NICN - JUDGMENT
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF
NIGERIA
IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AWKA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I.
TARGEMA, Ph.D
DATE:
JUNE 26, 2024
SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/25/2020
BETWEEN
Patrick
Ikenna Chiagorom - Claimant
AND
1. Independent National Electoral
Commission
2. Dir9ctor General,INEC
3. Secretary, INEC
4. Resident Electoral Commissioner, INEC,
Anambra State
5. Administrative secretary, INEC, Anambra
State - Defendants
REPRESENTATION
Dr O. D.
Nwankwo for the claimant
No legal
representation for the defendants
RULING
1.
On 9thMay
2024 when this matter came up for continuation of hearing, particularly for
cross-examination of CW, learned counsel for the claimant was in Court. There
was no legal representation for the defendants. The defendants’ lawyers had
filed their statements of defence and list of witnesses dated 6 April 2021 but
filed on 15thJuly 2021; while their written deposition on oath of
witness is dated 6 July 2021. Hearing commenced on 8th December
2020. The claimant testified on 1st February 2023 and the matter was
adjourned to 4thMay 2023 for cross-examination of CW.
2.
On 4th
May 2023 when the Court resumed for cross-examination of CW, D.E. Alike, Esquire
announced appearance holding the brief of Abdulaziz Sani for the defendants.
After CW was reminded that he was on oath and ready for cross-examination,
Alike, Esq. informed the Court that “the Learned Silk doing this matter is
based in Abuja”; that he called his colleague to find out what to do; that he
(Alike, Esq) is actually not well versed to cross-examine CW. He then sought
for adjournment.
3.
On 9thMay
2024 when the Court resumed after several adjournments at which defendants’
counsel did not show up despite service of hearing notices, the defendants were
not represented by counsel. In view of this development. Learned counsel to the
claimant cited Order 38 Rule 2 (4) of NICNRules 2017 in praying the Court to
proceed with the matter.
4.
Order 38
Rule 2 (4) of NICN Rules 2017 provides thus:
(4) if on the date fixed for the
defendant to appear before the Court to prove the defence and the defendant
fails and neglects to appear, the claimant may be allowed to file a final
written address and adjourn the case for adoption of the final address.
Provided that the defendant shall be
put on notice on a date fixed for the adoption of the final address.
5.
In Darma
v. Oceanic Bank International (Nig) Ltd(2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 915) 391 (CA),
the defendant/appellant was served with hearing notice through his solicitor.
Due to the fault of the solicitor, the appellant was not informed of the
hearing date. Neither the appellant nor his solicitor was in Court. The learned
trial Judge pursuant to the enabling rules allowed the plaintiff/respondent to
call evidence, and subsequently entered judgment in favour of the respondent.
The appellant appealed. The justices of the Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal.
6.
Order 38 Rule
2(4) of NICNRules 2017 permit the claimant to be allowed to file a final
written address and adjourned the case for adoption of the final address;
provided that the defendant shall be put on notice on a date fixed for the adoption
of the final address. That being the position/provisions of the civil procedure
rules of this Court, it is accordingly ordered as follows:
1. The claimant is given 21 days with
effect from the date of this order to file his final written address having stated
his case and offered himself on 4 (four) consecutive times for cross-examination.
2. This matter is adjourned to 25th
September, 2024 for adoption of final written address.
3. Hearing notice be issued and served on
the defendants’ counsel representing defendants. Proof of service of same be
filed in the case file before the next adjourned date. I so order.
4. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make
no order as to cost.
Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD