MOHAMMED & ANOR v. EKASA & ORS (2022)

MOHAMMED & ANOR v. EKASA & ORS

(2022)LCN/17113(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 25, 2022

CA/A/1131/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein Justice of the Court of Appeal

Uchechukwu Onyemenam Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. COMRADE KIRI MOHAMMED (THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION) 2. THE NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION APPELANT(S)

And

1. COMRADE BENSON EKASA 2. COMRADE MENELE ZIADAM NZIDE 3. THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNION RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the threshold and life wire of any matter. See GOLIT V. I.G.P. (2020) 7 NWLR (PT. 1722) 40 (P. 55, PARA. G) (SC).
In determining the jurisdiction of a Court, what the Court considers is the Originating Process and the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. In the instant case where the Originating Process is an Originating Summons, which was letter converted to a complaint, the Court will look at the reliefs as endorsed therein to determine its jurisdiction. See CRESTAR INT. NAT. RES. LTD. V. S.P.D.C.N. LTD (2021) 16 NWLR (PT. 1800) 453 (SC); C.B.N. V. RAHAMANIYYA G.R. LTD. (2020) 8 NWLR (PT. 1726) 314 (SC).

Jurisdiction is a question of law and it can be procedural or substantive. It is fundamental and so can be raised at any time and once it is raised, it must be addressed to clear the way for further steps. See BAKARI V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (PT.1768) 1 (SC); BELGORE V. F.R.N (2021) 3 NWLR (PT. 1764) 503 (SC).

Jurisdiction connotes the authority, competence and legal power which a Court of law or Tribunal wields to hear a matter before it and reach a decision on such a matter. A Court of law is vested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and (3) the case came before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. These three ingredients must co-exist in order to vest jurisdiction in a Court. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or common law principle to impose it because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. See MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (2006) 2 LC (2081961) NSCC (VOL. 2) 374 AT 379; TUKUR V. TARABA STATE (1997) 6 SCNJ 81. PER ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.

DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

Contempt of Court is an affront or challenge to the authority and dignity of the Court. It can be either contempt ex facie curiae or contempt in facie curiae and the Court has different procedure for dealing with each type of contempt. See BRITTANIA-U (NIG.) LTD. V. SEPLAT PET. DEV. CO. LTD. (2016) 4 NWLR (PT. 1503) 541 (SC).
Contempt of Court is any act or conduct which interferes with the course of justice, and tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. It is a contempt to disobey an order either to do a specified act within a specified time or to abstain from doing a specified act. It is obvious that the administration of justice can only be effective if the Court has the means to enforce its judgments or orders which the Appellants herein have made impossible for the Court by conducting the national delegate conference and electing new executives, the same acts sought to be restrained. The acts of the Appellants is such that renders the effort of the Court hopeless.
Contempt in facie curiae is contempt in the face of the Court and it is punishable summarily for the sake of maintaining the dignity and the authority of the Court. While contempt ex facie curiae being a contempt committed outside the Court is criminal in nature and may not be punished summarily. In the instant case, the Respondents’ complaint was that the Appellants violated the order of the trial Court restraining the parties from doing anything that will affect the ruling of the Court when the Appellants went and held the National Delegates Conference and conducted the election. It is contempt ex facie curiae. Hence, it cannot be tried summarily. PER ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON CHALLANGING THE CONTENT TO AN AFFIDAVIT

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This interlocutory appeal is against the ruling of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria delivered on 1st November, 2018 by Sanusi Kado, J., in Suit Number: NICN/ABJ/31/2016 wherein the learned trial Judge nullified the 2nd Appellant’s National Delegates Conference and ordered committal summons to be issued against the 1st Appellant.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents herein at the trial Court instituted an action by an Originating Summons filed on 27th January, 2016. By an order of Court that pleadings be filed, the 1st and 2nd Respondents converted the originating summons into a Complaint wherein they sought inter alia; an order nullifying the expulsion of the 1st Respondent from the union; an order that the office of the president of the 2nd Appellant be declared vacant and that the 2nd Respondent be appointed to that office pending when elections would be conducted, etc.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents also filed a motion for interlocutory injunction to restrain the Appellants from holding a National Delegates Conference and from conducting an election into executive positions of the 2nd Appellant at the said conference as the same will allegedly render the judgment of the Court when delivered nugatory. The Court ordered that no party should do anything to affect or jeopardize the hearing of the application. The Appellants on 25th and 26th January, 2018 in disobedience to this Court order purportedly conducted a Delegates conference wherein it conducted elections and appointed new executives for the 2nd Appellant. Subsequently, the Court on 6th February 2018 delivered its ruling which restrained the Appellants from holding the National Delegates Conference and from conducting elections pending the determination of the substantive suit. Meaning, the Appellant having already held the National Delegates Conference and elected new executives rendered the ruling of the trial Court on the interlocutory application nugatory. Aggrieved by this act of the Appellants, the 1st and 2nd Respondents brought an application seeking a committal order against the Appellants. Consequently, the learned trial judge nullified the Delegates Conference of the 2nd Defendant held while there was a subsisting valid Court Order and ordered for summons to be issued against the 1st Appellant to appear before the Court to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by the Court for disobedience of a Court order.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the Appellants approached this Court via a Notice of Appeal dated 10th December, 2018 and filed on 11th December, 2018.

The learned Counsel on both sides filed relevant processes as required by the rules of the Court, the appeal was then heard on 2nd December, 2021.

Olumide Philips, Esq., appearing with I. D. Bob Manuel Esq., represented the Appellants.
Chinyere Moneme, Esq., appearing with Mukeng Nathan, Esq. was for the 1st Respondent.
Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, SAN appeared with Michael Eleyinmi, Esq., Clement Chukwuemeka Esq., Stephen Apeh Esq., Uchenna Chukwuemeka, Esq. and Raphael Ashwe Esq., for the 2nd Respondent.
The 3rd Respondent was not represented.

The Appellant applied to withdraw the appeal against the 3rd Respondent, it was granted. The name of the 3rd Respondent was accordingly struck out.
The appeal was then argued.

Olumide Philips, Esq., for the Appellant adopted and relied on the Appellant’s brief of argument field on 1st April, 2019 and reply brief filed on 1st December, 2021 but deemed properly filed and served on 2nd December, 2021 in praying the Court to allow the appeal. The Appellants donated 2 issues for determination to wit:
1. Considering the substantive reliefs sought before the lower Court, whether the lower Court has the jurisdiction to grant any relief restraining the Appellants from holding a delegates’ conference or nullifying such a conference.
2. Whether the lower Court was clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to order summons to be issued to the 1st Appellant to show cause why he should not be committed to prison and determine the committal proceedings where the Respondent did not issue and serve Forms 48 and 49 against the Appellants as required by law.

Chinyere Moneme, Esq., for the 1st Respondent adopted and relied on the 1st Respondent’s brief filed on 29th May, 2020 but deemed properly filed and served on 2nd December, 2021 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal. The 1st Respondent formulated 2 issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether the Court had the inherent/disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the appellants by restoring the status quo antebellum in the suit after nullifying the delegates conference held by the appellants.
2. Whether the lower Court was clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to order summons to be issued to the 1st Appellant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt and whether the respondents issued and served Form 48 and Form 49 against the appellants as required by law.

Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, SAN for the 2nd Respondent adopted and relied on the 2nd Respondent’s Brief filed on 23rd June, 2020 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal. The 2nd Respondent submitted a sole issue for determination to with:
WHETHER A COURT OF LAW HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO SANCTION OR PUNISH ERRING PARTIES IN A SUIT FOR FLAGRANT DISRESPECT AND DISOBEDIENCE OF ITS ORDER, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SANCTITY AND RESPECT OF THE JUDICIARY.

From the grounds of appeal, I view that the sole issue raised by the 2nd Respondent will satisfactorily determine this Appeal. I shall proceed to determine the appeal based on the said sole issue.

SUBMISSIONS ON SOLE ISSUE
WHETHER A COURT OF LAW HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO SANCTION OR PUNISH ERRING PARTIES IN A SUIT FOR FLAGRANT DISRESPECT AND DISOBEDIENCE OF ITS ORDER, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SANCTITY AND RESPECT OF THE JUDICIARY.

Olumide Philips, Esq., on this issue submitted that what determines the jurisdiction of the Court is the reliefs before it and that for a Court to have jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reliefs, such interlocutory reliefs must flow from the substantive reliefs sought in the statement of Claim. He relied on TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOU STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517.

The learned counsel contended that from the Respondent’s Motion on Notice that gave rise to this appeal, there is no relief that asked for nullification of the Appellants’ Delegate Conference and submitted that the Court cannot grant an order that is not sought for and that reliefs granted by a Court must not be inconsistence with a party’s case and claim. He cited EMAVWORHE ETAJATA & ORS V. PETER IGBINI OLOGBO & ANOR (2007) 16, NWLR (PT. 1061) 554, (P.34, PARAS C-F); YUSUF V. OYETUNDE (1998) 10 SCNJ 1 AT PAGE 20; (1998) 12 NWLR (PT.579) 483 AT 498-499, PARAS. H-A; EDEBIRI V. EDEBIRI (1997) 4 SCNJ 177 (1997) 4 NWLR (PT.498) 165; ETIM EKPENYONG & ORS V. INYANG EFIONG NYONG & ORS (1975) LPELR-SC 161/1974.

Olumide Philips, Esq., also submitted that an interlocutory application must flow from the substantive reliefs in the Writ of Summons and statement of claim. He cited AKHIGBE & ANOR V. ASHIMEDUA (2002) LPELR-7136 AT PP 11-13 PARAS. C-H.

He further submitted that a close examination of the bench advice of the lower Court on 6/12117 alluded to by the lower Court will show that the lower Court did not restrain the Appellants from holding a delegates’ conference as same is not one of the substantive reliefs sought at the lower Court.

The learned counsel also submitted that committal for contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding and the law requires the accuser to strictly follow the procedure laid down by law and that the failure to issue and serve Form 48 and Form 49 personally on the alleged contemnor will invalidate the whole contempt proceedings. He cited FCMB V. ABIOLA & SONS LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 165) 14 AT 31, AGU V ANYALOGU (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 787) 294 AT 309, EFCC, CHAIRMAN V. ONWU (2016) 2 NWLR (PT. 1495) 74 AT PAGES 87 PARAS A-C; SECTION 72 AND 95 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT, LFN, 2004; ORDER 62 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES; ORDER 35 OF THE HIGH COURT RULES.

Olumide Philips, Esq., of counsel contended that the requisite Forms 48 and 49 were not served on the Appellants at all and that the only process served on them which is the Motion on Notice was also not served on them personally as required by law but on their counsel. He submitted that this robs the Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit. He relied on INEC & ANOR V. EJIKE OGUEBEGO & ORS (2017) LPELR- 42609 (SC); BAFARAWA V. STATE (2014) LPELR-22321 (CA).

Olumide Philips, Esq., further submitted that for a Court to commit a party for contempt, the Applicant must establish what order of Court the alleged contemnor failed to obey as such order of Court is the conditions precedent to the hearing of a contempt application. Such order must be clear and unambiguous. He relied on ABBAS V. SOLOMON (2001) 15 NWLR (PT. 735) 144 A 166, PARAS G. He contended that the order of 6th December, 2017 does not qualify as such because the terms are not clear and unambiguous and that the onus of proving otherwise is on the Applicant. Hence, the Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear the contempt jurisdiction and urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

Chinyere Moneme, Esq., for the 1st Respondent in response to this issue submitted that the National Delegates Conference held on 25th and 26th January, 2018 was an abuse of Court process as the same was held in violation of a Court order for parties to maintain status quo pending the delivering of the ruling on the interlocutory injunction.

The learned counsel contended that the reliefs sought for in the 1st & 2nd Respondents’ motion before the trial Court are appurtenant and relate to the reliefs claimed in the substantive suit and that this case is on all fours with the case of COMM. EDUCATION, IMO STATE V AMADI (2013) 13 NWLR (PT. 1370) P. 149 – 150 PARAS H-C.

Chinyere Moneme, Esq., further contended that even if the interlocutory reliefs as couched in the Respondents motion did not flow from the substantive relief contained in the respondent’s complaint, the trial Court had the inherent powers to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction under the constitution to sanction the Appellants for violating its order(s). In fact, the Court can invoke its inherent powers and modify the relief in order to do substantial justice. He relied on EZEGBU V. F.A.T.B LTD (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 220) 725 C-D, ANYAOHA V. OBIOHA (2014) 6 NWLR (PT.1404) PP 481- 482 G-B; N.S.T.I.F. V. LYON (2014) 9 NWLR (PT 1422) PP 349-350. PARAS H-A, F- H; ANYAOHA V. OBIOHA (SUPRA) AT P. 481 PARA E-G; UNIVERSAL OIL LTD V. NDIC (2008) 6 NWLR (PT. 1083) 254; ABACHA V STATE (2001) 3 NWLR 699) 35; IKECHUKWU V. NWOYE (2014) 4 NWLR (PT. 1397) P. 239 PARAS B-C.

The learned counsel contended that it is statutory that Courts should have power to enforce its judgment to avoid abuse of Court process. Thus, the trial Court should have powers to command obedience to its orders and to punish erring parties. He submitted that the Court rightly invoked its constitutional powers to punish erring parties who wanted to frustrate the ruling of the Court. He cited MODILE V. GOVERNOR LAGOS STATE (2004) 12 NWLR (1887) 354 AT 363 P. IN STATOIL (NIG) LTD V. S.D.W.P (2015) 17 NWLR (PT. 1489) P. 551 PARAS F-G; EZENWANKWO V. STATE (2015) 2 NWLR (PT.1443) P279. PARA B; EZEGBU V. F.A.T.B (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 220) 669, ABIODUN V CHIEF JUDGE, KWARA STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.448) 340; ADEFARATI V. GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE (2006) 1 NWLR (PT. 960) 145; BASS. & MATT. ENG. (NIG) LTD V. KEYSTONE BANK LTD (2015) 1 NWLR (PT. 1441) P. 624 PARAS A-C.

The learned counsel finally submitted that the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine committal proceedings against the 1st Appellant who was served with forms 86 and 87 as required by law, hence, the contempt proceeding was properly commenced. He cited EZENWANKWO V. STATE (2015) 2 NWLR (PT. 1443) P 279, PARA B; DR RABIU KWANKWASO V. THE GOVERNOR OF KANO STATE & ORS. (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 444.

He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merits.

Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, SAN for the 2nd Respondent in response submitted that the Court of law has the inherent jurisdiction to sanction or discipline erring parties in a suit in order to maintain the sanctity and respect of the judiciary, and to also redesign the reliefs of the parties in a suit. He contended that any act done during the pendency of a suit in order to render a suit nugatory and/or in flagrant disrespect and disobedience of a Court order as in this case, cannot be qualified as nothing but a contempt of Court. He cited N.S.T.I.F V. IYON (2014) 9 NWLR 9 (PT 1422) PP 3429-350, Paras H-A; MUHAMMED BUHARI & 2 ORS V. CHIEF OLUSEGUN OBASANJO & 267 ORS (2003) 17 NWLR (PT 850) 587 SC; EE IBERIA TRUST LTD V. FOUNDERS TRUST & INVESTMENT CO. (1932)2 KB. 87, ALSO THOMAS V. MOULD (1968) ER 963.

The learned silk contended that when an injunctive order is made, it operates until it is revoked on appeal or by the Court itself and it has to be obeyed whether or not it should have been granted or accepted in the first place. He cited ROSSEK V. A.C.B. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 312) 382 AT 389.

Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, SAN submitted that the principles enshrined in the law of contempt are there to uphold and ensue the effective administration of justice. He cited ACHIKE J.S.C CANDIDE V. EDIGUN (1990) 1 NWLR (PT 129) 659 AT 668; EZEKIEL HART V. EZEKIEL HART (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 126) AT 289.

He finally submitted that the case of the Appellant is a pure case of contempt of Court order, and the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to sanction any erring party and urged the Court to so hold.

Olumide Philips, Esq., in his reply contended that though the trial Court has inherent judicial powers, it nevertheless did not have the jurisdiction to exercise its inherent judicial powers as they are two different things. He submitted that inherent judicial powers cannot expand or extend the jurisdiction of a Court. He relied on GOMBE V. PW. NIG. LTD. 1995 7 S.C.N.J. 19 AT 37 – 38; IBERO V. OBIOHA (1994) 1 S.C.N.J. 44 AT 52.

He further submitted that the Court acted without jurisdiction when it tried the Appellants summarily. He cited NZIDEE & ORS V. KOOTU & ORS (2006) LPELR-5519 (CA); SECTION 6 (6) OF THE CONSTITUTION (CFRN 1999); SECT10N 72 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESSES ACT, LFN, 2004 AND ORDER IX RULE 13 OF THE JUDGMENT (ENFORCEMENT) RULES.

He contended that the Appellants’ alleged contempt was not before the trial Court hence it is ex-Facie and requires personal service which was not complied with. He cited ATAKE V. AG OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR (1982) LPELR-586(SC); DIKIBO V. IBULUYA (2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 1006) 563 AT 577-579 PARAS H-B. He urged the Court to allow the appeal.

RESOLUTION OF SOLE ISSUE
Jurisdiction is the threshold and life wire of any matter. See GOLIT V. I.G.P. (2020) 7 NWLR (PT. 1722) 40 (P. 55, PARA. G) (SC).
In determining the jurisdiction of a Court, what the Court considers is the Originating Process and the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff. In the instant case where the Originating Process is an Originating Summons, which was letter converted to a complaint, the Court will look at the reliefs as endorsed therein to determine its jurisdiction. See CRESTAR INT. NAT. RES. LTD. V. S.P.D.C.N. LTD (2021) 16 NWLR (PT. 1800) 453 (SC); C.B.N. V. RAHAMANIYYA G.R. LTD. (2020) 8 NWLR (PT. 1726) 314 (SC).

Jurisdiction is a question of law and it can be procedural or substantive. It is fundamental and so can be raised at any time and once it is raised, it must be addressed to clear the way for further steps. See BAKARI V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (PT.1768) 1 (SC); BELGORE V. F.R.N (2021) 3 NWLR (PT. 1764) 503 (SC).

Jurisdiction connotes the authority, competence and legal power which a Court of law or Tribunal wields to hear a matter before it and reach a decision on such a matter. A Court of law is vested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and (3) the case came before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. These three ingredients must co-exist in order to vest jurisdiction in a Court. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or common law principle to impose it because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. See MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (2006) 2 LC (2081961) NSCC (VOL. 2) 374 AT 379; TUKUR V. TARABA STATE (1997) 6 SCNJ 81.

Herein, it is the argument of the Appellants that the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to try them for contempt as there was no Court order to be disobeyed and the requirements of the law was not complied with as regards procedure for committal for contempt.

Now, on the first leg of their argument; that there was no valid Court order to be disobeyed. One may want to ask what a Court order is. A Court order is a direction issued by a Court requiring a person to do a thing or restraining a person from doing a thing. It is the pronouncement of the Court on any issue before it. It can come as a directive or as a pronouncement. It is binding on all parties until it is set aside either by way of appeal or by the same Court that made the order.
The argument of the Appellants is that the order of the Court issued on 6th December, 2017, upon which the application for contempt is predicated does not qualify as a Court order, rather, it is a bench advice. From the record of proceedings before this Court, specifically pages 191-192 of the Record, the Court on 6th December, 2017 after hearing the motion for the interlocutory application said:
“This suit is adjourned to 6/2/18 for ruling. Meanwhile, parties should not do anything that will in any way affect or jeopardize the consideration of this application. Hearing notice should be issued and served on the 3rd Defendant. Proof of service to be kept in the case file.”
Flowing from the above, the fact that the Court ordered parties not to do anything that will affect its ruling appears obvious to me. In other words, the Court intended that parties should maintain status quo so as not to render its ruling unenforceable. In fact, even without any directive from the Court, it is already settled in law that once an issue is before a Court for determination, parties are to restrain from doing anything that will render the decision of the Court unenforceable.
The Apex Court in ABOSELDEHYDE LAB. PLC V. UM.B. LTD. (2013) 13 NWLR (PT. 1370) 91 (SC) held that:
“Every order of a Court which commands or forbids is an injunction.”
In the instant case, the injunction adjourned for ruling was seeking to restrain the Appellants from holding national delegates conference with a view to instituting new leadership. The act of doing the same thing which is sought to be restrained and which issue is already pending for determination before a Court of competent jurisdiction seems to be a flagrant abuse of Court process; disobedience and disrespect to the Court system. It is the position of the law that a decision of a Court not appealed against remains binding and subsisting for and or against parties thereto irrespective of whether the decision feels right or wrong. See O & O NETWORKS LTD V. BROAD COMMS. LTD. (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 454 (CA); ECOBANK TRANS INC. V. BROAD COMMS. LTD. (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1769) 209. Therefore, the decision of the trial Court that parties should not do anything that will affect or jeopardize the consideration of the application is binding on all the parties herein. I hold that the disobedience of the same suffices as contempt.

The position of the law is settled that the content of an affidavit can only be challenged by a counter-affidavit. The Court is required to treat unchallenged and uncontroverted depositions of facts in an affidavit as duly established. See MABAMIJE V. OTTO (2016) 13 NWLR (PT. 1529) 171 (SC), OGOEJEOFO V. OGOEJEOFO (2006) 3 NWLR (PT.966) 205 (SC), UJOMU V. OLAFIMIHAN (2021) 19 NWLR (PT. 1784) 331 CA.

The Appellants having failed to challenge the service through a counter-affidavit, the same remains uncontroverted and hence admitted. I hold that the service was effected through their counsel and it is a proper service.

In conclusion, I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the 1st Respondent and the learned senior counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application for committal for the disobedience of the order of the Court made on 6th December, 2016 which was an affront to the powers of the Court. I further hold that the requirement of the application for committal for contempt was duly complied with.

This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.

Accordingly, this appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The ruling of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria delivered on 1st November, 2018 by Sanusi Kado, J., in Suit Number: NICN/ABJ/31/2016; wherein the learned trial Judge ordered committal summons to be issued against the 1st Appellant is hereby affirmed.

Costs of N100,000.00 in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively.

MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read in draft form the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU OYENMENAM, JCA.

I agree that the appeal be dismissed as it lacks merit and I also hereby dismiss it.

I abide by orders in the leading judgment.

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment of my learned brother, UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, JCA just delivered. I agree with his conclusions that the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

I abide by the consequential order of costs assessed at N100,000.00 only in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Appearances:

OLUMIDE PHILIPS, with him, I.D. BOB MANUEL For Appellant(s)

CHINYERE MONEME, with him, MUKENG NATHAN – for 1st Respondent
MOHAMMED NDARANI MOHAMMED, SAN, with him, MICHAEL ELEYINMI, CLEMENT CHUKWUEMEKA, STEPHEN APEH, UCHENNA CHUKWUEMEKA and RAPHEAL ASHWE – for 2nd Respondent. For Respondent(s)

LawCare Nigeria

MOHAMMED & ANOR v. EKASA & ORS (2022)

laweditor

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, AZARE (ESTABLISHMENT) ACT 2022

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, PANKSHIN, PLATEAU STATE (ESTABLISHMENT) ACT, 2021

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, KONTAGORA (ESTABLISHMENT) ACT, 2021

APPOINTMENT OF AGENT & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IN NIGERIA

laweditor

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED