Download PDF
The claimant filed an amended complaint against the defendant on the 7th May 2012 praying for the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the failure of the defendants to take the claimant through safety procedures for operating his machine constitutes gross negligence. b. A declaration that the failure of the defendants to provide the claimant with safety equipment, gadgets and wears amounts to gross negligence. c. A declaration that the defendants were negligent by exposing the claimant to the moulding machine without supervision. d. An order directing the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira only) as damages for their negligence. Accompanying the amended complaint is the amended statement of facts. The other accompanying process had been filed at the inception of this suit. In reaction the defendants filed a notice of preliminary objection urging the court to strike out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The grounds upon which the objection is premised are as follows: 1. The suit of the claimant/respondent is incompetent in law having been instituted contrary to section 7(1) (a) (i) & (ii) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. 2. The suit of the claimant/respondent is incompetent in law having been instituted contrary to Order 2 Rule 1; Order 3 Rules 4 & 7 and Order 5 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. 3. This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 4. The claimant/respondent does not have an extant cause of action that this Honourable Court can hear and determine. In support is an affidavit of 16 paragraphs sworn to by Livingstone Oppong and a written address dated 23rd May 2012. Also filed by the defendant is a further affidavit of 10 paragraphs sworn to on the 26th July 2012 by Titilayo Azeke. The claimant filed a 15 paragraph counter affidavit in opposition sworn to on the 20th June 2012 and a written address dated 20th June 2012. Another counter affidavit of 10 paragraphs was filed by the claimant on the 8th August 2012 in opposition to the defendants further affidavit. Learned counsel to the defendants/objector raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether in light of the provisions of section 7(1)(a) (i) & (ii) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and the respondent’s pleadings this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a simple claim in tort between parties whose relationship differs from, or is alien to, that specified by the Act. He submitted that jurisdiction is the life wire to every litigation and that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an action, the entire proceeding is a nullity. He cited Federal Ministry of Commerce and Tourism v Chief Benedict Eze [2006] NWLR (Pt 964) 221, Josiah Ayodele Adetayo v Kunle Ademola [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt 1215) 169, Ocean Fisheries Ltd v Veepee Industries Ltd [2009] 5 NWLR (Pt 1135) 430, Compagnie General De Geophysique Ltd v Musa Odurusan [2009] 5 NWLR (Pt 1135) 465, Josiah Ayodele Adetayo v Kunle Ademola [2012] 15 NWLR (Pt 1215) 169 at 202. He submitted that the special jurisdiction conferred on this court is in respect of labour/industrial relations, employer/employee relationship and matters incidental thereto. He argued that this suit is a simple claim in tort and that the claimant is not an employee of the defendants but a trespasser on its premises. He submitted that for the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this suit, it is to look at the pleadings of the claimant/respondent citing Apostle O.N. Godwin v Elder F.U. Okwey [2010] 16 NWLR (1219) 309. It was his submission that where the claimant pleads but withholds vital evidence or documents that will enable the court to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, then the court ought to strike out his claim. He argued that the claimant did not initiate these proceedings by due process of law as required by Order 2 Rule 1, Order 3 Rules 4 & 7 and Order 5 Rule 2 of the NIC Rules 2007 and as such the proceedings are a nullity. He cited Grace Jack v University of Agriculture Makurdi [2004] 5 NWLR (Pt 865) 208, Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 1 All NLR 587 at 595, Western Steel Works Ltd v Iron & Steel Workers Union [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt 30) 617. Counsel submitted that the claimant deliberately framed his pleadings to deny the court an early opportunity to investigate the truth of his relationship with the applicant so as to mislead the court into an exercise in futility by progressing to trial without jurisdiction citing Gani Fawehinmi v Akilu & Togun [1994] 6 NWLR (Pt 351) 387, IN RE HON. Abubakar Saidu Yar’Adua [2011] 17 NWLR (Pt 1277) 567 at 590. He urged the court to strike out this case as section 7(1)(a) (i) & (iii) of the NIC Act 2006 has not conferred this court with jurisdiction to hear a claim in tort. In reply, learned counsel to the claimant did not raise any issues but responded to each of the grounds of the objection. He referred to section 7 (1) (a) (i) & (ii of the NIC Act 2006 and section 254C (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and submitted that the jurisdiction of this court is not limited to employer/employee relationships but includes labour, safety and welfare of labour. He submitted that the court is only required to look at the claim of the claimant in determining whether or not it has jurisdiction and that from the cause of action, this is a labour/Industrial accident which this court has jurisdiction to entertain. He cited Tukur v Governor of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517 at 514, Omomeji v Kolawole Fawehinmi (No 2) [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt 150) 356, Akilu v Fawehinmi (No 2) [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt 150) 356 and submitted that the claimant has disclosed a cause of action. It was his submission that constitutional provisions are to be given the broad and wide interpretation citing Nafiu Rabiu v State [1980] 8-11 SC 130, A-G Bendel State v A-G Federation [1981] 10 SC 1 and that the clear and unambiguous interpretation of section 254C is that this court is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain this suit which bothers on the conditions of work, health, safety and welfare of the claimant while he was operating the defendants machine at their factory. Counsel argued that the defendant/objector has not referred the court to any specific rule of court which the claimant/respondent has breached and that the cases of Grace Jack v University Of Agriculture supra, Madukolu v Nkemdilim supra and Western Steel Works Ltd v Iron and Steel Workers Union supra do not advance the objection of the defendant. He contended that the court can only test the veracity of the pleadings at trial and not at this stage of the proceedings. He urged the court to dismiss the objection for lacking in merit. Having considered the processes filed and the written submissions of the parties, it is trite law that it is the claims of the claimant that the court will look at to determine jurisdiction. In this instance, the court only needs to consider the complaint and statement of facts. At this stage of the proceedings, the court is not to go into the merits of the case and begin to concern itself with affidavit evidence as the defendant to wants the court to do. The issue for determination is whether or not this court has jurisdiction over the claims of the claimant which has been reproduced above. The jurisdiction of this court is governed both by section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 and is today in the main governed by the wider provisions of section 254C (1) (a-l), (2),(3),(4)&(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. I will for the purposes of this ruling refer to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Section 254C (1) (a) & (b) provide as follows: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health , safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; (b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; The complaint before the court is a labour issue arising from the workplace. It bothers on the safety of the worker, and in this instance the claimant while on industrial attachment at the defendants factory as can be seen from the pleadings. For the defendants/objectors to argue that this court was established for employer/employee relations, that the claimant was not its employee but a trespasser and that the mere fact that an alleged injury occurred in a factory premises cannot clothe this court with jurisdiction is most unfortunate. If this argument is accepted, it then means that a student on industrial attachment in a factory and by extension, anyone operating a machine in a factory who the employer alleges is not its employee is not entitled to the protection the law gives to the worker regarding safety in the workplace. The employer then would simply argue as the defendants have done that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter thereby denying the worker the right to ventilate his/her grievance which would be absurd. It is clear from section 254C (1) (b) that the intention of the legislature is to confer this court with jurisdiction over matters arising or connected with the provisions of the Factories Act and apply same in appropriate cases. I hold that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the claimant. This suit is competent and has been instituted by due process of law, the claimant having complied with the Rules of court. I find this preliminary objection lacking in merit and is hereby dismissed. The matter is to proceed to trial. Costs of N5,000 is awarded in favour of the claimant. ..……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae