Download PDF
The claimant/respondent on the 8th of February, 2013 filed a complaint against the defendant’s claiming the following:- 1. The sum of N82,000,384.00 as indebtedness of the Defendant to the 159 former employees of the Defendant who are Claimant members being the balance of the gratuities of the said 159 former employees of the Defendant which the Defendant has failed and refuse to pay in spite of repeated demand by the Claimant. 2. 25% per annum on the said N82,000,384.00 from the 1st day of October, 2010 until Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until total liquidation and that same be paid through the Claimant’s Solicitors herein. 3. N8,500,000 check off due and differential levy deducted from the salary of the employees of the Defendant on behalf of the 1st Claimant which has not been remitted. 4. The sum of N2,500,000 as the legal cost for the institution of this suit and that all the sum claim herein shall be paid through Claimant’s counsel – ABIOYE & CO. The Defendant/Applicant filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 8th day of October, 2013 and filed 9th day of October, 2013. The Notice of preliminary objection brought pursuant to order 11 Rules 1(3) of the rules of this Court and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The grounds upon which the objection was raised are that due process has not been followed in instituting this suit; The subject matter of this suit did not go to conciliation or arbitration before this suit was filed in this Court and that this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. That by Section 7 (3) of the National Industrial Court Act this suit is not ripe for hearing. It is the submission of the defendant that numerous authorities abound to the effect that the jurisdiction of this court is only activated when a case such as this has gone through conciliation or arbitration. Also filed is a written address wherein a sole issue was framed for the determination of the Court; which is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It was the argument of the defence counsel that by Section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 (hereinafter called NICA) provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or any other enactment or Law, the National Assembly may by an Act prescribe that any matter under subsection (1)(a) of this section may go through the process of conciliation or arbitration before such matter is heard by the Court”. It was the further contention of the Defendant/applicant that the claims of the Claimants are for gratuity and ancillary reliefs, which arise from employment relationship. It thus regulated by Section 7 of NICA, but that the Claimants have failed/refused to fulfill the condition precedent to the filing of this suit which is conciliation and arbitration stipulated under Section 2 Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act (hereafter called TDA). Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted further that this Court has held in a long line of cases that conciliation and arbitration are mandatory pre-conditions for the activation of the jurisdiction of this court. These cases were commended- a. AUPCTRE V. FCDA & ORS Unreported Suit No. NIC/ 17/2006 Judgment delivered on 23rd May, 2007. b. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR STAFF OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (ASSBIFI) V. UNITED BANK OF NIGERIA PLC & ORS. Unreported Suit No. NIC/11/2007 Judgment delivered on January 24, 2008. c. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR STAFF OF BANKS, INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (ASSBIFI) V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA & OR’s. Unreported Suit No. NIC/12/2007 Judgment delivered on March 11, 2008. d. PETER OKAFOR & ORS V. ANTHONY C. UGOZOR & ORS. Unreported Suit No. NIC/6/ 2007 Judgment delivered on March 11, 2008. e. COMRADE UDEAGALANYA ANTHONY & ORS. V. COMRADE FRANCIS ILODUBA & ORS. Unreported Suit No. NIC/36/2008 Judgment delivered on January 20, 2009. f. THE MANAGEMENT OF SYNDICATED METAL INDUSTRIES LTD V. STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION. Unreported Suit no Judgment delivered on 8th day of December, 2011. He posited that the Claimants/Respondents have not complied with the condition precedent as prescribed in Part 1 of the TDA by going through arbitration or conciliation before instituting this suit, consequent upon which this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over this suit. He urged the Court to so hold. It was also submitted that a Court is competent where the following conditions are satisfied: a. The court is properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another. b. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and c. The case comes before the Court by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. and also cited in support is the case of RIVERS STATE GOVT. V. SPECIALIST KONSULT [2005] 7 NWLR (PT. 923) 145 SC P.G 171-172 PARA. H-A According to the Defendant the Claimants have not fulfilled the precondition for the filling of this suit. In the case of FAYEMI V. I.G.S.C, OYO STATE [2005] 6 NWLR (PT. 921) 280 CA Page 303 – 304, Paras. H-B the court held as follows: “The place of jurisdiction in the system of adjudication is unique and lack of it strictu sensu deprives a court the power of functional adjudication of any matter”. He thus urged the Court to uphold the objection. The Claimants/Respondents also filed 9 paragraphs counter Affidavit deposed to by James Sonde, Legal Practitioner to the Claimants. The Claimants filed a written address in support of the counter affidavit. It was the contention of the Claimants that they are retired members of staff of the Defendant who filed this suit to claim their outstanding gratuities and allowances and not a trade dispute. In support are these statutory provisions Sections 48 of TDA which defines a dispute to mean one between an employer and workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the employment or non employment, or terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person. Also , Section 54 of NICA was cited , which also defines who an employee is. To the Claimants all the cited statutory provisions did not include former worker or employee. That the operative words in the provisions above are in employment or in continuous employment, part time, temporary or casual basis and not an employee or employees who have left the employment. The Claimants submitted that their claims are not within the contemplation and or definition of trade dispute and urged the Court to so hold. It was the further contention of the Claimants that their claims relates to outstanding balance of the defendant's indebtedness to them which could not be denied, the Defendant having paid part of their gratuities and allowances due to the members of the Claimants. They urged the Court to hold that this suit does not fall within the contemplation of Section 2 (1) of TDA, and that this objection is misconceived and that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain same. On the competence of the suit, the Claimants submitted that it is the law that in ascertaining the competence of a suit, the determining factor is the Plaintiff's claim; not even the manner in which the claim is couched that matters. Nor the categorization given to the claim by the Defendant that counts. The Claim of the Claimants herein is basically for the Claimant's unpaid gratuities which Defendant/ Applicant has paid part of and has not denied the balance. Thus this Honourable Court can exercise jurisdiction. The Court was referred to the case of WAEC VS. AKINKUMI [2005] 36 WNR 29. To the Claimants a careful look at their claims will show that it is not a “trade dispute” as the Defendant/ Applicant posited and rather they are claims for gratuities and allowances that are yet to be paid the Claimants . They urged the Court to hold that this suit is competent and the Court has jurisdiction to entertain same. The claims being for recovery of debt simpliciter. It is the law that it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court in entertaining the suit. Cited is the case of ADEYEMI & ORS. VS. OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC 31. They urged the Honourable Court to dismiss the Defendant/Applicant's Notice of Preliminary Objection with substantial cost. The respondents file a reply on point of law on 18th November, 2013 wherein the Defendant reiterated that the jurisdiction of the court is not excluded only when there is a trade dispute, but in all cases before this Court and the jurisdiction of this court depends inter alia on parties having subjected themselves to the condition precedent of conciliation and arbitration as specified under the TDA. The defendant urged the Court to follow the decision of this Court as cited earlier in this ruling. Consequently, even if the other claimants are 'former workers' as argued on their behalf, the 1st claimant is not. The result is that, even on the claimants own showing, this suit is a trade dispute, which involves workers and the jurisdiction of the court is excluded. To the Defendant/applicant Section 254 C of 1999 Constitution as amended confers jurisdiction on this Court as a specialized Court dealing only with labour and industrial relations. It was contended that this Court is not a debt collector as alleged by the Claimants counsel, the consequent of that is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain these claims the case should be struck out on this ground also. It is paramount at the onset by way of preliminary comment before going into the merit of this application, to state against the position of the Defendant/applicant that all cases before this Court should first as a condition precedent go through conciliation and arbitration before the matter could be competent before this Court; that is not the tenor and the intent of neither NICA nor the third alteration as expressed by Section 254 C of 1999 Constitution as amended. The only situation that would warrant parties to a suit to go through conciliation and arbitration is where as provided by Section 7(3) of NICA it involves trade union, i.e.if the matter falls under Part one of TDA and not in all employment cases. Now, I have carefully perused the complaint, the statement of facts on record filed by the Claimants on one part and the notice of preliminary objection, and the written address filed in support of same by the Defendant and the response by the Claimants. It is apparent that the crux of this objection is that the Claimants have failed to fulfill the condition precedent to the filing of this case which is conciliation and arbitration as prescribed by law and thus this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same at this stage. It is a long settled principle of law that jurisdiction of Court is a threshold issue which goes to the vires and the root of a case, it is imperative to have it determined first before proceeding to the substantive matter since lack of it would deprive this court the power to pronounce on the main issue. See OBIUWEUBI V CENTARL BANK OF NIGERIA [2011] 7 NWLR 465; ADEGBESAN V REGD TRUSTEES OF CHURCH OF MERCY GOSPEL MISSION & ORS [2012] LPELR 7894; This Court as correctly submitted by both counsel is being empowered by the expressions of both Section 7 of NICA and Section 254 C (1) of 1999 Constitution as amended also known as the third alteration to adjudicate on civil cases and matters to the exclusion of any other Court, relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations, matters arising from workplace, condition of service, health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker, trade dispute Act, Trade Union Act, employees compensation Act. etc. It is the position of the Defendant that the Claimants by Section 7(3) of NICA ought to have gone through conciliation and arbitration before they should be given a right of hearing in this Court. For their failure to do so the Court is urged to strike out this case for being incompetent. The Claimants on the other hand argued that considering the claims before this Court, it would be seen that what they are asking for is the balance of their gratuities and other allowances which have been partly paid, to the Claimants what they are asking for is the debt owed them by the Defendant. Several case law authorities have enjoined the Court when faced with issues of this nature to first and foremost have recourse to the writ of summons which is the compliant in this case and the statement of claim( known as statement of facts in this Court) to see whether or not the Court is competent to adjudicate on a case. These cases are apt on this point, BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. ABRAHAM (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 172 S.C. ONUEKWUSI & ORS V. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CHRIST METHODIST ZION CHURCH [2011] 6 NWLR 341; ADEYEMI & ORS V OPEYORI Supra; Having said that, now the competence of a Court is hinged on these age long conditions as enunciated in the locus clasicus case of MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM supra as 1. The court is properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another. 2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction This objection is premised on the third criteria, which is whether or not the due process of law or condition precedent to the exercise of the Court jurisdiction has been followed by the Claimants before instituting this suit. The grouse of the Defendant is that the Claimant did not go through conciliation and arbitration as prescribed by Section 7 (3) of NICA since this suit is one that involves trade union under Section 7 (1) (a) of NICA, i.e labour and trade unions. However, the Claimants posited that this is not a trade dispute matter that would warrant compliance with the above law. A perusal of the complaint and the statement of facts filed on record as reproduced above shows that the 2nd Claimants who were members of the 1st Claimant but now retired employees( who ordinarily ceases to be members of the 1st Claimant) of the Defendants filed this action together for and on behalf of the 159 retired employees of the Defendant. See paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 9 and 12 of the statement of facts as reproduced hereunder for ease of reference thus-- ''1. The 1st Claimant is the umbrella Union of all the employees or workers in Printing, Publishing and Paper Product industries in Nigeria and all the workers in the said industries are members of the union. 2. The 159 retirees of the Defendant and members of the 1st Claimant herein were formerly employees of the Defendant that have now retired or disengaged. 3. The 1st and 2nd Claimants with the consent and approval of 159 disengaged or retirees of the Defendant institute this suit as representative and for and on behalf of all 159 retired or former employees of the Defendant listed herein. 9. The Claimants states that upon the failure of the Defendant to pay the balance of its indebtedness to the 159 ex-staffs of the Defendant, the Claimants as the Umbrella Union- National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Workers (NUPPPROW) intervened, held meetings and exchanged series of correspondence with the Defendant. The Claimant plead and shall rely on its letters to the Defendant and the reply of the Defendant thereto. 12. The Claimant states that the Defendant is therefore indebted to the Claimant in the sum of N82,000, 384.00, N8,500,000.00 as unremitted check off due payable to 159 retirees and the 1st Claimant respectively''. I have a slight problem with the involvement of the 1st Claimant in this action, this is because a retired employee ceases to be a member of a union of his former employment, but it seems the case is different here, going through the statement of facts revealed that the 1st Claimant had actually been negotiating with the Defendant on behalf of the 2nd Claimants vide various letters and held several meetings. See paragraph 9 thereof. Also of relevance is paragraph 3 of the Claimants claim endorsed on the compliant which is in relation to deduction of check off dues and remittance of same to the 1st Claimant. Paragraph 3 reproduced as follows-- '' N8,500,000 check off due and differential levy deducted from the salary of the employees of the Defendant on behalf of the 1st Claimant which has not been remitted'' What this really mean as opposed to what learned Claimants Counsel submitted is that the Claimants are not only before this Court for claims of gratuities and allowances of retired members of the 1st Claimant as could be gleaned from the complaint and statement of facts, but also to claim unremitted check off dues to the 1st claimant coupled with series of meetings held with the Defendant by the 1st Claimant on behalf of the 2nd Claimant all qualify this case as a trade dispute within the meaning of Section 47 of TDA. It is pertinent to state clearly here that by Sections 7 and 254C of the 1999 Constitution as amended this Court is clothe with jurisdiction over matters as stated above and thus any party/s may ventilate his grievances before this Court, if it has no colorations of trade dispute. The Court would have held a different view if the 2nd Claimant filed this suit claiming their unpaid gratuities and allowances. However, where like in this case the claims are as endorsed on the compliant and statement of facts as stated above, the jurisdiction of this Court is contingent upon the fulfillment of the condition precedent which is conciliation and arbitration as provided for under Part 1 of TDA. A party should of a necessity go through the processes as stated above before approaching this Court. It flows from all that has been stated above that this court finds and holds that this suit is premature and thus incompetent as constituted in this Court. Consequently the Notice of Preliminary objection succeeds, the Court orders the Claimants to explore the window of conciliation and Arbitration open to them by law before approaching this present. To that extent this suit is incompetent and consequently struck out. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE