Download PDF
ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE 2. HEAD OF SERVICE, TARABA STATE 3. ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, TARABA STATE 4. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TARABA STATE 5. NIGERIACIVIL SERVICE UNION (NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT) HON. JUSTICE B.A.ADEJUMO - PRESIDENT PROF. B.B. KANYIP - MEMBER MRS V.N. OKOBI - MEMBER SUIT NO: NIC/6M/2003 DATE OF RULING - OCTOBER 11, 2005. LABOUR LAW National Industrial Court - Indemnity -Order of indemnity - Where made by the National Industrial Court - Whether can enforce same - When such application can be made. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT Indemnity - Order of indemnity – Where made by the National Industrial Court -Whether can enforce same - When such application can be made. ISSUE Whether in terms of the order made by the court on 21st October, 2003, the action for indemnity was not premature. FACTS There was a matter between the Applicant and the 1st to 4th Respondents. Terms of settlement were entered between them. The 5th Respondent was joined in the matter by the order of the court. The court later on entered the terms of settlement as the judgment of the court. The court in its judgment stated that “the Applicant is hereby ordered to indemnify the party seeking to be joined should the party seeking to be joined succeed in its application” Based on the above, the 5th Respondent filed an action of indemnity against the Applicant by means of a motion on notice. In reply to the motion, the Applicant filed a preliminary objection. The grounds of which were: that the claim was not properly constituted and as such the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter; that the claim was otherwise not cognizable under the court’s enabling Act, and the rules, and as such the application was incompetent and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter; that the application was an abuse of the process of court and as such ought to be dismissed. The preliminary objection was supported by an 11-paragraph affidavit and one exhibit. The court proceeded to hear arguments of both sides on the preliminary objection. HELD (Refusing the application): On Whether a court that made an order of indemnity has jurisdiction to hear an action to enforce same - Where a court orders an indemnity in favour of a party, that party can bring an action for indemnity and consequently the court that made the order has the jurisdiction to entertain the action. However, in the instant case, the action for indemnity brought by the 5 Respondent was premature, and could not therefore be entertained. The action should have been brought after the substantive application for enforcement of the judgment had been disposed of.