Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos –His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial division on Monday 4th March 2019 in a ruling, dismissed an application brought by Maryam Nuhu –(Applicant) for the substitution of the 16th Claimant ABDULLAHI SOLANKE in a matter between Peter Aphenu and 18 ORS (claimant) Versus Federal Ministry of Health and 3 others (defendants/respondents) for lacking merit.
The court held that the proposed 2nd amended statement of facts which is supposed to be the corroborating evidence sets out the name of the deceased as Abdullahi Suleiman. The death certificate described him as Suleiman Abdullahi. Both names are different from the name of the 16th Claimant.
In summary, by motion on notice dated and filed on 11th December 2018 brought pursuant to rules of the court 2017, section 9[8] of the Labour Act, the Applicant Maryam Nuhu –prayed for An order granting leave for the substitution of the 16th Claimant ABDULLAHI SOLANKE with his wife, and An order granting leave to the Claimants to further amend their amended statement of facts dated 20th May 2016 in terms of the proposed 2nd amended statement of facts attached to the affidavit in support of this motion.
The application is supported with the certificate of death of Suleiman Abdullahi; declaration of marriage between the Applicant and Suleiman Abdullahi, and proposed 2nd amended statement of facts and a written address.
In response, learned Counsel for the Respondents urged the Court to refuse the application that there must be a concrete proof of death. He argued that there is nothing in the documents tendered by the Applicant that shows the 16th Claimant is dead. He contended that there is equally nothing to show that the Applicant is the wife of the 16th Claimant and thus robbing her of the necessary locus standi to continue this action.
By way of reply on point of law, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that no better interest can be shown on behalf of the deceased 16th Claimant than that by his wife and no person can possess a better locus standi to continue the action as it relates to the 16th Claimant’s entitlements than his wife.
In addition, the Applicant procured an affidavit from one Abdulkadir Suleiman Salanke said to be the brother of the 16th Claimant and his biodata from the 3rd Respondent. The substance of the affidavit by Abdulkadir Suleiman Salanke is that the 16th Claimant is variously known as Abdullahi Suleiman Salanke and Abdullahi Suleiman. However, both names are different from the names of the 16th Claimant. It is on this basis that the Respondents challenged the application.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both parties, the Court presided by Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka expressed thus;
held that the identity of a person must always be proved independently, sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Court.
“Proposed 2nd amended statement of facts which is supposed to be the corroborating evidence sets out the name of the deceased as Abdullahi Suleiman. The death certificate describes him as Suleiman Abdullahi. Both names are different from the name of the 16th Claimant.
“In the circumstance, it is my respectful view and I so hold that the Applicant has not satisfied the conditions to be substituted for the 16th Claimant.”
On the whole, the court dismissed the application for lacking merit.
