IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT CALABAR
BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO
11TH DAY OF May, 2023 SUIT NO. NICN/CA/13/2022
BETWEEN:
Pamol Nigeria Ltd ………………………………………………..………….. Claimant
AND
1. The Registered Trustees of international
Association of Plantation Farm Labourers
2. Robert Noah Robert
3. Anietie Dick Johnson defendants
4. Joseph Abaji
5. Ubong Christopher
6. Naomi Sunday Bassey
RULING.
On 19/1/2023, this court suo motu asked counsel for the parties in this suit to address it on whether or not having regards to the reliefs being sought by the claimant in this suit; this court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this action as it is presently constituted. Consequently, counsel for the parties filed written addresses on their respective position regarding the issue raised by the court suo motu. The counsel for the clamant filed his written address on the 26/1/2023. While the counsel for the defendants filed his written address on the issue on the 16/2/2023. Counsel for the parties adopted their respective written addresses on 28/3/2023.
In his submission before the court counsel for the claimant insisted that this court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit having regard to the provisions of section 254C (1) (a) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, section 7(1) (a) (i) (ii) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and sections 2(1) (2) and 21(1) (2) of the Trade Dispute Act. Counsel also relied on the case of Raheem V Oloron Toba-Ojo (2—6) 15 NWLR (Pt.1003) 581.
For the counsel for the defendants he submitted that after careful perusal of the legal argument canvassed by the counsel for the claimant, various statutory provisions of the National Industrial court Act, and those of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and more particularly the very salient and germane provisions of section 254C-(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 199, (as amended), the condition precedent of exercise of jurisdiction is absent. In support of his position counsel relied on the case of Madukolo V Nkemdlim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587, @ 595, where the Supreme Court per Bairmian, JSC, laid down the constituent elements of jurisdiction, when he held that a court is competent when:-
1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another.
2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevent the court from exeocising its jurisdiction; and
3) The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
To underscore the important of jurisdiction to adjudication, counsel for the defendants refers to the cases of Utih V Onoyivwe (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 @ 49; Hon. Ehioze Egharevba V Hon. Crosby Osadulor Eribo & Ors. (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411. Counsel submitted that in the case at hand there is a feature which has prevented this court from continuing to entertain this suit as two of the reliefs are anathema to the justice of this case. It is the submission of counsel that the gravamen of this suit is predicated upon the industrial action that was embarked upon, by the claimant’s workers for its deliberate refusal to pay its workers.
According to counsel the feature that deprived this court of jurisdiction is obnoxious demand of N240,000,000.00 from poor workers, who have been owed salaries and other allowances for several years, a fact that has been admitted by the claimant without any hesitation, nor equivocation as can be seen in their paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of their originating suit/application.
Counsel also contended that the claim for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further embarking on industrial action is unthinkable and unheard of as the provisions of section 43 (1) of Trade Dispute Act, has given workers power to down tools, in order to press home their demands, especially as in the instant case, where several agreements were reached but were never kept by the defendant.
Counsel also submitted that the claimant has in paragraph 1.9 of his address abandoned relief on the sum of N240,000,000.00. The abandonment has supported the defendants position that having no relief that is grantable, the court is left with no, claim before it, hence, it will be waste of the court’s precious time to continue to seat over this matter, hence, the court should be decline jurisdiction.
COURT’S DECISION:
The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, with or without leave and even for the first time on appeal before the Court of appeal or the Supreme Court. It can even be raised by the court suo motu as was done in the instant case. The issue of jurisdiction of a court to try a suit is a fundamental and threshold one. The rationale for this position is that any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity and liable to be struck out, no matter how well conducted. Jurisdiction is extrinsic to the adjudication. If a court has no jurisdiction to determine a subject-matter of the suit or that the parties are not subject to the jurisdiction of that court, the proceedings thereof are and remain a nullity, however well-conducted and the judgment no matter how brilliantly written and eloquently delivered. It behoves on every court, to decide on its jurisdiction so see whether the issues sought to be ventilated before it are within its jurisdictional competence. In essence, jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental prerequisite for adjudication. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; A.-G., Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552; Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166; Petrojessia Enterprises Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675; Petrojessica Ent. Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675; Matari v. Dangaladima (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 266; Nwanezie v. Idris (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 279) 1; A.P.G.A. v. Anyanwu (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 541; Skye Bank Plc v. Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1590) 24; Statoil Nig. Ltd V Inducon Nig Ltd & anor. [2021] 7 NWLR (Pt.1774) 1.
It must be noted that jurisdiction of court does not exist in vacuum as all courts of law derive their jurisdictions from either the Constitution or statutory enactments. Therefore, no court can assume jurisdiction without having been constitutionally or statutorily empowered to do so. See Boko v. Nungwa (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 395; Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169; Lekwot v. Judicial Tribunal (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 22; Bot v. Jos Electricity Distribution Plc [2021] 15 NWLR (Pt.1798) 53.
As pointed out by the counsel for the defendants, it is trite law that a court is competent when: it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of (c) jurisdiction. Thus; any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well-conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.
It is settled by long line of authorities that what determines the jurisdiction of a court is the claim and not otherwise or as may be provided by law. In the instant case, the claimant’s claim is what the court will consider to see or find out if the claim is within the purview of the jurisdiction of the court as donated it by the Constitution and statutory provisions establishing the court. see Onuorah v. K.R.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393; Edision Automotive Ind. v. NERFUND [2022] 4 NWLR (Pt.1821) 419.
The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is as provided in section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). Section 254C of the Constitution provides as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-
(a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith;
(b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws;
(c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any Industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters connected therewith or related thereto;
(d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer’s association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine;
(e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising therefrom;
(f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or International best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters;
(g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace;
(h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards;
(i) connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto;
(j) relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any-
(i) Collective agreement;
(ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute;
(iii) award or judgment of the Court;
(iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute;
(v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement.
(vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour, industrial relations or work place;
(vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof;
(k) Relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;
(l) Relating to-
(i) Appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith;
(ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; and
(iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly;
(m) Relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreements.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, the National Industrial Court shall have the jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith.
This elaborate provision confers an extensive and unambiguous exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. Therefore, the court is both a court of first instance and an appellate court. The jurisdiction of this court extends to all matters related to, incidental thereto or connected with any labour or employment dispute. In effect therefore, its exclusive jurisdiction extends to matters having a nexus, inextricably linked or reasonably connected to subject matters over which jurisdiction is conferred in Section 254C. The jurisdiction of the court relates to the ramifications of labour and labour relations in its length and breadth, in so far as it concerns labour.
In view of the foregoing provisions of the constitution what this court is saddled with responsibility is to see whether the claimant’s claim comes within the purview of section 254C of the Constitution as amended to confer this court with jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
To be able decide the issue of the jurisdiction of the court, the claim of the claimant as encapsulated in the general form of complaint and the statement of facts are the relevant material to be considered. This is because generally, the nature of the dispute between parties and the set of facts giving rise to the dispute should naturally determine whether the court has jurisdiction in a particular matter or not.
The brief facts which necessitated institution of this suit as can be gleaned from the pleadings are that the defendants have disrupted normal official business operation of the claimant. All attempts made to resolve the rising industrial conflict by the claimant convening series of meetings with the workers to discuss for proactive steps to bring back life into the claimant’s operation which will facilitate payment of the workers entitlements, could not materialized. The defendants have also refused to allow the head/administrative offices of the claimant to be opened for business.
It is apt to reproduce the reliefs being sought by the claimant as per its complaint before the court. The claim of the claimant as contained in paragraph 25 of the statement of fact (pleading) are:-
(a) An order of this court commanding the defendants and their cohorts to open the offices of the claimant’s Head/Administrative office forthwith situate at plantation Headquarters, Km, 15, Calabar lkom Highway, Calabar, Cross River State.
(b) An order stopping the defendants and their cohorts from further acts of nuisance, interference, invasion of the Head/Administrative office of the claimant, intimidation, harassment, assault and threat to life of management staff of the claimant and the staff of the claimant, as well as the business operation of the claimant at claimant’s Plantation at Nk, Ikot Okpora and Sapelle.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the 1st to 6th defendants, their members, agents, cohorts, representatives and however they are called and described from further locking the Head/Administrative offices of the claimant situate at Plantation Headquarters Km 15, Calabar Ikom Highway, Calabar, Cross River State as well as claimant plantation at lkot Okpora, Nko & Sapelle
(d) The sum of N240,000,000.00 (Two hundred & forty million naira) for illegal tapping of claimant’s rubber trees, evacuating rubber lumps by the defendants and their cohorts between January and March, 2022, including illegal felling of rubber trees for firewood and stealing of other claimant’s assets
A careful examination of the factual situation giving rise to the claim as contained in the claimant's pleadings., will show that the claim as anchored are based on an employment dispute or matters arising from the workplace, then such a claim falls squarely within the ambit of Section 254C(1) of the Constitution. This is because the facts of the instant case clearly show that the claim of the claimant arose in connection with matters which took place at the workplace as captured under Section 254(1)of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as Amended.
From the reliefs and the entire pleadings of the claimant, there is no doubt that the claim before the court is within the ambit of the provisions of section 254C(1) (a), (c) and (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). Therefore, this court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the claimant before the court.
In view of my finding above I ordered that this suit shall proceed to hearing.
Ruling is hereby entered accordingly.
Sanusi Kado,
Judge.
REPRESENTATION:
Attah Ochinke, Esq; for the claimant
Chief Ogbiji Ogbiji, Esq; for the defendants.
