Download PDF
1. This deals with notice of preliminary objection dated 26th day of February 2019 and filed on the same day. The notice of the preliminary objection is praying for striking out of the name of the 2nd defendant for want of reasonable cause of action. 2. The grounds for the objection are:- I. The Claimant’s amended statement of facts has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. II. The grouse of the claimant in this suit is the alleged illegal termination of his employment with the 1st defendant. III. The alleged termination of the claimant’s employment with the 1st defendant was done by the 1st defendant and not the 2nd defendant. IV. That the claimant is not in the employment of the 2nd defendant. 3. The notice of the preliminary objection is supported by a 5 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Mr. Alexander Ebute, a litigation officer in the law firm of Chief Chris Uche, SAN & Co., counsel for the 2nd defendant. 4. In the affidavit the facts deposed therein are the same with the grounds of the objection as stated in the face of the objection. A written address was also filed along with the objection, wherein a single issue was formulated for determination, to wit:- ‘’Whether the amended statement of facts discloses a reasonable cause of action.’’ 5. In arguing the sole issue for determination counsel contended that the Claimant's Amended Statement of Fact did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 2nd Defendant. Counsel referred to the definition of cause of action as a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. Put differently, it is the act on the part of the Defendant, who gives the Claimant a cause of complaint. Cause of action is also said to be the aggregate of facts that give a person the right to judicial relief. On the definition of cause of action counsel placed reliance on several decisions like, A.G KWARA STATE vs. OLAWALE (1993) 1 NWLR (PT. 272) 645; SANDA vs. KUKAWA LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1991) 2 NWLR (PT. 174) 379; BELLO vs. AG OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 45) 828; ADIMORA V. AJUFO (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 80) 1; UNIJOS vs. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (PT. 1360) 478 AT 494 PARAS D- E ALSO AT 504 PARAS C- E; OJUKWU vs. YAR'ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50 AT 130-132 paras. G-B. 6. Counsel also referred to the decision in the case of UWAZURUONYE vs. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE AND ORS (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28 at 50 -51, paras. G-A, where it was held per the lead judgment of Onnoghen, J.S.C. ( as he then was) as follows: "It is settled law that a cause of action is the combination of facts which gives rise to a right to sue or institute an action in a court of law or tribunal. The term also includes all things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed/relief. See Elabanjo V. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76 at 153; P.N. Udoh Trading Co. Ltd. V. Abere (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 114 at 129. On the other hand, a reasonable cause of action is a cause of action which, when only the allegation in the statement of claim and, I may add Originating Process, are considered have some chances of success See Dantata V. Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 664) 176 at 203." 7. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of Rhodes - Vivour, J.S.C., in pages 56 - 57 Paras. H - G of the law report as follows: "A Plaintiff has a cause of action when his pleadings reveal that there has been an infraction or trespass to his rights and obligations. That is to say there must be: i. ( a) a cause of complaint,, ii. (b) a civil right or obligations fit for determination by the Court, and: iii. ( c) the issue must be justiciable iv. It must be clearly seen in the Plaintiff's pleadings the wrongful act of the Defendant, which in effect gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint and the resultant damage from the Defendant's wrongful act. See Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. Bo) 1; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669; Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; Afolayan v. Ogunrinde (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 127) 369." 8. Counsel further referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of EDJERODE vs. OHWOVWIOGOR (2001) 12 S.C. (PT. 11) 94 at 103, where cause of action was defined as every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. 9. It is also submitted that in determining the cause of action, it is the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff that shall be considered by the court and not any other document. To buttress this point counsel relied on the cases of OLOFU vs. ITODO (2010) 18 NWLR (PT.1225) 545 at 573 D-F; A.G. FEDERATION vs. A.G. LAGOS (2017) 8 NWLR (PT. 1566) 20 at 46 D-G, OKONTA & ANOR vs. EGBUNA (2013) LPELR- 21253(CA). 