Download PDF
This is a notice of preliminary objection filed by the 2nd defendant on the 9th October 2012 praying the court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant on the following grounds: (i) The 2nd defendant has no nexus of any kind with the claimant as it is based in Lagos not Enugu where the claimant claimed to have worked. (ii) That the present suit was calculated to annoy, irritate and embarrass the 2nd defendant. (iii) That throughout the array of what the claimant filed he could not establish any relationship with the 2nd defendant. The objection is supported by an 11 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Stella Ezeudeke (Mrs) a lawyer and a written address in support dated 5th October 2012. A better and further affidavit of 15 paragraphs was also sworn to by her on the 23rd October 2012. In reaction the claimant filed a counter affidavit of 20 paragraphs which was sworn to by the claimant on the 29th October 2012 and a written address in support dated 24th October 2012. Learned counsel to the 2nd defendant submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether the claimant can sue the 2nd defendant when he had no relationship with it either in employment or work schedule. He submitted that for the court to have jurisdiction to join a person as a defendant, the claimant must have a claim against the defendant who must be a necessary party for the effectual determination of the matter. He argued that the claimant has no claim against the 2nd defendant and that it is not a necessary party to this action. It was his contention that the 1st and 2nd defendants maintain separate corporate identities and that the inclusion of the 2nd defendants name was a deliberate attempt to smear its reputation. He cited Benneth Nzewi v Standard Bank of Nig. Ltd [1992] 2 ECSLR 83, Onabanjo v Ewetuga [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 288) 445, Lajumoke v Doherty [1969] NWLR 281, Ayorinde v Oni [2000] ISCNQR 180, Seven Up Bottling Company Ltd v Abiola & Sons Bottling Company Ltd [1996] 7 NWLR (Pt 463) 714. He urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant as its inclusion is an abuse of court process. Learned counsel to the claimant raised three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether there is no relationship between the claimant and the 2nd defendant. 2. Whether the 2nd defendant is not a necessary party in this suit. 3. Whether this application is not an abuse of the process of this court. He submitted that there is a relationship between the claimant and the 2nd defendant. He referred to paragraphs 4 & 6 of the affidavit in support of the preliminary objection and paragraphs 4 & 5 of the better and further affidavit and submitted that the 2nd defendant has admitted that it is the mother company and co-ordinates the affairs of the 1st defendant. He submitted that the 2nd defendant has admitted a nexus between the three parties i.e. the claimant, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant and therefore submitted that the 2nd defendant is a necessary party as this suit cannot be effectually and completely determined without the 2nd defendant being joined. He cited Madike v I.G.P. [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt 227) 70, Ikuegbowo v A.G. Lagos State [2004] 23 WRN 127, INTERCO Nig. Ltd v U.A.C. Nig. Ltd [2004] 28 WRN 41, Benneth Nzewi v Standard Bank of Nigeria [1992] 2 ECSLR 83. Learned counsel submitted that the preliminary objection is an abuse of the process of court as it is not premised upon any Rule of court. He referred to Order 11 Rule 1(1) and submitted further that the 2nd defendant is in breach of Order 9 Rule 1 having not filed its defence processes within the stipulated 14 days. He urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection. I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel. This preliminary objection is predicated on whether or not there is an employment relationship between the claimant and the 2nd defendant. Paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 of the statement of facts which has also been deposed to by the claimant in his witness statement on oath is as follows: 1. The claimant, a school certificate holder, is a resident of Enugu and works for the defendants, haven been employed by the 1st defendant on February 14, 2004, as a Motorcycle sales representative in which capacity the claimant have continued to serve the defendants from the date of his employment at her Enugu office until now, at No. 10 Colliery Avenue, G.R.A. Enugu, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court. The claimant shall rely and found on the relevant documents. 5. The defendants are sister companies, doing the same business (marketing), dealing on the same commodities (various kinds of cigarettes including Benson and Hedges, St. Moritz, Rothmans, Pall Mall, Dunhill, Consulate, Sweet Menthol, etc), managed by the same persons, and using the same facilities as well as staff. 6. In furtherance of the last foregoing paragraph the two defendants use the same staff in Enugu, sell the same products, use the same Enugu office located at No. 10 Colliery Avenue, G.R.A. Enugu, and use the same facilities, id est, car, motorcycles, lorries, etcetera. Paragraphs 4 & 6 of the 2nd defendant’s affidavit in support of this objection is reproduced as follows: 4. The 2nd defendant has its office at Lagos where it presides as the mother company to a lot of subsidiaries which 1st defendant is one. 6. That the 2nd defendant does not deal with goods but only coordinate the affairs of its subsidiaries like the 1st defendant. Paragraphs 5, 7, 11 & 13 of the claimants counter affidavit is also reproduced below: 5. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the preliminary objection is accepted and I state further that the 1st and 2nd defendants though having different head offices, are sister companies engaged in the same business, dealing on the same commodities, and managed by the same persons and using the same facilities as well as staff at their said Enugu office. 7. Further to the last foregoing paragraph, in the Enugu office of the defendants, I work for the defendants and there is no distinction in the services I render to them as they deal on the same commodity, use the same staff and facilities including motorcycle and lorries in running their business. 11. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of preliminary objection and paragraph 7 of the Better and Further Affidavit are not true and in answer, the defendants operate and interfere with one another in their Enugu office and I take instructions from both defendants and am responsible to the 2nd defendant in the running of their affairs at the Enugu office; the 2nd defendant knows me and she engaged my services at her Enugu office right from the day I was employed. 13. Paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of preliminary objection and paragraph 9 of the Better and Further Affidavit are not true; there is no way I can prosecute this case without the 2nd defendant whose affairs I also ran in her Enugu office; both defendants engaged my services and there is no difference in their job schedule. By its own deposition in paragraph 4 and 6 of the affidavit in support, the 2nd defendant has admitted being a mother company to the 1st defendant which is its subsidiary. The character of an employment relationship may be altered as between the parties with or without the interposition of third parties. It is in this sense that the triangular employment relationship evolved. See PENGASSAN v Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Suit No. NIC/LA/47/2011, the judgement of which was delivered on March 21, 2012. The courts in appropriate cases have upheld the fact of co-employer status between two employers in relation to an employee. See Onumalobi v NNPC and Warri Refining and Petrochemical Company [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt 2) 304 where the Court of Appeal held both the parent company and the subsidiary as employers of the appellant. See also Union Beverages Ltd v Pepsi cola International Ltd [1994]2 SCNJ 157 at 180 – 181; [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt 330) 1, which approved the English case of DHN Food Distribution Ltd v Lardin Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976] 3 AER 462. See also …….. v Zenith Securities …………… In light of the affidavit evidence before the court and the case law, the 2nd defendants contention of separate corporate identities does not hold water and is not relevant for determining the fact of co-employer status. In many respects, subsidiaries are bound hand and foot to the parent company and must do what the parent company says. See DHN Food Distribution Ltd v Lardin Borough of Tower Hamlets supra. The fact of an employment relationship or work schedule relationship between the claimant and 2nd defendant can only be determined during the trial of this matter. I therefore find that the 2nd defendant is a necessary party for the effectual and complete determination of all the issues in this suit. See Green v Green [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 480, Ige v Farinde [1994] 7 NWLR (Pt 354) 42. The claimant has argued that this application is incompetent as it is not brought under any Rule of court or Law. It is an objection on point of law which may be brought orally. I do not find this preliminary objection to be an abuse of court process as canvassed by the claimant. This preliminary objection is dismissed with costs of N5,000 awarded in favour of the claimant. Ruling is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae