Lagos – His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos, on Wednesday 6th February 2019 in a ruling dismissed preliminary objection raised by MR. KANMA OKAFOR (defendant/applicant) challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear matter filed by CONTINENTAL REINSURANCE PLC (CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT) for lacking merit. The court held that the fact that the Defendant is no longer an employee of the Claimant is not a bar to a suit against him, thus declared that the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action.
By notice of preliminary objection dated 25th November 2016 and filed on 28th November 2016 brought pursuant to Order 23 rule 1 National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, the Defendant/Applicant prayed for an order dismissing the suit with substantial costs on the grounds that the Claimant’s statement of claim raises no reasonable cause of action; that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit; and that the suit is altogether a grave abuse of the judicial process.
The applicant counsel maintained that the applicant has a profound grouse with the management and certain peculiar practices of the Claimant and this grouse is amply articulated in his lawyers’ letter of October 11, 2016; and the aim of the Claimant is to shackle the Defendant from making good his threat.
He further submitted that any action founded on non-existent law discloses no cause of action much less a reasonable one and is therefore incompetent, urged the Court to strike out the suit.
The Claimant also formulated for determination, whether or not the Claimant’s case as presented discloses a cause of action/reasonable cause of action and whether or not this Honourable Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit?
Counsel also submitted that the Defendant’s presumption that the Claimant’s case has no chance of success is baseless.
By way of reply, the applicant contended that the Claimant failed to highlight the exact factual elements which aggregate to furnish it with a cause of action. It was also argued that the reliance on “international best practices” mentioned in section 254C[1] of the 1999 Constitution as amended does not suffice as a cause of action as any scope for the application of the term can only be in the context of a life employment dispute.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka expressed thus;
“What constitutes a cause of action or reasonable cause of action has been judicially defined in a plethora of decided cases, and learned Counsel for the parties have referred to some of these cases.
“In so far as the statements of facts disclose some cause of action or raise some questions fit to be decided by the Court, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is not a ground for striking it out.
“It is indisputable that there was an employer and employee relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. It is also not in doubt that the Defendant was the Deputy General Manager and Head of the Claimant’s Information and Communication Technology Department, from which position he became seised of sensitive and confidential information about the Claimant’s business which, as it is alleged, he seeks to use to the detriment of the Claimant.
“It is immaterial, contrary to the submission of the Defendant that the employment relationship has ceased.
“So, the fact that the Defendant is no longer an employee of the Claimant is not a bar to a suit against him.
On the whole, the court finds no merit in the preliminary objection and held that the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action.
