Omosuyi Wole Micheal -VS- Central Bank of NigeriaNational Industrial Court of Nigeria- Judgment Portal

BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

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

DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/265/2024

BETWEEN:

OMOSUYI WOLE MICHAEL CLAIMANT/ RESPONDENT

AND

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT

REPRESENTATION

Ola Olanipekun, SAN for the Claimant with Alurun Daniel.

Inam Wilson, SAN for the Defendant with Obafemi Agaba, Munachiso Michael, Chimeze Ndubuisi, Olayemi Afolayan, Ifunanya Nna- uddo, Abdulmalik Zaruq, Iyanoluwa Fakunde, Ruquayyatu Modibbo Umar, Sharon Abraham, Emmanuel Nwike, Benjamin Enebeli, Mustapha Abubakar.

RULING

Introduction

[1] This is a Motion on Notice dated November 26, 2025 and filed the same day by the Defendant/Applicant. It is brought pursuant to Order 3 Rules 2 (1) & (2): Order 14A Rule 1(2), Order 17 Rule 1 and 57 Rule 4 (1) (2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, and Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The Defendant/Applicant is praying the Court for:

1. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Claimant/Respondent (the “Respondent”) to convert his Originating Summons filed on 22 August 2024 into a General Form of Complaint.

2. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the parties to file and exchange pleadings in accordance with the Rules of this Honourable Court.

3. An order of this Honourable Court directing that the Orders made under prayers 1 and 2 above shall apply to the cases listed below:

(1) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/240/2024, DATONG DOMINIC GWAMAN V CBN

(2) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/241/2024, ISA MAHMOUD IMAM V CBN

(3) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/242/2024, BRENDA KWATMUN DAWURANG V CBN

(4) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/243/2024, VALENTINE OKECHUKWU URURUKA V CBN

(5) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/244/2024, AKINDURODOYE OLUSEGUN TOPE V CBN

(6) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/245/2024, OPE LAWRENCE ADEWALE V CBN

(7) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/247/2024, AGIDOTAN PETER OGHENEOVO V CBN

(8) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/248/2024, ADEGBITE GIDEON OLUWASEGUN V CBN

(9) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/252/2024, OCHOCHE ABRAHAM V CBN

(10) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/253/2024, OGBONNA UCHENNA STEPHEN V CBN

(11) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/254/2024, EZE CHRISTIAN CHINWEOKWU V CBN

(12) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/255/2024, TIMOTHY YUSUF SORKO V CBN

(13) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/259/2024, HASSAN SUNDAY KUBBA V CBN

(14) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/260/2024, ORJI KALU ODIM V CBN

(15) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/261/2024, FADA BANON DAVID V CBN

(16) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/262/2024, AEESHAH AHMED ADESANYA V CBN

(17) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/263/2024, NASIRU AMINU AHMAD V CBN

(18) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/264/2024, ISMAILA KISHIMI V CBN

(19) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/266/2024, BORO YOHANNA DANLADI V CBN

(20) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/267/2024, OGWA VIVIAN ONYEDIBIA V CBN

(21) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/268/2024, OLUDAMOLA O. ATANDA V CBN

(22) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/269/2024, ESSANG RICHARD ANTAI V CBN

(23) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/270/2024, TOMOLOJU- OKUNOMO ELIZABETH ADUNNI V CBN

(24) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/272/2024, OJERO PIUS PAUL V CBN

(25) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/273/2024, NDAKO UMAR BIDA V CBN

(26) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/278/2024, KOPLAMMA LENGCHEKA DUBI V CBN

(27) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/280/2024, SHUAIBU OMOHAFE SADIYA V CBN

(28) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/281/2024, AJIMO ADEMOLA ISAAC V CBN

(29) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/282/2024, ANIEMEKE EJIME HERBERT V CBN

(30) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/283/2024, ANGELA OFILI V CBN

(31) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/285/2024, ONUOHA KELECHI CHIKEZIE V CBN

(32) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/286/2024, SAKA AKEEM V CBN

(33) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/288/2024, KOKOYE BAMIDELE EMMANUEL V CBN

(34) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/289/2024, OBANDE BERNADINE IFEANYICHUKWU V CBN

(35) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/290/2024, BINTA YAHAYA LAWAL V CBN

(36) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/291/2024, AJIBOLA AKEEM BABATUNDE V CBN

(37) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/293/2024, BUNDI SANI WABEKWA V CBN

(38) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/294/2024, ADENIYI OMOBA JAIYESIMI V CBN

(39) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/295/2024, FEDEBAGHA STANLEY TONDEKEMIEV CBN

(40) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/296/2024,OBOMA BASSEY BASSEY V CBN

(41) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/297/2024, FOLORUNSHO T. OLUGBENGA V CBN

(42) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/298/2024, ODUM NWAMAKA HELGA V CBN

(43) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/299/2024, MAIMUNA YUSUF MOHAMMED V CBN

(44) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/321/2024, YUSUF YOLA MUKHTAR V CBN

(45) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/342/2024, VICTORIA INNAYI ENEJI V CBN

(46) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/258/2024, AKPU OBINNA KELVIN V CBN

(47) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/287/2024, ANI CHUKWUDI COSMAS V CBN

(48) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/271/2024, CHRISTIANA GYANG V CBN

(49) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/274/2024, FADELE ADEOLU ISAAC V CBN

(50) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/275/2024, HARUNA INUSA V CBN

(51) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/292/2024, IGWE GLORIA UKAMAKA V CBN

(52) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/277/2024, ISAH MUSTAPHA AUDU V CBN

(53) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/251/2024, MAGNUS OKOI ABENG V CBN

(54) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/246/2024, NNADI MUNACHISO EDWINA V CBN

(55) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/239/2024, OKOCHA INNOCENT EMEKA V CBN

(56) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/257/2024, OKWUAGWU A. AKAOLISA V CBN

(57) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/300/2024, OLUWATOYOSI SUWEBAT V CBN

(58) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/279/2024, ORIUWA V CBN

(59) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/284/2024, OZIEGBE AIGBOGUN V CBN

(60) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/256/2024, SALEH ABDULLAHI PAM V CBN

(61) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/276/2024, DATOEGOEM EMMANUEL SHELONG V CBN

(62) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/37/2025, WODI VICTOR V CBN

(63) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/38/2025, AMAEGBO VICTORIA V CBN

(64) Suit No. NICN/ABJ/19/2025, RAFIU ADENUGA V CBN

4. In the Alternative to prayers 1, 2 and 3 above, an Order of this Honourable Court extending the time within which the Applicant may file and serve its counter affidavit to the Originating Summons of the Claimant in this suit, and the Claimants in the suits listed above.

5. And for such Further or other Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in in the circumstances.

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

1. The Claimant and the Claimants in the suits listed above commenced their suits vide an originating summons on various dates and the suits fall within the ambit of Section 254 (C) (1) (a) of the third alteration to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and Orders 3 Rule 2(1) (2) and 14A Rule 1(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 as they relate to the interpretation and application of the contracts of employment of the Claimants, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as altered) and international best practices.

2. Having regard to the facts asserted in the respective originating summons (including the assertion that the process of the termination smacked of bad faith, discrimination, witch hunt and lacked fair hearing, the questions formulated and the reliefs claimed (including salaries, allowances and other entitlements as well as general damages and cost of litigation) the suits involve or would involve the interpretation and application of the contractual documents of the Claimants and applicable statutes which involve or will involve substantial disputes of facts.

3. By the rules of this Honourable Court, the originating summons procedure is only applicable to and permissible in cases that are not contentious or where the material facts are not in dispute or which would not involve the interpretation and application of contracts and statues.

4. This Honourable Court has the powers to order a conversion of the originating summons to a complaint either before or after the exchange of pleadings and to direct parties to file and exchange pleadings in accordance with the Rules of this Honourable Court.

5. The Claimant in this suit as well as the other suits listed above have the same legal representation to wit, Mr Ola Olanipekun, SAN of Ola Olanipekun, SAN & Co. The same issues have been formulated for determination in all the suits. The same reliefs have been claimed in all the suits. In the circumstances, the Rules of this Honourable Court dictates that the originating summons in the suits ought to be converted to a complaint, so that the parties can properly file and exchange pleadings and have the matters determined on their merits after hearing witnesses.

6. In the event that the Honourable Court is not minded to grant prayers 1, 2 and 3, the Court has the power to grant extension of time within which the applicant may file and serve its counter affidavit to the originating summons in the respective suits.

7. The grant of this application is essential and relevant to the exercise of the Applicant’s right to fair hearing and in the interest of justice

[3] The Motion on Notice is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Daniel Ugye litigation officer, to which is annexed Exhibit A1 and a written address. The Claimants/Respondents did not file any process in opposition. At the hearing, learned Counsel to the Defendant Inam Wilson SAN submitted that the motion is unopposed, the Claimants having not filed any process in opposition. In reaction learned Counsel to the Claimants Ola Olanipekun SAN informed the Court that he had no objection to prayers 4 and 5, but was opposed to prayers 1, 2, and 3 and would respond orally on points of law.

Defendant/Applicant’s submissions

[4] Learned Senior Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant adopted the written address and made submissions orally. The sole issue submitted for determination is:

Whether the parties would be afforded fair trial/hearing if this Honourable Court directs the Claimants to convert their Originating Summons filed in the suits into a General Form of Complaint and further directs the parties to exchange pleadings?

[5] Learned Senior Counsel submitted that by the extant provisions of the Rules of this Court, the Court is vested with the powers to order a conversion of an originating summons to a complaint and to direct parties to file and exchange pleadings in accordance with the Rules. He relied on the provisions of Order 3, Rules 2(1) (2) & 17 (1) (2) and Order 14A Rule 1 (2). He submitted further that in the instant case there is or there will be a serious dispute of facts in controversy which cannot be effectively determined by affidavit evidence. He argued that a reading of the provisions of the Rules of Court would mean that the Court ought to order the conversion of the originating summons to a General Form of Complaint where they relate to interpretation and application of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, and actually involve or potentially will involve substantial dispute of facts.

[6] He cited the following cases Oladipo Olatunji v Uber Technologies System Nigeria Ltd (unreported) Suit No. NICN/LA/546/2017 judgment delivered on 4^th December 2018; Dr Olusola Adeyelu v Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) & 2 ors (unreported) Suit No. NICN/LA/94/2017 judgment delivered on 25^th April 2017, First Bank of Nigeria limited v Nigeria Union of Pensioners & 3 ors (unreported) Suit No. NICN/LA/48/2016 judgment delivered on 12^th July 2016, Adegbuyi v APC & Ors (2014) LPELR-24214 (SC), Famfa Oil Ltd v Attorney-General Federation (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt 852) 453 at 467 ParasD-F.

[7] Learned Senior Counsel argued that the affidavit of the Claimant and the Applicant’s proposed counter affidavit discloses substantial disputes of fact, including the factual background to the dispute, the nature of the Claimant’s employment and the Applicant, the conduct of proceedings of the Applicant’s Board among other issues. He submitted that the Applicant has disclosed sufficient material for the Court to grant the reliefs sought in the application. He argued that a refusal of this application may infringe upon the Applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) as the Applicant would be denied sufficient chance to defend the claims brought against it by the Respondent.

Claimants/ Respondent’s submissions

[8] Learned Senior Counsel stated that he wished to address the Court on points of law pursuant to Order 17 rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 2017. He submitted that it is the Claimants pleadings that are before the Court, and that the Defendant has conceded that it is yet to file a defence. He argued that the Claimant is still at liberty to file a further and better affidavit and a reply and that full pleadings ought to be before the Court. It was his contention that not every conflict is hostile and violent. He cited Famfa Oil Ltd v A-G Federation (2003)18 NWLR (Pt 852) 453 at 467, National Bank of Nigeria v Alakija (1978) 9 & 10 SC at 59. He submitted that a proposed process is not a process before the court being in the range of conjecture and that the proposed counter affidavit is for extension of time and not for prayers 1, 2, and 3. He further submitted that Order 3 Rule 17 does not permit the Court to take the decision without filing pleadings.

Reply

[9] Learned Senior Counsel to the Defendant/Applicant submitted orally that having not filed a reply to the written address, the Claimants have no right to reply orally. He submitted that Order 17 Rule 12 envisages filing a written reply on point of law and that the Claimant is not at liberty to reply orally on point of law. He argued that Order 17 Rule 1 does not state that pleadings must be exchanged, and that emphasis is on the Proviso to Order 3 Rule 17(1) and that this is where the opinion of the Court comes in. He argued that the two authorities cited by the Claimant were made before the 2017 Rules of this Court and are therefore not relevant.

Decision

[10] In considering this application, I will begin by addressing the issue as to whether learned Senior Counsel to the Claimant has a right to orally reply on points of law having not filed any process in opposition. In this instance, I will reproduce the provisions of Order 17 Rules 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 below:

[11] Order 17

(10) Where a Respondent served with a motion on notice intends to oppose the application, the Respondent shall file a Counter-affidavit (if any) and a Written Address within seven (7) days of the service on the Respondent of such application. An advance copy of the Counter-affidavit and Written Address shall also be forwarded to the Claimant and any other party.

(11) Where a Counter-affidavit together with a Written Address is served on the Claimant/Applicant, the Claimant/Applicant may file a Further and Better Affidavit to deal with new issues arising from the Respondent’s Counter-affidavit and a Written Reply on points of law within seven (7) days of service. An advance copy of same shall be forwarded to the Defendant or Respondent.

(12) Where the defendant or respondent did not file a Counter-affidavit, the party may address the Court on point of law only.

(13) Each party shall have twenty (20) minutes to expatiate on the party’s Written Address.

Provided that no party shall be allowed to introduce new issues in the party’s oral submission before the Court.

(14) Notwithstanding sub-rule 13 of this Rule, where a Respondent fails or neglects to file a reply to the written address of the Claimant within the time allowed by the Court, apart from the penalty relating to such default, the Respondent shall not be allowed to make any oral submission at the hearing of the application.

[12] The Claimant/Respondent did not file a counter affidavit or a written address. Rule 12 presupposes that the Respondent has filed a written address and so may address the court on point of law only. Rule 14 expressly prohibits the Respondent from making oral submissions where he fails to file a reply to the written address. Learned senior counsel to the Claimant/Respondent is not at liberty to reply orally on point of law. The submissions of learned defence counsel on this issue are upheld. All Rules of Court should be obeyed and followed as they are part of the support system in the administration of justice, and the advancement of substantial justice, see U.T.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 103) 244, Akande v Jegede (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt 1849) 125 at 151 Para B-C, 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. The oral submissions of learned senior counsel to the Claimants is therefore discountenanced.

[13] Order 3 Rules 2 (2), 3, and 17 makes provisions for actions that may be commenced by way of originating summons as follows:

Order 3

2 - (2) Where any matter relating to Section 254C(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is to be filed before the Court, such matter, if –

(a) it relates only to the interpretation, shall be by way of originating summons

(b) it relates to interpretation and application shall be by way of complaint.:

3 Civil proceedings that may be commenced by way of Originating Summons include matters relating principally to the interpretation of any constitution, enactment, agreements or any other instrument relating to employment, labour and industrial relations in respect of which the Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) or by any Act or law in force in Nigeria.

17- (1) An Originating summons shall be accompanied by:

(a) an affidavit setting out the facts relied upon to sufficiently identity the cause or causes of action in respect of which the claimant claims relief or remedy:

(b) copies of the instrument indicating party(s) sought to be construed (other than an enactment) and other related documents;

Provided that where a suit raises a substantial dispute of facts or is likely to involve substantial dispute of facts, it shall not be commenced by way of originating summons, but by Complaint as provided for in rules 8 and 9 of this Order.

(2) Where in the opinion of the Court, a suit commenced by Originating summons raises substantial issues and dispute of facts, the Court shall not strike out the matter, but may order its conversion to Complaint and direct the parties to file and exchange pleadings and conduct the trial of the case in accordance with the Rules of the Court governing trial.

[14] I have carefully looked at the originating summons and the supporting affidavit. The originating summons seeks interpretation of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 and certain Articles in the Defendant’s Human Resources Policies and Procedure Manual (HRPPM). The facts upon which the Claimant is seeking declarations and orders are trial issues that relate to interpretation and application. I have also looked at the proposed counter affidavit of the Defendant to the originating summons (Exhibit AI). It forms part of the affidavit evidence in this application, and the Court cannot shut its eyes to it. The proposed counter affidavit of the Defendant to this originating summons reveals the defence. It is a hostile and weighty defence. The dispute on facts is substantial, material, and affects all the live issues requiring interpretation and application.

[15] Order 3 Rule 2 (2) (a) and Rule 3 provides that matters to be commenced by originating summons should principally be in respect of interpretation. In other words, Originating summons is best suited in actions where there are no substantial disputes of facts, or likelihood of dispute of facts, see Pali v Abdy (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt 1665) 320 at 331 Paras A-C SC, Sani v Kogi State HA (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt 1661) 172 SC Asogwa v PDP (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1353) 207 SC, Famfa Oil Ltd v AG Federation (2003) 18NWLR (Pt 852) 453. Upon a careful perusal of the processes filed by the Claimant, and the proposed defence, it is my considered opinion, it would not be in the best interest of both parties for this action to be heard by an origination summons procedure as they will not be able to adequately present their cases for a fair and just determination. By the provisions of Order 3 Rule 2 (2) (b), and the proviso to Rule 17 (1) of the Rules, this action is to be commenced by Complaint.

[16] Consequently, the Claimant is ordered to convert the Originating Summons filed on 22 August 2024 to a General Form of Complaint, and the parties are to file and exchange pleadings in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Defendant/Applicant having stated in ground 5 that this suit as well as the other suits listed have the same legal representation, the same issues, and the same reliefs in all the suits, this order will to apply to the cases listed below: