Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja –His Lordship, Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial division has struck out the suit filed by Josac Investment Resources Limited against Omosun Christiana for no reasonable cause of action.
The court held that fear or suspicion, real or imagined, that the defendant may in future, wrongly or rightly, lay claims against the claimant, does not constitute a cause of action to enable the claimant sue the defendant.
By an originating summons dated and filed on 23/1/2019, the claimant sought for determination whether having regard to the fact that the defendant did not and has not resumed and or has not performed any work at the claimant’s company on the 7th day of May 2018 as contained in the conditional offer letter dated 30th day of April 2018, or any other date thus not possible to have performed any of the responsibility she was recruited for, entitled to remuneration and or compensation.
Likewise, AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by herself, servants, agents, privies, or assigns from doing anything that would amount to threatening the claimant or their business.
In summary, the claimant- Josac Investment Resources Limited gave the defendant- Omosun Christiana a letter of employment expecting her to submit her acceptance of the offer in five days and to resume work two days thereafter. The defendant did not submit any acceptance and on the sixth day, the claimant asked the defendant, through email, not to resume work. The defendant did not resume work.
The defendant did not enter an appearance but filed a motion on notice to stay proceedings, remit the case file to the president of this Court for onward transfer and reassignment to another judge in Lagos Division.
On 25/3/2019, E.O. Ebhonuaye Esq. appeared for the defendant, filed a memorandum of appearance without a motion for extension of time. On 8/5/2019, neither defendant nor counsel was in court and no explanation. Accordingly, the Court struck out both the motion and the memorandum of appearance filed and heard the claimant.
The Claimant maintained that the defendant did not perform or render any service to the Claimant and as such is not entitled to any form of remuneration or compensation and it would be in the interest of justice to restrain the defendant from seeking any form of remuneration or compensation from the claimant.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice K. D. Damulak expressed thus;
“From the facts deposed in this case, there is neither a dispute disclosed between the parties nor damage suffered by the claimant who asked the defendant not to resume work. There are no facts disclosed giving the claimant a right of action against the defendant.
“However, the right of the claimant that is threatened by the defendant is not disclosed. Similarly, there is no evidence that the defendant is seeking any form of remuneration or compensation from the claimant.
“A fear or suspicion, real or imagined, that the defendant may in future, wrongly or rightly, lay claims against the claimant, does not constitute a cause of action to enable the claimant sue the defendant.”
On the whole, the court struck out the matter for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
