Download PDF
The Claimant/Respondent filed a complaint against the Defendants in this Court on 18th December, 2012 claiming the following:- 1. A DECLARATION that the document titled "Deed of Legal Mortgage" dated May 28 2008 between Oceanic Bank and the Claimant and the regulations and conditions for granting of loans under Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions of Service of Oceanic Bank as at May 28 2008 and up to December 30 2011 are effective and binding on the 1st Defendant pursuant to Clauses 4(c) i, (c), i, (c), i, v at pages 14 and 15, 2(A) (c) I, v at page 19 and 11, 12, 13 and 14 at page 24 in the Scheme of Merger of Oceanic Bank and the 1st Defendant and particularly on the basis of the orders and judgment of the Federal High Court, in SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/1438/2011:- IN RE:- ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC AND OCEANIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, made on December 30, 2011 2. A DECLARATION that the document titled "Deed of Legal Mortgage" dated May 28 2008 for the staff mortgage loan between Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant created only an equitable mortgage of deposit of title deeds in respect of the property referred to therein and enforceable only upon a requisite order of Court in respect of the subject of the said equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds. 3. A DECLARATION that the document titled "Deed of Legal Mortgage" dated May 28 2008 for the staff mortgage loan between Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant is subject and subsidiary to the regulations and conditions for granting loans under the Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions of Service of Oceanic Bank. 4. A DECLARATION that Clause 2(a) and the proviso thereto and Clause 2(b) and the proviso thereto in the document titled “Deed of Legal Mortgage” dated May 28 2008 for a staff the Claimant, both of which sought to reduce the duration of the staff mortgage loan granted to the Claimant and to increase the interest rate thereon, are respectively null, void and of no effect for being contrary to the provisions of Clause 3, 5, 2 at page 13 in the regulations and conditions for granting loans under the Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions for granting loans under the Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions of Service of Oceanic Bank and applicable on the 1st Defendant till date. 5. A DECLARATION that it is outside the competence and statutory functions of the 3rd and 4th Defendants to be involved in or to act as recovery agents or otherwise at the behest of the 1st and 2nd Defendants or any one of them in enforcing any of the provisions of the document titled “Deed of Legal Mortgage” for the staff mortgage loan between Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant, including recovery of any sum of money or any property, document or asset from the Claimant pursuant to the said document or under any guise whatsoever related to or arising from the said document or transaction. 6. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining 1st and 2nd Defendants or any one of them whether acting by themselves, their agents privies or otherwise howsoever, from threatening, intimidating, harassing, seeking to detain, arrest or in any other way or manner embarrass or disturb the Claimant and the Claimant’s property at House 59A, Road A3, Carlton Gate Estate, Chevron Drive, Lekki, Lagos State (referred to as B3, Road B6m FBN Mortgages Court, Carlton Gate Estate in the staff mortgage deed and other documents before the renumbering and name changes exercises in the said Estate) or any other property or asset of the Claimant, arising from, related to or connected with the document titled “Deed of Legal Mortgage” between Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant for a staff mortgage loan or the transaction, the subject of the said document. 7. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining 3rd and 4th Defendants, whether acting at the behest or complaint of the 1st and 2nd Defendants or any one of them or by themselves, their agents, privies or otherwise howsoever from inviting, threatening to arrest or to detain, intimidating, disturbing, arresting or otherwise restricting the liberty o the Claimant or in any way interfering with the Claimant’s property at House 59A, Road A3, Carlton Gate Estate, Chevron Drive, Lekki, Lagos State (referred to as B3, Road B6m FBN Mortgages Court, Carlton Gate Estate in the document staff mortgage deed and other documents thereto before the renumbering and name changes exercises in the said Estate) or any other property or asset of the Claimant arising from, related to or connected with the mortgage transaction between the Claimant and Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant or any of the provisions therein. 8. A MONDATORY ORDER OF INJUCTION compelling the 1st Defendant, to reconcile and restructure the Claimant’s mortgage account to the said account’s original twenty (20) years tenure from 2008 to 2028 and the applicable interest rate of 5% (Five percent) per annum and to continue to accept repayments under the said mortgage account from the Claimant under the aforesaid and other original terms of the said mortgage until liquidation of the mortgage principal and interest, except in the case of bona fide default by the Claimant. 9. General damages of N5million (Five Million Naira), against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally. 10. Costs 11. FOR SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER reliefs and orders this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The 1st Defendant entered a conditional appearance on 23rd of January, 2013 and filed on the 14th February, 2013 a Notice of Preliminary Objection along with the 2nd Defendant praying for the following:- 1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing or striking out this suit for lack of reasonable cause of action or in the alternative; 2. AN ORDER transferring this suit to the High Court of Lagos State for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds stated hereunder. AND for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The grounds upon which the application was brought are thus:- 1. The Claimant has admitted to being indebted to the 1st Defendant under a mortgage loan granted to her in 2008 2. A debtor has no cause of action against his creditor over the loan. 3. The subject matter of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The Defendant/Applicant also filed an 8 paragraph affidavit in support of the motion is an affidavit deposed to by one AZUBUIKE OKOYE Legal Practitioner in the Defence counsel's chambers. ''' 4. That by the complaint, the Claimant is essentially contesting the amount of her indebtedness to the 1st Defendant under the mortgage loan agreement between it and Oceanic International Bank Plc, which loan has now being acquired by the 1st Defendant pursuant to a Scheme of Merger and orders of the Federal High Court made on 30 December, 2011 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1438/2011: In Re: Ecobank Nigeria Plc, and Oceanic Bank International Ltd. 5. That as a Counsel I am aware of judicial decisions of the appellate Court in Nigeria to the effect that a Debtor has no cause of action against his Creditor over the loan. 6. That there is no subsisting contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant as by the Claimant’s own admission, the employment ceased on 21 July 2011 and there is also no claim for payment of entitlements. 7. That in the circumstances it will be in the interest of justice if this application is granted. Also filed is a written address as arguments in support of same wherein two issue were raised thus- 1. “Whether the Claimant’s case discloses any reasonable cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants?” 2. If the answer to issue I is in the affirmative, whether this Honourable Court can exercise jurisdiction over the cause of action as disclosed? On issue one the Defendant gave a definition of the term “cause of action” as the bundle or aggregate of facts, which the law will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for relief or remedy sought. In SAVAGE V. UWECHIE [1972] ALL NLR 255 at 261, Fatayi-Williams J.S.C. defined a cause of action as follows: “A cause of action is defined in Strouds’ Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. To our mind, it is in effect the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right to sue and it consist of two elements – the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage. As Lord Esher said in COOKE V. GILL [1873] L.R. 8 C.P. 107 and later in READ V.BROWN [1888] 22 Q. D. 128 (C.A.), it is every fact that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove. If traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court”. Also cited are these cases, ABUBUKAR V. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS 92007) 18 NWLR (Part 1066) 319; IBRAHIM V. OSIM [1988] 3 NWLR Part 182, 257. To the Defendant in order to ascertain whether a cause of action is disclosed, the Court must limit itself to the Writ of summons and statement of claim. No resort whatsoever must be made to the statement of defence, if filed. See RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. V. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD [2005] 9 NWLR (Part 929) 85; ABUBUKAR V. BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PARODUCTS LTD & ORS Supra. It was posited that it is clear in the Statement of fact dated18th December 2012, filed together with the Complaint, that the Claimant admitted that she was granted a staff mortgage loan facility in 2008 by Oceanic Bank International Plc her former employers with a tenure of 20 years. The Defence continued that the essential part of the complaint is that by the terms of the deed of legal mortgage and the provisions of the Oceanic Bank’s Employee Handbook, the interest rate on the loan remained at 5% per annum. The Claimant’s chief complaint is that though the loan is subsisting the applicable interest rate should be 5% per annum pursuant to the Oceanic Bank’s Employee handbook and cannot be varied to the current market rate owing to the disengagement of the Clamant from the bank’s employment. IN UNION BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V. PENNY-MART LTD. [1992]5 NWLR (Part 240) 228, the Respondent contested the alteration of the interest rate on the loan facility granted to him by the Appellant Bank. The Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of such a cause of action brought by a debtor against his creditor. At pages 245 to 246 Ogundare J.C.A. (as he then was) held as follows:- “One may now ask what is the wrongful act of a creditor which gives a debtor a cause of complaint to seek to have it declared that he is owing his creditor a certain amount? And what is the consequent damage to him if the creditor fails to tell him (debtor) how much the latter owes? The answers to these two questions must in my respectful view, be in the negative. One would think that it is for the debtor to pay to his creditor what he considers to be his indebtedness and if the creditor disputes this, it is for the latter to sue for what he considers to be the balance. The debtor may then set up the facts on which he has based his calculations as a shield to the creditor’s action; these facts cannot in my humble opinion, be a sword”. SAVANNAH BANK NIGERIA PLC V. CROWN STAR & CO. LTD [2003] 6 NWLR (P t. 815) I, the Plaintiff claimed declaratory reliefs to the effect that he does not owe the Defendant. Aderemi J.C.A. (as he then was) again reiterated the fact that a debtor has no cause of action against his creditor. It was submitted that the Claimant has not disputed his indebtedness to the bank,, She is merely disputing the interest rate applicable to the mortgage, which she asserts should be at 5% per annum rather than the market rate. The Defendants thus urged the Court to hold that the Claimant's claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action and ought to be dismissed. It was the contention of the Defendants on issue two that if the answer to Issue 1 is in the affirmative, whether this Honourable Court can exercise jurisdiction over the cause of action as disclosed? It was submitted that in the event that this Honourable Court should find that there is a reasonable cause of action in this case, it was further submitted that this Court should decline jurisdiction over the matter. To the Defendants the jurisdiction of this Court is by virtue of Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third alteration) has exclusive jurisdiction over matters: "(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith". The Defendants posited that the claims of the Claimants as could be gleaned from the Statement of facts, the following facts are clear: a. The claimant is essentially contesting the amount of her indebtedness to the 1st Defendant under the mortgage loan agreement between it and Oceanic International Bank Plc, which loan has now being acquired by the 1st Defendant pursuant to a Scheme of Merger and orders of the Federal High Court made on 30 December 2011 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1438/2011: In Re: Ecobank Nigeria Plc and Oceanic Bank International Ltd. b. There is no employer/employee relationship subsisting between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. The Claimant averred clearly that her employment was terminated in July 2011. c. The claimant's chief complaint is that the interest rate on the loan should remain at 5% per annum despite the termination of the employment rather than it reverting to the market rate. The principal question, which this Court therefore has to determine is, what is the applicable interest rate to the mortgage transaction between the Claimant and the 1st defendant. This question can only be determined by reference to the contractual document between the Claimant and the Oceanic bank (or the 1st defendant as the case may be). It is therefore a question for the High Court of Lagos State to determine, rather than a matter for the exclusive jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. They thus urged this Court to transfer the case to High Court of Lagos State, pursuant to Section 24(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Finally, the Defendants urged this Court to grant this application and strike out the Claimant's suit in view of the submission above. The Claimant filed a counter affidavit deposed to by one Miss Chike Diamond Amaefule, Administrative staff of the office of the Claimants counsel. Attached are two exhibits Exhibit P1 and P2 i.e. the General form of compliant and the first two pages of the oceanic bank employee handbook respectively. She also filed a written address wherein she adopted the two issue framed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and submitted that her action raises a reasonable cause of action. It was further submitted that the contention of the Claimant is not that she is not owing the 1st Defendant but her area of conflict is as regards the interest rate which she put at 5% and not at the market rate. Her main area of disagreement also is the fact that by her reliefs 1, 3, and 4 of her statement of fact she seeks declaration that it is the staff policy guidelines and the conditions of service in the employee hand book that govern loan granted her and not the deed of legal mortgage and that the transaction is not a mortgage simpliciter but one which arose from and is subsidiary to the conditions of service and employee handbook applicable to the Claimant as an employee of oceanic bank taken over by the 1st Defendant and that according to the Claimant, is superior to the legal mortgage. Reliefs 1 and 3 of her claims reproduced thus- '' (1) A declaration that the document titled “Deed of Legal Mortgage” dated May 28 2008 between Oceanic Bank and the Claimant and the regulations and conditions for granting of loans under Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions of Service of Oceanic Bank as at May 28 2008 and up to December 30 2011, are effective and binding on the 1st Defendant pursuant to clauses 4( c) i, ( c), i, v at page 14 and 15, 2(A) (c ) I, v at page 19 and 11, 12, 13 and 14 at page 24 in the Scheme