Download PDF
RULING In a notice of preliminary objection filed on 17th May 2018, the Defendants raised an objection to the competence of the Claimant’s suit and prayed the court to strike out the suit. The grounds upon which the objection is premised are these: 1. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit because the primary relief is grounded in the tort of false imprisonment which is a subject matter outside the purview of Section 7 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. 2. No reasonable cause of action is disclosed against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. In the written address of counsel for the Defendants in support of the NPO, learned counsel, J. N. Nwabufo Esq., made separate submissions on the two grounds of the NPO. In respect of the 1st ground, it was submitted that the averments in paragraphs 10 to 31 of the statement of facts and the claims in paragraph 32 (i) and (ii) reveal that the Claimant’s case is founded on false imprisonment which claim falls outside the purview of Section 7 (1) of the NIC Act 2006. It was further submitted that the Claimant’s case falls in the realm of tort and not breach of contract of employment. The Claimant cannot pursue a claim for false imprisonment in this court. Counsel urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the case. On the 2nd ground of the NPO, it was argued by counsel for the Defendants that the Claimant sued the Defendants jointly and severally for false imprisonment and breach of contract of employment. However, the Claimant was employed by only the 3rd Defendant who is not alleged by the Claimant to have participated in his false imprisonment. Also, the Claimant failed to show in his pleadings where, when and how the Defendants falsely imprisoned him. According to counsel for the defendants, the Claimant’s case does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendants. The Claimant opposed the NPO in a written reply wherein learned counsel for the Claimant, E. J. Ogar Esq., submitted one issue for determination which is whether the Defendants are entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought as per the motion paper. Before making his arguments on the issue, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that the Defendants’ counsel had previously in this suit moved a motion where he objected to the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the Claimant’s suit is founded on false imprisonment. The Defendants also sought the striking out of the 1st Defendant’s name on the ground that there is no reasonable cause of action against him. According to counsel, in the ruling of the court in the motion delivered on 15/11/2017, it was held that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. He pointed out that the previous motion and this NPO are on the same grounds. In view of the existing ruling of the court therefore, this NPO is an abuse of court process and incompetent and should be struck out. The arguments of the Claimant’s counsel on the issue he formulated for determination is that a construction of Section 7 (1) of NIC Act 2006 and an examination of the Claimant’s case will show that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s case. The Claimant’s counsel submitted that the locking up of the Claimant happened at the work place in the course of his employment with the Defendant. The imprisonment of the Claimant was connected and incidental to his employment, as such, the claim for false imprisonment is covered in Section 7 (1) NIC Act. It was also submitted by the Claimant’s counsel that the averments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 10, and 16 to 26 of the statement of facts set out the relationship between the Defendants and the roles each of them played in the incident giving raise to the action. From the pleadings of the Claimant, he disclosed a cause of action against the Defendants. The Claimant’s counsel urged the court to refuse the Defendants’ prayer. COURT DECISION In a motion filed on 13/3/2017 in this suit, the Defendants applied for the hearing of the thresh-hold issues raised by them in paragraphs 39 and 40 of their statement of defence. The motion was heard on 15th May 2017 by my brother, Hon. Justice E.D.E. Isele. The thresh-hold issues raised in the said paragraphs of the statement of defence and which was heard in the motion of 13/3/107 are as follows: i. That the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s suit, the primary relief being grounded in the tort of false imprisonment, a subject matter outside the preview of Section 7 (1) of the NIC Act 2006 ii. That no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and will urge the court to strike out the suit. The ruling on the motion was given on 15th November 2017 by Hon. Justice E.D.E. Isele. In the ruling, it was the view of the court that the issues raised by the Defendants cannot be determined vide the motion but until hearing is conducted in the matter. The court accordingly directed that ruling on the application be reserved to form part of the judgment in the matter. The case was subsequently re-assigned to me and the Defendants brought the instant NPO. From the grounds of the Preliminary Objection and the issues canvassed by the Defendant’s counsel in the written address in support, it is clear to me that the subject of this NPO is the same with the subject of the motion of 13/3/2017. Although the earlier motion was not determined on its merit, it was the view of the court that grounds upon which the motion was founded cannot be determined until evidence is taken in the matter. Having been so directed in this matter, the Defendants went ahead to file this NPO on the same grounds as those in the earlier motion. By bringing this instant NPO before me, the Defendant’s, perhaps wants me to overrule the earlier ruling. I cannot do that. If the Defendants were not satisfied with the ruling, they ought to have appealed against it. The method they have now adopted in an attempt to have a second decision of this court on the same matter amounts to an abuse of the process of this court. Since the Defendants did not challenge or appeal that ruling, the ruling remains effective and binding on the parties. Let me add that the contention of the Defendants that the Claimant’s case is principally on tort of false imprisonment or that no cause of action is disclosed against the Defendants are matters which have the tendency of resulting to a consideration of the substance and merit of the case. It is not proper to determine such matters at the stage of this interlocutory application. It is my view, also, having examined the grounds of the NPO and the submissions in support of same by counsel for the Defendants, that the issues raised by the Defendants in the NPO are matters that can be determined only after evidence has be heard in the matter. Since the grounds of the NPO have been pleaded by the Defendants in the statement of defence, the Defendants are at liberty to raise the issues again in their final address. Accordingly, the Defendant’s NPO is struck out. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge