Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/203/2014 BETWEEN Peter Agborume - Claimant AND I.T.B. Nigeria Limited - Defendants REPRESENTATION E. N. D. Anopueme for the Claimant P. O. Okoro for the Defendant RULING The Claimant, by a General Form of Complaint dated 6/5/14 approached the Court for the following reliefs - 1. The sum of N6,000,000 only as general damages for wrongful termination of his employment by the Defendant as there was no legal notice and no concrete reason proffered by the Defendant for terminating his employment whatsoever and howsoever. 2. • Ten years benefits N596,764.48 • Ten years award television N 25,000.00 • Ten years award basic salary N 24,845.94 • Notice in lieu of termination N24,845.94 • Leave Allowance N 24,845.94 SALARY • APRIL N 87,500.45 • May N 88,200.00 • June N 72,884.12 • July N 72,884.12 • August N 41,082.35 • Repatriation N180,000.00 TOTAL N1,237,852.72 The Complaint was accompanied by a statement of facts, list of witness, list of documents, Claimant’s statement on oath and copies of the documents to be relied upon at the trial. Defendant entered appearance on the 5th June,2014, and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection. The Notice of Preliminary Objection was dated 2nd June, 2014 and filed on the 5th June, 2014. It was for an Order of Court striking out the suit in its entirety as the General Form of Complaint dated 6th May, 2014 is incompetent and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. The grounds upon which the said application was brought are as follows - 1. The Originating Process to wit; General Form of Complaint dated 6th of May, 2014 was not signed in compliance with Order 6 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of this Court. 2. The General Form of Complaint was not signed by either the Claimant himself or the Legal Practitioner. 3. The suit is incompetent and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same. In his written address in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, learned Counsel set down the following two issues for determination - a) Whether the unsigned General Form of Complaint dated 6th May, 2014 contrary to the provision of Order 6 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of this Court is a valid and competent process before the Court capable of evoking the jurisdiction of the Court. b) Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain an incompetent suit. In arguing both issues together, the learned Counsel submitted that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and a legal prerequisite in the adjudication of any matter and that when a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit before it, the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted or brilliantly decided will be a nullity. Counsel cited Oloba v. Akereja (1998) 3NWLR (Pt. 84) 508 and Odeh v. Ameh (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 309 @321 paras. F-G. Learned Counsel submitted further that if a Court is not competent to entertain a matter, it is a waste of time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit; that there is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none; that it is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties to do so, relying on Chibueze v. Ibediro (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 590)206 and that a decision of a Court without jurisdiction is automatically null and void referring to Ministry of Internal Affairs v. Aliyu (2005)3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 30. According to learned Counsel, there are certain parameters that determine Court’s jurisdiction. These parameters, according to him are stated by the Supreme Court in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581 as follows - A Court is competent when; a) It is properly constituted with respect to members and qualification of its members; b) The subject matter is within its jurisdiction; c) The action is initiated by due process of law; and d) Any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction has been fulfilled. Counsel submitted that that this suit as presently constituted is caught under the third and fourth conditions stated above. He stated that the Rules of the Court are very clear as to the proper form a General Form of Complaint must take for it to be valid and become a legal process evoking the jurisdiction of the Court; that the Rules of this Court mandates either the Claimant or his Legal Practitioner to personally sign the Originating Process before same is presented to the Registry for filing, referring to Order 6 Rule1(2), National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and that Rules of Courts are meant to be obeyed, citing Williams v Hope Rise Voluntary Society (1982) 2 SC 145. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the mistaken belief that the typing of the names of several Lawyers on the Writ of Summons or General Form of Complaint is supposed to cure the absence of signature but that the law is settled that typing of names of Lawyers in a process is not the same as their signatures, citing ACB Plc v. Houston Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 5115)110 at 125-126 and Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc (2013)5 NWLR (Pt. 1346)1. Learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit in its entirety. On 3/10/14, learned Counsel to the Claimant E.N.D Anopueme filed a process dated 2/10/14 and titled ''Reply to the Preliminary Objection of the Defendant''. It has three short paragraphs. I reproduce same as follows - ''My Lord this is the Claimant's reply to the preliminary objection of the Defendant praying this court to strike out the suit of the Claimant because the general form of complaint of the Claimant was not signed by the Claimant or his counsel. ''My Lord the Claimant has filed a motion to this court regularizing the mistake and in reliance on Order 5 Rule 1 and 3 prays this court to discountenance the objection of the Defendant and allow the matter to proceed accordingly. ''We are most obliged Sir''. This Ruling was earlier on set down for delivery on 22/1/15. Although it was ready for delivery on that day, the industrial action embarked upon by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria from 5/1/15 to 25/1/15 made its delivery impossible. Hence this Ruling is being delivered today. I have read and understood the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. This includes the ''Reply to the preliminary objection of the Defendant'' filed by learned Counsel to the Claimant. Having done so, i have come to narrow the issue for determination in this case down to the following - Whether the suit of the Claimant as presently constituted is competent. For a cause or matter to be competent before a Court of law, it must have been properly instituted before that Court. A matter is said to be properly instituted when the due process of the law has been followed in its institution. See the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim 1962) 2 All NLR 587 the leading authority on this point. Now the due process to commencing an action would have been followed when among other things, the processes filed are endorsed as appropriate and required by law and Rules of Court. Until a cause or matter is commenced following the due process, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be said to have been invoked and whatever action taken by a Court in such a circumstance is wasteful dissipation of useful energy and time. See Tukur v. The Government of Gongola State & Ors. (1997)LPELR-3237 (SC). In the instant case, the Rules of this Court in Order 6 Rule 1(2) National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 makes it mandatory for the Claimant or his Legal Practitioner to sign originating process for the commencement of action in the Court. Unfortunately, the General Form of Complaint issued on behalf of the Claimant by his Counsel was neither signed by the Claimant in person nor by his Counsel. Not having so signed as required by the Rules, it is safe to simply say that the requisite due process for the commencement of this action has not been complied with and the jurisdiction of the Court yet to be properly invoked. Learned Counsel to the Claimant has urged the Court in his ''Reply to the Preliminary Objection of the Defendant'' to invoke the provision of Order 5 Rule 1 and 3 and discountenance the objection. Rule 1 of Order 5, National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 confers a discretionary power on the Court to regard non-compliance with any of the Rules as an irregularity while Rule 3 of the same Order is an interest-of -justice provision which allows the Court to make a departure from the Rules. The provision of Order 5 Rules 1 and 3 will only be invoked when a cause or matter is properly before the Court. Those provisions will not come to rescue an inherently bad situation as in the instant case where a fundamental error both in law and procedure has been committed and where the jurisdiction of the Court has not been properly invoked. I hold that there is merit in the argument of learned Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant and that not having complied with the provision of Order 6 Rule 1(2), National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules, 2007, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This case is therefore struck out. Ruling s entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge