Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (nnpc) v Dan Iwoene Efebo

• Judge: Honourable Justice Sanusi Kado
• Judgment Date: 30 April 2020
• Respondent: Dan Iwoene Efebo
• Appellant: Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (nnpc)
• Docket Number: NICN/ABJ/182M/2019
• Counsel: Okon Uye, Esq; for the Judgments Debtors/Applicants. Onyebuchi Obeta, Esq; for the Judgment Creditor.
• Court: National Industrial Court (Nigeria)

1. This action was commenced via Originating Motion dated 8/7/2019 and filed on the same day, by the Judgment Debtors/Applicants. The Originating Motion was brought pursuant to section 12 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, Order 58 Rules 24, Order 3 Rule 3 (c), Order 17 Rule 3(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. In the Originating Motion two questions were submitted for determination. They are:-
1. Whether having regard to the nature and circumstances of this case, a direction of the court is not required to enable the judgment Debtors/Applicants comply with the judgment in the spirit and terms of the same and whether the court ought not to exercise jurisdiction to do so in the overall interest of administration of justice.
2. Whether this Honourable court ought not to restrain the enforcement of the said judgment pending the determination of the application seeking decision in respect of the self same judgment.
2. In anticipation of favourable consideration of the questions for resolution, the judgment Debtors/Applicants, prays for:-
1. An order of this Honourable court for direction as to the methodology/parameters for the computation and assessment of the sum which the Respondent is bound to pay to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent under the judgment of Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019.
2. An order of injunction restraining the judgment Creditor/Respondent from enforcing of Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017, and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019, in any manner whatsoever whether by way of writ of Fieri Facies, Garnirshee proceedings, charging order, a writ of Sequestration, an order for committal on judgment summons or any order (sic) means whatsoever until final determination of this application by the court.
3. And for such further order or other orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
3. The grounds for seeking the above reliefs are;
a) The applicant is bound to honour and obey the judgment of the Honourable Justice E. N. Agbakoba made on the 24th day of October 2017 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Judgment delivered on the 11th April 2019.
b) The judgment of this Honourable court did not state clearly how much the judgment Debtors/Applicants is to pay to the judgment Creditor/Respondent but merely directs the judgment Debtor/Applicant to assess and pay full pension to the respondent.
c) The judgment of this Honourable court which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal does not contain any methodology/parameters for the computation of the full pension to be paid to the judgment creditor.
d) This Honourable court stated as follows; the claimant has not put before the court his entitlement to pension or the basis to which he made the claim’’.
e) The Judgment Creditor is desirous of obeying the order of the court but is constrained by the lack of methodology/parameters for the computation of same.
f) The claimant has already been paid his contributory pension in terms of exhibits D3 and D4, which fact is acknowledged in the judgment.
g) There is lacuna and gap as to what yardstick to be used in assessment/computation of the pension.
h) There is need for direction of this Honourable court as to what should constitute parameters of assessment.
i) This application is brought in good faith.
4. The Originating Motion is supported by a 23 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one Ahmed Rufai Khalid, the Manager in charge of Litigation and Property law Department of the 1st Judgment Debtor/Applicants. The averments in the affidavit in support are rehash of the grounds for the application.
5. In compliance with the rules of this court the Originating Motion was accompanied by a written address. Uye Okon, Esq; counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants in adumbration informed the court that he is relying on averments contained in the affidavit in support as well as the reply affidavit. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the motion on notice as his argument.
6. In arguing question one, counsel contended that the judgment Debtors/Applicants are not seeking for a judicial review of the judgment delivered by this court on 24/10/2017. Counsel argued that it is trite law that parties are bound to obey court orders that are clear and unambiguous, notwithstanding the fact that the order may be wrong. According to counsel in the case at hand the judgment Debtors/Applicants are praying the court to make order giving directions on the modality or parameters for the assessment of the judgment creditors pension benefit having regard to the failure of the court to make specific pronouncement in respect thereof. This is because the court itself had found that there is nothing before the court to base the assessment. For if there was the court would have done so by itself. Counsel referred to pages 14 and 15 of exhibit one where in the judgment it was stated ‘’there is nothing before the court and which to base such a relief likewise at page 16, the court held ‘’the claimant has not put before the court his entitlement to pension or the basis on which he makes the claim. He was however, quick to add that the court of Appeal under section 16 of the court of Appeal Act has power that it could have invoked had it seen any evidence on record for the computation of the said pension.
7. Counsel admitted absence of specific rules of court allowing bringing an application of this nature for assessment of sum due on a judgment, there are several provisions both in the Enabling Act and the rules that vests the court with power to do substantial justice in every matter before it.
8. Section 12 of the national Industrial Court Act and Order 58 Rule 24 of the rules of this court provides that where a matter arises in respect of which no provisions or adequate provision is made in these rules or any other written law, the court may adopt such similar procedure as will in its view do substantial justice between or amongst parties.
9. By Order 17 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, provides:-
10. ‘’Any other application for directions that may be sought from the court’’.
11. It is submitted by counsel that there are innumerable authorities in English law showing that all orders of the court carry with them inherent liberty to apply to the court to seek clarification. On this submission counsel relied on the cases of Fritz V Hobson (1880) 14 ChD 542 @ 561, per Fry J. following Viney V Chaplin (1858) 3 De G & J 282; Chandless-Chandless V Nicholson (1942) 2 KB 321, (1942) 2 ALL ER 315 @ 317, See Keven V Crawforfd (1877) 6 ChD 29 at 42 Pawley V Pawley (1905) 1 Ch 593. Counsel also recommended the position of the learned Author of Halsbury Laws of England at page 30, paragraph 1228 in its 4th Edition Volume 37:
12. Counsel also argued that the...