FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. MR. JOHN EDET ANWANA (2016)

FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. MR. JOHN EDET ANWANA

(2016)LCN/8187(CA)

RATIO

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION; WHETHER WORDS OF STATUTE SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR PLAIN, ORDINARY GRAMMATICAL MEANINGS

It is trite now that when words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain, ordinary grammatical meanings. See ISAAC OBIUWEUBI VS CBN (supra) at 76. per. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; WHAT THE COURT WOULD EXAMINE TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

It is trite that it is the Court will only examine the originating processes in a given case to determine jurisdiction. See NWAZURURKE VS NWACHUKWU (2012) 52 NSCQR 478, OLOFU VS ITODO (2010) 44 NSCQR 558 and OGUNSOLA VS APP 1 EPR 539. per. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 18th day of February, 2016

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is in respect of an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Ikot Abasi Judicial decision delivered by A.E. Archibong J. on the 23rd January, 2013.

The respondent was a staff of the appellant at its Ikot Abasi, Akwa Ibom State branch until his dismissal by the appellant via a letter dated 5th January, 2000. Prior to this, the appellant’s Ikot Abasi branch had been robbed by armed robbers on 29th November, 1999. Thereafter the respondent and a co-staff were arrested and prosecuted by the police, an exercise which resulted in the discharge and acquittal of the respondent by the Chief Magistrate Court in a judgment delivered on 10th September, 2004.

The respondent subsequently took out a writ of summons against the appellant dated 15th June, 2005. By the amended statement of claim filed on 9th August 2007 on pages 38-41 of the record of appeal, the reliefs sought by the respondent are as follows:

Whereof the plaintiff claims from the Defendant the sum of N100m being special and general damages for wrongful termination of employment, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and libel as follows:

PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES

(a) Salary per month N37,351.61

(b) Salary per annum N447,019.00

(d) Total allowance per annum N4, 320,000.00

(e) Total allowance for 8 years N34,560,000.00

(a) Total amount as special damages N39,136,154.60

b) General Damages N26,963,946.00

(d) Malicious prosecution N10,000,000.00

(e) Libel N15,000,000.00

GRAND TOTAL N100.000.000.00

2. A declaration that the dismissal of the plaintiff from his employment on 5/1/2000 was wrongful null and void.

3. Salary and allowances for 8 years up till judgment.

4. Interest of 10% per annum until final liquidation of judgment debt.

5. Alternatively, an order for re-instatement of the plaintiff in Defendants bank.

Trial was on course until the trial Judge was transferred necessitating the suit being taken up by a new Judge before whom the appellant brought an application for the Court to strike out the suit on the ground that the trial Court had been divested of jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the subject-matter was now in the National Industrial Court. The application was taken and in a considered ruling delivered on the 23rd January, 2013 as aforesaid, the learned trial Court re-affirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed the application with costs.

Dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Court and was granted leave whereupon it filed a Notice of Appeal on the 22nd May, 2013 containing a lone ground.

Only the appellant filed a brief of argument upon which the appellant approached the Court for the appeal to be heard and determined on its brief alone via a formal application dated 26th September, 2014. The said application was granted on the 2nd November, 2015 and the appeal was fixed for hearing. On the 9th February, 2016 when the appeal came up for hearing, appellant was unrepresented despite counsel being aware of that date upon which the appellant’s brief filed on the 20th August, 2013 was deemed adopted and the appeal argued pursuant to Order 18 (9) (4) of the Rules of this Court.

In the said appellant’s brief settled Mr. V. Ukpe, a lone issue for determination was formulated thus:

Whether the lower Court (then High Court Ikot Abasi but now High Court Okobo all in Akwa Ibom State) has the jurisdiction to continue to hear the substantive suit having regards to Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended (third alteration) Act, 2010, Sections 7 (1), 11 (1) and (2) of the National Industrial Act, 2006 and OBIUWEUBI V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) VOL. 30 WRN PAGE 1 AT 9-10, RATION 5.

Arguing the lone issue, learned counsel submitted that considering the principal reliefs of the respondent, the learned trial Court had been divested of jurisdiction by the effect of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 7 (1), 11 (1) and (2) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.

He argued that the trial Court mixed up the position of the law on the applicable law to a cause of action at the time it arose as different from the applicable law when jurisdiction is invoked. He referred to OBIUEWUBI VS CBN (supra).

He urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of the trial Court.

Jurisdiction goes to the competence of the Judex to exercise his judicial powers in respect of the matter before him. Without jurisdiction, the exercise of judicial powers is of no moment even when the best of skill had been deployed and the greatest of industry expended. It is a threshold issue and as such once raised, it should be resolved at the earliest possibility. See NIDIC VS CBN (2002) 9 NSCQR 430 and 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD vs ABIOLA & SONS BOTTLING CO. LTD (2006) 6 NSCQR 905 at 938- 939.

In assuming jurisdiction in the present instance, the learned trial Judge declared that the law applicable to a case is the existing law at the time the cause of action arose.

With due respect to his lordship, I would want to say that the correct position is not as wide as stated. The substantive law upon which a case is decided is different from the procedural law applicable to how it will be decided.

While the substantive law existing at the time the cause of action arose would apply in its determination. The procedural law existing at the time jurisdiction is invoked would be applicable. The substantive law applicable to the cause of action should not be confused with the law governing how the cause of action is determined. To that extent jurisdiction at every point in time is determined by the law in force at the time jurisdiction is invoked but this does not alter the fact that in exercising the said jurisdiction, the Courts would apply the substantive law operating at the time the cause of action arose. See ISAAC OBIUWEUBI VS CBN (2011) 45 NSQR 51.

Section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 7 (1), 11 (1) and (2) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 said to have divested the trial Court of jurisdiction provide respectively as follows:

254C-(1) Notwithstanding the provision of Section 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be Conferred upon it by on Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court Shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters-

(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including Health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith

(b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Union Act, Labour Act, Employees’ compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any enactment replacing the Acts of Laws

(c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters connected therewith or related thereto

(d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the Interpretation and application of the provision of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment Labour, industrial relations trade unionism,

employers association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine

(e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wages for the federation or any part thereto and matters connected therewith or arising there from;

(f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practice in labour, employment and industrial relation matters;

(g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment of workplace;

(h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards;

(i) connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or relating thereto;

(j) Relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any.

(i) collective agreement;

(ii) Award or order made by an Arbitral Tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute

(iii) Award or judgment of the Court

(iv) Term of settlement of any trade dispute

(v) Trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement

(vi) Trade union Constitution, the Constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour industrial relation or work place;

(vii) Dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the federation or any part thereof (k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowance, benefit 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;

(l) Relating to-

(i) Appeal from the decision of the Registrar of Trade union, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith

(ii) Appeal from the decision or recommendation of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relation; and

(iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not, as may be conferred upon it by on Act of the National Assembly ;

(m) Relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreement.

7 -(1) The Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters-.

(a) Relating to-

(i) Labour, including trade unions and industrial relations; and

(ii) Environment and conditions of work,health, safety and welfare of labour, and matters incidental thereof; and

(b) relating to the grant of any order to restrain any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of strike, lock-out or any industrial action;

(i) any collective agreement

(ii) any award made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a labour dispute or on organizational dispute;

(iii) the terms of settlement of any labour dispute, organizational dispute as may be recorded in any memorandum of settlement,

(iv) any trade union constitution, and

(v) any award or judgment of the Court. Jurisdiction etc

11-(1) In so for as jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court in respect of the causes or matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this part of this Act, the Federal High Court, the High Court of a State, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or any other Court shall, to extent that exclusive jurisdiction is so conferred upon the Court, cease to have jurisdiction in relation to such causes and matters.

Cessation of jurisdiction etc

(2) Nothing in Subsection (1) of this Section shall affect the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal High Court, the High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to continue to hear and determine causes and matters which are part-heard before the commencement of this Act and proceedings in any such causes or matters, not determined or concluded of the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act, shall abate.

It is trite now that when words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain, ordinary grammatical meanings. See ISAAC OBIUWEUBI VS CBN (supra) at 76.

The above provisions are clear in their expressions and shall accordingly be accorded their plain ordinary meanings.

From the reliefs contained in the writ of summons and amended statement of claim of the respondent his case is rooted in his employment with the appellant.

Although the High Court of Akwa Ibom State had jurisdiction to entertain the said suit on 15th June, 2005 when it was commenced, as at 23rd January, 2013 it had been divested of the said jurisdiction which at that date had shifted to the National Industrial Court.

Any attempt by the said High Court to proceed and determine the said case would amount to an exercise in futility incapable of conferring any legal benefit. See CHIEF U.D. NGERE & ANOR VS CHIEF J. W. OKURUKET ‘1V’ & ORS (2014) 58 NSCQR 113.

In the circumstances therefore I resolve the lone issue in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Suit No. HAB/18/2005 is hereby struck out.

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance a copy of the Judgment delivered by my learned Brother, J.O.K. Oyewole, JCA, in draft form, allowing this appeal.

I agree with his resolution of the sole issue raised on jurisdiction of the lower Court, and have nothing further to add.

I abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment.

PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I have had the singular privilege of reading in draft, the Judgment just delivered by my Learned brother J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA.

I adopt the reasoning and conclusion reached therein as mine and accordingly allow the appeal.

I also abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment.

Appearances

Mr. V. UkpeFor Appellant

AND

For Respondent