IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HER LADYSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE

 

DATE: JANUARY 26, 2026                                        SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/187/2024

BETWEEN:

AMINA AHMED HABIB                                                                  CLAIMANT    

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA                                                      DEFENDANT        

 

REPRESENTATION

E. O. Anazodo for the Claimant, with M.U. Obi-Obiora.

Inam Wilson SAN for the Defendant, with M. Michael, F.U. Jarigo, I. Momoh, A. Zaruq, I. Fakunle, R. Modibbo Umar, O. Chukkol, B. Enebeli.

 

RULING

Introduction and claims

[1] Before the Court are two competing applications. The first is a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendant on November 28, 2025 pursuant to Order 17 Rules 1 and Order 18 Rule 2(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, and Section 52(1) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007. The Defendant/Objector is praying the Court for the following:

1. An order of the Honourable Court striking out this Suit No: NICN/ABJ/187/2024 for want of jurisdiction.

2. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make  in the circumstances.

[2] The grounds upon which the application is brought are as follows:

1.      The Claimant is barred from suing the Applicant by virtue of the immunity provision in section 52(1) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007, which protects the Applicant from being subjected to any action, claim, demand and liability, by any person in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers in good faith.

2.      The Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (filing of Applications/ Motions in Trade Union Matters and Marking of Exhibits) Practice Directions (No.1) 2022 (“NIC Practice Direction No.1, 2022”) which mandates the Claimants to refer to the specific portion of the document relied on.

[3] The Objection is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Yaro Bitrus, Manager, and a written address. In opposing the objection, the Claimant/Respondent filed a counter affidavit on January 16, 2025 sworn to by Bonnie Agi, Legal Practitioner and a written address. The Defendant/Objector filed a further and better affidavit on February 13, 2025 in opposition to the Claimant/ Respondent counter affidavit and reply on point of law. Learned Senior Counsel to the Defendant withdrew the 1^st ground at the hearing on 28^th November 2025.

[4] The 2^nd application is filed by the Claimant on 16 January 2025, pursuant to Order 26 Rule 17 (1) of the 2017 Rules of Court. The Claimant is praying for:

1.      An Order granting leave to the Claimant/Applicant to amend the Claimant’s statement of facts, witness statement on oath and the list of Documents, in the manner specified in the attached proposed Amended statement of facts and witness statement on oath.

2.      An Order amending the statement of facts, witness statement on oath and the list of Documents of the Claimant/Applicant filed in this suit in the manner specified in the attached proposed Amended statement of facts and witness statement on oath.

3.      An Order deeming the Claimant/Applicant’s Amended statement of facts,  witness statement on oath, and list of documents separately filed and served on the parties as properly filed and served, the prescribed fees having been paid.

4.      And for such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The motion is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Bonnie Agi, Legal Practitioner and a written address. In opposing the motion, the Defendant filed a counter affidavit and a written address on 10^th February 2025.

 

Defendant’s Submissions

[5] Learned Senior Counsel in ground 2 of the Objection submitted that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of every action, and that its absence renders the proceedings a nullity citing Oloruntoba Oju v AbdulRaheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 83 at 14H-125B, Bello v Damisa (2017) 2NWLR (Pt 1550) 455 at 475A-B, Madokulu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. He submitted that this suit  is not competent and should be struck out for failure to comply with the Practice Directions (No. 1) 2022. He stated that a claimant filing an action is mandated to mark the documents as exhibits and refer to the specific portion of the document relied upon but that the Claimant failed to comply with the Directions in the statement of facts and witness statement on oath. He referred to Paragraphs 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Practice Directions and submitted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Practice Direction renders this action defective and liable to the striking out of the suit. He cited Dimegwu v Ogunewe (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1116) 358, Oraekwe v Chukwuka (2012) 1NWLR (Pt 1280) 169, Buhari v INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt 1120) 246, Ari v Yerima (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt 1906) 1.

 

[6] Learned Senior Counsel contended that the Claimant pleaded several documents in various paragraphs of the pleadings but there was reference to the specific paragraph, page or part of the pleaded documents relevant to the case. He referred to two rulings of the Lagos Division of this Court delivered on 20^th October 2022 in Suit No: NICN/LA/266/2022 between Olawale V. Eko Electric Distribution Plc and on 10th October 2023 in Suit No: NICN/LA/501/2022 between Ezeh Nnamdi Edward v. Keystone Bank Ltd in which the Practice Directions was applied, and urged the Court to follow the decisions and strike out the suit.

 

Claimant’s Submissions

 

[7] Learned Counsel submitted that where there are two applications before the Court, one to regularize and the other to strike out, the Court must first consider the motion to regularize before the motion to strike out citing Nalsa & Team Associates v NNPC (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt 212) 652 at 667, Long John v Blakk (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt 555) 524. He submitted that the right to amend is fundamental as it touches on fair hearing citing Ofoegbu v Odoemena (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt 1085) 1. It was his further submission that a Practice Direction cannot oust the constitutional provision to fair hearing; and that where a Practice Direction appears to be in conflict with a provision of the Constitution, a statute, or a substantive rule of  law, it would be devoid of any force of law and he cited Ari v Yerima (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt 1906) 1 at 30-31, Para E-B (SC).

 

[8] Learned counsel stated that there is a motion on notice filed by the Claimant to amend the pleadings and that is no defence has been filed by the Defendant and he cited CBN v Ahmed (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt 724) 369. He submitted that this suit is distinguishable from Olawale v. Eko Electric Distribution Plc Ezeh Nnamdi Edward v. Keystone Bank Ltd relied on by learned senior counsel as there is a pending motion to amend the Claimant’s pleadings.

 

Defendant’s Reply

 

[9] Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s application to amend is incompetent and an attempt to cure the fundamental defects in the Claimant’s case. He referred to Order 26 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court and submitted that the defects were promptly raised in the NPO and that this is not an error that can be rectified by an amendment as it raises the issue of jurisdiction. He argued that there is no provision for amendment of an originating process; and that this application is an abuse of the process of court because the Claimant is seeking to cure defects already pointed out in the NPO. He submitted that the process is improper and an attempt to pervert the course of justice and cited Africa Re Corp v JDP Const (Mg ) Ltd (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt 838) 609, Integrated Reality Ltd v Odofin (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt 1606) 301. He then urged the Court not to grant the prayer for amendment

 

Decision

[10] I have heard Counsel on the 2 competing applications argued together. At the hearing, learned senior counsel to the Defendant/Objector as earlier on mentioned withdrew ground 1 of the objection. Consequently, ground 1 and all the submissions relating to it are struck out.

[11] The Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO) seeks to terminate the suit, while the motion on notice is seeking to save the suit. I will begin with the NPO that is earlier in time. The Objection challenges the competence of the suit on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Paragraphs 3(2)(a) and (b) of the NICN (Filing of Applications/Motions in Trade Union Matters and Marking of Exhibits) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022 reproduced as follows:

 

(2)       From the date of this Practice Direction, with respect to all frontloaded documents attached and/or referred to in a claimant's statement of fact, defendant's statement of defence or reply to statement of defence as well as in the witness statement on oath, I hereby direct as follows:

(a)      In the case of a claimant, the statement of facts and the witness(es) statement(s) on oath must clearly indicate all the document(s) to be relied upon at the trial of the case and attach same. The attached document(s) must be marked serially in the manner done for originating Summons.

(b)     That part of the document e.g. paragraph(s), page(s) or part(s) of the document(s) to be so relied upon in the attached document(s) must be concisely referred to and be appropriately marked as to be discernible in terms of the fact(s) being proved.

 

[12] The Practice Directions further provides in Paragraph 3 (3) (a) and (b) as follows:

 

(a)               Where it is observed that a process to be filed at the Registry of the Court does not comply with any provision(s) of this practice direction, such process shall not be accepted for filing.

(b)              Where a process that does not comply with the provision(s) of this Practice Direction is accepted for filing by the Registry of the Court, the Judge to whom such process is assigned for hearing shall treat such process as incompetent and shall:

i.                    If the process is a claimant's statement of fact, reply to statement of defence and/or witness statement on oath, strike out the entire suit.

ii.                 If the process is a defendant’s statement of defence and witness statement on oath, strike out the process.

 

[13] Upon a close examination of the Claimant’s statement of facts and statement on oath, I find that there has been partial compliance, specifically that paragraph 3 (2) (a) has been complied with, while paragraph 3(2) (b) has not been complied with in that the parts of the documents relied upon have not been referred to and marked. The claimant has conceded the fact of the non-compliance in her counter affidavit, and states that she has already filed a motion for amendment “to rectify the technical error” and to bring all the necessary facts omitted during the preparatory processes before the Court. The proposed amendments are as seen in Exhibit A annexed to the affidavit in support of the motion for amendment are in full compliance with the Practice Directions.

 

[14] A Practice Direction regulates the manner in which a particular rule of court should be complied with. It is a direction given by the appropriate authority stating the way and manner a particular rule of court should be complied with, see Haruna v. Modibbo (2004) 16 NWLR (PT. 900) 487 AT 536; Oraekwe v Chukwuka (2012) 1 NWLR (PT. 1280) 169 AT 199.  Order 1 Rule 8(3) of the Rules of this Court 2017 empowers the President of this Court to make Practice Directions at any time for the effective implementation of the Rules. Thus, the Practice Directions and the Rules of the Court are complementary. Practice Directions do not have the authority of Rules of Court though they are instructions and aid the practice in court.

 

[15] Whenever a Practice Direction is issued, it is regarded as part of the Rules of the Court. In other words, Rules of Court include Practice Direction but the Practice Direction is subservient or less efficacious than the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court in U.T.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (PT. 103) 244 AT 296, succinctly stated the aims and purpose of Rules of Court per Belgore, JSC:

 

            Rules of procedure are made for the convenience and orderly hearing of cases in court. They are made to help the cause of justice and not to defeat justice. The rules are therefore aids to the court and not masters of the court. For courts to read rules in the absolute without recourse to the justice of the cause, to any mind, will be making the courts slavish to the Rules. This certainly is not the raison d'etre of Rules of Court.

 

[16] Also in Akande v Jegede (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt 1849) 125 at 151 Para B-C, the Supreme Court per Peter Odili JSC held:

 

One of the purpose of all rules of court is that the rules are for the attainment of justice and obtaining justice in the citadel of justice with ease, certainly for the advancement of substantial justice. This is particularly important as courts have departed from adherence to technical justice, a point greatly missed by the appellant….

 

See Alhaji Baba Usman v Tamadena & Co Ltd (2015) LPELR- 40376 (CA), Haruna v Modibbo supra, Kalu v F.R.N (2019) 14 NWLR (PT. 1692) 368

 

[17] It is to that end that the following provisions in Order 5 Rule 1, 3, 4 (1), 5 (4), and 6 (3) are included in the NICN Rules:

 

1. Failure to comply with any of these Rules may be treated as an irregularity and the Court may give any direction as it thinks fit.

3. The Court may direct a departure from these Rules where the interest of justice so requires.

           4-(1) At any time before or during the hearing of a matter the Court may—

        (a) direct, authorize or condone a departure from the Rules, where the Court is satisfied that the departure is required in the overall interest of justice, fairness and equity.

5-(4) In exercising any of its powers as may be conferred by the provisions of these Rules, the Court may take into consideration the exigency of the matter and the interest of justice and equity.

6-(3) In any proceeding before it, the Court shall apply fair and flexible procedure and shall not allow mere technicalities to becloud doing justice to the parties based on the law, equity and fairness while also considering the facts of any matter before it.

 

[18] All Rules of Court should be obeyed and followed as they are part of the support system in the administration of justice. However, where strict adherence to the Rules is likely to occasion miscarriage of justice, or promote technicality, the court is enjoined to depart from its applicability to do substantial justice. This is to avoid a slavish interpretation of the Rules and slavish application, see Akande v Jegede supra. The Rules are not intended to deny parties the opportunity of presenting their case thereby resulting in injustice.

 

[19] The provisions of Order 5 reproduced above permits the court to treat non-compliance with any of the provisions of the Rules as an irregularity and to, in the interest of justice and fairness, condone non-compliance with the Rules in certain situations. In this instance as stated earlier there is already partial compliance with the Practice Directions. The question is: will the ends of justice be met by applying the provisions of paragraph 3 (3)(b) (i) of the Practice Directions to strike out this suit in light of the pending application for amendment, the provisions of Order 5 of the Rules, and the decisions of the Appellate Courts?  I do not think the ends of justice will be met by striking out this suit.

 

[20] Learned Senior Counsel to the Defendant has drawn the Court’s attention to  the decisions in Suit No: NICN/LA/266/2022 Olawale v Eko Electric Distribution Plc,  and Suit No: NICN/LA/501/2022 Ezeh Nnamdi Edward v Keystone Bank Ltd delivered by my brother, Hon. Justice I. G. Nweneka and has urged the Court to follow the decisions and strike out this suit. These cases are distinguishable from this instant case in the following respects; there was total non-compliance by the Claimants in those cases, there was no pending application for amendment, and the provisions of Order 5 of the Rules of this Court were not considered in the Ruling. I am therefore not persuaded to follow the decisions.

 

[21] For all the reasons stated above, the prayer of the Defendant/Objector to strike out this suit is refused in the interest of justice. The Notice of Preliminary Objection is  dismissed.

 

[22] Now, it is the law that Courts have the inherent and discretionary powers to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, see Eze v Ene (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt 1579) 313 SC, Oloro v Falana (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1275) 207 CA. Order 26 Rule 2 provides:

An amendment may be refused where it would—

(a)       present a completely different case, or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide;

(b)       necessitate the hearing of further evidence especially on appeal;

(c)       not cure the defects in the procedure sought to be cured or where it is inconsistent and useless;  

(d)       amount to over-reaching the other party or an abuse of court process.

 

[23] The Claimant has stated the reason for this amendment which is to rectify the  errors and to bring all the necessary facts omitted during the preparatory processes before the Court. I note that the Defendant has not filed a statement of defence, nor has trial commenced. The amendment is not over-reaching, or made mala fide. There is therefore no reason to refuse this amendment intended to bring all facts of the case before the Court so that the issues in dispute can be conclusively determined.

 

[24] Consequently, leave is granted the Claimant to amend her statement of facts and accompanying processes as shown in Exhibit A. The amended process filed on 16^th January 2025 are deemed properly filed and served. The case is to proceed to trial.

Each party is to bear its costs.

 

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

                                                _____________________________

                                                Hon Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae