Download PDF
The claimant filed a complaint against the defendant on the 2nd April 2012. By an amended statement of facts dated 5th October 2012, the claimant claimed as follows: (i) A declaration that by virtue of clause 3.3 of the terms and conditions of employment of Intercontinental Bank Plc which regulated the claimant’s employment with the bank, the claimant is not indebted to Intercontinental Bank Plc in respect of outstanding balance (if any) due on the staff share loans granted to the claimant during his employment with the Bank and as such the defendant is not entitled to claim and receive same from the claimant. (ii) A refund of the sum N8,818,984.00 (Eight Million, Eight Hundred and Eighteen Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Four Naira) being the total sum payable by Intercontinental Bank Plc to the claimant as refundable deductions made from claimant’s salaries and emoluments towards the repayment of his staff share loan(s) and which formed part of the liabilities inherited by the defendant as a result of its merger and acquisition of the assets and liabilities of Intercontinental Bank Plc. The claimant also claim interest on the said sum at the rate of 21% per annum from April 2010 until judgement and thereafter at the rate of 21% per annum until liquidation in favour of the claimant. (iii) The sum of N34,721,732.00 being part of the liabilities acquired by the defendant from Intercontinental Bank Plc for unlawfully withholding the Claimant’s 758,282 units of Intercontinental Bank Shares purchased with his pre-merger gratuities paid in 2007 and which shares would have fetched him the sum of N34,721,732.00 when its price was at its peak on 20th May 2008. The claimant also claim interest on the said sum at the rate of 21% per annum from June 2008 until judgement and thereafter at the rate of 21% per annum until liquidation in favour of the claimant. The defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 9th October 2012. The notice of preliminary objection is brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the NIC Rules 2007, section 254C(1) (k) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The preliminary objection is praying for the following: 1. An order striking out the claimant’s suit and all originating processes served on the defendant/applicant herein. 2. And such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case. The grounds of the objection are as follows: 1. The subject matter of this suit, as distilled from the averments set out in the claimant’s claim clearly projects a loan transaction availed the claimant by the defendant’s predecessor in title to enable the claimant purchase the shares of the defendant’s predecessor in title (the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc). 2. The grant of the said loan was at the instance and application of the claimant with the said defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc. 3. The reliefs sought in this suit are not within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as outlined in section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (3rd Alteration Act). 4. The issue for adjudication is as to the liability of the claimant to liquidate a credit facility (Loan) granted to him by the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc (the defendant’s predecessor in title) is not the issue in this claim, but a commercial credit transaction (loan). 5. The facts of this suit as set out in the front loaded documents robs this Honourable Court of its jurisdiction, being a claim that borders on banker/customer relationship, as opposed to employee/employer relationship. 6. The claimant obtained several loans; (mortgage loans & share loans), from the defunct Intercontinental Bank Plc, before he resigned his appointment with the Bank on 11th January 2010. 7. The kernel of the dispute in this suit is the indebtedness of the claimant sequel to the loan he obtained from Intercontinental Bank Plc, whilst he was in its employment and does not border on the claimant’s condition of service in relation to the provisions of section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (3rd Alteration Act). The preliminary objection is supported by a 14 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Ifeoma Peters to which is attached 1 exhibit and a written address. The claimant did not file a counter affidavit but filed a written address dated 20th November 2012 in opposition. The learned SAN replied orally on point of law and both counsel adopted their written addresses. The learned SAN framed two issues for the determination of the court as follows: 1. “Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine matters relating to loan transactions with respect to its jurisdiction as highlighted in section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (3rd Alteration) Act.” 2. “Whether the claimant/respondent by the statement of facts before this Honourable Court has disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the defendant/applicant.” He submitted that one of the conditions under which a court can exercise jurisdiction is when the subject matter is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case that prevents the court from exercising it citing Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 1 ANLR 587. He further submitted that the court only needs to consider the statement of facts in trying to ascertain its jurisdiction and referred to paragraphs 4 and 8 of the statement of facts. He argued that the subject matter of this suit is a loan which the claimant obtained from the defendants predecessor in title while he was in the Banks employment and does not relate to his condition of service or unjust termination of employment. It was the submission of the learned SAN that jurisdiction to hear and determine suits relating to loans and commercial transactions are not within the scope of section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He argued that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and an objection to it ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity citing Magaji v Matari [2000] 5 SC 46 at 55, Popoola Elabanjo v Dawodu [2006] All FWLR (Pt 328) 604 at 646, Oloriode v Oyebi [1984] 1 SCNLR 390, Oloba v Akereja [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt 84) 508, Kotoye v Saraki [1994] 7 NWLR (Pt 357) 414 at 453, Izenkwe v Nnadozie [1953] WACA 361, Petrojessica Enterprises v Leventis Tech. Company Ltd [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt 244) 675. He submitted that based on the provisions of section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter and he urged the court to strike it out. On issue 2, he referred to the cases of Bello v A-G Oyo State [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 828 at 876 and Savage v Uwechia [1972] 1 All NLR (Pt 1) 251 at 256 for the definition of cause of action and submitted that no cause of action has been disclosed against the defendant either from the claim in terms of the reliefs sought and from the statement of defence together with the frontloaded documents placed before the court. He submitted that a court in determining an objection in the nature of a “no cause action” must confine itself only to the averments in the statement of facts in the determination of the question whether or not the claimant has a reasonable cause of action citing Shell Petroleum Development Corp v Onasanya [1976] 6 SC 89. He referred to the facts pleaded in paragraphs 1-7 of the statement of facts and stated that the claimant did not deny the fact that he took a loan from the defendant. He argued that this is a pre-emptive action intended to restrain the defendant from initiating recovery proceedings and argued that the court ought to in the interest of justice decline to restrain the defendant from recovering the loan granted to him, as same has become due and remained unpaid despite repeated demands. He urged the court to strike out the suit with costs of N500,000.00 against the claimant. Learned counsel to the claimant began by submitting that the only process the court needs to consider in determining jurisdiction is the claimants originating process which in this instance is the complaint and the statement of facts. He cited Federal Govt of Nigeria v Oshiomhole [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt 860) 305, A-G Federation v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1999] 9 NWLR (Pt 618) 187@ 233, A-G Kwara State v Olawale [1993]1 NWLR (Pt 272) 645 @ 674-675. He submitted that the only process the court needs to consider in determining whether there is a reasonable cause of action in a matter is the statement of facts citing Adesokan v Adegorolu [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt 179) 293 @ 305-306. It was his submission that an applicant that applies to have a case dismissed or struck out for lack of reasonable cause of action would be deemed to have admitted all facts contained in the statement of facts citing Henry Steven Engr. Ltd v Yakubu Nig Ltd [2009] 5-6 SC (Pt 1) 60. He submitted that the affidavit in support of the Preliminary objection is not recognisable in law as it is not required for the purpose of determining the issue of jurisdiction and urged the court to so hold. He submitted that issue No 1 formulated by the defendant/objector is wrong and the proper issue ought to be “whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to loans and transactions in shares (capital market transaction), but whether this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s suit having regard to the amended statement of facts and the provision of section 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act) 2010”. Regarding the defendant’s issue No 2, he submitted that there is no ground in the notice of preliminary objection which specifically states that the statement of facts did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. He argued that the relationship between grounds of an application and issues for determination is similar to the grounds of appeal and issues for determination in an appeal. He submitted that the issue for determination must relate to the grounds of appeal or else, it is unarguable, incompetent and must be struck out citing Garba v The State [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt 661) 378 @ 386. He submitted that issue No 2 is incompetent and must be struck out. Learned counsel then formulated two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claimant’s suit having regard to the amended statement of fact and the provision of section 245 (1) (k) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act) 2010. 2. Whether the amended statement of fact of the claimant disclose no reasonable cause of action. He argued that the dispute which necessitated the filing of claimant’s claim No 1 arose from the letter of demand for payment written by the defendant to the claimant while claim No 2 is ancillary to claim No 1. He submitted that both claims fall within the jurisdiction conferred on this court by section 254C (1) (k) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He argued that the shares referred to in claim No 3 represents the claimant’s pre-merger gratuity and that the claimants case is not about the acquisition and sales of those shares but the unlawful withholding of the shares which has resulted in loss of value. He submitted that this claim is within the jurisdiction of this court. It was his contention that in interpreting section 254C (1) (k), the word “any other entitlement” is meant to accommodate other types of entitlement that are not specifically mentioned. On issue No 2, learned counsel referred to Thomas v Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 67 for the definition of a reasonable cause of action. He submitted that the defendant is deemed to have admitted all the facts pleaded by the claimant and therefore deemed to have admitted paragraph 12 (i) and (ii) of the amended statement of facts which discloses a reasonable cause of action against the defendant. He submitted that the notice of preliminary objection lacks merit and that it be dismissed with costs. Replying on point of law and on the necessity to file an affidavit in support of a preliminary objection, the learned SAN submitted that as this is not a demurrer, affidavit evidence is necessary in order to give the court a holistic view of the case. He cited Boothia Maritime Inc v Fareast Mercantile Co Ltd [2001] 9 NWLR (Pt 719) 572, Nwabueze v Okoye [1988] 4 NWLR (Pt 91) 664, Bello v NBN Ltd [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt 246)206. He submitted that where the principal claim does not confer jurisdiction on the court, the ancillary claim cannot confer jurisdiction citing Cotecna v IMB [2006] 6 MJSC 89 @ 105-108. He urged the court to strike out the suit. Having carefully considered the processes filed and the written submissions of the parties, the issue for determination is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the claimant which has been reproduced above. I will begin with the preliminary issue raised by learned counsel that the affidavit filed in support of this objection is not required. There is no mandatory requirement under the Rules of this court for a preliminary objection to be accompanied by an affidavit but if the objection is in the form of a motion on notice, it must be supported by an affidavit. A preliminary objection need not be supported by an affidavit as long as enough material is placed before the court. See ANPP v INEC [2005] All FWLR 971. A notice of preliminary objection without an affidavit in support is suited for matters of law only and could be appropriate where only the statement of claim and complaint are before the court. An affidavit is not a prerequisite to the raising of a preliminary objection on point of law such as in this instance because there is sufficient material before the court. See Bello v NBN Ltd [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt 246) 206, African Reinsurance Corp v J.D.P Construction Nig Ltd [2003] FWLR (Pt 176) 667. It is trite law that it is the claim of the claimant which determines the jurisdiction of the court. The court only needs to consider the complaint and the statement of facts. See A-G Anambra v A-G Federation [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 302) 692, A-G Federation v Oshiomhole [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt 860) 305. The jurisdiction of this court is today and in the main governed by section 254C (1) (a- l), (2), (3), (4) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. I will for the purpose of this ruling reproduce section 254C (1) (a) & (k) 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 an 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 the workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; (k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits, and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer, or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto. A careful look at the claimant’s claims before the court shows claim 1 is in respect of an outstanding balance due on staff share loans granted the claimant while he was in the employment of Intercontinental Bank, the defendant’s predecessor in title. Claim 2 is in respect of deductions made from the claimant’s salary towards repayment of his loans, while claim 3 is in respect of the withholding of the claimant’s shares purchased with his pre-merger gratuity. A look at the statement of facts reveals that the averments are not related to or connected with his employment or any dispute arising from payment or non payment of his salary, pension, gratuity, allowances, benefits or other entitlements as an employee of the defendant’s predecessor in title. The averments in the claimant’s statement of facts are in respect of the loans he was given while in employment and his alleged indebtedness. I find that the reference to terms and conditions of employment at Intercontinental Bank Plc and the hand book in paragraph 13 of the statement of facts is merely an attempt to enable the claimant bring this action within the ambit of the jurisdiction of this court. This court is not empowered to entertain suits relating to loan transactions. The law is settled that where the principal claim does not confer jurisdiction, the ancillary cannot. See Cotecna International Ltd v Ivory Merchant Bank Ltd [2006] 4 SC (Pt i) 9. The claims of the claimant do not come within the jurisdiction conferred on this court by section 254C (1) (a) to (l) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. I therefore decline jurisdiction to entertain this matter and as such, it is unnecessary to rule on whether or not the statement of facts has disclosed a reasonable cause of action. This suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction. Costs of N10,000 is awarded in favour of the defendant. Ruling is entered. .. ..……………………..…………….. Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae