Download PDF
RULING The Claimant’s claim against the defendant dated and filed on the 21st day of January 2013 is as follows: 1. The sum of N45, 247,678.00 (Forty Five Million, Two Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Naira) only, being the debt owed the Claimants by the Defendant arising from the Statutory allowances and salary arrears as computed and acknowledged by the Defendant. 2. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum on the aforesaid sum from May 2002 till the date of Judgment and 10% monthly interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment till same is finally liquidated. By a Motion on Notice dated the 18th day of June 2013 and filed on the 21st day of June 2013, and brought a Pursuant to Order 11Rule 2 of the NICN Rules 2007 and under the inherent Jurisdiction of the court, the Defendant is seeking for an order striking out or dismissing this suit for being incompetent and for want of Jurisdiction of this court to entertain same, and for such other orders as the court may deem fit to make. The application was brought, upon the following grounds:- (1) That the suit is incompetent, (2) The suit is statute barred. (3) The suit has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. In Support of the Motion is a 5-paragraph Affidavit Deposed to by one Henry Abba Kalu, a litigation officer in the Abia State Ministry of Justice. Counsel also filed a written address in Support of the Motion. The Claimants’ counsel, filed a Written reply brief in opposition to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection. The Claimants’ counsel has also filed a Motion on Notice seeking the leave of this honourable court to correct the name of the Defendant by adding the word “council” thereby reading “Ikwuano Local Government Council” instead of Ikwuano Local Government.” The said motion, filed and dated the 31st day of July 2013, is supported by a 3 paragraph Affidavit and a Written Brief. The Defendant’s counsel has also filed a written brief in opposition to the Claimants’ application for amendment. Since the arguments in respect of the two applications before the court overlap one another, the court has decided to take the two applications together and give a considered ruling. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of counsel to the parties on both the preliminary objection and the motion for amendment. The issues for determination as formulated by the parties are: 1. Whether the suit is competent. 2. Whether the suit is statute barred. 3. Whether the suit discloses any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. I shall proceed to first of all consider the 2nd issue as to whether the suit is statute barred. On this, the case of the learned counsel for the Defendants is that the provisions of section 114 of the Local Government Law (No. 2) of Abia State, 2006 which provides for limitation period for any action to be instituted against the Local Government in Abia State shall apply. The said law provides that any suit intended against any Local Government Council for any act done in pursuance or execution of any law or alleged neglect or default in the execution of such law, duty or authority shall be instituted within three months next after the act. The defence of the claimants to this issue is that section 114 of the Local Government Law (No. 2) of Abia State, 2006 which is in pari-material with Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection law has been over flogged by judicial authorities to the effect that same does not apply to cases based on contract, money or debt owed, claim for work done, or labour. He relied on the authorities of: (a) NPA vs Construzioni Generali FCS & anor (1974) NSCC 622,630-631; (b) FGN vs Zebra Energy (2003) 1 MJSC 1,19-21, paras G-D; (c) Osun State Government vs Danlami Nig. Ltd (2007) 6 MJSC 187, 198-200, paras G-F; (d) NSITFMB vs Klifco Nig. Ltd (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt1211) 307, 329 Paras A-G; 336 para D; (e) Salako vs LEDB and anor 20 NLR 169; (f) Oghide & ors vs Jason Air Ltd (2011) 22 NLLR (Pt. 61) 58; (g) Ordia vs Govt of Delta State (2008) 7WRN 138, 149-150 lines 40-10 Learned Claimants’ counsel added that Section 19 of the Limitation Law of Abia State excludes the operation of S114 of the Local Government Law of Abia State to cases founded on contract, money or debt owed, claim for work or labour done, as the Claimants have claimed in this suit. He said further that this case at hand is certainly not the type envisaged by section 114 of the Local Government Law, and therefore cannot apply thereto. The Claimant’s claim essentially is that they have served or worked for the Local Government, and the statute has provided that any such person that works must be entitled to same. Counsel further referred Court to the ruling of this Honorable court in suit No NIC/EN/120/2012 and Suit No NIC/EN/07/2012. Having considered arguments in respect of this issue, I am convinced that the claim of the Claimants is for work done, and their claim is for exact sums of money payable for work done, and therefore can be looked into, to determine its veracity or otherwise. I therefore hold that the action as filed by the Claimants is not statute barred. On the first issue, the case of the learned counsel for the Defendant is that the suit as filed by the Claimants is incompetent and grossly defective, for the reason that the Defendant is not a legal personality known to law, therefore an action cannot be maintained against her. Defendant’s counsel submitted that “Ikwuano Local Government’ is a mere name of a place, and that it is not clothed with legal personality. Counsel referred to Section 7 and the Forth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and submitted, relying on the authority of Babalola vs. Osogbo Local Government (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 465@471, that it is “Ikwuano Local Government Council” that can be sued and not “Ikwuano Local Government”. I shall consider the arguments and submissions of counsel in respect of this issue alongside those with respect to the Claimants’ application for amendment. In support of the Claimant’s Motion for Amendment is a 3 paragraph Affidavit deposing to facts pointing to the omission of the word “Council” as a misnomer or a printer’s error or an inadvertence of counsel. In his written brief, counsel relied on the case of Idanre Local Govt vs. Governor of Ondo State (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1214) at pg. 504, 512 and 525 and submits that the omission of “Council” in the name of the Defendant was only a misnomer which the court should allow to be corrected. He submitted further that the Claimant’s application was not to substitute a party, but rather, to correct a name, which he stated, can be done by amendment. He referred to the ruling on this honorable court sitting in Enugu in the case of NICN/EN/120/2012 which he says is on all fours with this case. Counsel to the Defendant, in his written address, conceded to the fact that this court has the capacity to allow the correction of a misnomer, even suo moto. He however submitted that a correction would not be allowed to change a non-legal person to a legal person. He contends that “Ikwuano Local Government” is not a legal person and the error in suing it is fatal, and adding the word “council” would not be permissible. On the same point in the Defendant’s counsel’s written address in support of his preliminary objection, he contends that Ikwuano Local Govt. Area, being a creation of statute, is a mere geographical location, not clothed with legal personality, and cannot perform any function leading to a cause of action. He referred court to the case of Fawehinmi vs. Nigeria Bar Association (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR 558 at 595. Having considered the submissions of counsel on this point, I hold that it is not in doubt that the defendant is Ikwuano Local Government which the Claimants served as elected leaders. If there is an error in the name of the defendant, such can be corrected, especially as the Claimants have brought an application to that effect. I am inclined to view this omission as a misnomer which can be corrected by way of amendment. I am satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected is a genuine one and not misleading, and it will not vitiate proceedings duly initiated or properly filed. See the cases of Arab Contractors (OAO) Nigeria Ltd vs El-Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co Ltd. (2009) LPELR-8735 (CA) and Salau Itopa Bello & Anor vs. Sadiq Asema Mohammed & ors. (2008) LPELR-3865 (CA). The motion for amendment is therefore granted, and the word “Council” is hereby ordered to be added to the defendant’s name in all the processes in this case. On the third issue, the case of the defendant’s counsel is that the entire Statement of Claim of the Claimants together with their statement in support of this suit does not disclose any justiciable cause of action. The defendant contended and urged the court to hold that the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission acted ultra vires its powers in providing for the remuneration of councillors in its circular titled “Explanatory Notes on councilors Remuneration Package” dated 7th November 2001, upon which the Claimants’ claim is based. Claimant’s Counsel’s argument is that Section 32(d), item N of the Third Schedule to the 1999 constitution gives the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission the power to “determine the remuneration appropriate for political office holders including the President, Vice-President, Governors, Deputy Governors, Ministers, Commissioners, Special Advisers, Legislators and the holders of the offices mentioned in Sections 84 and 124 of this constitution.” The use of the word “including” in the above Section connotes that the list is not exhaustive. Black’s law dictionary defines “include” to mean “to contain as part of something”. The participle “including” typically indicates a partial list. See Black’s law dictionary. The circular in question, upon which the claimants’ claim is based, is a circular from the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission, which is the body that has the constitutional power to determine the remuneration of political office holders. See Section 32(d), item N of the Third Schedule to the 1999 constitution. Section 254(C)(1)(k) confers exclusive jurisdiction on this honourable court in matters relating to payment or non-payment of pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation. For the reasons given, and having considered all the arguments and submissions of counsel on this point, I am inclined to hold that there is a reasonable cause of action against the defendant, and I so hold. On the whole, I hold that the preliminary objection of the Defendant/Applicant fails and is hereby dismissed. The Claimant’s motion for amendment hereby succeeds. The word “Council” shall be added to the name of the 1st defendant in all processes in this suit. The case shall now proceed to hearing. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge