ABUBAKAR USMAN V HABILA MATHIAS
April 3, 2025TARABA STATE GOVERNMENT & ORS V MALLAM NASIRU AUDU BABA
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 11141
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Sun Dec 8, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/116/18.
CORAM
PARTIES
MALLAM NASIRU AUDU BABA APPELLANTS
TARABA STATS GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as Plaintiff at the Federal High Court Jalingo, Taraba State initiated an action vide an Originating Summons wherein it sought for the determination of some questions and sought for some reliefs among which are; a declaration that the purported termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment and stoppage of Plaintiff’s salary was invalid, a declaration that the Plaintiff is the subsisting Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the 3rd Defendant by virtue of the 3rd Defendant’s Board of Director’s resolution dated 19th October, 2017 and letter of renewal of appointment dated 19th October, 2017. In response, the Appellants as Respondents filed a preliminary objection, which was heard with the main suit. In its judgment, the trial court overruled the Appellants’ preliminary objection, determined the main suit in favour of the Respondent, and granted all the reliefs sought except relief (k) which was granted in part. The Appellants who were unhappy with the judgment have appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Jurisdictional issue raised by the Appellants, was capable of being resolved without the lower court embarking on interpretation of Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), being the very anchorage of the challenge to the Jurisdiction of the lower court to hear and determine the matter? Whether taking into cognizance the claim of the Respondent and Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), the lower court was not in error, when it proceeded to assume jurisdiction and adjudicate upon the matter? Whether failure on the part of the lower court to give consideration to and make pronouncements on the issues submitted to it for adjudication did not amount to the breach of the right to fair hearing of the Appellants and in consequence resulted in miscarriage of justice? Whether the further affidavit of the Respondent upon which the lower court anchored its judgment contained extraneous matters in contravention of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011? Whether Exhibit “E”, utilized by the lower court in finding for the Respondent was by the combined effect of Sections, 102, 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011, admissible in law?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DECISION OF COURT -WHETHER THE DECISION OF A COURT MUST DEMONSTRATE A DISPASSIONATE CONSIDERATION OF ALL ISSUES CANVASSED BY THE PARTIES
“The law is that the decision of a court of record must clearly show or demonstrate a dispassionate consideration of all issues canvassed by the parties and show in its decision the result of such exercise not accept argument from one party and base its decision on such submission without considering the argument put forward by the other, especially as in this case, where the law or statute on which the challenge of jurisdiction was based was not examined or mentioned at all. See, Okayin Vs. Njokanma (1999) 14 NWLR (PT. 638) 250 at 270, E – F, A – G, Leventis Nig. Plc Vs. Akpu (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1063) 416, Odetayo Vs. Bamidele (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1062) 77 and Kotoye Vs. CBN (1989) 1 NWLR (98) 419.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANT OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“It is the law that, it is the relief sought that determines the jurisdiction of the court. In a matter commenced by originating summons, the depositions contained in the affidavit in support must also be examined alongside the reliefs sought in order to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the action. See, Adeyemi Vs. Opeyori (1976) LPELR – 171 (SC) P. 23, PARAS. D – E, Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd Vs. Societe Generale Bank Ltd. & Ors (2018) LPELR – 43710 (SC) P. 23, PARAS. A – B and Marafa & Ors Vs. Dan Alhaji & Ors (2019) a decision of this court in suit No. CA/S/32/19 delivered on 25th March, 2019; PP. 46 – 48, PARAS. E – D.”
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT – JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
“I will hereunder reproduce Section 254C (1)(a) and (k) for ease of reference and clarity.
254C (1) “Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 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 cases and matters –
(a)relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from work place, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith;
(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;” ………….
No doubt, Section 251 of the Constitution spelt out the wide powers of the trial court but, from the provisions of Section 254 (C) (1) the National Industrial Court was vested with exclusive jurisdiction to determine all civil matters or causes relating to or connected with labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relation and other matters arising from work place, payment and non-payment of salaries and many more. The specialized powers of the NIC include determining matters involving declarations and injunctions touching on termination of employment as is the complaint in this matter. As rightly argued by the learned counsel to the Appellants, by the use of the word “Notwithstanding” in the opening paragraph of Section 254C (1) of the Constitution excludes any other provision in the statute that might provide otherwise or that would curtail the powers donated to the NIC by Section 254C (1) of the Constitution. It is noteworthy that the authorities cited and relied upon by the learned counsel to the Respondent in arguing that the NIC had no jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs as sought by the Respondent are not applicable, those decisions were taken before the coming into effect of the amended 1999 Constitution which widened the jurisdictional powers of the NIC, more appropriate is the case of Nasarawa State Specialist Hospital Management Board & Ors Vs. Mohammed (2018) LPELR – 44551 at 15 – 21, PARAS. E – B. See also, Section 6(1) and (5) (cc) of the Constitution and 254 D(1).”
JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT – EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ON EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENT MATTERS
“The provision of Section 25C (1)(a) restricts its application and excludes the powers donated to the Federal High Court by Section 251 of the Constitution. See, NDIC Vs. Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (PT. 880) 107, 182 – 183, NNPC Vs. Lutin Investment Ltd (2006) 134 LRCN 316, 339 and Saraki Vs. Federal Republic Of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (1500) 531, 613 – 614. By the wordings of Section 254C (1) such as “relating to”, “connected with”, “incidental thereto” and “connected therewith” show that the jurisdiction in that section covers all matters touching on employment/appointment. Therefore, all cases touching on termination of such employment/appointment, private or public fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. I hold that the NIC has the exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to or connected with payment or non-payment of salaries as was the Respondent’s case at the trial court. From the issues that arose for determination at the trial court, the reliefs sought, issue two (2), reliefs (d) and (f) amongst others and the stoppage of the Respondent’s salary were in issue. See, UBA & Anor Vs. Ezekiel (2018) LPELR – 43779 (CA) PP. 17 -18, PARAS. D – A, Mhwun Vs. Ehigugba (2018) LPELR – 44972 (CA) PP. 28 – 36, PARAS. E – C, Gaskiya Textile Mills Plc Vs. Khosla (2014) LPELR – 24606 (CA) PP. 22 – 23, PARAS. F – C and Governor Of Imo State & Anor Vs. Iwunze (2018) LPELR – 44005 (CA) PP. 19 – 20, PARAS. B – F.”
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – DUTY ON COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON EVERY ISSUE PLACED BEFORE IT
“It is the duty of the court to pronounce on every issue properly placed before it for consideration and determination before arriving at a decision. In the present case, the trial court’s duty to pronounce on every issue raised before it is fundamental to resolving the questions raised in the suit, failure to do so, is a failure to perform its statutory duty. The trial court not being the penultimate court was duty bound to have resolved issues one and two put forward by the Respondent at the trial. There are exceptions, where a retrial is ordered in the resolved issue and resolution of the rest of the issues would touch on the issues to be resolved in the fresh trial. See, Brawal Shipping (Nig) Ltd Vs. F.I. Onwadike Co. Ltd & Anor (2000) LPELR – 802 (SC) PP. 13 – 15, PARA. A; (2000) 6 SC NJ 508, Ojikutu Vs. Ojikutu (1971) LPELR – 2375 (SC) PP. 4 – 5, PARAS. C – B, Osareren Vs. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43839 (SC) PP. 12 – 13, PARAS. D – B, Eze vs. PDP & Ors (2018) LPELR 44907 (SC) PP. 21 – 22, E – C, Martins Vs. Nicannar Food Co. Ltd & Anor (1988) LPELR – 1844 (SC) PP. 15 – 16, PARAS. G – A, Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd & Anor Vs. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) LPELR – 2915 (SC) PP. 23 – 24, PARAS. E – C, Garba Vs. Mohammed & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40612 (SC) PP. 56 – 57, PARAS. D – A and Honeywell Flourmills Plc Vs. Ecobank (2018) LPELR – 45127 (SC) PP. 14 – 15, PARAS. C – B.”
AFFIDAVIT – WHETHER THE CONTENTS OF AN AFFIDAVIT CAN BE EQUATED WITH SWORN EVIDENCE
“It is apt at this point to reproduce the provisions of Section 115 (1) and 2 as follows:
115(1) “Every affidavit used in the court shall contain only a statement of fact and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.
(2) An affidavit shall not contain extraneous matter, by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion.”
The contents of an affidavit can be equated with sworn evidence; therefore, it ought to contain facts within the knowledge of the deponent not extraneous matters such as legal arguments and conclusions.”
PUBLIC DOCUMENT – CONDITION FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
“No doubt the Central Bank of Nigeria is a public officer being part of the public service of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therefore any document emanating from the bank for it to be admissible must satisfy the mandatory provisions of Section 104 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The document must be certified if it is a photocopy.”
PUBLIC DOCUMENT – DUTY OF COURT WHERE A PUBLIC DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED WITHOUT CERTIFICATION
The Central Bank of Nigeria, the Public Officer in custody of Exhibit ‘E’ did not certify it in line with the provisions of Section 104 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, therefore the lower court not ought to have admitted the letter as an Exhibit, having done so, ought not to have attached any weight to it. Exhibit ‘E’ is hereby discountenanced. See, Nwabuoku & Ors Vs. Onwordi & Ors (2006) LPELR – 2082 (SC) P. 21, PARAS. A – C, Udo Vs. State (2016) 40721 (SC) PP. 14 – 15, PARA. A and Tell Communications Ltd & Ors Vs. Ngilari (2019) LPELR – 46934 (CA) PP. 40 – 42, PARAS. D – C”.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA)|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)|Evidence Act, 2011
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
