulated pension benefits or any terminal benefits to the 3rd and 4th Respondents or anybody whatsoever outside the Claimant/Applicant pending the determination of the substantive suit. 2. An Order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents their agents, privies, assigns or representatives from doing or continuing to do business with the 3rd and 4th Respondents in respect of the terminal benefits accruing to the estate of late Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine pending the determination of the substantive suit. The motion was supported by a 37 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Claimant. In the supporting written address, counsel nominated three issues for determination, as follows: i. Whether the Claimant/Applicant has fulfilled the conditions to enable this court to grant this application. ii. Whether the court will grant an order for injunction. iii. Whether this application is properly before the court. In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that injunctions are granted by the courts in order to protect the status quo ante bellum. See KOTOYE vs. CBN (2000) 16 WRN 71. Again, Counsel referred to the case of NEW NIGERIAN BANK vs. UDOBI (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 9, where the principles that the court has to consider in an application for injunction, were enunciated as follows: a. Whether the applicant has a legal right which he seeks to protect and he has good chances of success in the reliefs he is seeking b. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the application c. Whether damages will be adequate compensation for the applicant at the end of litigation d. Whether the applicant has established that there is a substantial issue to be tried at the hearing. See also the cases of EZEBILO vs. CHINWUBA (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 108 and OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (2000) 24 WRN 8. It is the submission of counsel that the court in determining on whose side the balance of convenience is on; considers as a question of fact, which party would suffer greater hardship if the application is refused. The rule is to show that more justice will result in granting the injunction than refusing it. See the cases of IBEZIAKO vs. CHINEKWE (1970-1) 1 ECSLR 53 and KOTOYE vs. CBN (supra). In this case, counsel submitted that the balance of convenience is on the side of the Claimant/Applicant. Also, counsel submitted further that it is in the interest of justice that this application is granted to maintain the res. In the event that the application is refused, no substantive issue would remain to be determined at trial. Furthermore, counsel contended that in the instant case, damages would not be adequate if the Respondents are not restrained from continuing with their threat. Counsel urged the court to examine the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, in order to ascertain that the Claimant/Applicant has a serious question to be tried in the substantive action. See KUFEJI vs. KOBE (1961) All NLR (Pt. 1) 113. With respect to issue two, counsel argued that it is the law that the aim and purpose of an application for interlocutory application is to maintain the status quo. And as such, a court of law is entitled to grant an interlocutory injunction where there is a threat or likelihood that the res will be destroyed or tampered with. See RANON PROPERTIES vs. FBN PLC (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 392) 1954 at 1958. Counsel argued further referring the court to the affidavit in support of this application that, the actions of the defendants/respondents has the tendency to render the outcome of the decision of the court a nullity. On issue three, counsel urged the court to hold that from the foregoing, the Claimant/Applicant has satisfied the conditions for the grant of an order of interlocutory applications as laid out in LEASING COMPANY LIMITED vs. TIGER INDUSTRIES LTD (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 347) 659 at 661-2. Thus, counsel urged the court to grant this application. On the 11th of July 2016, the 3rd and 4th Respondents, in opposition to the Originating Summons, filed a 3 paragraph Counter-Affidavit; and in opposition to the motion for injunction filed a 14 paragraph affidavit, both deposed to by the 4th Defendant/Respondent. Alongside this counter affidavit, the 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection accompanied by a written address in support of the objection and in opposition to the Originating Summons. The 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel also filed an address in opposition to the motion for interlocutory injunction. In response to the Originating Summons, counsel’s written address made out the argument that the Claimant is not the only child of the late Mr. Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu. Counsel referred to paragraph ii (b) of the Counter Affidavit where the funeral brochure of the Claimant’s father was annexed. At page 6 of the said brochure, the quote appears “left to mourn him are; two wives, two daughters, aged mother, brother and sisters”. Again, counsel submitted that the Claimant has never at any time applied or obtained a letter of administration because no evidence exists of the application empowering the Claimant to sue as lawful administrator of the estate of late Mr. Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu. Counsel submitted further that the 4th Defendant and the surviving widow have successfully applied and obtained letters of administration of the estate of late Mr. Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu, unchallenged by the Claimant. Counsel went further to argue that the only place where the Claimant was nominated as next of kin was with the 2nd Defendant’s office. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimant is incompetent to bring this action as a lawful administrator, having not obtained the letters of administration. Thus the jurisdiction of this court in this vein is removed. Counsel urged the court to hold that the 4th Defendant and the Claimant father’s second wife (Mrs Vivian Ngozi Ohanekwu) validly obtained letters of administration over the estate of late Mr. Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu. In the written address opposing the interlocutory injunction, the 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel raised one issue for determination, thus: Whether the Claimant has satisfied the conditions to enable the court to grant her application. Counsel argued that the principles guiding the grant of interlocutory injunction have been fairly settled in OBEYA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs. A.G FEDERATION (supra). Also, counsel referred to the case of BUHARI vs. OBASANJO (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 510 where the Supreme Court held inter alia: “An interlocutory injunction…is an equitable jurisdiction which the court is called upon to exercise in the light of the facts presented before it by the applicant. And in order to enable the court to exercise equitable jurisdiction, the applicant must present convincing facts which in themselves indicate the well laid down principles for granting the injunction…” Furthermore, counsel submitted that the above conditions that must be satisfied before an injunction is granted; to with the existence of the legal right the Claimant seeks to protect, and the fact that damages would not be adequate for the wrong that is threatened to the Claimant. In this regard, counsel argued that the Claimant/Applicant has not put forth the position of the Defendants being unable to pay damages in the event that her claim is successful. Counsel submitted that if the plaintiff is not in a financial position to honour his undertaking as to damages and appreciable damages to the Defendant is likely, an injunction must be refused. See: MORNING STAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD (1979) FSR 113. Again, counsel contended that the Claimant is a student and by her affidavit to the Originating Summons, stated that she is in dire financial straits and it is clear that the Claimant cannot undertake payment of damages to the Defendants. More so, counsel contended further that there is nothing in the application showing that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Claimant who has failed to show what she stands to lose in the light of the 1st and 2nd Respondents discharging their duties to the lawful administrators of her deceased father’s estate. It is counsel’s further submission that the conditions to be considered by a trial court faced with an application of this nature is limited. A court will refuse an application made out in bad faith because the discretionary power of the court to grant interlocutory injunction ought to be exercised judicially and judiciously. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s application is brought in bad faith to stall the process of claiming the terminal benefits of the Claimant’s deceased father to punish his dependants, his widow and her three children. Counsel urged the court to refuse this application because it is hinged on an incompetent action. On 22nd September 2016, the 2nd Respondent filed a 17-paragraph Counter Affidavit in opposition to the Originating Summons, deposed to by Ike Eze, a sales executive in the 2nd Respondent’s Owerri branch. In the written address filed alongside, counsel as a preliminary issue urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd Respondent from this action. Counsel predicated this issue on the fact that there is no cause of action disclosed or relief claimed against the 2nd Respondent. Also, it is counsel’s opinion that the 2nd Respondent is merely a stakeholder holding funds, prepared to obey the orders of this court and ready to pay any successful party who meets the conditions of payment, such as: production of verified letters of administration, completion of indemnity forms and so on. Furthermore, counsel posited that the 2nd Respondent is the Pension Fund Manager in whose custody the terminal benefits of late Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine is kept, while the Applicant, 3rd and 4th Respondents are in contest over the payment of the deceased’s terminal benefits. In the 3rd and 4th Defendants’ counsel Notice of Preliminary Objection, counsel sought an order striking out this suit in its entirety. The objections raised are as follows: 1. The Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this action 2. The Claimant lacks the competence to bring this action as a lawful administrator of the estate of late Mr. Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu. 3. This action is improperly initiated by the way of an Originating Summons. 4. This action constitutes an abuse of court process in its entirety. Counsel adumbrated the grounds necessitating the first three grounds of the preliminary objection as follows: 1. a. The Claimant did not apply and obtain a letter of administration prior to the institution of this action as a lawful administrator of the estate of late Mr Sunny Valentine Ohanekwu. b. The facts in the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons and motion for injunction are highly disputable, contentious and adversarial in nature and ought not to be commenced by an Originating Summons but by a complaint as spelt out in Order 3(5) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. c. The Claimant maliciously sued the 3rd Defendant who is neither a next of kin or lawful administrator of the Claimant’s deceased father’s estate. d. The action touches on the estate of the Claimant’s deceased father going by the relief 1 in the Originating Summons. 2. The Claimant brought this action in bad faith having misrepresented the true position that she is the only child of her deceased father, neglecting to aver to the fact that her father was a polygamist with a second wife and three other children. In the written address filed alongside, counsel argued that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental to the competence of a suit and the court’s authority to determine the action before it. Counsel referred to the case of INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 at 588, where it was held that: “If the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity ab initio however well conducted and brilliantly decided, they may be. This is because a defect in competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to the entire adjudication” See also CONTECNA INTL LTD vs IMB LTD (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 985) 275 and SPDC LTD vs. GOODLUCK (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt 1107) 294 at 309. Counsel argued further that for a court to be competent in a matter, the following ingredients must co-exist conjunctively, these are: 1. The court must be properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another. 2. The subject matter of the case must be within the jurisdiction of the court and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction. 3. The case must come before the court having been initiated by the due process of law and upon the fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. Further, counsel contended that the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked. This is owing to the fact that the Claimant instituted this action as a lawful administrator without first obtaining letters of administration. Also, with the affidavit of the Claimant raising contentious issues, this action ought to have been commenced by way of complaint. Counsel contended further that the Claimant’s case does not show any cause of action against the 3rd Defendant, it is brought in bad faith and total falsehood. Counsel cited the case of AFRICAN REINSURANCE CORPORATION vs JDP CONSTRUCTION NIG LTD (2003) 23 WRN 20, where it was held that: “Abuse of process of court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bonafide and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process…” Finally, counsel submitted that the Claimant suing the 3rd Defendant is irreconcilable, and the action is brought in bad faith and falsehood makes the instant action an abuse of court process. Counsel urged the court to strike out the action. On the 19th day of July 2016, the Claimant/Applicant filed a reply to the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection. In response to the 3rd and Defendants counsel’s contention that the Claimant did not apply and obtain letters of administration, is untrue. This is owing to the fact that paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s affidavit supporting the Originating Summons shows that the Claimant had commenced the process of applying for the letters of administration. The Claimant in paragraph 23 of the same affidavit indicates that she had not received the letters due to the Imo State Judiciary workers’ strike. Also, Exhibit C annexed in paragraph 7, the 1st Defendant recognized the Claimant as the next of kin by their record, contrary to the 1999 letter relied on by the 3rd and 4th Defendants. Again, counsel submitted that the letters of administration obtained by the Defendants were obtained by fraud or deliberate misrepresentation. It is counsel’s argument that commencing this action by way of Originating Summons does not vitiate the action. That in the event that the court finds that the case raises triable issues, the court is empowered to have the case transferred to the general cause list; while the parties file pleadings and other accompanying documents. Counsel went further to argue that having joined issues that require pleadings and evidence, the court was invoked to order the parties to file pleadings for the just and expeditious disposal of the issues in this matter. Finally, counsel contended that the instant action is not an abuse of court process. Besides, the 3rd and 4th Defendants have not put anything before the court to prove otherwise. All other issues raised by the Defendants are questions of fact that can only be determined on the merits at trial. Another application to be considered is the Claimant’s motion filed on 19/7/2016 pursuant to Orders 5(3) and 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, for an order joining Vivian Ngozi Ohanekwu as the 5th Defendant in this suit. This application was supported by an affidavit of 23 paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant. In the supporting written address, counsel raised an issue for determination thus: Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In arguing this issue, counsel stated that the law is clear that whosoever may be affected by the outcome of an action may apply to be joined as a party. Counsel referred to the case of ONABANJO vs. EWTUGA (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 288) 445, where it was held as follows: “It is a fundamental principle of law that all parties who will be affected one way or the other in a litigation must be made parties. They are entitled to be heard and must be heard before judgment should be given by the court.” On the purpose of the joinder, Counsel referred to RE: MOGAJI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 759 where it was held inter alia: “The two main objectives for joining a party to an action are; a. To put an end to litigation and not to have two parallel proceedings in which the same issue is tried leading to different and inconsistent results. b. To make the person joined bound by the result of the litigation.” In conclusion, counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant and grant the application. COURT’s DECISION From the foregoing, there are four applications argued before this court on which the court is to make pronouncements in this judgment. The applications, in the order of their presentation, are- 1. The substantive suit commenced by way of Originating Summons, 2. The Claimant’s motion for interlocutory injunction filed on 8th June 2016, 3. Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 11th July 2016 by the 3rd and 4th Defendants, and 4. The Claimant’s motion filed on 19/7/2016 seeking an order to join Vivian Ngozi Ohanekwu as the 5th Defendant in the suit. The preliminary objection of the 3rd and 4th Defendants challenges the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this suit. Invariably, the objection also affects the consideration of the other applications filed by the Claimant. The rule is that once the issue of a court’s jurisdiction is raised, it must be settled first and timeously too before any other step is taken in the matter. This is because the issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental in the administration of justice and where a court lacks jurisdiction, the proceedings, no matter how well conducted, will be an exercise in futility and a nullity. See INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 at 588; AGBULE vs. W.R & P CO. LTD. (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 688) 829; OSOH vs. UNITY BANK PLC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 690) 1245 at 1271; AIGORO vs. C.L & H, KWARA STATE (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 663) 1998. It is therefore in order to first consider and determine the Notice of Preliminary Objection. I have earlier set out in detail the grounds of the objection of the 3rd and 4th Defendant and the particulars in this ruling. The gist of the objection is for the court to strike out the suit for the reason that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It has been contended by the 3rd and 4th Defendants that this action touches on the estate of the Claimant’s deceased father but the Claimant is not the lawful administrator of the estate of the deceased as to enable her institute this suit. It was further contended that the facts of this suit are very contentious as such; the suit is improperly initiated by way of an Originating Summons. The causes or subject matters which this court can entertain are constitutionally settled. The subject matter jurisdiction of this court are provided in Section 254-C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The provisions of the section relevant to the resolution of this Preliminary Objection are contained in subsection 1 thereof. It provides thus: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. (b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; (c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters Connected therewith or related thereto; (d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; (e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising therefrom; (f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters; (g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace; (h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards; (i) connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto; (j) relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any- (i) collective agreement; (ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute; (iii) award or judgment of the Court : (iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute; (v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement; (vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour industrial relations or work place; (vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof; (k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto; (l) relating to- (i) appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith ; (ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; and (iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly; (m) relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreements. The import of the above provisions is that this suit can be entertained by this court only if the subject matter of the suit falls on any of the subject matters of Section 254C (1) of CFRN 1999 set out above. The question to examine at this point is whether the Claimant’s suit falls into any of the above subject matter jurisdiction of this court. It is a fundamental principle of law that jurisdiction of a Court of law is determined by the Claimant’s claim. That is to say, it is the claim before the Court that has to be looked at or examined to ascertain whether it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on the Court. See IZENKWE vs. NNADOZIE 14 WACA 361 at 363; ADEYEMI vs. OPEYORI (1976) 9- 10 S.C. 51; WESTERN STEEL WORKS vs. IRON & STEEL WORKERS (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 49) 284; TUKUR vs. GOVT. GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 549. In INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (supra) at 588 – 589. Tobi JSC (as then was) expounded the law on how jurisdiction of a trial Court is determined when he held- "In determination of whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, the Court process to be used is the pleadings of the Plaintiff, which is the statement of claim; it is the case put up by the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court." Taking the foregoing authorities into consideration, it is quite plain that in resolving the issue of jurisdiction in the instant case, the Court processes to be examined are the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support containing the cause of action and the reliefs sought. Let me first examine the facts of the Claimant’s case. In the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Claimant averred that she is the only child of Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine who died on 25th December 2012. Before his death, Mr. Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine was a retired employee of the 1st Defendant. During his lifetime, the Claimant was nominated by her father as his next of kin and upon his death, the Claimant was contacted by the 1st Defendant to receive the terminal benefits of her deceased father being his next of kin. She did commence the process to claim her father’s pension and gratuity and to also obtain letters of administration. However, she recently learnt that the 3rd and 4th Defendants, who are her uncles, have gone to alter her name from her father’s record, made themselves next of kin to her deceased father and collected her late father’s gratuity in the sum of N3,000,000.00. She learnt that the 3rd and 4th Defendants claimed to be the lawful administrators of the estate of the deceased having gone to obtain letters of administration from the Federal High Court Abuja ahead of her. The letters of administration granted to the 3rd and 4th Defendants was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and without her consent. According to the Claimant, she is the only one in law entitled to claim her late father’s benefits being the lawful administrator to her father’s estate. The 3rd and 4th Defendants have chased her away from her father’s house, claimed her father’s entitlements and house at Shell camp, Owerri. The 1st Defendant has paid her late father’s gratuity and last pension to the 3rd and 4th Defendants without recourse to her as the lawfully nominated next of kin of her deceased father. The question the Claimant sought to be determined in the Originating Summons based on the foregoing facts is: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the payment of gratuity, pension and other terminal benefits in respect of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine being his lawfully nominated next of kin of late and only surviving child being entitled to the letters of administration over the estate of her late father. The reliefs sought by the Claimant have earlier been set out in this judgment. However, for the specific purpose of proper determination of the objection at hand, I will reproduce them out here again. The Reliefs sought are these: 1. A declaration that the Claimant is the next of kin of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine and is entitled to the letters of administration over the estate of her late father. 2. A declaration that it is illegal and unlawful for the 1st and 2nd Respondents to pay the terminal benefits, gratuity and pension for the estate of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine without recourse to his appointed next of kin while he was alive. 3. A declaration that it is unlawful for the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit or alter the nomination of claimant as appointed next of kin to the late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine without recourse to the claimant after the death of her father. 4. An order nullifying the Letter of Administration by the Federal High Court FCT in favour of the 3rd and 4th Respondents individually or respectively, for the purpose of claiming the terminal benefits accruing to the estate of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine same having being obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 5. An order restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from paying any terminal benefits, whether as accumulated pension arrears or gratuities to the 3rd and 4th respondents, arising from the Letter of Administration obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 6. An award of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as punitive damages against the 1st Respondent for wrongful and wilfully altering late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine’s records to pay the 3rd and 4th Respondents what belongs to the claimant. My understanding of this case from the facts of the case and the reliefs sought is that it is a dispute purely on determination of who is the lawful administrator of the estate of the Claimant’s deceased father or the lawful next of kin of the deceased entitled to receive the deceased’s terminal benefits. Reliefs 1 to 5 are to this effect. The Claimant claims to be the next of kin of her deceased father while the 3rd and 4th Defendants have obtained letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. Hence, the Claimant is seeking this court, in relief 1, to declare that she is the next of kin of her late father and she is entitled to the Letters of Administration over his estate. She even sought in relief 4 an order nullifying the Letter of Administration granted to the 3rd and 4th Defendants by the Federal High Court. This matter, as I see it, is all about the administration of the estate of the deceased. Although the court, in Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution has jurisdiction on issues of employment and payment of salaries, gratuity or pension, this case does not fit into that provision. The dispute is not between employee and employer. The claimant is not an employee of either the 1st or the 2nd defendants. The reason for which she brought them to court is with regards to the gratuity and pension of her deceased father who had retired from the employment of the 1st defendant. I have examined the reliefs sought by the Claimant and I find that in nowhere did she seek an order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay her father’s gratuity and pension to her. The dispute in this case is rather between the Claimant and the 3rd and 4th Defendants as to who is entitled to receive the entitlements. This issue takes the claim out of the context of Section 254C(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). I find in the circumstance of this case that the suit is not seeking payment of the gratuity or pension of the Claimant’s late father, but rather about the administration of the estate of the deceased. The subject matters on which this court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in Section 254C (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) does not include determining matters of administration of estates. The issue of who is the next of kin of late Mr Ohanekwu Sunny Valentine or who is entitled to the letters of administration over the estate of the deceased is not a matter for this court. It is quite clear to me that none of the provisions of Section 254C (1) cover the subject matter of estate administration of deceased employees. Clearly, this court does not have jurisdiction on the issues brought before this court. In the result, I find that the claimant’s suit does not come under any of the subject matters contained in Section 254C (1) of the Constitution. I find merit in the preliminary objection of the 3rd and 4th Defendants. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. All other issues arising for determination have therefore become inconsequential. The suit is hereby struck out. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge