Ruling: Industrial Court Overrules Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
His Lordship, Hon. Justice S.H. DANJIDDA of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri division on Thursday 23rd January 2018 gave a ruling dismissing the preliminary objection on jurisdiction raised by Ignatius Ajuru University of Education (3rd Defendant) in the case of Ihua Friday & 96 others v. Governor of Rivers State of Nigeria & 2 others.
This is a ruling in respect of a preliminary objection filed by the 3rd Defendant against the Claimants’ suit. The preliminary objection was filed on the 10/10/2016 and it challenged the competence of this suit that this Hon. Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain same against the 3rd defendant on the ground thatt the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action against the 3rd Defendant, that the National Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the 3rd Defendant.
The 3rd Defendant argued that it has painstakingly examined the affidavit in support of the Claimants’ Originating Summons and it is obvious that the facts therein do not disclose any cause of action against the 3rd Defendant.
In response to the preliminary objection raised by the defendant, the claimants’ counsel D.O Okoro Esq also filed a written address.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice S.H. Danjidda, says:
Section 122(2) Evidence Act 2011 enjoins the court to take judicial notice of among others all laws or enactments and any subsidiary legislation made there under having the force of law now or in force or hereafter to be in force in any part of Nigeria.
This Court is of the opinion that these averments clearly entitle the claimants to hearing on merit of their case and I do not agree with the learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant that there is no valid cause of action, I believe there is. I do not also agree with the 3rd Defendant that its name was only mentioned once in the claimants’ affidavit. Whether the action will succeed or fail is quite a different matter. We are not yet there.
On the contention of the 3rd Defendant that its name shall be struck out as such it ought not to have been sued because of the presence of the 2nd Defendant as a party, I have earlier on said upon examination of the averments in the affidavit in support of the claimants’ originating summons that there are depositions that are directed at the 3rd Defendant in respect of the dispute in this case. I think the 3rd Defendant ought to be joined in this suit as the employer of the claimants and being a body corporate with common seal and can sue and be sue as provided by section 1(2) of the Rivers State University of Education Law No.8 of 2009. I therefore find the 3rd Defendant’s contention on this point untenable.
In the circumstance, all the two issues raised by the 3rd Defendant are resolved against it. The notice of Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction is hereby over ruled and it is accordingly dismissed.
Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.
For Full Ruling, Click Here
