Independent National Electoralcommission (INEC) V. Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria & Anor (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the National Industrial Court dated 24/02/05 in Suit No: NIC/10M/2003 delivered by Hon. Justice B.A. Adejumo (President) Prof. B. B. Kanyip and V. N. Okobi (Mrs) members, on the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the Applicant’s now 1st Respondent motion on Notice for an order seeking leave to enforce the judgment of the lower court (National Industrial Court) delivered on 27th June, 1995 in suit No: NIC/5/93 against the Appellant.

FACTS

The 1st Respondent filed a Motion on Notice dated 14th March 2003 in suit No: NIC/10M/03 for an order seeking leave to enforce against the Appellant the judgment of the lower court (National Industrial Court) delivered on 27th June, 1995 in suit No: NIC/5/93 and an order enforcing the said judgment by directing the Respondents to give effect to the said judgment by paying forthwith to the Applicant (now 1st Respondent) dues deducted from all eligible members of the Agency on grade levels 07 and above in accordance with the said judgment (pages 21 – 48 of the record).

In the Preliminary Objection dated 5th February 2004 the Appellant prayed the Hon. Court to strike out the names of the 1st and 2nd Respondents from the suit and that the entire action be struck out for incompetence.

Written addresses were filed by order of court dated 29th January 2004. The 2nd Respondent orally associated itself with the submission of counsel to the Appellant and urged the Hon. Court to dismiss the 1st Respondent’s motion and uphold the objection.

The Hon. Court in a well considered ruling on 24th February 2005 struck out the name of the 1st Respondent (Dr. Abel Guobadia) from the suit for not being a necessary party but on the whole dismissed the Preliminary Objection holding that the Hon. Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Leave was then granted to the Applicant to make out his case for the enforcement of the judgment in suit No. NIC/5/93 against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent in this Appeal.

Aggrieved by the ruling of the lower court dated 24th February 2005, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 3rd March 2005 challenging the said ruling.

The Appellant’s Brief was filed on 29/6/06 and deemed filed on 19/906. The 1st Respondent filed their Brief with an accompanying preliminary objection on the 5/12/06. The Appellant filed a Reply Brief on 13/2/07 and deemed filed on 22/5/07.

The 1st Respondent in a document titled:

“1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument Notice of Preliminary Objection under Order 3 Rule 15” in which is stated:

“Take Notice that at the hearing of appeal the 1st Respondent will pray the court to strike out brief and dismiss the Appeal, on the ground that the same is incompetent and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it”.

In arguing the preliminary objection learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/Applicant stated that following the ruling of the National Industrial Court dated 24th February 2005, in the matter of an application for enforcement of the court’s judgment in Suit No. NIC/10m/2003, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 3rd March 2005. That the Notice with the grounds of appeal is supposed to arise out of a ruling in a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the 1st Respondent’s process. That upon the Notice of Appeal, the records were duly compiled and transmitted to this court on 24th July 2005 which said record was served on the Appellant on 26th July 2006 whereupon the Appellant’s 60 days period within which to file its brief of argument started to run.

The 1st Respondent further contended that the Appellant having defaulted in filing its brief of argument for almost a year the Respondent on 4th May 2006 filed a motion dated 24th April 2006 pursuant to Order 6 Rule 10 of Rules of court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.