13/12/2016
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE YENEGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT YENEGOA
________________________________________________________________________
SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/106/2016
BETWEEN:
1. KENDRICK OLUKA
2. JITE ORIMIONO
3. VINCENT OLEMEFORO
4. RAPHEAL OSUNAIYE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS
5. CHRISTOPHER EKPENYONG
6. ZWALMARK GODFREY
7. TOLULOPE OLADEJI
8. OLIVER OGBONNA
9. NATHAN OKECHUKWU
AND
1. BALAARHYEL MARAMA
2. NJOKU KINGSLEY OBINNA
3. JUMBO EMMANUEL W
4. TAJUDEEN SULEIMAN NIYI
5. OMALE RICHARD ADEJO
6. HENRY IDAMA
7. OLUWATOGBE DANIEL
8. OBADOFIN O. ADEGOKE
9. NWAGWUGWU OKECHUKWU DANIEL
10. ANSWER NATHANIEL U.
11. ELEME PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY COOPERATIVE
INVESTMENT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED
12. INDORAMA ELEME PETROCHEMICALS LTD
13. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DFENDANT/
APPLICANT
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
________________________________________________
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO:
1. SECTION 251(1) (e) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999
2. SECTION 254(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGEIRA 1999 AS AMENDED.
3. THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
________________________________________________________________________
TAKE NOTICE that the 13th defendant/applicant objects to the instant suit by the claimants/respondents herein and humbly prays for:
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out the instant action for lack/want of jurisdiction.
Alternatively,
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing the instant action for lack/want of locus standi on the part of the claimants.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows:
As regards Relief 1:
1. Relief Nos. 2 to 6, and 11 to 13, the principal/main reliefs of the originating summons seek to determine the question of holding/ownership of shares and benefits accruing therefrom in a limited liability company, the 12th defendant and therefore not within the exclusively prescribed jurisdiction of this honourable court;
2. Relief Nos. 7 to 10 of the originating summons are ancillary to the main claim, academic, hypothetical and of no practical utilitarian value to the claimants;
3. Disputes as to share ownership in a limited liability company or rights devolving therein howbeit relating to an employeeâs relationship with/in a company is not caught within labour and employment matters. Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (2007) 1 - 2 SC 317;
4. The subject matter of the substantive action is not within the prescribed/exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
As regards Relief 2:
Want/lack of locus standi on the part of the claimants to institute this suit.
1. The claimants by their showing are neither members of a union of employees of the 12th defendant nor members/shareholders of the 12th defendant but mere individual employees of the 12th defendant;
2. The claimantâs not being members/shareholders in both the 11th and 12th defendants cannot sue to challenge the allocation/ownership of shares in the 12th defendant;
3. The principal reliefs here relates to holding/ownership of shares in the 12th defendant. It is trite law that if a court does not have jurisdiction to determine the principal relief, the court cannot determine the ancillary claim.
AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the 13th defendant/applicant shall at the hearing of this Notice of Preliminary Objection, rely on all the processes, and record of proceedings in this suit.
DATED THIS ____ DAY OF JULY, 2016
_______________________
Osaro Eghobamien, SAN
Folabi Kuti
Gospel Adams
PERCHSTONE & GRAEYS
13th Defendant/Applicantâs Counsel
Perchstone & Graeys
Duplex D3, Jima Plaza
Plot 1267, Ahmadu Bello Way
Area 11,
Garki, Abuja
07045984803, 07045984784.
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. The Claimants
C/o their Counsel
Prof. P.T. Akper, SAN
Shankyula, T.S. Esq.
Nwineewii W. Esq. (Miss)
Pp: Equity Law Partners
Zihabit Hut, First Floor
No. 8, Jos Street, Garki District
Area 3, FCT, Abuja.
2. Balaarhyel Marama
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
3. Jumbo Emmanuel W.
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
4. Tajudeen Suleiman Niyi
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
5. Omale Richard Adejo
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
6. Henry Idama
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
7. Oluwatogbe Daniel
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
8. Obadofin O. Adegoke
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
9. Nwagwugwu Okechukwu Daniel
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
10. Answer Nathaniel U.
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
11. Eleme Petrochemicals Company Cooperative Investment and Credit Society Limited.
No. 14, Ohaeto Street, Behind ECOBANK
Regional Office, D/Line
Port Harcourt
Rivers State.
12. Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE YENEGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT YENEGOA
________________________________________________________________________
SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/106/2016
BETWEEN:
1. KENDRICK OLUKA
2. JITE ORIMIONO
3. VINCENT OLEMEFORO
4. RAPHEAL OSUNAIYE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS
5. CHRISTOPHER EKPENYONG
6. ZWALMARK GODFREY
7. TOLULOPE OLADEJI
8. OLIVER OGBONNA
9. NATHAN OKECHUKWU
AND
1. BALAARHYEL MARAMA
2. NJOKU KINGSLEY OBINNA
3. JUMBO EMMANUEL W
4. TAJUDEEN SULEIMAN NIYI
5. OMALE RICHARD ADEJO
6. HENRY IDAMA
7. OLUWATOGBE DANIEL
8. OBADOFIN O. ADEGOKE
9. NWAGWUGWU OKECHUKWU DANIEL
10. ANSWER NATHANIEL U.
11. ELEME PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY COOPERATIVE
INVESTMENT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED
12. INDORAMA ELEME PETROCHEMICALS LTD
13. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DFENDANT/
APPLICANT
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
________________________________________________________________________
I, Pius Owhoavwodua, Adult, Male, Christian, Nigerian Citizen of Duplex D3, Jima Plaza,
Plot 1267, Ahmadu Bello Way, Garki, Abuja, do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am a Legal Practitioner in the law firm of Perchstone & Graeys, counsel to the 13th defendant and by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts of this case.
2. The facts deposed in this affidavit are from my personal knowledge and from information and documentation available to me in the course of my duties. Where the facts are not directly from my knowledge, I have stated the source of my information and I also state that I verily believe same to be true.
3. I have the authority and consent of the 13th defendant and my employer to depose to this affidavit for and on their behalf.
4. That I have perused the originating summons and the affidavit in support constituting this suit.
5. From my perusal of the aforesaid processes, the claimants/respondents instituted this action against the shareholders of the 11th â 12th defendants and the 13th defendant/applicant.
6. The principal claim of the claimants is for this honourable to determine whether or not the 1st to the 10th defendants are entitled to retain the ownership of their shares/membership position in the 12th defendant.
7. That I know as a fact by my legal training that the question of ownership of shares/shareholding structure in a limited liability company is outside the jurisdiction of this honourable court.
8. That the claimants by their showing are neither members of a union within the 12th defendant nor shareholders/members of the 11th and 12th defendants.
9. That neither the 12th defendant itself nor any of its members has raised any issue as to the propriety or otherwise of the ownership of its shares by the 1st to 10th defendants.
10. That the claimants are mere employees of the 12th defendant and cannot assert any right over its shareholding structure not being members of the company themselves.
1. I, Pius Owhoavwodua depose to this affidavit in good faith believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act currently in force.
_____________________
DEPONENT
Sworn to at the National Industrial Court Registry, Yenegoa
this______________ day of ___________ 2016
BEFORE ME:
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE YENEGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT YENEGOA
________________________________________________________________________
SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/106/2016
BETWEEN:
1. KENDRICK OLUKA
2. JITE ORIMIONO
3. VINCENT OLEMEFORO
4. RAPHEAL OSUNAIYE CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS
5. CHRISTOPHER EKPENYONG
6. ZWALMARK GODFREY
7. TOLULOPE OLADEJI
8. OLIVER OGBONNA
9. NATHAN OKECHUKWU
AND
1. BALAARHYEL MARAMA
2. NJOKU KINGSLEY OBINNA
3. JUMBO EMMANUEL W
4. TAJUDEEN SULEIMAN NIYI
5. OMALE RICHARD ADEJO
6. HENRY IDAMA
7. OLUWATOGBE DANIEL
8. OBADOFIN O. ADEGOKE
9. NWAGWUGWU OKECHUKWU DANIEL
10. ANSWER NATHANIEL U.
11. ELEME PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY COOPERATIVE
INVESTMENT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED
12. INDORAMA ELEME PETROCHEMICALS LTD
13. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DFENDANT/
APPLICANT
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTâS NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
__________________________________________________________________
1.0 INTRODUCTION
_____________________
1.1 Notice of Preliminary Objection: By this Notice of Preliminary Objection, the 13th defendant/applicant contends as follows, that:
As regards Relief 1:
1. Relief Nos. 2, to 6, and 11 to 13, the principal/main reliefs of the originating summons seek to determine the question of holding/ownership of shares in a limited liability company, the 12th defendant and therefore not within the exclusively prescribed jurisdiction of this honourable court;
2. Relief Nos. 7 to 10 of the originating summons are ancillary claims and are academic, hypothetical and of no practical utilitarian value to the claimants;
3. Disputes as to share ownership in a limited liability company or rights devolving therein howbeit relating to an employeeâs relationship with/in a company is not caught within labour and employment matters: Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (2007) 1 - 2 SC 317 at 343;
4. The subject matter of the substantive action is not within the prescribed/exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
As regards Relief 2:
Want/lack of locus standi on the part of the claimants to institute this suit.
1. The claimants by their showing are neither members of a union of employees of the 12th defendant nor members/shareholders of the 12th defendant but mere individual employees of the 12th defendant;
2. The claimantâs not being members/shareholders in the 11th and 12th defendant cannot sue to challenge the allocation/ownership of shares in the 12th defendant;
3. The principal reliefs here relates to holding/ownership of shares in the 12th defendant. It is trite law that if a court does not have jurisdiction to determine the principal relief, the court cannot determine the ancillary claim.
CONSEQUENTLY the 13th defendant/applicant prays this Honourable Court for:
1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out the instant action for lack/want of jurisdiction.
Alternatively,
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court dismissing the instant action for lack/want of locus standi on the part of the claimants.
1.2 The objection is anchored on the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (CFRN 1999) and the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
1.3 Affidavit in Support: The Notice of Preliminary Objection is supported by a 10 paragraphed affidavit sworn to by one Pius Owhoavwodua, a counsel in the law firm representing the 13th defendant. Reliance shall be placed on all the averments contained in the said affidavit.
2.0 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS
_______________________________
2.1 The pith of the 1st - 9th claimants/respondentâs case are that they are confirmed and subsisting staff in the employment of the 12th defendant (Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd) while the 1st - 10th defendants are former staff of the 12th defendant who have since disengaged from the service of the 12th defendant.
2.2 It is the claimantsâ case that following the privatization of Eleme Petrochemical Company Limited (EPCL) (hitherto wholly owned by the Federal Government) the 13th defendant/applicant offered 2.5% shares of the new entity by the name of the 12th defendant to its employees as a way of giving them a share of the ownership of the 12th defendant.
2.3 The claimants further aver that the 2.5% shares so allocated to the employees inures to such employees who are in the employment of the 12th defendant. In other words, they contend that the allotted shares ceased to be owned/held by the 1st to 10th defendants upon their disengagement from the service of the 12th defendant. The claimants alleged that the 1st â 10th defendants have since disengaged from the service of the 12th defendant and therefore the 1st â 10th defendants are obligated to relinquish the shares they currently hold back to the 11th and 12th defendantsâ who should hold same in trust until new employees as the claimants/respondents apply for and be allotted the shares.
2.4 Contrary to the foregoing, which the claimants/respondents contend is in consonance with the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 200, the 1st to 10th defendants are of the view that the shares they hold in the 12th defendant inure to them in perpetuity. This issue was submitted to the Director of Corporative Societies, Rivers State Ministry of Commerce and Industry for âarbitrationâ. The Award arising therefrom was in favour of the 1st â 10th defendants hence, the claimants here challenge the arbitral proceedings contending that same was in defiance to the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. It is against the backdrop of the above facts that the aggrieved claimants approached the National Industrial Court sitting in Yenagoa seeking certain declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
2.5 The 13th defendant/applicant now raises an objection to the competence of the instant suit. The grounds are as set out on the face of the Notice of Preliminary Objection for which written arguments on the prayers sought are herein canvassed.
3.0 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
___________________________________
3.1 The 13th defendant/applicant respectfully submits that the following issues arise for determination:
I. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claimantsâ suit. (This issue has been formulated on Relief No. 1 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection).
II. Whether the instant action can be rightly maintained by the claimants not being members/shareholders in the 11th and 12th defendants? (This issue has been formulated on Relief No. 2 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection).
4.0 ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE NO. 1
________________________________
POSITION OF THE LAW:
4.1 Preliminaries: It is settled law that where the crux of an objection raised is one that challenges the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court is duty bound to consider that point. It also effectually hinders the Rules of Court from dictating when and how the point should be raised. See Nasir v. CSC Kano State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190), 253, SC. This is fundamental, as to do otherwise will render all decisions, rulings and proceedings undertaken by the Court, a nullity on appeal.
4.2 Put differently, once there is a live application before the Court which on its face challenges its jurisdiction to hear/proceed with a matter, the Court is in law, bound to decide on the application one way or the other, if its subsequent steps in the matter are to possess any iota of validity. Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 595); A-G Lagos v. Dosunmu & Ors. v. A-G. Federation & Ors (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552 at 567.
4.3 We shall now proceed to briefly highlight the settled principles of law relating to jurisdiction properly so-called and the exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
4.4 Importance of issue of jurisdiction to adjudication: The question of jurisdiction is a fundamental issue touching on the competence of a Court to adjudicate in a case. This is because the existence or absence of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the matter so as to sustain or nullify the Courtâs decision or order in respect of the relevant subject matter. That is why it is essential for any Court before which the issue is raised to determine the issue in limine to avoid embarking on an exercise in futility. Obikoya v Registrar of Companies (1975) 4 S.C 31 per Elias C.J.N. In the words of the Supreme Court, per Ogwuegbu, J.S.C., âwhere there is a defect in competence of a court to adjudicate on a matter, such defect is fatal to the proceedings and will render the proceedings, however well conducted and decided they may be, a nullity. It is immaterial, however sympathetic the cause or application may seem.â See Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) 9 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 265] 275.
4.5 Similarly, the Court of Appeal, per Ogbuinya re-echoed the importance of jurisdiction when he enthused as follows in the case of Agundi v. Commissioner of Police (2013) All F.W.L.RL [Pt. 660] 1247, 1326, paras C-D viz:
âJurisdiction consists in the competence of a court, including a tribunal, to deal with matters in controversy, be they civil or criminal, from their cradle to judgment. It is the linchpin and heartbeat of all adjudications, whether civil or criminal. It is to proceedings in court what oxygen is to human beings. It is therefore the barometer or template with which the competence or otherwise of courts and proceedings are properly gauged.â
4.6 The oft-cited case of Madukolu & others v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL N.L.R (Pt. 4) 587 at 595 is the locus classicus on the criteria for jurisdiction. Brett F.J of then Federal Supreme Court had this to say at page 595 of (1962) 1 ALL N.L.R (Pt. 4) (also reported in (1962) 2 S.C.N.L.R 341) :- â A Court is competent when:-
(1) It is properly constituted as regards numbers of and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another;
(2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(3) The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.â
4.7 Flowing from the apex Courtâs decision in Madukolu (supra), the Courts are ready to hear and determine matters when there is nothing impeding the exercise of their jurisdictional powers. The rationale is not farfetched. âIf the Court had no jurisdiction no matter how well the trial is conducted, it would be a nullity. Any judgment however well written, if given without jurisdiction is no judgment at all. Such judgment creates no legal obligation. It does not confer any rights on the partiesâ See: Barclays Bank v. C.B.N (1976 S.C 175; Mogaji v. Matari (2000) 8 N.W.L.R (Pt. 670) 722 at 735.
4.8 Determinant issue of jurisdiction: It is submitted, with respect, that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the principal reliefs sought by a plaintiff. Attorney General, Anambra State vs. Attorney General of the Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (PT 302) 692 and Alexander Madiebo v. Godwin Nwankwo (2000) 29 WRN 137 at 141.
4.9 Further, âA court that has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim cannot adjudicate over the ancillary claim where the ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim; it is improper to approach a court that has partial jurisdiction where there is a court with jurisdiction over all the issuesâ. Alhaji Zangina & Anor. v. Commissioner of Works & Housing Borno state & Ors. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 79) 1368. See also Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1988) 4 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 117] 517 @ 522: where the Supreme Court, per Obaseki, J.S.C. explained the law as follows:
âIf there is a court with jurisdiction to determine all the issues raised in a matter including the principal issue, it is improper to approach a court that is competent to determine only some of the issues. The incompetence of the court to entertain and determine the principal question is enough to nullify the whole proceedings and judgment in any matter brought before the court,â
âJudges have no duty and indeed no power to expand the jurisdiction conferred on them...the courts have always emphasised the need to decline jurisdiction where its exercise will determine issues it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine.â
(Underlining supplied)
4.10 Restricted jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court: The position is fairly well known that the National Industrial Court is a specialized court with strictly prescribed subject matter jurisdiction just like the Federal High Court. Military Adm. Kwara State v Lafiagi & ors. (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 557) 202 at 212.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE:
4.11 In the instant case, it is clear from the face of the instant application that the 13th defendant/applicant is vehemently disputing the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to hear this matter. It is therefore submitted with respect, that having come into knowledge of the pendency of this application, the Court is obliged to determine whether or not it has the jurisdiction to hear this matter which it can only do, by hearing and determining the instant application; a decision any other way leaves the Court with the possibility of having its proceedings declared a nullity. Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 595). And it is trite that the Court does not act in vain.
Keen examination of the reliefs sought/claims before the Court
4.12 It is settled law that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the Plaintiffâs claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and statement of claim. Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC 1. It is thus convenient to proceed by examining the claim/grouse of the claimants in order to determine whether this is the proper forum for the determination of the âdisputeâ herein.
4.13 Background Facts: The facts contained in the 61-paragraphed affidavit in support of the originating summons can be summarized as follows. The suit arose from the 2.5% shares of the 12th defendant company which the 13th defendant/applicant allotted to the employees of the 12th defendant during the privatization of the former company EPCL. The employees (1st â 10th defendants) of the 12th defendant formed the 11th defendant and divided the 2.5% unit of shares amongst themselves such that their shareholding interests in the 11th defendant also reflects their number of units of shares held in the 12th defendant.
4.14 The claimants contend in the main that the 1st â 10th defendants are under obligation to relinquish the shares standing in their respective names in the books of the 12th defendant in that they (1st â 10th defendants) have disengaged from the employment of the 12th defendant. Flowing from this contention, the claimants seek the principal reliefs that the shares of the 12th defendant now being held by the 1st to 10th defendants (alleged former employees) should be allotted to them (claimants) they being the present employees of the 12th defendant.
4.15 It is also instructive to emphasize that the claimants neither hold shares in the 11th nor in the 12th defendants at the moment. The claimants now seek to restrain the 1st â 10th defendants from parading themselves as individual owners of the shares in the 12th defendant and to, in effect, restrain the 12th defendant from paying dividends to the 1st â 10th defendants.
4.16 Reliefs sought: More specifically the claimants are seeking the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, any percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of a privatised public enterprise, pursuant to this section, (as in the case of the 12th defendant) are meant to improve on the welfare of labour of serving employees with a subsisting contract of service with the enterprise (in this case the 12th defendant).
2. A DECLARATION that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, any employee allocated and holding units of any percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of any privatised public enterprise, pursuant to this section, as in the case of the 12th defendant, upon cessation of employment with the enterprise, whether by retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal, death, etc ( as in the case of the 1st-10th defendant) such beneficiaryâs interest ceases forthwith.
3. A DECLARATION that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, any percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of a privatised public enterprise, pursuant to this section, (as in the case of the 12th defendant) such shares are not intended to be held individually and in perpetuity by the employees of the enterprise, but to be held in trust for the employees of the enterprise and any individual employeeâs interest/benefits in any given units subsists only during the subsistence of his/her employment with the enterprise.
4. A DECLARATION that upon cessation of the entitlement of an employee (1st â 10th defendants in this case) in terms of enjoyment of benefit in the units of the 2.5% of the 12th Defendant, such units hitherto held by him/her reverts to the pool for allocation to other serving employees of the 12th Defendant, if any, while the value of the shares hitherto held by the existing employee are monetised and paid to him/her.
5. A DECLARATION that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, it is the true intent and spirit of the law that the percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of a privatised public enterprise, (in this case, the 2.5% equity shares of the 12th Defendant) is expected to be held by the public enterprise (in this case the 12th defendant) in trust for the benefits of its employees.
6. A DECLARATION that the purported âawardâ MADE BY THE Director of Co-operative societies, River State Ministry of Commerce and Industry purportedly sitting as an âArbitratorâ to the effect that the 1st-10th defendants and indeed all holders of the 208 units of the 2.5% equity shares of the 12 Defendant are entitled to hold same individually and in perpetuity is incorrect, inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004 and as such, null and void and of no effect.
7. A DECLARATION that by virtue of Section 254c(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the National Industrial Court Act, CAP. N155, LFN 2004, the Director of Co-operative Societies, Rivers State Ministry of Commerce and Industry had no jurisdiction to purportedly âarbitrateâ over the subject matter of welfare of labour which is within the exclusive preserve of the National Industrial Court.
8. A DECLARATION that on a calm careful reading of Section 49(3)(a)(b), (4), (5) and (6) of the Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act, CAP N98, LFN 2004, and section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the National Industrial Court Act, CAP. N155, LFN 2004, the Director of Co-operative Societies, Rivers State Ministry of Commerce and Industry had no jurisdiction to sit as an arbitrator or in whatever capacity over a labour related dispute, jurisdiction in respect of which exclusively vets in the National Industrial Court.
9. A DECLARATION that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, eligibility for qualification to benefit from 2.5% equity shares offered staff of the Eleme Petrochemicals Company Limited (now Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Limited) to improve on their welfare of labour MUST NOT be based on membership of Indorama Eleme Petrochemical Company Staff Co-operative Investment and Credit Society Limited).
10. A DECLARATION that membership of Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Company Staff Co-operative Society Limited (now Eleme Petrochemicals Company Co-operative Investment and Credit Society Limited) IS NOT one and the same thing as owning units of the 2.5% equity shares of the 12th Defendant.
11. AN ORDER of the court nullifying and setting aside the purported award made by the Director of Co-operative Societies, Rivers State Ministry of Commerce and Industry to the effect that the 1st -10th are indeed all holders of the 208 units of the 2.5% equity shares of the 12th Defendant are entitled are entitled to hold same individually and in perpetuity for being contrary and inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the provisions of Section 5(3) Public Enterprises (privatisation and Commercialisation) Act, CAP P38 LFN 2004 and for want of jurisdiction.
12. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st-10th defendants and/or any other current beneficiary of benefits accruing from the 2.5% equity shares from parading themselves as individual owners in perpetuity of the 208 (or any other number of ) units of the 2.5% equity shares of the 12th Defendant.
13. AN ODRER of the court directing the 12th Defendants to take over and hold the 2.5% equity shares in trust for its employees, pursuant to Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, and to allow the 1st-9th claimants to proceed and complete the process of paying for the 208 units of the 2.5% shares already allocated to them.
14. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 12th defendants from continuously paying, and the 1st-10th defendants from continuously receiving benefits accruing from the 2.5% shares as the same is meant for the welfare of labour of only staff with a subsisting contract of employment with the 12th defendant.
4.17 The question now comes in a hurry: âwhat, if any, is the principal claim/cause of action disclosed in the underlined portions of the heads of claim reproduced above? Put in another way: âwhat is the principal claim in the instant action?â
4.18 The answer to the preceding question is key to determining whether the reliefs sought by the claimants/respondents can be determined before this Honourable Court. At this juncture, recourse is made to the reliefs disclosed in the claim before the Court.
4.19 Reliefs 2 seeks for a declarative order that on a calm and careful reading of Section 5(3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation Act) CAP P38 LFN 2004, any employee allocated and holding units of any percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of any privatised public enterprise, pursuant to this section, as in the case of the 12th defendant, upon cessation of employment with the enterprise, whether by retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal, death, etc (as in the case of the 1st -10th defendant) such beneficiaryâs interest ceases forthwith.
4.20 In a similar vein, the declaratory relief sought in the 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th heads of claim are to the effect that whether any percentage of shares so reserved for the employees of a privatized company such as the 12th defendant, such shares are not intended to be held individually and in perpetuity by the employees of the enterprise but to be held in trust for the employees by the enterprise; whether such units hitherto held by him/her reverts to the pool for allocation to other serving employees of the 12th defendant, if any, while the value of the shares hitherto held by the exiting employee are monetized and paid to him/her.
4.21 Furthermore, the mandatory order sought in the 12th and 13th heads of the claim respectively, are for an injunctive relief against the 1st -10th defendants from parading themselves as individual owners in perpetuity of 208 (or any other number of) units of the 2.5% equity shares of the 12th defendant and a restraining order in effect preventing the 12th defendant from paying dividends to the 1st â 10th defendants on the number of shares currently held by them or any known right or obligation arising, or as between the parties (that is, the 2th defendant and the 1st â 10th defendant) before the Court.
4.22 Reliefs 2 to 6 and 11 to 13 are the main or principal reliefs which in the main seek to determine whether or not the shares held by the 1st -10th defendants in the 12th defendant are valid by virtue of section 5(3) Public Enterprise (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act. These are the main reliefs for which the claimants have purportedly invoked the jurisdiction of the court to, in effect direct the 1st â 10th defendants to relinquish their shares in the 12th defendant and restrain the 12th defendant from paying dividends to the 1st â 10th defendants on the basis of the disputed shares holding. The claimants further seeks an order allowing them to proceed to complete the process of paying for the 208 units of the 2.5% shares already allocated to them.
4.23 As stated above Reliefs 7-10 are merely academic questions and the Supreme Court in Plateau State v. Attorney General Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967)361 said that:
âA suit is academic where it is merely theoretical and no practical utilitarian value to the Plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favourâŚâ
4.24 Therefore, Reliefs 7-10 are ancillary claims to the principal reliefs sought in Reliefs 2 to 6 and 11 to 13 above because even if Reliefs 7-10 are answered in the affirmative, the plaintiff gets no value or real benefit of the judgment unless Reliefs 2 to 6 and 11 to 13 are considered against the facts of the case and are answered in the affirmative.
4.25 We submit with respect, that the plaintiffâs principal claim cannot be redressed at the National Industrial Court because same is:
(i) for reliefs seeking for the determination of validly of ownership of shares in a limited liability company - a matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, and;
(ii) for reliefs seeking determination of academic/hypothetical issues. It has been repeatedly said that Courts of law are not established to deal with moot point, hypothetical and academic questions. They are established to deal with matters in difference between the parties. Akeredolu v Akinremi (1986) 2 N.W.L.R (Pt. 25)710.
Is the National Industrial Court the proper forum for the determination of dispute involving the validity of ownership of shares in a limited liability company?
4.26 Arising from the foregoing arguments on the reliefs sought vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Court; it is apposite to ask this question: âIs the National Industrial Court the proper forum for the enforcement of the right to title to shares in a limited liability company?
4.27 We respectfully submit that the Supreme Court has dealt with a similar question wherein it confirmed that issues of this nature are outside the ambit of the National Industrial Court. Here is how the Supreme Court put it in the case of Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (2007) 1 - 2 SC 317 at 343 - 344 lines 35 â 15:
âThe only issue outstanding is whether the court below ought to have made orders in plaintiff's favour concerning the shares which the plaintiff claimed to own in the defendant's company and as to the dividends accruing from such shares. The question of share ownership of an employee in a company for which he works generally has nothing to do with the terms of the employee's employment under the company. Share ownership is a relationship governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 59, 1990 Laws of the Federation. Outsiders who are not employees of a company buy shares in the company.â
4.28 It is submitted that it is the natural province of the Court to guard its jurisdictional powers and jealously too. Its approach to dealing with matters on jurisdiction was stated by Oputa JSC in African Newspaper of Nigeria & Ors v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6), 137 whilst he considered a similar challenge of the Federal High Court as follows:
âThe quarrel over jurisdiction of courts is by no means new but these quarrels have left certain significant beacons of light to guide the courts when dealing with jurisdiction or the lack of it :
i) Judges ought not to encroach or enlarge their jurisdiction because by so doing the court will be usurping the functions of the legislature. Hold CJ in Asby v White (1703) Lord Ryam
ii) Nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of the superior court but that which specifically appears to be so; and on the contrary, nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior court but that which is so expressly alleged; Peacock v. Bell and Kendall (1667) 1 Sound 74
iii) Although the courts have great powers yet these powers are not unlimited. They are bound by some lines of demarcation. Aboot C.J in The King v Justices of Devon(1819) 1 Chit Re 37. Courts are creatures of statutes and the jurisdiction is therefore confined, limited and circumscribed by the statute creating it
iv) The court is not hungry after jurisdiction Sir William Scott, The Two friends (1779) 1 C ROB Ad Rep 280
v) Judges have a duty to expound the jurisdiction of the court but it is not part of their duty to expand it. Kekewhich J. in Re Montagu (1897) LRI CD page 693
vi) A court cannot give itself jurisdiction by misconstruing a statute Polock B Queen v Country Court of Linconshire and Dixon (1887) LJ (NS) 57 Q.B.D. 137
4.27 In the instant case, it is clear without a shadow of doubt that the main relief sought by the claimants is that which seeks to challenge the validity of the shares held by the 1st -10th defendants in the 12th defendant company and to have them relinquish same and confer title to the shares on the claimants. The words of the Supreme Court in Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc (supra) are therefore apposite here: ââŚthe question of share ownership of an employee in a company for which he works generally has nothing to do with the terms of the employee's employment under the company. Share ownership is a relationship governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. 59, 1990 Laws of the Federation.â
4.28 In the case of Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.660) 224, the Supreme Court held that: "by the time-honoured doctrine of precedent as it operates in Nigeria and common law countries, the decision on a given issue of law handed down by the apex court, which for us in Nigeria is the Supreme Court, is not only superior but binds all subordinate courts, including all courts exercising appellate jurisdiction. It is the law that a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, no matter that it seems palpably null and void, unattractive or insupportable, remains good law and uncompromisingly binding until set aside by a superior court of competent jurisdiction.â
See also Babatunde and Anor v. Olatunji and Anor (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.646) 557 and Ezeokafor v. Ezeilo (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.619) 369 (1999) 6 SC (Pt.11) 1.
4.29 Going by the authoritative and clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court as above, the issue of ownership of shares in a company which is the principal issue for determination in the present suit has nothing to do with the terms of employment/welfare benefits of the claimants. Shares ownership which is being contested in the present suit is a relationship governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act. In effect, only the Federal High Court which has jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. See section 251(1) (e), CFRN, 1999 as amended. We respectfully urge the court to so hold.
The action is beyond the ambit of the subject matter jurisdiction of this honourable court with regards to the reliefs sought which are in rem and not in personam.
Furthermore, the reliefs sought by the claimants in the present suit are not in personam nut in rem and the interpretations sought extends beyond the parties now before the court. The amplitude extends well beyond the breath of action between these principal claimants and defendants. Any decision made by this honourable court as to the interpretation of section 5 (3) of the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialization) Act will have an effect on any privatized public enterprise for which the 13th defendant remains the sole body charged with the power to implement Nigeriaâs policy on privatization and commercialization. Therefore, even if the interpretation sought is in consonance with the sole aim of the 13th defendantâs establishment statute on this point, it is still the case that such a determination can only be made at the appropriate forum, that is, the Federal High Court, and incorporating all appropriate parties.
4.30 Finally, it is submitted with respect, that a diligent application of the settled position of the law as enunciated Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (Supra) to the instant case unequivocally reveals that the National Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant matter. The reason is that the suit is one that seeks to determine the validity of ownership of shares held in a limited liability company simpliciter. The apex court has held that the National Industrial Court cannot even look into dispute(s) relating to ownership of shares in a limited liability. We urge the Court to so hold, and to make an order striking out the instant action.
4.31 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ON ISSUE NO. 1: By reason of the foregoing legal arguments, we submit that this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Issue No. 1 is consequently answered in the negative. We consequently urge this Honourable Court to strikeout the instant action with cost awarded in favour of the 13th defendant/applicant.
5.0 ARGUMENTS ON ISSUE NO. 2
________________________________
Whether the instant action can be rightly maintained by the claimants not being members/shareholders in the 11th and 12th defendants? (This issue has been formulated on Relief No. 2 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection).
5.1 Issue No. 2 has been formulated as an alternative argument. In the event that the Honourable Court is not persuaded on the need to strikeout the instant action for lack of jurisdiction, we proceed herein on the further plank of locus standi on which this objection is anchored.
5.2 POSITION OF THE LAW: the principle of locus standi is an age long principle that bars a litigant from maintaining an action in the absence of same. Locus Standi is the legal capacity to institute an action in a court of law and if a person had no legal standing to institute an action, the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain his claim. See Dada v. Ogunsanya (1992) 23 NSCC (pt. 1) 569, 574. The basic principle here is that no man can sue in respect of a wrongful act unless it constitutes the breach of a duty owed to him by the wrongdoer, or unless it causes him some damage. See Olawoyin v. A.G. Northern Nigeria (1961) All N.L.R. 269.
5.3 In the words of the Supreme Court, per Bello, J.S.C., âto entitle a person to invoke the judicial powers, he must show that either his personal interest will immediately be or has been adversely affected by the action or that he has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury to himself.â See Adesanya v. The President Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 S.C. 112.
5.4 Recently, the Court of Appeal per Oseji, J.C. A, explained the effect of locus standi when he stated as follows in the case of Okedeyi v. Governor, Lagos State (2014) All FWLR [Pt. 734] 187, paras. A-D.
âIt is trite law that for a person to bring an action in respect of any subject matter, such a person must show that he has a legal right or special interest in that subject matter. In other words, for a litigant to invoke the judicial power of the court, he must show sufficient interest or threat to injury he has or will suffer from the infringement complained of. This interest or injury test is the yardstick in determining the question of the locus standi of a complainant and it is to be determined in the light of the facts or special circumstances of each case. See INAKOJU v. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT 1025) 423; A.G. AKWA IBOM STATE V. ESSIEN (2004) 7 NWLR (PT 872) 288; AKANNI v. ODEJIDE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT 879) 575; AKINNUBI V. AKINNUBI (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 86) 144 and WAZIRI V. DAMBOYI (1994) 4 NWLR (PT 598) 239. Where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action in court, the suit becomes incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. See AYOOLA V. BARUWA (1999) 11 NWLR (PT 628) 595 and EJIKEME V. AMAECHI (1998) 3 NWLR (PT 542) 456.â
5.5 Similarly, in the Court stated as follows in the case of National Universities Commission v. Alli (2014) All FWLR (Part 715) 277, 278 paras C â F:
âIn Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v. Government of Ekiti State (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 386) 658 at 690, paragraph B at 690 -692; it was held that locus standi is a constitutional requirement to enable a person maintain an action and limited to the prosecution of matters relating to the civil rights and obligation of the plaintiff. It was held thus:
âThe requirement is also constitutionally defined in civil cases by reference to the criterion that only the person or persons whose civil rights or obligations are in issue can institute any particular suit. Where no question as to the civil rights and obligations of the plaintiff is raised in the statement of claim for determination, the statement of claim will be struck out and the action dismissedâ
No civil right or obligation of the plaintiff was raised in the originating summons to have conferred any right of action on him. It is clear that the alleged âwrongâ if any was against the University and the plaintiff cannot be rewarded or compensated in damages for it. Again, the awards of damages is ancillary to the success of the other reliefs. It cannot stand on its own.â
5.6 APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE: The objection herein is hinged on the procedural effects of instituting the instant action against the 13th defendant/applicant and indeed other defendants without disclosing locus standi. It is a well settled principle of law that one of the pre-requisites of a court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, is that the claimant âmust show sufficient interest or threat to injury he has or will suffer from the infringement complained ofâ in the suit to have a right of audience before the court. The claimant must show that his interest or the injury suffered is over and above those of others where the injury complained of involves the general public or a large number of persons as in the instant case. See Olawoyin v. A.G. Northern Nigeria (1961) All N.L.R. 269.
5.7 The claimants herein as employees (and not even as a Union) - are suing ex-employees that they (the ex-employees) are not entitled to receive âlabour benefitsâ from a co-defendant (the 12th defendant) who is ordinarily invested with right to complain but is not here complaining. The 2.5% shares in the 12th defendant, the ownership of which is being disputed in the present action was allocated to the employees of the 12th defendant by the 13th defendant. If, as the claimants allege the 1st to 10 defendants are wrongly holding the shares in their name and deriving benefit therefrom, it is the 12th defendant who is vested with the locus to complain/protest such wrongful acts against its employees. What is more, the claimants by their showing (and this reflects in their relief No. 13) admits that the 12th defendant ought to hold the 2.5% of its shares in trust for its employees. That being the case, it therefore follows that it is the 12th defendant only that is clothed with the locus to institute the instant action and not the claimants herein.
5.8 In simple terms, if anyone should complain in this regard, it is the 12th defendant and not a few of the employees such as the claimants. As the court emphasised in the case of National Universities Commission v. Alli (supra), âit is clear that the alleged âwrongâ if any was against the university and the plaintiff cannot be rewarded or compensated in damages for it.
5.9 In like manner, the alleged wrongful retention of the 208 units of shares (or any other number of units of the 2.5% equity shares in the 12th defendant) by the 1st to 10th defendants is a wrong if any against the 12th defendant and therefore the claimants do not have the locus standi to complain over a wrong done to a third party, in this case, the 12th defendant and we urged to your lordship to so hold and dismiss the instant suit.
5.10 We anticipate that the claimants may want to argue that they are beneficiaries of the trust relationship flowing from the shares held by the 12th defendant in trust for its employees. With respect, this line of argument will not vest the claimants with the locus standi to maintain the present action against the 13th defendant in particular the reason being that as beneficiaries, the claimants can only sue the trustee (in this case the 12th defendant) to compel the trustee to take steps to carry out his responsibilities under the trust and not otherwise as purportedly done in the present action.
5.11 The other reason why the claimants do not have the locus to maintain the present suit relates to the famous rule in the old English case of Foss v. Harbotle. This rule has been codified in section 299 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap C20, LFN, 2004 (CAMA). Section 299 of CAMA provides as follows:
âSubject to the provisions of this Act, where irregularity has been committed in the course of a companyâs affairs or any wrong has been done to the company, only the company can sue to remedy that wrong and only the company can ratify the irregular conduct.â
5.12 The only exception to the foregoing provision is for a member of the company to bring an action for injunction or declaration restraining the company from doing specified acts. In other words, to be entitled to bring the select action in court, the applicant must be a member of the company which is not the case in the present suit filed by the claimants. Section 300 of CAMA puts this beyond paraventure as it provides thus:
âWithout prejudice to the rights of members under sections 303 to 308 and section 310 to 312 of this Act or any other provisions of this Act, the court, on the application of any member, may by injunction or declaration restrain the company from the following-
(a) entering into any transaction which is illegal or ultra vires;
(b) purporting to do by ordinary resolution any act which by its constitution or the Act requires to be done by special resolution;
(c) any act or omission affecting the applicantâs individual rights as a member;
(d) committing fraud on either the company or the minority shareholders where the directors fail to take appropriate action to redress the wrong done;
(e) where a company meeting cannot be called in time to be of practical use in redressing a wrong done to the company or to minority shareholders; and
(f) where the directors are likely to derive a profit or benefit, or have profited or benefitted from their negligence or from their breach of duty.â
5.13 Section 302, CAMA defines members of a company for the purpose of section 300 above to include:
(a) personal representatives of a deceased member; and
(b) any person to whom shares have been transferred or transmitted by operation of law.
5.14 Arising from the foregoing, the claimants herein not being members/shareholders of the 12th defendant by their showing lacks the locus standi to challenge the act or omission affecting the rights of the shareholders or for any fraud or wrong done against the 12th defendant and we urge your lordship to so hold and dismiss the instant suit in its entirety.
5.15 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ON ISSUE NO. 2: By reason of the foregoing legal arguments, we submit that this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter against the 13th defendant/applicant and indeed other defendants for want of locus standi on the part of the claimants. Issue No. 2 is consequently answered in the negative.
5.16 Consequently, we urge the Court to dismiss the entire suit with cost awarded in favour of the 13th defendant.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
_____________________________________
1. Osisanya v. Afribank Nig. Plc. (2007) 1 - 2 SC 317 at 343;
2. Madukolu & others v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL N.L.R (Pt. 4) 587 at 595
3. Barclays Bank v. C.B.N (1976 S.C 175;
4. Mogaji v. Matari (2000) 8 N.W.L.R (Pt.670) 722 at 735.
5. Attorney General, Anambra State v. Attorney General of the Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (PT 302) 692
6. Alexander Madiebo v. Godwin Nwankwo (2000) 29 WRN 137 at 141.
7. Alhaji Zangina & Anor. v. Commissioner of Works & Housing Borno state & Ors. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 79) 1368
8. Military Adm. Kwara State v. Lafiagi & ors. (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 557) 202 at 212
9. Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC 1.
10. Plateau State v. Attorney General Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967)361.
11. Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1986) 2 N.W.L.R (Pt. 25)710
12. Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) 9 N.W.L.R. [Pt. 265] 275.
13.
14. Agundi v. Commissioner of Police (2013) All F.W.L.RL [Pt. 660] 1247, 1326,
15. Sodipo v. Lemminkainen OY (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 258)229.
16. L.C.M v. Aduda (2000) 2 S.C 5
17. Rossek v. A.C.B Ltd (1993)8 NWLR (Pt.312)382 at 473, 487.
18. Anambra State Government v. Nwankwo (1995) NWLR (Pt. 418) 245
19. Mobil Producing (Nig.) Unlimited v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 1,
20. Atolagbe v. Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.522) 536;
21. Obembe v. Wemabod Estates Ltd. (1977)11 N.S.C.C
22. Ajibola v. Sogeke (2001) 23 WRN 68
23. Nasir v. CSC Kano State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190), 253, SC
24. A-G Lagos v. Dosunmu & Ors. v. A-G. Federation & Ors (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111)
DATED THIS ------------- DAY OF JULY, 2016
_______________________
Osaro Eghobamien, SAN
Folabi Kuti
Gospel Adams
PERCHSTONE & GRAEYS
13th Defendant/Applicantâs Counsel
Perchstone & Graeys
Duplex D3, Jima Plaza
Plot 1267, Ahmadu Bello Way
Area 11,
Garki, Abuja
07045984803, 07045984784
FOR SERVICE
1. The Claimant
C/o Counsel
Prof. P.T. Akper, SAN
Shankyula, T.S. Esq.
Nwineewii W. Esq. (Miss)
Pp: Equity Law Partners
Zihabit Hut, First Floor
No. 8, Jos Street, Garki District
Area 3, FCT, Abuja.
2. Balaarhyel Marama
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
3. Jumbo Emmanuel W.
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
4. Tajudeen Suleiman Niyi
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
5. Omale Richard Adejo
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
6. Henry Idama
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
7. Oluwatogbe Daniel
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
8. Obadofin O. Adegoke
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
1.
9. Nwagwugwu Okechukwu Daniel
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
10. Answer Nathaniel U.
Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
11. Eleme Petrochemicals Company Cooperative Investment and Credit Society Limited.
No. 14, Ohaeto Street, Behind ECOBANK
Regional Office, D/Line
Port Harcourt
Rivers State.
12. Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals Ltd
East-West Expressway
Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
