Download PDF
RULING This is a preliminary objection dated 24th October 2011 and filed by the defendants on the 26th October, 2011. It is brought pursuant to section 6(6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, Order 11 of the NIC Rules 2007 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court praying for the following: 1. An order declaring that this court has no jurisdiction and/or should not exercise any jurisdiction to entertain this suit in its entirety and/or against 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. 2. An order striking out and/or dismissing this suit as constituted in its entirety and/or against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. 3. And for such further or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the objection is brought are: 1. The 6th and 7th defendants are not juristic persons and they lack the legal capacity to defend this suit. 2. This suit is not properly constituted. 3. The claimant has no cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. 4. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants are not a necessary and/or proper party to this suit. 5. This suit does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. 6. This suit is completely frivolous, vexatious and amount to an abuse of court process against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. 7. The suit is otherwise wholly incompetent. 8. The court in the circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in its entirety and/or against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants. The application is supported by a 5 paragraphed affidavit sworn to by Oluwadamilola Amore on the 26th October, 2011. Accompanying the preliminary objection is a written address in support. The claimant did not file a counter affidavit or a reply written address but sought the leave of the court to reply orally which was granted. The defendants adopted their written address as their arguments. Learned counsel to the defendant raised four issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the 6th and 7th defendants have the legal capacity to defend this action in consequence whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit at all or against the 6th and 7th defendants. 2. Whether the claimant has any right of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants. 3. Whether the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants are necessary parties to this suit and in consequence whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against them. 4. Whether the claimant’s claim as constituted discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants and in consequence whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. He submitted that for an action to be competent, the parties must have the requisite legal capacity to institute or defend the suit citing The Executors of the Estate of Gen. S. Abacha (Deceased) v Eke-Spiff & ors [2009] 7 NWLR (Pt 1139) 97. He submitted that on the face of the originating processes, the 6th & 7th defendants are “Group Managing Director” and “Chairman Board of Directors” who are not juristic persons and have no legal capacity to defend this suit citing Manager SCOA v G.S. Momodu (Unreported) SC 23/64 judgement delivered on 17th November 1966, Nurses Association v Attorney General [1981] 11-12 SC 1, Agbonmagbe Bank v General Manager G.B. Ollivant Ltd [1961] ANLR 116. He submitted that the suit is not properly constituted, that it is grossly incompetent and should be struck out in its entirety. Arguing in the alternative, learned counsel submitted that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the 6th & 7th defendants who are not juristic persons. That it is the law that no action can be maintained by or against any entity except a statute or common law confers legal personality on that entity citing Ataguba & Co v Gura (Nig) Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt 927) 429 at 445. He urged the court to strike out this suit in its entirety or the 6th & 7th defendants. Learned counsel argued issues 2, 3 & 4 together. He contended that by the claimants own showing, the contract of employment is between him and the 3rd defendant and his grievance is solely against the 3rd defendant and not the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants. He submitted that in so far as the claimants claim is for payment of alleged outstanding remuneration or terminal benefits, the claimant has no right of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th 6th & 7th defendants who are not his employers nor privy to the contract of employment citing Ogundere v Ogunlowo [1997] 6 NWLR (Pt 509) 361 at 371. He submitted that the claimant has no right of action or locus standi to institute or maintain the present action against the 1st, 2nd , 4th, 5th 6th & 7th defendants who are strangers to the contract of employment and urged the court to on this ground strike out the suit as constituted against the 1st, 2nd , 4th, 5th 6th & 7th defendants. Learned counsel submitted that a person is a necessary party if the questions in the suit cannot be effectually, and effectively settled unless he is a party to the action citing Green v Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt 61) SC 480, Olawaniyi v Adewumi [2008] 13 NWLR (Pt 1104) 387. He also submitted that where the issues can be effectively and completely settled without making a person a party to the suit, such a person is not a necessary party. He then argued that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th 6th & 7th defendants are