MR. UBONG HILARY SILAS & MR. ITEM ISONGENWONGO DONALD V. HI-QUALITY BAKERY LTD
April 10, 2026HRM OBA AKANNI WASIU OGUNGBAYI & ORS V KASALI AFUWAPE & ORS
April 15, 2026OMOSUYI WOLE MICHAEL V CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
Legalpedia Citation: (2026-02) Legalpedia 08017 (NIC)
In the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Tue Feb 10, 2026
Suit Number: NICN/ABJ/265/2024
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE O. A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE
PARTIES
OMOSUYI WOLE MICHAEL
APPELLANTS
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ORIGINATING SUMMONS, PLEADINGS, FAIR HEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOUR LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This ruling arose from a motion on notice filed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (Defendant/Applicant) on 26th November, 2025, seeking an order directing the Claimant, Omosuyi Wole Michael, and 63 other Claimants in related suits, all of whom were represented by the same Senior Advocate, to convert their originating summonses into General Forms of Complaint, and to file and exchange pleadings accordingly. The related suits involved former employees of the Central Bank of Nigeria who had commenced proceedings arising from the termination of their employment, alleging bad faith, discrimination, witch-hunt, and denial of fair hearing in the termination process.
The originating summonses, filed on various dates from August 2024 onwards, sought the interpretation of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 and certain Articles in the Defendant’s Human Resources Policies and Procedure Manual. The Defendant contended that the matters raised substantial disputes of fact, including the factual background to the dispute, the nature of the Claimants’ employment, and the conduct of the Defendant’s Board proceedings, such that they could not be fairly determined on affidavit evidence alone and were therefore improperly commenced by originating summons. The Defendant further contended that granting conversion was necessary to give it a fair opportunity to defend the claims.
The Claimants did not file any process in opposition to the motion. At the hearing, the Claimants’ Senior Advocate sought to address the Court orally on points of law, opposing prayers 1, 2, and 3 (relating to conversion and exchange of pleadings), while not opposing prayers 4 and 5 (the alternative prayer for extension of time to file counter affidavits). The Defendant’s Senior Advocate objected to the Claimants being permitted to make oral submissions, having filed no process in opposition.
The Defendant also exhibited its proposed counter affidavit to the originating summons (Exhibit A1), which the Court examined and found to disclose a hostile and weighty defence raising substantial disputes of fact on all the live issues requiring interpretation and application.
HELD
The application was granted in respect of prayers 1, 2, and 3. The Court held that the Claimants’ Senior Advocate was not at liberty to make oral submissions on points of law, having filed neither a counter affidavit nor a written address in opposition to the motion. All oral submissions made by learned senior counsel for the Claimants were accordingly discountenanced. The Court further held, upon examination of the originating summons and the proposed counter affidavit, that the matters raised substantial disputes of fact affecting all the live issues requiring interpretation and application, and therefore could not properly be heard by the originating summons procedure. The Claimant was ordered to convert the originating summons to a General Form of Complaint, and the parties were ordered to file and exchange pleadings in accordance with the Rules. The same order was extended to all 64 related suits. Prayer 4 (the alternative prayer for extension of time to file counter affidavits) was refused in light of the grant of prayers 1, 2, and 3. No order as to costs was made.
ISSUES
As formulated by the Defendant’s counsel:
1. Whether the parties would be afforded fair trial/hearing if this Honourable Court directs the Claimants to convert their Originating Summons filed in the suits into a General Form of Complaint and further directs the parties to exchange pleadings.
As adopted by the Court:
1. Whether the Claimant/Respondent is at liberty to reply orally on points of law having not filed any process in opposition.
2. Whether the originating summons procedure is appropriate for the suits, or whether conversion to a General Form of Complaint is warranted.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RESPONDENT WHO FAILS TO FILE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT — NOT AT LIBERTY TO REPLY ORALLY ON POINTS OF LAW; ORDER 17 RULE 14 EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS ORAL SUBMISSIONS WHERE RESPONDENT FAILS TO FILE REPLY TO WRITTEN ADDRESS
“The Claimant/Respondent did not file a counter affidavit or a written address. Rule 12 presupposes that the Respondent has filed a written address and so may address the court on point of law only. Rule 14 expressly prohibits the Respondent from making oral submissions where he fails to file a reply to the written address. Learned senior counsel to the Claimant/Respondent is not at liberty to reply orally on point of law.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
RULES OF COURT — ALL RULES OF COURT MUST BE OBEYED AND FOLLOWED AS PART OF THE SUPPORT SYSTEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
“All Rules of Court should be obeyed and followed as they are part of the support system in the administration of justice, and the advancement of substantial justice, see U.T.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 103) 244, Akande v Jegede (2022) 14 NWLR (Pt 1849) 125 at 151 Para B-C, Alhaji Baba Usman v Tamadena & Co Ltd (2015) LPELR- 40376 (CA), Haruna v Modibbo supra, Kalu v F.R.N (2019) 14 NWLR (PT. 1692) 368.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
WHEN ORIGINATING SUMMONS IS APPROPRIATE — MATTERS RELATING ONLY TO INTERPRETATION TO BE BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS; MATTERS RELATING TO INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION TO BE BY COMPLAINT
“Order 3 Rule 2 – (2) Where any matter relating to Section 254C(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) is to be filed before the Court, such matter, if – (a) it relates only to the interpretation, shall be by way of originating summons (b) it relates to interpretation and application shall be by way of complaint.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J., reproducing Order 3 Rule 2(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017.
ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE — BEST SUITED IN ACTIONS WHERE THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTES OF FACTS OR LIKELIHOOD OF DISPUTE OF FACTS
“Order 3 Rule 2 (2) (a) and Rule 3 provides that matters to be commenced by originating summons should principally be in respect of interpretation. In other words, Originating summons is best suited in actions where there are no substantial disputes of facts, or likelihood of dispute of facts, see Pali v Abdy (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt 1665) 320 at 331 Paras A-C SC, Sani v Kogi State HA (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt 1661) 172 SC Asogwa v PDP (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt 1353) 207 SC, Famfa Oil Ltd v AG Federation (2003) 18NWLR (Pt 852) 453.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
ORIGINATING SUMMONS RAISING SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE OF FACTS — COURT NOT TO STRIKE OUT MATTER BUT MAY ORDER CONVERSION TO COMPLAINT AND DIRECT PARTIES TO FILE AND EXCHANGE PLEADINGS
“Order 3 Rule 17(2) — Where in the opinion of the Court, a suit commenced by Originating summons raises substantial issues and dispute of facts, the Court shall not strike out the matter, but may order its conversion to Complaint and direct the parties to file and exchange pleadings and conduct the trial of the case in accordance with the Rules of the Court governing trial.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J., reproducing Order 3 Rule 17(2) of the Rules.
SUITS INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE OF FACTS — SHALL NOT BE COMMENCED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS BUT BY COMPLAINT AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES
“where a suit raises a substantial dispute of facts or is likely to involve substantial dispute of facts, it shall not be commenced by way of originating summons, but by Complaint as provided for in rules 8 and 9 of this Order.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J., reproducing the Proviso to Order 3 Rule 17(1) of the Rules.
PROPOSED COUNTER AFFIDAVIT — FORMS PART OF AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT; COURT CANNOT SHUT ITS EYES TO IT
“I have also looked at the proposed counter affidavit of the Defendant to the originating summons (Exhibit AI). It forms part of the affidavit evidence in this application, and the Court cannot shut its eyes to it. The proposed counter affidavit of the Defendant to this originating summons reveals the defence. It is a hostile and weighty defence. The dispute on facts is substantial, material, and affects all the live issues requiring interpretation and application.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
FAIR HEARING AND CHOICE OF PROCEDURE — WHERE ACTION INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTES OF FACT, PARTIES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY PRESENT THEIR CASES UNDER ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE
“Upon a careful perusal of the processes filed by the Claimant, and the proposed defence, it is my considered opinion, it would not be in the best interest of both parties for this action to be heard by an origination summons procedure as they will not be able to adequately present their cases for a fair and just determination. By the provisions of Order 3 Rule 2 (2) (b), and the proviso to Rule 17 (1) of the Rules, this action is to be commenced by Complaint.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
SUITS INVOLVING INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AND STATUTES WITH SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL DISPUTES — PROPERLY COMMENCED BY COMPLAINT AND NOT ORIGINATING SUMMONS
“The originating summons seeks interpretation of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 and certain Articles in the Defendant’s Human Resources Policies and Procedure Manual (HRPPM). The facts upon which the Claimant is seeking declarations and orders are trial issues that relate to interpretation and application.” — Per O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae J.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
• National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017
• Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007
OTHER CITATIONS
