Polaris Bank Limited & Ors v. Maikudi Aminu & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Division (the trial court), delivered on the 12th of June, 2013 by Hon. Justice O. A. Shogbola. In the said ruling, the learned trial Judge refused to set aside his earlier ruling of 12th March, 2013 substituting Afribank Nigeria Plc. with the 1st appellant and joining the 2nd and 3rd appellants as respondents to the action, after judgment was delivered on the 21st January, 2010.

The facts leading to this appeal as discernible from the record of appeal, are that the respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted an originating summons in suit No. NICN/ABJ/14/2009 before the Kano Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria against Afribank Nigeria Plc and its Managing Director, Nebolisa Arah (as 1st and 2nd Defendants, respectively), wherein they sought for an order of the trial court directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs and other former Afribank Staff that were affected by the action of the defendants their arrears and the balance of their entitlements and redundancy benefits based on their last earned salary.

After a trial, the trial court delivered a considered judgment in favour of the respondents on 21st January, 2010, wherein it concluded at page 128 of the record of appeal, thus:

“For all the reasons stated above, we hold that the claims of all the claimants in this suit succeed, and we accordingly order the respondents, in the presence of the claimants or their accredited representatives, to compute all the redundancy benefits of the claimants based on their last earned current salary. In doing so whatever sum already been paid to each claimant shall be deducted from the amount such a claimant is entitled to be paid.”

On 15th of July, 2013, more than three years after the judgment, the respondents filed a motion before the trial court in which it sought for an order substituting Afribank Nigeria Plc. and Nebolisa O. Arah with Mainstreet Bank Limited and Mrs. Faith Tuedor-Mathews as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively, as well as for an order joining in the suit the Central Bank of Nigeria; Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria); Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation; Alhaji Umaru Ibrahim Matawalle (Managing Director, NDIC); Asset Management Company of Nigeria; and Mustapha Chike Obi (Managing Director AMCON), as 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants.

The trial court heard the respondents’ application on 12th March, 2013 and granted all the reliefs as prayed above. The appellants applied to set aside the said orders for substitution and joinder contending that the motion for substitution and joinder was never served on any of them.

However, on the 20th of June, 2013, the trial court refused the appellants’ application. Dissatisfied with the said ruling of the trial court of 20th June, 2013, the appellants have now appealed to this court vide notice of appeal filed on 3rd July, 2013 on grounds of breach of their fundamental rights. The appellants also applied for and obtained leave of this court to appeal on further grounds other than breach of fundamental rights and thereupon filed a further amended notice of appeal on 20th July, 2022.

In furtherance of the appeal, the parties filed and adopted their respective briefs of argument on the 22nd of February, 2024. In the appellants’ amended brief of argument settled by Kauna Penzin, Esq. of D. D. Dodo & Co., the following two issues were distilled for determination:

1. Whether the trial court was right when it refused to set aside its order of 12th March, 2013.
2. Whether the trial court was right when it held that the 1st appellant is in contempt of the order contained in the final judgment of 20th January, 2010.

On the part of the respondents, Oloruntoba Elisha, Esq. of Murtala Musa & Co., formulated the following two issues for determination:

1. Whether the appellants are not in contempt of the lower Court in failing to comply with the judgment of the lower court delivered on the 20th January, 2010.
2. Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case and the need to do justice, the lower court was right when it refused to set aside its order made on the 12th of March, 2013.

Except for interchanging the sequence of the two issues and using different words, the two issues raised by the respondent are essentially the same with those of the appellants. Hence, I shall adopt the appellants’ two issues in determining the appeal, they are the ones that have the grouse.

Issue 1

Whether the trial court was right when it refused to set aside its orders of 12th March, 2013.

On this issue, the appellants’ essential contention is that the ruling of the trial court of 12th March, 2013 ought to be set aside for the following reasons, namely: