Download PDF
This case was transferred to this court by an order of the Federal High Court sitting at Awka before his lordship, Hon. Justice P.F. Olayiwola in Suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/245/2010 which order was made on the 25th day of January, 2012. Before the matter was transferred to this court, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had entered a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance dated 28th day of March 2011 but filed on 1st April, 2011 and a Motion on Notice dated 28th day of March 2011 but filed on 1st of April, 2011. The said motion on notice was for 1. An order of extending the time within which the Respondents/Applicants may apply to discharge or set aside the ex parte interim order of injunction made by this Honourable Court on 9 November 2010. 2. An order discharging or setting aside the ex parte interim order of injunction made by this Honourable Court on 9 November 2010, restraining: 1. …the respondents herein by themselves, their agents, privies or in whatever manner constituted; from evicting, removing, causing the removal from, or taking any action that will occasion the removal of the Applicant or any of his staff from the head office of the EDC/CBN (Entrepreneurship Development Centre/Central Bank of Nigeria) situate at No. 2, Awka Road Onitsha and at the training school of the said EDC/CBN project situate and being at Ifesinachi plaza Onitsha; or doing anything, the effect of which will result in the removal/eviction of, or which will in anyway hinder the Applicant’s continued occupation/possession of the above two (2) premises, or the discharge of his duties, until the determination of the Motion on Notice filed along with this application. 2. …the respondents, their servants, agents and privies from carrying into effect any directives or instructions the effect of which will result in the removal from or ejection of the Applicant from the aforesaid two (2) offices or hinder his use of same, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice filed along with this application is granted. 3. And for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The grounds upon which this application is sought are as follows: i. The time limited by the Rules of this Honourable Court to apply for the discharge of the ex parte order has elapsed. ii. The Applicant/Respondent did not disclose, and or misrepresented, material facts. iii. The Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to make the order given that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. iv. The order was made in respect of completed act. The Motion on Notice was supported by a 12-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by one Ugwuoke Forster a legal practitioner in the law firm of counsel to the Respondents/Applicants. There was also a written address in support filed along. The Applicant/Respondent filed his reply to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendant’s notice of preliminary objection. The said reply is dated 20th April, 2011 but filed on 25th April, 2011. After the suit was transferred to this Court the 5th Respondent filed his Memorandum of Appearance dated 18th day of April, 2012. Thereafter the 5th Respondent/Applicant filed a notice of preliminary objection pursuant to Order 22 Rule 3(2) Rules 4 and 5(2) of the National Industrial Court Rules and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court praying that this suit be struck out/or the 5th Respondent be struck out of this suit for the following reasons: (i) This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. (ii) The suit is incompetent. (iii) The 5th Respondent is not a necessary party in this suit. The grounds for the above contention are: 1. The mode of commencement of this suit by way of Certorari is defective. 2. This suit is not properly constituted or instituted as all necessary documents are not filed before this Honourable Court. 3. The 5th Respondent is not a necessary party in this suit as no relief is claimed against him, neither is he needed for a fair determination of this suit. The Preliminary Objection was supported by a 5-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Patrick Andrew, a litigation secretary in the law firm of solicitors to the respondent. The 5th Respondent/Applicant equally filed a written address dated 2nd May, 2012. The Claimant/Respondent filed a Reply Address to the 5th Respondent/Applicant’s Written address in respect of its preliminary objection. On the 18th of June 2012, learned counsel to the parties adopted their respective written addresses. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE 1st, 2nd and 3rd RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS On the preliminary objection of the 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicants the main issue is whether this Court should discharge the interim order made against the 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicant ex parte. The 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicants have submitted that the court should exercise its discretionary power and discharge or set aside the said interim order and that the Court has a duty to exercise such discretion judiciously and judicially, relying on the decision in Enekebe vs Enekebe (1964) 1 All NLR 102, Elendu vs Ekwoba (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 578) 320, and Ogun vs Akinyelu (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.624) p.671. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Applicants further referred to the cases of Nwakonobi vs Udeorah (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt 213) 85, Uwaifo vs Gov. Lagos State (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122) 241 at 255, amongst others, after restating the grounds that guide the court in ordering the discharge of such interim orders. Learned counsel also argued that the act sought to be restrained had been concluded and therefore the court should not have made the interim order. In his reaction to the notice of preliminary objection of the 1st to 3rd respondents/applicants, the learned Applicant/Respondent’s counsel attacked the competence of the processes of the 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicants for non-compliance with the Rules of Court at the time of filing same, urging the court to reject same. It is important to point out that the basis of the alleged incompetence is predicated on non-compliance with Orders 7, 26 and 29 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009. I have carefully considered all the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties in this application. As I stated earlier the critical issue for determination is whether this court should discharge the interim order made by the Court. My starting point is the provisions of the Rules this Honourable Court. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 2(3) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, as amended provide that: An order of injunction made upon an application ex-parte shall abate after 7 days except the court subsequently otherwise directs in the interest of justice or to prevent an irreparable or serious mischief. These provisions are very clear to the effect that any order of injunction made shall abate after 7 days unless it has been renewed. In the instant case neither the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Applicants counsel nor the Applicant/Respondent’s counsel has adverted his mind to this provision. Above all, from the wording of the interim order made, it was meant to be for the period pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice that was filed along with the motion ex parte. I have also looked at the said interim Order and it states clearly that some of the reliefs sought ex parte were to be considered only after the Respondents had been put on notice. Therefore taking the whole circumstances of the case into account it is not clear what the learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents/Applicants is asking the Court to do in terms of the review of an interim order made subject to the hearing of a motion on notice. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the Respondents has not referred to any Rules of Court, either of the Federal High Court that made the interim Order nor this Honourable Court that allow for the filing of an application to review an interim order, which is subject to the hearing of the substantive motion. In the circumstance therefore and for all the reasons given above, I hereby hold that the notice of preliminary objection of the 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicants lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE 5th RESPONDEN/APPLICANT As I have earlier pointed out in this Ruling, the 5th Respondent/Applicant also filed a preliminary objection to this suit and having considered the processes, arguments and submissions of learned counsel to the parties the main issue for determination is whether or not this suit is competent having not been commenced by way of writ of summons instead of the motion for an order of certiorari? If this question is answered in the negative then the court would go on to consider whether the 5th Respondent is a necessary and proper party in the suit. The learned counsel for the 5th Respondent argued and submitted that the substance of the main application in this suit is the claim for wrongful dismissal of the Applicant/Respondent. That the proper procedure to follow is that of instituting this suit by way of writ of summons and not by any other means. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the decision in Dangote vs Civil Service Commission Plateau State (2001) NWLR (Pt. 717 p. 132 at 162, paragraphs E to F, Karibi-Whyte JSC and Achike JSC. In his response, the Applicant/Respondent’s counsel argued and submitted that the suit is competent because writ of summons is not the only means of commencement of action challenging unlawful dismissal or disengagement from employment especially employment that has statutory flavor. Counsel added that the Applicant is also questioning the propriety or otherwise of administrative actions/decisions. Learned counsel then referred to the case of Nnoli vs University of Nigeria (1998) 9-10 SCNJ 71. Counsel then argued that the 1st to 3rd Respondents can be likened to inferior tribunals or quasi-administrative body. Concluding learned counsel stated that this suit was properly commenced via judicial review as the claimant is asking the court to quash the administrative decisions of the respondents. I have carefully considered the arguments and submissions of counsel to the parties in this preliminary objection. From the processes before the Court, the Applicant/Respondent filed a motion Ex parte seeking for leave to file an application for an order of Certiorari as well as to apply for a Declaratory and Injunctive reliefs. The statement in support of the application and the verifying affidavit all show that the Applicant/Respondent is complaining against his suspension and subsequent dismissal from employment of the 2nd Defendant, the University of Nigeria. The question then is whether the proper procedure to challenge such action of the 2nd Respondent is by applying for writ of Certiorari or it has to be a way of writ of summons. The learned counsel for the Applicant/Respond’s position does not seem to be in line with the settled authorities on the issue. In the case referred to by the counsel for the 5th Respondent, namely, Dangote vs Civil Service Commission Plateau State (2001)NWLR (Pt. 717 p. 132 at 162, paragraghs E to F, per Karibi-Whyte JSC are all clear that where the wrong complained of is wrongful dismissal, the proper procedure to follow is that of writ of summons. It is important to point out that in that case, the procedure adopted by the plaintiff was the enforcement of fundamental human right procedure, which the Supreme Court said was not appropriate. In the instant case, the Applicant/Respondent has opted for the writ of Certiorari procedure and not writ of summons. The two processes, i.e, the enforcement of fundamental human rights and that of Certiorari are both initiated by way of motion while the writ of summons is initiated differently. Therefore it is my view and I so hold that the appropriate procedure for the Applicant/Respondent to have adopted, in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case , is that of writ of summons or Complaint as provided by the Rules of this Court. Thus failure to so initiate the action by way of writ of summons or Complaint means that the suit has not been properly initiated by the Claimant. The law is quite clear on the point. With the adoption of the wrong procedure by the Applicant/Respondent in bringing this suit, this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. See Dangote vs Civil Service Commission, Supra, Madukolu vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and HDP vs OBI & ORS (2011) vol. 12 MJSC 1-200 at p.67. With finding and holding that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the determination of the issue of whether or not the 5th Defendant is a necessary party would be a mere academic exercise, which the court cannot go into. In the circumstance and for all the reasons given above, the preliminary objection of the 5th Defendant/Applicant succeeds and this suit as it is presently constituted is hereby struck out. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly.