Download PDF
This suit was commenced by way a Complaint dated 16th day of April, 2012 and filed on 3rd day of May, 2012 wherein the Claimant claims against the defendants, the following reliefs: 1. The sum of N12, 014,595.00 (Twelve Million, Fourteen Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety-five Naira) being unpaid severance gratuity, accommodation and security allowances due and payable to the claimant from the Defendants, as member of the Imo State House of Assembly between May 2007 and June 2011, which the Defendants have failed, refused and or neglected to pay despite repeated demands. 2. Interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated. The Complaint was accompanied with a Statement of Facts, list of witness (es), sworn deposition of the witness, Hon. Dr John C. Egbuchulam, and list and copies of documents to be relied upon. The Claimant equally filed along a motion on notice dated 16th day of April, 2012 but filed on 3rd day of May, 2012, brought pursuant to Order 10 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 seeking for an order entering summary judgment for the claimant as per the claims/reliefs endorsed on the Complaint and Statement of Facts. The said motion on notice was supported by an affidavit of 17 paragraphs deposed to by the Claimant himself. Attached thereto are four exhibits, Exhibits A, B, C and D. On June 11, 2012 the defendants filed a conditional Memorandum of Appearance dated 11th day of June, 2012. Filed along is a Notice of preliminary objection brought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and Order 11 Rules 1(1), 2(1) and Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, praying the Court for an order striking out this suit for lack of jurisdiction. The grounds of the objection are that: 1. This case is statute barred based on the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, Volume 14, 2004. 2. The suit is incompetent. 3. The essential and proper party the Imo State House of Assembly is not sued. 4. There is no proper/reasonable cause of action disclosed against the party sued, being that the said cause of action is statute barred by virtue of the provision of the Public Officers Protection Act. The motion on notice is supported by a 10-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Onukwugha Comfort, a litigation officer in the Ministry of Justice, Owerri, Imo State. The Defendants/Applicants equally filed a written address in support of the motion on the 11th day of June 2012. The Claimant/Respondent filed a counter affidavit of 7 paragraphs deposed to by one Eucharia Anyanwu, solicitor’s clerk in the law firm of the Solicitors to the Claimant in this suit. Attached to the said counter affidavit is Exhibit A. The Claimant/Respondent also filed a written address in opposition to the preliminary objection of the Defendants/Applicants. The Defendants/Applicants filed, with leave of court, a further affidavit of 5 paragraphs in support of the preliminary objection along with a further written address in support. Thereafter, learned defendants/applicants counsel also filed a further-further-affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Onukwugha Comfort, a Litigation Officer in the Ministry of Justice, Imo State. Attached thereto is Exhibit “ MOJ 1” , and a Reply on points of law. The parties adopted their respective written addresses on the 25th of July, 2012 and this is the Ruling in respect thereof. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties in this application. The issues for determination as formulated and argued by both parties are similar and I shall determine this application in accordance with the two main issues so raised and argued, namely, 1. Whether this suit is statute barred having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether or not the proper parties are before the Court? On the first issue it is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants/applicants that this suit is statute barred having been commenced more than three months from the date that the cause of action accrued in accordance with Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, Vol. 14, Laws of the Federation, 2004 (LFN 2004). Learned counsel relied on paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of their supporting affidavit. He further relied on the decisions in Ibrahim vs JSC (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt 584) pages 38, 44 and 45, Nwaogwugwu vs The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and others (2007), 1 All FWLR (Pt. 389) 1327, Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur vs Government of Gongola State (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 547. Counsel then urged the Court to hold that the suit is statute barred and hence the Court is robbed of jurisdiction to entertain same. He further referred to the cases of Okolo vs UBN (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87, and Uwaziri vs State (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) at 689. On his own part learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant/Respondent argued and submitted that Public Officers are not entitled to protection where they have acted outside the colour of their authority as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahim vs JSC Kaduna State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt 584) 1 at p.32, per Iguh JSC. Learned SAN further referred to and relied on Moyosore vs Gov. Kwara State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 242 at 284-285, Hassan vs Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt 1223) 547 at 621. Learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant argued and submitted further that Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act is not applicable to the cases of recovery of land, breaches of contract or for claims for work done relying on the authorities in FGN vs Zebra Energy Ltd (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt 798) 162 at 196-198; Osun State Government vs Delani Nigeria Limited (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 66, NPA vs Construzion Generalli (1974) All NLR (Pt. 2) 945. The learned SAN then submitted that the claim of the Claimant is for his entitlements for work and labour done as a legislator. That the claimant worked, rendered service and laboured for the state as a legislator and the severance gratuity and allowances are based on work done by virtue of his office as a legislator. Consequently, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant argued that by virtue of the decisions in FGN vs Zebra, supra, Osun State Government vs Delani Nigeria, supra, and NPA vs Construzion Generalli, supra, the Public Officers Protection Act is not applicable to the claim of the Claimant. I have carefully considered all the arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties and it is clear to me that going by paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Statement of facts establishing cause of action as filed by the claimant/respondent in this suit, the claimant/respondent has sufficiently shown that he served as a member of the Imo State House of Assembly between 2007 and 2011 and that by virtue of that he had become entitled to the payment of emoluments fixed by the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission including the severance benefits, gratuity, accommodation and security allowances. It is noteworthy that the defendants/applicants have simply raised the issue of protection given public officers once a suit is not filed within three months from the date of the cause of action. Having considered the argument of both counsel to the parties, it is clear that the claim of the claimant/respondent, which is based on work and labour done for the 1st Defendant as a legislator, cannot be caught up by the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. This position has been well stated in the decisions referred in the cases of FGN vs Zebra, supra, Osun State Government vs Delani Nigeria, supra, and NPA vs Construzion Generalli, supra, and this court has upheld same in the cases of Dr Aina Simeon Abiodun & 3Ors Vs The Governing Council, Oyo State College of Education & One Other (2011) 22 Nigerian Labour Law Reports (NLLR) (Part 62)p.316, and Abdulsalam Suleman Vs Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) & 1 Other (2011), unreported, in Suit No. NIC/ABJ/5/2011 delivered on 3rd June 2011 and the case of Hon. Blessing Agbebaku vs Edo State House of Assembly and 2 Ors (2012) unreported Suit NIC/ABJ/68/2011 Ruling delivered on 23rd April, 2012, amongst others. The learned Defendants/Applicants in this case have not shown any convincing reasons why this Court should depart from that position wherein the facts and circumstances of their case are similar to those cited above, especially the case of Blessing Agbebaku, supra. Thus I hereby find and hold that the case of the Claimant/Respondent in this case has not been defeated by the said Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. Consequently therefore, I hereby resolve issue number one in favour of the Claimant/Respondent. On issue two, which is whether the proper parties are before the Court, learned defendants/applicants counsel submitted that there are no proper parties before the Court because the claimant/respondent should have sued the House of Assembly Service Commission, which according to counsel is the body responsible for the implementation of the conditions of service of members of the House and not the defendants/applicants. Learned counsel then urged the court to so hold, relying on the decision in Maikori vs Lere (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) at 527. On his own part, the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimants/Respondents submitted that the 1st to 4th Defendants/Applicants are the proper parties in this suit, without whom this Court cannot effectively and effectually adjudicate or settle all the questions in this matter relying on the authority of the decisions in Green vs Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 and Ayorinde vs Oni (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 348. Learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant/Respondent argued further that even if there is non-joinder or misjoinder of parties, which he did not concede to, such a non-joinder or misjoinder cannot defeat an action, relying on the authority of Sapo vs Sunmonu (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374 at 409, amongst others. He also submitted that the presence of the Attorney-General of Imo State, the 3rd Defendant in this suit has sufficiently covered all the parties in the state that should have been sued, referring to the decision in Nigeria Engineering Works Ltd vs Denaph Limited (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 752 -753 and A-G Adamawa State &Ors vs AG Federation &Ors (2006) 1 MJSC at 34-35 and A-G Anambra State vs A-G Federation (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 379) 1218 at 1249. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel on this issue and it is clear to me that the defendants have been properly sued in this application. This is because a careful look at the defendants/applicants, in my humble view, shows that they have the responsibility for the release and payment of funds in the discharge of the obligations of the Imo Sate Government from whom the Claimant/Respondent makes his claims for payment of the outstanding allowances and benefits. See paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statement of Facts of the Claimant/Respondent. Furthermore, I am equally persuaded by the argument of the learned SAN, counsel for the Claimant/Respondent that the presence of the Attorney-General of Imo State in this suit, who is the Chief Law Officer of the State is sufficient without even the need to join the actual official or agency of Government for he has the duty to bring or defend actions against the State. Accordingly therefore, this issue number two is resolved in favour of the Claimant/Respondent. In the circumstances and for all the reasons given above, i hold that the preliminary objection of the Defendants/Applicants lacks merit and is hereby accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs. The case shall proceed to hearing. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim Presiding Judge