Download PDF
The claimant filed his complaint on the 5th March, 2013. He is claiming the following: 1. The payment of the sum of N213,000.00 (Two Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira only) being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's end-of-service benefits. 2. The payment of the sum of N40,000.00 (Forty Thousand Naira Only) being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's May salary not paid. 3. The payment of the sum of N25,000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand Naira Only)being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's salaries illegally deducted. 4. The payment of the. sum of NI18,000.00 (One Hundred and Eighteen Thousand Naira Only) being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's personal' effects destroyed at the company's quarters when he was forcefully evicted. ' 5. The payment of the sum of N35,000.00 (Thirty Five Thousand Naira Only) being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's housing allowance from the date he was evicted from the company's quarters until the date he officially stopped Work with DAJCOM Limited. 6. The payment of the sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira Only)being the liquidated money demand in respect of the claimant's overtime benefits. . 7. The payment of the sum of N500,000.00 (Five 'Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as general damages for pain and suffering caused by these inhumane treatments. 8. The payment of the sum of Nl,000,000.00 (One Million Naira Only) as punitive damages. 9. The payment of accrued interest at the rate of 21 % on the total sum from the date due till payment thereof. 10. The payment of interest that shall accrue on the total sum from the 21st of June 2011 when the first demand notice was issued until the matter is conclusively determined and the principal sum liquidated. 11. The cost of instituting this action and its, Solicitors fees assessed at Nl,000,000.00 (One Million Naira Only). The defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 9th April, 2013 and filed 10th April, 2013, praying for the following: 1. An Order of this Honourable Court striking the name of the 2nd Defendant, Mr. David Safa, off the list of parties in this suit for want of cause of action against the 2nd Defendant. 2. An Order of this Honourable Court declaring that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter in respect of the 2nd defendant, who is the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. 3. And any further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances. The Motion is supported by an affidavit deposed to by one Musediq Adigun- Olusi, a Litigation clerk and a written address. In his address the defendant/applicant submitted that the 2nd defendant is only the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter in respect of the 2nd Defendant. It was submitted that the claimant could validly proceed this suit against the 1st defendant who is his employer. He then raised these issues for determination of the Court. 1. Whether the Claimant can bring this action, in this court, against the 2nd defendant who is only Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. 2. If the issue above is answered in the negative whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. On issue one the defendant contended that the claimant cannot validly commence or sustain this action against the 2nd defendant. It was submitted that the jurisdiction of this court as expressly provided in section 7 of the NICN Act, has no correlation with the grievance nursed by the claimant against the 2nd defendant who is only a Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. It was further submitted that a defendant wrongly or irregularly summoned has an option either:- a. To enter an appearance under protest, or b. To enter a conditional appearance and then file a motion in the Court, asking the trial court seised of the matter to set aside the writ or originating summons on the ground complained. Cited in support is the case of UGWUANYI V. NICON INSURANCE PLC [2004]15 NWLR (Pt. 897)612@b21 The defendant added that the law is settled that a party to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary, and necessary parties in any proceeding are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceeding but also on whose absence, the proceedings could not fairly be dealt with. The case of BIYU V. IBRAHIM [2006]8NWLR (Pt. 981)1@11 was commended. It was the further argument of the defendant that if a contract is made by an agent acting within the scope of his authority for a disclosed principal, the contract is in law, that of the principal and not the agent cited in support is Ataguba & Co. V. Gura (Nig) Ltd [2005]8NWLR(PT927)429@433. On issue two the defendant submitted that in light of above argument, the court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. That the conditions to satisfy before a court could be imbued with jurisdiction in any matter have been subjects of judicial pronouncement in plethora of cases cited in support of this assertion is the case of MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM [1962]2 SCNLR 341 at 348. The defendant submitted that any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are nullity however well conducted and decided. Therefore, where a court lacks jurisdiction its proceeding no matter how well conducted, would not have the blessing of the law or be allowed, reliance was placed on the case of AROWOLO V. ADESINA [2011]2NWLR (pt. 1231)320. It is the further submission of the defendant that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction in a matter or not, the court will examine or consider the writ of summons and statement of claim. This is because only the claim or reliefs can confer jurisdiction to the court referring to the case of Abdul-RAHEEM V. OLORUNTOBA OJO [2006] 15NWLR (Pt. 1003) 587, the defendant concluded that the subject matter of this case, which is a claim for employment termination benefits, to be properly before this court, cannot be brought against the 2nd defendant who is not an employer of the claimant he urged the court to dismiss the claim for want of merit and lack of competence with substantial cost against the claimant. The claimant in response filed a counter affidavit dated and filed 3rd June, 2013. The affidavit is deposed to by one Chinwe Onuoha the counsel handling the suit. It is supported by a written address. In their address the Claimant/Respondent also raised two issues for the determination of the Court: 1. Is the 2nd Defendant a necessary party to this suit? 2. Does this suit exhibit a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant? The Claimant submitted that the 2nd defendant constitute a necessary party to this suit because the claimant’s suit clearly implicates the 2nd Defendant and questions his conduct in the dispensation of his duty as the direct supervisor and boss of the claimant. It was submitted that the claimant worked directly with the 2nd defendant as his personal driver, and the allegations against the defendant cannot be tackled without looking into the roles that were played by the 2nd defendant. It was further submitted that parties who are necessary to a suit are those who not only have interest in the subject matter of the proceedings, but also who in their absence the proceedings cannot be fairly dealt with. Placing reliance on the case of OLUWANIYI V. ADEWUMI [2008] 43 WRN 39 CA and OBASANJO V. YUSUF [2005] 20 WRN 1, it was argued that anyone whose presence is crucial and fundamental to the resolution of a matter before the court must be made a party to the proceeding. Cited in support is the case of RINCO CONTRUCTION CO. LTD V. VEE PEEIND [2006] 17 WRN 119 S.C. It was contended that defendant gave no cogent occasion for failing to pay the claimant’s severance package. It was stated that the defendant’s approach to the discharge of their duty was at best lackadaisical and thus negligent. The claimant placed reliance on the definition of the term cause of action as is provided in the Black's law Dictionary (7th Edition) and Edwin E. Bryant in his work the ' The law of pleadings under the codes of civil procedure' Pg. 70 (2nd edition) as all those things necessary to give right of action whether they are to be done by plaintiff or a 3rd person. The claimant went on to state that cause of action has also been defined as the entire set of facts or circumstances that will give rise to an enforceable claim, Cases of JOHN EMIANTOR V. NIGERIAN AIRM[1999] SCNJ 53, DR. THOMAS V. MOST REV. OLUFOSOYE [2004] 49 WRN 37; AYENI V. A.G EKITI [2002] FWLR (Pt. 100) Pg 1781, LABODE V. OTUZU [2001] 21 WRN 1, AMODU V. AMODU [1990] 5NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 at 367, were commended to the Court. The claimant added that the case of ONIFADE V. FATODU [2008] 45 WRN 119 demonstrates what determines, whether or not a plaintiff has a cause of action also cited is the case of OGBIM V. OLOLO [1993] 7NWLR (Pt.304)128. The claimant submitted that he has a good cause of action against the 2nd defendant and that the application should be resolved in his favour and urged the court to hold that this application is diversionary, frivolous, lacks merit and should therefore be dismissed with substantial cost against the 2nd defendant. The defendants filed further affidavit in response to the claimant’s counter affidavit dated 3rd June, 2013, deposed to by the same Musediq Adigun Olusi a litigation clerk. It is dated 28th June, 2013 and filed the same day. It is also supported by a written address. In this address the defendants raised two issues for Court's determination. 1. Whether there is a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant when the claimant’s statement of facts does not link him as the employer of the claimant. 2. Whether paragraph 6 of the claimant’s counter affidavit is not liable to be struck out in view of same containing a legal prayer. In arguing this issue, the defendants also redefined cause of action as per the case of C.B LTD V. INTERCITY BANK PLC [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 448 and ADEOSUN V. JIBESIN [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt. 724)290. Stating that cause of action is the fact or combination of facts which gives rise to the right to sue and it consist of two elements, which are: a. The wrongful act of the defendant that gives the plaintiff his cause of complain and b. The consequent damages. It was argued that the claimant in his statement of fact admitted that he worked for the 1st defendant, therefore, the alleged grievance against the Managing Director in his personal capacity/name is one which this court has no jurisdiction to entertain. The defendant submitted that the issue whether a party is a necessary party or not must be construed subject to the rules governing jurisdiction. That where the court has no power to entertain the matter in respect of a party, such a party in the circumstance cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be deemed to be a necessary party. On the second issue the defendants submitted that paragraph 6 of the claimant counter affidavit is liable to be struck out, that the paragraph contains legal prayer and contrary to the intendment of the evidence Act 2011. The case of NIGERIAN LNG LTD V. AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE CO. LTD [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt 416) 677 was commended to the Court. It was submitted further that Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that an affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion. The defendants concluded by urging this Court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant from this suit for want of merit and lack of competence with substantial cost against the claimant. Having carefully gone through the processes filed by both parties and submissions of both counsel across the divide both oral and written, the main issue for the consideration of this Court is whether or not the 2nd defendant is a proper party to this suit and consequently whether the Court has jurisdiction against him. I wish to first comment on paragraph 6 of the averment in the Claimant's/respondent counter affidavit the applicant alleged offends Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011; It is an elementary position of the law that affidavit or counter affidavit should contain only a statement of fact and not of law or legal argument or conclusion. See amongst the plethora of cases OKPONIPERE V STATE [2013] 10 NWLR (PT 1362) S.C. P 209 @ 222 PARAS. G-H. Paragraph 6 of the claimant/respondent averment referred to the provisions of the Evidence Act, thus making it contrary to Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act. It is accordingly, struck out of the record. Now, It is a settled principle of law that in deciding whether or not a party is a necessary party to a suit, the Court according to the apex Court in GASSOL V TUTARE [2013] LPELR, 20232. stated the litmus test of who may be a necessary party, thus; "...the blue litmus test for the determination of who may be a necessary party to a Suit is predicated on whether the Judgment will affect the party; and one of the reasons which makes it necessary to make a particular person a party to an action is that he will be bound by the result of the action and to put an end to parallel litigations. In the case at hand, any Judgment by the trial court would affect the 3rd Respondent and the court might often think is most convenient and desirable that the 3rd Respondent should be heard so that the trial court should be sure that it has effectively and completely adjudicated or settle all the questions in the cause before it." Per GALADIMA, J.S.C. (Pp. 29-30, paras. E-A). See also Regd. Trustees, N.A.C.H.P.N. v. M.H.W.U.N [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 412) 1013 at 1028, P. 1074, paras. A - B (SC) . A necessary party to a suit is also said to be someone whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the Court. Of relevance is the apex Court case of L.S.B.P.C V PURIFICATION TECHNIQUES( NIG) LTD. [2013] 7 NWLR, PT 1352, P 82 @ P 113.PRAS. F-G. A cursory perusal of the Claimant's statement of facts and claims reveal contentions that the claimant is being owed some salaries and allowances. The only portion where a mention was made of the 2nd defendant is the fact that he was his driver and he was asked to vacate the BQ he was occupying for another staff, which he did but could not afford the transport fare to work hence he resigned voluntarily from the services of the 1st defendant company. The claimant was employed according to his statement of facts by the 1st defendant and all his claims are against the company and not against the 2nd defendant who is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant's company and also an employee like the claimant. He is an agent of a disclosed principal in this case, i.e. the 1st defendant. It is the Law of common place that an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be sued when the said agent acts within the scope of his authority. All that the 2nd defendant did as per the claimant's statement of facts are within the scope of his duty as an employee of the 1st defendant. Putting it differently, an agent acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no personal liability. See OSIGWE V PMCL & 13 ORS [2009] 1-2 S.C. (PT 1) P 79-97. This Court by virtue of Section 7(1) of the NICN ACT 2006 has jurisdiction to entertain civil causes and matters relating to labour, employment, environment and conditions of work of the worker. It is evident from the processes on record that there is no employment relationship between the claimant and the 1st defendant in this suit. It is equally clear that there is a cause of action against the 1st defendant being the employer of the claimant and not the 2nd defendant. A cause of action is said to be the operative fact or facts (the factual situation), which give rise to a right of action, which is itself a remedial right. See UWAZURUONYE V GOV. IMO STATE [2013] 8 NWLR PT 1355, P 28 @ P50 -57. UNIVERSITY OF JOS V DR M.C. IKEGWUOHA [2013] 9 NWLR PT 1360, P 478 @494; 504 PARAS C-E, MIL.ADMIN.,EKITI STATE V. ALADEYELU [2007] 14 NWLR (Pt.1055) 619; S.P.D.C Nig. Ltd. v. X. M. Fed. Ltd. [2006] 16 NWLR (Pt.1004) 189. Now, Can the Claimant's case be effectively and completely determined without the 2nd defendant as a party in this suit? The answer is in the affirmative. There is no facts or circumstances giving rise to the right of the claimant to file this claims against the 2nd defendant. Having held that there is no cause of action disclosed against the 2nd defendant who is also an employee, consequently the name of the 2nd defendant is hereby struck out of this suit. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the 1st defendant, consequently, the case shall proceed against the 1st defendant. I make no order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI O.O. JUDGE