F.j. Akwadwo V. Nitel Telecommunication Ltd. (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EJEMBI EKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal, against the decision of the Federal High Court (Coram: S.J. Adah, J) sitting at Abuja, turns on only one issue. That is, whether the trial court was right to have declined jurisdiction in the suit of the Appellant. The Appellant, as the plaintiff, had approached the federal High court claiming:

a. N153, 273.00 (being the short fall of his salary for the period he worked from 1986 – 1993).

b. N986, 661.99 (being the short fall of his salary for the period 1994 – 1997).

c. N50, 000.00 (Accident bounds he was entitled to).

He claimed these sums totaling “N1, 189,934.99 being the entitlements and benefits (he) ought to enjoy and which he did not while in the service and employ of the Defendant.” The claim as articulated by the statement of claim rested on one firm fulcrum: contract of service. He claimed these sums as a right against his former employer, the Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) that absorbed some former staff, including himself, of the defunct P & T. He had raised these claims based on his conditions of service with the Respondent whom he had described as a limited liability company. He was clearly enforcing the terms of contract between himself and the Respondent. The facts are not in dispute.

In declining jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Appellant, as the Plaintiff, the learned trial Judge stated inter alia that:

The subject matter of the action has to do with matters bothering on the contract of employment of the Plaintiff and the defendant.

This finding of fact has not been challenged. It therefore remains binding forever on the parties.

On the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the action of the Appellant founded on the breach of contract of service the learned trial Judge had earlier held –

The learned counsel for the defendant is of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter because the constitutionally endowed jurisdiction of this Court does not cover the cause of action. The jurisdiction of this Court I must say categorically here is as dispensed by Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. Under this section a list or index of subject matters and organs or agencies that are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court are listed. The Constitution was so specific about this. The only area that gets closer to confer jurisdiction is Section 251 (1) (p), (q), (r). These sub-paragraph read as follows-

(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(r) any action or proceeding for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.