Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, lagos Division on February 16th 2018 gave a ruling striking out a suit against Sterling Bank and EFCC for incompetency in the case of Alozie Chimezirim Manasse v. Sterling Bank Plc & Another.
In the matter of an application for an order for the enforcement of his fundamental rights and in the matter of Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the applicant took up an originating motion of 6th April 2017 pursuant to sections 34 - 37, 40, 41, 46 and 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, Order II Rules (1) - (5) of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying the Court among other relief for a declaration that the invitation, unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, public disgrace, humiliation, and intimidation of the applicant by the respondents, their agents, servants and privies is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, wrongful, null and void in that same constitutes violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
Parties, starting with the applicant, were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses. The applicant’s written address was filed on 29th June 2017; while the 1st respondent’s was filed on 10 August 2017. The 2nd respondent did not enter any appearance and did not file any written address either
The applicant submitted a sole issue for determination: whether considering the circumstances of this case, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. To the applicant, the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 empower this Court with exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters arising out of section 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
The 1st respondent also submitted a sole issue for determination: whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD, had this to say:
To take the first issue first, the question is whether this Court is contemplated under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. On this issue, I had previously held that section 254C(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution cannot be used as the basis of filing claims under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules and there are Court of Appeal decisions that have pronounced on the inappropriateness of filing under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules issues of labour especially wrongful dismissal or termination or suspension since this belongs to a different class of action from actions on contravention or threatened contravention of a fundamental right
Assuming the applicant is appropriately before this Court, which I already held he is not, I will now turn to the second issue as to whether the subject matter of the reliefs of the claimant can be heard by this Court. Here, the applicant’s claim is one for “the invitation, unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, public disgrace, humiliation, and intimidation of the applicant by the respondents”.
This Court has over time held that it has no jurisdiction over trespass to person. In like manner, the Courts have held that employment cases are inappropriate for ventilating grievances as to reputation, feelings, etc. See Agbo v. CBN [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 379 CA, Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centre [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt. 42) 514, Katto v. CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 SC and Onwuneme v. ACB Plc [1997] 12 NWLR (Pt. 513) 150 CA. Quite rightly then, Bamidele Aturu (of blessed memory) in his book, Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court (Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd: Lagos), 2013 at 25 remarked thus: “The fact that the right of a person is infringed in the workplace is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court except an employment issue is involved”.
On this score, the applicant's suit is incompetently before this Court. I so find and hold. On the whole, and for the reasons given, this suit is incompetently before this Court. It is accordingly struck out.
Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.
For Full Ruling, Click Here
