Download PDF
The Claimant brought this action by way of Complaint dated and filed on 21st January 2013 claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs 1. The Sum of N29, 139,995.00 (Twenty Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Five Naira) only being the debt owed the Claimants by the Defendants arising from the Claimants Statutory allowances as computed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Or alternatively – any other sum or amount as may be effectively or properly calculated by the Honourable court as arising from the said statutory allowances. 2. The sum of N207,500.00 (Two Hundred and Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) being additional debt owed the 2nd claimant by the Defendants. 3. 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. The Complaint is accompanied by a Statement of Facts establishing the cause of action, list of witnesses, Statements on oath of witness, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The claimant on the 21st of January 2013 filed a motion for summary Judgment pursuant to Order 10 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable court. The Motion is praying for the same reliefs as contained in the complaint, as follows: 1. AN ORDER for summary judgment in the Sum of N29,139,995.00 (Twenty Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety Five Naira) only being the debt owed the Claimants by the Defendants arising from the Claimants Statutory allowances as computed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Or alternatively – any other sum or amount as may be effectively or properly calculated by the Honourable court as arising from the said statutory allowances. 2. The sum of N207, 500.00 (Two Hundred and Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) being additional debt owed the claimant by the Defendants. 3. Interest rate at the rate of 21% per annum on the aforesaid sum from January 2010 till the date of Judgment and 10% monthly interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment till same is finally liquidated. And such further orders(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The motion is accompanied by a 19 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Hon. Jonah Mba the first claimant/applicant in this suit and also attached is a statement of facts in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Also annexed are the documents to be relied upon and a written address in support of the motion for summary Judgment. Counsel to the Claimants/Applicants formulated a lone issue for determination. i.e: whether the claimants are entitled to summary Judgment in the circumstances of this case. In arguing the issue, counsel submitted that the defendant has no defence in this claim whatsoever. Counsel referred the court to paragraph 2-18 of the affidavit in support of the application and paragraph 2-35 of the statement of facts and Exhibits “A” - “D” and stated that the general complaint and accompanying processes before the court are to the effect that the Defendants/Respondents have no defence to this action. Claimants/Applicants’ counsel in his written address in support of the application for summary judgment, argued that there was no dispute whatsoever about the said indebtedness of the defendants/respondents to the claimants. He stated that the defendants only failed to pay the debt out of greed, despite the available funds provided for same. Counsel contended that the same allowance giving rise to the said debt has been pronounced upon by the High Court of Abia state in the unreported case of - HON. EMEZUE SAMPSON & 19 ORS V. UMUAHIA NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT Suit No: HU/224/2007. Counsel therefore urged this court to grant the application as the defendants/respondents have no defence to the claim. By a motion on notice filed on the 10th day of April 2013, the 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents filed a memorandum of appearance, Statement of defence and other defence processes in the suit. These were deemed as duly filed and served on the 17th of July 2013. On the 25th day of June 2013, the 1st defendant/respondent also filed a motion for extension of time within which to file their defence processes. These were also deemed as duly filed and served on the 17th of July 2013. In response to the motion for summary judgment counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents on the 10th day of April 2013,filed a 13 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Deacon Loveday Nwangwa the Director Inspectorate and Monitoring Department, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftancy Affairs Abia State. They also filed a written address. In his written address in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants submitted that the defendants have a strong and reasonable defence to the claims of the claimants; he stated that it would not be reasonable for the claimants to continue in their illusion or delusion that their claims are straightforward and unchallengeable. Counsel referred to the fact that they had filed a counter affidavit challenging the claims of the claimants, as well as a statement of defence, and indeed a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit. He submitted that the allowances the claimants are asking for are statutory and are neither here nor there and that the onus is on the claimants to show that their claims are legal or supported by law. Counsel contended that the letter the claimants are relying on, does not create a clear and definite obligation on any person to pay them and can neither constitute laws nor authority to pay. He therefore urged the court to refuse the Claimants’ application for summary judgment. Counsel to the 1st defendant did not file any counter affidavit to the motion for summary judgment. By way of adumbration, Claimants’ counsel urged the court to strike out the counter affidavit of the 2nd and 3rd defendant on ground of incompetence. He submitted that Order 10 of the NIC Rules does not provide for such process. He also submitted that the 1st defendant is deemed to have conceded to the application for summary judgment, having not filed anything in opposition thereto. I have carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of the parties on the motion for summary judgment. The lone Issue that stands out for consideration in the motion for summary judgment is: “Whether the claimants are entitled to summary Judgment in the circumstances of this case”. Summary Judgments are procedures whereby the court awards judgments in favour of a plaintiff/claimant without the need to go through the rudiments of trial. It is a quick or speedy means of disposing a case particularly when the matter is not contentious or when the defendant has no defence to the claim. In the case of UNITED BANK OF AFRICA &ANOR V. ALHAJI BABANGIDA JARGABA (2007) 5 S.C.5 AT 11 PARA 30 – 35(SC) or (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247, Mohammad JSC stated that : “A summary judgment is a procedure for disposing with dispatch, cases which are virtually uncontested. It also applies to cases where there can be no reasonable doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay. It is for the plain and straight forward, not for the devious and crafty”. A Claimant will be entitled to summary judgment if a defendant’s affidavit or oral examination by the judge does not disclose that he has a good defence to the action, or where it does not disclose sufficient facts to entitle him to defend the action generally. This was the view of the Supreme Court per Karibi Whyte JSC in the case of UTC (NIG) LTD. vs. PAMOTEI (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) @244. The general principles of law governing summary judgments is that Once the defendant shows that there is a genuine fair case for defence, or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence or even a fair probability that he has a bona-fide defence, he ought to be given leave to defend. In showing cause why a defendant should be allowed to defend an action, a complete defence need not be shown, it is necessary for the defence to show that there is a triable issue or question, or that for some other reasons there ought to be trial. In the case of BELOXI INDUSTRIES LTD & ANOR vs. HWA TAI INDUSTRIES BERHARD LTD.(2011) LPELR-2867(CA) The Court of Appeal held thus(per OGUNBIYI, J.C.A @Pp. 18-19, paras. G-D): “At the stage in which a defendant is applying for leave to defend, it is not necessary for the trial judge to consider whether the defence has been proved.The merit of the defence would be determined at the substantive trial if leave to defend is given.” Furthermore Mohammed JSC has held in the UBA Plc vs. Jargaba case (Supra), that: “Summary judgments are resorted to by courts and given to the plaintiff without the necessity of a plenary trial of an action. They are devices available for prompt and expeditious disposal of controversy without trial when there is no dispute as to either material fact or inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if only question of law is involved. “ Where the defendant files a statement of defence before or at the time of filing the affidavits to show cause why he should be let in to defend the action, the court in its determination cannot ignore the defence but should rather examine same and if necessary, rely thereon in deciding whether or not to let the defendant defend the action. See the case of F.M.G V. SANNI (1990) 4 NWLR 688 In the instant case counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants /Respondents and Counsel to the 1st Defendant /Respondent have both filed Statements of defence, in opposition to the Claimants’ Statement of facts. The counsel to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants /Respondents in his written address opposing this application, has also raised issues to the effect that the allowances that claimants are asking for are statutory and neither here nor there, and the onus is on the claimants to show that their claims are legal or supported by law. I hold that these are triable issues which can only be resolved by delving into the merit of this case. I am bound by the decisions cited stated above in relation to this application for summary judgment. On the whole, and for all the reasons given, it is my holding that the Claimant’s application for summary judgment fails and is hereby dismissed. The suit shall forthwith proceed to hearing. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge