National Identity Management Commission -VS- Amalgamated UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE E N. N. AGBAKOBA

DATED 15^TH MARCH, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/65/2017

BETWEEN

NATIONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENT

COMMISSION CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

AND

AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC

CORPORATIONS, CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES

(AUPCTRE)

REPRESENTATION

A. WALI Esq for the Claimant

ADUOJO ABAH Esq. for the Defendant

RULING & JUDGEMENT

The Claimant/Applicant instituted this action via Originating Summons filed on 27^th February, 2017 supported by a 3 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Isah Usman, against the Defendant/Respondent praying this Honorable court for the determination of the following questions:

Whether from the content and intent of the terms reached between the Claimant and the respondents in an agreement dated 25^th July 201 6 the respondent can employ any other means to re-instate its affected members who were disengaged as a result of Redundancy declared in 2012 into the employment and service of the Claimant/Applicant, after parties reached the said terms upon a thorough collective bargaining and negotiation.

whether From the content and intent of the terms contained in the Negotiation agreement dated 25^th July 2016, reached between the Claimant and the respondents, parties are not bound by the terms contained therein in the said Negotiation agreement.

From the contemplation of S.8 of the National Identity Management Act of 2007, whether the statutory power of the Claimant to hire and fire cannot be expunged by a subsidiary legislation.

By the content of the letter dated 25^th July 2012 whether the actions of the Claimant/Applicant leading to the declaration of redundancy was done in compliance with S. 20 of the Labour Act.

Whether the agreement only relate to some members of the union.

The Applicant hereby seeks against the Respondent the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the terms and resolution reached by parties in the Negotiation agreement dated 25^th July 2016 is conclusive, exhaustive and covers the right of the Respondents in the negotiation leading to the exit of its members from the Claimants employment as a result of the Redundancy declaration in 2012.

An ORDER that the parties are s bound by the AGREEMENT REACH ON 25^th July 2012.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

ISSUE

Where parties have entered into an agreement of any form, whether same creates a contractual relationship and places an obligation on parties in law to be governed by such terms reached therein?

Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that the court of Appeal in N.B.N Ltd vs. Savol W.A. Ltd (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 435 at 458 defined agreement as follows:

“An agreement is a manifestation of mutual assent by two or more person to one another…”

Furthermore, he submitted that an agreement provides the basis for the creation of a contractual relationship between parties which simply translate to the fact that parties intend to be bound by such terms, resolution and decisions agreed to in the agreement. U.B.N Ltd vs. Fajebe Foods Ltd (1998) 6 N.W.L.R (Pt. 554) 380 AT 406, per Mukhtar, JCA. It is counsel’s submission that where parties enter into an agreement it creates contractual relations between parties. It is settled law that where a contract is entered into between parties same is binding on them. We refer your Lordship to the case of U.B.N Ltd vs. Penny-Mart Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 228 at 243, per Adio, JCA. He argued that it becomes an anomaly for the respondent to renege on their contractual obligation to abide by the decisions reached therein in exhibit….by engaging in and or taking steps outside those terms as contained in exhibit… U.B.N Ltd vs. Penny-Mart Ltd. (supra); U.B.N Ltd vs. Fajebe Foods Ltd. (supra).

The Defendant/Applicant filed a NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION on 9^th February, 2018 supported by a 13 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Comrade Emmanuel Akin Ayeroibe, praying this Honourable Court for an order dismissing the suit in its entirety for being incompetent and abuse of Court process.

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

The cause or matter in litigation in this suit had been litigated upon in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/ 319/2014 between same parties before this Honourable Court and judgment delivered on 15^th July, 2016 by Hon. Justice M. N Esowe.

The cause of action constituted in this suit is caught up by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam.

This Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to sit on appeal over the decision of a brother judge in whatever guise.

The cause of action constituted in this suit is subject of appeal before the Court of Appeal sitting at Abuja between the parties.

This suit as presently constituted is incompetent and an abuse of court process.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

ISSUES

Whether having regard to the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/319/2014, this suit (Suit No. NICN/ABJ/65/2017) is not caught up by estoppel per rem judicatam?

Whether having regards to the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/319/2014 and the pending appeal against the decision before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, this suit as presently constituted is not an abuse of court process?

ON ISSUE 1

Whether having regard to the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/ 319/2014, this suit (Suit No. NICN/ABJ/65/2017) is not caught up by estoppel per rem judicatam?

Learned Counsel to the Defendant Applicant submitted that a cursory look at the questions and reliefs nominated for determination in the present suit and Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/ 319/2014 determined by this Honourable Court per Honourable Justice M. N. Esowe on 15th July, 2016 shows clearly that the Claimant/Respondent’s suit as presently constituted is an attempt to litigate the cause already determined by this Honourable Court against the same parties. Thus, that this suit is therefore caught up with estoppel per rem judicatem. Abbas Balarabe Lawal V. Alhaji Idris Zago & Ors. (2014) LPELR-24058 (CA) P. 24, paras. A-E.

Defendant Applicant’s Counsel urged the Court to hold that all the conditions set out in the case of Abbas Balarabe Lawal V. Alhaji Idris Zago & Ors. Supra for a successful plea of estoppels per rem judicata are present in the instant case. Bedero (Nig) Ltd V. Shyantor (Nig.) Ltd & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40205 (CA) P. 13, Paras. B-D. Furthermore, that the Claimant/Respondent should not be allowed to put the Defendant/Respondent through another agony of litigating the cause that has been determined between same parties. Solomon Ojo Oluwole V. Modupe Margaret (2011) LPELR-4970 (CA) P.18, paras. C-E.

It is the Defendant Applicant’s counsel’s submission that where an action is caught by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam, the court in the circumstance lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. Captain Shulgin Oleksandr & Ors. V. Lonestar Drilling Company Limited (2015) LPELR- 24614 (SC) P. 50, Paras. A-B.

ON ISSUE 2

Whether having regards to the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/319/2014 and the pending appeal against the decision before the Court of Appeal, Abuja, this suit as presently constituted is not an abuse of court process?

Learned Counsel to the Defendant Applicant contended that the Claimant/Respondent has filed an appeal against the judgment of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/ 319/2014 as evidenced in Exhibit B. And instead of waiting for the determination of the issues it had nominated before the Court of Appeal, the Claimant/Respondent has approached this Honourable Court to determine the issues subject of its appeal. That the cause or subject of this suit has been determined by this Honourable Court against same parties, thus, making the action of the Claimant/Respondent is clearly an abuse of court process. Allanah & Ors. V. Kpolokwu & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40724 (SC) Pp.13-14, paras. C-C. He posited that a look at the Claimant/Applicant’s Affidavit in support of this application and the Exhibits attached to the Affidavit, it is clear that the features of abuse of court process set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Allanah & Ors. V. Kpolokwu & Ors. Supra are evident in the instant case.

Furthermore, that where an abuse of court process is established the suit is liable to be struck out or dismissed. Hon. Joel Danlami Ikenya V. Hon. Emmanuel Bwacha & Ors. (2011) LPELR- 19747 (CA) P. 32 paras. D-G.

The Claimant/Respondent in reaction filed a 5 paragraph COUNTER AFFIDAVIT on 6^th April, 2018 deposed to by Joy Yohana.

CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS

ISSUES

(1) Whether the issues and the reliefs sought in suit No. NICN/ABJ/31 9/2014 and this suit are one and the same.

(2) If issue No. 1 is answered in the negative, whether this suit constitutes an abuse of Court process liable for dismissal.

ON ISSUE 1

Whether the issues and the reliefs sought in suit No. NICN/ABJ/31 9/2014 and this suit are one and the same.

Claimant Respondent’s Counsel answering issue No. 1 in the negative submitted that the issues and reliefs sought in suit No. NICN/ABJ/319/2014 and the ones in this case are not one and the same. That in suit No. NICN/ABJ/319/2014, the claimant (the Defendant in this case) approached this Court for the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the portions of the Defendant’s Condition of Service 2011 which abrogate the continued employment of the Claimant’s members on the ground that possession of Bachelor degree or Higher National Diploma as the minimum qualification for any staff to remain in the employment of the Defendant as null and void to the extent that it derogates and offends Section 32 (3) of National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007.

(2) A declaration that the employment to lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Matins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu are regulated by the NIMC Act and the extant Public Service Rules and not Conditions of service of National Identity Management Commission 2011.

(3) An order nullifying those portions of Condition of Service of National Identity Management Commission, 2011’ particularly item 4.1 and any other item of the Conditions of Service which derogates from Section 32(3) of National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007 as it relates to the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Ha’9atu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu in the Defendant.

(4) A declaration that the Defendant cannot terminate the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu without strictly complying with the Labour Act, Trade Unions Act, Trade Disputes Act, NIMC Act and Public Service Rules.

(5) An order restraining the Defendant from terminating the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu on grounds that they do not possess University degrees or Higher National Diploma.

(6) A Declaration that lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu are due for accelerated promotion.

(7) An order compelling the Defendant to immediately initiate procedure to promote lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu to their due grade level.

(8) Cost of this action.

Counsel to the Claimant Respondent submitted that where issues and reliefs are at variance in cases filed, objection on abuse of Court processes or res judicator cannot be sustained. EZENWANI-V-ONWORD (1 987)3 SC. 47. Furthermore, that for a plea of estoppels per res judicator to succeed, the party relying on it must prove that the claims or issues are the same. OLU BELLO-V-BAMIDELE FAYOSE & ORS (1999) 7 S.C. Also, that the burden of establishing the plea is on the party who set up the defence. EZEOKONKWO & CR5 —V- OKEKE & ORS (2002) FWLR Pt. 109 Pg. 1673.

It is counsel’s submission that abuse of process is applied to a proceedings wanting in bonafide, frivolous, vexation or oppressive or multiplicity of actions and there is no evidence before the Court establishing that this suit is characterized with any of these elements, hence this objection is bound to fail. UDE UBAKA & SONS LTD -V-MARCH RICH & COMPANY A.G. (2003) FWLR Pt. 177 Pg. 922.

Claimant Respondent’s Counsel contended that objection of this nature must be raised in the defence of the Defendant/Applicant (counter affidavit to originating summon). That the Defendant/Applicant filed no counter affidavit to their originating summons not to talk of raising this objection therein, hence the objection is tantamount to a demurer in law and therefore liable to be dismissed. DEDEKE-V-WILLIAMS (1944) 10 WACA 164.

ON ISSUE 2

If issue No. 1 is answered in the negative, whether this suit constitutes an abuse of Court process liable for dismissal.

Counsel submitted that having answered issue No. 1 in the negative, that this suit is competent and is not liable to be struck, urging the Court to hold so.

REPLY ON POINT OF LAW filed on 18^th May, 2018.

Defendant/Applicant’s Counsel referring this Honourable Court to the Claimant/Respondent’s Written Address in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/319/2014, documents annexed to the Originating Summons and tendered during trial in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/319/2014, etc. submitted that the issues raised in the document having been determined and has appealed against the decision of this Honourable Court on the issue, the Claimant/Respondent cannot raise the issue against the Defendant/Applicant a second time. Prince Eyinade Ojo & Ors. V. Olayiwola Olawore & Ors. (2008) LPELR- 2379 (SC) P.16, Paras. D-F.

Defendant/Applicant filed a 39 paragraph COUNTER AFFDIAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO ORIGINATING SUMMONS DATED 29TH FEBRUARY, 2017 (on 26^th July, 2018) and deposed to by Aghahowa Aigbovo, Legal Practitioner.

WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO ORIGINATING SUMMONS DATED 23^RD FEBRRUARY, 2017.

ISSUE

Whether having regards to the reliefs endorsed on the Originating Summons and the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/319/2014 delivered on 15^th July, 2016 the Claimant is entitled to the prayers as endorsed on the Originating Summons?

Defendant Counsel submitted that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Originating Summons in the face of the decision of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/ ABJ/ 319/2014 between the parties in this suit on the same subject matter.

He pointed out that the Claimant has argued in its written address in support of the Originating Summons that where parties have reduced their relationship into agreement in writing, the parties are bound by the terms of that agreement and relied on the cases of N. B. N Ltd V. Savol W. A. Ltd, UBN Ltd V. Fajebe Foods Ltd and UBN Ltd V. Penny-Mart Ltd.

Counsel concurred with the submission of the Claimant in this respect to the extent that parties to an agreement are bound by the terms of their agreement and that the submission has no bearing with the issue in dispute between parties in this case. He noted that it must however be stressed that while the argument of the Claimant in the Written Address appears to dwell on sanctity of contracts, the Claimant avoided the issue in controversy between the parties thereby, setting a trap for a conflicting pronouncement of this Honorable Court on the issue in controversy in the 2 suits as the claimant has hoarded the full facts of this case from this Honorable Court in the instant case.

Defendant’s Counsel argued that they have also shown that the employment of the Respondent’s members is safeguarded by the provisions of Section 32 (3) of National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007 and that the Claimant Conditions of Service, 2011 derogates from the provisions. He urged the Court to Honourable Court to dismiss this suit with a punitive cost of N500, 000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).

On the 14^th December, 2019 and 29^th November 2018 parties adopted their respective written addresses in both the preliminary objection and the substantive suit and adumbrated their positions accordingly and this matter was adjourned for ruling

Court’s Decision

Having carefully summarized the position of both sides, the arguments of opposing Counsel and having carefully reviewed all the authorities cited, read through all the relevant processes and digested the contention of the parties and their written submission are herewith incorporated in this Ruling and specific mention would be made to them where the need arises. The Defendants response to the claimant Originating Summons I find is also the basis of their preliminary objection. That the claimant’s suit is caught up with the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam.

Therefore issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether there is any merit to the Defendant’s preliminary objection. As the crux of this suit turns on this application.
The Defendant contend that the claimant’s suit raises a question of res judicata and abuse of Court process.

By case law particularly in A.G. NASARAWA V. A.G. PLATEAU 50 NSCQR Estoppel Per Rem Judicatem – was defined or described thus “Otherwise known as estoppel by record arises when an issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final matter between the parties by court or a tribunal having jurisdiction, concurrent or exclusive in the matter and the same issue comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the parties or their privies. The parties affected are estopped from bringing a fresh action before any court on the same case and on the same issue already pronounced upon by the court in a previous action.” Per O.O. Adekeye JSC at P. 375. The Apex Court continued that a party pleading Estoppel per rem judicatem must prove the following to succeed:

(a) That the parties or their privies involved in both the previous and the current proceedings in which the plea is raised are the same;

(b) That the claim or issue in dispute in both proceedings are the same;

(d) That the decision relied upon to support the plea is valid, subsisting and final;

That the court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea was a court of competent jurisdiction. The burden is on the party who sets up the force of estoppel per rem judicatem to establish the above pre-conditions conclusively.” Per O.O. Adekeye JSC at P. 375.

The Purport of this plea is that “The plea of Res Judicata is used as a shield and not as a sword. As a successful plea constitutes a bar to any fresh action as between the parties or their privies. It is as a plea, a bar and as evidence, it is conclusive. Once a plea of Res Judicata has been established, the jurisdiction of the court would be ousted.” O.O. Adekeye JSC at P. 376.

See also N.D.I.C. V. OKEKE (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1244) 445 C.A.

“The test whether an issue has been finally decided for the purpose of establishing a valid plea of issue res judicata does not necessarily always need to be tied to the question whether or not there has been adjudication on the substantive suit on the merits. Since the question whether or not a court can reopen in a later case, or even at a later stage in the same case, a question it has decided on a previous occasion, arises in a variety of circumstance. The test most adequate for all occasions, is whether the court which gave the decision, can vary, reopen or set aside the decision. If it cannot, the decision is final.” Onyebuchi V. I.N.E.C. (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 769) 417 referred to.] (P. 457, paras. A-D).

And the case of C.P.C. V. NYAKO (2011) 17 NWLR (PT. 1277) 451 S.C. Where the Apex Court held that “When it is said that res judicata applies in law, it should be borne in mind that a party is estopped from re-litigating the matter in hand by the fact that the same matter had already been the subject of a final judicial pronouncement between the two parties.”

The Defendants contend that the issues raised on this suit had been litigated in NICN ABJ 319 2014 and the decision of this court is the subject of an appeal by the claimants to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal had been entered. The Defendants Applicant went on to contend that the current suit is an abuse of process and in satisfaction of the requirement in IKEME v. VC, UNIVERSITY OF NIG. & ORS. (2014) 40 NLLR (PT. 123) 466 NIC @ 470 annexed processes tendered in NICN ABJ 319 2014 with pleadings and Final Written addresses, together with the Court’s Judgment and the Notice of Appeal. In IKEME v. VC, UNIVERSITY OF NIG. & ORS. (Supra) it was held that where “The defendants or any party alleging an abuse of court process must place before the court concrete evidence such as the processes of the other pending case or any such material particulars to enable the court make a finding that would enable it reach a decision on whether or not the facts and circumstances of the case indeed amount to an abuse of court process. “

Looking at the reliefs sought in both NICN ABJ 319 2014;-

(1) A declaration that the portions of the Defendant’s Condition of Service 2011 which abrogate the continued employment of the Claimant’s members on the ground that possession of Bachelor degree or Higher National Diploma as the minimum qualification for any staff to remain in the employment of the Defendant as null and void to the extent that it derogates and offends Section 32 (3) of National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007.

(2) A declaration that the employment to lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Matins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu are regulated by the NIMC Act and the extant Public Service Rules and not Conditions of service of National Identity Management Commission 2011.

(3) An order nullifying those portions of Condition of Service of National Identity Management Commission, 2011’ particularly item 4.1 and any other item of the Conditions of Service which derogates from Section 32(3) of National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007 as it relates to the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Ha’9atu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu in the Defendant.

(4) A declaration that the Defendant cannot terminate the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu without strictly complying with the Labour Act, Trade Unions Act, Trade Disputes Act, NIMC Act and Public Service Rules.

(5) An order restraining the Defendant from terminating the employment of lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu on grounds that they do not possess University degrees or Higher National Diploma.

(6) A Declaration that lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu, Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu are due for accelerated promotion.

(7) An order compelling the Defendant to immediately initiate procedure to promote lsah Alkali Ahmed, Thomas Ogar, Martins Adeji Ikeluwa, Malisi Hayatu Aishat Omowunmi Hammed and Agube Bassey Chukwu to their due grade level.

(8) Cost of this action.

And the reliefs sought in the present suit; –

1.A DECLARATION that the terms and resolution reached by parties in the Negotiation agreement dated 25^th July 2016 is conclusive, exhaustive and covers the right of the Respondents in the negotiation leading to the exit of its members from the Claimants employment as a result of the Redundancy declaration in 2012.

An ORDER that the parties are bound by the AGREEMENT REACH ON 25^th July 2012.

As well as having given due consideration to the other proceeding frontloaded by the Defendants listed above I find that although at first glance the Claimants reliefs in this present suit refer to a process that not in existence or created as at the time the judgement of NICN ABJ 319 2014 was delivered; – the letter of 25^th July 2016, however a closer look at the Claimants reliefs reveal that the crux of this suit is not “the terms and resolution reached by parties in the Negotiation agreement dated 25^th July 2016” as this referral is merely a preamble seeking to introduce and evoke the earlier agreement of 25^th July 2012 (the claimants NIMC 2). Especially as the said agreement of 25^th July 2016 was never tendered nor front loaded in this court, in this suit I find and hold that the core of this matter is the document of 2012, this and the issues that gave rise to the negotiation agreement stem I find from the same set of circumstances which were canvassed, argued and determined in the said suit. This point becomes more poignant when one takes into account the subsisting appeal. I find that the issues in booth this and suit NICN ABJ 319 2014 stem from the same cause of action thereby creating a Cause of Action Estoppel. In MAKUN V. F.U.T., MINNA (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) 190 S.C. The Supreme Court held that “There are 2 categories of estoppel per rem judicatam:

a)Cause of Action Estoppel – this precludes a party to an action from asserting or denying, as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action – the non-existence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous litigation between the same parties. This is because it is against the rule of public policy for anyone to be vexed twice on the same ground and for one and the same cause of action and on the same issues. It is also an application of the rule of public policy that there should be an end to litigation. In appropriate cases, the parties affected are estopped from bringing a fresh action before any court on the same cause or on the same issues already decided or pronounce upon by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous action.” The 2^nd category was named as; –
b)Issue Estoppel – The rule here is that once one or more issues have been raised in a cause of action and distinctly determined or resolved between the same parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, then, as a general rule, neither party nor his agent or privy is allowed to re-litigate that or those decided issues all over again in another action between the same parties or their privies on the same issues.” ADONE V. IKEBUDU (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 733) 385 referred to.] (P. 221, paras. A-G)
This court in the case of (unreported) SUIT NO: NICN/IB/35/2013 MR. BABATUNDE OYEDIRAN Vs. ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC delivered 14^th January, 2014, had to make a determination in respect of Cause of Action Estoppel and held thus : – quoting “The eminent Legal author Fedelis Nwadialo Professor emeritus in his 2^nd Edition of Civil Procedure at page 29 stated and I quote “A cause of action may give rise to more than one remedy and where this is so all the remedies must be claimed in the same action and not be pursued in separate actions GAFARAFU Vs UAC Ltd [1961] All NLR 785.

“If one remedy had been claimed in one separate action the claim for the other is barred by the plea of res judicata………”

This principle was restated in the case of PAN ATLANTIC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT AGENICIES LTD Vs ABAYOMI BABTUNDE [2007] LPELR 4826 CA where Salami OFR JCA stated that A party is not permitted to pursue its remedy by splitting it into bits and pieces, citing SAVAGE Vs UWECHIE [1972] 1All NLR (Part 1) 251 as an analogy”.

On the whole I find that for the court to make a pronouncement on the outcome or the purport of this Courts earlier pronouncement, which is what the consideration of this case would amount to, would be res judicata of the earlier judgment which this court cannot do. Such action is, in fact, caught up by res judicata.

The position the law is as was stated in D.T.T. ENT. (NIG.) CO. LTD V. BUSARI (2011) 8 NWLR (PT.1249) 387 S.C. held, that “The doctrine of res judicata is grounded in public policy which stipulates that there must be an end to litigation as captured in the Latin maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litum”. And this court is thereby robbed of jurisdiction. Furthermore the Defendants in their Further and Better Affidavit of 23^rd August 2018 have substantiated their assertion that the Claimant has appealed, against NICN ABJ 319 2014, the Notice of Appeal being a Document of which this court can take judicial notice, that being the case for this court to look into this matter and the Claimants reliefs I find would be tantamount to an improper use of the judicial process and would inordinately constitute an abuse of process, bearing in mind that in FEDERAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY v. NWOYE (2015) 53 NLLR (PT. 180) 446 CA @ 455 It was held that “Where a party improperly uses the judicial process, intentionally in order to irritate and annoy his opponent, it can be said that such amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. AFRICAN REINSURANCE CORP. v. JDP CONSTRUCTION NIG. LTD. (2003) 2-3 S.C. 47; (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 838) 609 @ 635.

The fundamental criteria for determining that a case is an abuse of process is that there must exist a multiplicity of suits and such multiplicity of suits is intended to annoy or harass the opponent by so doing or temper with the judicial process. See IKEME v. VC, UNIVERSITY OF NIG. & ORS. (Supra), OGOJEOFOR V. OGOJEOFOR (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 966) 205 @ 220; KOTOYE v. SARAKI (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264) 156 @ 188-189.

All in all, I find and hold based on the above stated court decisions this court is robbed of jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit being unable to sit over a judgment of Court 2 the National Industrial Court Abuja of M.N. Esowe PJ Abuja (as she then was, being a court of concurrent jurisdiction).