IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

DATE: 11^TH DECEMBER, 2025. 

SUIT NO: NICN/OS/01/2024.

BETWEEN

MR. ADEWALE MICHAEL IGBALAJOBI---------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT

AND

1. THE COMMANDANT, NIGERIAN SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS (NSCDC), OSUN STATE COMMAND.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IBADAN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC (IBEDC).

RESPONDENTS

REPRESENTATION

SAHEED A. RAJI FOR THE APPLICANT.

ADEMOLA JASANYA WITH DR. OYEKUNLE OYESOLA HOLDING THE BRIEF OF HAKEEM AGBAJE FOR THE 2^ND RESPONDENT.

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION.

1. The Applicant commenced this suit via an originating summons for the Enforcement of his Fundamental Rights dated and filed the 15^th day of April, 2024. The Application was brought pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 41 and 46 of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Articles 5, 6, 12, 13 and 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010, Order 11 Rule 1, 2, and 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

2. The Applicant herein pray this Honourable Court for the following reliefs:
   1. A DECLARATION that the invitation, harassment, arrest and detention of the Applicant by the officers of the 1^st Respondent from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to 12^th day of April, 2024 at the 1^st Respondent’s Intelligence and Investigation Department for five (5) days on the instructions of the 1^st Respondent and at the instigation of the 2^nd Respondent at the Applicant’s place of work at the Osun Regional office of the Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company Plc (IBEDC), Osun State, without committing a crime is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and in violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as guaranteed under Section 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
   2. AN ORDER restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their officers or Agents from arresting or further arresting or causing the detention or inviting the Applicant to the office of the 1^st Respondent.
   3. AN ORDER restraining the 1^st Respondent from further harassing or arresting the Applicant through the officers of the 1^st Respondent on the instructions and instigations of the 2^nd Respondent.

4. AN ORDER directing the 1^st Respondent to release the Applicant’s Tecno Camon 19 Android Phone and Nokia Phone belonging to the Applicant with SIM Registration Numbers 08032567168 and 08181667291 worth N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only, unlawfully and without any justification whatsoever seized and confiscated by the 1^st Respondent back to the Applicant with immediate effect.
5. AN ORDER directing the 1^st Respondent to release the Applicant’s International Passport unlawfully and without any justification whatsoever seized and confiscated by the 1^st Respondent upon its production by the Applicant’s wife, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi with immediate effect.
6. AN ORDER directing the 1^st Respondent to release the Applicant’s Landed Property Title document unlawfully and without any justification whatsoever seized and confiscated by the 1^st Respondent upon its production by the Applicant’s wife, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi with immediate effect.
7. AN ORDER directing the Respondents jointly and severally to pay the sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty Five Million Naira) only to the Applicant as compensation for the flagrant and reckless breach of the Applicant’s Fundamental Human Right as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).

3. The grounds upon which this Application was brought are as follows:
   1. The Applicant was until the day of his arrest an employee of the 2^nd Respondent with a Staff Identity Number 11328713 attached to Okinni Service Unit, under Ede Business Hub of the 2^nd Respondent Osun Region in Osogbo, Osun State.

2. The Applicant was called by the Human Resources Partner attached to Osun Region in person of Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji via a phone call to resume from his Okinni service unit of Ede Business Hub to the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional office in Osogbo, Osun State on 8^th day of April, 2024 and was surprised to be handed a letter of “Termination of Employment” by Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji, the Human Resources Partner under Osun Region who immediately instructed the 2^nd Respondent’s Head of Security, Alhaji Yekeen Lukman, to arrest and drive the Applicant in company of ‘Segun Ogundola Esq., the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Legal Officer and two other 1^st Respondent’s Officers attached to the Osun Regional Office of the 2^nd Respondent to the 1^st Respondent’s office at Sawmill Area, Onibu Eja,ldo Osun, Osun State.
3. The Applicant being a law abiding and good citizen of Nigeria, requested for the offence he has committed.
4. That on the 8^th day of April, 2024, at about 11.00 o’clock in the morning, the Applicant was forcefully arrested by the 2^nd Respondent’s Head of Security, Alhaji Yekeen Lukman on the Instruction of the 2^nd Respondent’s Regional Human Resources Partner, handed over to the men of the 1^st Respondent, and was detained on the orders of the 1^st Respondent until the 12^th day of April, 2024 when he was released on Administrative bail.
5. That the Tecno Camon 19 Android Phone and Nokia Phone belonging to the Applicant with SIM Registration Numbers 08032567168 and 08181667291 worth N350,000.00 (Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira)

only, was seized by the 1^st Respondent and has not been released to the Applicant as at the time of filing this Application.

6. That the 1^st Respondent on the instigation of the 2^nd Respondent, detained the Applicant in a dingy, smelly and odoriferous security cell operated and deliberately maintained by the 1^st Respondent, ordered the Applicant’s wife, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi to forcefully produce and submit the Applicant’s International Passport and seized same upon its production till date.
7. That the 1^st Respondent on the instigations of the 2^nd Respondent, while still detaining the Applicant in the 1^st Respondent’s dingy cell ordered the wife of the Applicant, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi, to produce and submit the Applicant’s Landed Property Title document and seized same upon its production by the Applicant’s wife.
8. That the Applicant was denied food and made to suffer hunger from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to the 11^th day of April, 2024 while also refusing to allow the Applicant access to the food brought to the 1^st Respondent’s detention center by the Applicant’s wife for the entire period of the Applicant’s detention by the 1^st Respondent.
9. That the Applicant was subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment by ordering him to trek bare-footed each time the Applicant was to be taken out of the dingy cell for an interrogation by the 1^st Respondent.

10. That the Applicant was deprived of his human dignity by the 1^st Respondent by denying the Applicant the opportunity of taking his bath from the 9^th day of April, 2024 to the 12^th day of April, 2024.
11. That the Applicant, despite the Application for Administrative Bail made by his Counsel, Saheed A. Raji Esq., and Saheed O. Muritala Esq., both of T. S. Adegboyega & Co., 141, Station Road, Osogbo, Osun State on the 8^th day of April, 2024 was denied an Administrative Bail by the 1^st Respondent.
12. That the Applicant, despite the Application for Administrative Bail made by his Counsel, Saheed A. Raji Esq., and Saheed O. Muritala Esq., both of T. S. Adegboyega & Co., for the second time on the second day of the Applicant’s arrest being the 9^th day of April, 2024 was denied an Administrative Bail by the 1^st Respondent.
13. That on the 12^th day of April, 2024, the Applicant was reluctantly released by the 1^st Respondent without any justification for his harassment, arrest and detention from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to the 12^th day of April, 2024.
14. That the Applicant being a human being and citizen of Nigeria is entitled to the protection of his inalienable fundamental rights as enshrined and entrenched in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).
15. That the continuous threat of arrest, arrest, detention and harassment of the Applicant by the 1^st Respondent at the

instigation of the 2^nd Respondent as it took place from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to the 12^th of April, 2024 is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and in violation of the Applicant’s fundamental rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as guaranteed by Sections 34, 35 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights Cap. A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT

5. In arguing the issue, Applicant’s counsel submitted that the right of the Applicant to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as encapsulated in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) have been breached individually and collectively

but recklessly by the Respondents and urged the court to so hold. Reference was made to the supporting affidavit and section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).

6. Learned Counsel further argued that there was no reasonable ground to have suspected the Applicant of having committed any crime in the first instance. That the Respondents resorted to arbitrariness and naked abuse of power and acted within the Respondents whims and caprices as against the confines of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered). In the respect, counsel cited the cases of UBANI v. DIRECTOR OF STATE SECURITY SERVICE (SSS) (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 625) 129 @ 148-149, paras H-A and JIM-JAJA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE(2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1213) 375 at 398, paras E-F.
7. On the issue of compensation, counsel referred the court to section 35(6) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and submitted that the Applicant , having been unlawfully harassed, arrested, detained for five (5) long days in a dingy cell operated by the 1^st Respondent and still been threatened with arrest by the 1^st Respondent on the instructions and instigations of the 2^nd Respondent, the Applicant is entitled to compensation as well as public apology from Respondents. In support of this, reliance was placed on the cases of IGWE V EZEANOCHIE (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) 61 @ 94 and JIM-JAJA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 255 @ 256, paras B-F.
8. Consequently, Applicant’s counsel urged the court to grant the Applicant’s right to compensation and be adequately compensated for the flagrant, reckless and disdainful breach of his Fundamental Rights by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents whose conducts in breaching

the rights of the Applicant gave no regard to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered).

2^ND RESPONDENT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

11. The learned counsel submitted on the lone issue that it is not in all instances where a person is incarcerated that his Fundamental Right to liberty is breached. He referred the court to Section 35(1)(c) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and submitted more so that it passes the test of reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed when a Team lead with five (5) years leadership experience who is aware of company policy and regulation on illicit meters yet was involved in the procurement of

same and also the receivership of company’s monies into his personal account and without disclosure to the company, among other things.

12. Arguing further, counsel stated that from the facts of this case, it highly probable that the Applicant either by himself or in connivance with some other people defrauded the IBEDC and that if the personal liberty of the Applicant is deprived on this ground, that it is still within the bounds of the law because it was on a very reasonable suspicion that the Applicant had committed a criminal offence. Reference was made to Section 3 of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps (Amendment) Act 2007 and the case of COMMANDANT-GENERAL, NSCDC & ANOR v. UKPEYE (2012) LPELR-14415 (CA).
13. Consequently, counsel submitted that the 1^st Respondent is empowered by law to make arrest with or without warrant, in respect of the offences it can prosecute and that the Applicant’s alleged infringement of his fundamental rights is incomprehensive and has no footing whatsoever in law and urged the court to so hold.
14. On IBEDC’S report to the 1^st Respondent (NSCDC), counsel submitted that it is a civic duty of every citizen to report crimes. That IBEDC performed its civic duty to report a crime to a law Enforcement Agency which has the power to arrest, detain, investigate and prosecute the crime being reported. He cited in support the case of UDO & ORS v. ESSIEN & ORS. (2014) LPELR-22684 (CA).
15. In another submission, learned counsel stated that the 2^nd Respondent (Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company Plc., IBEDC is unknown to law. That the name used is not a juristic person capable of suing or being sued,  that  the  juristic  person  is  simply  “Ibadan  Electricity

Distribution Company Plc.” (IBEDC), a company duly registered under the relevant Nigerian law and urged the court to so hold.

APPLICANT’S FURTHER AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY ON POINT OF LAW

17. In response to the Counter Affidavit of the 2^nd Respondent, the Applicant filed a Further Affidavit of 38 paragraphs deposed to by the Applicant himself. Attached to the further affidavit are documents marked as Exhibits AAA, BBB and CCC respectively. Equally filed alongside further affidavit is a reply address on point of law dated the 3^rd day of July, 2024.
18. In the said reply on points of law, learned counsel submitted that paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the 2^nd Respondent’s Counter Affidavit violates the provision of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) as they contained extraneous matters in the form of legal arguments, prayers, objections and conclusions and urged the court to strike out same. Reliance was placed on the cases of AKWA

v. C.O.P (2002) NWLR (Pt. 811); NWAGU v. AATUMA (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1363) 591 @ 613-614, paras E-C.

19. Finally, Applicant’s counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion by discountenancing the Counter Affidavit on the basis of insufficient material facts contained in the Counter Affidavit of the 2^nd Respondent and uphold the Applicant as the victim of the

Respondent’s concerted and lawless acts through unlawful arrest and detention.

COURT’S DECISION

20. I have carefully and painstakingly perused the originating summons commencing this suit for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights of the Applicant, the reliefs sought, the statement of facts, the grounds upon which same was predicated, the supporting affidavit, the Exhibits attached therewith and the written address in support. I have equally gone through the 2^nd Respondent’s Counter Affidavit in opposition to the originating summons, the annexures attached therewith and the written address in support of the Counter Affidavit. In the same vein, I studied the Further Affidavit in response to the 2^nd Respondent’s Counter Affidavit together with the Exhibits attached therewith and the Reply on points of law. Having done this, it is my humble view that the issues for determination are two, to wit:
    1. Whether from the Affidavit Evidence before the court vis-a-vis the facts of this case, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
    2. Whether the Applicant herein has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought.
21. It is germane to state at the beginning that, it is the case of the Applicant as distilled from the affidavit in support of the originating summons and further affidavit briefly that until the day of his arrest, he was an employee of the 2^nd Respondent with staff Identity Number 11328713 attached to Okinni Service Unit, under Ede Business Hub of the 2^nd Respondent Osun Region in Osogbo, Osun State. That the 2^nd Respondent issued him the first query on the 11^th day of August, 2023 and he answered it within 48 hours. That the 2^nd Respondent issued him with another query on the 6^th day of

November, 2023 and he answered with a reply on the 13^th day of November, 2023. That the 2^nd Respondent issued him three (3) different queries on the 7^th day of February, 2024. That the 2^nd Respondent summoned him to appear before an Ad-Hoc Disciplinary Committee comprising of four staff of the 2^nd Respondent, whose names are Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji (the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Human Resources Partner), Segun Ogundola, Esq. (the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Region Legal Officer), Alhaji Ahmed Shehu (the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Meter Standard Officer) and Mr. Isiaka AbdulMutalib (the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Key Accounts Manager). That the Ad- Hoc Committee interrogated him on the 3 (three) issues raised in the 3 (three) queries already issued to him by the 2^nd Respondent and he replied all questions faithfully and honestly to the best of his ability.

That he was at his Okinni Service Unit office on the 8^th day of April, 2024, when he received a call from the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Human Resources Partner, Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji to report at the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Office in Osogbo, Osun State. That upon his arrival at the 2^nd Respondent’s Osun Regional Human Resources Partner, Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji’s office, he was handed a letter titled “Termination of Employment” by Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji, the Human Resources Partner under Osun Region. That he did not steal the 2^nd Respondent’s property or any other person’s property at all. That he did not engage in any unlawful activities or commit any infraction against the 2^nd Respondent or any person whatsoever. That the said Mrs Olufisayo Adetunji, the Human Resources Partner under Osun Region immediately instructed Alhaji Yekeen Lukman, the 2^nd Respondent’s Head of Security, to arrest and instantly put him in custody and confinement. That on the 8^th day of April, 2024, at about

11.00 o’clock in the morning, he was handed over to the officers and men of the 1^st Respondent, and was detained on the Order of the 1^st Respondent.

That upon arriving at the 1^st Respondent’s office, he calmly and peacefully requested to know the offence for which he was arrested. Officers of the 1^st Respondent tersely told him that the 2^nd Respondent wrote a petition against him to the 1^st Respondent and that led to his arrest. That despite his demand to see the petition written by the 2^nd Respondent against him, the 1^st Respondent did not show or give him a copy of the 2^nd Respondent’s petition written against him. That the 1^st Respondent held him in his detention cell from the 8^th day of April, 2024 until the 12^th day of April, 2024. That it was due to the persistence of his team of Solicitors from T. S. Adegboyega & Co., 141, Station Road, Osogbo, Osun State that the 1^st Respondent was compelled to release him on punitive Administrative Bail. That the 1^st Respondent without any lawful justification seized and confiscated his Tecno Camon 19 Android Phone and his Nokia phone with SIM Registration Numbers 08032567168  and  08181667291  worth  N350,000.00 (Three

Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only. The two phones are still in the custody of the 1^st Respondent to date. That the 1^st Respondent has not released the two phones to him as at the time of filing this Application.

That at the time he was detained in a dingy, smelly and odoriferous security cell, the 1^st Respondent ordered his wife, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi to produce his International Passport, unlawfully and without any justification whatsoever collected, seized and confiscated the International Passport upon its production by his wife. That the 1^st Respondent has not released said International Passport to him as at the time of filing this Application. That the 1^st Respondent’s at the instigation of the 2^nd Respondent, while he was in detention in the dingy cell of the 1^st Respondent ordered his wife to produce the Landed Property Title document of his house, unlawfully and without any justification whatsoever seized and confiscated same upon its production by his wife. The 1^st Respondent has not released the Landed Property Title document to

him as at the time of filing this Application. That he was from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to 11^th day of April, 2024 denied food and water, prevented and refused to allow him eat the food prepared and brought by my wife, Mrs Comfort Igbalajobi to the 1^st Respondent’s detention centre where he was held. That the 1^st Respondent subjected him to indignity and various inhuman treatments by ordering him to trek bare-footed each time he was to be taken out of the dingy cell for an interrogation. That the 1^st Respondent acting on the instructions and instigations of the 2^nd Respondent interrogated him on purely administrative issues bothering on the five (5) queries issued to him by the 2^nd Respondent and already answered to by him.

That the 1^st Respondent granted him Administrative Bail without providing any justifications for the harassment, humiliation, arrest and detention that he was forced to suffer from the 8^th day of April, 2024 to 12^th day of April, 2024. That the continuous threat of arrest, his subsequent arrest, detention and harassment as it took place on 8^th day of April, 2024 to 12^th April, 2024 is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and in violation of his fundamental rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as guaranteed by Sections 34, 35 and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Article 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Cap. A9), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. That he is entitled to compensation in the sum of N25,000,000.00 (Twenty Five million Naira) only. Simply put, the Applicant is challenging his arrest and detention by the 1^st Respondent upon the report by the 2^nd Respondent as a violation of his Fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under section 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

22. Having pointed out this and coming back to the issues for determination but before then, it is on record that the 1^st Respondent despite service of the originating processes and several hearing notices on it, did not file any process nor enter appearance in this

suit. I shall discuss the consequences of that failure in the course of this judgment if the need arises. Now on issue one which is whether from the Affidavit Evidence before the Court vis-a-vis the fact of this case, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case. Let me note at the onset that I am not unmindful of the general principle of law that court of law which raises new issue on its own motion, that is suo motu, must afford the parties the opportunity to address it on the new issue raised before deciding same. However, to every general rule, there is an exception. In that respect, I refer to the case of KEYSTONE BANK LTD v. EBUH & ORS (2021) LPELR-52773 Per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL,

JCA @ Page 66-66, paras A-C. Where Court of appeal held thus:

“…My lords, interestingly, the law as it stands today is that an issue of jurisdiction cannot only be raised suo motu by the Court without even calling upon the parties to address it and that such a decision would not be said to have been reached in breach of any of the party’s right to fair hearing…”

Similarly, it was held in the case of PAXSON (NIG) CO. LTD & ANOR v. ENUGU NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL  (2021)  LPELR-54157  Per  JAMES SHEHU

ABIRIYI, JCA @ Page 10-10, Paras C-D that:

“The law is that the need to give parties a hearing when a Court raises an issue suo motu may not be necessary where the issue pertains to the Court’s jurisdiction…”

23. In the instant case therefore, relying on the authorities cited above, I deemed it necessary in the course of going through this file in order to write this judgment, raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and decide same without the need of calling parties to address the court because no amount of arguments and/or submissions of counsel will

confer jurisdiction on court where it does not have same. Having said this, it is settled law that jurisdiction is the authority of the Court to adjudicate over the question that give rise to the cause of action. It is fundamental and threshold issue being the life blood and bedrock of all trials. Without jurisdiction, no doubt the trial will amount to an exercise in futility and a nullity. In this respect, see the cases of OKOLONWAMU v. OKOLONWAMU (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 1 at 21, Para A; GTB v. TOYED (NIG) LTD (2016) LPELR-4181(CA); ODOM v. P.D.P (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt.

1456) 527 @ 548, paras C-D.

Furthermore, a Court is only competent to entertain a case when the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, 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 upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. In this regards, I refer to the case of GABRIEL MADUKOLU & ORS v. JOHNSON NKEMDILIM (1962)

LPELR-24023(SC) Where it was held thus:

“Put briefly, a court is competent when (1) it is properly constituted as regards number and qualification of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) 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 (3) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided; the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.”

“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- (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.”

ZAMA SENCHI, JCA where it was held thus:-

“I quite agree with learned silk for the Respondent that when statutes are clear and unambiqous, the Courts are enjoined to interpret the words in their ordinary and natural meanings.”

See also the case of ETISALAT V. IHEJIETO (2022) LPELR- 59063 (CA).

the Court of Appeal held thus:-

“The next issue to be determined is whether the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has jurisdiction to hear and entertain Fundamental Right Enforcement Application. The answer to this question is definitely in the negative as the provision of Section 254 C (1) (a) - (m) of the 1999 Constitution states the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in an unequivocal terms. It reads 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) to connected with the grant of any order restraining anybody taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, 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 nonpayment 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.” The implication of the above is that the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all labour and employment related matters, to the exclusion of all other Courts. A fortiori, its jurisdiction, exclusive or otherwise, does not includes the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Lower Court was therefore clearly in error when it declined jurisdiction and transferred the suit to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.”

57881 pages 16-16, paras B-E, per CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, JCA Where Court of Appeal held that:-

“…Where a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, the appropriate order it should make is one striking out the matter…”

See also the case of NEPA v. ANGO (2001) 15 NWLR Pt. 737, pg. 627.

28. In conclusion, having held supra that this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this case, I without further ado hereby strike out this suit with suit no. NICN/OS/01/2024 accordingly.
29. No order as to cost.
30. Judgment entered accordingly.

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan.

Presiding Judge.