10. According to counsel, a critical look at the Claimant's Amended Statement of Facts will reveal that the grouse of the Claimant in the instant suit is the alleged wrongful termination of his employment with the 1st Defendant. Counsel urged the court to take judicial notice of paragraphs 1, 10, 11 of the Amended Statement of Facts wherein the averments dealt with the material issues between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. 1. It is contended by counsel that the Claimant by the aforementioned paragraphs avers that he was in the employment of the 1st Defendant before he was summarily dismissed by the 1st Defendant on or about 4th October 2017. The paragraphs in the said Amended Statement of Facts that relates to the 2nd Defendant are paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 thereof. The Claimant's averments in paragraphs 12 and 13 are denial and not allegations against the 2nd Defendant while paragraph 14 is a repetition of the reliefs being sought by the Claimant. There is nothing in the entire 14 paragraphs Amended Statement of Facts linking the reliefs sought with the 2nd Defendant. There is no grievance for the Claimant to ventilate against the 2nd Defendant. 2. It is the contention of counsel that since a legal action is aimed at vindicating a legal right, such a right can only arise if certain material facts exist, and in the instant case, none exist or has been shown to exist against the 2nd Defendant by the Claimant. Counsel also argued that there is nowhere in the Amended Statement of Facts, list of documents to be relied upon at trial or Witness Statement of Oath where the Claimant exhibited any employment, suspension or termination letter issued to him by the 2nd Defendant. to support this contention counsel referred to Order 3 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, where documents needed to be relied upon by a claimant in an action for termination of appointment is to frontload. The documents to form part of the originating process are letter of employment, or suspension or dismissal. Counsel further argued that the provisions of order 3 Rule 13 of the rules of this court stipulates by the use of the word "shall" that the requirement to exhibit the letter of employment, suspension or dismissal is mandatory. The principle governing the use of the word "shall" in a legislative sentence is that it is generally imperative or mandatory and in its ordinary meaning "shall" is a word of command, which is given the ordinarily compulsory meaning because it denotes compulsion to do an act.. in support of this proposition counsel relied on the case of AMAECHI V INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (pt.1080) 227. 3. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant from this suit due to non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. 4. In reaction to the notice of preliminary objection the claimant filed a 6 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address. 5. In reaction to the 2nd defendant’s preliminary objection the claimant filed a 6 paragraphs counter-affidavit deposed to by the Claimant; Chinedu Out and a written address. Counsel in making oral submission before the court placed reliance on all the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and adopts the written address as his argument. In the written address a single issue was formulated for determination, to wit:- ‘’Whether given the fact preferred (sic) in the claimant’s Claim against the 2nd Defendant herein, there are valid legal reasons to dismiss the 2nd Defendant’s preliminary objection, and allow the matter proceed to trial.’’ 6. Counsel started argument on the sole issue making reference to the case of: UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V ROMANUS UMEODUAGU(2004) 6-7 SC 146 @ 153-154, where it was held that a cause of action is said to arise as soon as the combination of facts giving the right to complain accrued or happened. Also the case of: COMBINED TRADE LTD V ALL STATES TRUST BANK LTD (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt 576) 56 CA, was relied upon where the Court of Appeal held that A reasonable cause of action, is a cause of action with a chance of success. 7. It is the contention of counsel that in this action as it is presently constituted against the defendants herein, the claimant is alleging: A. He was unilaterally sacked by the 1st Defendant, without an opportunity to defend himself of any allegation culminating in the sack. B. During the pendency of his case against the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant showed up with another allegation that, the Claimant had also been sacked from their employment, which was not within the knowledge of the Claimant. 8. It is the contention of counsel that there is a reasonable chance of success, if the Claimants, is able to prove his cases, against the two Defendants herein, it would therefore not serve the ends of justice, for this opposition to be granted by the court. 9. While relying on the cases of ALHAJI USMAN DANTATA V MOUKTAR MOHAMMED (2000) 5 SC and that of OSHOBOJA V AMUDA (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.250) 690, counsel contended that the claimant has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. 10. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and hold that reasonable cause of action has been disclosed. 11. The 2nd defendant/applicant upon receipt of the claimant’s counter-affidavit and written address filed a reply on points of law. It is the position of counsel for the 2nd defendant/applicant that the application for striking out of his name from this suit was based on misconception of law. 12. Counsel also contended that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit offends the provision of section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 and urged the court to stuck out same. Counsel argued that the depositions clearly shows that the facts deposed therein were derived from information received from another person, but fails to state the time, place and circumstances from which the said information was derived. 13. According to counsel a careful reading of the provision of section 115 of the Evidence Act it is clear that any person who deposes to his belief of facts in an affidavit other than facts within his personal knowledge, shall set out in a clear and complete manner leaving no doubt about the facts and circumstances that cast the base of his belief. It is argued that in the case at hand the pre-conditions in section 115 of the Evidence Act are absent, the affidavit and or paragraphs of the affidavit which failed to comply are incurably defective, unusable and go to no issue. Meaning failure to abide by the provisions of Section 115 (3) and (4) of the Evidence Act is fatal to the herein Respondent's affidavit. The same therefore is not a mere irregularity that can be waived by the Appellant. See the cases of Flour Mills of Nigeria Limited v. Ostan (1968) 2 ALL NLR 73; DYS Trocca Valessta Limited & Ors. v. Segun Sanyaolu & Ors. (2016) LPELR - 40423 {CA). Counsel urged the court to dismiss the said offending paragraphs of the Plaintiff's Counter-Affidavit. 14. Counsel also proffer argument with a heading ‘’reasonable cause of action.’’ 15. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to discountenance the erroneous submission of the claimant and grant the relief sought in the preliminary objection. COURT’S DECISION: 16. I have carefully considered the totality of the objection, the originating process and also taken due benefits of the totality of the written and oral arguments vigorously canvassed by the respective learned counsel. 17. It is very clear that the notice of preliminary objection was circumscribed on a narrow compass of non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. 18. Before resolving the issue of disclosure or non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action, I shall first and foremost, remark that apart from the argument on section 115 of the evidence Act put forward by counsel for the 2nd defendant in his reply on points of law, all the other argument canvassed in the reply on points of law are argument advance to embellish, strengthened and re-argue the issue canvassed by counsel in the main address. 19. It is of utmost important to state that reply on points of law says what it says and no more. The function of reply on points of law is to serve as an avenue through which a party entitled to it, is to address new issues, particularly on points of law arising from the reply to the main address. A reply on points of law is not an opportunity for a party to supply missing links to his earlier address or fortified it with stronger argument. Where a party under the guise of reply on points of law derails and re-argues his case the court is entitled to discountenance such argument. See WAWAMOSI & ANOR. V ADEOTI & ANOR. (2006) LPELR-11707(CA). in view of the well settled position of the law in respect of reply on points I law the argument canvassed in the reply on points of law under the heading ‘’reasonable cause of action’’ is discountenanced for the purpose of this ruling. 20. Another issue worthy of being thrashed at this point is the objection raised to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit. The law is well settled that an affidavit is a statement of fact which the maker or deponent swears to be true to the best of his knowledge, information or belief, it must contain only those facts of which the maker or deponent has personal knowledge or which are based on information which he believes to be true. In the later situation a deponent of an affidavit is required by law to disclose the source the grounds of his belief and state name and full particulars of his informant. Therefore, an affidavit shall contain only statements of facts and not extraneous matters such as objection, prayer, legal argument or conclusion. The settled legal position is that paragraphs of affidavit which offend section 115 of the e4vidence Act 2011 are liable to be discountenanced and struck out. See AG ADAMAWA V AF OF THE FEDERATON (2005) 18 NWLR (PT.958) 581, JOSIEN HOLDINGS LTD V LORNAMEAD LTD (1995) 1 NWLR (PT.371) 254, (1995) LPELR-1634 SC. 21. I have had a hard look of the content of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit of the claimant and it is patently clear to me that the averments contained therein are in violation of the provisions of section 115 of the evidence Act. In the circumstance I have no choice than to accede to the objection of counsel for the 2nd defendant on those paragraphs of the affidavit and same are hereby struck out. 22. However, I wish to state that the striking out of those paragraphs of the counter-affidavit does not make much difference to the consideration of the notice of preliminary objection. The reason being that it is a well settled principle of law and practice that preliminary objections are usually on law consequently no affidavit is necessary, or required to be filed, thereby requiring filing a response, except where the need to produce or rely on facts becomes very necessary, then an affidavit ought to be filed and that is not the case in this suit, as it will be shown when the substantive issue for determination is considered. See CONTRACT RESOURCE NIGERIA LTD & ANOR V UBA PLC (2011) LPELR-8137SC 23. Turning to the notice of preliminary objection, I shall now consider whether or not a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd defendant in this suit’’. 24. It is elementary principle of law that there must be a cause of action for an action to be maintained before a court of law. This is an indispensable pre-requisite for successful prosecution of a suit before a court of law. A suit is vindication of some legal rights. Such a right can only arise if certain material facts exist. 25. Cause of action had been defined by a plethora of decision to simply means ‘factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person’ or ‘’the facts which constitutes the essential ingredients of an enforceable right or claim’’. The phrase comprised every fact which is material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed. See EGBE V ADEFARASIN (1985) 5 SC 50, ALESE V ALADETUYI (1995) 7 SCNJ 40. By another definition cause of action ‘is in effect, the facts or combination of facts which gives rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements, the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage’. See SAVAGE V UWEICHIA (1972) 1 ALL NLR (PT.1) 251, EGBUE V ANKA (1988) 2 NWLR 598, (1988) LPELR-1038(SC), ADESOKAN V ADEGOROLU (1997) 3 SCNJ 1. It is also referred to as ‘the act on the part of the defendant which give the plaintiff his cause of complaint’. A cause of action is constituted by the bundle of aggregate of facts which the law recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make a claim for remedy or relief. It is, in short, the factual ingredients of a legal right or claim. A cause of action simply means the facts which when proved will entitled a plaintiff to a remedy against the defendant. See OSHOBOJA V AMUDA (1992) 7 SCNJ 317. The factual situation which the claimant relies to support his claim must be recognized by the law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed against the defendant. It has also been stated that having regards to the provisions of section 6(6) of the constitution a cause of action is the question as to rights and obligation of the plaintiff founding the action to be determined by the court in favour of one party against the other party. 26. However, it must be pointed out that it is the substantive law of the subject matter of litigation that one should look to find out what facts constitutes the cause of action for the particular claim. This will be determined by looking at the writ of summons and statement of claim, in the case at hand it the amended statement of facts that will be looked at to discover if there is a cause of action disclosed. See KUSADA V SOKOTO NA (1968) 1 ALL NLR 377, ADESOKAN V ADEGOROLU (1997) 3 SCNJ 1. Where statement of claim in the case at hand statement of facts discloses no cause of action and the court is satisfied no amendment no matter how ingenious will cure the defect, the statement of claim will be struck out and the action dismissed. See THOMAS V OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR 664 27. The statement of defence is irrelevant in considering issue of cause of action, but the entire circumstance of the claim will be considered. 28. In the case at hand since the issue before the court bothers on legality or otherwise of termination of employment. In view of the well settled position of the law, I shall now consider the claim of the claimant as encapsulated in the statement of facts to see if a reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd defendant. The relevant averment in the statement of facts are: 12. During the pendency of this action, the Claimant was nonplussed to receive a process from the 1st Defendant, to which exhibits were attached, tending to suggest, the claimant was dismissed-by the 2nd Defendant herein. 13. The Clamant avers and shall at the trial of this action contend that, no letter referred to in paragraph 12 above, was ever served on him by the 2nd Defendant, and the existence of same is a clear manifestation of the collusion and conspiracy of the Defendants to effectuate his dismissal giving rise to this action. 14. The Claimant avers and shall at the trial of this action contend that: a. He was never dismissed by the 2"d Defendant, in line with his terms of engagement. b. Indeed, he was involved in some problems bothering on the mishandling of some sensitive records, belonging to be the 2nd Defendant, which resulted in the involvement of the Police, who promptly arrested him, detained and arraigned him in Court. c. The matter is currently ongoing at the Chief Magistrate Court Jiwa. d. Notwithstanding the facts stated in paragraphs (a) (c) above, the 2nd Defendant; i. Summarily suspended the Claimant's salary and entitlements despite not formally confronting him with any allegations and giving him an opportunity to defend himself. ii. Neither was he given an opportunity to defend himself, he was never given or issued with any document authenticating his dismissal. e. The claimant is seeing the supposed sack letter issued by the 2nd Defendant, now frontloaded to this Court, for the first time. 15. Wherefore the Claimant claims against the 2nd Defendant are; a. A Declaration that; i. The sudden dismissal and subsequent confirmation of suspension the Claimant's appointment with the 2nd Defendant, by the letters dated 25th October 2017, is a breach of his contract of employment with the 2nd Defendant, it is null and void and of no effect. ii. The way and manner the Claimant was supposedly dismissed is an infraction of his right to fair hearing. b. An Order setting aside the terminating of the Claimant's appointme'1t with the 2nd Defendant, and directing the payment of all arrears of salary and entitlements, and his reinstatement accordingly, from the date of dismissal, that is, 4th October 2017, until the determination of this matter or such a time to be determined by this honourable Court. c. An Order compelling the payment of all outstanding salaries and entitlement due to the claimant from the date of his suspension, that is, 4th October 2017, until the determination of this action, at the rate of N242,000.00 per month (being the monthly salary of the claimants & entitlements), by the 2nd Defendant. d. Damages in the sum of N10 million, for wrongful termination of the Claimant's appointment and for the unwarranted infraction of his fundamental human right, to wit, the Right to fair hearing, guaranteed by Section of 36(2) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). e. A Declaration that the Claimant's employment with 2nd Defendant is still valid and subsisting and yet to be terminated, any purported termination of same is invalid, null and void. f. An Order setting aside any purported termination of the Claimant's employment with the 2nd Defendant, save upon compliance with the terms of engagement, with strict compliance with this right to fair hearing. g. An Order compelling the payment of all salary arrears of the Claimant, from the date of cessation of same until the valid termination of his employment with the 2nd Defendant. h. An Order for the payment of Damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant's appointment with the 2nd Defendant, in the sum of N10 million. i. The Claimant also claims against the Defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of N5million as general damages for collusion and conspiracy, resulting in the termination of the Claimant's employment with the 1st Defendant. 29. It is patently clear from the above averments and reliefs in the statement of facts reproduced that the claimant has claim some reliefs against the 2nd defendant. However there are no facts supplied in the statement of facts in proof of the allegations or claims which the claimant has against the 2nd defendant. It is to be noted that there is a world of difference between making a claim and providing facts in the pleading to support the claim. Where claims are made and no facts to back up the claims in the pleading, the cause of action has not been made out as there is nothing based on which the court can consider the claims. 30. The claim of the claimant being one on employment has to be backed by the documents stated in Order 3 Rule 13 of the rules of this Court. I have searched the complaint and the statement of facts which are the only legal documents to be considered in determining cause of action and there is nothing to show that the claimant is an employee of the 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant terminated the appointment of the claimant to warrant the claimant being made a party to this action. It must be pointed out as earlier held that the court in determining cause of action has no business looking at the defence, it is only the pleading of the claimant that is relevant in determining cause of action. 31. In the circumstance, the claimant has failed to disclose reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the application of the 2nd defendant has merit and same is hereby granted. The name of 2nd defendant is hereby struck out of this suit for non –disclosure of cause of action. 32. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: DW. Bunins, Esq; For the 1st Defendant James Odiba, Esq; for the 2nd Defendant appearing with Angel Uche, Esq; Abduljalil Musa, Esq; Smart Ukoha, Esq; and Joseph O. Esq;