Download PDF
The claimant took up a complaint dated and filed on 11th January 2013 against the defendants praying for the total sum of N20,676,840.00 made up as follows – 1. The sum of N4m (Four Million Naira) only as total outstanding monthly salary of the claimant from the defendants for the period of May 2011 to December 2011 at the monthly rate of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only. 2. The sum of N5,356,840.00 (Five Million, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Naira) only commission due to the claimant for procuring for the defendants lead ore amounting to $34,120,00 (sic) at the commission of $10.00 per ton at the exchange rate of N157.00 per dollar. 3. Sum of N7,800,000 (Seven Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) only as value of 60 tons of lead ore from compensation of 200 tons obtained by the claimant for the 1st defendant from Englone Group Limited for delay in supplying the goods of the 1st defendant. 4. Sum of N1,920,000.00 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) as outstanding monthly salary of N80,000.00 (Eight Thousand Naira) only for the four staff employed as assistants by the claimant on the instruction of the defendants. 5. N800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) only as cost or expenses incurred by the claimant for running his personal car for the business of the defendants for eighth (sic) months at the monthly rate of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) only. 6. Cost of the action. At the Court’s sitting of 10th June 2013, the Court noted that the nature of the relationship between the parties, whether it is one of contract of service or contract for service, is in issue as to determine whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Parties were then asked to file and serve written addresses as to the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court over the suit. The claimant’s written address is dated and filed on 12th November 2013, while that of the defendant is dated 19th November 2013 but filed on 20th November 2013. The claimant did not file any reply on points of law. The claimant summarized the background facts of the case as being that the reliefs he claims are his salaries and those of the employees he employed on the instruction of the defendants, expenses incurred for using his car as employee of the defendants as well as other commissions. The claimant then framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely – a) Whether the relief sought by the claimant disclosed a reasonable cause of action. If the answer is in the affirmative, b) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate over this suit. On issue a), the claimant defined a reasonable cause of action as the entire set of facts or circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. That it includes all those things necessary to give rise of action and every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. The claimant then referred the Court to Emiator v. Nigerian Army [1999] 12 NWLR (Pt. 631) 362, Ibrahim v. Osim [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 965, Sani v. President, FRN & AG Federation [2010] NWLR (Pt. 1198) 153 and AG Federation v. Abacha [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 1. For a court to exercise its jurisdictional competence over a matter, where inter alia, the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, the claimant referred to Sulgrave Holdings Inc v. FGN [2013] All FWLR (Pt. 659) 1050. That in determining whether there is a reasonable cause of action, the Court is guided and directed to restrict itself to the statement of claim of the claimant and nothing else, citing Seven Up v. Abiola [2001] 1 MJSC 93, Shell BP Ltd v. Onasanya [1976] NSCC 333, Aladegbemide v. Fasanmade [1988] 3 NWLR (Pt. 81) 129 and Yare v. NS. W & Inc. Com [2013] 5 – 7 MJSC (Pt. 1) at 15 – 19. The claimant went on that the question is whether in his claim he has disclosed a reasonable cause of action or a dispute in respect of which this Court can evoke its judicial powers to determine. The claimant submitted that he has in respect of reliefs (1), (4), (5) and (6), referring to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the statement of claim. That these paragraphs show conclusively that the relationship between the claimant “and respondent is employment of master and servant, which is within the jurisdiction of this case”, referring to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim. That the claimant also pleads that his personal car was converted to official car with the agreement of the defendants for which running must be paid by the defendant, referring to paragraph 13 of the statement of claim. The claimant then stated that: “Relief 2 and 3 are not within the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of section 254C(1)(a) because relief 2 and 3 comes connected to labor and incidental or connected with labor”. Regarding issue b), the claimant submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is donated by section 254C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution. That applying the law to the facts in this case, the relation between the claimant and the defendants in respect of reliefs 1, 4 and 5 is employment matter. That this is clear from the statement of claim. That reliefs 2 and 3 are covered matter connected to labour and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. That the commission to be paid for services, apart from salaries, comes under “any labour”. To the claimant, the jurisdiction of this Court is not limited to employment matters as suggested by the defendant’s senior counsel. It covers any labour matters and matters incidental or connected with labour matter. That reliefs 1, 4 and 5 deal with employment. Reliefs 2 and 3 deal with labour matters connected and incidental to labour. Therefore, that both contract of service and contract for service unarguably come within any labour and therefore come within the jurisdiction of this Court. That the dichotomy between independent contract or contract for service and contract of service or employment drawn by counsel for the defendant is of no moment and lacks legal basis. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to hold that going by the statement of claim, this case discloses a reasonably cause of action as shown in the reliefs sought and the averments in the statement of claim. That the subject matter is on employment and labour matters. In reaction, the defendants first gave the summary of the facts of the case. To them, the claimant is a businessman who deals with procurement of mineral resources including lead ore. That the 1st defendant is a company registered in Nigeria to carry on the business of buying and exporting, and the 2nd defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant. That the 2nd defendant met the claimant at F & G Hotels and Suites at Ilupeju, Lagos where she lodges whenever she was in Nigeria. During the course of their discussion, the 2nd defendant informed the claimant that she was in Nigeria to explore the possibility of buying and exporting lead ore from Nigeria to China. The claimant thereupon confirmed to the 2nd defendant that he was a supplier of lead ore and the 2nd defendant subsequently engaged the services of the claimant to procure lead ore for the defendants as a Procurement Officer on Commission Basis. That the defendants never employed the claimant as a staff of the 1st defendant company. That he was never given an appointment letter nor was he instructed to employ additional staff or use his personal car for the running of the business. That this is apparent from the pleadings. The defendants then framed one issue for the determination of the Court i.e. whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this matter. On the issue of jurisdiction, the defendants referred the Court to AG Federation v. Sode [1990] 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 500 at 501 and Madukolu & ors v. Nkemdilim [1962] 1 All NLR 587 at 595. The defendants then submitted that the subject matter of the instant case is not within the contemplation of section 254C(1)(a) – (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, referring to Akegbenjo v. Ataga [1998] 1 NWLR (Pt. 534) 459 at 461 and Senate President v Nzeribe [2004] 9 NWLR (Pt. 878) at 251 – 257. To the defendants regarding issue a) raised by the claimant, a Court may have the competence to adjudicate on a matter but the claims of the claimant may disclose no reasonable cause of action against the defendant. In like manner, that a claimant may have a reasonable cause of action but the Court may lack the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. That assuming but not conceding that the claimant has a reasonable cause of action, then the focus must be to check whether the claims fall under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provide for the jurisdiction of the Court. To the defendants, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter as this Court is empowered to adjudicate on matters arising from employment and labour which arose from the workplace, the conditions of service including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters connected therewith. That it must be related to employment, labour and matters incidental thereto. The defendants continued that reliefs 1 – 6 are not connected to labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace; and so this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on them, citing section 254C(1)(a) – (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. That reliefs 1 – 6 must fail because the claims of the claimant do not relate to matters arising from employment or labour which arose from a simple contract and only the High Court of the State has jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters especially simple contracts, referring to P & CHS & Co. Ltd v. Migfo (Nig.) Ltd [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 133) 555 at 565. That reliefs 1 – 6 are neither matters arising from employment nor labour related or incidental to labour as envisaged in section 254C(1)(a) – (k) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The defendants went on that the claimant’s averment in his statement of claim that he has the 1st defendant’s complimentary card in his name cannot hold water because the possession of complimentary card is not tantamount to employment. That the necessary proof that the claimant must show this Court is his appointment letter into the defendant’s company. Furthermore, that though the defendants promised to pay the claimant commission based on the quantity of lead ore he is able to procure, that is not an employment or labour related matter and the claimant has failed to prove to this Court that relief 2 is labour related or a matter incidental thereto. In conclusion, the defendants submitted that this action is frivolous and an attempt at gold-digging. That the claimant is only trying to distract the defendants from recovering the sum of N34,142,784.11, which is the subject matter of an action in Huilanje Mineral Resources v. Mr. Abdul Fatai Yahaya Suit No. ID/30/13 before Hon. Justice (Mrs.) R. I. B. Adebiyi of the Lagos State High Court. Above all, that this Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The defendants then urged the Court to dismiss this matter in the interest of justice with substantial cost. I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this matter. I agree with the submission that at this stage of the inquiry, and as pertains the issue presently at stake, the Court is enjoined to and can only look at the originating processes of the claimant – nothing else. So for the purposes of this ruling, I shall rely on only the originating processes of the claimant. The issue before the Court is whether the action as filed is competent and whether this Court has jurisdiction over the same. The argument of the claimant is that the case is an employment/labour case or at worse a case incidental to labour, and as such it comes within the jurisdictional mandate of the Court under section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The defendants, however, argue that it is not. The reliefs claimed by the claimant have been reproduced at the start of this ruling. Given those reliefs and the statement of claim of the claimants along with the accompanying documents, can it be said that the relationship between the claimant and the defendants is one of an employment relationship in order to clothe this Court with jurisdiction? A look at paragraph 1 of the statement of claim, the claimant described himself as “a businessman dealing in procuring mineral resources particularly in lead ore”. In paragraph 2 of the statement of claim, the claimant described the 1st defendant as a