Download PDF
The claimant filed this complaint on the 10th July 2012 against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: (i) The sum of N304,885.00 being balance of unpaid and part salary due claimant when claimant’s employment with defendant was subsisting and not determined by defendant and medical bills. (ii) The sum of N4,492,800.00 being salary claimant would have earned if claimant worked to retirement age but for claimant’s incapacitation caused by defendant. (iii) General damages of N5million to claimant for injuries and pains caused by defendant. (iv) Interest on the judgement sum at the rate of 25% per month from October, 2005 until full and final settlement of judgement sum. (v) Cost of litigation to be determined by the Honourable court. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, copies of documents to be relied on, name of witness and witness deposition. In reaction, the defendant entered a conditional appearance filed its statement of defence together with a motion on notice on the 28th September 2012. The motion is brought pursuant to Order 2 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and section 9(2) of the Limitation Laws of Lagos State CAP L67 Laws of Lagos State. It is praying for: An order striking out or dismissing the suit on the ground that the action is statute barred. The claimant in opposition swore to a 14 paragraph affidavit on the 5th November 2012 and filed a written address in support. Learned counsel to the defendant raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether this Honourable Court can hear and determine this matter in view of the fact that the action is already statute barred. He submitted that the failure of the claimant to bring this action within three years is fatal to the case and robs the court of jurisdiction to hear this matter. He referred to section 9(1) & (2) of the Limitation law and stated that the cause of action arose in 2005. He stated further that the action was commenced in 2007 wrongly in the Lagos State High Court, when the National Industrial Court Act 2006 had given exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter to this court. He referred to section 7(1) (a) of the Act. He argued that commencing an action in the wrong court is not an excuse and does not avail the claimant when the issue of Limitation is raised, as it amounts to the action never being commenced. He cited Bakare v Nigeria Railway Corporation [2007] 7-10 SC 17, Hassan v Aliyu & 2 Others [2010] 7-12 SC 21 at 28 and urged the court to dismiss the action with substantial costs. Learned counsel to the claimant raised two issues for determination as follows: (a) Whether the claimant’s cause of action is statute-barred and how the period of limitation should be determined. (b) Whether the court in exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction on labour matters can have due regard to good labour industrial relations. He argued that the NIC Act 2006 which conferred jurisdiction on labour matters also gave the same powers to the High Courts at the time this action was instituted in the Lagos State High Court on the 25th June 2007. He referred to section 272 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. He argued that the claimant diligently prosecuted the suit in the State High Court up to trial stage. It was his contention that the provisions of the Third Alteration Act “made the presiding Honourable Justice O.O. Femi-Adeniyi of the High Court of Lagos State (Lagos Division) in Suit No. LD/781/07 to decline jurisdiction and further directed that the matter be discontinued and be taken to the proper court pursuant to the Third Alteration Act No. 3” He stated that the suit was discontinued on the 29th March, 2012 at the Lagos State High Court and this action filed on the 10th July 2012 in this court. He argued that this forms an unbroken chain of causation which is far less than the three years contemplated by the provisions of the Limitation Law. He cited Dangana v Govt Kwara State [2011] 50 WRN (incomplete citation) Adimora v Ajufo [1988] 19 NSCC 1005, Adekoya v FHA [2008] 6 MJSC 73-74, Egbe v Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR(Pt 47) 1. Counsel argued that the court is enjoined to exercise good or International best practice in labour matters pursuant to section 7(6) of the NIC Act 2006. It was his contention that it will be against good labour practice if the claimant is denied access to the court because of the Third Alteration Act. He urged the court to dismiss the application with substantial costs. Having carefully considered the processes filed, the submissions of counsel and authorities cited, the issue to be resolved is whether the Third Alteration Act 2010 as an intervening law can be used as a basis to discontinue a part heard matter pending in the Lagos State High Court without a fresh action on the same subject matter being caught up by the Limitation law. There is no dispute between the parties that the claimant was an employee of the defendant and that the cause of action arose on 15th October 2005 when he fell and sustained injuries at the defendant’s site as averred in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts. Section 9(1) & (2) of Limitation Law of Lagos State CAP L67 2003 provides: (1) This section applies to actions claiming damages for negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of a provision made by or under an enactment or independently of any contract or of any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance, or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to any person”. (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, no action to which this section applies shall be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. A cause of action is said to be statute barred if in respect of its proceedings it cannot be brought because the period laid down by the Limitation law has elapsed. See Egbe v Adefarasin [1987] 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1 at 20, Udoh Trading Company Ltd v Abere [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt 723) 114. This action was filed on the 10th July 2012 which is about four years after the time prescribed by section 9(2) of the Limitation law. It is not in dispute that an earlier action had been commenced at the Lagos State High Court within time and was already part heard when it was discontinued by the claimant. I must at this juncture observe that the certified true copy of the proceedings at the Lagos High Court before Hon. Justice O.O. Femi-Adeniyi is at variance with the claimants counsel position of what transpired in that court. Indeed, the learned trial Judge Hon. Justice O.O. Femi-Adeniyi raised the issue of jurisdiction suo moto and asked counsel to address him on the effect of the Third Alteration Act 2010. They were ordered to file and exchange written addresses and the matter adjourned to March 29 2012 for adoption. On the day for adoption, the claimant’s counsel rather than adopt his written address informed the court that he had an application. It was not opposed by the defendants counsel and the court made the following order “Leave be and is hereby granted to the claimant to discontinue this suit pursuant to the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010”. This clearly shows that the claimants counsel brought the application to discontinue the matter instead of adopting his written address and allowing the court rule on the matter. It is therefore incorrect for the claimants counsel to state that the learned trial Judge “directed that the matter be discontinued and be taken to the proper court”. Section 7(1) (a) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the subject matter of this suit on this court. This has been reinforced by the Third Alteration Act 2010 with the commencement date of 4th March 2011. The State High Court from that day ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. A situation such as this had already been anticipated and adequate provision made in section 24(3) of the NIC Act 2006 as follows: (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment or law, no cause or matter shall be struck out by the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the ground that such cause or matter was not brought in the appropriate court in which it ought to have been brought, and the court before whom such cause or matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate Judicial Division of the Court in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force in that High Court or made under any enactment or law empowering the making of rules of court generally which enactment or law shall by virtue of this subsection be deemed also to include the power to make rules of court for the purposes of this subsection. This provision has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Echelunkwo John .O. & 90 Others v Igbo-Etiti Local Government Area; Appeal No. CA/E/261/2012 delivered on 10th December 2012 and its purpose succinctly stated per John Inyang Okoro J.C.A at pages 8 & 12 of the judgement reproduced below: It appears to me as was also observed by learned counsel to both parties in this appeal, that section 24(3) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 is divided into two parts. The first part states clearly and unequivocally that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment or law, no cause or matter SHALL be struck out by the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the ground that such cause or matter was not brought in the appropriate court in which it ought to have been brought. The clear and ordinary meaning of this first part is to save all suits filed in the Federal State and Federal Capital Territory High Courts which ordinarily ought to have been filed at the National Industrial Court……………………… Before I end this judgement, I wish to observe and agree with learned counsel for the Appellant that section 24(3) of the National Industrial Act, 2006 was not made for the fun of it. It has a purpose to serve. Following the enactment of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the National Industrial Court on Labour matters, both State and Federal High Courts including that of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja ceased to have jurisdiction in those matters pending before them. If they are struck out and there is need to file them afresh, some of them may be caught by statute of limitation and the plaintiffs in such situation, without no fault of theirs, would suffer grave injustice. It became necessary to make such provisions as section 24(3) of the National Industrial Court Act in order to preserve such suits and be transferred to the National Industrial Court for proper adjudication. The effect therefore of not applying for an order of transfer of the matter from the Lagos State High Court to this Court is that this action is caught by section 9(2) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State. I hold that this action is statute barred. It is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. ______________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae