IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: TUESDAY 17^TH FEBRUARY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/27/2023

BETWEEN:

ANDY KANTIOK ARUNG                                                  

(suing as Guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiyok)………………………..CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

1.      CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

2.     JOSHUA THADDEUS KANTIOK…………………………DEFENDANTS

 

REPRESENTATION

S. S. Dzever Esq for the Claimant

Nuhu Mustapha Esq holding the brief of S. Kofo Abdussalam Esq for the 1^st Defendant

Abdulwasiu Lawal Esq for the 2^nd Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Claimant filed a Complaint pursuant to Order 3 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017 on the 3^rd of November 2023. The Claimant filed an Amended Complaint and Statement of Fact on the 14^th of May 2024, where the Claimant claims against the 1^st Defendant the following reliefs:

1.      A DECLARATION that by virtue of the death of next of kin late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, the proceeds of the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok devolve to the Estate of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of the children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

2.      A DECLARATION that by virtue of the unknown whereabouts of next of kin Henry Joshua Kantiyok and his mother, his share of the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok devolve to the Estate of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of 8 children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

3.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to disclose the full sum payable as death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok.

 

4.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to share the sum payable as death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok equally among his 5 next of Kin covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

5.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to pay the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok due to next of kin late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, Sharon Joshua Kantiyok and Henry Joshua Kantiyok to the Estate Account of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of the 8 children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

The Claimant predicated his claims on the Statement of Facts and the Witness’ Deposition on Oath filed on the 14^th of May 2024, Reply to the 1^st Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Additional Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 21^st of June 2024, Reply to the 2^nd Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Additional Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 10^th of December 2024.

The 1^st Defendant, in opposing the claims of the Claimant, predicated its defence on the Statement of Defence and Witness’ Deposition on Oath filed on the 29^th of May 2024. The 2^nd Defendant predicated his defence on the Statement of Defence and Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 29^th of October 2024.

The suit proceeded to a hearing on the 2^nd of July 2024, where the Claimant, hereinafter referred to as CW1, testified for himself. CW1 identified his Statements on Oath filed on the 14^th of May 2024, and Additional Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 21^st of June 2024 and adopted the same as his evidence in aid of the claim of the Claimant. On the 11^th of March 2025, CW1 further identified and adopted an Additional Witness Statement on Oath filed on the 10^th of December 2024. CW1 thereafter tendered the following documents:

        i.            Letter of administration of estate dated the 24^th of October 2023; admitted and marked Exhibit CW001.

      ii.            Letter of appeal on the next of kin from Kantiok Family and addressed to the head of pension CBN; admitted and marked Exhibit CW002.

    iii.            Letter from the 1^st Defendant dated 1^st August 2017 and addressed to the Kantiok Family; admitted and marked Exhibit CW003.

    iv.            Letter dated the 22^nd of October 2020 and addressed to the director of Human Resources of Department CBN, compassionate appeal and the reply annexed; admitted and marked Exhibits CW004A and CW004B.

      v.            Letter dated 13^th of October 2020 and addressed to the director human resources department CBN for appeal to stop final payment of death benefits; admitted and marked Exhibit CW005

    vi.            Proof of service of Exhibit CW004A and B; admitted and marked Exhibit CW006.

  vii.            Letter from the 2^nd Defendant dated 3^rd of July 2020 titled Re: payment of final entitlement of Late Bulus Joshua Kantiok; admitted and marked Exhibit CW007.

viii.            Records of Proceedings from the customary court in Suit No. CCB/CV/44/2021 Between Andy Kantiok Arung & Ors vs Joshua T. Kantiok; admitted and marked Exhibit CW008.

    ix.            Record of proceedings from the customary court in Suit No. CCB/CV/44/2021 Between Andy Kantiok Arung & Ors vs Joshua T. Kantiok; admitted and marked Exhibit CW009.

On the 4^th of December 2024, the 1^st Defendant opened its defence. Hafsat Abdulmalik Jibril, hereinafter referred to as DW1, testified for the 1^st Defendant. DW1 identified her Statement on Oath filed on the 29^th of May 2024 and adopted the same as her evidence in support of the defence of the 1^st Defendant. DW1 thereafter tendered the following documents:

i.                    Letter of administration of estate; admitted and marked Exhibit CBN01.

ii.                  N.O.K form; admitted and marked Exhibit CBN02.

iii.                Solicitors Letter from A. A. Muhammed & Co dated the 29^th of July 2021: admitted and marked Exhibit CBN03.

iv.                Letter from the CBN dated the 1^st of August 2017 and addressed to Bulus Duniya Kantiok: admitted and marked Exhibit CBN04.

v.                  Letter from the Kantiok Family addressed to the Head of Pension CBN: admitted and marked Exhibit CBN05.

vi.                Letter from CBN dated 19^th November 2020 and addressed to Mr Andy Arung Kantiok: admitted and marked Exhibit CBN06.

On the 27^th of May 2025, the 2^nd Defendant opened his defence. The 2^nd Defendant hereinafter referred to as DW2, testified for himself. DW2 identified and adopted his Statement on Oath filed on the 29^th of October 2024 and adopted the same as his evidence in support of his defence. DW2 thereafter tendered the following documents:

i.                    Letter of administration of estate issued by the Bauchi State High Court; admitted and marked Exhibit A.

ii.                  The Motion on Notice in Suit No. CCB/CV/44/2021 Between Andy Kantiok Arung & Ors vs Joshua T. Kantiok; admitted and marked Exhibit B.

iii.                The Criminal Summons from the Customary Court Barnawa: admitted and marked Exhibit C.

After the close of the hearing of the suit, on the 2^nd of December 2025, the matter came up for the adoption of the Final Written Addresses filed by Counsel. Learned Counsel for the 1^st Defendant, S. K. Abdu-Salam, Esq. identified his Final Written filed on the 8^th of July 2025 and adopted the same as his legal submission in aid of the case of the 1^st Defendant and urged this Court to dismiss this suit.

Learned Counsel for the 2^nd Defendant, Abdulwasiu Lawal, Esq. identified and adopted his Final Written address filed on the 9^th of July 2025 as his legal submission in aid of the case of the 2^nd Defendant and urged this Court to dismiss this suit.

Counsel for the Claimant, S. S. Dzever, Esq, identified and adopted his Final Written Addresses filed on the 8^th of August 2025 as his legal submission in aid of the case of the Claimant while urging this Court to grant the claim of the Claimant.

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The facts necessitating the claim of the Claimant against the Defendants are that the Claimant is the elder brother of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, who was an employee of the Defendant and an administrator of his estate. The claimant is also the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiyok (one of the beneficiaries in the late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok's Next of Kin Mandate with the Defendant) and two other children (Shalom and Jeffrey) of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, who presently live with him, and he caters for them.

As an employee of the Defendant, the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok was entitled to pension and other retirement benefits, and in the event of death, he was entitled to a death benefit. The Claimant does not know the total sum Joshua Bulus Kantiok was entitled to as a death benefit.

 

The death benefit due to the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok from the Defendant accrued to his next of Kin, as contained in his next of Kin mandate with the Defendant. The next of kin of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok as contained in his next of Kin mandate with the Defendant, are: the late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok (brother); Thaddeus Junior Kantiyok (son); Sharon Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Henry Joshua Kantiyok (son); Miracle Joshua Kantiyok (daughter).

Further stated that the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok died intestate and his next of Kin Mandate with the defendant excluded some of his children, namely: Shalom Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Jeffrey Joshua Kantiyok (son); Jessy Joshua Kantiyok (son); Matilda Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Seth Joshua Kantiyok (son); Harrison Joshua Kantiyok (son) and Wisdom Joshua Kantiyok (son). The claimant's extended family, through late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok had earlier written a letter, pleading that the above children listed should be considered in sharing the death benefit of their father, late Joshua Bulus Kantiok. The extended family of late Joshua Bulus Kantiok do not have arrangements for the education of the children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, and this necessitates the relief sought in this suit, so that their education can be provided for. The  Claimant stated that he wrote on behalf of Sharon Joshua Kantiok, requesting that the death benefit due to her late father should be paid to all his children, and also informing the defendant that Henry Joshua Kantiok (one of the next of Kin on the Next of Kin mandate) and his mother are nowhere to be found, and did not even show up for the burial of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, and attempts are been made to fraudulently bring someone as Henry, so that the said benefits will be paid to the person and the fraudster.

CASE OF THE 1^st DEFENDANT

The 1^st Defendant, in its defence, stated that Sharon Joshua Kantiok is one of the listed beneficiaries in late Bulus Joshua Kantiok's Next-of-Kin Form executed on the 27^th of June 2012 and submitted to the 1^st Defendant when he was alive and in the employment of the Defendant. It was served with Letters of Administration dated the 17^th of November 2020 issued by the Bauchi State High Court, which assumed jurisdiction over the estate of late Bulus Joshua Kantiok and granted to Joshua Thadeus Kantiok, the son of the deceased and one of the beneficiaries in the deceased's Next of Kin Mandate. The said Letters of Administration were issued by the Bauchi State High Court three (3) years before the institution of the instant case by the Claimant.

 

The Letter of Administration dated the 24^th of October 2023, purportedly obtained by the Claimant from the Kaduna State High Court, was not served on the 1^st Defendant, and the same was also dated four (4) days after the Claimant's Statement of Facts was signed and dated October 20, 2023. Late Joshua Bulus Kantiok was an employee of the 1^st Defendant and, upon his death, he is only entitled to gratuity and death benefits payable by the Defendant. The pension entitlement of the deceased did not reside with the 1^st Defendant but was remitted to his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with his Pension Fund Administrator.

The Claimant is not one of the Next of Kin of late Bulus Joshua Kantiok and therefore not in a position to know the total death benefit accruing to late Bulus Joshua Kantiok.  The Claimant has not at any time served the 1^st Defendant with a valid order of court appointing the Claimant as the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok, neither has the Claimant served the 1^st Defendant with any Letters of Administration. The death benefits due to Joshua Bulus Kantiok accrue only to his beneficiaries listed in his validly executed Next-of-Kin Mandate Form of the 27^th of June 2012 submitted to the 1^st Defendant before his demise who are Duniya Bulus Kantiok (brother), Thaddeus Joshua Kantiok (Son), Sharon Bulus Joshua (Daughter), Henry Bulus Joshua (Son) and Miracle Bulus Joshua (Daughter).

 

The deceased did not make any provision in respect of his death benefit to any other person(s) apart from the beneficiaries listed in his Next-of-Kin Mandate Form dated the 27^th of June 2012. It received a letter dated the 13^th of July 2017 from one of the beneficiaries, Bulus Duniya Kantiok which was a plea made to the 1^st Defendant to consider the deceased's 8 other children who were not covered by the Next-of-Kin Mandate Form of the deceased. In its response, dated the 1^st of August 2017, it explicitly stated that the Next-of-Kin Mandate Form executed by late Bulus Joshua Kantiok was his wish on how his entitlements from the Bank should be disbursed upon his demise and that the 1^st Defendant was constrained to abide by the Next-of-Kin Mandate Form executed by the late Bulus Joshua Kantiok. The 1^st Defendant also noted that the beneficiaries are at liberty to redistribute their respective shares as they wish after payment.

 

As a responsible organization, it owes its deceased staff a fiduciary duty of ensuring that their final entitlements are paid to the appropriately designated beneficiaries only. It is under obligation to honour the wish of the deceased (Bulus Joshua Kantiok) as contained in the Next-of-Kin Mandate Form for the payment of death and other terminal benefits to designated beneficiaries which he executed on June 27, 2012 when he was alive and in the employment of the 1^st Defendant. It does not determine the beneficiaries of deceased staff. Instead, it is a deceased staff who in their lifetime that executes a Next-of-Kin Mandate Form mandating the 1^st Defendant for the payment of death and other benefits to designated beneficiaries/survivors. One of the designated Next-of-Kin of late Bulus Joshua Kantiok, Mr.Joshua Thaddaeus Kantiok had through his lawyers Messrs A. A. Muhammad & Co vide a letter dated the 29^th of July 2021 urged the 1^st Defendant to strictly carry out the wishes, instructions and mandate of the deceased in his Next-of-Kin Mandate Form.

The deceased employee's mandate to include any person not mentioned by a deceased staff in his/her Next-of-Kin Mandate Form to the Bank as this would not only amount to micromanaging the deceased estate but also a breach of its fiduciary duties. It received a letter dated October 22, 2020, from the Claimant titled "A compassionate appeal for inclusion of other siblings and re-distribution of the final payment among eleven (11) instead of four (4) siblings (children) of late Mr Joshua B. Kantiok. It informed the Claimant that as custodian of its staff's final entitlements, the 1^st Defendant owes its deceased staff a fiduciary duty of ensuring that their entitlements are paid to the assigned or nominated beneficiaries only. The 1^st Defendant also informed the Claimant that it was not in a position to expand the beneficiaries of the deceased's final entitlement as requested by the Claimant, as that would amount to a breach of its fiduciary duties. The 1^st Defendant also noted the Claimant's concerns on the identity of one of the designated Next-of-Kin-Henry Joshua Kantiok, and has taken necessary steps to ensure that payment is made to the right beneficiaries.

 

It is its policy, if a beneficiary in an NOK outlives a deceased member of staff, but the said beneficiary becomes deceased before receiving the deceased staff entitlements under the NOK mandate, the said entitlement will devolve to the estate of the Deceased beneficiary.

CASE OF THE 2^ND DEFENDANT

The 2^nd Defendant, in the defence of claim of the Claimant, stated that he is the eldest son, an adult and the next of kin to the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok and was appointed as Administrator of the late Joshua Kantiok Bulus through a letter of administration. The claimant has never been the next of kin to the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok but only a stepbrother to the deceased, and the said Letter of Administration pleaded by the Claimant was obtained after the 1^st Defendant intended to release the benefit of the deceased.

 

The purported letter of Administration dated the 24^th of October 2023 was obtained by the claimant when we were already in court, at the Customary Court sitting at Barnawa in Kaduna State, when the Claimant fraudulently took the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to Court, desperately in need of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok's finances and Estate. The Claimant instituted action against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant at the Customary Court of Kaduna State, but was later taken to Kakau also in Kaduna State, which was still pending and adjourned for judgment.

The Claimant was desperate to inherit both the estate and the benefit of the deceased, unknown to the Claimant that the deceased had already deposited as his mandate to his employer (CBN), those to benefit his benefit from the 1^st Defendant. The beneficiaries had been stipulated by the deceased (according to deceased wishes) with the mandate in the custody of the 1^st Defendant. Bank account details of the names in the mandate with the 1^st Defendant and its about been address by the 1^st Defendant before the intervention by the Claimant with the frivolous process at the customary court sitting at Kakau and awaiting Judgment. The 2^nd defendant, being the eldest son, remains the next of kin to the late Joshu Bulus Kantiok and his siblings.

 

The 3 children of the 2^nd defendant siblings whom the claimant claimed that he is the one taken care of them; Sharon Joshua Kantiok, Shalom Joshua Kantiok and Jeffrey Joshua Kantiok, all were residing with the eldest sister to the deceased after their mother had submitted her account details to the 1^st defendant for reimbursement due to her (3) three children. It was the claimant who went to collect the three children from the eldest sister sometime in the year 2020 after their mother had already submitted her account details to the 1^st Defendant, wherein they were already among the beneficiaries.

 

The Claimant, who claims to be a brother of the deceased, also instituted a Direct Criminal Complaint against the 2^nd Defendant, the 2^nd Defendant's mother and another before it was struck out. The Claimant is a busybody, meddlesome interloper and gold digger, intending to enrich himself through the 2^nd Defendant's sibling by instituting this action.

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

Counsel for the Claimant nominated seven issues for the determination of this suit, to wit:

i.                    Whether the Claimant has the locus standi to institute this matter (sic)?

ii.                  Whether the claimant has sufficiently fulfilled the condition precedent required by the court to institute this matter?

iii.                Whether the deceased Next of Kin Mandate is a testamentary disposition of the deceased's assets with the 1st defendant?

iv.                Whether the claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the 1st defendant as required by law?

v.                  Whether documents marked rejected can still be admitted and if admitted, what weight, if any should be ascribed to same?

vi.                Whether the Customary Court judgment relied upon by the claimant recognizes the fact that the CBN should pay the persons listed?

vii.              Whether the CBN is bound to disclose the full sum payable to the deceased to any 3rd party?

 

Counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has the locus standi to institute this suit and has fulfilled the condition precedent to filing it. Cited Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) NSCC 374 at 379-380; 2006 15 NWLR (pt.1002) 404 at 411. The Claimant complied with the condition precedent to filing of this suit as contained in Order 13 rules 9and 10 of the National Industrial Court (civil procedure) Rules, 2017 to file this suit. Proceedings at Kaduna State Customary Court tendered, accepted and marked as Exhibit CW008, which shows that the biological mother of the Sharon Joshua Kantiyok handed her over to the Claimant, and she is under his guardianship with her knowledge and consent fulfills the condition required by Order 13 Rules 9 and 10, and as such, the Claimant has the locus standi to institute this action.

 

Further submitted that the issue whether the Claimant has sufficiently fulfilled the condition precedent required by the court to institute this matter is interwoven with the 1^st issue argued above. Submitted that in line with Order 11 Rule 8 of the Rules of this Court, Exhibit CW001 and the proceedings contained in Exhibit CW009 clearly show that the Claimant has fulfilled every condition precedent to instituting this suit. As to the issue of the Letter of Administration fraudulently obtained by the 2^nd defendant without the knowledge and consent of his other siblings and Sharon Joshua Kantiyok, that it has been overtaken by events, by virtue of the judgment of the Customary Court in Exhibit CW009. It is apt to note that the said judgment was not challenged by the 1^st defendant or the 2^nd defendant, and it is still binding on the 2^nd defendant.

 

On the issue of disclosure of the sum of money payable to a third party, submitted that the Claimant, suing on behalf of Sharon Joshua Kantiok is not a third party. Order 13 Rule 9 of the National Industrial Court (civil procedure) Rules, 2017. Sharon Joshua Kantiok is a person under legal disability hence she is a minor. In a circumstance as this, any person suing as her guardian is not a third party to any contract binding on her, and the Claimant is not a third party to the Next of Kin mandate with the 1^st defendant, as long as it is binding on Sharon Joshua Kantiok whom he represents in this Court and he is willing to hand over any proceeds from the decision of this Court to her.

 

On whether the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the 1^st defendant as required by law. None of the Claimant's testimony was disputed during cross-examination. It is apt to note, that clarification of intestate estate under Bajju Native law and Custom of Kaduna State as required by Order 11 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 is contained in the Judgment in Exhibit CW009. The said judgment was not appealed and consequently, the arguments proffered in paragraphs 3.5.7,3.5.8 and 3.5.10 of the 1^st defendant's written address miss the mark, as the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court are distinct from reliefs sought before the Customary Court. This Court cannot sit on Appeal on the decision of the Customary Court contained in Exhibit CW009, and should not be misled to do so by the defendants.

 

whether the deceased Next of Kin Mandate is a testamentary disposition of the deceased's assets with the 1^st defendant and whether the Customary Court judgment relied upon by the claimant recognizes the fact that the CBN should pay the persons listed? One of the beneficiaries in the Next of Kin Mandate, late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok (brother) of Joshua Bulus Kantiyok is deceased. Henry Joshua Kantiyok (son), a Next of Kin is nowhere to be found, and attempts are been made to fraudulently replace him by the 2^nd defendant, with complicity of the 1^st Defendant. It is on this basis the Claimant filed this suit as guardian of one of the next of kin, Sharon Joshua Kantiok. It is apt to note that when late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, brother of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok was alive, he wrote Exhibit CW002, pleading that the benefits of his brother should be distributed in a way that will cover all the children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin Mandate.

 

Though it is correct that the 1^st defendant cannot deviate from the Next of Kin mandate with them and the Kaduna State Customary Court judgment relied upon by the Claimant did not expressly state that the 1^st defendant should pay any other persons other than those contained in the Next of Kin Mandate, Duniya Bulus Kantiyok is late and it has been discovered that Henry Joshua Kantiyok is being fraudulently replaced by an unknown beneficiary, a lacuna not earlier contemplated by late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok and the Kaduna Customary Court has arisen, and it needs to be validly covered by an Order of this Court.

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE 1^ST DEFENDANT

Counsel for the 1^st Defendant nominated seven issues for the determination of this suit, to wit

a.      Whether the Claimant has the locus standi to institute this matter

b.     Whether the Claimant has sufficiently fulfilled the condition precedent required by this court to institute this matter

c.      Whether the deceased next of kin mandate is a testamentary disposition of the deceased's assets with the 1^st Defendant.

d.      Whether the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the 1^st Defendant as required by the law.

e.      Whether documents marked rejected can still be admitted and if admitted what weight, if any should be ascribed to same

f.       Whether the customary court judgement relied upon by the Claimant recognizes the fact that CBN should pay the persons listed?

g.      Whether the CBN is bound to disclose the full sum payable to the deceased to any third party?

Counsel for the 1^st Defendant submitted that the claim brought by the Claimant does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the 1^st Defendant. The Claimant has no legal standing upon which to invoke the jurisdiction to entertain this matter or grant the reliefs sought against the 1^st Defendant as regards the proceeds of the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok. The issue of locus standi is a condition precedent to the determination of a case on merit. Where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring a suit, the suit becomes incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it, the only order the court can make in the circumstance is that of dismissal.

 

That the Respondent (sic) lacks the locus standi to institute this matter as the Guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok and that the claim was not brought before this honourable court in accordance with due process; and (b) the Claimant is not one of the listed beneficiaries in the next of kin mandate of the deceased, Exhibit CBN02. The law is trite that a Court is only competent to entertain an action when it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its members, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; the action is initiated by due process of law; and any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has been fulfilled. Cited MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) NSCC 374 @379-380. APC LTD v.NDIC (NUB LTD) (2006) 15NWLR (PT.1002) 404 @411.

 

This matter as presently constituted is incompetent and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it because the matter was not commenced by due process and there are essential features preventing this Court from entertaining this matter. The position of the law currently is that a child lacks legal capacity to sue or be sued in person and a child is a person under the age of 18.

 

The Claimant lacks the locus standi to institute this matter as the Guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok. The Claimant on the face of its processes claimed that he is the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok without establishing same before the Court. A legal guardian is one who has the legal authority and duty to take care of another person because of the other's infancy, incapacity or disability or has parents who are incapacitated or unable to provide for the welfare of their child. Legal guardianship is granted to someone who is not the parent of the child. Just like the Child Rights Act No. 26, 2003 provides and guarantees protection to children and young persons in Nigeria, the law that governs the rights, advancement and welfare of a child in Kaduna State is the Kaduna State Child Welfare and Protection Law, 2018. Section 84 of the Child Rights Acts and Section 75 and 78 of the Kaduna State Child Welfare and Protection Law provides for the process under which a person may become a guardian of a child. These legislations set out the circumstances under which an order for guardianship of a child can be made.

 

It may be gleaned from the extensive provisions of these laws above that a Guardian can be appointed under the law by: order of Court, Deed of an appointment by a single parent or surviving parent, in any family proceedings if the Court considers that the order should be made notwithstanding that no application was made for it or by an oral will, in the presence of at least two witnesses, though not made in writing, shall have effect as if it is a written will signed by the testator. The Claimant has failed to bring forth before the Court evidence of appointment as the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok through any of the means stipulated above. The Claimant did not tender any document nor through oral evidence establish that he was the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok.

 

The Claimant as CW1 in his evidence in Chief tendered CW008, the Record of Proceedings before the Customary Court Barnawa as proof of his appointment as guardian of Sharon Kantiok. The Claimant alleged that he was the guardian of the minor children of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, hence the deceased's terminal benefit should be paid to him instead of the 1^st Defendant, following the sharing formula stipulated by the deceased himself in his CBN02. The Claimant, however, did not tender any evidence appointing him as the legal guardian as such. In fact, Exhibit CW008 (which is the record of proceeding in suit No. CCB/CV/44/2021) did not salvage the claim of the claimant in this regard. The witness in the said Exhibit stated "in 209 (sic) when I was leaving the village, I handed the children over to uncle Sule.... Sule is a farmer who is catering for all of us." During cross-examination, CW1 who is the claimant in person affirmed that he was not uncle Sule. In fact he said, "Sule is my younger brother. We are two different people." It is evident from the testimony of the Claimant that he is not the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok.

The term suing through a next friend connotes that the minor is the actual party to the suit, but since he lacks capacity, an adult is appointed to assist in conducting the proceedings. The minor's name appears on the originating process, and the judgment binds the minor. Suing on behalf of a minor, on the other hand, suggests that the adult is bringing the suit in their own name to enforce rights belonging to the child. This procedure is inappropriate where the claim is solely the child's, and it often results in

fundamental irregularity which renders the action incompetent. In such cases as this the proper claimant is not before the Court and the entire suit is liable to be dismissed.

 

The courts have consistently held that where a child is not properly represented in accordance with the rules, the action is a nullity ab initio. The Courts have repeatedly emphasized the necessity of following due procedure when a minor is involved in litigation. Drawing inspiration from the above position of the court of appeal and the Supreme court, we shall with humility be submitting to this court that in this matter the Claimant has no locus standi and the case was not properly instituted. In the case of UWAZURUONYE v. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE &ORS (2012) LPELR-20604, where the Supreme Court in considering the meaning and nature of locus standi held that it is settled law that locus standi is the legal capacity of a party to institute an action in a Court of law. Where a party has no locus standi, the Court will have no jurisdiction to hear and determine any claims/action.

 

The 1^st Defendant further submitted the Claimant is not one of the listed beneficiaries in the next of kin mandate of the deceased. The question become relevant here is whether, from a cursory review of the Claim, the Claimant has shown that his civil rights and obligations, or those of Sharon Kantiyok, who the Claimant purports to be representing, have been infringed or are in danger of being infringed. On what legal standing is the claim of the Claimant premised? The expression locus standi also includes title to sue by person whose right has been or is is being infringed. Cited Barbus & Co. (Nig) Ltd & Anor v. Okafor-Udeji (2018) LPELR -44501(SC).

 

On issue two, the rules of this court is very clear on the requirements of instituting an action in respect the entitlement of a deceased employee. Order 11 rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 provides that where a case involves the outstanding salary, gratuity, pensions, benefit or any other entitlement of a deceased employee who died intestate but had named the next of kin or beneficiary in the deceased employment bio data form, if such beneficiary is the Claimant, he shall provide proof of the next of kinship or relationship by Certified True Copy of the employment bio-data form in which the Claimant was named as next-of-kin or beneficiary on the form obtained from the employer of the deceased employee; Copy of the employment bio-data form of the deceased which may be in the custody of the Claimant(s): in which the Claimant's has deposed to an affidavit; Order from Customary or Sharia Court of Appeal which the Claimant was named as next-of-kin or beneficiary on the form obtained from the employer of the deceased employee.

 

The Claimant is not one of the Next of Kin of the deceased. The deceased in Exhibit CBN 02 listed Duniya Bulus Kantiok, Thaddeus Kantiok, Sharon Bulus Joshia, Henry Bulus Joshua and Miracle Bulus as his Next of Kin. The Claimant is clearly not one of the deceased's Next of Kin. Although the Claimant had on the face of his processes purportedly claimed that he is the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok, one of the Next of Kin to the deceased, the Plaintiff failed to provide proof or legal basis that he is the legal guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiok to allow his filing of this case. Exhibit CW009 is not such proof as that case did not determine guardianship.

 

The Claimant, under the Rules of this Court, cannot institute this matter because he has failed to provide proof of status of kinship with the deceased and conditions set out by this Court before instituting an action in respect the entitlement of a deceased employee, especially Order 11 Rule 5. Assuming but not conceding to fact that the Claimant brought this action under Order 11 rule 4 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 of this Court which provides for where a deceased had died intestate and did not name a next of kin or beneficiary, the question is: has the Claimant complied with the conditions stipulated therein? The answer is in the negative as he cannot found this claim on the strength of Exhibit CW001, a Letter of Administration which appointed two persons, the claimant and another Sule Bulus from the Kaduna State High Court Probate Registry. Two questions are pertinent here: Is this Registry the "appropriate Registry, and are these Administrators the valid ones in the light of existence of wives and adult child of the deceased? The deceased was neither resident, nor possess any property, in Kaduna state to confer jurisdiction on the Probate Registry to issue CW001. The Claimant and Sule Bulus, the persons so appointed vide CW001 are pretenders to the throne as their appointment also violated the hierarchy of persons entitled to Letter of Administration under the law. While Administration of Estate Law may not have set out hierarchy, we commend the provisions of the more comprehensive similar law of Lagos State which has received several judicial imprimatur. This hierarchy was confirmed by Clara Bata Ogunbiyi JCA as he then was in WILLIAMS & ANOR V. OGUNDIPE & ORS (2006) LPELR-7593(CA) (Pp. 21-24, paras. E-D) while considering the Lagos State Administration of Estate Law stated thus:"With the deceased having died wholly intestate, the relevant deciding factor gives rise to the provisions of the law applicable in the determination of the situations of this nature. This may not necessarily be dependent on the depositions on the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which cannot override the legal positions of the law.

 

Exhibit CW001 should be declared null and void as having been obtained by the wrong persons under the law. CW001 was obtained by the Claimant on 23^rd October 2023 from the Kaduna State High Court of Justice Probate Division even though the Claimant had prior notice that the 2^nd Defendant had earlier obtained CBN01, a Letter of Administration dated 17^th November 2020 from the High Court of Bauchi State Probate Registry. These are conflicting letters administration and the conflict therein can only be resolved as prescribed by the Rules of this court in Order 11 Rule 8.

 

CW001 should be declared as invalid, null and void or at best as issued in error because the Bauchi State High had already assumed jurisdiction in respect of the properties of deceased and appointed an administrator to his estate and a subsequent letter of administration on the deceased property is invalid null and void. Cited NAIGE v.AHAMAD & ANOR (2019) LPELR-48136(CA).

 

The appropriate steps to be taken by the Claimant if aggrieved by the issuance of the letters of administration is to approach the Bauchi State High Court or appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is not for him to obtain another letter of administration from a different jurisdiction, Kaduna state High Court. The rules of this court are succinctly clear that the court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter when there is more than one letter of administration or any other proof of conflicting proof of custom. Cited Order 11 rule 8 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.

 

Counsel for the 1^st Defendant further submitted that the Claimant has not sufficiently proven his case against the 1st Defendant to warrant the grant of his reliefs by this Court. The burden of proof in a civil matter lies on the party whose action would fail where the required evidence has not been adduced. It is the burden of establishing facts and contentions which will support his case or persuade the Court of the correctness of his allegations. It is the duty of the Claimant to prove his case and not for the 1^st Defendant to disprove same. The Claimant is ultimately claiming that apart from the deceased nominated beneficiaries, there are other beneficiaries to the deceased death benefit. He also purports to be the Guardian of one of the deceased nominated beneficiaries.

The death benefit of the deceased is due to his next of kin, as contained in the next of kin mandate with the 1^st Defendant but did not establish any right or obligation but a plea to the 1^st Defendant to consider and include the other purported 7 children of the deceased as beneficiaries. Exhibit CW002, CW005 and CW006 are letters written by the Claimant to the 1^st Defendant pleading the inclusion of the other purported 7 children of the deceased. A plea without more does not establish nor prove a right and or its breach. Cited AGBANA v. OWA & ORS (2004) LPELR-233(SC).

 

Submitted that a document once rejected by the trial Court cannot be retendered, and a rejected document which is retendered and admitted is not properly before the Court. The judgment of the customary court, CW009, that was initially tendered and rejected for not being pleaded cannot be retendered before the Court, hence the Court cannot admit it. The Apex Court and the Court of Appeal have upheld in plethora of cases the principle that a document tendered and rejected cannot be retendered. Cited WASSAH V KARA (2015) 4NWLR Pt 1449 374 @ pg 395 Paras G-H.

 

LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE 2^ND DEFENDANT

Counsel for the 2^nd Defendant nominated a lone issue for the determination of this suit, to wit:

Whether the Claimant has proved his case to enable the Claimant entitle him to his relief sought.

 

Counsel submitted that going through the reliefs sought by the Claimant, there is no relief sought against the 2^nd Defendant by the Claimant and it is trite law that the honourable court is not father charismas. The claimant's reliefs and pleadings did not disclose any cause of action against the 2^nd defendant, which make the 2^nd Defendant to be party in this suit. In the case of DIAMOND PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL LTD and GOVERNOR, CBN & ORS [2015] 14NWLR (PT. 1478) 179 at p. 200. It was held that a plaintiff has a cause of action when his pleadings reveal that there has been an interaction or trespass to the rights and obligations. There must be a cause of complaint, a civil right or obligation fit for determination by the court, and the issue must be justiciable. It must be clearly seen in the plaintiff's pleading the wrongful act of the defendant which in effect gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the resultant damage from the defendant's wrongful act.

 

In the 4 relief sought by the claimant, the 2^nd will be effected has per the relief. The 1^st Defendant, who is the employee of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok is one of the beneficiaries of the exhibit CBN 02 (Next of Kin mandate) executed by the deceased himself during his life time. The law is settled that the 2^nd defendant needs to comply with her late employer's, Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, Next of Kin mandate. The claimant agreed that the 2^nd defendant is his nephew and son to late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok. Also aware of the exhibit CBN02 (Next of Kin mandate) executed by late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok which included the 2^nd defendant as next of kin. All these are fact that no need to proof in law.

 

The 1^st Defendant holds the Next of Kin mandate in trust for the 2^nd Defendant and other beneficiaries as contained in the mandate. Only the 2^nd Defendant can institute action against the 1^st Defendant for failure to comply with the Next of Kin mandate signed by the deceased (former staff of the 1st defendant and father to the 2nd defendant). The Next of Kin mandate signed by late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok (former staff of the 1^st in respect of his gratuity and death benefit in the 1^st Defendant's custody. Cited ASIKA and ATUANYA [2013 14 NWLR (PT. 1375) 510SC ratio 3.

 

 

 

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

Having carefully gone through the facts of this case and the legal submissions of counsel in support of their respective case, the issues for the determination of this suit are as follows:

1.      Whether the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has jurisdiction to entertain a claim of inheritance and whether the Claimant has locus standi to institute this suit.

2.      Whether a document marked rejected can be re-tendered in evidence.

3.      Whether the Claimant has proved his claim against the Defendants.

 

 

COURT’S DECISION

On issue one, first and foremost, I have carefully gone through the facts leading to this suit and the defence thereof. A precis of the fact of this case is that the late Bulus Joshua Kantiyok, during his lifetime, was an employee of the 1^st Defendant; the late employee has outstanding death benefits with the 1^st Defendant, which are payable to the next of kin of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant as per Exhibit CBN02. The Claimant, as per the relief in the Statement of Facts, seeks the Court to redistribute the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendants to all his children including those who are not included in Exhibit CBN02.

I am pressed to query if this Court has jurisdiction over the distribution of the part of the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant even though the parties are silent about the propriety of bringing this suit before the National Industrial Court instead of the High Court or customary court or area court as the case maybe which have jurisdiction over subject matter of the claim of the Claimant. It is fundamental to know that parties cannot on their accord confer jurisdiction on the court.  Jurisdiction is the threshold of judicial power and judicialism, and by extension extrinsic to the adjudication. It is the backbone of any adjudication. Parties cannot by connivance, acquiescence, or collusion confer jurisdiction on a court. Where a court lacks jurisdiction, parties in the litigation cannot confer jurisdiction on the court. As a matter of law, lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived by one or both parties. It is a hard matter of law clearly beyond the compromise of the parties. This is because parties cannot conspire to vest jurisdiction in a court where there is none. Any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction would be an exercise in futility, for such proceedings are null and void. It is for this reason that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even for the first time on appeal: see the case of A.-G., RIVERS STATE V. A.-G., FED (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1652) 53.

For this reason, it is legally expedient to raise the issue of jurisdiction on whether the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has jurisdictional garb to entertain this suit concerning the redistribution of part of the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant that is due to the next of kin of the late employee from the 1^st Defendant. Let me digress a bit, by way of recap, may I start by saying that on the authorities of MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962)2 SCNLR 341 and A.-G. FED. V. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD. (1999) 9 NWLR (PT.618) 187, the competence of a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction is determined if:

a.      it is properly constituted with respect to the number and qualification of its membership;

b.     the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction;

c.      the action is initiated by due process of law; and

d.      any condition to the exercise of the jurisdiction has been fulfilled.

For a court to be competent to assume jurisdiction over a matter, the outlined conditions must be conjunctively fulfilled. Failing to fulfil any of these ingredients renders the suit infertile for activating the court's jurisdiction. The first leg of issue one revolves around the condition mentioned in (b), while the second leg relates to the condition stated in (c) above. The Court raised the issue in the first leg of issue one, while Counsel for the Defendants raised the issue in the second leg of issue one.

I am not oblivious of the position of law which requires that where a Court raise an issue suo motu, the Court shall beckon the parties to address the Court on the issue raised. The Court of Appeal in the case of   ORJI V. AMARA (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1531) 21 sternly warns that no court of law has the jurisdiction to raise an issue and resolve it suo motu without hearing the parties. In the Nigerian adversary system of adjudication, courts should be reluctant or loath to raise issues suo motu. This is because litigation is not theirs but that of the parties. If a court raises an issue suo motu, it has removed itself from its exalted position to flirt with the parties and in the course gets itself soiled in the litigation. Although a court has the jurisdiction to raise an issue suo motu, it does not have the jurisdiction to resolve the issue suo motu. The court must allow the parties to react to the issue by way of address. On no account should a court of law raise an issue suo motu and resolve it suo motu. A court is not a Father Christmas and its jurisdiction is limited to the issues presented to it. The court cannot generally make pronouncements that affect the parties before it without allowing the parties to address it thereon.

Notwithstanding the profound warning of the appellate courts in a plethora of judicial authorities which enjoin the courts to be hesitant to raise issues suo motu and resolve it suo motu, authorities plenteous which state the instances where the Court can raise issues suo motu and resolve it suo motu without hearing from the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of AKINGBULUGBE V. NIROWI (2023) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1895) 339 where the Supreme Court held that:

It has become accepted that a court can raise an issue suo motu and decide same without calling for the address of parties in the following instances:

a.      When the issue relates to the court’s own jurisdiction;

 

b.     When both parties are not aware or ignored a statute which may have a bearing on the case. This is because every court is expected to take judicial notice of statutes by virtue of section 122(2)(a) and of the Evidence Act, 2011;

 

c.      When on the face of the record, serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings are evident.

See also ANGADI V. P.D.P. & ORS (2018)15 NWLR (PT. 1641) 1; PERSONS, NAMES UNKNOWN V. SAHRIS INT’L LTD (2019) 13 NWLR (PT. 1689) 203; and OMONIYIV. ALABI (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1456) 572.

In the case of OGAR & ORS V. IGBE & ORS (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1678) 534 articulated as follows:

There is this misconception that in ALL cases where the court, at any stage, finds that an action is manifestly incompetent either as regards competence, jurisdiction or by operation of a statute it cannot on its own initiative or suo motu put an end to it without hearing the parties. English Courts, holding on to the principle that lithe (sic) consent of the parties cannot give a court jurisdiction which it does not otherwise possess, II (sic) have held that a court is not only entitled, but bound, to put an end to proceedings if at any stage and by any means it becomes manifest that they are incompetent; and that it can do so on its own initiative, even though the parties have consented to such void action ...

In Effiom v. Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission, Tabai, JSC, relying on Tukurv. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 and tacitly accepting this principle, states that in some special circumstances the court can raise an issue of law or jurisdiction suo motu and without hearing the parties, decide on it. He however qualifies it; holding that the principle that the court ought not to raise an issue suo motu and decide upon it without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on it applies mainly to issues of fact. In any case, the appellant who complains that the court below raised an issue suo motu and decided upon it without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on it must go further to show that the failure to hear him on the point occasioned some miscarriage of justice.

(underlined mine for emphasis)

Thus, the jurisdiction of the court is a creation of the statute; that is the issue which the Court raises suo motu here is a matter of law.

Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria creates the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. This Court, like other courts established by the Constitution, does not have power under any guise to reduce or add to its jurisdiction; doing so will amount to jurisdictional infidelity or constitutional transgression of the jurisdiction. From the facts not in dispute before this Court, the late Bulus Joshua Kantiyok was an employee of the 1^st Defendant, and by virtue of being an employee of the 1^st Defendant, the late employee had a death benefit accruable to his next of kin as contained in Exhibit CBN02.

Section 254 (1)(k) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) provides that notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in the Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-

(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or nonpayment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;

It flows from the foregoing provision of 254 (1)(k) of the 1999 Constitution that this Court has jurisdiction only on the payment of the death benefits of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, and the Court cannot expand its jurisdiction to the sharing of the death benefits of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant. The Court can only direct the 1^st Defendant to pay the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, not to determine who the beneficiaries are in terms of heirs apparent of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant and the sharing formula that is due to the beneficiaries of the late employee. I so hold.

Order 11 Rules 4 and 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 empower this Court to give effect to the judgment of the customary court where an employee dies intestate.

4.      Where a case involves the outstanding salary, gratuity, pensions, benefits or any other entitlement of a deceased employee who died intestate and did not name a next of kin or beneficiary, the Claimant shall in addition to any other document,

(a)   attach Letter(s) of Administration obtained from the appropriate Probate Registry of a High Court, or

(b)  an order from a Customary Court of Appeal or a Sharia Court of Appeal.

7.      A process or any order of a Customary Court of Appeal or Sharia Court of Appeal, or any proof related to or connected with inheritance emanating from the customs or traditions of the people or from the traditional Ruler or Custodian of the customs or traditions of the place of origin of the deceased employee, presented before the Court, shall be presumed to be true and authentic, unless the contrary is proved.

The late employee of the 1^st Defendant had, during his lifetime, indicated how his death benefits would be distributed among the five next of kin mentioned in Exhibit CBN02. However, I have taken cognisance of Exhibit CW009, the judgment of the Kaduna State Customary Court in Suit No. CCB/CV/44/2021 Between Andy Kantiyok Arung vs Joshua Thaddeus Kantiyok & 1 Anor, delivered on the 16^th of July 2024. The interesting part of Exhibit CW009 is where the Court held that:

The share of the intestate estate for the three minors, represented by the plaintiff must come out of a distribution executed under the native law and custom of the Bajju tribe of Kaduna State, Nigeria. there is no lawful and legal alternative to the above. The choice has been made by the deceased under the framework. The defendants right and share is coextensive and commiserate with the other heirs, he is entitled to only his share.

It is my opinion that the parties all estoped (sic) from forcing any alien legal framework on the deceased who never changed his mind.

It is the further considered opinion of this court, that the four next of kins, mandated by the deceased during his life time can only serve as the receivers of the deceased properties for eventual distribution amongs the 11 heirs.

It is not true the interpretation given to the mandate by the first defendant that they are the beneficiaries to the properties. Next of kin does not mean sole beneficiaries in the context of the existence of other heirs, that are not mandated.

The seven other heirs are equal heirs to the estate of their deceased father, the none inclusion in the mandate as next of kin is not discriminatry (sic)  nor prejudicial to their right as heirs. There is no contention as to the number of children and heirs to the estate.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The plaintiffs claim, for the distribution of the estate of deceased equally amongst the 11 heirs and the wives still married to him in accordance to Bajju Native Law and custom has succeeded.

 

Without gainsaying, the excerpt from the judgment of the Kaduna State Customary Court quoted above has resolved the issue of the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, the beneficiaries of the estate and the sharing formula among the heirs of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant. The decision of the Court in Exhibit CW009 still subsists, having not been challenged by any of the beneficiaries of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant and including the 1^st Defendant on appeal. An order, decision, or judgment of a court is valid and binding on parties unless and until set aside on appeal or by the court that gave the order, decision, or judgment or a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, where the court acted without jurisdiction: see the case of ZATOO V. C.O.P., BENUE STATE (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1780) 185.

It is important to note that the Court included the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant in the judgment, it is called ‘retirement benefit at the CBN.’ Thus, the death benefit of the employee of the 1^st Defendant which is the subject matter of litigation before this Court forms part of the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant.

As earlier held, this Court does not have the jurisdiction over the distribution of the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant; the Court can only pronounce on the entitlement or benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant. By decision of the Customary Court in Exhibit CW009, the coast is clear for the Court to order the payment of the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant to the heirs of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, which is within the compass of the jurisdiction of this Court. I so hold.

On the second leg of issue one, Counsel for the 1^st Defendant argued that the Claimant does not have a locus standi to institute this suit. It is sad and most surprising that counsel for the 1^st Defendant does not know the role of the 1^st Defendant in this suit. The 1^st Defendant is merely a nominal party to this suit who has nothing to lose or to gain, whether the claim of the Claimant succeeds or not. In F.R.N. V. DARIYE (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1265) 521 P. 559, paras. C-E where the Court of Appeal held that:

A party to an action who has no control over it and no financial interest in its outcome; esp., a party who has some immaterial interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit and who will not be affected by any judgment, but who is nonetheless joined in the lawsuit to avoid procedural defects. An example is the disinterested stakeholder in a garnishment action.

Not only that the 1^st Defendant is merely a nominal party, who has nothing to lose or gain from the outcome of the case, but it also does not lie in the mouth of the 1^st Defendant to challenge the legal capacity of the Claimant on behalf of the minors who have a stake in the death entitlement of their late father. In MAINSTREET BANK REG. LTD. V. OSHINUGA (2025) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1984) 727Pp. 773-774, paras. H-A the Supreme Court held that:

It was held by this court that once the plaintiff expressed on a writ or statement of claim that the action was brought in a representative capacity, it is prima facie, though not conclusive, evidence of authority of his group, family or community to sue in that capacity and that it is only a member of that group, family or community who can dispute, intervene or challenge the proper representation or capacity in which the plaintiff sued.

See also ELF PETROLEUM (NIG.) LTD. V. UMAH (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 428 (SC), ALIKO V. OGWO (2019) 15 NWLR (1695) 331 at356-357 (SC), and DURBAR HOTELS PLC V. ITYOUGH (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1564) 256 (SC).

The Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that he is the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiyok (one of the beneficiaries in the late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok's Next of Kin Mandate with the Defendant) and two other children (Shalom and Jeffrey) of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, who presently live with him, and he caters for them. There is no contrary evidence before this Court that Sharon Joshua Kantiyok is not living with the Claimant, so in the absence of contrary evidence, it is deemed that the Claimant is the guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiyok.

For a person to have locus standi to sue, he must show sufficient interest in the suit before the court, such as whether the person in question could have been joined as a party to the suit, or whether the person will suffer some injury or hardship from the litigation if not joined as a party to the suit: see the case of UWAZURUONYE V. GOV., IMO STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28. In INTER OCEAN OIL DEV. CO. (NIG.) V. FADEYI (2024) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1958) 239 Pp. 269-270, paras. G-A where the Supreme Court held that:

The burden or onus is on the plaintiff to show that he has therequisite locus standi. To do that, he has to disclose his special interest or actual threat or injury that he has suffered or will suffer from the act of the defendant complained of. In other words, he must show that his civil rights and/or obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed upon and that he has sufficient legal interest in seeking the redress in a court of law. It is the pleadings in the statement of claim or depositions in an affidavit in a case began by an originating summons that the court will examine to see whether the plaintiff has disclosed sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of the suit.

The Claimant pleaded in his Statement of Fact that as an employee of the 1^st Defendant, the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok was entitled to pension and other retirement benefits, and in the event of death, he was entitled to a death benefit.  The death benefit due to the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok from the 1^st Defendant accrued to his next of Kin, as contained in his next of Kin mandate with the 1^st Defendant. The next of kin of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok as contained in his next of Kin mandate with the Defendant, are: the late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok (brother); Thaddeus Junior Kantiyok (son); Sharon Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Henry Joshua Kantiyok (son); Miracle Joshua Kantiyok (daughter).

 

Further that the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok died intestate and his next of Kin Mandate with the Defendant excluded some of his children, namely: Shalom Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Jeffrey Joshua Kantiyok (son); Jessy Joshua Kantiyok (son); Matilda Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Seth Joshua Kantiyok (son); Harrison Joshua Kantiyok (son) and Wisdom Joshua Kantiyok (son). The claimant's extended family, through late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok had earlier written a letter, pleading that the children who are excluded from the Exhibit CBN02 should be considered in sharing the death benefit of their father, late Joshua Bulus Kantiok. The extended family of late Joshua Bulus Kantiok do not have arrangements for the education of the children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, and this necessitates the relief sought in this suit, so that their education can be provided for.

Though the benefit or the utilitarian outcome of the relief sought by the Claimant is not for the Claimant personally but for the benefit of the heirs of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok, who were excluded from the Next of Kin Form executed by their late father. By the same token, the Claimant has demonstrated his interest in the suit.

Assuming the Claimant does not indicate that the suit was brought in representative capacity as a guardian of Sharon Joshua Kantiyok, the Claimant can take refuge from the provision of Order 11 Rule 5 (a) of the Rules of this Court, which provides that the Claimant can produce any proof related to or connected with inheritance from the custom or tradition of the deceased employee. With Exhibit CW009, the Claimant has armed himself with the legal capacity to bring this suit in favour of the heirs of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant. Issue one is resolved in favour of the Claimant. I so hold.

On issue two, Counsel for the 1^st Defendant argued that a document once rejected by the trial court cannot be retendered, and a rejected document which is retendered and admitted is not properly before the Court. Submitted that Exhibit CW009 was initially tendered and rejected for not being pleaded and cannot be retendered before the Court.

Counsel for the Claimant attempted to the tendering of the judgment of the Customary Court on the 4^th of December 2024, Counsel for the 2^nd Defendant objected to the admissibility of the tendering of the same on the ground that it was not pleaded; on that basis, it was marked rejected. The Claimant thereafter filed a reply to the Statement of Defence of the 2^nd Defendant and pleaded the judgment of the Kaduna State Customary Court. Counsel for the Claimant retendered the same and was admitted in evidence.

I agree with Counsel for the 1^st Defendant that a rejected document cannot be retendered in evidence. However, it is deserving to state that the judgment of the Kaduna State Customary Court is not strange to the parties in this suit; not only that, the objection is not on the authenticity of the document in contention. Justice of this case requires a departure from the rule of evidence in the interest of justice, after all, it is a judgment of the Court whose authenticity is not in contention. 

Section 12(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 enjoins the Court to depart from the rule of evidence in the interest of justice; thus, this Court will not fold its arms to allow technicality to deprive the minor heirs of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant of their entitlement. The Court of Appeal in MR VICTOR ADEGBOYU     V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (unreported) Appeal No CA/IL/20/2021 the judgment of which was delivered on Thursday the 14^th day of April 2022 elegantly elaborated on the importance and purport of Section 12(2)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act where Hon. Justice IKECHUKWU AMADI, JCA held that:

The National Industrial Court is a specialized Court established to handle labour and employment related matters for two specific reasons. The first reason is to ensure that such matters are determined expeditiously and without delay as opposed to trial in the ordinary courts. This reason is very crucial considering the fact that labour rights are primarily rights in personam as against rights in rem, in which case, time is of essence in determining such rights. Globally, the resolution of labour disputes is guided, among others, by this principle that: it is better to have a bad decision quickly than a good decision too later. See B. B. Kanyip- National Industrial Court Jurisdiction: “How Narrow is Narrow” (Hybrid Consult: Lagos) 2021, paragraph 13 page 7. This first reason also underscores the importance of labour as a factor of production which is very critical to economic growth and development of the country. The second reason which is equally very important is to ensure that technicality is not allowed to operate in the court against substantial justice. To achieve this purpose, the National Industrial Court Act 2006 statutorily and clearly provided in Section 12(2) that:

(a)    the court may regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit; and

(b)    shall be bound by the Evidence Act but may depart from it in the interest of justice.

I must use this opportunity to state clearly that this court in the case of SEC v. Abilo Uboboso unreported Suit No. CA/A/388/2013 the judgment of which was delivered on 21^st December 2016 did not invalidate nor diminish in any manner or form the provisions or intendment of section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006.

In that case, (SEC v. Abilo Uboboso unreported Suit No. CA/A/388/2013), the National Industrial Court admitted in evidence public documents that were not certified on the ground that section 12(2) permitted the Court to depart from the Evidence Act. The Court of Appeal held that the provisions of section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 cannot operate to encumber the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011. Part of the reasons upon which this Court based its decision was that the Evidence Act 2011 was made by the National Assembly subsequent to the National Industrial Court Act 2006.

However, in that case the attention of this Court was not drawn to the following facts:

Firstly, granted that the Evidence Act 2011 in the explanatory note as well as in section 256 made it clear that the new Evidence Act in repealing the old one ‘shall apply to all judicial proceedings in or before Courts in Nigeria’.  Section 4(2) (b) of the Interpretation Act Cap. I23 LFN 2004, provides that where an enactment is repealed and another enactment is substituted for it, then any reference to the repealed enactment shall, after the substituted enactment comes into force, be construed as a reference to the substituted enactment. It should be noted that by section 1 of the Interpretation Act, the Interpretation Act “shall apply to the provisions of any enactment except in so far as the contrary intention appears in this Act or the enactment in question”.

Secondly, section 2 of the Evidence Act 2011 itself provides that ‘for the avoidance of doubt, all evidence given in accordance with section 1 shall, unless excluded in accordance with this or any other Act, or any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria, be admissible in judicial proceedings to which this Act applies’.

The proviso to section 2, provides that the admissibility of such evidence shall be subject to all such conditions as may be specified in each case by or under the Evidence Act. The implication is that section 2 acknowledges that there are existing laws that exclude the application of even the Evidence Act 2011.

Thirdly, section 3 of the Evidence Act 2011, provides that “Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the admissibility of any evidence that is made admissible by any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria”. A fortiori, if another legislation makes any evidence inadmissible, the intention of the legislature in that regard must be respected. Meaning that, section 3 must be read to mean nothing in this Act shall prejudice the admissibility or otherwise that is to say; inadmissibility of any evidence that is made admissible or inadmissible by any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria.

 Fourthly, section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 is not delimited by time or date. It talks of “Evidence Act”, not “Evidence Act 1990 or 2004”. Therefore, the notion that the Evidence Act 2011 is subsequent to the National Industrial Court Act 2006 that is because the National Industrial Court Act was passed in 2006, it cannot be said that the Evidence Act 2011 was contemplated under it, cannot really hold ground as the National Industrial Court Act 2006 simply talks of the “Evidence Act”. Even if section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act were delimited by time or date, section 4(2) (b) of the Interpretation Act took care of the problem. With very due respect, had the attention of this court been drawn to the foregoing factors certainly this Court would have held otherwise, therefore; I maintain that section 12(2) is extant and applicable at the National Industrial Court.

In view of the foregoing, I hold that section 12(2) of the National Industrial Act 2006 ought to apply to this case and it is hereby applied, The lower Court ought to have departed from the provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 which is hereby departed from.  Consequently, the order of the lower court discountenancing and expunging the said exhibit VG14 is hereby set aside, the said exhibit VG14 is to be given its probative value.  This issue is consequently resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

In view of Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court, and Order 11 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Court, Exhibits CW009, though earlier marked rejected, but upon compliance with the reason for the rejection is admissible given the provision of Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court and the decision of the Supreme Court in DIVERSE ASSETS MGT. LTD. V. WEMA BANK PLC (2023) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1897) 121 P. 134 paras A – C where it was held that:

Where a document is rejected for lack of proper foundation and not for inherent inadmissibility, it can be retendered as exhibit. In the circumstance, the court below was right to hold that the trial court ought not to have “rejected” and “marked rejected” the admissible statement of account because proper foundation was not laid, the document could later be admitted in evidence after proper foundation had been laid by the respondent for its admissibility.

In view of the foregoing, Exhibit CW009 was rightly admitted in evidence, and it is admissible having been pleaded and aa an authentic document. Issue two is resolved in favour of the Claimant. I so hold.

On issue three, the Claimant, by relief one, requests the declaration that 20% entitlement benefit allocated to the late Duniya Bulus Kantiok, the next of kin of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, as captured in Exhibit CBN02, be reversed or devolved to the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant for the benefit of the children of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant not covered by Exhibit CBN02.

The Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok died intestate and his next of Kin Mandate with the defendant excluded some of his children, namely: Shalom Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Jeffrey Joshua Kantiyok (son); Jessy Joshua Kantiyok (son); Matilda Joshua Kantiyok (daughter); Seth Joshua Kantiyok (son); Harrison Joshua Kantiyok (son) and Wisdom Joshua Kantiyok (son). The claimant's extended family, through the late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok had earlier written a letter, pleading that the above children listed should be considered in sharing the death benefit of their father. Exhibit CW002 is the letter written by the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok.

Exhibit CW002, which was authored by the late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, reads in part as follows:

Sir, as his brother, I agreed to forfeit my percentage attached to me just to accommodate seven children left without any benefit of the sharing formula because I fill is better his seven children that left out to be consider.

It is my view that having agreed to forfeit his 20% entitlement share from the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant for the benefit of the heirs who were excluded in Exhibit CBN02, the Court will not have the option but to devolve his 20% entitlement share from the death benefit of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant to the estate of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant for the benefit of the children of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant who are excluded from Exhibit CBN02. I so hold.

On relief two, the Claimant pleaded and led evidence to state that Henry Joshua Kantiok, who is one of the next of kin mentioned in Exhibit CBN02, and his mother are nowhere to be found, and did not show up for the burial of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant, and attempts are being made to fraudulently bring someone as Henry, so that the said benefits will be paid to the person and the fraudster. The 2^nd Defendant did not deny this fact and it is deemed admitted.

From Exhibits CW001 and A, the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok died on the 3^rd of February 2017, Exhibit CW004 also read in part that Henry Joshua Kantiok and his mother  did not attend the burial of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok and after the burial, the family made an effort to the hometown of Henry’s mother in Plateau to inform them of the death of his father and could not see them and there is no information of their whereabout till today. Though, the Claimant did not assert that Henry and his mother are late, and share of Henry from the estate of his father cannot be taken away unless evidence of death.

Section 164(1) of Evidence Act gives the Court the power to presume the death of a person shown not to have been heard of for seven years by those who, if he had been alive would have naturally heard from him, is presumed to be dead. Thus, in the absence of the whereabouts of Henry and his mother, and his share from the death benefit of his father as contained in Exhibit CBN02 fails, and it is accordingly devolved to the estate of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok. 

Finally, just like I early held, this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the estate of the deceased employee of the 1^st Defendant but to direct the payment of the death benefit to those who are entitled to it.  In view of Exhibit CW009, heirs of the late employee of the 1^st Defendant are equal, and their share of the death benefit of their late father, according to the judgment of the Customary Cour, should be shared equally. Thus, beneficiaries who are included in Exhibit CBN02 should take 20% each. Again, Shares of the late Duniya Bulus Kantiok and Henry Bulus Kantiok who are included in Exhibit CBN02 should devolve to the estate of the late Joshua Bulus Kantiok for the benefit of the heirs of the late employee of this . Issue three is resolved in favour of the Claimant. I so hold.

The Claimant has succeeded in his claim, and it is accordingly granted as follows:

1.      A DECLARATION that by virtue of the death of next of kin late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, the proceeds of the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok devolve to the Estate of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of the children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

2.      A DECLARATION that by virtue of the unknown whereabouts of next of kin Henry Joshua Kantiyok and his mother, his share of the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok devolve to the Estate of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of 8 children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

3.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to disclose the full sum payable as death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok.

 

4.      AN ORDER directing the Defendant to share the sum payable as death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok equally among his 5 next of Kin covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the Defendant.

 

5.      AN ORDER directing the 1^st Defendant to pay the death benefit of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok due to next of kin late Duniya Bulus Kantiyok, Sharon Joshua Kantiyok and Henry Joshua Kantiyok to the Estate Account of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok, for the benefit of the 8 children of late Joshua Bulus Kantiyok not covered by the Next of Kin mandate with the 1^st Defendant.

 

6.      All terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today without prejudice to the right of Appeal by both Parties.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

HON. JUSTICE B. A. ALKALI

HON. JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION