Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja --His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja on Thursday 15th November 2018 in a ruling dismissed preliminary objection and declared clause 16.01 Bureau of Public Enterprises Staff Manual, Null and void for its inconsistency in denying aggrieved members of staff of the defendants’ access to Court against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The claimant VINCENT AKPOTAIRE instituted this action because he was aggrieved by the alleged wrongful termination of his employment by the 1st defendant/applicant. This decision was allegedly based on the report of the 1st defendant/applicant’s appointments, promotions and disciplinary committee (the committee).
The defendant/applicant’s filed preliminary objection on court’s jurisdiction to entertain this suit on the grounds that By clause 16.01 of the 1st defendant/applicant’s staff manual, an employee who is unsatisfied by certain decisions against him is required to appeal to the management committee or the National Council On Privatisation (2nd defendant/applicant). As a result, the claimant/respondent failed to fulfil a necessary condition precedent to commencing this action before a court of competent jurisdiction.
In arguing the issue for determination, Davidson Oturu, Esq; counsel for the defendants/applicants submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter as it is presently constituted as the claimant/respondent failed to fulfil a condition precedent prior to commencing this action.
In the counter-affidavit, Prince A. Igajha, Esq; counsel for the claimant/respondent in arguing the issue for determination submitted that the staff manual did not impose any condition precedent which must be fulfilled before instituting this action. Counsel argued that clause 16.01 will be better appreciated if it is read in conjunction with clause 16.00, as the two clauses fall under the same subject matter.
Counsel contended that it is wrong to argue that the claimant/respondent has not fulfilled a condition precedent when in actual fact there is no condition precedent stipulated in the staff manual.
After careful analysis of the motion on notice, affidavit in support, oral submissions, counter-affidavit filed in opposition as well as the addresses of counsel for both parties. The Presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado expressed thus;
“It is patently clear from the foregoing authorities that for a Court of law to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a matter all conditions precedents to exercise of jurisdiction must be fulfilled. This has not been disputed by the parties in this case.
“The use of the words ‘The decision of the management committee and council shall be final’ in clause 16.01 of staff manual of the 1st defendant clearly shows that what the clause was meant to achieve is to deny members of staff of the defendants aggrieved by the decision of the defendants access to court of law to seek redress for any alleged violation of right or entitlement.
“With the finality of the decision of the management committee or council then there is no condition precedent to fulfill by any aggrieved member of staff wishing to institute an action.
“In the circumstance clause, 16.01 is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency in denying aggrieved members of staff of the defendants’ access to Court which the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has granted to any aggrieved person wishing to ventilate in Court.
“In view of reasons adduced above I hold that the claimant’s action before the Court is competent. This court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The preliminary objection is hereby dismissed for not being meritorious.” Justice Kado Ruled.
