Download PDF
This action was commenced via a Complaint dated the 25th of September, 2012 and filed the same day. The Complaint was accompanied with the Claimants Statement of Claim, List of Witnesses, Deposition on Oath, and List of Exhibits. The reliefs claimed as per paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim are as listed below: (1) DECLARATION of the Court that the offer of Appointment as coordinating Chairman, Ogun State [R.T.E.A.N.] Reference Number RTEAN/NHQ/ADM/ABJ/VOL1/11 of the 27th day of September 2007 directed to the first Defendant is null and void.[sic] (2) DECLARATION of the Court that the activities of the Defendants in Ogun State R.T.E.A.N. is illegal, unlawful and ultra-vires the Defendants.[sic] (3) ORDER of Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, Agents, Servants or Privies from holding themselves out in any manner parading themselves as Executive Council members of the Road Transport Employers Association, Ogun state.[sic] In reaction to the suit, the defendants filed a Statement of Defence in which Preliminary Objection [PO] was incorporated. The said Statement of Defence was dated 11th December 2012 and filed same date. This was also accompanied with an Application asking the Court to set down the PO contained in the Statement of Defence, Affidavit in Support of the Application; and a Written Address in support of the PO. The PO contained the following grounds: a. The suit is fundamentally defective and incompetent, being a fragrant abuse of Court process in view of the pendency of suit No: NICN/ABJ/174/2012, between RTEAN & 11 Ors. V. Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity & 11 Ors and also in view of the extant Order of the Honourable Court given at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja dated 1st Day of April, 2008 in Suit No: FCT/HC/GWD/M/07/08 between the RTEAN & 5 Ors. V. Inspector General of Police & 7 Ors. And accordingly; this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the current suit.[sic] b. The suit is fundamentally defective and incompetent; being a fragrant abuse of Court process as the suit irreparably contravenes Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act, CAP N155, LFN 2004 in view of the pendency of Suit Nos: NICN/ABJ/174/2012, between RTEAN & 11 Ors. V. Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity & 11 Ors., and NIC/7/2007 with Appeal No: CA/K/287/09, between RTEAN & 4 Ors. V. Mr. Olufemi Ajewole & 4 Ors. All pending before this same Honourable Court and also in view of the extant Order of the Honourable Court given at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja dated the 1st Day of April, 2008 in suit No: FCT/HC/GWD/M/07/08 between RTEAN & 5 Ors. V. inspector General of police & 7 Ors. And accordingly; this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the current suit.[sic] c. This suit is frivolous, vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action upon which the Court can exercise its jurisdiction.[sic] In the alternative, and only in the alternative. [sic] d. This Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as same is fundamentally incompetent and defective on grounds of the absence of the proper parties and particularly the non-juristic personality of the 1st Claimant-and the 2nd and 3rd Claimants claiming under a non-juristic 1st Claimant.[sic] e. The suit is fundamentally incompetent and defective on ground of the non-joinder of the necessary parties and, accordingly, this Honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.[sic] Subsequently, the defendants/Applicants adopted their written Address on the 30th of January, 2013 when the PO came up for hearing. And I shall proceed to review the Written Address. In arguing the PO, the defendants/applicants formulated the following issues: a. Whether the Claimants/Respondents’ Form of Complaint, ‘Statement of Claim’, and other Originating Processes of the Claimants/Respondents in this suit, dated 25th September, 2012 are not fundamentally incompetent and incurably defective for being an abuse of the Court’s process?[sic] b. Whether this noble Court ought not to decline jurisdiction in consequence of the abuse of its process by the Claimants/Respondents’ originating processes dated the 25th September, 2012?[sic] c. Whether the Claimants/Respondents’ Form of Complaint, ‘Statement of Claim’, and the other Originating Processes of the Claimants/Respondents in this suit, dated 25th September, 2012 are not incurably incompetent having been in violation of Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act, CAP N155, LFN 2004?[sic] The defendants/applicants counsel argued all the issues formulated together. Counsel submitted that a court only needs to look at the originating processes to discover whether it has jurisdiction. Counsel cited GAFAR V. GOVT. KWARA STATE [2007] 2 NWLR [PT. 1024] 375 and a host of authorities on this issue. Counsel therefore contended that the originating processes of the claimants/respondents herein in conjunction with the affidavit in support of the PO will show clearly how the suit is an abuse of the Court’s process. Counsel cited AMACHREE V. PRINCEWILL [2008] 12 NWLR @ 349 [sic], ALI V. ALBISHAR [2008] 3 NWLR AT 103, and others, on what amounts to abuse of Court’s process. Counsel submitted that a perusal of paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the claimants/respondents’ Statement of Claim would reveal that the crux of the suit is moving the Court to declare certain letter of appointment purportedly issued to 1st defendant/applicant null and void. Counsel contended that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the claimants/respondents’ Statement of Claim one Abdullahi M. Jabi derived his authority from one Abubakar Sadiq mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the same Statement of Claim – see Exhibit RT-5 of the defendants/applicants’ Affidavit. Counsel submitted that an order of this Court nullifying Abdullahi Jabi’s letter implies that this Court has nullified the leadership of Abubakar Sadiq in the 1st claimant. It was also contended that the effect of granting relief one of the claimants would be that this Court has validated the action of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity which refused not to recognize the leadership of Abubakar Sadiq in the 1st claimant. Counsel argued that this would overreach the parties in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & 11 ORS. V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTIVITY & 11 ORS, pending before this Court at Abuja. Counsel submitted that the very action of the Ministry of Labour and Productivity being challenged in the suit at Abuja is the very foundation of the claimants’ relief in this present suit. Counsel urged the Court to examine paragraphs 4 – 31 of the defendants’ Affidavit to see the basis of his argument herein. Counsel subsequently submitted that an examination of paragraphs 32 – 39 of the defendants Affidavit would reveal that authority being claimed by 2nd claimant and those claiming under him, including the 3rd claimant is a subject of litigation before this Court at Kano and the Court of Appeal, Kaduna. Counsel cited ALI V. ALBISHIR supra to buttress his argument. Counsel to the defendants/applicants also argued that Suit No. NIC/7/2007 with Appeal No. CA/K/287/09, between RTEAN & 4 ORS. V. MR. OBAFEMI AJEWOLE & 4 ORS; pending at the Court of Appeal sitting at Kaduna was still pending as at 25th September when this present suit was instituted on the same issues. Counsel argued that paragraphs 26 – 50 of the defendants/applicants’ Affidavit would reveal this. Counsel argued further that the fact of abuse of court’s process would become more poignant when this court considers paragraph 30 of the defendants/applicants’ Affidavit, wherein it would become clear that Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & 11 ORS. V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTIVITY & 11 ORS, pending before this Court at Abuja had been filed since 13th June, 2012 and the claimants/respondents filed this suit during its pendency on the 25th September, 2012. Counsel submitted that the very same question of recognition of the authentic national leadership of the 1st claimant/respondent by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity which is mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the claimants/respondents’ Statement of Claim is the also one of the issues in the present suit. Counsel also argued that all the persons mentioned in the claimants/respondents’ Statement of Claim in this suit are also parties to and/or interested parties to Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & 11 ORS. V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTIVITY & 11 ORS., pending before this Court at Abuja; and likewise the issues and reliefs being claimed. Counsel to the defendants/applicants submitted that in all, the issues and parties claimed against by the claimants/respondents in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of their Statement of Claim are all present in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & 11 ORS. V. FEDERAL MINSTRY OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTIVITY & 11 ORS; pending before this Court at Abuja. Counsel submitted that the grant of any relief being claimed in the present suit would prejudice the already pending suit; and that at the same time, the claimants and their representatives are the same in both suits with some additions. On this score, counsel cited IN RE: UGADU [1988] 5 NWLR [PT. 93] 189 AT PRA. G. Counsel therefore submitted that if this case is allowed to go to conclusion, it follows that the same issue of the legality of the action of the Ministry of Labour and Productivity which calls for determination in this suit would be the issue to be determined between the same parties by two different Divisions of this Court at Abuja and Abeokuta. Counsel submitted that where a matter is found to be an abuse of court’s process, the proper order to make is one dismissing the suit. On this score, counsel cited N.W.A. V. S.T.B. PLC [2008] 2 NWLR AT 487. Counsel further argued that another virus affecting this action is the fact that the present suit is an attempt to circumvent the subsisting interlocutory order of Court as narrated in paragraphs 39 – 50 of the defendants/applicants’ Affidavit while the suit forming the basis of the order is still pending. Counsel said the purport of the paragraphs of the Affidavit in issue is to the effect that the 1st – 3rd claimants/respondents and those claiming through them as mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the claimants/respondents Statement of Claim are all subjects of subsisting order of court given by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the 1st day of April, 2008 in suit No. FCT/HC//GWD/M/07/08: RTEAN & 5 ORS. V. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & 7 ORS. – See copy of the order attached as Exhibit RT – 5 to the defendants/applicants Affidavit. Counsel argued in the alternative that because all the necessary parties in the persons of Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, Abubakar Sadiq, Abdullahi Jabi, Femi Ajewole, are not before the Court in this suit; and since any decision taken by the Court would affect them, then the necessary parties are not in Court and that this Court should therefore decline jurisdiction. Counsel cited COTEENA INT’L LTD V. CHURCHGATE [NIG.] LTD [2010] 18 NWLR AT 361. Counsel argued that the test in joinder of parties is that whether the party which ought to be joined is such that its presence would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the question involved in the suit. Counsel argued that where the proper parties are not before the Court, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel cited, in this regard, BEST VISION CENTRE LTD V. U.A.C.N.P.D.C PLC [2003] 13 NWLR [PT. 838] 594; and other authorities. Counsel also furthered his argument in the alternative by urging the Court to strike out the suit on the ground that the 1st claimant/respondent is not a juristic person and as such the 2nd and 3rd claimants claiming through or under it. Counsel submitted that the fact that the 1st claimant has been described as registered under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, it can only sue through its registered trustees; and in this regard, counsel cited BAMBE & ORS. V. ADERINOLA & ORS. [1977] 1 S.C. P.1. Counsel finally urged the Court to dismiss the case. In response to the Written Address of the defendants/applicants just reviewed above, the claimants/respondents filed a Written Address dated the 28th January, 2013 and filed on the 30th January, 2013. It is also pertinent to note that a Counter-Affidavit was also filed against the Affidavit of the defendants/applicants on the 31st January, 2013 by the claimants/respondents. I shall now review the Written Address of the claimants/respondents herein. The counsel to the claimants/respondents formulated a lone issue for the determination of the PO. The issue goes thus: Whether or not the claimants’ action as it is presently constituted could amount to an abuse of Court process or incompetent by reason of non-joinder. [sic] Counsel commenced his submission by saying that the crux of the defendants/applicants’ arguments on the issue of abuse of Court’s process is rested on the fact that, three cases, to wit: Suit Nos. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & ORS. V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR & PROUCTIVITY & ORS; NIC/7/2007 leading to Appeal No. CA/K/287/09: RTEAN & ORS V. MR. OLUFEMI AJEWOLE & ORS; and FCT/HC/GWD/M/07/08: RTEAN & ORS. V. IGP & ORS, are presently pending in Court, the present suit automatically becomes an abuse of the process of court. Counsel contended that the contention of the defendants/applicants’ counsel is not right. Counsel said in the first place, by virtue of their Exhibit DO1 attached to the Counter-Affidavit, Suit No. FCT/HC/GWD/CV/06/08: RTEAN & 5 ORS. V. IGP & 7 ORS had been terminated vide a court order dated the 23rd of March, 2010; and as such the suit is no longer in existence. Counsel opined that before a court can come to the conclusion that abuse of court’s process is proved, it must be satisfied that the parties to an action constituting abuse and the already pending action are the same; and that the cause of action or the subject matter are the same. Counsel cited OPEKUN V. SADQ [2003] FWLR [PT. 150] AT 1654; and MR. ISREAL OKON UBENG & ORS. V. EVANGELIST MAURICE O.B. USUA & 1 OR. [2007] FWLR [PT. 348] 1000 AT 1009. Counsel then submitted that based on the above, the processes filed in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012 and CA/K/287/09 in comparison with the processes filed in the present suit showed clearly that the parties are different. Counsel also argued further that even the subject matters of the three earlier suits as mentioned above are different from the present suit. Counsel argued that this would become very evident by an examination of the endorsement on the claim in Exhibit RT1 attached by the applicants as Exhibits RT3 and RT4 alongside the reliefs sought in the present suit which showed without equivocation that that they are different. Counsel to the claimants/respondents submitted, that though much reference had been made to Chief Abubakar O. Sadiq and Comrade Abdulahi M. Jabi who purportedly authorized the defendants to commence operations in Ogun State in spite of the pendency of Suit Nos. NICN/ABJ/174/2012 and CA/K/287/09, which the applicants claimed are been abused by the processes in this action, that misjoinder or non-joinder of parties cannot defeat an action. Counsel cited MR. MICHEAL AGBEKONI V. ALHAJI IBRAHIM A. KAREEM [2008] ALL FWLR [PT. 406] 1970 AT 1986. Counsel finally argued that in so far as the parties in the three suits referred to by the defendants differ from those in the present suit and the reliefs claimed also differed those suits differ from this one, the PO is not well-founded. And sequel to this, counsel urged the Court to dismiss the PO. That is the end of the written Address of the counsel to the claimants/respondents. In response to new points of law canvassed therein, the counsel to the defendants/applicants made oral address on points of law before the Court on that same 30th of January, 2013. To this I now turn. Counsel to the defendants/applicants urged the Court on points of law to hold that all the arguments contained in the Written Address on PO had not been controverted; and that the Court should hold that they are deemed admitted by the other side. Counsel cited LAWSON-JACK V. THE SPDC OF NIGERIA LTD [2002] 7SC [PT. 2] 112 and ERAVWODOPE V. UBTHMB [1993] 2 NWLR [PT. 227] 590. This is the only part of the Reply on points of Law that I consider to be reply on points of law. The other arguments made are in my humble opinion an attempt to reargue the PO; and as such I decline to review them. I must say I have carefully considered all the relevant processes to the PO and the Addresses of counsel to the two sides; and the authorities cited. I have also carefully studied the Issues formulated by the counsel to the two sides. I am inclined to accepting the issue formulated by the counsel to the claimants/respondents. The lone issue is concise and appears to me to capture all that is essential to the determination of the PO. I adopt [slightly improved grammatically] it instead of the prolix issues formulated by the counsel to the defendants/applicants in resolving the PO. The issue is reproduced once more: Whether or not the claimants’ action as it is presently constituted could amount to an abuse of Court process or is incompetent by reason of non-joinder? The Supreme Court has had this to say on what constitutes abuse of the process of Court: It is recognized that abuse of the process may lie in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues. Thus the multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse. [See SARAKI & ANOR. V. KOTOYE [1992] LPELR – 3016 [SC] 33, PARAS. B – E] The major ground of the PO is that there is a multiplicity of suits by the claimants on the same issues and subject matters against the same parties. Let us now examine the suits cited as being abused by the present suit against the backdrop of the above cited Supreme Court authority in order to see if there exists an abuse of court’s process. I have carefully examined the suits involved; and I will make my observations known one by one. On Suit No. CA/K/287/2009: RTEAN & ORS. V. MR. OLUFEMI AJEWALE ORS; my observation is that this suit is an appeal on Suit No. NIC/7/2007. On Suit No. FCT/HC/GWD/M/O7/08: RTEAN & ORS. V. THE IGP & ORS; my observation is that it is an order of court dated 23rd April, 2008. On the three cases mentioned above, I observe further that the Counter Affidavit of the claimants/respondents exhibited a Court Order on Suit No. FCT/HC/GWD/CV/06/08 wherein certain orders earlier granted in the suit were set aside. Counsel to the claimants sought to argue that this suit is the same thing with Suit No. FCT/HC/GWD/M/07/08. I beg to disagree; on the ground that the said copy of record of proceedings and order of court attached were not certified as required; apart from the fact that the suit No. differ from the one referred to by the applicants’ counsel. But let me go to Suit No. NICN/ABJ/174/2012: RTEAN & 11 ORS. V. FEDERAL MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTIVITY & 4 ORS. I found that the parties in the suit include the 2nd claimant in the present suit as the 7th defendant in that suit. I found that this suit is still pending in the Abuja Division of the Court via the certified true copy exhibited in the applicants’ affidavit. Secondly, I found that the crux of the prolix reliefs being claimed in the suit is that it is wrong for the 1st – 2nd defendant to give recognition to a faction of the 1st claimant, which are the 1st – the 12th defendants. Note that this includes the 7th defendant who is the 2nd claimant in the present suit. A perusal of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and particularly 7 of the Statement of Claim of the claimants in the present suit shows without equivocation that the acts being complained about and which grounded the present suit were allegedly committed out by one Abubakar Sadiq and one Abdullahi Mohammed Jabi. They are the 2nd and 6th claimants in NICN/ABJ/174/2012. They were ordinarily supposed to be made a party. It is thus very clear that the cause of the problem in Ogun State Chapter of the 1st claimants in the two suits under reference is its factionalization. This why there are two faction claiming supremacy and the reason one Road Transport employers Association of Nigeria suing in two separate suits with different and divergent interest but on the same set of facts. Secondly, paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim of the claimants showed without much ado that the letter which the claimants in NICN/ABJ/174/2012 are complaining about is the source of their alleged factional authority or alleged factional legitimacy. If the claimants in the present suit think that there is anything they would lose by not being in the already pending suit, they should have applied to be joined as parties; and not to institute a fresh action on the same issue, subject matter, reliefs and substantial parties. Having come to this conclusion, I come to the second conclusion that the claimants in the present suit deliberately left out the parties mentioned in their paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of their Statement of Claim in order to cloak their suit with a semblance of propriety. Furthermore, I make bold to say, a resolution of NICN/ABJ/174/2012 shall resolve all the issues involved in the two cases herein. It does not matter that the claimants deftly omitted to join some necessary parties in the present suit in order to escape the accusation of abuse of Court process – See ALI V. ALBISHIR [2007] LPELR – 8319 [CA] PP. 55 – 57, PARAS E – A. Having arrived at this juncture, I have no hesitation in holding that the present suit, that is Suit No. NICN/AB/05/2012: RTEAN & 2 ORS. V. COMRADE CHIEF ARINOLA [ORIOLA] LATEEF & 4 ORS; constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. In consequence, I hereby strike out the suit. No cost is awarded. ……………………………………………. Hon. Justice B.A. Adejumo, OFR President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria