LT. CDR F. J. Ebohon (Rtd.) V. Attorney General Edo State & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

This is a case stated by the National Industrial Court pursuant to Section 295 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) seeking for the opinion of this Court on question of law.

The lower Court appraised the nature of this case as a transferred matter from the High Court of Bendel State, Benin Judicial Division, sitting in Benin where the claimant had taken out against the defendants a writ of summons dated 5th September, 1989 in Suit No. B351/89 seeking for the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that he is entitled to be reinstated in the Edo State Civil Service.
2. A declaration that he is entitled to be paid his salary and allowances from the 1st of April, 1984 and also all the promotions and increments in emoluments that the claimant would have been entitled to base on salary grade level 16 being his salary grade level before being purportedly pruned from service.
3. An Order that the claimant’s properties and those of his family, including money all valued at more than 11.15 million forcibly removed by

1

the 1st – 3rd defendants or their agents from the claimant’s office and official residence of No. 4, Jeffia Crescent, Warri on 11/04/1984 be returned to the claimant; or in the alternative, that the said sum of 11.15 million pounds sterling be paid to me as special damages by the 1st-3rd defendants.
4. A declaration that claimant purported “pruning from the service” as contained in letter of pruning S./502/T/230 of 25/4/1984 issued by the 3rd defendant is unlawful, null and void.
5. General damages of N200,000,000.00

The foregoing claims were predicated upon the assertions by the claimant:
a. He was an employee of the 3rd defendant for about four years.
b. The defendants in 1984 pruned him from service while under interdiction without due process and direction from the Governor and Board of Directors of Delta Boat Yard Limited.
c. Being aggrieved the claimant sued at the Edo High Court of Benin Division.
d. During the pendency of the matter at the Edo State High Court, the 1999 Constitution was amended and by Section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which granted exclusive jurisdiction over all labour and

2

employment matters to the National Industrial Court, the Edo High Court was thereby divested of jurisdiction.
e. In consequence, the learned trial judge, Hon. Justice A.N. Erhabor declined jurisdiction over the case and transferred same to the National Industrial Court.
f. When the case came up at the National Industrial Court, the Court suo motu directed that parties address it on whether or not a case stated ought to be made to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the transfer to National Industrial Court is valid.
g. Because the jurisdiction of the Court has been challenged by the defendants, the Court has to determine its jurisdiction to hear this matter before referring it by way of case stated.

The defendant?s responded to that poser as follows:
(i) The claimant was removed from office on the 28th day of March, 1984 under Decree 17, 1984.
(ii) This case is a part heard matter before the Benin High Court and ought to have been concluded in the Benin High Court, one year after the commencement of the National Industrial Court Act by virtue of Section 11 (2) of the National Industrial Court Act.
(iii) This case

3

can no longer be heard or determined in the National Industrial Court since it is abated.

The lower Court, presided over by Hon. Justice A. N. Ubaka, after hearing the submissions on both sides found as established the following facts:
1. Trial has commenced at the Edo State High Court before the coming into effect of the third alteration to the 1999 Constitution on 4th March, 2011 which divested High Courts of Jurisdiction over all labour and employment matters.
2. The Supreme Court in its decision in Obiuweubi v. CBN (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt 1247) 465 at 495 – 496 held that the law for determining jurisdiction is the law as at the time trial commences.

After these findings of fact, the lower Court raised the following poser stating the case herein for the opinion of this Court:
The following question as to the interpretation of the Constitution accordingly arose in this proceeding namely – Whether given the fact that trial in this case commenced at the High Court of Edo State sitting in Benin before 4th March, 2011, the date the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution came into effect, and given the decision of the Supreme Court in

4