Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE Date: 5TH MARCH, 2015 Suit No. NICN/ABJ/14/2009 BETWEEN 1. MAIKUDI AMINU 2. UMAR ISAH CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS 3. NURA JAFARU AND 1. MAINSTREET BANK LTD 2. MRS. FAITH TUEDOR MATHEWS DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS (MANAGING DIRECTOR MANINSTREET BANK LTD) 3. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA 4. ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF NIGERIA REPRESENTATION Saidu Mohammed Alkali Esq for the Claimant. O. Opasanya SAN, with O. Balogun Esq, G. Iwuajoku Esq and O. Okubote Esq for the Defendants. RULING By a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Section 287 of the Constitution 1999, Section 20 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Section 10 National Industrial Court Act and Orders 11 and 21 of the National Industrial Court Rules, the claimants pray for the followings:- 1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the respondents to pay the calculated Judgment sum of N1,973,383,388.87 (One Billion Nine Hundred and Seventy-three Million Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Eighty Seven Kobo Only). Being the balance of the redundancy benefits due to the claimants and disengaged staff of the 1st respondent. 2. Such further Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case. The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows:- 1. That based on the list of disengaged staff attached to the affidavit in support of this motion paper the balance of entitlements due to the 506 staff is N1,973,383,388.87 (One Billion Nine Hundred and Seventy-three Million Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Eighty Seven Kobo Only). 2. That the respondents are in a position of authority to enforce the Judgment of this Honourable Court. In support of the Motion is 15 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by Sani Ibrahim Salihu a counsel in the firm of the counsel to the claimants/respondents. Equally, attached to the Motion paper is the written address. In reaction to this application the defendants/respondents filed a counter-affidavit dated 2/5/2014 but deemed to have properly filed and served on 4/2/2015. Accompanying the counter-affidavit is the defendants’ written address in support. In the adoption of the written address the learned counsel for the claimant formulated an issue for the determination of the court to wit:- Whether this Honourable Court has the powers to enforce its Judgment. In arguing this issue the counsel referred to the provision of Section 10 of the National Industrial Court Rules which states:- The court shall have the power to enforce its Judgment and accordingly may commit for contempt any person or representative of a trade union or employers organization who commits any act or an omission which in the opinion of the court constitute a contempt of court. The counsel then referred this court to the case of ASCSN V Minister FMHUD & Others (2007) 7 NLLR (Pt. 17) Page 1. Wherein an application for the enforcement of the Judgment of this Honourable Court was granted as prayed. He also referred to the case of NCSU V Gongola State Government (2006) 6 NLLR (Pt. 14) Page 12C. Where it was reiterated that the court do not make an Order in vain. Counsel argued that the rules of this court is explicit on the enforcement of the Judgment of this court. He urged the court to exercise its power in favour of the claimants and grant the Orders sought. The learned silk representing the defendants in opposing this application relied on the counter-affidavit filed on 2/5/2014 Exhibits AO1 – AO3 and the written address. The learned silk in the course of hearing the case requested that he allowed to substitute oral address with the written address earlier filed by another counsel from his Chambers in respect of this case. This request claimants counsel opposed on the ground that he would be overreached. The court also declined to grant the request as the counsel of the claimants ought not to be taken by surprise. However, what appears the learned silk eventually did was to make an oral submission, completely new from the written address filed in response to the claimants’ motion. For this reason, the court will discountenance the submission but look at the written address dated 2/5/2014 in response to the claimants’ motion. In the written address filed Muyiwa Balogun Esq, the learned counsel drew the attention of the court to the method adopted by the applicants in an attempt to enforce the Judgment of this court. He relied on the case of Gongola V Tukur (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592; where the Supreme Court listed various methods of enforcing various kinds of Judgments. That the current enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicants does not pass for an enforcement proceedings envisage by law. The learned counsel submitted that the law and the rules of court cited by the applicants did not support their application. That the provision of Section 10 of the National Industrial Court Act is only relevant for the purposes of initiating contempt proceedings against a contemnor of its Judgment. The learned counsel went further to submit that the defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal against the Ruling of this court of 20th June, 2013, and that an appeal has been filed. Also that an application for stay of Execution on the Ruling of 20/6/2013 has been filed on 24/7/2013. That having entered appeal at the Court of Appeal this court should allow the Court of Appeal to have a fair bite at the cherry. The counsel cited my authorities to support his stand. That in the circumstance the appropriate thing required by law for the court to do is to decline the applicants’ application and strike out for want of jurisdiction. Still on the enforcement of the Judgment the learned counsel asked whether the court can validly grant the applicants’ application to enforce the Judgment of the court in the face of the respondents’ application for stay of Execution pending before the Court of Appeal. The counsel concluded urged the court to decline the application for want of jurisdiction, appeal having been entered, or pending the outcome of the respondents’ application for stay of Execution and dismiss the application for being incompetent. Having considered the submission of counsel the issue is:- Whether the claimants’ relief of compelling the respondents to pay the sum of N1,973,383,388.87 (One Billion Nine Hundred and Seventy-three Million Three Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira Eighty Seven Kobo Only) as redundancy benefits due to the claimants and the disengaged staff of the 1st defendant can be granted. The Judgment of the court delivered on the 20th January, 2010 is very clear and unambiguous. The Judgment has also not been appealed against or set aside by a higher court. The Judgment directed both the claimants and the defendants to work out the final benefits of the claimants and the disengaged staff. The claimant submitted to the 1st defendant the final entitlements of the claimants and the disengaged staff. Till now the 1st defendant did not come up with its own compilation. What this means is that the compilations made by the claimants are acceptable to the 1st defendants as this has not been controverted or challenged by the defendants by producing any contrary figure. The defendants have contended so far was that an appeal had been entered at the Court of Appeal on the Judgment delivered on the 2oth June, 2013, and not against the Judgment of this court delivered on the 20th of January, 2010 which is still intact. It is therefore, the court order that the 1st defendant must pay the benefits of the claimants and the disengaged staff as stated in the scheduled and documents submitted to the 1st defendant. Ruling is entered accordingly. _______________________________ HON. JUSTICE O. A. SHOGBOLA JUDGE