Media
- Home
- Details
The Presiding Judge, Enugu Judicial division of the National Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Oluwakayode Arowosegbe has dismissed the suit filed by One Daniel Ofodile against the Institute of Management and Technology, Enugu for being an abuse of court process; awarded the cost of N50,000 in favour of the institution.
Justice Arowosegbe held that the present suit is partly the same as the erstwhile suit that is pending at the court of appeal, and it’s a classical abuse of process, partly by way of forum shopping, multiplicity of suits, and the practice of chicanery to hoodwink the Court.
Justice Arowosegbe further expressed that if Daniel Ofodile is desirous of prosecuting the issue of lis pendis retirement, he will do well to approach the Court of Appeal and lay his complaint there because; this Court lacks the jurisdiction over the matter that is presently before the Court of Appeal.
From facts, the claimant- Daniel Ofodile had sought among others for the sum of N1,052,561.95 being shortfall of his half salary from July 2014 to October 2014, N3,000,000 being pension from June 2018 to June 2020 following the refusal of the institute to hand over his file to the Pensions Board of Enugu State and the sum of N5,000,000 general damages for the trauma caused.
In opposition, the counsel to the institute A.I. EZIKE Esq urged the court to dismiss the case with cost on the grounds that the suit is an abuse of Court process and statute-barred for being filed 6 years after the cause of action arose and currently a subject of an appeal.
In response, Daniel’s counsel, B. C. Oguine Esq with N. C. Udeugwu Esq submitted that the appointment of the respondent was terminated during the pendency of the appeal and the claims are different from the former suit urged the court to dismiss the objection in its entirety.
Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Arowosegbe held that the suit is not statute-barred that shortfalls in the pensions entitlements continue every month, a new cause of action would arise till the death of the respondents.
“One thing I found, is that, the learned counsel to the claimant/respondent argued in the penultimate paragraph of his address that, the respondents in the appeal, who are substantially the objector herein, while aware of the pendency of the appeal, went ahead to terminate the appellant’s appointment [claimant in this suit]. In this line of argument, is implicit admission that, this suit is a continuation of the erstwhile suit, which is on appeal.
“Where a party to a suit proceeds during the pendency of the suit to do self-help, as alleged, filing another suit is not the answer, but bringing an application for mandatory order of injunction to have undone what was done to steal a match against the other side and in contempt of the Court.” Justice Arowosegbe ruled.
