SANI MUSTAPHA BABURA V SAIDU MOHAMMED
April 26, 2025EZENWA ONWUZURUIKE V DAMIAN EDOZIEM & ORS
April 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 21163
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Mon Jan 25, 2016
Suit Number: CA/J/191/2014
CORAM
PARTIES
DAVID MUSA MSHELIA
APPELLANTS
BANK OF AGRICULTURE LIMITED
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Appellant was an employee of the Defendant/Respondent until his suspension and dismissal. Displeased with his dismissal, the Plaintiff/Appellant instituted an action at the Federal High Court sitting in Gombe, seeking for the order of the Honourable Court declaring that the Plaintiff was not accorded a fair hearing on the allegations leveled against him, a declaration that the dismissal of the Plaintiff was unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and an order for his restatement and payment of all his salaries. The trial court in a considered judgment dismissed the claim. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal after the adoption of brief by the respective Counsel to the parties involved, invited them to address the court on the fundamental question; “whether the Federal High Court, the court which entertained this matter at first instance had jurisdiction to do so as it did?” an issue not raised by either of the parties to the Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Federal High Court, the court which entertained this mater at first instance had jurisdiction to do so as it did?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF COURT- IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT
“Issue concerning exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts is radically and fundamentally important and the same can be raised at any stage, anytime and howsoever even on appeal. Labiti V. Anretiola (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258) 139; Obada Vs. Millitary Governor Kwara State (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 157) 482; Kotoye Vs. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414. Issue of jurisdiction or lack of it can also be raised by the Courts suo motu as done in this instant appeal. See: Emigwu V. Oketi (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 620) 620; Awuse V. Odili 2004 FWLR (Pt. 193) 325; Buhari V. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR Pt. (Pt. 550) 423, 474 – 475; Olatunji Vs. Olakunde (2011) LPELR – 4734 (CA)”
INCOMPETENT PROCEEDINGS – DUTY ON COURTS TO TERMINATE INCOMPETENT PROCEEDINGS
“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. It can do so of its own initiative. See: Attorney- General Anambra State Vs. Okeke (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt. 782) 575 or (2002) 5 SC (Pt. 11) 58”.
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT – EXCLUSIVITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ON LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATED ISSUE
“The claim is thus an employment or labour related issue which only the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, by virtue of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010.Section 254 C (1) (a) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides thus:- “254 C-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 251, 257 272 and anything contained in this 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- (a)Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, Welfare of labour, employment, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; (b)Relating to, connected with or arising from factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or laws;…” By reason of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010, the National Industrial Court is with effect from the 4th day of March, 2011, the only Court vested with jurisdiction to entertain labour and employment related issues or matters to the exclusion of all or any other Court and indeed matters listed in Section 254 C (1) (a) – (m) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DUTY OF AN APPELLATE COURT WHEN A TRIAL COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
“Where the appellate Court (as in this case) is satisfied that a lower Court which tried a case has no jurisdiction to try the case which came to it on appeal, the proper order the appellate court should make is to allow the appeal, strike out the case before that lower Court and declare the whole proceedings a nullity ab initio. I am well guided by decisions in Lakanmi V. Adene (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 353 or (2003) 4 SC (Pt. 11) 92; Wilson V. Attorney – General Bendel (1983) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 572; Savannah Bank Ltd V. Pan Atlantic (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 44) 212. Sule Vs. Nigeria Cotton Board (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 17; Nwosu Vs. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Kathy (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688.”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATED ISSUES
“There is legal consensus that the law in force at the time the cause of action arose governs the law to be applied in the determination of the action, while the law in force at the time of the trial based on the cause of action, determines the court vested with jurisdiction to try the case. Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) has undoubtedly pruned down the expansive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court by stripping it of its vires to entertain, inter alia, matters relating to or connected with labour and employment. See Keystone Bank Ltd V Oyewale (2014) LPELR-23612(CA); Olufunsho V GSDI Ltd (2013) 8 WRN 36 at 54; & Obiuweubi V CBN (2011) 7 (Pt. 1247) 465 at 495.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT- EFFECT OF A CHANGE IN THE LAW GOVERNING THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“The law is settled that where there is a change to the law governing the jurisdiction of a court, the law shall have effect on all matters pending in that court except those in which trial has commenced, and especially so on those matters filed thereafter, as in the instant case. See Osakue V Federal College of Education (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 1; Olutola V University of Ilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT- FACTORS THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“In law, it has long been established and well settled that it is the claims of the Plaintiff or Claimant that denotes and determines the jurisdiction of the court with the requisite vires to hear and determine the claims. In this vein, the question of jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold issue and in the absence of which there can be no validity in any proceedings and or judgment and thus can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time on appeal by any of the parties or even suo motu by the court as was done by this court in this appeal. Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised, who or when or how it was raised is of no significance and should ordinary not give the court any concern, it must be considered and resolved first since it is indeed the epicentre of the entire litigation process and thus goes to the competence of the court to adjudicate over a cause or matter placed before it. See Omaghoni V. Nigerian Airways Ltd. (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 310. See also Equity Bank of Nigeria Ltd. V. Halilco Nig. Ltd (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 568; NDIC V. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766)272; Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Tukur V. Gongola State Government (No. 2) (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9 – 10 SC 31; Onuorah V. KPRC (2005) NWLR (Pt. 921) 393.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010,|
