Download PDF
The claimants filed a complaint on the 17th May 2012 claiming jointly and severally against the defendants claiming as follows: (i) A declaration that the project labour Agreement dated 23/12/2012 between the 2nd defendant, and other participating contractor in Total (E & P) Nigerian Ltd’s OML 58 upgrade project at Obagi and Obite, Rivers State on one side and the National Union of Civil Engineering Construction Furniture and Wood Workers (NUCEFWN) is applicable to workers of sub-contractors such as 1st defendant the claimants’ employer. (ii) An order directing and compelling the defendants to pay the claimants all their respective entitlements, including but not limited to salaries and allowances, contained in the project Labour Agreement of 23/12/2010 with effect from 01/10/2010 until the 1st defendant’s sub-contract in total (E & P) Nigeria Ltd OML 58 upgrade project is completed or howsoever, terminated. (iii) An order directing and or compelling the 1st defendant to undertake a grade-by- grade computation of the claimants respective monthly salaries, allowances and other entitlements pursuant to the enhanced salary provision in the project Labour Agreement and pay all monthly arrears of the outstanding balances of their salaries ,allowances and other entitlements up to the date of determination of this suit, to the claimants’ counsel and thereafter to continue to pay their full monthly salaries as and when due, until the 1st defendant’s sub-contractors in the subject project is concluded and or terminated. (iv) An order of injunction restraining the 1st defendant from victimizing any of the claimant through dismissal, termination, lay-off or declaration of redundancy by reason of this action and or the claimants legitimate demand for their lawful entitlements. The complaint is accompanied by the statement of facts, documents to be relied on, name of witness to be called and the witness statement on oath. In reaction the two defendants entered conditional appearance. Thereafter the 1st defendant filed a preliminary objection dated 28th June 2012 and filed the same day praying for the following: (1) An order of this Honourable Court dismissing this suit in its entirety on the ground that the suit was caught up by the doctrine of res judicata in re-litigating the issues already decided between the same parties in Suit No. NICN/EN/23/2011 and as such it is an abuse of Court process and this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. (2) That the 1st to 44th claimants lack the locus standi and authorization to institute this action for and on behalf of the 45th and 46th named claimants. The grounds upon which the objection is brought are as follows: (1) The facts and reliefs sought by the claimants in this suit and the entire subject matter of this suit had already been determined by this honourable court in suit no. NICN/EN/23/2011. (2) This suit is a flagrant abuse of court process as all the documents to be relied upon are certified true copy of the same documents used by this honourable court in determining the previous suit. (3) The 1st to 44 claimants and their counsel do not possess the consent or authorization to institute this suit in the names of the 45th and 46th claimants. (4) This Honourable Court cannot sit on appeal on a matter it has already determined. The objection is supported by a nine paragraph affidavit sworn to on the 28 June 2012 by Patience .N. Kanu a Solicitor in the law firm of A.A. Simon Hart & Co. and a written address also dated 28 June, 2012. The claimants did not respond to this preliminary objection. They did not file any processes in opposition and Mr J.C. Okoye who appeared for them informed the court he was not in a position to respond to the preliminary objection. The 2nd defendant’s counsel informed the court that the 2nd defendant aligns itself with the submissions made by the 1st defendant. In the written address, counsel to the 1st defendant raised the following issues for determination: (1) Whether this honourable court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit which is caught up by the doctrine of res judicata?. (2) Whether the filing of this suit is not a flagrant abuse of the process of this Honourable Court?. (3) Whether the 1st to 44 claimants and their counsel possess the consent or authorisation of the 45th and 46th claimant to institute this suit in the names of the 45th and 46th claimant. I have carefully considered all the processes filed in this suit and for purpose of this ruling the issue for determination is whether this suit is caught up by the doctrine of res judicata. In looking at the originating processes filed it is obvious that the parties in Suits NIC/EN/23/2011 and NIC/EN/90/2012 are the same save for the addition of the names of the 45th and 46th claimants and the omission of the name of the 3rd defendant in the earlier suit. Before me is a letter from the 45th claimant dissociating itself from this suit. This letter is also exhibited in the affidavit in support of the objection. Consequently, the name of the 45th defendant is hereby struck off this suit. I find that the entire subject matter of this suit and the processes filed are exactly the same as in suit No. NIC/EN/23/2011. The ruling was delivered on the 22nd March 2012 wherein the 1st to 44th claimants were found to lack the capacity to institute the action and jurisdiction was declined. It is trite law that when an objection is raised and there is no reply to it, the objection will be sustained: See Grema v Janyun [2001] FWLR (Pt 54) 256. There is no counter affidavit opposing the preliminary objection and it is therefore deemed that all the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support are admitted. The 1st to 44th claimants cannot hide under the name of the 46th claimant to file this same action in this court. The cause of action open to the claimants is to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. I hold that this suit is caught up by the doctrine of res judicata and is an abuse of the process of court. This action is dismissed with costs of N10,000 to be paid to each of the defendants by the claimants. Ruling is entered accordingly. ……………………..……………… Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae