IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT NIGERIA

                                       IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

                                                    HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

       BEFORE HER LADYSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE

 

DATE: JANUARY 23, 2026                                            SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/303/2024                                                          

BETWEEN:

ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED                                                       CLAIMANT                        

AND

1. HAROLD OKHIONKPAMWONYI IDEMUDIA.    

2. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL

COURT OF NIGERIA, ABUJA                                                         DEFENDANTS

3. THE DEPUTY SHERIFF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL

 COURT OF NIGERIA, ABUJA                                                                                           

 

REPRESENTATION

P. Biobele-Georgewill for the Claimant, with S.O. Nwokolo.

M. K. Bielonwu for the 1st Defendant, with L.P Osakwe.

No appearance for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and claims

[1] The Claimant commenced this action against the Defendants by way of Originating Motion filed on the 29th of August 2024 praying for the following reliefs:

1)     An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the issuance of the writ of attachment dated 11th June 2024.

2)     An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the enforcement of the writ of attachment dated 11th June 2024 by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for being wrongful and irregular.

 

3)     An Order of this Honourable Court directing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to return the three cheques issued by the Claimant in satisfaction of the wrongful and irregular enforcement carried out by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

 

4)     And such further Order (s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

[2] The grounds upon which the originating motion is made are as follows:

1.      The 1st Defendant commenced an action against the Claimant in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/113/2014- HAROLD IDEMUDIA v ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja.

2.      The trial Court Per Hon Justice M.N Esowe on 25th May 2017 entered judgment in favour of the 1st Defendant ordering the Claimant to pay the following to the 1st Defendant: payment of monthly salary of N 565, 325.69 (Five Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-five Naira and Sixty-Nine Kobo) for 7 months; payment of thirteenth month salary of N357, 047.80 (Three Hundred and Fifty-Seven Thousand Forty-Seven Naira Eighty Kobo) for 1 month; Retirement Pension from July 2013-February 4th  2014; N5,000,000.00(Five Million Naira) for general damages and 10% interest rate which takes effect after 60 days of failure to comply with the judgment.

3.      Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Claimant appealed against same at the Court of appeal in CA/A/135/2018- ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD V HAROLD IDEMUDIA. The 1st Defendant also cross-appealed the trial Court’s Judgment in CA/A/136/2018- HAROLD IDEMUDIA V ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD.

4.      On the 29th November 2023, the Court of appeal in CA/A/135/2018 affirmed the decision of the trial Court but reversed the award of damages of N5,000, 000.00 awarded by the trial Court against the Claimant and instead declared that the 1st Defendant is entitled to one month salary in lieu which is the sum of N565,325.69 (Five Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-five Naira and Sixty-Nine Kobo).

5.      The Claimant complied with the judgment of the Court of appeal and paid the sum of N11,631,892.39 (Eleven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety-two Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo) due to the 1st Defendant and credited his account No. 2112263112 domiciled with Ecobank Nigeria Limited. The Claimant consequently notified the 1st Defendant and filed an affidavit of compliance at the trial Court showing compliance with the judgment of the Court.

6.      The Claimant became aware that the 1st Defendant had applied to the trial court to enforce the judgment of the trial court in spite of the Claimant’s compliance to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the Claimant filed a motion with motion number: NICN/ABJ/24M/2024 seeking amongst other things to restrain the Defendants from unwarranted execution of a writ of attachment against the Claimant to avoid double compensation to the 1st Defendant.

7.      The trial Court presided over by Hon. Justice S.O Adeniyi upon hearing the Claimant’s motion no. NICN/ABJ/24M/2024, dismissed the same in its ruling delivered on 15th of July, 2024 on the basis that the payment of the judgment sum into the account of the 1st Defendant amounts to self-help. The Claimant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court appealed against same vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 18th July 2024. The Claimant also filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment to prevent double compensation to the 1st Defendant.

8.      Notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for stay of execution at the trial Court, the 1st Defendant procured the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to proceed to execute the judgment on 22nd July 2024.

9.      The Court of appeal in its judgment in CA/A/135/2018 delivered on 29th November 2023 while reversing the award of damages granted in favour of the 1st Defendant held at page 49 of its judgment as follows: “going by the principles enunciated in the foregoing decided cases, what the respondent is entitled to is one month salary in lieu of notice, plus his full salary from July 18th ,2013 when he was dismissed, and wrongly, going by the findings of this court earlier made elsewhere in this judgment.”

10. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in reversing the damages awarded against the Claimant substantially varied the judgment of the trial Court. This fact was concealed by the 1st Defendant when he applied for the issuance of a writ of attachment for the execution of the judgment.

11. The trial Court without due regard for the judgment of the Court of Appeal which substantially varied the entitlement of the 1st Defendant proceeded to issue a writ of attachment based on the judgment of the trial Court in the sum of N 21,819,319.33 over and above the judgment of the Court of Appeal which substantially varied the trial Court’s judgment.

12. The trial Court ought not to have granted leave to issue the writ of attachment based on the judgment of the trial Court without due regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal which substantially varied the trial Court’s judgment.

13. The enforcement carried out by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants based solely on the judgment of the trial court without due regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal is wrongful and irregular and ought to be set aside.

14. This honourable court has the powers to set aside the writ of attachment and the execution carried out based on the writ for being wrongful and irregular having been done in contravention of the judgment of the trial Court.

 [2] The originating motion is supported by a 19 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by Inemesit Eton, Legal Practitioner, to which is annexed Exhibit A to Exhibit F2 and a written address dated 26th August 2024. The 1st Defendant swore to a counter affidavit on the 17th October 2024 and annexed Exhibit HO1 to HO14 and a written address. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not file any processes.

Case of the Claimant

[3] The facts upon which the Claimant has premised his questions for determination and the reliefs he is seeking are as contained in the supporting affidavit. To state the facts concisely, the 1st Defendant commenced an action against the Claimant in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/113/2024 HAROLD IDEMUDIA v. ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD and judgment was entered in favour of the 1st Defendant on 25th May 2024. The Claimant herein  dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court appealed against same in the Court of Appeal in Suit No: CA/A/135/2018, and the 1st Defendant cross-appealed in Suit No: CA/A/136/2018. The Claimant states that the Court of Appeal in CA/A/135/2018 affirmed the decision of the trial Court but varied the award of damages of N5, 000, 000 awarded to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum N565, 325, 69.

[4] The Claimant states that it complied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and paid the sum of N11,631,892.39 to the 1st Defendant’s account and notified him. The Claimant states it became aware that the 1st Defendant had applied to enforce the judgment in spite of its compliance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and  filed a  motion to restrain the Defendant from enforcing the judgment to avoid double compensation to the 1st Defendant. The Court presided over by Hon. Justice S. O. Adeniyi upon hearing the motion dismissed same in its ruling delivered on 15th July, 2024 on the basis that the payment into the account of the 1st Defendant amounts to self-help. The Claimant states that being dissatisfied with the ruling, it filed a notice of appeal and application for stay of execution and served same on the Defendants, yet the Defendants  proceeded to execute the judgment disregarding the motion for stay of execution.

[5] The Claimant states that the trial Court without regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal issued a writ of attachment based on the Judgment of the trial Court in the sum of N21,819,319.33 which was wrongly enforced. That the 1st Defendant concealed the fact that the judgment of the Court of Appeal substantially varied the judgment of the trial Court particularly as it relates to the award of damages, when obtaining the order for the issuance of the writ of attachment. The Claimant states that the enforcement carried out by the 2nd and 3rd Defendant based solely on the judgment of the trial Court without due regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal is wrong and irregular and ought to be set aside.

Case of the 1st Defendant

[6] The facts upon which the 1st Defendant opposes this originating motion is as stated in the counter affidavit. The 1st Defendant states that he instituted an action against the Claimant in this Court Suit No: NICN/ABJ/113/2014 and Judgment was given in his favour on the 25th of May, 2017. The Claimant filed an appeal against the Judgment, and he filed a cross-appeal. The Claimant states that the Court of Appeal in CA/A/135/2018 dismissed the appeal of the Claimant and affirmed the Judgment of this Court; and his cross-appeal CA/A/136/2018 was allowed. The 1st Defendant states that this suit is a repetition of an earlier application filed by the Claimant on the 21st of June 2024 challenging the enforcement of the Judgment in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/113/2014 after it was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in CA/A/135/2018 (Exhibit HO1) and the cross-appeal filed by the 1st Defendant in CA/A/136/2018 (Exhibit HO2) was allowed. The 1st Defendant states upon hearing the Claimant’s application in NICN/ABJ/24M/2024 for injunctive orders restraining the enforcement of the Judgment, the Court presided over by Hon. Justice S. O. Adeniyi dismissed it for lacking merit.

[7] The 1st Defendant averred that by his calculation, the Judgment Sum accruing from the Judgment of the Court on the 25th of May, 2017 and the Cross-Appeal delivered on the 29th of November 2023 by the Court of Appeal is N 21,819,319.33 (Twenty-One Million Eight Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Nineteen Naira, Thirty-three kobo) which is an addition of N18,231,675.53 (Eighteen Million Two Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand, Six Hundred and Seventy-five Naira, Fifty-three kobo) and his gratuity as ordered by the Court of Appeal in the cross-appeal which was N 3,587,643 (Three Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty-Three). The 1st Defendant states that a writ of execution was granted against the Claimant for failure to pay the said Judgment sum N21,819,319.33 (Twenty-One Million Eight Hundred and Nineteen Thousand, Three Hundred and Nineteen Naira, Thirty-three kobo).

[7] The 1st Defendant states that when he didn’t receive the judgment sum, he wrote a letter of demand to the Claimant on the 16th of January, 2024 to which the Claimant responded by letter saying that it has deducted the sum of N 11,631,892.39 (Eleven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-one Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Two Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo), being the judgment sum from my alleged indebtedness to her in the sum of N 47,056,131.82 (Forty-Seven Million Fifty-Six Thousand, One Hundred and Thirty-one Naira, Eighty-two kobo) and that my indebtedness to her is now in the sum of N35,444,239.22 (Thirty-Five Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty-Nine Naira, twenty-two kobo).The 1st Defendant states that only became aware of the said letters (Exhibits HO10 and HO11) in July 2024 when the Claimant filed NICN/ABJ/24M/2024, claiming that the judgment sum was N11,631,892.39 (Eleven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-one Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Two Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo) and that it had paid same.

[8] The 1st Defendant states that the Judgment of the Court of Appeal did not instruct the Claimant to use the Judgment sum to settle any alleged loan or debt; and that he is not indebted to the Claimant. That he did not instruct that the Judgment sum be paid into the said account as he no longer operates any account with the Claimant and the alleged account in question was a staff salary account for staff of the Claimant opened by the Claimant as a medium through which emoluments of its staff are paid. The 1st Defendant states that the Claimant is indebted to him on account of deductions taken from his account and that of other staff of the Claimant under the guise of investment scheme. The 1st Defendant stated that the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Suit No. NICN/LA/231/2012 delivered a judgment on the issue against the Claimant in May 2024 in the sum of over a Billion Naira. That the judgment of the National Industrial Court and that of the Court of Appeal in appeal nos.: CA/A/135/2018 and CA/A/136/2018 were enforced on the 22nd of July, 2024 and the judgment sum long released to him.

Claimant’s submissions

[9] The issues submitted for determination by the Claimants are as follows:

          1. Whether the execution of the judgment of the trial Court by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants notwithstanding the compliance by the Claimant to the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the Pendency of the motion for stay of execution, is not wrongful, irregular and liable to be set aside?

     2. Whether the issuance of the writ of attachment of the sum of N21, 819, 319.33 and the execution of the trial Court’s judgment made on 29th May 2017 without due regard to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/A/135/2018 delivered on 29th November 2023 which substantially varied the judgment of the trial Court, is not wrongly, irregular and ought to be set aside?

[11] Learned counsel to the Claimant on issue one submitted that the execution of the judgment of the trial Court notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for stay of execution filed by the Claimant to prevent double compensation to the 1st Defendant, is wrongful, irregular and liable to be set aside citing Vaswani Trading Company v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) 12 SC 77 at page 82. He submitted that the Claimant complied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and paid the sum of N11, 631, 892.39 due to the 1st Defendant and credited his account No. 2112263112 domiciled with Eco bank Nigeria Limited and filed an affidavit of compliance in Court. That the 1st Defendant  applied to the trial Court to enforce the judgment of the trial Court in spite of its compliance to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He stated that the Claimants motion NICN/ABJ/24M/2024 to restrain the Defendants from execution of a writ of attachment to avoid double compensation was heard Hon. Justice S. O. Adeniyi dismissed in its ruling delivered on 15th July 2024 on the basis that the payment of the judgment  sum into the account of the 1st Defendant amounts to self-help.

[12] Leaned counsel stated that the Claimant being dissatisfied with the ruling filed a Notice of Appeal on 18th July 2024, and a motion for stay of execution. Notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for stay of execution, the 1st Defendant procured the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to proceed to execute the judgment of the trial Court on 22nd July 2024. He submitted that an application for stay of execution is to ensure that status quo is maintained pending the determination of an appeal citing M. O. Kanu & Co. v. FBN Plc. (1998) 11 NWLR (Part 572) page 116. He further submitted that once a party has had notice of the pendency of such a court process; he is bound to stay all actions until the determination of the motion and he referred to Nigerite Ltd v. Dalami Nigeria Ltd (1992) 7 NWLR (Part 253) page 288 at 298.

[13] On issue 2 the learned counsel submitted that the issuance of the writ of attachment for the execution of the judgment of the trial Court without taking into cognizance the variation introduced by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, renders   the issuance of the writ of attachment and the execution of the judgment wrongful, irregular and liable to be set aside.  He submitted that it is trite law that a trial Court can set aside its order when it is obtained by fraud or deceit, the judgment or order is a nullity, the court was misled into giving judgment or making the order under a mistaken belief that the parties consented to it, the judgment or order was made in the absence of jurisdiction, the procedure adopted was such as to deprive the decision or judgment or order made of the character of a legitimate adjudication, the judgment or order is obtained based on concealment of material facts. Counsel cited Ene v. Asikpo (2010) 10 NWLR (Part 1203)477 at 517, ADH Limited v. Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (2015) 8 NWLR (Part 1357) 483 AT 515 - 516; Ikpong v. Udobong (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1017) 184.

[14] Learned counsel contended that the 1st Defendant while obtaining the issuance of the writ of attachment for the execution of the judgment of the Court deliberately concealed the fact that the Judgment of the Court of Appeal varied the Judgment of the trial Court. Learned counsel relying on the provision of Order 49 Rules 25 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 submitted that in the instant case, the 1st Defendant is only entitled to enforce the judgment of the Court of Appeal not that of the trial Court.

1st Defendant submission

[15] The issues submitted for determination by the 1st Defendant are as follows:

1.      Whether this Suit, as constituted by the Claimant, is not an abuse of court process in that it is caught up by estoppel per rem judicata in the light of the decision of this Honourable Court in NICN/ABJ/M24/2024, delivered on 15 July 2024, per S.N. Adeniyi J.

2.      Whether the Claimant has sufficient legal grounds for the grant of the reliefs sought failing which this suit should be dismissed for being an abuse of Court Process?

[15] Learned counsel to the 1st Defendant on issue one submitted that the suit is an attempt by the Claimant to force the hands of the Court to re-litigate the same subject matters which are caught up by the principle of estoppel per rem judicata in an earlier decision of the Court in NICN/ABJ/24M/2024, delivered on the 15th of July 2024. He submitted that this suit borders on the same question and facts surrounding the execution of the Judgment of the court in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/113/2014 affirmed by the Court of Appeal in CA/A/135/2018 and subsequently varied by CA/A/136/2018. He submitted that it is trite that the Judgment of the Courts must be obeyed and cited Gitto Constructioni Generali Nigeria Limited v. Innovate and Company Enterprises & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25725(CA), Amaechi v. INEC (2008) S NWLR (pt. 1080) 227 at 366 .

[16] Learned Counsel stated that after the Claimant purportedly paid the said sum of N 11,631,892.39 (Eleven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-one Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Two Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo) into the account of the 1st Defendant with it, the Claimant, issued exhibits C1, HO 11 and HO 12 informing the 1st Defendant that it had applied the judgment debt which it calculated to be N 11,631,892.39 (Eleven Million, Six Hundred and Thirty-one Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety-Two Naira, Thirty-Nine Kobo) to offset a purported debt the 1st Defendant owed, and that the 1st Defendant should pay up the outstanding in the sum of N 35,444,239.22(Thirty-Five Million Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-Nine Naira, Twenty-Two Kobo). The, learned counsel submitted that the act of the claimant clearly amounts to self-help.

[17] Learned counsel stated that it is a settled principle of law that a Court cannot overrule itself or sit on appeal on its own decision. He cited F.B.N. v. Asubop Co. (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 836) 1 at 14-15, Covalent Oil & Gas Services Ltd v. Ecobank (Nig.) Plc (2021) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1784) 252 at 281, Dingyadi v INEC (2010) 18NWLR (Pt. 1224) 154, Adeogun v. Fasogbon (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1250) 427. He further submitted that the present suit is caught up by the doctrine of estopel per rem judicata as the suit, seeks to invite the Court to allow the Claimant re-litigate a matter that the Court is functus officio citing Eyo v Okpa (2010) 6 NWLR (PT. 1191) 611 at 633, Ikhimwin v. Elema (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 283. Counsel submitted that this suit is an abuse of court process as the Ruling of 15th of July 2024 serves as a necessary stumbling block; and that the addition of the 2nd and 3rd Defendant to the suit changes nothing.

[18] Learned counsel on issue two submitted that court orders must be obeyed stricto sensu, anything to the contrary will amount to self-help. That for the Claimant to use the judgment sum to offset any alleged loan sum amounts to self-help as held by the Court in NICN/ABJ/24M/2024 and he cited C.D.C (Nig) Ltd. v. SCOA (Nig) Ltd. (2007) 6NWLR (PT. 1030) 300 at 363.  Learned counsel submitted that having disobeyed the order of the court to pay the judgment sum until execution was levied against it, the Claimant lacked the legal basis to institute this action citing Fasakin Foods (Nig) Co Ltd. v. Shosanya (2003) 17 NWLR (PT. 849) 237, Nweke v. FRN (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1679) 51 at 71, Para. D-E.

Decision

[18] I have carefully considered the originating motion, the affidavit evidence of the parties, the submissions of counsel and authorities relied on. It is not in dispute that the Claimant filed an appeal Suit No: CA/A/135/2018, and the 1st Defendant filed a cross appeal Suit No: CA/A/136/2018 against the judgment delivered by Hon Justice M.N. Esowe on 25th May 2017. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in both appeals on 29th November 2023.

[19] The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Claimant’s appeal per James Gambo Abundaga JCA:

The end result is that all three issues having been resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. In consequence the judgment of the trial court delivered on 25th May 2017 by Hon Justice M.N Esowe is hereby affirmed.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

The Court of Appeal did not vary or set aside the judgment of Hon Justice M.N. Esowe as argued by learned counsel to the Claimant.

[19] The Court of Appeal also unanimously upheld the 1st Defendant’s cross-appeal per James Gambo Abundaga JCA as follows:

In the result, I find merit in the cross-appeal and hereby allow it. Consequently, I hereby set aside the part of the decision that refused the cross-Respondent’s entitlement to gratuity. Therefore, I grant the cross-Appellant his relief No 7 to the extent only that he is entitled to gratuity.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

[20] The Judgment of the Court of Appeal in both appeals is unambiguous. Therefore the submissions of the Claimant that the Court of Appeal varied the judgment of this Court in its own appeal Suit No: CA/A/135/2018 is erroneous. The Court of Appeal clearly stated “In consequence the judgment of the trial court delivered on 25th May 2017 by Hon Justice M.N Esowe is hereby affirmed.” This statement of the Court of Appeal is clearly unambiguous. By the provisions of Section 243 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of any appeal arising from any civil jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court shall be final. There is no further appeal in respect of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Claimant/Judgment Debtor either willingly complies with the Judgment of the Court, or awaits enforcement by the 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor.

[21] The application made by the Claimant in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/24M/2024 seeking injunctive orders to restrain the 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor from taking steps to enforce the judgment was refused for being frivolous and lacking in merit in a considered Ruling delivered on 15th July 2024 by Hon Justice S.O Adeniyi. The Claimant argues that it filed a Notice of Appeal against the Ruling and an application for a stay of execution (Exhibits E1 and E2) yet the Defendants proceeded to execute the judgment. The said Notice of Appeal (Exhibit E1) was not filed at the Court of Appeal, it has no appeal number or the stamp of the Court of Appeal; there is no evidence that the motion for stay of execution was duly filed (Exhibit E2). There is no assessment by the Registry on the process, neither is there evidence of payment of filing fees. It is trite law that the application for a stay of execution is grounded upon an existing valid notice of appeal. There is no valid notice of appeal filed against the Ruling, or a pending motion for stay of execution, neither is there evidence that any process was served on the Defendants to put them on notice. I find that there was nothing to prevent and/or stop the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from enforcing the Judgment of the Court.

[22] The Judgment of the Court has been enforced; and the 1st Defendant in paragraph 22 of his counter affidavit states:

22. That the Judgment of the National Industrial Court and that of the Court of Appeal in appeal nos: CA/A/135/2018 and CA/A/136/2018 were enforced on the 22nd of July, 2024 according to the writ of attachment issued by the National Industrial Court and the judgment sum long released to the 1st Defendant. Application for the release of the judgment sum written by my counsel to the 2nd Defendant is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit HO13 and HO14.

 By this deposition, it is clear that the enforcement of the Judgment is a completed act. What then is the purpose of this suit instituted by the Claimant on 29th August 2024 against the Defendants?

[23] The grounds, facts, and issues upon which the Claimant has brought this application are exactly the same grounds, facts and issues raised by it in its earlier application for restraining injunctive orders that was dismissed in the considered Ruling in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/24M/2024. The issues of res judicata and abuse of the process of court have been raised by the 1st Defendant. Where an issue has been litigated upon and a final judgment has been delivered on the merits, the issue should be regarded as decided forever, and the doctrine of res judicata is to be applied to bring an end to litigation; see Adeyefa v Bamgboye (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1419) 520 SC, Caraway Ventures Integrated Nig. Ltd v Jakana & ors (2022) LPELR 58219 (CA).

[24] The issues in this suit have already been decided in the Ruling in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/24M/2024. This Court cannot sit on appeal over the Ruling. The Claimant cannot re-litigate the issues by formulating a fresh claim as it has done by this action, see Cole v Jibunoh (2016) LPELR -40662 (SC) 54, A-E, Oleksandr v Lonestar Drilling Co Ltd (2015) LPELR 24614 (SC) 49-50. This suit is clearly an abuse of the process of Court, see Nyako v UBA plc (2019) LPELR-46587 (CA). The proper order to make in this instance is that of a dismissal, see Ladejo v. Ajimobi [2016] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 88 at 128 paras A-B.

[25] This case is dismissed. Costs in the sum of N500,000.00 is awarded each of the Defendants.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

___________________________

Hon Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae