CORAM
PARTIES
1. Mathew Iyeke
2. Mr. Akanbi Suleiman
3. Mrs. Julie Whegbere
4. Mr.Obasa Moshood Yusuf
5. Mr. Okozie Uchegbulam
6. Mr, Ojo Michael Akinola
7. Mr.UmaruY.Omale
8. Mr. Danjuma Charles
9. Mrs. Anidi O. Esther
10. Mr. Shuaibu O. Dauda
11. Miss Blessing Archibong
12. Mr. Alfred AjuyahO.
13. Mrs. A. U. Edewhere
14. Mr. Bamgboye John Adekunle
15. Mr. Ebilete M. Chukwudi
16. Mrs. Ejisun T. Ibidun
17. Mr. Pallam S. Wasinya
18. Miss Ogiribo Efe Dorothy
19. Mr. Aliyu Musa
20. Dr. Nwosu Joseph Ifeanyi
21. Mr. Michael Edeh Nwaemeka
22. Mrs. Agho Funmilola lfe-Olu
23. Mrs. Eremena Ahwieh
24. Mr. Amos Etarewhu
25. Miss Ayomagbemi T. Mercy
26. Mr. Christopher OTERI
APPELLANTS
1. Petroleum Training Institute
2. Ministry of Petroleum Resources
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
After an interview conducted by the 1st Respondent, twenty-six (26) Appellants were all issued with employment letters. They accepted their appointments and reported for duty at the Institute. However, three months later, they were issued with another letter, informing them that their employment has been put on hold and further invited them for another interview. At the said interview, the Appellants were asked to stay away from the Institute until further Notice. When the Respondents refused to recall them, the Appellants declared a Trade Dispute in accordance with the Trade Disputes Act Cap 432 LFN 1990 and its amendments. The Federal Minister of Employment, Labour and Productivity, appointed a Conciliator to resolve the said Trade Dispute, which report revealed that “the Parties in this matter reached a deadlock.” An application for an order of Mandamus was filed, and same was granted by the Federal High Court. The court ordered that the Respondents should refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Panel without further delay. Upon the failure of the Respondents to comply with that order, the Appellants instituted an action against the Respondents herein at the Federal High Court, where they claimed the following reliefs; the payment of their monthly salary and allowances since February, 2003; an order directing the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, privies and/or servants from discriminating against the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever and howsoever. In opposing same, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed counter affidavits. At the end of the trial, the court gave judgment in favour of the Appellants. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the 1st Respondent challenged same at the Court of Appeal, and same was allowed. The Appellants have now appealed against the lower court’s decision.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the finding of the lower Court that the putting on hold of the Appellants’ employment “does not more than postponing or delaying same” can be justified having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case?
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that there was no reasonable cause of action “to warrant the commencement of this action” by the Appellants?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENT OF COURT – IMPLICATION OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN A CONCURRING JUDGMENT AND A LEAD JUDGMENT
“The Appellants are right; it well settled that where there is any inconsistency between a concurring Judgment and lead Judgment, the former would give way to the extent of the inconsistency – see Osun State Independent Electoral Commission & Anor V. A.C & Ors (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 273 SC. Akpoku V. Itombu (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt561 283 and Nwana V. F.C.D.A. (2004) 13 NWLR (9Pt. 889) 128.”
TRADE DISPUTE – MEANING OF A TRADE DISPUTE
“The Appellants declared a Trade Dispute, which is a “dispute between workers and their employer” – Collins English Dictionary. See also the lawdictionary.org, where Trade Dispute is defined as –
A controversy over working conditions and wages that is between the employees and the employer.”
“RECRUIT”- MEANING OF “RECRUIT”
“The word “recruit” means “to hire or enroll, or seek to hire or enroll (new employees, students, etc.)” – the freedictionary.com.”
“RENEGOTIATE” – MEANING OF “RENEGOTIATE”
“The word “renegotiate” means “negotiate something again in order to change the original agreed terms”‘-Oxford Living Dictionaries.”
“PUT ON HOLD” – MEANING OF “PUT ON HOLD”
“Yes, if you put something on hold, it means you decided not to do it, deal with it, or change it for now, but to leave it until later – see Collins English Dictionary.”
CONTRACT- DEFINITION OF A CONTRACT
“A contract is an agreement between two or more Parties. So, a Party cannot agree with itself, there must be another Party at the other end of the contract to agree with, or renegotiate terms with.”
CANCEL – MEANING OF CANCEL
“To cancel something, is to delete, erase, and obliterate that thing. It indicates that it “is no longer to be considered usable or in force” – Dictionary.com.”
“CAUSE OF ACTION”- MEANING OF “CAUSE OF ACTION”
“Now, from the authorities on the subject, “cause of action” means-
i. A cause of complaint:
ii. A civil right or obligation for determination by a Court of la w:
iii.A dispute in respect of which a Court of law is entitled to invoke its judicial powers to determine;
iv.Consequent damages;
v.Every fact which would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the Judgment of the Court It does not comprise every piece of evidence that is necessary to be proved;
vi.All those things necessary to give a right of action whether they are to be done by the Plaintiff or a third person; and
vii.It is a factual situation, which enables one person to obtain a remedy from another in Court in respect of Injury.
See A.G. Fed. V. ANPP (2003) 12 5CNJ 67 and Cookey V. Fombo (2005) 15NWLR (PL 947) 182SC, wherein Edozie, JSC, observed –
A cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts, which the law will recognize as giving the Plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for the relief or remedy being sought. Thus, the factual situation on which the Plaintiff relied to support his claim must be recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of enforcement or being claimed against the Defendant.
A cause of action consists of the wrongful act of the Defendant, which gives a Plaintiff his cause of complaint, and the consequent damage – see Adesokan V. Aderegolu (1997) 3NWLR (Pt 493) 261, Aghanelo V. UBN (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1)233and Oduntan V. Akibu (2000) 7sc (Pt. ii) 106.”
REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION – WHAT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION?
“A reasonable cause of action is a cause of action which, when only the facts in the Statement of Claim are considered, has some chance of success.”
CAUSE OF ACTION – WHEN DOES A STATEMENT OF CLAIM DISCLOSE A REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION?
“For the said Statement of Claim to disclose a reasonable cause of action, it must set out the legal rights of the Plaintiff and obligations of the Defendant; then go on to set out facts constituting infraction of the Plaintiff’s legal right or failure of the Defendant to fulfill his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the Plaintiff will succeed in the relief that he seeks- Rinco Const. V. Veepee Ind. Ltd. (2005) 3-4 SC 1, Ibrahim V. Osim (1988) 3NWLR (Pt 82) 257 SC, Vantete V. Mohammed (2002) 5SC 1.”
DOCUMENTS – WHETHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO AN AFFIDAVIT AS EXHIBITS FORMS PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT
“It is settled law that documents attached to an Affidavit as Exhibits, form part of the Affidavit in question – see Ezechukwu V, Onwuka (2016) LPELR-26055(SC)an& S. E. S. N. C. & Ors V. Anwara (1975) 9¬11 SC 55, wherein Fatayi-Williams. JSC (as he then was) observed:
In Re Hinchcliffe (1895) 1 Ch. 117. It was held that such an Exhibit is part of the Affidavit, and any person, who is entitled to inspect the Affidavit has a right to demand inspection of the Exhibits referred to in it. In the view of Lord Herschel, LC. at 120: – They form as much part of the Affidavit as if they had been actually annexed to and filed with it.”
RELIEFS – WHETHER A COURT OF LAW CAN AWARD RELIEFS NOT CLAIMED BY A PARTY
“It is an elementary principle of law that a Court of law cannot award to a Claimant that which he did not claim. It may award less, but not more than what the Parties have claimed – see Ekpenyong V. Nyong (1975) LPELR-(1090) SC, wherein Ibekwe, JSC. added that:
A fortiori, the Court should never award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either Party. It should always be borne in mind that a Court of la w is not a charitable institution; its duty, in civil cases, is to render unto everyone according to his proven claim.
In effect, the Court has a duty to only adjudicate on claims or reliefs placed before it by the Parties, and there is a difference between the pleadings, which are mere averments, and the reliefs claimed -see Alhaji Onibudo & Ors V. Alhaji Akibu & Ors (1982) 7 SC 60.”
PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE- FUNCTION AND POWER OF THE PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE
“The function and powers of the Council are spelt out in section 3 of the Petroleum Training Institute Act Cap. 356 Vol. XX Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and it provides as follows:-
3 Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Council shall be the governing body of the Institute and shall have the general management of the affairs of the Institute, and in particular, the control of the property and the finances of the Institute; and shall also have power to do anything which in its opinion is calculated to facilitate the carrying out the functions of the Institute under this Act.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Petroleum Training Institute Act Cap. 356 Vol. XX Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990