Download PDF
The claimants filed this complaint against the defendant on 13th August 2012 seeking the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that the claimants are entitled to all the rights and privileges of an employee of the defendant having being so declared by the Court of Appeal. (b) An order of court directing the defendant to pay the claimants all the benefits and entitlements accruable to them as employee in the employment of the defendant but was unjustifiably denied. (c) An order of court directing the defendant to pay the claimants the sum of N389,110,026.55k, N268,129,824.26k, N249,129,662,662.60k and N234,046,661.85k respectively being their unpaid salaries, benefits, and allowances, accruable to them as employees of the defendant but was unreasonably and unjustifiably denied. (d) An order of court directing the defendant to pay the claimants their severance entitlement accruable to them as disengaged employees of the defendant. (e) An order awarding a 30% interest on the judgement sum. The defendant entered conditional appearance, filed its statement of defence and subsequently filed this Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 3rd July 2013. It is brought pursuant to order 11 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the NIC Rules 2007 and the NIC Practice Direction 2012 for the following reliefs: 1. An order of court dismissing the present suit as incompetent and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. 2. And for such further or other orders as this court may deem fit to make. The grounds upon which the objection is brought are: a. The suit is a case of Estoppel per rem judicatem. b. The action is an abuse of court process and a time wasting exercise The objection is supported by a 10 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Smart Eke a legal practitioner to which is attached three exhibits marked A to C which are judgements of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. There is also a written address in support. In reaction, the claimants opposed the objection by filing a counter affidavit sworn to by Okon Johnson the 3rd claimant on the 16th September 2013 and a written address. The defendant filed a reply on the 25th September 2013. Learned Counsel to the defendant/objector raised one issue for determination as follows: Whether the present action is not caught up by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatem. He submitted that the processes filed in suit No FHC/44/CS/568/04 at the Federal High Court and suit No CA/C/47/2001 at the Court of Appeal and this instant suit are identical in nature and are based on the same subject matter. He argued that if the claimants claim is based on the judgement in suit NO CA/C/47/2006, which was mainly a declaratory judgement there is nothing to enforce. He referred to Osunrinde v Ajamogun [1992] 6 NWLR (pt 246) 156, Igwego v Ezengo (1992) 6 NWLR (pt 249) 561 and Dokubo v Omeni [1999] 8 NWLR (pt 616) 647 for the meaning of estoppel per rem judicatem. Learned counsel submitted that the claimants herein are Supernumerary Policemen and had commenced an action as 1st, 5th and 11th plaintiffs in the Federal High Court Uyo against the defendant. He stated that the litigants and their umbrella body are the same litigants in exhibits A and B and the defendant herein was also a respondent in the suits. It was his contention that the subject matter in all the suits is the preference of the claimants to be regarded as employees of the defendant rather than policemen. That this is the same subject matter in this action as the claimants are interested in taking rights, privileges and benefits from their status as the defendants employees. He submitted that the judgement of the Court of Appeal in CA/C/47/2006 – Okon Johnson & 14 Ors v MPNU & 20 Ors which was given consequent upon the appeal from the Federal High Court is a valid and subsisting judgement. He stated that the case is still a live matter before the Supreme Court with no new issues or facts and the same parties. He urged the court to hold that a valid case of estoppel per rem judicatem has been established and to decline jurisdiction and dismiss this suit. Learned counsel to the claimants submitted one issue for determination as follows: Given the reliefs sought by the claimants in their statement of claim, whether this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. He submitted that this is a competent action and the court is clothed with jurisdiction to entertain it as enshrined in Section 254 C of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 7 of the NIC Act 2006. He submitted that the Court of Appeal in the case of Okon Johnson v Mobil Producing Nig Unlimited [2009] All FWLR (pt 530) 1331 had determined the status of the claimants as employees of the defendant which was the issue before the court. He stated that the claimants have instituted this action in respect of their severance benefits after their employment was terminated. He submitted that for the plea of estoppel per rem judicatem to succeed the defendant has to satisfy the court that the parties are the same in the previous and present proceedings, the issues in dispute are the same in both actions, the decision is that if a competent court and it is valid, subsisting and final. He submitted that where the defendant fails to prove any of these requirements, the plea of estoppel per rem judicatem cannot succeed. He cited Jumoh Alapo v Agbokere & Anor [2010] 2-3 8 (pt III) 133, Makun & 6 ors v FUT Mima & 2 Ors [2011] 6-7 SC (pt v) at 32. Counsel submitted that the question for determination in this suit has not been litigated upon and that it is the claimants claim that confers jurisdiction on the court citing Adeyemi v Opeyori [1976] 9-10 SC 31 at 49. He urged the court to discountenance the objection and assume jurisdiction. Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the defendant submitted that the question of jurisdiction should first be determined by the court. He submitted that the constitutional right of access to court does not remove the requirement to bring a justiciable issue to enable the court assume jurisdiction. He submitted that all the requirements to found a plea of estoppel per rem judicatem are evident in this suit. I have carefully considered the processes filed, written submissions and authorities cited. The question is whether this action is caught up by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatem. The claimants in paragraph 11, 12, 13, & 14 of their statement of facts have pleaded as follows: 11. Being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to them and the effort of the defendant to surreptitiously transfer their employment to the police without their knowledge, the claimants and their other colleagues commenced an action at the Federal High Court Uyo against the defendant and the police. 12. At the conclusion of the trial, the Federal High Court Uyo enter judgement in favour of the claimant in part but however held that the claimants were the employees of the police. 13. Being dissatisfied with the judgement of the Federal High Court Uyo, the claimants and their other colleagues appeal to the Court of Appeal Calabar Division against the judgement of the Federal High Court Uyo. 14. By a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal Calabar Division delivered in 2009, the claimants and their other colleagues were found to be employees of the defendant and not that of the police and by virtue of which they are entitled to all the rights, privileges and benefits of an employee as contained in the employee handbook and enjoyed by defendant’s employees. The claimants shall at the trial place reliance on the finding and holding of the Court of Appeal Calabar Division. By these averments it is clear that the claimants herein were also the applicants at the Federal High Court in suit No FHC/UY/ CS/568/04 and the appellants in the court of appeal in suit No CA/C/47/2006. The defendant herein was also the 1st respondent at both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. I find the parties to be the same in the 3 suits. Now the first relief sought by the claimants at the Federal High Court is as follows: 1. A declaration that having regards to and or considering the circumstances, nature, procedure and methods of the appointment and or employment and work of the plaintiffs in the service, work or employ of the 1st defendant and provision of sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Police Act the plaintiffs are employees, workers and staff of the 1st defendant entitled to all benefits, rights emoluments, privileges, immunities, conditions of service and all legitimate protections as such. The Federal High Court found the applicants to be Policemen and not Employees of the defendant herein. Dissatisfied with the judgement they appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgement, the Court of Appeal held they were the defendant’s Employees. The judgement is now on appeal and is pending before the Supreme Court in Suit No SC/33/2010. The decision of the Court of Appeal is therefore valid, subsisting and final. The claimant’s counsel has argued that the claims before this court are different and do not form part of the issues adjudicated upon by the Court of Appeal. I do not agree with him. It is evident particularly from the 1st relief sought by the claimants that this action cannot be determined without their status as Supernumerary Police Officers or Employees of the defendant being finally determined by the Supreme Court more so as the defendant has denied in the statement of defence that they are not its employees. They must await the decision of the Supreme Court on their status. I find that the subject matter in all the suits is the actual status of the claimants either as Employees of the defendant or as Police Officers. It will amount to judicial impertinence and/or rascality for this court to assume jurisdiction in respect of this matter. I hold that this suit is caught by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatem. It is an abuse of the process of court. I therefore decline jurisdiction to entertain it and hereby strike it out. I award costs of N5, 000 in favour of the defendant. Ruling is entered. ___________________________ Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae