Page 1 of 15 IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT IBADAN BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN DATE: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2025. SUIT NO.: NICN/IB/24/2017 BETWEEN MR. OLAKUNLE OLANIYI ISHOLA……...….CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT AND 1. KABS GOODWILL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2. MR. BODE ISHOLA……………………......DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS REPRESENTATION O.C. BAMISAYE FOR THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT S.O. HOSSEIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS RULING INTRODUCTION 1. By a notice of preliminary objection dated the 18th day of July, 2022 and file same date. The preliminary objection was brought pursuant to Order 17 Rules 1(1) & 9 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. Page 2 of 15 2. The Defendants/Applicants herein prayed this Honourable Court for the following orders: (i) An Order of this Honourable Court striking out or dismissing this suit for lack of jurisdiction. And for such Order or further Order as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make this circumstances. 3. The grounds upon which the Application was predicated are as follows: 1. The cause of action in this suit arose sometimes in June, 2013. 2. The Claimant/Respondent filed this suit vide General Form of Complaint on the 28th January, 2022. 3. That what the Claimant is challenging vide this suit is his purported unlawful termination of contract of employment. 4. The claimant’s purported employment by the Defendants was terminated sometimes in 2013, a period of well over eight (8) years to the knowledge of the Claimant. 5. That the Claimants/Respondents failed to institute this action within the six (6) years statutory prescribed time. 6. That the time within which the Claimant ought to have instituted this action has elapsed. 7. The action of the Claimant/Respondent is caught by statute of limitation. 8. The action of the Claimant/Respondent is statute barred. 9. The original originating process filed by the Claimant was struck out by this Honourable Court on the 1st December, 2021. Page 3 of 15 10. That the statement of fact filed on 28th January, 2022 by the Claimant is incompetent. 11. That this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this present suit. 4. Filed in support of the Application is 6 paragraphs Affidavit deposed to by one Israel Abiodun Olorunmowaju, a Litigation Secretary in the law firm of the Defendants’ Counsel. Equally filed in support is a written address dated 18th day of June, 2022. DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS SUBMISSIONS 5. In the said Written Address, Learned Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants, Oluwagbemi Olatunji Esq, formulated three issues for determination, to wit: 1. Whether the Statement of Facts filed by the Claimant is competent and if not, what is the effect of the incompetent process on the entire processes filed by the Claimant? 2. Whether Claimant’s suit filed on 28th January, 2022 is statute barred. 3. Whether this Honourable Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. 6. In arguing the issues, Learned Counsel submitted on issue one that the Claimant’s Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents filed on 28th January, 2022 are incompetent in the eyes of the law. Reference was made to Order 3 Rule 9 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules, 2017 and the case of INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION Page 4 of 15 (INEC) & ANOR v. MURI EDET ETIM ASUQUO & 3 ORS (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1068) 674 at 704, paras M-D. 7. The Learned Counsel contended that the effect of failure to obey the mandatory requirement of the Rule attracts strict penalty which include but not limited to striking out of the processes filed in disobedience to the Rules of the Court. He relied on the case of SEGUN AKINSUWA v. THE STATE (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1033) 710 at 742, paras B-C. 8. Consequently, Counsel stated that, on the face of the Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents filed by the Claimant herein, there is no indication as to which of the two Counsel names listed as representing the Claimant signed the said processes. 9. In addition, Counsel stated that a glance at the processes reveals that there are two names affixed therein: Michael F. Lana Esq, and Owoade Kehinde Esq. however, that there is no indication as to who among the two individuals signed the said processes. Counsel relied on the case of IKPEAZU v. EKEAGABARA & ORS (2016) LPELR-40847(CA). 10. Arguing further, Counsel stated that the law provides that where a Court process is franked by two or more legal practitioners, the exact legal practitioner who signs must be identified distinctly. That as it stands, one cannot from the processes filed before this Honourable Court, say for sure who signed the processes under reference, or whether or such a person is even a legal practitioner whose name is enrolled as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 11. To this extend, Counsel submitted that failure to make ascertainable the legal practitioner who signed the Court processes filed on 28th January, 2021 by the Claimant is a fundamental irregularity which Page 5 of 15 renders the processes manifestly incompetent. He relied on the case of ILAKA & ANOR v. FOLARIN & ORS (2019) LPELR48663(CA). 12. Moreso, Counsel submitted that the failure of the Counsel who signed the Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents to tick, mark or identify his name, is a fundamental irregularity which cast shadow on the competence of the Claimant’s originating process and pray the Court to on this ground, strike out same the said Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents filed on 28th January, 2022 in its entirety. 13. Finally on issue one, Counsel stated that if the Court strikes out the said Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents from the complaint filed by the Claimant before this Honourable Court, the complaint will be left with nothing to sustain it as all of its part upon which it ought to have stood has been cut off, and same is also liable to be struck out for being incompetent as it will be standing in contravention of Order 3 Rule 9 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2017. 14. On issues two and three, Counsel argued them together and submitted that this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit on the ground that the said action is statute barred. 15. Learned Counsel submitted that what the Claimant herein is challenging before this Honourable Court is the unlawful termination of his employment by the Defendants which sums up the cause of action giving this Honourable Court the power to hear and determine this suit. Page 6 of 15 16. In another submission, Counsel stated that cause of action is said to have arisen from the very date the breach of duty is alleged to have occurred which warrants the Claimant to approach the Court of law to seek redress to protect his legal right. He cited the case of YUSUF ABDULWAHEED AYINDE GBENGA v. ADENIRAN MARIAM JOY & 2 ORS (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1044) 573 at 619, paras F-G. 17. Moreso, Counsel submitted that time begins to run on the part of the Claimant for the purpose of limitation of action from the date the cause of action accrues, and in this instant case, the cause of action is said to have occurred sometimes in June, 2013, and the Claimant is obligated under the law to file in Court within six (6) years any action to challenge his unlawful termination of employment by the Defendants which is 2019. He referred to the case of ADAMU ABUBAKAR v. MICHELIN MOTORS SERVICES LIMITED (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1037) 349 at 368, paras B-C. 18. The Learned Counsel stated that in determining when an action is Statute barred, recourse will be made to the Statement of Fact filed by the Claimant wherein the facts relating to the date of termination of the contract of employment is expressly stated and the time of filing of the complaint before this Honourable Court, this will assist the Honourable Court in resolving the issue he referred to the case of ADAMU ABUBAKAR v. MICHELIN MOTORS SERVICES LIMITED (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1037) 349 at 363, paras A-C. 19. To this extend, Counsel contended that the purported termination of employment being alleged by the Claimant against the Defendants occurred sometimes in June, 2013 while the Claimant’s present action for redress was filed on 28th January, 2022, a period of clearly Page 7 of 15 over eight (8) years after the alleged termination of employment was committed. 20. Arguing the issues further, Counsel submitted that the effect of failure of the Claimant to bring his action for redress within the statutory time with respect will automatically rob this Honourable Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. Reliance of placed on the Case of JAFAR SANI BELLO v. ABBA K. YUSUF & 2 ORS (2020) ALL FWLR (pt. 1057) 854 at 894-895, paras HB. 21. Moreso, Counsel relied on the case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 and submitted that condition precedent must be adhere to for the Court to have jurisdiction and that where it is discovered that the Court lacks jurisdiction, any steps taken in respect of the suit becomes a nullity. Reference was also placed on the case of THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED v. CHIEF JOEL ANARO (SUPRA). 22. Finally, Counsel submitted that the Court has power to dismiss this suit for being incompetent same having been caught by statute of limitation, there making it statute barred. 23. In opposition, the Claimant/Respondent filed a 17 paragraphs counter Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant himself. Attached to the counter Affidavit is a Written Address dated the 28th day of July, 2022. In the said Written Address, Learned Counsel to the Claimant/Respondent, Michael F. Lana Esq, adopted the issues raised by the Defendants/Applicants. Page 8 of 15 CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 24. Arguing issue one, Counsel contended that the Rules of this Court has declared this Court to be a specialized Court and not the regular Courts like Federal or State High Courts, thus it is not a Court of technicalities but a Court that seeks to attain justice. Counsel referred the Court to Order 4 & 5 of the Rules of this Court. 25. On the contention of the Applicants’ Counsel that the name of Counsel that signed the processes is not ticked, Counsel submitted that the name of the Lawyer that signed the processes was ticked. Therefore, even if accept without conceding that the name of the Lawyer that signed the processes was not ticked, that would never render the accompanying processes to be incompetent because his name was there, he signed and also affixed his Nigeria Bar Association legal seal on it. All these has shown enough the description of the legal practitioner. He relied on the case of MAINA v. E.F.C.C (2020) 2 NWLR (pt. 17080) pages 251-252. 26. Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance Defendants’ Counsel argument as being time wasting and abuse of Court power. 27. On issues two and three, Counsel contended that the Claimant’s suit cannot be statute barred because it is not a fresh action as this suit was instituted in the year 2017 hence Suit No. NICN/IB/24/2017. The General Form of Complaint was filed based on the Order/Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on the 1st day of December, 2022. Counsel referred the Court to Exhibit marked A to the counter Affidavit. 28. Arguing further, Counsel stated that the ruling of the Court was not appealed against by the Defendant hence binding on parties. Page 9 of 15 Reliance was placed on the cases on EZIKWE v. EGBUABA (2019) ALL FWLR (pt. 1017) 546; ANYADUBA v. NRTC (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 243) 535 at 553; NATIONAL REVENUE MOBILIZATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION v. JOHNSON (2019) NWLR (pt. 1656) 246 at 270; JAMES & ORS v. NSCDC & ORS (2014) LPELR-24068(CA). 29. The Learned Counsel contended that this application is an abuse of Court process. In support, Counsel cited the cases of ACB PLC v. NWAIGWE (2011) 7 NWLR (pt. 1246) 38 at 399; NIGERIA AIR FORCE v. AKUKALIAB (2008) ALL FWLR (pt. 441) 968; P.D.P. v. SHERIFF (2017) 15 NWLR (pt. 1588) 219 at 265-266, paras D-G; DONALD v. SALEH (2015) 2 NWLR (pt. 1444) 529 at 568, paras G-H. 30. Finally, Counsel submitted that this application is frivolous, an attempt to subvert and delay the cause of justice and should be dismissed for being baseless and lacking in merit. REPLY ON POINT OF LAW 31. The Defendants/Applicants filed further Affidavit of 6 paragraphs dated 14th November, 2022. Attached to the further Affidavit are annexures marked as Exhibits A and A1 respectively. Filed alongside the further Affidavit is a reply on point of law to the Claimant’s counter Affidavit filed on 25th August, 2022 in opposition to the Defendants’ notice of preliminary objection. 32. Also, the Claimant/Respondent filed further counter Affidavit of 18 paragraphs dated 9th May, 2024. Attached to the further counter Affidavit is Exhibit A. Equally filed against the preliminary Page 10 of 15 objection is an amended written address dated 7th day of May, 2024 but filed on 9th May, 2024. 33. In response, the Defendants/Applicants filed Written Address and reply on point of law in opposition to the further counter Affidavit and purported amended Written Address filed by the Claimant to the Defendants’ preliminary objection dated 18th July, 2022. COURT’S DECISION 34. I have perused carefully the notice of preliminary objection, the reliefs sought, the grounds upon which same was predicated, the supporting Affidavit and the Written Addresses in support. I have gone through the counter Affidavit in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection and the Written Address filed alongside. I have equally perused the further Affidavit, the annexure attached therewith and a reply on points of law. Similarly, I have studied the Claimant’s further counter Affidavit and the amended Written Address dated 7th day of May, 2024 but filed on 9th May, 2024 and the Defendants’ response to same. 35. Having done all these, it is therefore my view that the issue for determination is whether the Defendants/Applicants have made out a case for the grant of this application. 36. It should be pointed out at the onset that the basis upon which this preliminary objection was brought as can be glanced from the grounds upon which the objection was predicated and the Affidavit evidence as well as the Exhibits therewith is that this Honourable Court lacks requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit as the suit is statute barred and the Statement of Facts filed on 28th January, 2022 by the Claimant is incompetent. Page 11 of 15 37. Having pointed out this, it is the submission of the Defendants/Applicants’ Counsel inter alia that on the face of the Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and list of documents filed by the Claimant herein, there is no indication as to which of the two Counsel names listed as representing the Claimant signed the said processes and that whether or not such a person is even a legal practitioner whose name is enrolled as a Barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Counsel further contented that failure to make ascertainable the legal practitioner who signed the Court processes filed on 28th January, 2022 by the Claimant is a fundamental irregularity which renders the processes manifestly incompetent and prayed the Court to strike out same i.e. the said Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses and List of Documents filed on 28th January, 2022 in its entirety. 38. In response to this line of argument, Claimant’s Counsel submitted among other things that this is a specialized Court, not a Court of technicalities but a Court that seeks to attain justice and that a look at the General Form of complaint will show that the name of the Lawyer that signed (Michael F. Lana, Esq.) the processes was there and ticked. That even if without conceding that the name of the Lawyer that signed the processes was not ticked, that would never render the accompanying processes to be incompetent because his name was there, he signed and also affixed his Nigeria Bar Association legal seal on it. 39. From the foregoing, the main or crux of the Defendants’ Counsel argument is that the Claimant’s processes filed on 28th January, 2022, the name of the Lawyer who signed was not ticked or marked and that the failure renders the said processes incompetent. Page 12 of 15 40. At this juncture, I have taken a close look at the said processes attached to the further Affidavit in support of the Notice of preliminary objection and marked as Exhibit A1, it is clear therein that there are two Lawyers’ names written on the said processes i.e. Michael F. Lana, Esq. and Owoade Kehinde, Esq. and the signature is on top of the name of Michael F. Lana. There is no ticking or marking of the name of who actually signed the said processes. Having noted this, the question that comes to mind is, whether the failure to tick or mark the name of the Lawyer that signed the said processes render same incompetent. I should get an answer as I proceed. 41. The Supreme Court has this to say in the case of ANI v. EFFIOK (2023) 8 NWLR (pt. 1887) 463 at 517, paras G-H where OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. in concurring with the lead judgment delivered by Amina Adamu Augie, J.S.C said thus: “…Facts are the fountain head of law. In this case, there is no controversy that the Learned Counsel who signed the processes is Mrs. Nella Andam Rabana SAN. The lack of a tick beside her name is irrelevant as she is the Lead Counsel who signed the process even though her name and signature heeded several other names…” 42. Moreso, a close examination of the said process will show clearly that it was signed by a legal practitioner, i.e. Michael F. Lana, who even affixed his NBA seal. Therefore, the lack of tick or mark beside Page 13 of 15 his name is, in my opinion, irrelevant and not enough to render the said processes incompetent. I so hold. 43. That takes me to the other ground or argument of the Defendants/Applicants’ Counsel that this suit is statute barred. His argument is based on the fact that the cause of action in this suit i.e. that the purported termination of employment being alleged by the Claimant against the Defendants occurred sometime in June, 2013 while the Claimant’s present action for redress was filed on 28th January, 2022, a period of clearly over eight (8) years after the alleged termination of employment was committed. Counsel submitted moreso in the reply on point of law referring the Court to Exhibit A attached to the further Affidavit that the order of this Honourable Court directing the Claimant to file a complaint has put an end to suit No: NICN/IB/24/2017 as same was declared void and the Claimant ought to file a fresh action and not to build a fresh action on a defective suit with suit number NICN/IB/24/2017. 44. The Claimant/Respondent on the other hand had submitted in response inter alia that this suit cannot be statute barred because it is not fresh action as the suit was instituted in the year 2017 hence suit no. NICN/IB/24/2017 and the General Form of complaint was filed based on the Order/Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on the 1st day of December, 2022. 45. It is worthy of note that the argument of the Defendants/Applicants is predicated upon a ruling delivered by this Honourable Court on 1 st December, 2021 attached to both the further Affidavit and further counter Affidavit as an Exhibit. While the Defendants/Applicants’ Counsel is saying that the ruling declared the Claimant’s suit as void and he ought to file a fresh action, the Claimant/Respondent’s Counsel is saying in his argument that the Court did strike out his Page 14 of 15 suit but directed him to file General Form of complaint which the Claimant did file on 28th January, 2022. 46. Let me pause here and peruse the said ruling. I have studied carefully the said ruling and it is clear that the originating process which the Claimant/Respondents used in commencing this suit was void. It is equally clear that the said ruling did not strike out the Claimant’s suit. However, the Claimant/Respondent was ordered to file a complaint. For clarity, let me reproduce hereunder the potion of said ruling where the Claimant/Respondent was ordered as stated above. It goes thus: “Claimant/Respondent is hereby ordered to file a complaint before this Court.” 47. In the light of the above analysis, it is apparent that the Claimant/Respondent complied with the order of the Court when he filed a General Form of complaint on 28th January, 2022. Therefore, the submission of the Learned Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants that the Claimant’s suit was filed on 28th January, 2022 is to say the least, misconceived, as the Claimant/Respondent’s suit was filed on 24th March, 2017 having not been strike out, is still subsisting. I so hold. 48. Consequently, it is my considered opinion that this suit as is presently constituted is not statute barred as submitted by the Defendants/Applicants’ Counsel same having been filed within the time allowed by the law. I so hold. 49. Before I conclude, let me briefly state that the argument of the Defendant/Applicants’ Counsel in their reply on point of law among other things that paragraph 5, 10, 11, 12, and 15 of the counter Page 15 of 15 Affidavit filed by the Claimant in opposition to the Defendants’ motions are incompetent by virtue of Section 115(2), (3) and (4) of the Evidence Act, CAP E14, LFN, 2014 is misconceived. I do not see how the said paragraph offends the mandatory provision of the Evidence Act referred above. To that extend, the submission of the Learned Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants in that respect is hereby discountenance. 50. In the circumstances therefore, I without further ado resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Claimant/Respondent and against the Defendants/Applicants and hold very strongly that the Defendants/Applicants have failed to make out a case for the grant of this application. To that extend, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant’s suit as presently constituted is not incompetent and is also not statute barred. Consequently, this Honourable Court has unfettered jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit on its merit. 51. Finally, this notice of preliminary objection, for the reason stated above, lacks merit and is hereby overruled and dismissed in its entirety. 52. No order as to cost. Parties shall bear their respective costs. 53. Ruling is entered accordingly. --------------------------------------------------- Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan Presiding Judge.