RULING. Upon being served with the originating process commencing this suit, the defendants filed this notice of preliminary objection dated 24/5/18 and filed on the 25/5/18, praying for striking out of this suit for being incompetent. The grounds for the objection are: 1. The Abuja Judicial Division is not proper Judicial Division to entertain this matter. 2. The 1st defendant is a natural/juristic person that can answer claims against itself. 3. The 2nd defendant named herein is not a necessary party in this matter. 4. That Sam Sunny Pharmacy Limited and Mr. Sunday Eze are two separate and distinct persons. 5. That the statement of facts discloses no cause of action against the 2nd defendant. The notice of preliminary objection is supported by a 16 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the 2nd defendant. A written address was also filed along with the notice of preliminary objection. In the written address three issues were formulated for determination. Viz: 1. Whether Abuja Judicial Division is the proper venue to institute the action as required by the rules of this Honourable Court’’. 2. Whether the 1st defendant is a juristic person that is capable of defending itself’’. 3. Whether the statement of defence (sic) discloses any cause of action against the 2nd defendant’’. The salient depositions in the affidavit in support are to the effect that the 1st defendant is a duly registered company carrying out business at No. 183 Ojo Igbede Road, Ajangbadi, Ojo, Lagos. That none of the defendants resides or have a registered office at Abuja. That the claimant has no claim against the 2nd defendant. The employment relationship in this suit is between the claimant and the 1st defendant. The letter of employment of the claimant was signed by the 2nd defendant as agent of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is not a necessary party in this suit. That Abuja judicial Division is not a proper venue for this action. As none of the defendants resides or carry out business at Abuja. The proper venue is Lagos. R. Y. Ashiru, Esq; counsel for the defendant in his oral submission before the court relied on the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection, the exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the motion on notice as his argument. ARGUMENT OF THE ISSUES: ISSUE ONE In arguing issue one, counsel while relying on Order 2 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, (Civil Procedure) Rules, submitted that filing of this suit in Abuja Judicial Division was in violation of the rules of this court. It is also argued that there is nothing in the statement of facts to bring the filing of this suit in Abuja within the proviso to Order 2 Rule 1 of the rules of this court. Counsel also submitted that a party that choses to disregard or neglect rules of court should be ready to face the consequences of such action on this submission reliance was placed on the cases of (NIG.) LTD V G. T. O. S. A. (1999), WILLIAMS V HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1982) 2 S. C. 145, COMMUNICATION LTD V MIKEMORE INVESTMENT LIMITED (2013) Vol. 6 WRN 101. It is argued that compliance with rules of court is mandatory. DUKE V AKPABIO LG (2006) 13 WRN, CORPORATE IDEAL INSURANCE LTD V AJAKUTA STEEL COMPANY LTD & 2 ORS. (2014) 2 S. C. (Pt.1) 107. In concluding his submission on this issue counsel argued that the claimant violated rules of this court on venue and urged court to strike out the action. ISSUE TWO It is the submission of counsel that vide section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) a law suit is for a determination of legal right and obligations, and that only natural and juristic persons in whom alone such legal rights and obligations can be invoked. It is argued that the 1st defendant being a company registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, is an artificial legal person and may sue and be sued in its registered name only. On this argument reliance was placed on the case of NJEMANZE V SHELL BP PORTHARCOURT (1996) 1 ALL NLR 8 and section 37 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. ISSUE THREE On third issue, it is the submission of counsel that a perusal of the statement of facts will show that no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd defendant. The failure to disclose cause of action relates to jurisdiction and will render the suit incompetent and oust the jurisdiction of the court. On this contention counsel cited the case of OMIN 111 V GOV. CROSS RIVER STATE (2007) 41 WRN 186. It is also argued while relying on section 65 of the Companied And Allied Matters Act that there is nothing in the processes before the court to show that the 2nd defendant is a necessary party to this suit. It is submitted that acts of officers of the company are acts of the company. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant as his presence is not necessary. On this submission reliance was placed on the case of GREEN V GREEN (1987) 7 S. C. (pt.11) reprint 108. In reaction to notice of preliminary objection, the claimant with leave of court filed a 20 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address in opposition to the preliminary objection. In the written address counsel distilled two issues for determination, to wit: 1. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the case was properly instituted at the Abuja Judicial Division of this Honourable Court’’. 2. Whether the 2nd defendant is a proper party in this suit’’. J. U. Idoko, Esq; counsel for the claimant in adumbration relied on the content of the counter-affidavit and the exhibit attached therein, counsel also adopted his written argument as his argument. In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that a cursory look at Order 2 Rule 1 one of the places where a suit can be filed is where the defendant carries out business. Counsel referred to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit and submitted that this suit falls squarely within the Abuja Judicial Division. It is submitted that filing of this preliminary objection is aimed at frustrating this suit. Counsel also express surprise that the defendants that employed the claimant to carry out business for the defendant in Abuja will turn round and say that they do not carry on business in Abuja. On this submission exhibit B refereed to and relied on. It is submitted that filing of this suit in Abuja Judicial Division is proper. It is submitted further that in paragraph 23 of the statement of facts and paragraph 22 of the witness statement on oath have stated the economic hardship the defendant imposed on the claimant. Counsel submitted this suit falls within the proviso to Order 2 Rule 1 as the defendants carry on business in Abuja and coupled with economic exigencies this suit is at the right venue. ISSUE TWO It is submission of counsel that the claimant’s statement of facts comes handy in determining this issue. Counsel make reference to paragraphs 3, 17 and 18 of the statement of facts, and submitted that the 2nd defendant has played active and concurring role in the course of this matter. Counsel submitted in reliance on GREEN V GREEN (1989) (supra) that a party though not interested in the claim can be made a party for some good reasons. eg where action was brought to rescind a contract any person is a proper party to it who was active or concurring in the matter which gave the plaintiff the right to rescind. It is further argued that the 2nd defendant is alter ego of the 1st defendant. In addition order 13 rule 6(1) of the rules of this court has provided that it shall not be necessary for every defendant to be interested in all the reliefs prayed for or as to every cause of action included in any proceeding against such a defendant. Counsel urged the court to discountenance and dismiss objection with substantial cost. COURT’S DECISION. From the prayers as contained in the notice of preliminary objection, the affidavit in support, the counter-affidavit, written addresses of counsel for both parties as well as the originating process commencing this suit, this application can be decided on two issues as follows: 1. ‘‘Whether this suit has been commenced at the appropriate Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria’’. 2. ‘‘Whether the 2nd defendant in this suit was properly made a party in this suit’’. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE The defendants’ position is that the claimant has filed his action against them at a wrong judicial division, thereby violating the provision of order 2 Rule 1 of the rules of this court. Therefore, the case should be struck out for none compliance with rules of court. For the claimant his action was instituted at the appropriate venue. In that the defendant carries on business in Abuja, thus, why, they engaged the claimant to carry on business on their behalf in Abuja. This issue, questioned the appropriateness of Abuja Judicial Division of the court as the correct venue for institution and trial of this action. By venue it is meant that the proper place where a suit shall be instituted and tried. The venue for institution and trial of cases refers to the territorial jurisdiction of a court over, arising in or involving persons residing within a defined territory. It is determined by geographical sphere of jurisdictional influence court can exercise over persons or an entity. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria is a federal court that exercise jurisdiction throughout the federation. However, the President of the court has power to divide the country into such number of judicial divisions, from time to time as the need arises. See section 21 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. See also the case of ABIDUN V GOVERNING COUNCIL, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, OYO (2011) 22 NLLR 56. It is to be noted that the division of the court into judicial divisions is merely for administrative convenience. This means that an originating process commencing an action can be filed in any registry of the court in the federation nearest to where the defendant or respondent resides or has presence, or in which the defendant or respondent carries on business. See Order 2 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Act 2017. The proviso to this rule has made additional provision for where political or economic environmental or other exigencies warrant, an originating process could be filed in the court’s registry in a judicial division other than that closest to the place of residence or business of the defendant or respondent. From exhibit B, which is one of the documents frontloaded and attached to the originating process, the claimant was employed by the 1st defendant to work for the 1st defendant in Abuja, the judicial division where this suit was instituted, this clearly and without any doubt goes to establish that the 1st defendant has presence and carry out business in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. This has resolved issue one in favour of the claimant against the defendant. Assuming without conceding that this suit was commenced at a wrong venue does that vitiate the suit to warrant striking out of the suit due to wrong choice of venue. The answer to this poser is simple, wrong choice of venue of commencement of an action does not in itself goes to the root of the matter to have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of this court as the defendants wants this court to hold. Wrong choice of venue or in another parlance instituting an action at a wrong judicial division is not fatal to the claimant’s action. An error of this nature does not invalidate or vitiate the proceedings. The reason being that a matter instituted or commenced at a wrong judicial division may be triad in that division, the mistake as to venue notwithstanding. Unless the president of the court otherwise direct. See Order 2 Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. It provides: Order 2 Rule 5: ‘‘Where any suit is commenced in the wrong judicial division, it may be tried in the division unless the president of the court otherwise direct’’. It is clear from the above quoted rule that the judge handling a matter in a judicial division where the matter was wrongly commenced has the discretion to continue with hearing and determination of the matter at the wrong judicial division, unless the president of the court otherwise direct. This position is further strengthened by the provision of order 5 rule 1 of the rules of this court, which makes it clear that none compliance with rules may be treated as irregularity. Order 5 Rule 1, Failure to comply with any of these rules may be treated as an irregularity and the court may give any direction as it thinks fit. All I have been trying to say above is that the institution of this action in Abuja was rightly done as the defendant has presence and carries out business in Abuja. Even, if Abuja is a wrong venue for this action, this court has been imbued with power to continue with the hearing and determination in Abuja judicial division in the absence of a contrary directive from the president of the court. Issue one is resolved in favour of the caimant. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE TWO The defendants’ position is that the 1st defendant is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued and that the 2nd defendant as an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be held liable for the act(s) carried out on behalf of the 1st defendant. It was also argued that no cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd defendant, as the contractual relationship was between the claimant and the 1st defendant. The claimant insisted that the 2nd defendant is a proper party in this suit as he actively involved in the acts that led to the institution of this suit. There is no disputing the fact that the 1st defendant in this case is a juristic person capable of suing or being sued in its corporate name as registered under the Companies and Allied matters Act. The claimant was also right in suing the 1st defendant for breach of contract of employment. However, can the 2nd defendant be said to be a property in this suit having regards to the fact that the contract of employment was between the claimant and the 1st defendant, couple with the fact that the 2nd defendant is an agent of the 1st defendant. It is trite law that in cases of contract only parties to the contract are competent to challenge any breach or non-performance of the contract. This means that a third party like an agent is not qualified to be a proper party in cases of breach or enforcement of contract, more particularly where the agent has a disclosed principal. I have perused the entire processes so far filed in respect of this suit what is clear is that the 2nd defendant is an agent of the 1st defendant his act in signing the letter of appointment of the claimant was in the course of performance of his duties, likewise the letter of suspension signed by the 2nd defendant was in the performance of his duties. On the issue of oral termination of appointment it was done at the head office of the 1st defendant in Lagos, this also goes to show that the termination was done for and on behalf of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant. In law the acts of agent is attributed as act of the principal. The mere fact that the 2nd defendant is alter ego of the 1st defendant cannot change the liability of the 1st defendant or acts performed on its behalf. One of the undisputable prerequisite of institution of an action is the existence or accrual of cause of action. This is because institution of an action is aimed at vindication of some legal rights. Such a right can only arise, if certain material facts exist. That is to say there is in existence factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person or the facts which constitute the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim. The phrase comprises every fact which is material to be proved to enable the claimant to succeed. By another definition a cause of action is in effect, the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two element. The wrongful act of the defendant which give the claimant his cause of complaint and the consequent damage, or the act on the part of the defendant which gives the claimant his cause of complaint. Having regard to the facts of this case disclosed by the claimants pleading and the definition of cause of action, it is without any doubt that the claimant has disclosed cause of action against the 1st defendant his former employer. But, he has failed to disclose cause of action against the 2nd defendant, this is because the 2nd defendant acted as agent of the 1st defendant. In the circumstance, I hold that the 2nd defendant is not a proper party in this suit since all the acts performed by him which formed the basis of this suit were done on behalf of a disclosed principal. The claimant has failed by his pleading to establish cause of action capable of being enforced against the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the 2nd defendant was wrongly joined as a party in this suit. Consequently, I hereby struck out the name of 2nd defendant from this suit for not being a proper party to be sued in respect of termination of the claimant’s appointment. From the above analysis, this suit was properly instituted in Abuja because it has been shown that the 1st defendant has presence and carries on business in Abuja. While the name of 2nd defendant is struck out for mis-joinder. Sanusi Kado, Judge.