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


Alleged Infringement: Industrial Court Assumes Jurisdiction, Orders Matters To Proceed To Trial


997 Wednesday 21st November 2018

 

Yenagoa – Hon. Justice B. A. Alkali of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Yenagoa Division on Thursday 1st November 2018 in a ruling delivered assumed court jurisdiction to hear matter filed by EBIEGBE MICHAEL (claimant) against ARIDOLF RESORT PVT LIMITED and 3 others for alleged trespass, privacy infringement, and unpaid salaries.

 

The Claimant seeking against the Defendants, individually, jointly, severally and vicariously liable among others; A DECLARATION that the Defendants through the 3rdDefendant unlawfully interfered, infringed and encroached on the privacy of the Claimant on the 25th February, 2014 at the 2ndDefendant’s resort when he (3rdDefendant) forcefully seized and tampered with the BlackBerry Wireless Mobile Phone of the Claimant and copied his messages, conversations, communications and WhatsApp messages with one Hannah to his (3rdDefendant’s) personal email box without the claimant’s consent and knowledge. Thereby causing the claimant’s phone to malfunction and eventually damaged.

 

A DECLARATION that the conduct of the 3rdDefendant on the 25th February, 2014 at the 2ndDefendant’s resort wherein he invaded into the privacy of the Claimant by forcefully collecting the mobile phone of the Claimant and copying information, conversations, communications and WhatsApp chats history of the Claimant from the Claimant’s BlackBerry Mobile Wireless Phone into his (3rdDefendant’s) personal email box without the Claimant’s consent and knowledge, amount to an act of recklessness, negligence, trespass and an infringement on right to privacy of the Claimant.

 

Likewise, the sum of N5,000,000.00 against the Defendants, jointly and severally as damages for trespass, invasion, encroachment and infringement on the Claimant’s privacy. N5,000,000.00 as general damages for unpaid salaries owned by the 1st and 2ndDefendants to the Claimant.

 

In Summary, the Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant-ARIDOLF RESORT PVT LIMITED as a Front Desk Officer of the 2nd Defendant- ARIDOLF RESORT WELLNESS & SPA LTD on a monthly salary of Twenty Five Thousand Naira (N25, 000.00). That in January 2014, the Defendants through the General manager deceived the Claimant and refused to pay him his monthly salary as agreed in the terms of the letter of employment.

 

The Defendants submitted that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this matter as the Statement of Facts before this Court does not show in any paragraph that this Hon. Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter as stipulated in section 254 C (1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

 

The Defendants further averred that from the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, the matter before this Court is a matter related to civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim; hence it is the High Court that is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

 

In opposition, the Claimant submitted that the claim in Prayer 1 of the suit raises the issue of private invasion on the right to privacy of an employee at the place of work and is recognized by section 254 C (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), while Prayer 9 is a claim for unpaid salaries recognized by section 254 C (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

 

He also refers this Hon. Court to section 254 C (1)(f) and  (h) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which confer jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court to adjudicate on issues bordering on the complains relating to labour and employment at the workplace.

 

That by provisions of section 254C (1) (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the National Industrial Court is vested with jurisdiction, to the exclusion of every other court, to adjudicate over trade disputes and claims arising from or connected with contracts of employment as well as non-payment of salaries.

After careful analysis of all the processes filed, the evidence led and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice B. A. Alkali expressed thus;

 

“Flowing from the above, it is obvious that the court that has jurisdiction over matters relating labour and employment is the National Industrial Court. This is because as the above section provides, the issues leading to the suit as spelt out in the Statement of Facts is that the Claimant’s property was seized by the 3rd Defendant through which Claimant’s privacy was invaded when the 3rd Defendant was informed of a dispute the Claimant had had with one of the employees of the Defendants. And all this happened at the place of employment of the Claimant.

 

“The Claimant is also claiming for unpaid salary which are all within the jurisdiction of this court. By the combined effect of paragraphs 7 – 11 and 18 – 22 of the Statement of Facts the issues raised are within the jurisdictional competence of this court.

 

"The argument canvassed by Counsel to the Defendants that its only the State High Court that can adjudicate on this matter is a total misconception of law.

 

“By the community reading of section 272 and 254C (1) of the CFRN 1999 (as amended).One can see that this matter squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this court.

 

“In view of the foregoing facts as enumerated ab-initio I resolved the lone issue for determination in favour of the Claimant and holds that this suit is within the jurisdictional competence of this court, I ordered the Claimant to open his case.

 

For Full Ruling, Click Here