company “carrying on the business of buying and exporting mineral resources from Nigeria, Cameroon and other African countries and exporting the minerals resources particularly lead ore to overseas countries in particular China”. In paragraph 4 of same statement of claim, the claimant stated that the 2nd defendant “employed [him] as Chief Procurement Officer of the 1st defendant to obtain good and quality lead ore of international standard for the 1st defendant for exportation to China”. That the contract of employment was not in writing. In paragraph 5 of the statement of claim, that the 2nd defendant went to China and printed a complimentary card for the claimant to reflect the appointment. A copy of this card was then frontloaded by the claimant. In paragraph 6, the terms of the employment are that the claimant is entitled to N500,000.00 per month as salary; and the duration of the employment was to be from May to December 2011. In addition, by paragraph 7, that the defendants agreed to pay him a commission of $10.00 (Ten Dollars) per ton of lead he procured for the defendants. In support, the claimant frontloaded a letter of undertaking given to him by the defendants written in Chinese language and translated into English. The remainder of the paragraphs of the statement of claim simply amplify how the claimant discharged his mandate and the claims he now makes on the defendants. From all the paragraphs of the statement of claim, what is the exact nature of the relationship of the claimant and the defendants? This remains the key question. The claimant himself described himself as a businessman dealing in procuring mineral resources particularly lead ore. So his ‘employment’ by the defendants in relation to this business and in his capacity as a businessman cannot amount to a contract of employment in the true sense of the word. So my take is that the defendants ‘employed’ the claimant as a businessman to supply them lead ore and for which they would pay him a commission. In support of this conclusion, the “Statement of Undertaking” addressed on the face of it to Abdul Fatai Yahaya and frontloaded by the claimant provides in the English portion of the document as follows – For better cooperation in purchase of lead between the parties, statements are undertaken as follows: As long as Abdul Fatai Yahaya make the purchase of reasonable price lead successfully from the supplier, our company shall provide him commission of USD10.00 Per MT. The undertaking is then signed by “Huilanje Minerals Resources Nigeria Lited”. The human signatory is not identified in English. The date of the undertaking is in Chinese with only ‘2011’ and ‘5’ visible as such. At nowhere on the undertaking would the signature of the claimant be found. In other words, the claimant did not sign the undertaking. The copy of the complimentary card frontloaded by the claimant simply described him as Chief Procurement Officer. This description is followed by an address; and at the end of the address the full name of the 1st defendant is written out. What I gather from this is that it is not certain whether the address in between the description of the claimant as Chief Procurement Officer and the full name of the 1st defendant written out on the card is that of the claimant or it is the address of the 1st defendant. Now the claimant argues that he was employed by the defendants and so his relationship is one of a contract of service; and he asserts that this contract was oral. All of this merely raises a number of questions that the claimant did not supply any answer to. For instance, would a job that pays N500,000 per month be oral? Why is the signature of the claimant not on the “Statement of Undertaking”? When has a complimentary card taken the place of an employment contract? And when the claimant described himself as a businessman, since he claims that he was thereafter employed as Chief Procurement Officer by the defendants, did he thereby cease to be a businessman? My reading of all of this is that the claimant merely couched his claims as he did, and claims to have been ‘employed’ by the defendants just so that he can come to this Court knowing its limited jurisdiction. The relationship between the claimant and the defendants is a business relationship meant for the claimant to procure and supply lead ore to the defendants and in return for such procurement he was to be paid commission; and I so find and hold. Since the relationship is not one of an employment relationship, it is not a contract of service and so this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant case; and I so hold. The claimant argued that this Court’s jurisdiction extends to contracts for service given the use of the word ‘labour’ in section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. This Court has generally declined jurisdiction in cases of contract for service. A commentator, Bamidele Aturu, in his book, Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court (Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd: Lagos), 2013 at page 18 is of the opinion that – …the National Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims in respect of breach of contract where the underlying relationship is not one of employment but of contract for service. I agree with and adopt this viewpoint; and in consequence hold that the relationship between the parties being one of a contract for service robs this Court of jurisdiction over the matter. The defendants revealed in paragraph 4.12 of their written address that Huilanje Mineral Resources v. Mr. Abdul Fatai Yahaya Suit No. ID/30/13 is pending before Hon. Justice (Mrs.) R. I. B. Adebiyi of the Lagos State High Court. The claimant made no attempt to debunk this. The claimant himself acknowledged, in a manner of doublespeak, in paragraph 4.10 of his written address that his reliefs 2 and 3 are outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. In his words – Relief 2 and 3 are not within the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of section 254C(1)(a) because relief 2 and 3 comes connected to labor and incidental or connected with labor. On the whole, therefore, I find and hold that the relationship of the parties in this matter is not one of contract of service and so it is incompetent and so this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant case. The case is accordingly struck out. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip