AMINA AHMED HABIB V CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

Legalpedia Citation: (2026-01) Legalpedia 35581 (NIC)

In the National Industrial Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Mon Jan 26, 2026

Suit Number: NICN/ABJ/187/2024

CORAM

HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE – NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

PARTIES

AMINA AHMED HABIB

APPELLANTS

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOUR LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS, PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, FAIR HEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant, Amina Ahmed Habib, commenced this suit against the Central Bank of Nigeria as Defendant. Before the Court were two competing applications. The first was a Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO) filed by the Defendant on 28th November 2025, originally brought on two grounds: (i) that the Claimant was barred from suing the Defendant by virtue of the immunity provision in Section 52(1) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007, which protects the Defendant from being subjected to any action in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers in good faith; and (ii) that the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of the NICN (Filing of Applications/Motions in Trade Union Matters and Marking of Exhibits) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022, which mandates claimants to refer to the specific portion of documents relied upon. At the hearing, learned Senior Counsel to the Defendant withdrew the first ground of the objection. The surviving ground was therefore the Claimant’s alleged non-compliance with Paragraphs 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Practice Direction.

The Defendant argued that the Claimant pleaded several documents in her pleadings without referring to the specific paragraph, page or part of those documents relevant to the case, and that this failure rendered the action defective and liable to be struck out pursuant to Paragraph 3(3)(b)(i) of the Practice Direction. The Defendant further opposed the Claimant’s motion for amendment, contending it was an incompetent attempt to cure fundamental defects already raised in the NPO, that there was no provision for amendment of originating processes, and that granting the amendment would amount to abuse of court process.

The second application was a motion filed by the Claimant on 16th January 2025 seeking leave to amend her statement of facts, witness statement on oath and list of documents, on grounds that the non-compliance was a technical error and that the proposed amendments, as contained in Exhibit A, were in full compliance with the Practice Direction. The Claimant conceded partial non-compliance with Paragraph 3(2)(b) while asserting compliance with Paragraph 3(2)(a). The Defendant had not filed a statement of defence and trial had not commenced.

HELD

The Notice of Preliminary Objection was dismissed and the Claimant’s motion for amendment was granted. The Court held that there was partial compliance with the Practice Direction in that Paragraph 3(2)(a) had been complied with, while Paragraph 3(2)(b) had not. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the Defendant — involving total non-compliance and no pending application for amendment — and held that applying the Practice Direction to strike out the suit in the circumstances would not serve the ends of justice. The Court relied on Order 5 Rules 1, 3, 4(1), 5(4) and 6(3) of the NICN Rules 2017, which permit the Court to treat non-compliance as an irregularity and to depart from the Rules in the interest of justice. Leave was granted to the Claimant to amend her processes as shown in Exhibit A, and the amended processes were deemed properly filed and served. The case was ordered to proceed to trial. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Claimant’s failure to comply with Paragraph 3(2)(b) of the NICN Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022 renders this suit incompetent and liable to be struck out?
2. Whether the pending motion for amendment of the Claimant’s pleadings ought to be considered and granted before the Notice of Preliminary Objection is determined?
3. Whether leave ought to be granted to the Claimant to amend her statement of facts, witness statement on oath and list of documents in the manner specified in Exhibit A?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRACTICE DIRECTIONS – NATURE, PURPOSE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH RULES OF COURT

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

PRACTICE DIRECTIONS – SUBSERVIENT TO RULES OF COURT AND NOT INTENDED TO DEFEAT JUSTICE

“Whenever a Practice Direction is issued, it is regarded as part of the Rules of the Court. In other words, Rules of Court include Practice Direction but the Practice Direction is subservient or less efficacious than the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court in U.T.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (PT. 103) 244 AT 296, succinctly stated the aims and purpose of Rules of Court per Belgore, JSC: Rules of procedure are made for the convenience and orderly hearing of cases in court. They are made to help the cause of justice and not to defeat justice. The rules are therefore aids to the court and not masters of the court. For courts to read rules in the absolute without recourse to the justice of the cause, to any mind, will be making the courts slavish to the Rules. This certainly is not the raison d’etre of Rules of Court.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

RULES OF COURT – PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND NOT ADHERENCE TO TECHNICAL JUSTICE

“One of the purpose of all rules of court is that the rules are for the attainment of justice and obtaining justice in the citadel of justice with ease, certainly for the advancement of substantial justice. This is particularly important as courts have departed from adherence to technical justice, a point greatly missed by the appellant….” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULES – POWER OF COURT TO TREAT AS IRREGULARITY AND DEPART FROM RULES IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE

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

PARTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH PRACTICE DIRECTION – WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND TO STRIKE OUT SUIT WHERE AMENDMENT PENDING

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

DISTINGUISHING PRECEDENTS – CASES OF TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PENDING AMENDMENT NOT APPLICABLE WHERE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE EXISTS

“These cases are distinguishable from this instant case in the following respects; there was total non-compliance by the Claimants in those cases, there was no pending application for amendment, and the provisions of Order 5 of the Rules of this Court were not considered in the Ruling. I am therefore not persuaded to follow the decisions.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS – RIGHT TO AMEND AS FUNDAMENTAL TO FAIR HEARING

“It is the law that Courts have the inherent and discretionary powers to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, see Eze v Ene (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt 1579) 313 SC, Oloro v Falana (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1275) 207 CA.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS – GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 2 OF NICN RULES

“Order 26 Rule 2 provides: An amendment may be refused where it would— (a) present a completely different case, or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide; (b) necessitate the hearing of further evidence especially on appeal; (c) not cure the defects in the procedure sought to be cured or where it is inconsistent and useless; (d) amount to over-reaching the other party or an abuse of court process.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

AMENDMENT BEFORE DEFENCE FILED AND TRIAL COMMENCED – GRANT OF LEAVE WHERE NOT MALA FIDE AND NOT OVER-REACHING

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

JURISDICTION – ABSENCE RENDERS PROCEEDINGS A NULLITY

“Jurisdiction is the lifeblood of every action, and that its absence renders the proceedings a nullity citing Oloruntoba Oju v AbdulRaheem (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 83 at 14H-125B, Bello v Damisa (2017) 2NWLR (Pt 1550) 455 at 475A-B, Madokulu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

ORDER 5 NICN RULES – COURT’S POWER TO CONDONE NON-COMPLIANCE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS

“The provisions of Order 5 reproduced above permits the court to treat non-compliance with any of the provisions of the Rules as an irregularity and to, in the interest of justice and fairness, condone non-compliance with the Rules in certain situations.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION SEEKING TO TERMINATE SUIT – TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MOTION TO SAVE SUIT BUT WITH DUE REGARD TO PENDING REMEDIAL APPLICATION

“The Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO) seeks to terminate the suit, while the motion on notice is seeking to save the suit. I will begin with the NPO that is earlier in time.” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

PRACTICE DIRECTIONS AND FAIR HEARING – PRACTICE DIRECTION CANNOT OUST CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OF FAIR HEARING

“It was his further submission that a Practice Direction cannot oust the constitutional provision to fair hearing; and that where a Practice Direction appears to be in conflict with a provision of the Constitution, a statute, or a substantive rule of law, it would be devoid of any force of law and he cited Ari v Yerima (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt 1906) 1 at 30-31, Para E-B (SC).” – Per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007, Section 52(1)
• National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, Order 1 Rule 8(3); Order 5 Rules 1, 3, 4(1), 5(4) and 6(3); Order 17 Rules 1; Order 18 Rule 2(2); Order 26 Rules 1, 2 and 17(1)
• NICN (Filing of Applications/Motions in Trade Union Matters and Marking of Exhibits) Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022, Paragraphs 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b), 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b)

OTHER CITATIONS

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

COUNSEL

1. E. O. Anazodo for the Claimant,
2. M.U. Obi-Obiora.
3. Inam Wilson SAN for the Defendant,
4. M. Michael, F.U. Jarigo,
5. I. Momoh, A. Zaruq,
6. I. Fakunle, R. Modibbo Umar,
7. O. Chukkol, B. Enebeli. for the Defendant,