CaseLaw
Sea Trucks Nig. Ltd V. Anigboro (2001) CLR 1(a) (SC)
Judgement delivered on January 19th 2001
Brief
Facts
Respondent was in appellants employment and joined a trade union – NUPENG – which led to the appellants registering their non approval and arguing that they were a private company not involved with Oil and Gas. They suggested that it would be more appropriate if they joined National Union of Seamen and Water Transport Workers. Respondent refused to comply with the directive.
On 28/2/86 the appellant company sacked all workers involved. Respondent sued praying for an order of the court pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 and Order 1, Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 for leave to institute an action for redress on the grounds that his right of assembly and association has been breached.
Counsel for appellant urged the court that respondent’s claim for wrongful dismissal should not have been brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, but rather by way of an action under the High Court Rules.
The learned trial judge struck out the suit stating that it was statute – barred and held that the dispute between the parties not being a trade dispute the National Industrial Court cannot validly hear the matter and the High Court was vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
Both parties appealed and the appellate court upheld the respondents appeal and dismissed the appellant’s cross-appeal. Thus the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence (from the plaintiffs) that there were other children and grandchildren of Chief T. K. Dada who were not mentioned in Exhibit A. He therefore found that those other children and grandchildren acquired no interest in the land granted. The learned trial Judge observed that there was no averment in the statement of claim that the Aige family ever granted or allotted the land in dispute delineated on Exhibit A to Chief T.A. Dada.
The plaintiffs sued in a representative capacity for themselves and on behalf of the entire members of Oturadewun Tefojukan, Kutimoju Dada branch of Aige family.
The learned trial Judge held that there was no evidence of relationship of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiff with Chief T.K. Dada. He found that the 1st plaintiff is the son of one Efuneye, one of the grantees.
The plaintiffs/respondents predicated their claim on Exhibit A and from the content of Exhibit A, the parcel of land granted was to the named grantees. Their heirs and assigns in fee simple. It was not to the grantees for themselves and the entire members of Chief T.K. Dada's branch of Aige family. The learned trial Judge therefore dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeal and succeeded.
Issues
Could the dismissal of the respondent be validly challenged under an action...