MR. AGBUTUFIE TOMVIE V NATIONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (NIMC)
April 18, 2026EMEMOBOMG JOSEPH ETUK V UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR MICROFINANCE BANK LTD & ANOR
April 18, 2026FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE V ALPHEAUS TAYLOR OPUSUOMENE
Legalpedia Citation: (2026-01) Legalpedia 72737 (NIC)
In the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
Holden at Yenagoa
Wed Jan 14, 2026
Suit Number: NICN/YEN/4M/2025
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ——– PRESIDING JUDGE
PARTIES
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OTUOKE
APPELLANTS
ALPHEAUS TAYLOR OPUSUOMENE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONTEMPT OF COURT, COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS, STAY OF EXECUTION, APPEAL, JURISDICTION, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, POST-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS, ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This ruling arose from three composite applications filed by both parties in connection with a judgment delivered by the National Industrial Court in Suit No. NICN/YEN/24/2022 between Alpheaus Taylor Opusuomene v. Federal University Otuoke, on 16th January 2025 by Hon. Justice Bashar A. Alkali. The Judgment Debtor was given 30 days to comply with the judgment but failed to do so within the stipulated period.
The first application was a Motion on Notice filed on 30th June 2025 by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, Federal University Otuoke, seeking a stay of execution of the said judgment pending the hearing of its motion for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Judgment Debtor deposed that it had filed an application for leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal, which had been entered as Appeal No. CA/PH/82M/2025, and that enforcing the judgment before the appellate court determined the leave application would render any favourable appellate decision nugatory. The Judgment Creditor opposed the application on the grounds that the Judgment Debtor was in contempt, that a party in breach of a court order is not entitled to relief from the same court until it purges its contempt, and that a stay application does not operate as an automatic stay of execution.
The second application was a Motion on Notice filed on 24th June 2025 by the Judgment Creditor/Applicant, Alpheaus Taylor Opusuomene, seeking the committal of the Vice Chancellor of the University, Prof. Teddy Charles Adias, and its Registrar, Mrs. Andabi Benita Amangi-Edomo, to the Nigeria Correctional Service, Okaka Prison, for disobeying the court’s judgment until they purge their contempt. Forms 48 and 49 had been served on the alleged contemnors.
In response to the committal application, the Judgment Debtor/Respondent, rather than filing a defence on the merits, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 17th October 2025 challenging the competence of the committal proceedings on the ground that the Forms 48 and 49 bore the suit number of the concluded substantive suit, NICN/YEN/24/2022, and that the committal application bore yet a different suit number — NICN/YEN/4M/2025 — thereby creating uncertainty and rendering the proceedings incompetent. The Judgment Creditor responded that the Court had power under Section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 to depart from its rules in the interest of justice, and that the error in suit numbers was attributable to the court registry.
HELD
The Court, presided over by Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman, issued a composite ruling disposing of all three applications.
On the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Court dismissed it. It held that the duty of assigning suit numbers to court processes belongs exclusively to the court registry and not to litigants or their counsel, and that it would be unjust to penalise the Judgment Creditor for lapses attributable to the registry.
On the application for committal, the Court struck it out as incompetent and an abuse of court process. It held that the Judgment Creditor failed to first seek and obtain leave of court to proceed against the principal officers of the Judgment Debtor (a non-natural person) as mandatorily required by Order 63 Rule 6 of the NIC Civil Procedure Rules 2017. The Court further held that since the underlying judgment was the subject of a pending application for leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal, contempt proceedings could not be validly pursued against a party exercising its constitutional right of appeal.
On the application for stay of execution, the Court granted it. Despite noting that leave to appeal had not yet been formally granted by the Court of Appeal and that records had not been compiled and transmitted, the Court held that it was incumbent upon it to preserve the res and prevent any appellate decision from being rendered nugatory. The execution of the judgment in Suit No. NICN/YEN/24/2022 was stayed pending the hearing and determination of Appeal No. CA/PH/82M/2025 and any substantive appeal arising therefrom. No order as to costs was made.
ISSUES
1. Whether this is a proper case for the Court to grant a stay of execution of judgment pending the hearing of the Applicant’s Motion on Notice for leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal?
2. Whether the Applicant who is in breach of the order of this Honourable Court can still approach this Honourable Court praying for a favour or an order, without first fulfilling the said order of this Court?
3. Whether an application for stay of execution operates as an automatic stay?
4. Whether the Applicant has a right to be heard by this Honourable Court?
5. Whether the Contemnors/Respondents, being the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Judgment Debtor, should be committed to the Nigeria Correctional Service until they obey the judgment of the Court?
6. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the committal proceedings in the face of the spent suit number borne on the Forms 48 and 49?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION AS THRESHOLD ISSUE – COURT MUST DETERMINE JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE MERITS
“It is therefore incumbent on the Court to determine the Notice of Preliminary Objection first because the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold issue, and any proceeding conducted in the absence of the requisite jurisdiction amounts to an exercise in futility. See J. A. Adekoye & Ors. V. Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Ltd & Ors. (2009) LPELR-106(SC), Mrs. Chime Ogbeyialu Ayodele V. Mr. Sule Isaac Ayodele (2020) LPELR-51180(CA) and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Nigeria Limited & 3 Others V. Federal Inland Revenue Services & 1 Other (2021) 17 NWLR (Part 1806) 545 at 575-575 paragraphs G-D.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
SUIT NUMBER ERRORS – DUTY TO ASSIGN SUIT NUMBERS RESTS ON REGISTRY AND MISTAKES THEREOF CANNOT BE VISITED ON LITIGANTS
“While I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that Order 47 Rule 19 of the Rules of this Court 2017 requires that, ‘any proceeding initiated as a Post Judgment proceeding or any application brought or filed as a Post Judgment proceeding shall be given a new Suit Number,’ the point must however be made that it is the duty or responsibility of the registry to assign suit numbers to court processes and not litigants or their counsel. It will therefore be unfair to punish a litigant for an act or omission of the court registry. See the case of Diokpa C. O. Akpoku and Ors V. Mr. Martin Elunor and Ors (2024) LPELR-62784(CA) at page 47 paras C-D, where the Court of Appeal per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA held that, ‘the duty to assess Court processes is the registry not counsel or the parties, as such the mistakes of the registry cannot be visited on the litigants.’” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS – QUASI-CRIMINAL NATURE DEMANDS STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE LIBERTY OF A PERSON CAN BE AFFECTED
“It is apposite to first make the point that a contempt or committal proceeding like the instant one before the court is a sui generis and quasi-criminal proceeding, which has the possibility of affecting the liberty of the party who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the Court. It is on this basis that courts are expected to exercise some restraint by ensuring that all the required steps are taken, and the entire legal requirements are strictly complied with by the Applicant before such proceeding can be successful. See Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor V. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017) LPELR-42609(SC) pages 12 – 13 paras. D – B and Uriel Ezeji V. H. C. Ike (1997) 2 NWLR (Part 486) 206 at 221, para E, where it was held that, ‘As the committal proceedings touches on deprivation of freedom of movement and liberty of the person the service and procedure is applied strictly and any break or departure from strict application of the rules vitiates the proceedings.'” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
COMMITTAL AGAINST PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF NON-NATURAL PERSON – LEAVE OF COURT MANDATORY CONDITION PRECEDENT UNDER ORDER 63 RULE 6
“There is no indication that the Judgment Creditor/Applicant first sought and obtained leave of court to commence the committal proceeding against the Respondents who are principal officers of the Judgment Debtor (the Federal University Otuoke). It is therefore obvious that the foundation of the committal proceeding is faulty, and the Contemnors/Respondents cannot be denied their liberty on the basis of a faulty court proceeding.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
RIGHT OF APPEAL – PARTY EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF APPEAL CANNOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAME JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL
“It is the law that a party who has taken steps to exercise his constitutional right of appeal cannot be punished for disobeying the same judgment that is the subject of appeal. See Fred Huang and Anor V. Alhaji Sanai Olasupo Bello and Others (1990) 6 NWLR (Part 159) 671 at 678 para. F, where it was held that, ‘The appellant who exercises his constitutional right of appeal is not in contempt of the court.’ See also Taraba State Local Government Service Commission and Anor V. Mr. Rimanyaere Apumukong Shinkom and Ors. (2022) LPELR-57951(CA) at 15 paras. A – D, where the appellate court reiterated the trite law that, ‘where a party is challenging the validity of the order and intends to appeal against such order, contempt proceedings ought not to be proceeded against such party for contempt unless and until the issue of its legality is settled one way or the other.'” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
STAY OF EXECUTION – PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
“The law is firm with regard to stay of execution that for an applicant to succeed in an application of such a nature, the following as stated by this Court must be present to the satisfaction of the Court in the case of OBARO v. DANTATA & SAWOE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD 1997 LPELR-6267 CA: ‘(a) The chances of the Applicant on appeal; if the chances are virtually nil, then a stay may be refused. (b) The nature of the subject matter in dispute whether maintaining the status quo until a final determination of the appeal in the case will meet the justice of the case. (c) Whether if the appeal succeeds the applicant will not be able to reap the benefit of the judgment or appeal. (d) Where the judgment is in respect of money and costs whether there is a reasonable probability of recovering these back from the respondent if the appeal succeeds. (e) Poverty is not a special ground for granting a stay of execution except where the effect will be to deprive the appellant of the means of prosecuting his appeal.'” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
FILING OF APPEAL OR STAY APPLICATION – DOES NOT OPERATE AS AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION
“It may also be apposite to consider the provisions of section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, and Order 64 Rule 8(2) (3) of the Rules of Court 2017 which provide that the mere filing of an appeal or an application for stay cannot operate as a stay of execution.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
REQUIREMENTS FOR STAY OF EXECUTION APPLICATION – MANDATORY CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER ORDER 64 RULE 13(2) OF THE NIC RULES 2017
“Order 64 Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of this Court 2017, which provides for the filing of an application of this nature states as follows: ‘Where a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the court and seeks to appeal to the Court of Appeal, such a party shall in the party’s application to the Court for stay of execution of the judgment or Order: a. File a notice of appeal; b. Pay for the compilation of the records of proceedings; c. Exhibit certified true copies of the judgment or order the party is appealing against; d. Exhibit evidence that the appeal has been entered in line with the appropriate Rules or the Practice Direction of the Court of Appeal and that there is a valid appeal before the Court of Appeal; and e. Exhibit evidence that leave has been granted by the Court of Appeal, where leave is required either by law or by the rules of the Court of Appeal.'” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
PRESERVATION OF THE RES – COURT DUTY TO PRESERVE SUBJECT MATTER WHERE LEAVE TO APPEAL IS PENDING TO PREVENT NUGATORY APPELLATE DECISION
“It is apposite to state that even though leave to appeal has not been granted by the Court of Appeal as required by section 243(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and records have not been compiled and transmitted to the Court of Appeal and the main appeal entered, I am however of the considered view that since this Court has been notified of the pendency of the application for leave to appeal at the appellate Court in Appeal No. CA/PH/82M/2025, it is incumbent on this Court to take steps to preserve the res in order not to render nugatory any decision of the appellate Court on the main appeal.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
INCOMPETENT COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – COURT WILL STRIKE OUT COMMITTAL APPLICATION THAT IS FOUNDED ON A DEFECTIVE PROCEDURAL BASIS
“In the circumstance, I hold that the application for committal filed by the Judgment Creditor/Applicant on the 24th day of June, 2025 is incompetent and an abuse of Court process, and ought to be struck out. The lone Issue is resolved in favour of the Judgment Debtor/Respondent, and the application is accordingly struck out.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
REGISTRY ERRORS ON SUIT NUMBERS – UNJUST AND UNCONSCIONABLE TO PUNISH JUDGMENT CREDITOR FOR MISTAKES OF COURT REGISTRY
“I therefore hold the considered view that, since it is the duty of the registry to assign suit numbers to court processes, it will be unjust and unconscionable to punish the Judgment Creditor for whatever mistake or lapses on the part of the court registry. I therefore do not find merit in the Notice of Preliminary Objection, and same is hereby dismissed.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF APPEAL – PARTY ALLEGED TO BE IN CONTEMPT MUST NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD WHERE SEEKING TO EXERCISE RIGHT OF APPEAL OR STAY
“The Judgment Debtor/Applicant is entitled to be heard because a party alleged to be in contempt but seeks to exercise a constitutional right of appeal or seeking a stay of execution must not be denied a hearing. See Hadkinson V. Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER 567 at 573 and Ngere V. Okuruket and Ors (2014) LPELR-22883(SC).” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
STAY OF EXECUTION GRANTED – COURT EXERCISES DISCRETION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO WHERE APPEAL IS PENDING TO AVOID RENDERING APPELLATE DECISION NUGATORY
“In the circumstance, I find merit in the application and same is hereby granted. The execution of the judgment in Suit No: NICN/YEN/24/2022: Alpheaus Taylor Opusuomene V. Federal University of Otuoke delivered on the 16th of January, 2025 is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of the application for leave to appeal which is pending at the Court of Appeal as Appeal No: CA/PH/82M/2025, and/or any substantive appeal arising therefrom.” – Per P. I. Hamman, J.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
OTHER CITATIONS
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
COUNSEL
1.B. A. Okeh with P. O. Tangbei for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant.
2.Harcourt Ekpe John with Victor Uroh Kiani for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent.
