Download PDF
By a Complaint dated 23rd August 2012 and filed on the same date the Claimant in this suit claims the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A declaration that by virtue of S. 15 (k) and 16 of the Delta State Universal Basic Education Law of 2006 and the letters of re-appointment of Claimant vide letters dated 08/11/2011 and 29/11/2011 written by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively, the Claimant has been validly appointed as Secretary to the Ugheli South Local Government Education Authority in accordance with the aforementioned law for another term of four years commencing from 18th January, 2012. 2. A declaration that by virtue of the subsisting re-appointment of Claimant as Secretary to the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Government Area the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have no power and or authority whatsoever under the Delta State Universal Basic Education Law 2006 to appoint the 1st Defendant into the same position now occupied by the Claimant until the end of the four years tenure as prescribed by the law. 3. A declaration that the Claimant having worked for the months of January and February, 2012 and was paid salary for the two months after he resumed work for the second tenure as Secretary to the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Government Area his appointment subsist until the end of the term being 17th January, 2016 until lawfully determined in accordance with the Delta State Universal Basic Education Law 2006 or he voluntarily resigns as required under the said law. 4. A declaration that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants abused their position and acted with no semblance of legal justification to have appointed the 1st Defendant as the Secretary of the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Government Area of Delta State of Nigeria while the appointment made by the former Chairman Hon. (Barrr.) Dennis Djoma and 3rd Defendant vide letters dated 8/11/2011 and 29/11/2011 respectively is still subsisting. 5. An order of court nullifying and/or setting aside the purported appointment of the 1st Defendant by 2nd and 3rd Defendants as Secretary to the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Area of Delta State of Nigeria having acted outside their powers and duties and without legal justification as provided for under the Delta State Universal Basic Education Law 2006. 6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from performing and/or continuing to perform the functions of the Claimant as the Secretary to the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Government Area based on the subsisting appointment of the Claimant as the Secretary to the Local Government Education Authority of Ugheli South Local Government Area. 7. An order for the payment of all salaries and allowances due to the Claimant and for the 1st Defendant to refund all salaries and allowances paid to him by virtue of his purported appointment. The Complaint is accompanied by a Statement of Claim, a written statement on oath of the Claimant, list of documents to be relied upon at trial, list of witnesses for the Claimant and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The Defendants entered a conditional appearance in the matter, filed a Statement of Defence, a list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and defendants written statements on oath all dated and filed on 29th of October 2012. Furthermore, the defendants filed a motion on notice dated and filed same 29th day of October, 2012 brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1, Order 19 Rule 16 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court praying for: (i) An order of this Honourable Court striking out/dismissing this suit, Suit No.NICN/EN/149/2012 Between Chief John Akaruayen Ewenede vs Solomon Ajomata Ala & 2 Ors for lack of jurisdiction. And for such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the application is brought are that: (i) The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is spelt out and circumscribed by section 254(c) (sic) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 sa amended by the Third Alteration Act of 2010. (ii) The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court does not extend to entertaining matters based on political appointments into statutory offices. (iii) By virtue of the provisions of section 37(1) of Delta State Basic Education Law 2006 no suit shall be commenced against the 3rd Defendant after three months from the occurrence of the act, neglect or default complained of by the Claimant. (iv) The cause of action in this case arose in February 2012, but this action was filed on 23rd of August 2012 which is a period of over five months. The motion is supported by a six paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Solomon Ajomata Ala, the 1st Defendant in this suit. There is also filed along, a written address dated the 29th day of October, 2012. The Claimant thereafter filed a 12 paragraphed counter affidavit deposed to by Chief John Akaruayen Ewenede, the claimant/respondent in this suit. Attached to the said counter affidavit are exhibits AA, BB, CC, DD and EE. The Claimant/Respondent also filed a written address dated and filed on 5th day of November, 2012. Thereafter the Defendants/Applicants filed a reply on points of law dated 7th day of November 2012 but filed on 9th of November, 2012. The counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses on 19th of November, 2012. This is the Ruling in respect of the motion on notice objecting to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this suit. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties in this application. The two issues for determination formulated and argued by the defendant’s counsel which were also adopted and argued by the learned SAN counsel for the Claimant/Respondent are that: 1. Whether having regard to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court as contained in Section 254C of the Constitution and the claims as endorsed on the statement of claim, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit? 2. Whether in view of the provision of section 37(1) of the Delta State Universal Basic Education Law 2006, this suit can be commenced after three months from the occurrence of the act complained of by the claimant? The position of the defendants/applicants on issue 1 is that this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit because it relates to political appointment into a statutory office and that such appointment is not amongst the items provided for under Section 245C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. However, the learned counsel for the defendants/applicants accepted that the provisions of Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) are the closest to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this matter, but even then there is a difference between “employment” and “appointment”. Thus whereas the provisions of Section 254C (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution refer to “employment”, the case of the claimant, according to the defendants’ counsel, relates to “appointment” and that the two words are not synonymous. He referred to the case of Johnson vs Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 530) 1337. Learned Defendants counsel then argued and submitted that since the relief of payment of salaries is ancillary to the principal relief of his appointment, then the provisions of section 254C(1)(k) cannot avail him as the court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the said principal relief. On the other hand, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant/Respondent submitted that the word “employment” used in Section 254C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution encompasses “appointment” on the ground that the Claimant is a non-elected public officer appointed to perform a job for salary. He relied on the definition of appointment and job given by the Black’s Law Dictionary and the Marriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary respectively. The learned SAN further urged the court to assume jurisdiction as the case of the claimant has to do with employment though the word was not used in the enabling law. Having considered the arguments of both counsel and the authorities referred to by them, the question is whether the word “appointment” in the sense in which it is used in the case of claimant is “employment” and therefore comes within the ambit of the jurisdiction of this court to determine? The starting point perhaps is the authority cited and relied upon in the case of Johnson & 14 Ors v Mobil Prod. (Nig.) Unltd. & 2 Ors (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1194) p. 462 at 496.The reliance on the said authority, in my humble view does not support the case of the defendants. This is because the distinction made between “appointment” and “employment” was with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of section 18(1) and (2) of the Police Act in relation to the appointment of Supernumerary Police Officers by the Police Service Commission. In the instant case, the issue is whether looking at the circumstances of the Claimant, is his relationship with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants that of “employment” even though the word used by the statute is “appointment”, so as to allow the determination by this court of the case of the Claimant? Looking at the averments in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11, amongst others, of the Statement of claim of the Claimant, he has stated the basis of the relationship between himself and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants with whom he had an employment relationship, for a first term which expired and he was re-appointed for a second term upon which he now approached this Court. These are the pleadings of the Claimant. It is beyond any shadow of doubt, in my humble view, as stipulated in section 254C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, that this court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and determine such disputes that are predicated on employment or workplace issues. Therefore, in the circumstance, I have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the case of the claimant comes within the jurisdiction of this court, and I so hold. The first issue is accordingly hereby resolved in favour of the claimant. On the second issue, the case of the defendants is that the action is statute barred. The basis of the defendants is that the suit was filed about five months after the cause of action arose, whilst the section 37(1) of Delta State Basic Education Law 2006 has provided that such case should have brought within three months. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of counsel on the issue. It is now well established that the public officers protection law has exceptions and these include where the case is for claim of payment for work and labour done and where the public officer in question acts with malice or outside the colour of his authority. See Abubakar vs Governor of Gombe State vs (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt. 797) 533 at 551 r. 1, and Kasandubu &Anor vs Ultimate Petroleum Ltd &Anor (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 147) 155 at 158 r.1. The Claimant in his averments has alleged that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants acted outside the colour of their statutory authority and also with malice or bad faith. This Court has held in a number of cases that matters of labour rights in general are not affected by the limitation law. See the case of NUPENG vs Geco Prakla Nigeria Limited (2010) NLLR (Pt. 57) 361.The defendants have not placed anything before the Court to make it change its position. Then the second issue is also hereby resolved in favor of the second claimant. In the circumstance therefore, and for the reasons given above, the preliminary objection of the defendants fail and it is hereby dismissed. The case now proceeds to hearing. I make no orders as to costs. Ruling is hereby entered accordingly. Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim Presidng Judge