not proper or necessary parties to these proceedings as they are not the employers of the claimant neither are they privy to his contract of employment. He submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a suit against parties improperly joined and whose presence is not necessary citing Uku & ors v Okumagba & ors [1974] 3 SC 24, Ehidiamen v Musa [200] 8 NWLR (Pt 669) 540. Counsel submitted that proper parties must be before the court in order for it to exercise jurisdiction citing Abadiume v Ibok [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt 975) 158 at 173, Plateau State v A.G. Federation [2006] 3 NWLR (Pt 967) 346. Arguing in the alternative, he submitted that the claimants case as constituted does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th defendants. That the statement of facts has not disclosed a cause of action vested in the claimant as the rights or interests of the claimant has not been violated by the wrongful act of the 1st, 2nd , 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants citing Ibrahim v Osim [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 82) 257, Rinco Const. Co. v Veepee Ind. Ltd [2005] 9 NWLR (Pt 929) 85, Ibrahim v Osim [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt 820) 257, Drummond Jack v BMA [1970] IAER 1094 at 1100. It was his submission that where the statement of facts discloses no reasonable cause of action the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and same ought to be struck out citing Adetona v Edet [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt 699) 186 at 190. He finally urged the court to strike out and/or dismiss this suit in its entirety against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants. Responding orally, the claimants counsel submitted that the objection is incompetent. It was his submission that the affidavit in support must contain facts and that there is no paragraph in the affidavit that states facts in support of the application citing World Gate Ltd v Senbanjo [2000] 4 NWLR (Pt 654) 661. He then urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection as lacking in merit. Replying on point of law, the defendants counsel submitted that the objection is on point of law and therefore does not require an affidavit citing A.G. Federation v A.N.P.P [2003] 18 NWLR (Pt 844) 600. In considering this preliminary objection, it must be stated that the claimants counsel has not in his oral submission replied to any of the issues raised in the objection. This amounts to conceeding to the contentious issues raised in the objection. See Okoye v Nigerian Construction & Furniture Co. Ltd [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 501 at 533 -534, Nigerian Navy & ors v Garrick [2006] All FWLR (Pt 315) 45 at 64, Grema v Janyun [2001] FWLR (Pt 54) 256 at 265. I will therefore determine this notice of preliminary objection based on the objector’s submissions alone. The 6th defendant is sued as Group Managing Director, Omatek Group of Companies while the 7th defendant is sued as Chairman, Board of Directors Omatek Group of Companies. The law is that no action can be brought by or against any party other than a natural person or persons unless such a party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly or by common law either a legal personality under the name of which it may sue or be sued or a right to sue or be sued by that name e.g. partnerships trade unions, friendly societies. See Carlen Nig. Ltd v Unijos [1994] 1 NWLR (Pt 323) 631. The 6th and 7th defendants have not been so conferred and therefore have no legal capacity to defend this suit not being juristic persons. The claimant was employed by the 3rd defendant Omatek Ventures Plc and his appointment was also terminated by the 3rd defendant who is his employer as can be seen from the documents frontloaded. There is therefore no nexus between the claimant and the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th defendants who are strangers to the employment contract. Furthermore, there is no wrongful act alleged against the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th defendants in the statement of facts and so there is no cause of action disclosed against them. On the question whether the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th defendants are proper parties, the law is settled that what determines it is the subject matter of the action and whether the persons presence is necessary for the effectual determination of the suit. See Green v Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 480, Peenok Investment Ltd v Hotel Presidential [1982] 12 SC 1. I find that the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th defendants are not necessary parties to this suit as their presence is not necessary for the effectual determination of this suit. The claimants counsel has in his oral submission contended that there are no facts in the affidavit that support the preliminary objection and so the objection is incompetent. This is a preliminary objection on point of law and so an affidavit is not required. For all the reasons given above, this suit as presently constituted against the 1st, 2nd 4th, 5th 6th & 7th defendants is incompetent. The suit is hereby struck out as presently constituted against the 1st, 2nd 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th defendants. The originating processes are to be amended accordingly to reflect Omatek Ventures Plc as the only defendant. The claimant is to proceed with his claims against Omatek Ventures Plc. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae