Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters 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 matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


Industrial Court Strikes Out Preliminary Objection, Orders Suit to Proceed To Hearing


982 Wednesday 7th March 2018

 

His Lordship   Hon. Justice Ibrahim S. Galadima of Owerri Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria on the 7th Of March, 2018 has declared preliminary objection to dismiss the suit CAPTAIN YAHAYA ZAMDAI WAMBAI v. BOURBON INTEROIL NIG.LTD & Anor for being time-barred as digression and a waste of time.

 

The claimant through his counsel- K. C. Kanu, Esq. and E. S. Y Wambai Esq. on the 14th of February, 2017 filed a complaint against the defendant for breach of contract of employment and sought for Special damages of Six (6) years and nine (9) months withheld part - salaries and entitlements due to the Claimant for the period between, 2009 to February 2016 equaling N 18,096,678.05; One month salary in lieu of notice of termination of contract equaling N 562, 544.01. Solicitors fee equaling N 4,000,000.00. General damages for breach of contract, trauma, and hardship caused to claimant equaling N 10,000,000.00 which total the sum of N 32, 659, 222. 01 and as well as 10% interest of the entire judgment sum until paid.

 

In a preliminary objection filed on the 11th of September, 2017, the 1st Defendant Counsel sought for an order to dismiss the Claimant’s suit for being time-barred.

 

According to him, the Claimant’s cause of action arose more than five years before it was instituted in this Court which is contrary to the Rivers State Statute of Limitation Law that all disputes in respect of contractual obligations must be filed before a law court within 5 years from the time the wrong is alleged.

 

The Claimant/Respondent in responding to the claim filed a counter affidavit. The processes dated 1st November, 2017 which were filed with the leave of this court, supported by the Claimant Counsel’s brief of arguments. In same, a sole issue for determination was raised to wit: “Whether the Claimant’s action is time barred and ought to be dismissed”. The argument was that the Claimant was engaged as a seafarer by the 1st Defendant through the 2nd Defendant by letter of “Offer of Appointment” dated 28th of May, 2009. However, by a letter dated 1st of February 2016, the 1st Defendant issued a “Disengagement from service” letter terminating the Claimant’s employment thereby. That this suit was filed is consequence of the termination, on the 14th of February, 2017. It is submitted that the cause of action therefore arose on the 1st of February 2016 when the Claimant’s employment was terminated.

 

The presiding Judge after reviewing the arguments and submissions of parties stated that the issue to determine is whether the suit is statute barred as contemplated by Section 16 of the Rivers State Statute of Limitation Law 1999.

 

There is however an exception to when a claim or cause can be declared barred by virtue of its being extinguished by operation of a statute. This is where the injury is alleged to be “continuous”.

 

From the amended statement of claim and as equally deposed to in his counter-affidavit, the plaintiff averred that he continues to be deprived of the allocation he is entitled to every month and the same has not ceased.

 

On the whole, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Ibrahim Suleiman Galadima afterwards declared thus:

 

In my honest believe, I cannot concede to the argument that this claim is time – barred because the Claimant/Respondent seeks for payments of salaries owed since May, 2009 to February 2016 and thus caught up by the Rivers State Limitation Law 1999. He had been in the employment of the 1st Defendant until 2016 when he was purportedly dismissed. To refuse him right to ventilate his grievance will be quite unjust and inequitable particularly in view of some of the depositions in his counter affidavit particularly 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 which requires evidential prove.

 

Based on the foregone reasoning, I shall not allow the application for dismissal of this here suit. I consider this application to be a digression and a waste of time. It is thus my opinion that this application must be struck out forthwith.

 

The matter shall proceed to hearing accordingly.

For full ruling, click here…