NICN - JUDGMENT
IN
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT ABUJA
ON
WEDNESDAY 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SINMISOLA ADENIYI
SUIT
NO: NICN/ABJ/347/2024
BETWEEN:
STEVEN
TOBA OJO…….…..................................CLAIMANT
AND
1. ARTEMIS LIFE SCIENCES NIG. LTD
2. BHABANI SANKAR
3. VISHWANATH B. MALLEGOWDA
4. ILORI OLANREWAJU
5. RAJESH GUPTA
6. NAND KUMAR NAIR….……………………... DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The Claimant commenced this action by Complaint filed on 26/09/2024,
wherein he prayed for declaratory and other reliefs against the Defendants.
Upon entering appearance to the suit, the Defendants proceeded to file the
instant application on 09/12/2024, wherein they sought the
reliefs set out as follows:
a. An
Order of this Honourable Court striking out the names of the 4th, 5th
and 6th Defendants from this suit herein, as the Plaintiffs’ (sic)
suit discloses no reasonable action against them.
b. An
Order striking out the names of the 4th, 5th and 6th
Defendants from this suit herein, as they are not necessary nor desirable
parties for effective and just determination of the disputes between the rest
of the parties in the suit herein.
c. An
Order of this Honourable Court striking out the Claimant’s relief 9 as it falls
outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
2. The grounds of objection of the
Defendants is further set as follows:
a. That the Claimants has not disclosed any
reasonable cause of action against the 4th, 5th and 6th
Defendants in this suit.
b. That the 5th
and 6th Defendants are not directors or shareholders of the 1st
Defendant and there is nowhere in the Claimant’s claims where their names was
mentioned.
c. That the
4th, 5th and 6th Defendants are not necessary parties for
the just and eventual determination of the issues between the Claimant and the
other Defendants and this suit can be effectively determined without their
involvement.
d. That this
Honourable Court constitutionally lacks the jurisdiction to entertain relief 9
of the Claimant’s Statement of Claim (sic).
4. In summary, counsel for Defendants
is challenging the competency of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court
to entertain the matter. Counsel argued that, apart from stating that the 4th
Defendant is the Human Resources Manager and that the 5th and 6th
Defendants are respectively alleged to be the Managing Director and the Chief
Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant, the Claimant failed to plead
the roles they played in the termination of his employment and further argued
that there is no reasonable cause of action against the 4th, 5th
and 6th Defendants by the Claimant.
5. It is the argument of counsel that
the issue relating to the termination of employment of the Claimant can be
effectively resolved without necessarily joining the 4th, 5th
and 6th Defendants as parties and therefore urged the Court to
strike out their names from this suit. The cases of Barclays Bank Vs
Central Bank of Nigeria [1976] 6 SC 175; Abu Vs Odugbo [2001] 7 MJSC
87; Aiyelabegan Vs LGSC Ilorin, Kwara State [2015] All FWLR (Pt 802)
1697; Rebold Ind Ltd Vs Magreola [2015] All FWLR (Pt 794) 94; Akinola
Vs Wema Bank Plc [2015] All FWLR (Pt 795) 292; Akindele Vs Abiodun
[2010] All FWLR (Pt 518) 914 were cited to buttress his submissions.
6. The submission of counsel is further
that no matter how well conducted any proceedings, the absence of jurisdiction
renders such proceedings conducted null and void. Citing the cases of Labiyi
Vs Anretiola [1992] 8 NWLR (Pt 285) 139; Central Bank Vs Auto Import
Export [2013] 2 NWLR (Pt 1337) 81; Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim [1962] 2
All NLR 581 and Dangana Vs Usman [2012] All FWLR (Pt 627) 612, counsel
argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the issue of expatriate
quota as contained in relief 9 of the Complaint and Statement of Facts as same
is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
7. The argument of the Claimant’s
counsel on the other hand is that the 4th - 6th
Defendants are executives of the 1st Defendant who occupies various
leadership roles and that they contributed directly and indirectly to the
termination of his appointment, and as stakeholders in the 1st
Defendant, their presence is necessary for the just determination of the case.
On the issue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief 9 of the
Claimant’s claim, the argument of counsel is that relief 9 is an ancillary
order that can be granted after the hearing of the substantive case and
submitted that the courts have been urged to refrain from entertaining
substantive case at interlocutory stage. Counsel finally submitted that this
application is to further delay the trial and urged the Court to dismiss it.
8.
The settled position of law as enunciated in the cases of Moyosore Vs Gov
of Kwara State
[2013] NWLR (Pt 1293) 242; Guinness (Nig) PLC Vs SKA Nig Ltd [2012] 18
NWLR (Pt 1331) 179, is that a
Court is required to examine only the facts averred in the Complaint, Statement
of Facts and the reliefs endorsed in order to determine whether or not a Court
can exercise jurisdiction over a matter. I had critically appraised the Statement of Facts and the
documents annexed thereto as exhibits. As stated in paragraphs
10, 12 and 13 of the Statement of Facts and as contained in Annexures A, C and G attached
thereto, the Claimant’s employment with the 1st
Defendant was confirmed on 19/01/2024 and he was in the employment until his
appointment was terminated on 07/05/2024. The 1st Defendant was
properly described in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts as a
Pharmaceutical Company with his Office in Lagos, while in paragraphs 5, 6
and 7 of the Statement of
Facts, the 4th, 5th and 6th
Defendants are respectively described as Group Human Resources Manager,
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant.
9.
With reference to paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 31, 35, 36, 49,
53 and 55 of the Statement of Facts, the grievance of the
Claimant is basically that the termination of his appointment by the Defendants
was wrongful. According to the Claimant, during the
course of his employment, he discovered that fraudulent activities were being
carried out by one of the employees of the 1st Defendant; that he
also discovered that the 2nd Defendant was also actively complicit
in the fraud and that all the measures to block the said fraudulent activities
were shut down by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The Claimant alleged
further that the 4th Defendant, instigated a false petition with
manipulated facts that caused his unlawful arrest by the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC); that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
practically frustrated the arrest and prosecution of the employee who was
involved in the fraudulent activities and maintained that the Defendants are
liable for unjust treatments which resulted in the termination of his
appointment.
10. Now, the principles guiding the Court
in determining whether an action discloses a reasonable cause of action or not
are sacrosanct. Learned counsel for the Defendants adequately captured these
principles in his written submission. In the famous decision of Thomas Vs
Olufosoye [1986] LPELR 3237, the Supreme Court, relying on the
English decision of Drummond - Jackson Vs British Medical Association
[1970] 1 All ER 1094, defined “a reasonable cause of action” to mean,
a cause of action with some chance of success when only the allegations in the
pleadings are considered. In another sense, a contention that a Claimant's suit
discloses no reasonable cause of action postulates that there is nothing in the
Statement of Claim that is fit for the adverse party to respond to and for the
Court to adjudicate upon. See also Ogunsanya Vs Dada [1992] 3 NWLR
(Pt 232) 745 [also reported in [1992] 4 SCNJ 162]; Adesokan Vs Adegorolu
[1997] 3 SCNJ 1; NICON Insurance Corporation Vs Olowofoyeku [2006] 5
NWLR (Pt 973) 244.
11. It is the view of this Court, upon a
proper appreciation of the applicable principles, that the question that
readily arises for determination here is whether, upon the assessment of the
facts as averred by the Claimant in the Statement of Facts, it could be said
that he has made allegations of infringement of its civil rights and
obligations prima facie, against the 4th - 6th Defendants for which
they should be required to make some form of explanation? Stating it in
different words, has the Claimant alleged wrong against the 4th -6th
Defendants that the law has provided remedy for, should he succeed?
12. I have perused through the Statement of
Facts with a fine toothcomb, with the aim of deciphering any alleged wrong made
by the Claimant against the 4th, 5th and 6th
Defendants. It is not alleged anywhere therein that either of the 4th,
5th or 6th Defendants acted in their private capacities
with respect to their dealings with the Claimant; neither did the Claimant
plead that the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants
have any personal obligations towards him with respect to action that resulted
in the filing of the present suit.
13. Indeed, apart from the description of
the 5th and 6th Defendants in paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the Statement of Facts, the 5th and 6th
Defendants were mentioned in paragraphs 44, 53 and 55 thereof, where
it was averred that copies of email were sent to them and it was stated that
the Claimant was used and dumped by the said Defendants together with the other
Defendants. Furthermore, with regards to the 4th Defendant, the Claimant
alleged in paragraph 31 of the Statement of Facts, that the 4th
Defendant instigated a false petition with manipulated facts that caused his
unlawful arrest by the officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC). I note that the 4th Defendant is described as the
Group Human Resources Manager of the 1st Defendant.
14. Now, the sacrosanct position of the law
is that where an agent does an act on behalf of his principal, it is the
principal and not the agent that is liable in law. In Amadiume Vs Ibok [2006] 6 NWLR (Pt 975) 158, the point was
taken and it was held as follows:
“Where
the principal of an agent is known or disclosed, the proper party to sue or be
sued for anything done or omitted to be done by the agent is the principal. The
action against the appellants in their private capacities where their principal
FAAN is known and disclosed is incompetent."
See also Price Water
House Vs Momoh [2020] LPELR 51426; SPDC (Nig) Ltd & Ors Vs
Nwawka [2003] LPELR 3206.
15. In the present case, it is manifestly
clear from the pleadings of the Claimant that whatever actions taken or roles
played by the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants with
the management of the 1st Defendant which includes the entirety of
the contract of the Claimant’s employment, the subject matter of this suit,
were done as representatives of and on behalf of the 1st Defendant. In
other words, the Claimant has no reasonable cause of action against the 4th,
5th and 6th Defendants. And I so hold.
16. Having held that there is no reasonable
cause of action against the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants,
I disagree completely with the arguments of the Claimant’s counsel that the
present case cannot conveniently or conclusively be determined without their
presence as parties. This is a simple case of contract of employment and the 4th,
5th and 6th Defendants as agents acting on behalf of the
1st Defendant, a known and disclosed principal incurs no personal
liability. And I so further hold.
17. Order 13 Rule 14 (2) of Rules
of this Court, empowers the Court to at any stage of the proceedings and on
such just terms, order that the name of any party improperly joined, be struck
out, whether as Claimants or Defendants. Put differently, misjoinder of parties
may not defeat a suit, more so where there are more than one Defendant in the
suit. The appropriate order to make in the circumstances of this case is to
grant the Defendants’ prayer and strike out the names of the 4th, 5th
and 6th Defendants from the suit. Accordingly, it is
hereby ordered that the 4th, 5th and 6th
Defendants namely: Ilori Olarenwaju, Rajesh Gupta and Nand Kumar Nair, as they
appeared on the process and record, are hereby struck out of this suit and the
suit shall be determined only as between the Claimant, the 1st, 2nd and
3rd Defendants which shall from this point onward, be referred to as
“the Defendants”. And I so hold.
18. The Defendants’ counsel has also
challenged the jurisdiction
of this Court to entertain the issue of expatriate quota as contained in relief
9 of the Complaint and Statement of Facts as same is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. As correctly submitted by the
Claimant’s counsel, it has been held in a plethora of authorities that Court
should refrain from entertaining substantive matter at the interlocutory stage.
It is my view that the Defendants’ counsel in his argument on this issue seemed
to have dived headlong into arguments fit only for the determination of the
substantive suit. With respect, the Court would not permit itself to be tempted
to be drawn into the same error as committed by the Defendants’ counsel. In the
circumstances therefore, prayer (3) of the instant application for striking out
relief 9 of the Claimant’s claims is hereby accordingly refused.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
(Hon.
Judge)
12/03/2025
Legal
representation:
Dr.
Adekunle O. Otitoju
Esq., with U. Kele-Eke Esq.,
for Claimant
Taiwo Aderibigbe Esq., for
Defendants