Download PDF
On 5th day of September 2012, the Claimant/Respondent filed a motion on notice against the Defendants pursuant to Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) to enforce her Fundamental Rights, to Fair hearing and discrimination. The Motion on Notice was accompanied by an Affidavit in Support of Motion on Notice, a verifying Affidavit, a statement and a Written Address. The Claimant/Respondent also filed along with the Motion on notice for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, a motion Ex-parte seeking for an order of substituted service. There was also filed by the Claimant/Respondent a Motion on Notice dated 8th February,2013 to amend and regularize her position before the Court. The motion on notice for regularization was accompanied by an affidavit in Support, a Written Address, a Complaint, Statement of facts, written Statement on Oath, List of Documents and Exhibits to be relied upon at the trial. On 22/3/2013, the Court deemed all the processes filed by the Claimant as properly filed and served. The Claimant/Respondent in this suit is seeking for the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the sitting as well as the proceedings of the 1st Respondents was unlawful, null and void. 2. A declaration that the interdiction and suspension of the Applicant by the First and 2nd Respondents, pursuant to interdiction and suspension of the Applicant by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, pursuant to the instigation of the 3rd and 4th Respondents were unlawful and denigrate the professional and personal integrity of the Applicant. 3. A declaration that there is a flagrant breach of terms and ethics of employment contract. 4. An order of this Honourable Court directing the 2nd Respondent to restore the Applicant to her Status quo ante bellum in the Local Government service and to make full redemption of the sum of Five Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand Four, Hundred and Forty Six Naira being the sum unlawfully deducted from the salary and other entitlements of the Applicant as a result of the Interdiction and suspension from December 2011 to May 2012. 5. An order of this Honourable Court directing the 2nd Respondent to render fiscal account of salary and deductions made by Yewa North Local Government in respect of the Applicant's entitlement between December,2011 till final determination of this suit. 6. An order of Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their privies and whosoever represents their interests from any further acts that threaten, prejudice and/ or impugn the integrity, tenure, legal rights and entitlements of the Applicant in the second Respondent. 7. General Damages in the sum of N1,000,000( One Million Naira) against the Second Respondent and in favour of the Applicant. 8. Any other or further order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the Circumstances of the case. After being served with all the processes filed by the Claimant, the Defendants through their Counsel filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 15th day of April 2013, filed on 30th day of May 2013. The Preliminary Objection is supported by a Written Address in which the Defendants/Applicants are seeking for an order striking out the name of the 1st Defendant/Applicant on the ground that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is a non juristic or a person not known to law and also that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is not a proper person. The Defendants/Applicants further prayed that no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd – 5th Defendants/Applicants. In reaction to the preliminary objection, the Claimant/Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit deposed to on 27th June,2013. The relevant depositions in the Counter affidavit are hereby reproduced as follows: i. That the 1st Respondent was the Originator of the res of this case. ii. That the 1st Respondent after its iniquitous sitting which indicted the Claimant/Applicant issued a Report titled, "Report of the Panel of Enquiry on Mrs. G. F. Tijani Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Yewa North Local Government, Ayetoro" herewith attached as Exhibit "A". iii. That it was the Exhibit "A" and nothing else, that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants gave effect to which occasioned miscarriage of Justice on Applicant/Respondent. The Claimant in his Counter Affidavit deposed further that the interest of Justice will be satisfied if the Preliminary Objection is discountenanced as defendant/Applicants will not be prejudiced. The Counter Affidavit was accompanied by a Written Address dated 25th June,2013. The Counsel to both parties adopted their respective Written Addresses in court on 4th October 2013. In his adopted Written Address Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants formulated 3 issues for determination by the Court: They are as follows: i. Whether the 1st Defendant/Applicant can sue or be sued as not being a juristic person. ii. Whether the 1st Defendant/Applicant is a proper party before the Court. iii. Whether or not the Statement of facts discloses reasonable cause of action against the 2nd -5th Defendants/Applicants. In arguing issue 1 as formulated Counsel to the defendants/Applicants submitted that in determining the jurisdiction of the Court, the Supreme Court in MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM ANLR 1969 VOL 1 PT. 4 pg 589 Para 6 held that a Court is competent when: i. It is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its members; ii. The subject matter of the action is within its Jurisdiction iii. The action is initiated by due process of law and iv. Any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled. It was further submitted by Counsel that in the present case, the 4th Defendant the 1st Defendant/Applicant is presently sued as the "THE PANEL OF ENQUIRY ON MRS. G. F. TIJANI" is not a legal person [artificial] or juristic person recognized by statute or law, and not being a juristic person, it cannot sue or be sued. According to the Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants the question as to who is a person natural and legal or artificial [Juristic] at law was well answered in the case of FAWEHINMI V NBA[NO. 2][1989] 2NWLR[ PT 105] Page 558 particularly page 627 para G-H where the Apex court stated thus; '... Who can sue or be sued? And in answering said 'Any person natural or legal artificial may sue or be sued' The Supreme Court referred to Section 6(6)(b) and section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution. Learned Counsel argued that the Status of the 1st Defendant/ Applicant herein as not being a natural person should come for consideration under the category of a Juristic person. Counsel argued further that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is not supported or created by any Law or Statute. Continuing his argument on this issue Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant cited the case of FAWEHINMI V NBA[NO.2] SUPRA at page 600 paragraph H, and said that ' Before an association can be said to be juristic, that is to have the power to sue and be sued in its name, it is necessary in every case to look at the instrument by or under which the association is established.' Counsel to the Defendant submitted that there is no instrument, Law or statute by or under which the 1st Defendant/ Applicant as presently constituted is established or created and consequently the 1st Defendant/Applicant is non-juristic person that can sue or be sued. More so the 1st Defendant/Applicant cannot be sued or sue in the way or manner as it is presently constituted in this instant suit. In arguing issue 2 Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant contended that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is not a proper party before the Court on the ground that the it is not a juristic person recognized by law. Counsel cited the case of BEST VISION CENTRE LIMITED V U.A.C PROP. DEV. CO. PLC[2003] 13 NWLR[PART 838] PAGE 594 at 606 paragraph F-G, where the Court of Appeal said that "Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. In the instant case, from the averments in the statement of claim and the affidavit in support of the application for striking out....., there was no nexus between the appellants and respondent. Thus the proper parties were not before the trial court." Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants submitted further that in the case of SADIQ UMAR V SALIHU ADINOYI ONIKATA [1999] 3 NWLR 558, ratio 9 at page 563 the Court of Appeal held that the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a Party to an action is he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled. In concluding his submission on issue 2 Counsel contended that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter in relation to the 1st Defendant/Applicant on the ground that it is not a proper party to this suit. On Issue 3 Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants defines Cause of action as a factual situation giving rise to a claim. Counsel went further to cite the Black's Laws Dictionary definition of cause of action as a group of operatives facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing, a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy or claim in Court from another person. Counsel to the Defendant also cited the case of DANTATA V MOHAMMED(2000) 7NWLR (PART 664) 176 AT PARAGRAPH F in which AYOOLA JSC defined a "a reasonable cause of action" thus" "a reasonable cause of action is a cause of action which, when only the allegations in the Statement of Claim are considered has some chances of success." It is the submission of Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants that a critical examination of the Statement of fact shows that the vital facts needed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd -5th Respondents/Applicants and which the Applicants/Respondents are obliged to adduce are missing. Counsel submitted that Claimant/Respondent does not have a cause of action against the 2nd - 5th Defendants/Applicants citing the case of THOMAS V OLUFOSOYE(1986) 1NWLR(PART 18) at pages 682-683 in which Obaseki JSC said "where the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and if the Court is satisfied that no amendment, however ingenious will cure the defect, the statement of claim will be struck out and the action dismissed. Where no question as to the Civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff is raised in the statement of Claim will be struck out and the action dismissed. In conclusion Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is a non- Juristic person and urged the Court to strike out the name of the 1st Respondent/Applicant. With regard to the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants Counsel submitted that no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against them by the Claimant/Respondent. Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to strike out the names of the 2nd -5th Defendants/Applicants for no reasonable cause of action against them in this matter and the matter should be dismissed in its entirety. The Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent on his part formulated two issues for determination as follows: i. Are the parties, as presently constituted before this Honourable Court, not the proper parties in the application, vis-a-vis the res of same? ii. Does this Honourable Court have jurisdiction to exercise its discretions in favour of the Applicant by granting her prayers as contained on the face of the application. Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent submitted that they appreciate the competence of having proper parties before the Court whether plaintiff or Defendant as a vital and fundamental ingredient of the Jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel submitted further that an action still succeed where the parties thereto are shown to be the proper persons to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action are attached. Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent argued that the cited cases in the Written address of the Defendants/Applicants are mi. he further submitted that the facts and legal principles are not all fours with the instant case. Counsel also argued that in the cited case of FAWEHINMI VS NBA (Supra) the Court held "No action can be brought by or against any party other than natural person or persons unless such a party had been given by statutes expressly or impliedly, or by the common law either: a) A legal person under the name by which it sues or is sued. Examples of these are corporation sole and aggregate, bodies incorporated by foreign laws and quasi-corporation" constituted by Act of Parliament; or b) A right to sue or be sued by that name. Examples of this are partnership; trade unions, friendly societies and foreign institutions authorized by their own law to sue and be sued but not incorporated. Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent further argued that the 1st Defendant/Applicant derived its mandate from its principal the 2nd Defendant/Applicant who is a juristic person with statutory flavour. Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent contended that the case of BEST VISION CENTRE LIMITED V UAC PROPERTY DEV. CO LIMITED (Supra) cited by the Defendants/Applicants has no nexus or connection with the present case. Counsel further Submitted that Exhibit A attached to the Claimant/Respondent's further Affidavit is res ipsar loquitor on not only a strong connection between the parties but a patent reflection of the injustice mischievously perpetrated by the Respondents on the Innocent woman. I have carefully gone through all the processes relating to this application and the submissions of counsel on both sides. I have also considered the judicial authorities cited by counsel. For purposes of determining this preliminary objection the pertinent issues calling for answers are: 1. Whether or not the 1st Defendant/Applicant is a legal person that can sue or be sued? 2. Whether or not the present complaint as it is constituted has disclosed reasonable cause of action against the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants?. The answer to question 1 will be found in the case of ATAGUBA AND COMPANY V GURA NIGERIA LIMITED (2005) 8 NWLR(PT 927) 429 at 433 where the Supreme Court held as follows: "The law recognizes that apart from natural and juristic persons, some non-legal entities can sue and be sued eo nomine. Thus no action can be instituted by or against any party other than a natural person or persons unless such a party has been given by statute expressly or impliedly or by common law either: a) a legal persona under the name by which it sues or is sued e.g. corporation sole and aggregate, bodies incorporated by foreign law and quasi corporation constituted by act of parliament. b) a right to sue or be sued by that name eg. partnerships, trade Unions, friendly societies and foreign institutions authorized by their own law to sue and be sue but not incorporated This principle of law could similarly be found in the case of GANI FAWEHINMI V NBA(Supra),where the Supreme Court held as follows: "The general rule of law is that any person, natural or artificial, may be sued" The question that comes to mind is can the 1st Defendant/Applicant in this case be said to have legal personality that can cloth it with right to sue and be sued in law. The answer is simple in the negative that is to say the 1st Defendant/Applicant not being a person known to law cannot have legal personality to sue and be sued in law. This submission is strengthened by the fact that the 1st Defendant is not a natural person nor is it a creation of statutes or incorporated under any law to give it the attribute of a human being with right to sue and be sued. See the case of Commissioner of Police Ondo V. Obolo (1989 5 NWLR (pt 120) 130 @ p. 141 paras, C-E where the Court of Appeal in answering question on who can sue and be sued has this to say: ‘’it is only a legal person that can sue or be sued. See Agbamogbe Bank Ltd V. General Manager G. B. Olivernt Limited & Ors. (1961) 1All NLR 116’’. In the circumstance, and on the basis of the authorities cited above I hold that the 1st Defendant/Applicant is not known to law, and therefore, can sue and be sued in its name. consequently, the name of the 1st Defendant/ Applicant is hereby struck out. On issue two that deals with reasonable cause of action, it is pertinent to state that in determining reasonable cause of action it is the claim of the Claimant that the Court will look at to determine whether the Claimant has a reasonable cause of action against the Defendantor not. In law cause of action simply means every facts which is material to be proved to entitle the Claimant to succeeds. In other words a cause of action encompasses all those things necessary to give a right to relief in law or equity. See Bello V. A. G. Oyo State ((1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 45) 828. In Akilu V. Fawehinmi No 2 (1989) 2 NWLR @ p. 169, paras, B-E, Ogundere, JSC (of blessed memory) has this to say: ‘’The act or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another. The legal effect of an occurrence in terms of redress to a party to the occurrence. A situation or state of facts which would entitle party to sustain action and give him right to seek a judicial remedy in his behalf’’. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present action, as adumbrated in the complaint of the Claimant supported by the statement of facts, list of Documents to be relied upon at trial, will lead to no other conclusion than to say that the claimant has disclosed reasonable cause of action against the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants.in other words the Claimant has vide the entire originating Court processes filed has averments of facts that will give rise to an enforceable claim. This means that the wrong act complained by the Claimant against the 2nd to 5th Defendants will entitled the Defendants to right to traverse. In conclusion it is my humble view that the 1st Defendant/Applicant not being a natural or juristic being recognized in law was wrongly made a party in this suit. He cannot in law sue or be sued his name, the name of the 1st Defendant/Applicant is hereby struck out. On reasonable cause of action, it is my humble view that the set of facts averred by the Claimant/Respondent have disclosed reasonable cause of action against the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants in this suit. At the end the preliminary object succeeds in part with the striking out of the name of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. This is the ruling of the Court. The case will proceed to trial against 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants. I made no order as to cost. ...................................................... Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo, OFR, MCIArb, GFISMN, CFIAR, FCIArb, FNILS President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria.