Download PDF
The Claimant in this suit filed a Complaint in this case on the 11th of September, 2013, praying for the following reliefs---- 1. A DECLATION that the summary dismissal of the Claimant by the defendant is wrongful, unjustifiable, and therefore, null and void. 2. A DECLARATION that the Claimant's appointment with the defendant dated the I' day of March, 2010 with all rights, privileges and entitlements subsist until same is properly determined. 3. A DECLARATION that the defendant is under obligation to pay the Claimant all his salaries, allowances, bonuses etc accruing from January,2012 until his employment is properly determined. 4. A DECLARATION that the defendant is under obligation to give the Claimant one month notice or pay him one month salary in lieu of notice. 5. A DECLARATION that the defendant is under obligation to pay to the Claimant three months salary in addition to other bonuses/allowances in the event that the defendant lawfully terminates the appointment of the Claimant. 6. A DECLARATION that the defendant is liable in damages for the breach of employment contract to the Claimant and also for the inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by the Claimant in consequence of the defendants inconsiderate, hasty, unfair, deliberate and wilful abandonment and discrimination against the Claimant in the hands of the Police for over eight months in an unlawful incarceration. 7. A DECLARATION that the refusal by the defendant to pay the Claimant his lawful salaries and, or entitlement after his release from unlawful detention to the admiration of the defendant is illegal, unlawful, malicious and wicked and therefore amounts to unfair labour practice, thus a breach of employment contract with reckless impunity. 8. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the defendant to pay to the Claimant all his arrears of salaries at N50,000.00 per month and other entitlement that has accrued or is accruing from January 2012 until his employment is properly determined. 9. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court that the defendant pay the Claimant ONE MONTH SALARY IN ILEU of NOTICE. 10. AN ORDER that the defendant is under obligation to pay to the Claimant three months salary in addition to his arrears of salaries and other allowances/bonuses in the event that the defendant properly determines the Claimant's appointment. The defendant filed a conditional appearance and a motion on notice both on the 27th of September 2013. The motion is praying the Court for the following-- 1. An order striking out the name of the applicant as a party to this suit. 2. Or in the alternative, an order striking out the suit. 3. And such further Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The ground upon which the application was filed is that having instituted the action against the Applicant, who happens to be the sole defendant and also not privy to the Claimant's contract of employment, the applicant has been misjoined to this suit and its name ought to be struck out forthwith and the suit struck out for lack of competence. Attached to the motion is a 18 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Maurice Bassey, the Chief Security Officer of the applicant's company. There are 4 annexures attached. They are Exhibits IEPL 1, IEPL2, IEPL 3 and IEPL 4. i.e. Service supply Contract dated 29/11/2011 between the applicant and Horizon Empire Nig.; The independent Service Supply contractors letter dated 8/12/2011; certified true copy of the Judgment of Lagos High Court. Reliance was placed on all the attachments. It was submitted by the applicant that it entered into a service of supply contract dated 29/11/2011 wherein the service contract is to supply trained drivers to the applicant to drive its cars. The duration of the contract according to the applicant was between 1/10/11 to 30/9/12. It was contended that the relation the applicant had with the independent service supply contractor was that of an independent contractor and service supply contractor and thus the drivers are not their employees, agents or partners of the applicant. According to the applicant the Claimant as one of the drivers supplied by the contractor was at all time material to this suit an employee of the independence service supply. A sole issue was raised for the consideration of the Court viz- " Whether having instituted the action against the applicant, who happens to be the sole defendant and also not privy to the Claimant's contract of employment, the applicant has been misjoined to this suit and its name ought to be struck out forthwith and/or the suit struck out for lack of competence''? It was the argument of the defendant/applicant that contract affects only parties to it and cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party to same and thus only a party to a suit can sue and be sued. The Court was referred to these cases; MAKWE V NWUKOR [2001] 14 NWLR, PT 733, P 356 @ P 372, 378; A.G. FEDERATION V A.I.C. LTD [2000] 10 NWLR (PT 678),P 306. Section 91 of the Labour Act, CAP.L1, LFN[2004]; Defines who is an '' employer'' as '' any person who has entered into contract of employment to employ any other person as a worker either for himself or for the service of any other person, and includes the agent, manager or factor of that first mentioned person and the person representatives of a deceased employer''. According to the applicant, clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit IEPL1, made provision to the effect that the driver is not an employee of the defendant. To the applicant the Claimant is in the employ of the Independent Service Supply Contractor who pays his salary but his services is supplied to the applicant under the terms of the contract. It was further posited that Exhibit IEPL3 confirms the withdrawal of the Claimant services and that the Lagos High Court Judgment exonerated the staff of the applicants sued in that case. It was then posited by the applicant that its company is not and cannot be a party to an employment suit filed by the Claimant. It was further contended by the applicant that the law is trite as decided in plethora of cases one of such is the case of ADEFARASIN V DAYEKH[ 2007] 11 NWLR PT 1044, P 118 @ 121, that where there is a misjoinder of a party the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to and on such terms as it appears to the Court to be just order that the name or names of order party/s improperly joined be struck out. It urged the Court to adopt the provisions of Order 13 Rule 16 (2) of the High Court of Lagos State Rules which is permissible to do by Order 15 of the rules of this Court, to either suo moto or upon an application by either party strike out the name of any party improperly joined. It was finally submitted that by Section 254 C (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, this Court is clothe with jurisdiction on employment, industrial and Labour matters, but according to him the party against whom this suit is constituted is not a proper party because there is no contract of employment before it and the Claimant, and thus this Court is not competent to adjudicate on this case, consequent upon which it urged the Court to strike out the suit. The Claimant responded by filing a 37 paragraph Counter affidavit deposed to by John Ameh, the Claimant/respondent in this suit. wherein he narrated how he was employed by the defendant vide an interview conducted by its staff i.e. One Mr. Maurice Bassey, Mr. Dutta and Mr Beat Singh; who are said to be the Chief Security Officer, Admin Manager and Head of accounts. He also averred that he was issued an ID card by the company same as the one issued to other staff of the defendant. He denied knowledge of any Horizon Empire company i.e. the said independent Service Contractor or any other company as his employer except the defendant. It was the position of the Claimant that he had spent 21 months in the employ of the defendant before Exhibit IEPL1 was fabricated to deceive the Court as the said agreement has no retrospective effect. He further averred that his application letter and guarantors form addressed to the defendant are still in his personal staff file kept with the Admin Manager, i.e. Mr. Dutta. He finally averred that the defendant was his employer and the so call Independent contractor if it exist at all is a stranger to his employment contract with the defendant and same shall be revealed at the trial of the suit. The Claimant also filed a written address in support of his position, two issue were raised for the Court's determination thus; Whether the purported Service Contract Ref. ARC/LAGOS/11/0001/ISC dated 29th Nov, 2011 between the defendant/applicant and the Independent Service Supply Contractor has retrospective or retroactive powers considering the date the Claimant Respondent was employed on the 1st of March, 2010 by the defendant? and 2. Whether the defendant/applicant is not estopped from denying the employment contract it had with the Claimant dated 1st of March, 2010 without any hard evidence to the contrary? It was the argument of the Claimant with regard to issue one that the alleged independent service contract agreement cannot be a basis for determining his contract of employment having been signed on 29th Nov. 2011 about 21 months after he was employed by the applicant. It was the consent position of the Claimant that it is only parties to an agreement that can sue or be sued on same, the Court was referred to the case of BASINCO MOTORS LTD V WOEMANN-LINE & ANOR [2009] 39 NSCQR 284 @ P 314; IKPEAZU V A.C.B.LTD [1965] NMLR, 374 among others. To the Claimant quoting the position of the apex Court on privity on contract Per L.T MOHAMMED JSC, thus; ''The privity of contract is all about the sanctity of contract between the parties to it. It does not extend to others from outside. The doctrine will not apply to non party to the contract who may have unwittingly, been dragged into the contract with a view to becoming a shield or scape goat against the non- performance by one of the parties'' He urged the Court to disallow the applicant from dragging an alien i.e. the alleged independent contractor into this suit, and prayed that the issue should be resolved in favour of the claimant. It was submitted with regards to issue two, that the law is trite that where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of certain things and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is precluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time. The case of GREGORY UDE V CLEMENT NWARA & ANOR [1993] 2 NWLR, PT 278, 638; NSIRIM V NSIRIM [2002] 2 S.C PT1,47 were commended to the Court. He urged the Court to disallow the applicant from blowing hot and cold, in that on the 1st of March, 2010, the defendant was presented to the Claimant as his employer cannot now turn around to say that he is no longer so. To the Claimant the applicant is estopped from denying the existence of a contract of employment relationship between it and the Claimant. The case of BANK OF THE NORTH V YAU [2001] 5 S.C. PT1,121 was cited in support of this assertion. He equally submitted that the applicant had admitted that it issued ID card to him, and thus should not be allowed to reneged on same. He stated the position of the law which is that facts already admitted need no further prove. He asserted that an employment contract need not be evidenced with a deed. He contended that the defendant promised to issue a letter of employment to the Claimant severally and he never did. It was argued that the law should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of fraud. He urged the Court to hold in his favour and dismiss this application and urge the parties to proceed on trial. The question begging for an answer is whether from the processes and exhibits filed in this suit, the Claimant's claims against the defendant is sustainable. As evidenced on record the defendant entered a conditional appearance and filed the application under consideration, urging the Court to strike out its name as defendant or strike out the suit. I have carefully considered the processes filed by the claimant and the motion on notice filed by the defendant/applicant; including all the exhibits attached by both parties. It was the submission of the applicant that a contract affects only parties to it and that a stranger to the same cannot sue or be sued on it. It was the contention of the applicant that the Claimant was out sourced for the applicant by a third party referred to as an independent contractor. The alleged agreement signed by the applicant and the said Independent contractor was exhibited. The applicant denied the Claimant as its employee and thus urged the Court to strike out its name from this suit or in the alternative strike the suit out. The Claimant on the other hand refuted the applicants position and averred in his Counter affidavit that he was interviewed at the defendant's office by one Mr. Maurice Bassey who took him same day to one Mr. Dutta, the Admin. Manager and how he was called on phone by the same Mr. Maurice Bassey to resume work at the defendant's company. He resumed worked on the 1st of March, 2010. The Claimant gave a vivid account of how he was employed and commenced work with the defendant/applicant and the ensuing event that led to the termination of his employment by the applicant. It is the law as submitted by both parties that it is only parties to a contract that can be sued and sue on it. See these case law authorities; EBHOTA V P.I. & P.D.CO. LTD [2005] 15 NWLR PT. 948, P26; MAKWE V NWUKOR , supra. Both parties are in agreement that this Court, by the expression of section 254(C)(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended(third alteration),subsection(1)(a);is competent to exercise jurisdiction over matters relating to or connected with among others health, safety welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto. The Claims of the Claimant as endorsed on the Complaint are within the competence of this Court. That is settled. Now, the contention of the applicant as summarised above is that there is no privity of contract between it and the Claimant, in other words he has no employment relationship with him to have given him the right to sue the applicant. According to the applicant the Claimant was employed by another and was transferred to provide services to it and nothing more. This type of a relationship is often referred to as a triangular employment relationship. The learned author Prof. Chioma Kanu Agomo: Nigerian Employment and Labour Relations Law and Practice at Page 65, succinctly describes it thus- '' ... when an employee of company A is redeployed by A to work for company B. This triangular type of relation has become quite common in present day employment relations...'' She posed a question as regards responsibility and accountability, i.e. To whom is the transferred employee responsible and who is responsible for the daily activities of the employee in terms of wages etc ? These are the issues that may crop up if it is indeed the position of the applicant that the Claimant was transferred to its company. I am not in agreement with the defendant/applicant at this stage that the above scenario was the relationship between both parties. I say so in view of the stern contention of the Claimant that he was employed by the applicant and thus had a contract of employment with the defendant. I am trying not to go into the merits of this case at this preliminary stage and will exercise caution not to accede to the prayers of the defendant/applicant at this stage, rather it is in the calm view of the Court that the defendant remain a party in this suit and the alleged Independent contractor who allegedly employed the Claimant (HORIZON EMPIRE NIG. LTD ) be joined as a party in this suit as the second defendant. This will enable the Court to have all the facts before it and enable it effectively, effectually and finally determine this case once and for all. To short out the Claimant in limine, would be unjust . It is a settled principle of law as evinced in plethora of cases that the purpose of joining a particular person as a party is to ensure that the person is bound by the result of the action and that the question to be settled is one that cannot be efficiently and completely settled unless he is a party. See REGD TRUSTEES. N.A.C,H.P.N VS M.H.W.U.N [2008] ALL FWLR (PT 412) 1013 @ 1027, P 1073. This is in tandem with the provisions of Section 14 of National Industrial Court 2006 which enjoins this Court to ensure that substantial justice is done in all cases before it and to avoid multiplicity of suits. This statutory provision also has a blessing in the apex Court case of KWARA STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMM. & ORS V JOSHUA DADA ABIODUN [2009] LPELR- 8900; UKU &ORS V OKUMAGBA [1989] 3.S.C. 431. Where the supreme Court held among other things that a Court can join a party suo moto or on application by either party. '' ...all persons who may be entitled to or who claim some share or interest in the subject matter of the Suit or who may be likely to be affected by the result, the court can join either suo moto or on application by either party...'' It flows from all I have stated above that the interest of Justice would be best served if the 3rd party mentioned by the applicant is joined as a party in this suit, Consequently the Court orders that Horizon Empire Nig. Ltd be joined as the 2nd defendant in this suit. The motion on notice filed by the defendant is hereby dismissed. Ruling is accordingly entered No order as to cost. HON.JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA.O. JUDGE