Download PDF
This is an application for judicial review brought pursuant to Order 11 Rule (1), Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, as amended by Practice Direction No. 5 of 2012 of the NIC, and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The application is dated “18th August 2012” but filed on “17th August 2012” and is praying for – 1. A declaration that the applicant, by virtue of the Letters of Administration granted him on the 11th of March 2011 by the High Court of Cross River State, is the lawful beneficiary entitled to receive the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno. 2. A declaration that the refusal, neglect and failure by the 1st respondent to pay to the applicant the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno, despite repeated demands for same, is unjustifiable and unlawful. 3. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st respondent either by himself, his agents, servants or successors in office, to immediately pay over to the applicant or his agents the sum of N930,024.96 being the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno. 4. An order for the payment of N4,000,000 by the respondents jointly and severally to the applicant as general damages for losses caused the applicant resulting from the respondents’ wrongful and unjustifiable refusal to pay the death benefits, pension and gratuity of late Mr. Osim Michael Eno to the applicant as the lawful beneficiary. 5. And for such further or other order(s) as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of the case. In support of the applicant is an affidavit of 5 paragraphs with 10 exhibits (Exhibits 1 – 10) attached and a written address. The Court at its first sitting of 5th November 2012 raised the issue whether it had jurisdiction over the matter given that the case revolves around the issue of not whether there is an entitlement but on who should collect the entitlements in question. In other words, is the issue one of employment law or one in relation to administration of the estate of a dead person, even if that dead person was an employee entitled to benefits. The parties were then asked by the Court to address it on this issue of jurisdiction. The parties differently filed their respective written address, with the respondents filing first on 17th January 2013 and the applicant filing on 22nd January 2013. The Court discountenanced this and asked the respondents to respond to that of the applicant who then would have a right to reply on points of law. The respondents did by filing their response on21st February 2013. The applicant then filed its reply on points of law on 6th March 2013. All of these processes were deemed adopted by the Court and ruling was slated for the next adjourned date. The facts of the case according to the applicant is that he is the 1st son and next of kin of late Mr. Osim Michael Eno. He was issued with a letter of administration (Exhibit 7) to enable him administer the estate of his late father, which includes the pension and gratuity owed to his late father by the respondents. That the respondents are not in any way denying any of the applicant’s claims because they have filed nothing to deny the applicant’s claim. The applicant then frame the issue for determination along the lines of that already framed by the Court. The applicant contended that the issue framed by the Court has two arms. The first arm is whether this Court has jurisdictional competence to entertain the matter. The second is who should collect the entitlement. As regards the first arm of the issue, the applicant submitted that by the authority of Oloruntoba-Oju v. Dopamu [2008] 52 WRN 1 at 28 lines 20 – 25, the relevant consideration in determining the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit is the claims brought by the applicant and not the capacity in which the claim is bought. That in the instant case, it is immaterial that the applicant is coming to the Court with Exhibit 7 (the latter of administration of the estate of the deceased), or whether he was not the employee of the 2nd respondent; the relevant consideration is the applicant’s claim before the Court and not the capacity in which it is brought as it is the applicant’s claim that vest the Court with jurisdiction. The applicant then asked what his claim is. To him, his main claim which should vest jurisdiction on the Court is – A declaration that the applicant, by virtue of the Letters of Administration granted him on the 11th of March 2011 by the High Court of Cross River State, is the lawful beneficiary entitled to receive the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno. Furthermore, that the provision of section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, vest jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine civil causes and matters relating to, and or connected with, disputes arising from the payment of wages, salaries, pensions, gratuities, entitlements, etc. that from the foregoing, a combined effect of the applicant’s main claim and section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, vests this Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, urging the Court to so hold. Regarding the second arm as to who is entitled to receive the deceased’ entitlements, the applicant submitted that his claims has shown Exhibit 7, being a letter of administration, and by section 9 of the administration of Estate Laws, Cross River State, Exhibit 7 vests authority on the applicant to manage the deceased estate including collecting the deceased death benefits, pensions and gratuities. That this position has not been countered by the respondents and this is evidenced by the fact that no process has been filed by them against the applicant in this matter. The applicant then cited Yusuf v. Dada [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 647 where the Supreme Court held that the legal effect of letters of administration granted by the Probate Division is that such document now vest the real and personal property of the deceased in the Administrators named in the document, and it is the only legal document by which the family can deal with the real properties of the deceased. That in the instant case, the applicant being the Administrator of the deceased estate by virtue of the letter of administration granted to him by the Probate Division of the High Court, Calabar, is entitled by the authority of Exhibit 7 to collect the deceased entitlements, pensions and gratuities. The applicant further submitted that the respondents are only punishing him by denying him these entitlements as they know that the respondents will not be prejudiced if the applicant’s claim is granted, urging the Court to so hold. The applicant concluded by urging the Court to grant his reliefs. To the respondents, the facts of this case are that the applicant is the son of one Mr. Osim Michael Eno who died intestate on 22nd May 2006. Before his death, he was a staff of the Forestry Commission in the employment of the 2nd respondent. Upon his death, his wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Michael Ofem, obtained a letter of administration and was billed for payment of her husband’s death benefits, pension and gratuity as a cheque was raised in her name until she herself died intestate on 27th July 2010 without collecting the money. The applicant subsequently obtained another letter of administration of his late father’s estate but payment has not been effected because of some mix up about the payment which is yet to be resolved. The applicant, not satisfied with the delay in the payment, then applied to this Court for the earlier mentioned reliefs. The respondents then framed the following issue for the determination of this Court, namely – Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter considering the claims of the applicant before this Court and the powers of this Court as provided in section 264C of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The respondents then argued that a careful perusal of the applicant’s claims shows that they do not fall within, related to or connected with any matter within the jurisdiction of this Court in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. That what determines jurisdiction is the claim of the claimant, citing Tukur v Government of Gongola State [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. That in the instant case, the applicant’s claim bothers on the administration of Osim Michael Eno which includes his pension and gratuity. That the issues are not labour or employment related but are matters arising from the administration of estate and the alleged refusal of the 1st respondent to give effect to the letter of administration issued t the applicant. The respondents went on that it is not in dispute that the late Mr. Osim Michael Eno was in the employment of the 2nd respondent, that he died intestate, his emolument and other benefits about to be paid to his wife who suddenly died but what the applicant wants this Court to resolve is to compel payment of late Mr. Osim Michael Eno’s death benefit, pension and gratuity to him having been the one issued with letter of administration from the High Court of Cross river State. That by Exhibit 7, the letter of administration issued to the applicant, the applicant is only the administrator of his father’s estate; he was not an employee of the 2nd respondent. The respondents continued that section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, does not vest jurisdiction on this Court to entertain and determine reliefs such as claimed by the applicant in this case, particularly his claims 1 and 2. That this Court is not invited to determine whether late Osim Michael Eno was entitled to be paid his death benefits and other entitlements but to make an order for the payment to the applicant having been issued with the letter of administration. The respondents then submitted that this Court cannot entertain this case since it has to do with administration of estate. To the respondents, the dispute contemplated by section 254C(1)(a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is such dispute arising from employment relationship and not that arising from who administers the death benefit of a deceased person as in this case. The respondents then submitted that section 254C(1)(k) deals with a situation where there is a dispute involving an employee or any other category of persons mentioned in the section concerning payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pension, gratuities, allowances, benefits of the person concern. Accordingly, that this Court would have had jurisdiction if Mr. Osim Michael Eno himself had come to this Court requiring payment of his entitlements where it was refused. However, that in the instant case, it is the administrator of the estate who is complaining of the non-payment of his father’s death benefits. That the words and provisions of section 254C(1)(k) are very clear and unambiguous. That this Court has a duty to apply the clear and unambiguous provision of the Constitution, referring to Nyame v, FRN [2010] 3 SC (Pt. 11) 78 and Balonwu & 5 ors v. Gov. of Anambra State & 33 ors (citation was not supplied). The respondent then submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case or power to expend the scope of its jurisdiction given to it by the Constitution. The respondents continued that jurisdiction is the live wire of any adjudication, citing Drexel Energy and National Resources Ltd & 2 ors v. Trans International Bank Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 at 427, Madukolu & ors v. Nkemdilim [1962] All NLR (Pt. 2) 581 and Cotecna International Ltd v. Churchgate Nigeria Ltd & anor [2010] 12 SC (Pt. 11) 140 at 186 – 187. That contrary to the argument of the applicant that the respondents are only punishing him by failure to pay his father’s entitlement and urging this Court to so hold, the issue of jurisdiction is devoid of sentiment and no matter how good a case is, if a court has no jurisdiction, it is a nullity, citing Umanah v. Attah [2006] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 SC. The respondents concluded by submitting that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit brought before it by the applicant. The respondents then urged the Court to strike out the case. In his reply on points of law, the applicant contended that the first thing to resolve is the interpretation given to section 254C(1)(k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Section 254C(1)(k) provides as follows – 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 – (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, a judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto. To the applicant the key thing to note here is the opening paragraph of section 254C(1) – which the respondents did not refer to in their address – and the three phrases “relating to”, “connected with” and “matters incidental thereto” used in the said subsection. That these phrases mean that notwithstanding the court that had jurisdiction in any matter before the coming into effect of this law, it is this Court that has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to, connected with or incidental to disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, etc. The applicant then asked: do not the claims or reliefs of the applicant relate, connect or are they not incidental to a dispute arising from non-payment of salaries, pensions, gratuities or benefits of any employee, to vest this Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter? The applicant answered in the affirmative, urging the Court to also hold so. The applicant continued that the various jurisdictions hitherto enjoyed by the various High Courts under sections 251, 257 and 272 of the 1999 Constitution have all been subsumed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC but only in matters relating to, connected with or incidental to 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. To the applicant, therefore, when there is an administration of estate matter, but it does not relate to or connect 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 matter incidental thereto, this Court will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a matter. When otherwise, like in the instant case, this Court will assume jurisdiction. The applicant contended further that the respondents wrongly stated that section 254C(1)(k) deals only with a situation where there is a dispute involving an employee. That the true position of the section is that this Court shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters “relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, benefits, gratuities etc….” That it will amount to misleading this Court for the respondent to contend that it is right to interpret the phrase “relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries etc” as being the same thing as their proposal of the phrase “a dispute involving an employee…”, urging the Court to reject the respondents’ argument and grant the application. The second issue, to the applicant, is the fundamental relief or complaint of the applicant, which is the second relief as follows – A declaration that the refusal, neglect and failure by the 1st respondent to pay to the applicant the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno, despite repeated demands for same, is unjustifiable and unlawful. This relief as couched, according to the applicant, is an unambiguous compliant of a dispute over the non-payment of the pension, death benefits and gratuity. The applicant went on that his third relief is no less a complaint of a dispute of non-payment of the pension, death benefits and gratuity and calling on the Court to compel the respondents to pay the money to the applicant. On the third issue, the applicant contended that he instituted this suit as an administrator of the estate of his late father in the cause (sic) of the administration of the said estate upon the letter of administration already granted. That he is not asking this Court to grant him a letter of administration. That the capacity in which he (as an administrator of the estate of his late father) instituted this suit is not the criterion for determination of the jurisdiction of this Court in this matter. The proper criterion to use is the claim of the applicant, referring to Oloruntoba-Oju v. Dopamu [2008] 52 WRN 1 at 28 lines 20 – 25. That the capacity under which a party institutes a matter cannot be used to determine the jurisdiction of the Court; and that the respondents did not contest this point. That the legal consequence of the respondents not contesting this argument is that they have nothing to offer on that point, citing Guinness Nig. v. Nwoke [2001] FWLT (Pt. 36) 981 at 985 Ratio 6. The applicant then urged the Court to hold that it has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. In considering the merit of this matter, I must quickly dispose of the contention of the applicant that “the capacity under which a party institutes a matter cannot be used to determine the jurisdiction of the Court”. The argument of the applicant regarding this point was made in a manner that suggests that the point is absolute and immutable. But nothing can be farther from the truth. Where a Court has been granted jurisdiction over persons, and some person other than one within the category of persons listed sues, it is unlikely that the Court will assume jurisdiction. To take an example from this Court, section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and section 254C(1) gives this Court jurisdiction over trade unions. A body other than a trade union, for instance, an association registered under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), except where it has issues with its employees (in which even the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court will be activated), cannot sue in this Court regarding matters peculiar to it as an association registered as such. In such a situation, can the blanket submission of the applicant that “the capacity under which a party institutes a matter cannot be used to determine the jurisdiction of the Court” hold ground? I do not think so. This point made, the critical question which calls for determination is what actually the claim of the applicant is. The applicant had argued that his second relief is his main relief. But is this the case? At the risk of repetition, the key claims of the applicant are the first three claims. They are: 1. A declaration that the applicant, by virtue of the Letters of Administration granted him on the 11th of March 2011 by the High Court of Cross River State, is the lawful beneficiary entitled to receive the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno. 2. A declaration that the refusal, neglect and failure by the 1st respondent to pay to the applicant the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno, despite repeated demands for same, is unjustifiable and unlawful. 3. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st respondent either by himself, his agents, servants or successors in office, to immediately pay over to the applicant or his agents the sum of N930,024.96 being the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father, Mr. Osim Michael Eno. Relief 1 is a claim for a declaratory order that the applicant, given the letters of administration granted him, is the lawful beneficiary entitled to receive the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father. The question that arises here is: before this Court can grant this prayer, what issue(s) must this Court determine? The Court must first determine that the letter of administration given to the applicant is legal and valid; and secondly the legality/validity or otherwise of the claim of the applicant that he is actually the lawful beneficiary entitled to receive the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father. What law would this Court use in determining these issues? Certainly not employment law. It is when the first relief is sorted out that the talk of the other reliefs can arise. In this sense, I do not agree with the applicant that his main claim is relief 2. I am of the opinion that the main claim is actually relief 1; and I so find and hold. Even looking at relief 2, the prayer is for a declaration that “the refusal, neglect and failure by the 1st respondent to pay to the applicant the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father…, despite repeated demands for same, is unjustifiable and unlawful”. The issue here is the lawfulness of the refusal to pay the entitlements to the applicant, not just the fact of non-payment itself. I once again ask: what law would be used in determining this issue? Certainly not employment law. The third relief is one for an order “compelling the 1st respondent either by himself, his agents, servants or successors in office, to immediately pay over to the applicant or his agents the sum of N930,024.96 being the death benefits, pension and gratuity of his late father”. The issue here is one that touches on the legality of the applicant to receive the benefits of the late father. This is because the third relief is hinged on a favourable finding regarding reliefs 1 and 2 before it can be granted. On the whole, I do not think that the applicant has made out a case for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over his claims. I accordingly hold that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The case accordingly struck out. I make no order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly.