Download PDF
By an amended complaint filed on the 27th September 2013, the claimants are seeking the following reliefs against the defendants: 1. A declaration that the purported compulsory retirement of the claimants whose employment enjoy statutory flavour, under the guise of reorganization is wrongful, unconstitutional, a breach of the provisions of the extant Public Service Rules of Akwa Ibom State (2010 Edition), null and void and of no effect. 2. An order nullifying the purported compulsory retirement of each of the claimants vide their respective letters dated 14th February, 2013. 3. An order of reinstatement directing the defendants to reinstate the claimants to the Civil Service of Akwa Ibom State effective from 14th February, 2013 and to pay all the claimants their entitlements/emoluments and/or arrears from the said date until they have fulfilled the conditions precedent to retirement pursuant to the extant Public Service Rules of Akwa Ibom State. 4. An order that the employment, status, rank, seniority and entitlements of the claimants shall be continuous, unbroken and unaffected by reason of the purported retirement or any other action done or step taken by the defendants against the claimants’ employment. 5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents privies or whosoever from interfering with, terminating, determining, retiring, or howsoever disturbing the employment of the claimants except by due process of law. 6. General damages of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) for each of the claimants for unlawful retirement. 7. Cost of this suit. Accompanying the amended complaint is the amended statement of facts, list of witnesses and copies of documents to be relied upon. The defendants on November 21, 2013 filed their statement of defence, name of witness, witness statement on oath and copies of documents to be relied upon. On the 22nd January 2014, the defendants/applicants filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 15 of the Rules of this Court 2007 praying for the following: 1. An order striking out this suit for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. 2. Such further order or other orders as the Honourable Court might deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the application is made are: (i) The four claimants in this suit have different causes of action founded on different contracts of employment and different letters of retirement from service. (ii) The four claimants ought in the circumstance to have filed their claims in different and distinct suits. The motion is supported by an 11 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Sam Akpabio, Legal practitioner and a written address in support of the motion. In opposing the motion, the claimants filed an 11 paragraph counter affidavit sworn to by Abiodun Akanni on 19th February 2014 and a written address in support. The defendants filed a reply on point of law on March 4, 2014. The learned SAN submitted the following issue for determination as follows: Whether the claimants, and their respective causes of action, are properly joined in this suit. He stated that the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 have no specific provisions for misjoinder of parties and causes of action but that the Rules provides in Order 15 that where no provision is made, as in this instance, the court may adopt such procedure as will in its view do substantial justice to the parties. He then urged the court to adopt Order 9, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (2009) which provides that all persons may be joined as plaintiffs in who any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgement may be given for such plaintiffs as may be found to be entitled to relief. He referred to the case of Abdulraheem v Oduleye [200]) 8 NWLR (Part. 926) 144 Particularly at Page 167 Para. C- H, where the Court of Appeal, per Muntaka – Coomasie J.C.A considered the requirements for joinder of parties and held as follows:- In the consideration of a similar provision as contained in the Order 8 Rule 1 of the Oyo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, the Supreme Court in the case of Cross River State Newspaper Corp. v J. L Oni (Supra) held as follows: The joinder of persons or parties in one action as plaintiffs as well as the joinder of cases of causes of action are clearly permissible under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1978 of Oyo State. The limiting factors or conditions must however be established by such plaintiffs to qualify for this joinder. These are:- (1) That the right to relief is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction. (2) That if separate actions were brought by such persons, a common question of law or fact would arise. The learned SAN submitted that although joinder of parties and causes of action of action are permitted in all jurisdictions, the two conditions stated above must be met. He cited Co-operative Commerce Bank (Nigeria) Plc v Rose & Ors [1998] 4 NWLR Part 543 Page 37 Particularly at 45 Para E – H and argued that the claims of the four claimants in this case are based on different and distinct causes of action which are unique and personal to each claimant and that there is no communality of interest. He argued that this buttressed by the manner that the respective claims of the claimants are formulated in the statement of claim; that each of the paragraphs pleads different facts and documents in respect of each claimant’s date of employment, date of confirmation of employment, date of promotion, current annual emolument, letter of retirement. That these facts, as pleaded, constitute the material facts that each claimant has to prove to be entitled to the reliefs sought in the action. He submitted that they each constitute a separate and distinct cause of action citing A – G. of the Federation v A. G of Abia State & 35 Ors [2001] 11 NWLR (Part 725 659 at 733 Paras A – B, Ezeamaka Esther And Ors v Skye Bank Plc (unreported) Suit No: NIC/LA/31/2010 decided on the 28th of June, 2011) He submitted that the claimants are all suing on their respective individual employment contracts and that such multifarious causes are unsustainable in a single suit. He urged the court to hold that there is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned SAN referred to Hyson (Nig.) Ltd v Ijeoma & Ors [2008] 13 NWLR (Pt 107) and submitted that the proper order to make where there is misjoinder of plaintiffs or causes of action where the case has not been heard is to strike it out and order for filing of separate suits by the misjoinded plaintiffs. He urged the court to strike out this suit for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. In response learned counsel to the claimants formulated two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the parties and causes of action in this suit, are proper before the Honourable Court? 2. Whether adopting the Rules of Procedure of another Court to inhibit a party from presenting his case is not inconsistent with the Rules of fair hearing and Section 36 of the 1999, Constitution (as altered)? She submitted that it is trite that the object of the rule of joinder of parties is to prevent multiplicity of action by enabling claimants to proceed in the same action against all person whom they allege they have the same relief against and will be entitled to a share in the interest of the subject matter citing Arokoyo v Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & Ors. [2012] 27 N.L.L.R. (Pt 76) 110 NIC @ 108. She submitted that the principle governing joinder of parties to an action is the respective claims of the claimants must show a common interest amongst them which entitles them to sue jointly referring to Cross River State Newspaper Corporation v Oni [1995] 11 NWLR (Pt 371) SC 270 @ 288 where the Supreme the Court held that: Joinder of persons in one action as plaintiffs as well as the joinder of causes of action are clearly permissible. However, certain limiting factors or conditions must be established by such plaintiffs to qualify for this joinder. These are: (c) That the right to relief is in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transaction; and (d) That if separate actions were brought by such persons, a common question of law and fact would arise…” She submitted that the claimants in this suit are not misjoined, as canvassed by the defendants/applicants. It was her contention that the claimants are co-workers and as such, have common employer and all had their employment terminated the same way by the same defendants and are all desirous of making the same claims against the same defendants. She submitted that the claimants’ interest is common and the same common question of law and fact would arise and each of them is individually entitled to some share or interest in the claims cited Arokoyo v Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & Ors. Supra. Counsel further submitted that this Court is permitted under Section 37(3) of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) Cap. T8 LFN 2004 and Section 12 of the NIC Act 2006 not to act in any formal manner if this is necessary in the interest of justice; that Section 14t of the NIC Act is quite emphatic on the need to avoid multiplicity of actions when this court is adjudicating on maters within its jurisdiction competence. Referring to Order 1 Rule 1(3) of the NIC Rules 2007, she submitted that the attainment of a just, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice shall be the hallmark of the practice and procedure of this Court. She submitted that the cases cited by the applicants’ on misjoinder of causes of action and parties are all cases decided in respect of Courts that do not have the permissiveness that provisions like Section 37(3) of the Trade Disputes Act and Sections 12 and 14 of the National Industrial Court Act have It was her contention that in any event, this Court has the power to consolidate cases where the cause of action is similar and that where it is just and convenient, claimants can jointly sue defendants as is being done in this suit citing Arokoyo v Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & Ors. [2012] 27 N.L.L.R. (Pt 76) 110 NIC; Moses & Ors. V Bishop James Yisa Memmorial Sch. Ltd [2013] N.L.L.R (Pt 88) 59 NIC; Akintoye & Ors. V Fed. Ministry of Works Housing and Urban [2013] 34 N.L.L.R (Pt 100) 519. Counsel further submitted that it is absurd and would amount to procedural ambush for the Court to borrow the Rules of another Court to strike out an action for incompetency or irregularity as argued by the defendants/applicants. That contrary to the argument of the defendant, in exercising the power to adopt a procedure, the Court cannot adopt a procedure or Rules of another Court which inhibits a party from presenting his case to the best of abilities and deny his access to court citing N.B.A. v Odiri [2007] 8 NWLR Pt. 10035 LDPC 203. She submitted that adopting such a rule of procedure as Order 9 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 will shut out the claimants and inhibit them from prosecuting this action contrary to the rules of fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. She argued that all the cases cited by the applicants are cases where the courts have the Rules for joinder or misjoinder of parties in their Rules of Court, and are therefore inapplicable, in this suit. It was her argument that there is no provision in the 2007 Rules of this court that empowers a party in commencing a suit to elect which Court Rules to adopt where there are no provision specified in National Industrial Court Rules as the power is only conferred on the Court and not on the litigant. She submitted that the court is not bound to adopt the procedure of the Federal High Court or any other Court citing Capital Bancorp Ltd v S.S.L. Ltd [2007] NWLR (Pt 1020) SC 148 @ 164. She submitted that rather than adopt a procedure that is inconsistent with Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, the Court can elect to give a direction as to the procedure to be adopted in order to do substantial justice to the parties pursuant to Section 12(2) of the NIC Act. She submitted that the power of the Court to adopt such other procedure is only limited to circumstances where in the Court’s view substantial justice will be done to the parties and not substantial injustice. She stated that the defendants have filed their defence without any confusion. It is the claimants contention that this application is incompetent, having been brought in flagrant beach of the provisions of Order 5 Rule 2(1) of the 2007, NIC Rules which provides that: An application to set aside for irregularity any step taken in the course of any proceedings, may be allowed where it is made within a reasonable time and before the party applying has taken any fresh step after becoming aware of the irregularity She urged the court to disallow the application having been brought after the defendants had taken the step of filing their statement of defence. Replying on point of law, the learned SAN submitted that Courts including are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply the principles in the Cross River State Newspaper Corporation case as was applied in the case of Co-operative Commerce Bank (Nig.) Plc v Rose & Ors.[1998] 4 NWLR Part 543 Page 37. It was his contention that in Arokoyo v Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria & Ors. [2012] 27 N.L.L.R. (Pt 76) 110 NIC, this Court failed to apply the principles of joinder laid down by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and as such acted per incuriam. He submitted that this Court is not bound by the decisions in the Arokoyo case and other National Industrial Court cases that relied on that decision. That the Supreme Court in the case of Prince J.S.Atolagbe And Anor v Alhaji Ahmadu Awuni And Ors. [1997] 9 NWLR Part 522 Page 536 at (Pt 564, Para. F; 565, Paras F – G; 567, Para G; 577 Paras. A – B) restated the principle of stare decisis and the bindingness of the decisions of the higher Court over the lower Courts in the judicial hierarchy. He submitted that Section 12 and 14 of the NIC Act 2006 are merely concerned with the practice and procedure of this Honourable Court which are in the area of adjectival/procedural law and do not in anyway permit this Court to depart from laid down principles of law which are in the area of substantive law. He further submitted that Section 14 of the NIC Act 2006 may only be invoked where a case has been properly brought before the Court. The learned SAN submitted that Order 9, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, in clear and unambiguous terms, provides for joinder of parties and does not in any way shut out or inhibit parties in this suit. He finally urged the court to strike out the suit Having carefully considered the pleadings and submissions of counsel the issue which arises for determination is whether this court can permit the joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action in this suit. I will begin with the preliminary issue raised by counsel to the claimants/respondents that the application be disallowed having been brought after the defendants/applicants have taken the step of filing their statement of defence. This is an objection challenging the competence of the suit which may be brought at anytime. The main thrust of the defendants/applicants objection is that five claimants and different causes of action have been joined together in this suit. The extant Rules of this Court have no provision on joinder of parties and joinder of causes of action. However, Order 15 of the Rules under which this application is made provides that: Where no provision is made in these Rules as to practice and procedure or where the provision are inadequate, the Court may adopt such procedure as will in its view do substantial justice to the parties. Section 12(1) and 12 (2) (a) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 also provides that: 12- (1) The jurisdiction vested in the Court shall, so far as practice and procedure are concerned, be exercised in the manner provided by this Act or any other enactment or by such rules and orders of court as may be made pursuant to this Act or, in the absence of any such provisions, in substantial conformity with the practice and procedure of the Court existing immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Subject to this Act and any rules made there under, the Court-- (a) may regulate its procedure and proceedings as it thinks fit; The learned SAN has urged this Court to adopt the practice and procedure regarding misjoinder under Order 9, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009. The key words in Order 15 of the Rules of this Court are Substantial Justice. In the circumstance of this application, this is what the court is mandated to do. It is therefore entirely at the discretion of the court whether or not to adopt the Rules or Procedure of any other court; and where it decides to, such a Rule or procedure must be one that will do substantial justice to the parties. Consequently, on the state of the pleadings I decline to adopt Order 19, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure rules. A careful look at the pleadings reveal that the reliefs claimed by the claimants arise from the same decision reached by the State Executive Council on 10th October 2011 to reorganize the Ministry of Justice of the State and abolish their offices. This decision was implemented in the letters of retirement given to the claimants. The letters are identical and were written on the same date 14th February, 2013. The claimants are all aggrieved by this decision of the State Executive Council and are entitled to be properly joined as co-claimants. It cannot be seriously argued that if separate actions are brought by the claimants’, common questions of law and fact will not arise in respect of such suits. The most obvious of such common question of law and fact are whether the claimants compulsory retirement is wrongful, unconstitutional and a breach of the Public Service Rules of Akwa Ibom State. A situation in which the four claimants will file four separate suits against the same defendants in respect of the same State Executive Council decision will in my view amount to an unnecessary multiplicity of actions. The claimants have a common interest, the same grievance, and the same reliefs the nature of which will be beneficial to all of them. In my view, the requirements for joinder claimants as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Cross River State Newspaper Corp. v J.L Oni has been met. See [1995] 11 NWLR (pt 371) 270, A – G Federation v A – G Abia State & Ors [2001] 7 SC (Pt 1) 32. To save time and prevent unnecessary and undesirable multiplicity of suits where the issues involved are similar, the Court is empowered in Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 to resolve all disputes in a manner that avoids multiplicity of actions. It provides: The Court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested on it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the Court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided. By this provision, the Court has the powers to discountenance individual actions which is desired by the defendants/applicants and encourage the aggregation of the interests in one action. The law is settled that even where a case of misjoinder is established, a cause or matter cannot be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non joinder. See Bello v INEC [2010] 8 NWLR (Pt 1196) 342. It will not be substantial justice to the claimants/respondents as provided in Order 15 for this court to strike out this matter as the defendants/applicants have urged the court to do. The courts have since moved away from technical justice to substantial justice. In any event, the defendants/applicants have not shown the court how the joinder will delay the trial or otherwise be inconvenient. They have filed their statement of defence to this action. No case of misjoinder whether of parties or causes of action has been established in this suit. The motion is hereby dismissed. The matter is to proceed to hearing. Costs of N10,000 awarded to the claimants/respondents. Ruling is entered accordingly. ---------------------------------------- Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae