Ruling: Industrial Court dismisses objection for lacking merit National Industrial Court of Nigeria

Ruling: Industrial Court dismisses objection for lacking merit

1962 Tuesday 23rd January 2018

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Abuja on Tuesday 23rd Jan. 2018 dismissed objection filed to the suit between ENIOLA YEMI TAIWO, PhD and UNIVERSITY OF PORTHARCOURT and ANOR.

Mr. Eniola Yemi Taiwo as claimant through his counsel filed the suit on 13^th of July, 2017 sought among others declaration of this Honourable Court for A DECLARATION that the Claimant has suffered and continues to suffer untold hardship arising from conspiracy, victimization, intimidation, harassments and crafting of unfounded allegations thereby stalling his career growth.

Upon being served with the complaint and accompanying processes, the 1^st Defendant/Applicant filed a motion on notice dated 14^th day of August 2017 filed on same day praying for AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction to entertain same. AND for such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the Circumstances.

The motion on notice was brought pursuant to Order 7 Rule 1 (h) (i) and Order 17 Rule 1 of the National Industrial court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The application is supported by a 7 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by Mrs. Temilade Ojo, a Litigation Secretary in the law firm of Messrs Emmanuel S. Oluwabiyi & Co. counsel to the 1^st Defendant/Applicant. The grounds for this application are:-

I. The Claimant failed neglected/refused to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 (h) (i) and Order 17 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, with regard to service of the originating processes on the 1^st Defendant/Applicant.

II. The Claimant failed to first to use the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the 1^st Defendant/Applicant (which is a condition precedent to instituting this suit) to resolve the dispute before resorting to litigation.

The Court presided by Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado after reviewing the argument of parties, said “I have carefully and painstakingly read through the content of the motion on notice, affidavit in support and its attachment therein. I have equally examined the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to this application. I have also had a hard look at the written addresses of counsel for both sides.

After dealing with three preliminary objections raised by the 1^st Defendant/Applicant in the reply on point of law filed in response to the Counter-affidavit filed by the Claimant/Respondent on 31/8/17, in opposition to this application.

Thus, the quoted provision of the University of Portharcourt Act is very clear and unambiguous. It deals with the power of the Vice-Chancellor to suspend a member of staff for misconduct. There is nothing in it that laid conditions to be fulfilled before an action can be instituted. The provision is misconceived by both the 1^st Defendant/Applicant and the Claimant/Respondent. I therefore hold that section 16 (2) or the entire section 16 of the University of Portharcourt Act did not provide any internal mechanism of settling dispute or grievances. The section deals with discipline of members of staff of the University. The objection is misconceived it is hereby overruled.

For the reasons given above this application fails and it is hereby dismissed.
For Full Ruling click here