IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURBLE JUSTICE S.A.YELWA…………JUDGE

 

THIS 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024       

SUIT NO. NICN/LA/201/2022

BETWEEN:

CHIKA OKOLO OBIAJULU………………..CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT

 AND

1. SUPREME INTELS LIMITED

2. MR.TUNDE OGUNBIYI……………… DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

APPEARANCE

Olawale Amussa for the Claimant

E.C. Akpan for the Dependants

RULING:

The applicants by way of motion on notice dated 18/7/2023 and filed on the same day seek for the reliefs as contained on the face of the motion paper upon the grounds stated. The motion is brought pursuant to Orders 17 Rule 1 (1) & (12) and 22 Rule 2(1) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and the Inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable court.

In support thereof, is 4 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Thomas Adeoye with 16 annextures as Exhibits. The motion is accompanied by a written address detailing the submissions of the applicants.

On 10/7/2024 at the hearing of the motion, counsel for the applicants Mr. Ezeokwu U. Nwokeocha Esq adopted his accompanied written address to the motion as his argument and urged the court to grant the application.

In reaction to the motion and the applicants’ submission. The respondent’s counsel S.O. Adeniron Esq, contended that though they are in receipt of the motion paper duly served, they did not file any response thereto. However. Counsel by way of oral reply submitted in preview that it was at the verge of commencement of trial of the suit that the applicant brought this motion when both parties are apparently maintaining status-quo in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Counsel stated that the documents listed in the motion paper are equally admitted by the claimant to be in her custody and that the documents will be handed over to the defendants upon judgment of this court in this case, whichever way the judgment goes.

Counsel for the claimant/respondent submitted that granting this motion will rather delay trial in the suit which both parties are willing to conclude in good time. Finally, counsel stated that in considering the motion, they leave everything to the discretion of the court.

In view of the submission of learned counsel for the claimant/respondent in this application, I took time to look into the submissions of the applicants’ counsel basically on a sole issue for determination couched in the adopted written address to wit:

“Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of this application”

Counsel for the applicants submitted that the crux of his application is that the respondent claims amongst others, alleged inflated unpaid salaries and entitlements with the 1^st applicant. The respondent as a means of coercing the applicants to pay her the alleged unpaid salaries and entitlements, resulted to self help and confiscated the properties of the applicants in her possession, thereby imposing a lien on the said properties of the applicants in her possession without the order of court and without the consent of the applicants either.

Counsel cited the case of AGA & ORS V. ONAH & ORS (2012) LPELR-22103 CA decision therein is to the effect that: …..”It will be unconscionable and absurd for a party to take the law into his hands by engaging in the act of self help where the other party disputes that right or is otherwise contesting it….”

Counsel submitted that it will therefore be nothing less than an act of subversion against the proper determination of justice for either party to a suit before a court to either directly or indirectly usurp that function.

Similarly, counsel further cited the case of ACHEBE V MBANEFO & ANR (2017) LPELR-41884 CA, where per JOSEPH TINE TUR, JCA @ pp72-74, paragraphs F-B. It was held: “No citizen is to take the laws into their hands. Courts of justice do not encourage self- help. Grievances should be submitted to the courts of law and equity for determination….”

It is the submission of counsel that once disputes have been submitted to the court of law for determination, parties should not resort to self-help and still expect the court to sanction same. Counsel gave meaning to the act of the respondent in retaining the properties of the applicants after her employment for the inflated salary and entitlements amount to self-help. The case of REGD TRUSTEE OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH V OLOWOLENI (1990)6 NWLR PT 158 PT 158 P514 @537-538. Was cited to buttress his submission. Counsel reviewed the pattern of the employment and the voluntary resignation of the respondent without him giving any prior notice to the 1^st applicant to which, by section 11 (2) (c) of the Labour Act, 1971, the respondent was statutorily mandated to give at least two- weeks notice of resignation to the 1^st applicant and that it would be out of place for the respondent to hold on to the properties of the applicants.

 According to counsel, Order 22 Rule 2 (1) of the rules of this court vests in this court powers to grant interlocutory orders for the preservation of any property which is lis-pendis. He maintained that the essence of this order is to preserve the properties of the applicants in custody of the respondent, pending the determination of the suit and this is what the applicants are seeking for.

In his further submission, counsel referred this court to paragraphs 3 (s) & (t) of the affidavit showing about the sensitive nature of the properties which he said stand the risk of being destroyed or lost if this order is not made after all, the respondent has not denied the properties belonging to the applicant. Moreso, that granting this order would safeguard the safety of the properties since the respondent has started converting the Toyota corolla car for her personal use as it is shown in Exhibits S114 and S115.

An undertaking of N460,000 deposit payment into an interest yielding account maintained by the Deputy Chief Registrar of this court is made to satisfy the respondent’s severance sum in consideration for the grant of this application. This court is urged to grant this application.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

In considering this application, I formulate an interrelated issue to wit: “Whether on the strength of the facts and Exhibits along with the submissions of counsel this application is grantable”

To grant or to refuse this application rests squarely on the exercise of the discretion of this court. See OLADEJO V ADEYEMI (2000) 3 NWLR PT 647 P 25 @ 41 in which ADEKEYE JCA maintained that “I think on this point, I should restate without absurdity what I said in FOLORUNSHO V FOLORUNSHO (1996) 5 NWLR PT 450 P 612 @620 PARAS G-H my understanding of the term judicial discretion is that it is a term applied to the discretionary action of a judge or court…….. bounded by the rules and principles of law and not arbitrary, capricious or unrestrained. It is not the indulgence of judicial whim, but the exercise of judicial judgment, based on facts and guided by law or the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances”

In  MOHAMMED V COP (1999) 12 NWLR PT 630 P331 @340 PER MUHAMMAD JCA, held…..”It is an act which has no hard and fast rule governing the conduct of the judge as to which course to adopt” It is my view that exercise of my discretion in granting or not of this application is one that is to be guided by the materials placed before me which can be gathered from the affidavit facts, exhibits and followed by the submissions of counsel.

 Reading through the affidavit and the exhibits which have not been controverted by the respondent, it makes my decision very easy so to say. In the absence of any challenge or other forms of contradictions before me in this application. I am persuaded by the arguments of the applicants thus so inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of granting the reliefs in order to foster the interest of justice at this stage. This application is hereby granted as prayed by the applicant. Accordingly; I make order mandating the respondent to deposit the properties listed in the respondent’s hand over note dated 10^th October, 2021 being:

a.)   FIRS Receipts,

b.)   Preston Hospital Receipts,

c.)   CAC Documents for Supreme Intels (2NSITF) Receipts for January -February, 2019, FIRS Tax clearance certificate form CAC 1:1 for Supreme Intels, MOA for Supreme Intels, Certificate of Incorporation for Supreme Intels, memo of Association for Supreme Intels, Certificate for NSITF,

d.)   Invoices for Supreme Systems and Supreme Intels,

e.)   2 company seal (Supreme Intels and systems),

f.)    Company car,

g.)   Acknowledged copy of previous staff employment letter,

h.)   Letters and correspondence between clients,

i.)     Supreme Systems & Intels way bill,

j.)     Receipts and proforma invoices for items bought,

k.)   Pal pensions account opening form,

l.)     Company laptop given to Nicholas (faulty)

Company laptop to Stephanie (faulty)

m.) Company laptop given to Chika (returned in good condition),

n.)   Personal Effects for Mr. Tunde (3 suit jackets and 1 bag with books which belongs to the applicants, but withheld by the Respondent

These listed properties and documents are to be deposited into the custody of the Deputy Chief Registrar of this Honourable court, pending the hearing and final determination of this suit.

I make no order as to cost.

 

Ruling is accordingly entered.

 

 

 

 

 

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

HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.A. YELWA,

(JUDGE.)