The Shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Ltd. & Ors. V. E.N.nwawka (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

O. AYOOLA, J.S.C. 

The respondent in this appeal, Mr. E. N. Nwawka, claimed against the six appellants by a writ issued in the High Court of Rivers State several reliefs, some only of which are now relevant and will be quoted later in this judgment.

By a motion on notice dated 14th February, 2000 the appellants prayed the High Court:

1. That the action be struck out or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim set out to the statement of claim.
2. That claims 1 – 5 be struck out on the ground that each of them falls outside the scope of the judicial powers exercisable by the court of law in Nigeria.

Further and in the alternative:

3. That claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 be struck out on the ground that each of them disclosed no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of judicial process.

The trial Judge held that the procedure adopted by the appellants was not in compliance with Or 4, r. 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1987 in that the appellants should have raised the points of law by their statement of defence. Nevertheless, he considered the application on its merit and struck out claims 4 and 9 as disclosing no cause of action. In regard to the rest of the claims, he dismissed the application.

On the appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal, that court rejected the trial Judge’s conclusion on the irregularity of the proceedings. Pats-Acholonu, JCA, who delivered the leading judgment of the court below, held that: “Non-compliance does not vitiate a preliminary objection based on lack of jurisdiction alone”. On the merits of the application the court below held that in addition to claim nos. 4 and 9 already struck out by the High Court claim nos. 1,2,8 and 10 should be struck out.

The appellants appealed and the respondents cross-appealed. The issues raised by the appellants’ appeal are:

(2) As regards claims 3 and 5, whether (a) the respondent had locus standi to sue for the reliefs claimed, and (b) only the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over these claims and whether they raise justiciable issues; and,

(3) As regards claims 6, 7 and 11, whether they are not frivolous and vexatious and in abuse of judicial process.

The appellants raised an issue whether Or 24, r 2 was applicable to the proceedings, but that issue is not now of any practical significance in view of the ruling by the court below in favour of the appellants on the issue from which the respondent had not cross-appealed. Arising from the respondent’s cross-appeal are the questions whether claims 8 and 10 were properly struck out. This appeal and the cross appeal are, therefore, now related to claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, which are as follows:

“3. A declaration that the plaintiff is not a redundant employee of the 1st defendant by virtue of his length of service, job performance, job availability and his status.

5. A declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are engaged in dubious expatriate Staff Quota manipulation and are not entitled to deploy the gains of such unpatriotic exercise to render the plaintiff redundant.
6. A declaration that the purported contract of employment dated 12th April, 1997 surreptitiously crafted and forced on Nigerian employees of the 1st defendant by the 1st defendant is null, void and of no effect.
7. A declaration that the only valid contract of employment between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is the one pre-existing before 30/4/97 (and regulations by the 7th defendant in that behalf).
8. A declaration that the 1st to 4th defendants cannot disengage or declare the plaintiff redundant (Plaintiff being one of the 5 highest-ranking Nigerian citizens in the 1st defendant’s Organization) without a formal permission of the 7th defendant.
9. An order restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from terminating, treating, or in any manner interfering with the employment salaries, emoluments benefits accruing to the plaintiff as an employee of the 1st defendant save and except as the 7th defendant and the National Assembly may sooner or later so approve.
10. An Order setting aside the purported contract dated 12/4/97 unilaterally foisted on the plaintiff by the 1st defendant as the same is not a contract at all.”

The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd., (the 1st appellant) is a private limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria and carrying on the business of crude hydrocarbon oil and gas prospecting, development and exploitation in Nigeria. The 2nd and 3rd appellants were, respectively, the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the 1st appellant while 4th appellant was the General Manager of the 1st appellant with whom the respondent worked as Deputy General Manager up to sometime in April, 1999. The 5th and 6th appellants were expatriate employees of the 1st appellants. The respondent was an employee of the 1st appellant. He claimed to be the 5th highest ranking Nigerian in the 1st appellant’s employment and one of the most qualified technocrats in the oil industry in the 1st appellant’s company.

On 19th December, 1999 the respondent was by a letter signed by the 4th appellant on behalf of the 1st appellant “released from the company” as his services were no longer required. Attached to the letter was a cheque being payment in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment. On 12th January, 2000, the respondent commenced this action claiming several reliefs some of which are quoted above and are the subject of this appeal.

The respondent’s case by his statement of claim was that the 1st appellant by wrongful manipulation of the expatriate quota system brought foreign nationals to work in the company under false descriptions thereby making them to fill posts which could be held by Nigerian nationals and, in particular depriving the respondent through such manipulation opportunity of occupying a higher post for which he was qualified in the 1st appellant’s establishment. He alleged a design to ease Nigerians out of the 1st appellant’s establishment and alleged several expatriate quota malpractices by the 1st appellant which he claimed were detrimental to the Nigerian employees of the company. Of direct relevance to his employment he alleged that on 19th December, 1999 the 4th appellant wrote a letter to him at the behest of the 3rd appellant urging him to leave the 1st appellant’s employment on voluntary severance with what he described as a “financial bait” of about N30 million if he should sign an acceptance that day or his employment would be terminated automatically with three months pay in lieu of notice. The respondent rejected the offer. The respondent alleged that he could not have been redundant, as the 1st appellant had declared him, upon a reorganization of the 1st appellant because of his qualification and his performance as a deputy general manager development.