of Merger of Oceanic Bank and the 1st Defendant and particularly on the basis of the orders and judgment of the Federal High Court, in SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/1438/2011:- IN RE:- ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC AND OCEANIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, made on December 30, 2011 “(3) A declaration that the document titled “Deed of Legal Mortgage” dated May 28 2008 for a staff mortgage loan between Oceanic Bank (which later merged with the 1st Defendant) and the Claimant is subject and subsidiary to the regulations and conditions for granting loans under the Staff Policy Guidelines in the Employee Handbook and Conditions of Service of Oceanic Bank”. She continued and submitted further that her averments in paragraphs 8, 18, 25, 31 and 32 (i) of her statement of fact go to support and prove that the mortgage lifespan is 20 years which has not lapsed and with an interest of 5% per annum. That as it is in the handbook her equity of redemption and other rights as a mortgagor are still subsisting and preserved, hence she cannot be labeled a debtor or in a delinquent sense conveyed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. whilst citing the case of ALHAJI TUKUR MOHAMMED V ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ADDULKADIR & ORS [2008] 4 NWLR (PT 1076) 111 '@ 160; where the Court of appeal held that a mortgagor's right to redeem a mortgage cannot be taken away even by express consent of the parties and that the said right continues unless and until the mortgagor's title is extinguished or his interest is destroyed by the sale of the property either through the execution of a Court order or the exercise of a power or sale in the mortgage deed. It was argued that the cases of UNION BANK OF NIG PLC V PENNY MART LTD SUPRA, SAVANNAH BANK NIG. PLC & ANOR V CROWN STAR 7 CO LTD & ANOR Supra and BELOXXI & CO LTD V SOUTH TRUST BANK Supra cited by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and relied on to state that a debtor cannot sue her creditor are different and distinguishable from this case. To the Claimant, the decision of the Court in the Savannah's case supra is that- '' Evidence that will serve as a shield and not as a sword, is what generally, must be led at the trial of a case of debt by the party who denies owing the other party. A cursory reading of the reliefs claimed in this case will undoubtedly convey to one’s mind that the Plaintiff who is denying any indebtedness will be leading evidence that will serve as a sword when the trial commences. “…... The seizure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, whether rightly or wrongly a matter yet to be decided constitutes some injury to the Plaintiff for now, he is deprived of its use. The present injury having taken place. It cannot be said that further injury will not take place. It must always be remembered that in a case of this nature a court of law must readily be involved in the process of balancing the magnitude of an evil foisted on one party against the chances of re- occurrence”. She posited that there is no clear and fast rule that a debtor cannot sue a creditor as argued by the defendants. The case of CHIEF DR IRENE THOMAS V MOST REVEREND TIMOTHY OLUFOSOYE [1989] A N LR 261 @ 273 was commended to the Court and the Claimant urged the Court to hold that she has a reasonable cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this case. The Claimant contended on issue two as opposed to the Defendants argument that by Section 254 C of the 1999 Constitution as amended, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, that answers to questions raised in her Complaints i.e. what is the applicable interest rate to the mortgage transaction between her and the 1st Defendant can only be determined by reference to the contractual agreement between her and the Oceanic bank (1st Defendant). To the Claimant what this Court would have to consider in arriving at a just decision is the complaint and her statement of fact. cited in support of this assertion is the case of ADIGUN V A,G, OYO STATE [1987] 4.S.C. 272. She then submitted that this Court has jurisdiction over this case by virtue of Section 254 C (1) (a) and (k) of 1999 Constitution as amended. Reproduced hereunder as follows- “254C-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as many be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria shall have an exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters:- “(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, Industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith”. “(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment and nonpayment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, politician or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto”. The Claimant submitted on interpretation of the Constitution or statute in general by citing these case law authorities in support; A.G. OF FEDERATION & ORS V ALH. ATIKU ABUBAKAR [2007] AL FWLR PT 386, 1291; SENATOR LADOJA V INEC & ORS [2007] ALL FWLR PT 377 P 934. To the Claimant the '' notwithstanding used in Section 254 C, excludes the powers of the Federal High Court FCT High Court or High Court of a State in Section 251, 257 and 272 as regards the jurisdiction of this Court as provided for in the said Section so that the Section can fulfill itself. The Claimant posited that contrary to the submission of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, her Claims are not a contract or mortgage transaction simpliciter and she not a customer of the bank for which a banker customer relationship would have arisen and for which the High Court of Lagos would have jurisdiction, rather the Claimant's contract of service and employment guaranteed her mortgage, which is enshrined in the staff handbook thus Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) are relevant. These according to her are issues incidental to her employment. She thus urged the Court to hold that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on her case. I have examined the processes germane to this ruling i.e. the Complaint, the statement of facts, the Notice of Preliminary objection, the Counter affidavit, written addresses filed by both parties as arguments in support of their diverse positions, the case law and statutory authorities cited in support of their respective arguments. I have equally considered the two issues framed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and I am of the opinion that the two issues for determination formulated by them will best serve the interest of justice and I thus adopt same for the determination of this ruling. The 1st and 2nd Defendants( hereafter called the ''Defendant) submitted on issue one that the Claimant is not contesting her debt to the bank, rather she is contesting the rate of interest and that a debtor by law is not entitle to sue her creditor. Placing heavy reliance on the case of BELOXXI & CO. LTD V SOUTHTRUST BANK Supra, where the Court of appeal held that it is a creditor who goes to Court to assert his debt and not a debtor and that evidence that will serve as a shield is what must be led at the trail of a case for recovery of debt recovery by the party who denies owing other party. They urged the Court to hold that the Claimant's claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action and ought to be dismissed. The Claimant on the other hand contended that she is not contesting that she is owing the 1st Defendant but her area of conflict is as regards the interest rate which she put at 5% as per the 1st Defendant's handbook and not at the market rate. Her main area of disagreement also is the fact that by her reliefs 1, 3, and 4 of her statement of fact she seeks declaration that it is the staff policy guidelines and the conditions of service in the employee hand book that govern loan granted her and not the deed of legal mortgage and that the transaction is not a mortgage simpliciter but one which arose from and subsidiary to the conditions of service and employee handbook applicable to the Claimant as an employee of oceanic bank taken over by the 1st Defendant and that according to the Claimant is superior to the legal mortgage. Now, cause of action has been defined to mean a combination of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in Court for a remedy. This includes all those things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed. It is the act by the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff( Claimant) his cause of compliant. See these cases NIIA V AYANFULU [2007] 2 NWLR (PT 1018) P 246 @ 268- 269; EGBE V ADEFARASIN(NO1) [1985] 1 NWLR( PT 3) @ P 549. A cause of action will accrue when there is a party to sue and a party to be sued, having all the facts material to ensure the success of the Claimant in this case exist. In the instance case the Claimant's grouse is that her mortgage loan granted by the defendant is for 20 years tenure and at an interest of 5% which is in accordance with the 1st Defendant's handbook which regulated her terms and condition of service in the employ of the 1st defendant, as opposed to the stand of the 1st Defendant who is treating her loan like that of a customer. Her compliant also arose as a result of what she averred in paragraphs of the complaint and paragraphs 8 and 9 of her statement of facts. I want to refrain from going into the merit of this case at this preliminary stage, hence would not go into detail. It is however, apparent from both the compliant and the statement of facts that the Claimant has a reasonable cause of action against the Defendants in this case I so find and hold. On issue two, it was submitted that this Court by Section 254C has exclusive jurisdiction over labour and employment matters. According to the defendants the principal question, which this Court therefore has to determine is, what is the applicable interest rate to the mortgage transaction between the Claimant and the 1st defendant. This question can only be determined by reference to the contractual document between the Claimant and the Oceanic bank (or the 1st defendant as the case may be). It is therefore a question for the High Court of Lagos State to determine, rather than a matter for the exclusive jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. They thus urged this Court to transfer the case to High Court of Lagos State, pursuant to Section 24(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. While the Claimant on her own part submitted that by the Same Constitutional provision particularly 254C (a) and (k) empowers this Court to adjudicate on cases involving employment, labour and all other matters incidental thereto. It was her contention that the subject matter of this suit emanated from a loan granted her in her capacity as the Manager of the 1st Defendant, which was guided by the employee handbook which regulated her terms and condition of employment with the defendant, hence her Claims come under the exclusive purview of this Court and not the State High Court as alleged by the Defendant. To the Claimant Section 254C has excluded the jurisdiction of the State High Court from issues bordering on the instance case. The most important question that requires an answer in this instance ruling is the need for this Court to satisfy itself that the subject matter in this suit which is the mortgage loan granted the Claimant was granted her as part of her condition of service and thus forms part of terms of her contract of employment, irrespective of whether or not she is still in the employ of the Defendant. Differently put, the Claimant should satisfy this Court that the loan was granted her in line with her contract of employment and thus forms part of her contract of employment with the 1st Defendant, thus making it a case incidental to her contract of employment and hence covered by Sections 7 of NICA 2006 and 254C of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Issues of jurisdiction cannot be addressed without a cursory examination of the complaint and the statement of facts, that will clearly reveal the issues in the suit and would thus aid the Court in its decision on jurisdiction. This is in line with numerous case law authorities on this point amongst which are WESTERN STEEL WORKS LTD V IRON AND STEEL WORKERS UNION & ORS [1987] 1 NWLR PT 49, P 284 '@ 296; ADEYEMI & ORS V OYEYORI [1974]1 FNLR 149; GAFAR V GOVT. KWARA STATE [2007] 4 NWLR (PT. 1024), 375; [2007] 1-2 S.C. 189. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Exhibit P1 attached to the counter affidavit filed by the Claimant and exhibit P2 i.e. the Complaint and the employee handbook of Oceanic bank now Eko bank are relevant including the portions of the Statement of facts referred above in this ruling. It is in the calm and considered view of this Court that the Claimant vide her compliant and statement of facts has satisfied the above question which is whether the loan was granted her as part of her condition of service and thus forms part of her contract of employment with the Defendant and thus making it an employment matter for which this Court is clothed with jurisdiction. I so find and hold. The Court is in agreement with the position of the Claimant that the word 'Notwithstanding' used in Section 254(C)(1) excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts, Federal High Court FCT High Court and State High Court of which Lagos High Court is one, on matters that relate to or connected with labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from work place, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker, wages, salaries, gratuities etc. The provisions of Section 254(C)(1) is hereunder reproduced for purposes of clarity; ''254(C)(1). Notwithstanding the provision of Section 251, 257, 272 and anything Contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be Conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court Shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including Health, Safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. (k) Relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefit and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;'' The word "NOTWITHSTANDING" has been defined by the Blacks' Law Dictionary 9th Edition page 1168 to mean Despite; in spite of. The word 'notwithstanding has also been given a judicial interpretation in the case law authority of ADEBAYO & ORS V PDP & ORS [2013] LPELR 20342; wherein the apex Court adopted the interpretation given to same in the case of PETER OBI V INEC [2007] ALL FWLR (Pt.378) 1116 at 1166 as excluding any impending effect of any other provision of the statute or other subordinate legislation so that the said section may fulfill itself. The Court has been enjoined when faced with such statutory provision that requires interpretation to give it a liberal meaning and is estopped from reading into the provision what was not the intention of the legislature. The Court cannot add to nor narrow down the law. The tenor and content of Section 254C reveals that the intention of the legislature is to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the National Industrial Court in matters relating to employment and matters incidental thereto as decided above in this ruling to the exclusion of all other Courts. I so find and hold. Finally, I deem it fit to comment on the submission of the Defendant placing reliance on the case of UNION BANK NIG LTD V PENNY-MART LTD and SAVANNAH BANK PLC V CROWN STAR CASES Supra, that a debtor cannot sue his creditor, I have read the facts of the two cases and it is clear from same that the cases involve customers and bankers, that is distinguishable from this case. This case as held above in this ruling involves an employee and employer relationship and thus the decision of that case cannot be on all fours with this case present. I so find and hold. It is therefore apparent from all that I have held above that Claimant's claims raise a cause of action against the Defendant and the claims being issues bordering on contract of employment matters and incidental thereto, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain same. Consequently, the Notice of preliminary objection fails for lacking in merit. Trial shall proceed in this case. I award the cost of N10,000.00 in favour of the Claimant. Ruling is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA.O. JUDGE