United Nigerian Iles PLC V. Mohammed Abu & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kaduna State, sitting at Kaduna contained in the Ruling delivered on 15/7/2009 by which the Court dismissed the application of the Appellant challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kaduna State to hear and determine the action of the Respondents who had filed suit No. KDH/KAD/199/2009 for the claim of N30,406,661.14 (Thirty Million, Four Hundred and Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty One Naira, Fourteen Kobo) against the Appellant as unpaid entitlement. The amount due to each of the Respondents was adumbrated in the statement of claim filed with the writ of summons.

By the motion on notice and supporting affidavit filed by the appellant on 29/4/2009, and copied on pages 239 – 242 of the record of appeal, the appellant sought the order striking out the suit for incompetence and for want of jurisdiction. The appellant had contended that the claims of the respondents were based on separate contracts of employment as they were employed by the appellant at different dates and on different terms, and that the claims are based on the construction of a Collective Agreement.

The Respondents filed a counter affidavit to contend that they claimed for payment of outstanding entitlement withheld by the Appellant, that though employed at different times or separately they had a common grievance and that the Respondents’ union is not involved in the action.

In the Ruling of the High court of Kaduna State (hereinafter called the trial court), after hearing the parties, the learned trial judge held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it. The learned trial judge thereafter proceeded with hearing of the case and gave judgment in favour of the Respondents.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and commenced the instant appeal through the Notice of Appeal filed on 22/7/2009, and in this Court the Appellant’s Brief was amended by the Amended Appellant’s Brief prepared by Otunba Isola Adebanjo of Counsel and filed on 19/4/2013 but deemed properly filed on 20/1/2014 while the Respondents’ Amended Brief of Argument prepared by S.B. Muhammed Esq., of Counsel was filed on 19/2/2014. The Appellants Reply Brief was filed on 21/4/2014.

At the hearing of the appeal, Otunba Isola Adebanjo for the Appellant withdrew all the applications earlier filed by him and they were struck out, he there after adopted the Amended Appellants’ Brief and Reply Brief while S.B. Mohammed Esq., for the Respondents adopted the Amended Respondents’ Brief.

The Appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal as follows:

1. Whether the learned trial judge was right to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Respondents.
2. Whether there was a misjoinder of parties and causes.

The respondents adopted these two issues and I have also adopted them for the determination of the appeal.

The contention of the Appellant on the first issue is that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a matter on the interpretation and enforcement of Collective Agreements or on labour matters generally which are vested exclusively in the National Industrial Court and the action is therefore incompetent.

According to appellant’s Counsel the state of the law as it is now is that matters calling for interpretation of Collective Agreements can be entertained by only the National Industrial Court, and they are outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of a State; EKONG V. OSIDE (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 216) 562; OLORUNTOBA – OJU VS. ABDULRAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 81.

It was also submitted that the respondents did not provide any evidence before the trial Court that the Collective Agreement they sought to enforce had been incorporated into the contract of employment of each or any of them, and such Collective Agreement is therefore unenforceable in law; OSAGIE VS. NNP PLC (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 513.

It was argued that the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court has been set out under section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.

On this issue the Respondents have contended that there is no dispute calling for interpretation of any Collective Agreement and invocation of section 7(1)(c)(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 as the claim of the Respondents is for debt owed to them as employees by their employer which had been paid to some of the Respondents. It was contended further that since the action is not between employees and employer there was no trade dispute and the decisions of court relied upon by the appellant are inapplicable.