FREDRICK OSARENOMA IDEMUDIA v. IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA & ORS (2015)

FREDRICK OSARENOMA IDEMUDIA v. IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA & ORS

(2015)LCN/7812(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 13th day of March, 2015

CA/B/441/2013

RATIO

COURT: JURISDICTION; WHAT JURISDICTION OF COURT DENOTES AND THE TYPES OF JURISDICTION

COURT: JURISDICTION; WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO PROCEED TO DETERMINE ANY OTHER ISSUE ON MERITS WHERE A PLEA OF LACK OF JURISDICTION AND/BREACH OF THE RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING HAS BEEN RAISED

It is indeed a well settled doctrine, that where a court comes to the most inevitable conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine a matter or an appeal, it has become at the crucial point in time, functus officio. Thus, it cannot proceed to determine any other issue on the merits. In the present circumstance, the only reasonable and most viable option left to the court is to strike out the motion on notice for being incompetent. See OKEKE VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 687) 731, to the following effect:
Where a plea of lack of jurisdiction and/or breach of the right of fair hearing has been raised, determined and successfully upheld on appeal, the appellate court lacks the vires or jurisdictional competence to proceed to determine the remaining issues on the merits thereto. Per Saulawa, JCA @ 761 paragraphs B – D. See also ARAKA VS. EJEAGWU (2000) FWLR (Pt.36) 830; (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.692) 684; EWO VS. ANI (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 826) 592; NWAKANMA VS. OJUKWU (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 395) 504; DIDE VS. SELEITMIBI (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1110) 221; ANIBABA VS. BADEJO (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1346) 42.
Most pertinently, in the latter case of ANIBABA VS. BADEJO (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the trite fundamental doctrine, to the effect that –
Once, at any stage of the proceedings, the court becomes aware that it lacks jurisdiction to deal with a matter before it, it is bound to terminate the proceedings and strike out. This is because, no matter how well a case is conducted, it is nullity if the court has no jurisdiction ab initio to deal with it. It therefore saves the time of the court where, as in the instant case, the initiating processes have been voided ab initio to terminate the action in limine. Per Muhammed, JSC (as the learned Lord then was) @ 18 paragraphs G – H. See also ADAH VS. NYSC (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 639. See also ALIYU VS. FRN (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 101 @ 116 paragraph D; 117 paragraphs F – G; EFCC VS. ODIGIE (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt.692) 1797 @ 1811 paragraph E. per. MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.

COURT; JURISDICTION; WHETHER A DEFECT OF A COURT IS EQUALLY EXTRINSIC TO THE ENTIRE ADJUDICATION PROCESS

Indeed, the law is well settled, that a defect in competence of a court is not merely intrinsic, but equally extrinsic to the entire adjudication process. See MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILUM (1962) 2 SC NLR 341; SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD VS. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6; OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; TIMITIMI VS. AMABEBE (WACA) 374; TUKUR VS. GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. BRAITH WAITE VS. SKYE BANK PLC (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1 @ 19 paragraphs D – F. per. MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

FREDRICK OSARENOMA IDEMUDIA Appellant(s)

AND

1. IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
2. THE REGISTRAR, IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
3. CHIEF OSAWARU IGBINEDION
4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
5. THE PRO-CHANCELLOR, IGBINEDION UNIVERSITY, OKADA
6. MOSANO LINK INTERNATIONAL LTD Respondent(s)

MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): The instant application vide a motion on notice, filed on 13/11/13, is a fall-out of the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered on 05/7/13 in Suit No.NIC/ABJ/70/2011. By the motion in question, the Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER of Honourable Court granting the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant enlargement/extension of time within which to seek the leave of this Honourable Court and to appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim on 15th July, 2012, the time allowed by the rules of court having expired.
2. AN ORDER granting the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant leave to appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered by Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim on 15th July, 2013.
3. AN ORDER granting the Claimant/Appellant/Applicant extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal attached as Exhibit ‘A’ herein, the time allowed by the rules of court, having expired.
4. AN ORDER deeming the notice of Appeal as properly filed and served, the appropriate filing fee having been paid.
5. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The Respondents vehemently objected to the application, thus filed a notice of preliminary objection on 16/6/14 to that effect. On 21/5/14, when the application came up for hearing, this court suo motu raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction, and accordingly directed the learned counsel to file their respective written addresses regarding the issue vis-‘a-vis the appeal.

On 19/01/15, when the application lastly came up for hearing, both the learned counsel adopted their respective written addresses, thus resulting in reserving the ruling.

The Respondents’ notice of preliminary objection is to the effect that the application in question is incompetent on the ground that –

The Claimant/Appellant/Applicant has no right of appeal against the judgment of Honourable Justice Auwal Ibrahim of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered on the 15th July, 2013 as the said matter did not border on fundamental human rights nor the criminal jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.

At pages 2 & 3 of the written brief thereof, the Respondents’ counsel has raised two issues for determination, viz:

a. Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal from the decision of the National Industrial Court, Enugu.
b. Whether the applicant has a right of appeal against the decision of the National Industrial Court, Enugu delivered on 15th July, 2013.

On the first issue, the learned counsel submitted that territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area in which matters arose for adjudication. See OKPALAUZUEGBU VS. EZEMENARI (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1268) 492 @ 528 paragraphs C – A.

Further submitted, that the events which led to the instant suit at the trial court happened in Okada and Benin City, within the jurisdiction of this court. However, due to the limited judicial divisions of the National Industrial Court, the matter was heard and determined at the Enugu Judicial Division of that court.Thus, the Appellant ought to pursue his rights of appeal, if any, at the Court of Appeal, Enugu and not to choose and pick the appellate court to determine his appeal.

It was contended that, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 237 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the issue of territorial jurisdiction always arises from the courts of first instance where the cause of action arose, or where the defendant resides. That, the practice has been that appeals usually lie to the Court of Appeal within the Division or proximate to the trial court which determined the matter at first instance. See IBORI VS. FRN (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1128) 283; RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT VS. SPECIALIST KONSULT (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.923) 115; COCA-COLA (NIG.) LTD VS. AKINSANYA (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt.1386) 255.

Further contended, that from the sequence of the foregoing authorities, the Court of Appeal in the same Division or proximate to the court of first instance is the court to hear the appeal from the trial court. In this case, it is the Court of Appeal Enugu Judicial Division rather than Benin that can hear and determine the instant appeal. The court is urged to so hold.

On the second issue, it’s submitted that by the notice of preliminary objection, the subject matter of the appeal falls outside the fundamental rights and criminal matters over which the Appellant can seek the leave of this court to appeal. See MADUMERE VS. OUWAEA (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.720) 1247 @ 1254; ACN VS. INEC (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt.716) 460 @ 495 paragraph F; COCA-COLA (NIG.) LTD VS. AKINSANYA (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt.1386) 255 @ 326 – 327 paragraphs C – F; 341 – 342 paragraphs E – H; and 375 – 377 paragraphs F – E, respectively.

Further submitted, that since the Appellant’s motion of 11/11/13 seeks to appeal against matters relating to his working status and conditions as servant of the Respondents, the same subject matter does not fall within Section 243(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Thus, the Appellant cannot also seek leave of this court to appeal against the Judgment of the trial court, Enugu as the National Assembly has not yet prescribed an Act such as stipulated under Section 243(2) of the Constitution. The court is urged to so hold.

Conclusively, the court is urged to resolve the two issues against the Applicant and strike out the motion in question.

On the part thereof, the Applicant’s learned counsel has raised a sole issue in the written address thereof, to the following effect:

Whether this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal or application. This issue is premised on territorial jurisdiction and the preliminary objection raised by the 1st – 5th Respondents in their notice dated and filed on 16th May, 2014 to the effect that Appellant/Applicant has no right of appeal against the Judgment of the court below as same does not border on fundamental human rights or the criminal jurisdiction of the court below.

It was submitted on the sole issue, that this court is one throughout Nigeria. Divisions are created throughout the Federation, as a matter of convenience only. The position is the same with the State High Court. That, in the instant case, the matter was transferred to Enugu because of proximity. At that time the Akure Division of NIC had not commenced sitting, otherwise the matter would have been transferred there. The process of this court is likened to that of the Edo State High Court: Section 7(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Act; Orders 2 & 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2012, of Edo State.

It was contended, that, a process filed in Benin Judicial Division of Edo State High Court can be served on any person within the State without leave. In this case, all the parties are resident in Edo State, the contract that gave rise to the appeal was entered, and to be performed, in Edo State. Thus, the court is urged to hold that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The reason being that, the National Industrial Court (NIC) is one throughout Nigeria, and that divisions are created as a matter of convenience.

Reference was made to Government Order No. 177 of 14/7/10, by the President of the NIC by virtue of the power conferred upon him under Section 21(1) of NIC Act, 2006. The said Act created Makurdi, Akure, Yola and Sokoto Judicial Divisions of the NIC. It was submitted, that by virtue of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, the Court of Appeal has an unfettered discretion to take full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as (if) it is a court of first instance, rehear the case as a whole or part, remit the case to the court below for rehearing in the interest of justice. That, the court also has a supervisory role over the NICS’ decisions to ensure the interest of justice and fair hearing. And that, by virtue of the provision of Section 232 of the Constitution, it is only the Supreme Court that has the right of first instance in the matter.

According to the learned counsel, to rob a citizen the right to appeal against an unfair decision, in this nascent democracy, certainly is a matter that borders on the issue of fundamental right of such a citizen. That, this is the essence of fairness, that ought to be observed by the trial and appellate courts. See OBARO VS. HASSAN (2013) vol. 220 LRCN (part 1) 144 @ 178 paragraphs EEJJ to 179 AF.

The court is urged to hold that it would be discriminative, unfair and against fair hearing to allow the 1st Respondent to go away without paying the Appellant his arrears of salary, if the Appellant is shutout of this appeal at this state. See Order 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules; Sections 243(4) and 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

On the whole, the court is urged to hold that it has the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the Appellant having come seeking leave of the court.

I have amply considered the nature and circumstances surrounding the appeal, the submissions of the learned counsel contained in their respective written addresses vis-‘a-vis the affidavit in support of the motion, and Exhibits A, B and C attached thereto. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that the issues raised therein are not mutually exclusive. I have deemed it expedient to adopt the Appellant’s two issues in question for determination of the appeal.

ISSUE NO.1:

The issue No.1 raises the fundamental question of whether or not this court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal from the decision of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division.

Indeed, parties are ad idem, that the subject matter of the suit arose from Okada and Benin City, in Edo State, within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. However, due to the absence of a National Industrial Court in Edo state, the matter was transferred by the president of the NIC from Abuja to Enugu Division of the Court. The respective parties readily and willingly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Enugu Judicial Division of the NIC, which heard the case and ultimately delivered judgment to the conclusive effect, thus:

In the circumstance therefore, the Claimant’s reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 fail as the Claimant has not proved his case on the balance of probabilities and I so hold. The special reliefs have not been proved and also on the declaratory reliefs, the court cannot impose Claimant on the 1st Defendant who has declared himself an unwilling employer at the Claimant. However, with the finding earlier that the Claimant was in the employ of the 1st Defendant, the consequential order is that the Defendant had unilaterally and unlawfully terminated the employment of the Claimant and the Claimant must be entitled to a remedy, going by the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. The remedy for the Claimant in this circumstance is the payment in lieu which the 1st Defendant should have paid to the Claimant … Accordingly, therefore, the Claimant is entitled to the payment of the three months’ salary in lieu of notice, in accordance with the terms of his employment as shown in Exhibits A and C. The 1st Defendant therefore is hereby ordered to pay the Claimant three months’ salary in lieu of notice, which shall be the salary the employee was entitled to as the time he filed this suit. However, the special claims of the claim having failed, they are hereby dismissed accordingly. I make no order as to costs.

Judgment is entered accordingly.
Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim
Presiding Judge

See pages 33 – 34 of Exhibit A (Judgment) annexed to the Affidavit in support of the motion on notice of the Applicant.

Jurisprudentially, the term territorial jurisdiction denotes a court’s power or competence to entertain and determine a matter or cause. Equally termed-competent jurisdiction. Thus, the term ‘territorial jurisdiction’ refers to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and determine a case arising or involving persons residing within a defined territory. It equally denotes the geographical area in which cases or matters arose for adjudication by the courts. See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 9th Edition, 2009 @ 927 & 931; OKPALA UZUEGBU VS. EZEMENARI (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1268) 492 @ 528 C – A.
Invariably, Jurisdiction may be substantive or territorial. Substantive Jurisdiction refers to causes or matters upon which the court can adjudicate. Substantive jurisdiction is usually expressly stipulated by the constitution or other enabling statutes. Contrariwise, territorial jurisdiction, denotes the geographical area in which matters or causes, brought before the court for adjudication, arose. Courts are usually not seised of matters that occur outside their territorial or geographical jurisdiction. See IBORI VS. FRN (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1128) 247 @ 308 – 309 paragraphs G – A.
It’s trite, that a challenge to the jurisdictional competence of a court could be predicated on ubiquitous, varied, diversified or variegated fundamental points. In the instant case, the challenge to the jurisdictional competence of the court is that the subject matter of the appeal falls outside the limits of the territorial jurisdictional competence thereof. See EJIOFODOMI VS. OKONKWO (1982) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 285; IBORI VS. FRN (supra) @ 323 paragraphs D – E.
Undoubtedly, by virtue of the provisions of Section 237(1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra), there is only one Court of Appeal in the entire Federation. However, the law is well settled, that appeals usually lie to the Court of Appeal within the same Division of, or proximate to, the trial court which entertained and determined the matter, whether in the original or appellate jurisdiction thereof.
See IBORI VS. FRN (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1128) 283; RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT VS. SPECIALIST CONSULT (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.923) 115. COCA – COLA (NIG.) LTD VS. AKINSANYA (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt.1386) 255.

In the instant case, as alluded to above, the subject matter of the appeal was heard and determined by the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division. Thus, the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal is the most appropriate Division, rather than Benin Judicial Division, to entertain the application and the appeal. The appeal shall therefore lie, most appropriately, to the said Enugu Division of this Court. I uphold the submission of the Respondents, to the effect that it’s the Court of Appeal, Enugu Judicial Division that has jurisdiction, territorially, to entertain, hear and determine the appeal against the Judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division in question. Thus, the answer to the first issue is in the negative, and same is hereby resolved against the Appellant.

THE ISSUE NO.2:

The second issue raises the question of whether or not the Applicant has the right of appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu as same does not border on fundamental human rights or the criminal jurisdiction of the trial court.

Arguably, having answered the first issue in the negative and resolved same against the Appellant, there is no gainsaying the fact, that the court lacks the fundamental jurisdictional competence to determine and resolve the second issue, one way or the other. And my reason for so holding is not farfetched! It is indeed a well settled doctrine, that where a court comes to the most inevitable conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine a matter or an appeal, it has become at the crucial point in time, functus officio. Thus, it cannot proceed to determine any other issue on the merits. In the present circumstance, the only reasonable and most viable option left to the court is to strike out the motion on notice for being incompetent. See OKEKE VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 687) 731, to the following effect:
Where a plea of lack of jurisdiction and/or breach of the right of fair hearing has been raised, determined and successfully upheld on appeal, the appellate court lacks the vires or jurisdictional competence to proceed to determine the remaining issues on the merits thereto. Per Saulawa, JCA @ 761 paragraphs B – D. See also ARAKA VS. EJEAGWU (2000) FWLR (Pt.36) 830; (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.692) 684; EWO VS. ANI (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 826) 592; NWAKANMA VS. OJUKWU (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 395) 504; DIDE VS. SELEITMIBI (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1110) 221; ANIBABA VS. BADEJO (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1346) 42.
Most pertinently, in the latter case of ANIBABA VS. BADEJO (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the trite fundamental doctrine, to the effect that –
Once, at any stage of the proceedings, the court becomes aware that it lacks jurisdiction to deal with a matter before it, it is bound to terminate the proceedings and strike out. This is because, no matter how well a case is conducted, it is nullity if the court has no jurisdiction ab initio to deal with it. It therefore saves the time of the court where, as in the instant case, the initiating processes have been voided ab initio to terminate the action in limine. Per Muhammed, JSC (as the learned Lord then was) @ 18 paragraphs G – H. See also ADAH VS. NYSC (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 639. See also ALIYU VS. FRN (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 101 @ 116 paragraph D; 117 paragraphs F – G; EFCC VS. ODIGIE (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt.692) 1797 @ 1811 paragraph E.

In the instant case, the Appellant apparently has not taken kindly to the Respondents’ notice of preliminary objection, thereby challenging the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application. Yet, it’s instructive, that the issue of jurisdiction of court is most fundamental in adjudication process. Thus, an objection challenging the jurisdictional competence of the court, as in the instant case, can be raised at any crucial point in time or stage of the matter, by either of the parties or even suo motu, by the court itself. The reason being that, where a court lacks the vires or jurisdictional competence to entertain and determine a case, any proceedings that may have been embarked upon therein become a nullity, no matter how eloquently conducted and decided. Indeed, the law is well settled, that a defect in competence of a court is not merely intrinsic, but equally extrinsic to the entire adjudication process. See MADUKOLU VS. NKEMDILUM (1962) 2 SC NLR 341; SKENCONSULT (NIG) LTD VS. UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6; OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; TIMITIMI VS. AMABEBE (WACA) 374; TUKUR VS. GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. BRAITH WAITE VS. SKYE BANK PLC (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 1 @ 19 paragraphs D – F.

I have deemed it expedient to allude to the fact that the Applicant’s attitudinal disposition in seeking leave of this court to appeal against the Judgment of the Enugu Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has amounted to what is notoriously known in jurisprudential parlance as ‘forum shopping’. Instructively, forum shopping denotes the rather reprehensible practice of choosing the most favourable territorial jurisdiction or court in which a matter or cause may be entertained and adjudicated upon. A typical example of judicial ‘forum shopping’ is where a plaintiff institutes a –
“Suit in a jurisdiction with a reputation for high jury awards or filing several similar suits and keeping the one with the preferred Judge.” See BLACK’S Law Dictionary (supra) @ 726.
In essence, the Court of Appeal, Benin Judicial Division is aptly a forum non conviens (forum inconveniens), albeit not necessarily a forum non competens. It is trite, that the Latin term ‘forum non conveniens’ literally denotes ‘an unsuitable court’. In civil procedure, the trite doctrine that an appropriate judicial forum (court), though competent under the law, may divest itself of jurisdictional competence if, for the convenience of the litigants, witnesses, et al, it appears that the matter might also have been properly instituted in the first place. According to Jack H, Friedenthal, et al –
Forum non-conveniens allows a court to exercise its discretion to avoid the oppression or vexation that might result from automatically honouring plaintiff’s forum choice. However, dismissal on the basis of forum non-conveniens also requires that there be an alternative in which the suit can be prosecuted. It must appear that jurisdiction over all parties can be secured and that complete relief can be obtained in the supposedly more convenient Court … But in most instances a balancing of the convenience to all the parties will be considered and no one factor will preclude a forum non conveniens dismissal, as long as another is available. See CIVIL PROCEDURE, @ 87 – 88, 2ND Edition, 1993 copiously allured to BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (supra) @ 726.

In the instant case, as alluded to above, the respective parties willingly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Enugu Judicial Division resulting in delivering the vexed Judgment in question. Thus, it’s highly reprehensible for the Applicant to have filed the instant application seeking leave of this court to appeal against the Judgment of the Enugu NIC in question. And I so, reiteratingly, hold!

Hence, in the circumstances, having come to the inevitable conclusion that this court is devoid of territorial jurisdictional competence to entertain and determine the appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division, the instant application is deemed grossly incompetent, and same is hereby struck out by me.

There shall be no order as to costs.

PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of perusing before now the Ruling just delivered by my learned brother I. M. M. Salauwa (JCA). My Lord has painstakingly and carefully considered the salient issues in this appeal which are

(a) the jurisdictional competence to hear and determine this appeal arising from the decision of the National Industrial Court, Enugu, and

(b) the right of appeal against the decision of the National Industrial Court, Enugu, delivered on the 15th day of July, 2013.

I am in total agreement with the reasoning of my learned brother that the parties had willingly subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Enugu Division which resulted in the judgment now in question. The applicant I dare say cannot now make a volte facie to seek the leave of this court to appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Enugu Division.

I agree that in the circumstance, this court lacks the competence to entertain the appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Enugu Division and thus this application is deemed unmeritorious and is hereby dismissed.

I abide by my Lord’s order as to costs.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read before now, the Ruling just delivered by my Lord, Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa, JCA. Having also read the application for extension of time to appeal, the preliminary objection and the written addresses filed and exchanged by the parties, I agree with the inescapable conclusion that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the National Industrial Court, Enugu Judicial Division, when there is a Division of this Court in Enugu.

Accordingly, in the light of the detailed reasons and conclusions contained in the Ruling of my learned brother SAULAWA, J.C.A., I concur that the application is lacking in competence. It is equally struck out by me. I abide by the consequential order as to costs.

Appearances

H.O. OkunzuwaFor Appellant

AND

Mrs. O.N. Ilueminosen for 1st – 5th Respondents.
A.I. Amasowomwan for 6th Respondent.For Respondent