CASE TITLE: ADEBAYO & ORS v. HEAD OF SERVICE OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-60992(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH MAY, 2023
JUSTICES: OBIETONBARA OWUPELE DANIEL-KALIO, JCA
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA
DIVISION: LAGOS
PRACTICE AREA: JURISDICTION
FACTS:
This case involves a referral to the Court of Appeal based on a case stated by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Division, under Section 295(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The referral resulted from an application by the 1st–6th Claimants seeking guidance from the Court of Appeal on the jurisdiction of the trial Court regarding a matter submitted for adjudication.
The Claimants, who served as employees of the Federal Government in the Federal Ministry of Education under the Federal Civil Service Commission, were associated with the Federal Government Science & Technical College, Yaba, and the Yaba College of Technology. They were entitled to official accommodation and were allocated specific properties, which they occupied as part of their employment benefits. According to civil service rules, they claimed the right to reside in these official accommodations until retirement.
In 2004, the Federal Government introduced a monetization policy, replacing official accommodations with monetary compensation. Under this policy, the Claimants were offered the properties as legal sitting tenants, subsequently approved for sale. Following the guidelines of the monetization policy, the claimants expressed their interest, completed necessary forms, paid required fees, and were invited to collect formal letters for payment of the purchase price. At this stage, the 5th defendant/Respondent protested, asserting that the properties belonged to the Federal Government Science & Technical College, Yaba—a claim denied by the claimants. Subsequently, the Claimants received notices to vacate the premises within 21 days or face forceful eviction. Failing to resolve the matter and complete the house sale, the Claimants instituted an action before the Federal High Court.
The Defendants raised a preliminary objection to the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, which was upheld. Consequently, the case was transferred to the National Industrial Court. The Claimants refiled the action before the Court of Appeal. The 1st–6th Claimants then sought a referral to the Court of Appeal on the jurisdictional issue through a case stated, and this application was granted.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The question was:
“Whether, given the fact that the subject matter of this suit is for the sale of Government properties, this present suit as constituted falls under the ambit of Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) 3rd Alteration and confers the National Industrial Court with the requisite Jurisdiction to entertain this matter?”
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The 1st–6th Appellants contended that the National Industrial Court, in a previous case, had declined jurisdiction in matters related to the sale of Federal Government properties under the monetization policy. They argued that the Court, bound by its previous decisions, cannot now assume jurisdiction over the present case without violating the doctrine of stare decisis. The Appellants emphasized that the subject matter, involving the sale of government properties, falls outside the labor jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
They argued that the Court lacks the power to reverse itself or refer the case back to the Federal High Court, and even if it had such power, the Federal High Court cannot assume jurisdiction without reviewing its previous decision that led to the transfer of the case. The Appellants cited specific constitutional provisions and cases to support their position.
The 7th Appellant asserted that striking out the suit at the interlocutory stage would amount to rendering judgment without a trial. It was argued that the National Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case based on the employment relationship between the 7th Appellant and the 1st and 3rd Respondents.
The Court was urged to exercise discretionary powers judiciously and decline to strike out the suit.
The 3rd and 5th Respondents countered, stating that the claim of the Claimants is connected to their employment and welfare, falling within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. They cited constitutional provisions, emphasizing that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the workplace, the welfare of labor, and connected issues. They argued that the case was properly instituted before the National Industrial Court, as it aligns with the law in force at the time of filing.
In challenging the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, the 1st to 6th Claimants referred to a previous case involving the sale of government houses, where the Court rightly held that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction. They argued that this case cannot be a precedent for determining the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court in the present matter, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action.
DECISION/HELD:
The question was answered in the affirmative.
RATIO:
JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over proposed sale of federal government properties assigned to its employees
“The Appellants herein were not random persons, simply fortuitously in occupation of Federal Government properties and unconnected with the Federal Civil Service as employees. Rather, they were offered the properties as their official accommodations and put in occupation thereto as an incidence of their employment as Federal Civil Servants under the Federal Ministry of Education, variously attached to the Federal Government Science & Technical College, Yaba, and the Yaba College of Technology, as part of their conditions of service. The contention of the Appellants as Claimants before the lower Court was that, as Federal Civil Servants, the sale of their official residences, which had been offered to them and approved, ought to be consummated, having regard to the Federal Government policy on monetization.
The basis of their claim was rooted in, connected to, and incidental to their employment as Federal Civil Servants at the material time of the contract of sale. The claim of the Claimants therefore situated their complaint squarely within the walls of the jurisdiction of the NICN, duly settled in Section 254C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. In view of these clear constitutional provisions, there is no compartment of the enumerated jurisdiction of the Federal High Court into which the claims of the Appellants can be fork-pitched.
The case of Adama & Ors v. Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors (supra), (2019) LPELR-47424(SC), cited by the 1st–6th Respondents is not relevant herein. Aside from the fact that in that case, jurisdiction was not an issue, the appellants therein, who were found not to be public or political office holders pursuant to Section 8 of the Monetization Law of Kogi State, were held not to be beneficiaries of the owner/occupier scheme of the Kogi State Government. The allocation of the respective houses to them was held to be invalid, null, and void. It was not an incident of their employment.
The case of Sule v. Cotton Board (supra), also relied on by the 1st–6th Claimants, is, again, not relevant herein. That case was in connection with a staff member who was prematurely retired by his employers for misconduct on account of his refusal to vacate his official residence upon transfer to another station. I see no relevance to the issue herein.
Let me reiterate that, in so far as the claims of a claimant fall within, are connected to, or are an incidence of employment, the Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate over the claims is the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, pursuant to Section 254C(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
In the final analysis, I answer the question raised in the case stated as follows:
Question: Given the fact that the subject matter of this suit is the sale of Government properties, this present suit as constituted falls under the ambit of Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 3rd Alteration and confers the National Industrial Court with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
Answer: The question referred to this Court by way of the case stated is answered in the affirmative for the reason that the proposed sale of the Government properties in issue is connected with and is incidental to the employment of the Claimants as Federal Civil Servants. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, by virtue of Section 254C(1)(a), is the Court vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate over the claims of the Claimants.
The answer is to be transmitted to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Division, for its guidance in the determination of Suit No. NICN/LA/556/2015 pending before it.” Per OTISI, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
