Just In: Industrial Court Dismisses Preliminary Objection, Assumes Jurisdiction over a Suit

• 2618 Tuesday 17th April 2018

 

 

His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. J. Essien of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Enugu Judicial Division On Tuesday 17th April 2018 in a ruling dismissed preliminary objections and assumed jurisdiction over a suit in the case of H.R.H. DR. ANIKWE JOSEPHAT UCHENNA v. AND UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA and 3 ors. The claimant is seeking for an order to declare seizure of his salaries and other entitlements as unlawful.

 

The defendants in this suit by a notice of preliminary objection dated the 12^th day of October, 2017 and filed on the 19^th October 2017 sought an order striking out this suit for being incompetent and as such this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. 

 

The defendant counsel has argued that by S.2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act 2004 any action commenced against the defendants 3 months after the accrual of the course of action is incompetent.  Counsel further argues that the appointment of the claimant was terminated on the 13^th May, 2013 and that he had 3 months after the termination to have instituted this action.

 

Counsel urged the court to hold that the suit is manifestly incompetent for being statute barred and to strike out the suit.

 

 

On the other hand counsel to the claimant J.O. Udensi submitted that the case against the defendant falls within the ambit of “continuing damages or injury” he also argued that the rule that action commenced outside the period of three months of the accrual of cause of action is statute barred is subject to exceptions the exceptions include those excluded expressly by statute and those created by means of judicial interpretation

 

 

In response to the preliminary objection the claimant counsel filed a reply on point of law on the 9^th November, 2017.  The defendant also filed a reply on point of law on the 5^th December, 2017.

 

On the 1^st issue for determination the defendant/applicant counsel in his written submission argued that the 2^nd to 4^th defendants are merely agents of a disclosed principal and cannot be sued or joined in a suit for the alleged wrong of the disclosed principal. 

 

After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice I. J. Essien (Ph.D) expressed thus;

 

I have carefully read the argument canvassed by both counsels in support of the issue under consideration in their written submission as well as their oral adumbration.

 

On this ground of objection, it is the contention of the defendant that the 2^nd to 4^th defendant are agents of the 1^st defendant as such they cannot be liable or be sued in this action as they are agents of the 1^st defendant who is a disclosed principal. 

 

 

In this wise they are proper parties to this suit and are properly joined as defendants in this suit. Their liability is altogether another issue which the claimants would have to proof in this proceeding. I so hold.

 

From the endorsement of the claims of the claimant earlier stated in this ruling, it is clear that the claims of the claimant are for work and labour done.

 

 

On the strength of the auhority cited above this court agrees with the alternative submission of the learned counsel to the claimant that the limitation act does not apply to the claims of the claimant in this action.

 

This court has juridiction to hear and determine the claims of the claimant as presently constituted. On the whole, this preliminary objection fails and is accordingly dismissed.

 

For Full Ruling, Click Here….

 

Share Via WhatsApp