IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. A. HAMZA
DATE: 4TH MARCH, 2026
SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/51/2025
BETWEEN
BOS ENERGY & PROJECTS SERVICES LIMITED … CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
AND
MONTEGO UPSTREAM SERVICES LIMITED ……... DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATION:
A.O. Karibo Esq. for the Claimant/Respondent
U. Udogadi Esq. for the Defendant/Applicant.
JUDGMENT
Introduction:
1. The Claimant/Respondent filed a complaint against the Defendants/Applicant claiming whereof for the following:
a) A Declaration the Defendant breach the Contract of Service entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant dated 2nd day of September, 2021 by the Defendant failure to pay the Claimant for the Services provided to the Defendant under the said Contract of Service agreement.
b) The sum of $172,093.11 (One Hundred and Seventy Thousand, Ninety three US Dollars and Eleven Cent) being 12 months’ Youssef Sabri's salary, mark up and tax inclusive.
c) The sum of N4,915,152.10 (Four Million, Nine Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Million, One Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, Ten kobo)
d) Interest on the said sum in reliefs (2) and (3) above at the rate of 15% (Fifteen Percent) from October, 2021 till Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 15% (Fifteen Percent) till Judgment sum is liquidated.
e) The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) only as general damages.
f) The sum of N6,000,000.00 ( Six Million Naira) only as cost of this avoidable litigation.
2. Pursuant to the above foregoing, the Defendants Applicants filed this application dated the 10th day of January, 2026 brought pursuant to Section 254 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, Order 17 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and under the inherent powers of this Court praying for the following:
a) An Order of this Court striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
b) An omnibus prayers.
3. The application is predicated upon the beneath grounds:
a. That this Court lacks jurisdiction to try or determine an action whose subject-matter is a simple contract/commercial contract, and not a labour, employment, industrial relations or workplace-related dispute.
b. By virtue of Section 254C(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), this Court's jurisdiction is limited exclusively to labour, employment, industrial relations, trade union and workplace matters, and does not extend to simple contractual disputes or contracts for service.
c. The cause of action herein does nct arise from an employment relationship ("contract of service"), but from a simple contract for service/commercial transaction, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
d. Jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be inferred, extended, or conferred by the parties or by implication.
4. In reaction, the Claimant Respondent deposed to a 5 paragraphs Counter Affidavit dated the 20th day of January, 2026, accompanied by a written address dated the same date.
Submissions of the Defendant Applicants
5. Learned Counsel to the Applicant formulated a sole issue for determination to wit:
"Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 254C (1) (a) & (k) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit whose subject matter is a simple contract commercial agreement.”
6. It was submitted that the jurisdiction of a Court is sometimes limited, especially by the type of subject matter. It is a well settled law that Courts are creatures of statute, and it is the statute that created a particular Court that will also confer on it its jurisdiction. This may be extended, not by the Courts, but by the legislature, for it is part of the interpretative functions of the Court to expound the jurisdiction of the Court but not to expand it. Citing TUKUR V.GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517 AT PAGE561; (1989) 20 NSCC (PT. 111) 225; (1989) ALL NLR 575; (1989) 9 SCNJ1.
7. Counsel further submitted that Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is strictly limited to labour and employment matters. Section 254C (1) of the Constitution (as amended by the Third Alteration Act) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with labour, employment, industrial relations, matters, workplace conditions, trade unions, and related matters.
Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the amended 1999 Constitution which was inserted into the 1999 Constitution by the Third Alteration to the Constitution which came into effect on 4th March, 2011 provides as follows:
"(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 257,272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters-
(a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith"
(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits, and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto"
8. It was argued that the above provision of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),shows clearly that exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the National Industrial Court to entertain labour and employment matters and all matters relating to payment and non-payment of salaries, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and entitlements of an employee. A simple contractual
dispute does not fall within this constitutional scope. Referring to the case of
SHENA SECURITY CO. LTD. V. AFROPAK (NIG.) LTD& ORS (2008)18 NWLR (PT. 1118) 77 where the Supreme Court clarified that a "contract for service" (independent contractor/commercial arrangement) is distinct from a "contract of service"(employment). It is without doubt that the Claimant is a Contractor for Service. An independent contractor as clearly stated in the annexed SERVICE CONTRACT between the Parties, the subject matter of this suit. Clause 12.3 of the annexed SERVICE CONTRACT stated as follows:"The SERVICE CONTRACT does not imply a master/servant or employer employee relationship but solely relates to the Supply of Services of one independent Specialist Company to another..."
9. Counsel submitted that the NICN's jurisdiction covers only "Contracts of Service". Thus, where the relationship is not employer-employee as in the present instance, this Honourable Court cannot assume jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court depends on the existence of a labour and an employment relationship (master-servant/employee-employer), not simply any contractual relationship. Where the relationship is that of an independent contractor or commercial contract, such disputes fall outside the provisions of Section 254(C) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Citing ONUMALOBI V. NNPC & ANOR (2004) 1 NLLR (PT.2) 304(CA), where the Court of Appeal emphasized that ordinary contractual disputes unrelated to employment does not fall under the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.; IDONIBOYE-OBU V. NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805)589; MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.
10. It was also posited that the effect of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court is that in the absence of any essential pillar in a matter, that matter and any proceedings thereto is a nullity. As in the present case, it is crystal clear, by the Claimant's own showing in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts that the subject matter of this suit is outside this Honourable Court's jurisdiction, hence this suit is a nullity and ought to be struck out by this Honourable Court.
11. Learned Counsel argued further that from the above, it can be summarized that the Claimant/Respondents' facts (as pleaded) show a simple contractual transaction. Additionally, it discloses that there is:
a. No employer-employee relationship:
b. No labour issue;
c. No industrial relations dispute,
d. No workplace condition claim;
e. No statutory employment.
12. He went further and submitted that this Honourable Court will lack the requisite jurisdiction over pure commercial contracts even if parties attempt to couch them in labour-like terminology. Referring to the case of ADEDEJI V. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2012) 17 NWLR (PT.1329) 28, where the Supreme Court determined that Jurisdiction is determined by the claims of a claimant as endorsed on the originating processes, and not by the labels, nomenclature, or ingenuity of Counsel; A.G. LAGOS STATE V. DOSUNMU (1989) 3NWLR (Pt. 111) 552.
13. Counsel submitted finally that the filing of a simple contractual dispute in this Honourable Court cannot "create jurisdiction where the Constitution does and therefore urged this Honourable Court to hold that having no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of this suit: It no longer has the constitutional as well as judicial powers to hear this suit and ought therefore to strike out same for want of jurisdiction.
Submissions of the Claimant/Respondent
14. The Learned Counsel to the Claimant in his written address in support of his Counter Affidavit dated the 20th day of January, 2026 distilled a sole issue for determination to wit:
"Whether it is not questionable in law for a party in a suit to approbate and reprobate on the same issue of law."
15. It was submitted that it is settled law that it is the Claimant's claim, or the reliefs sought by the Claimant that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. Citing SCC (NIG) LTD & ANOR VS GEORGE & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62865(SC). He argued that in this present suit before this Court, the Claimant's claim is as stated in the General Form of Complaint and its accompanying Statement of Facts filed on the 8th day of July, 2025 while in the earlier matter filed in the High Court of Rivers State in suit No: PHC/7241/CS/2023 which is Exhibit 'A', the said two (2) suits have same parties and same reliefs. In other words, the nature of the claims are the same. He referred the Court to Section 254(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which conferred jurisdiction on this Honourable Court on the subject matter of a suit or claim.
16. Counsel argued that it was the Defendant Applicant clear argument at the High Court of Rivers State in suit No: PHC/7241/CS/2023 as stated in Exhibit 'B' referring to paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Defendant/Applicant argument at the High Court of Rivers State, for ease of reference as follows:
3.4 My Lord, having carefully examined the Claimant's reliefs as endorsed on its Writ of Summons filed on the 15th day of August, 2023, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this Honourable Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant's suit.
3.6 My Lord, looking at the Claimant's two principal reliefs alone, which are for recovery of salary and allowances, it clearly reveals that the Claimant's case is founded contract of service, that is, labour and employment, same is therefore determinable only by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, which is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to determine labour related matters, and not this Honourable Court.
17. According to him, it was based on the above paragraphs that the suit was struck out and the Claimant has now filed same relief before this Court urging this Court not to abuse jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Therefore, the Defendant Applicant cannot approbate and reprobate on the same issue of Law deprecate at such an argument by the Defendant which is contrivable in Law. Citing the case of SPDC NIG LTD VS EDAMKWE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.489) 407. He urged the Court to so hold and reject this line of argument by the Respondent Applicant which only purpose is basically aim at shifting out the Claimant from having access to Court or in the alternative transfer this matter to any state High Court in accordance with Order 62 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court.
COURT'S DECISION
18. I have carefully considered the submissions of both Counsel and the authorities cited to that effect. I have equally read and analyzed the supporting Affidavit, Counter Affidavit, Annexures as well as the Complaint. Consequently, this Court hereby adopts the sole issue as rightly distilled by the Applicant for being the thrust of action. Other ancillary issues may subsumed in the determination of this suit to wit:
“Whether in the light of the provisions of Section 254C (1) (a) & (k) of the1999 Constitution (as amended) this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit whose subject matter is a simple contract/commercial agreement.”
19. To begin with the snippet, the issue of jurisdiction is a fundamental threshold issue. It is settled law that no matter how well conducted the proceedings and judgment of a Court is, they become nullity where it is shown that the Court lacks the competence and jurisdiction to entertain the action. A Court can only assume jurisdiction if the subject matter is within its jurisdiction and the case has been initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (Supra).
20. The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is specialized and limited to matters specifically enumerated in the Constitution and relevant statutes as rightly argued by the Applicant. Therefore, to determine whether the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has jurisdiction one has to go to the primary source which is Section 254(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. this Section provides that the National Industrial cou6rt of Nigeria shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade union, industrial relation and matters arising from the workplace, condition of service including health, safety, welfare of labour and matters incidental thereto.
21. Furthermore, Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 reinforces this by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Court in civil causes and matters relating to labour, trade union and industrial relation. As noted in
BABATUNDE & ANOR VS COVENANT UNIVERSITY (2015) LPELR -
80252 (CA).
22. It is imperative to say that the facts of the case as captured in the complaint is not much in doubt in the sense that the Claimant sought to enforce contradicted obligation accruing from mutual agreement for the supply of staff to the Defendant which contract was allegedly breached. It has never been shown that the Claimant is an employee of the Defendant Applicant in any way. However, if it is a contract for service like in the instant case, National Industrial Court of Nigeria generally lacks jurisdiction unless it falls under specific labour related categories. See NATIONAL UNION OF ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION IN FURNITURES & WOOD WORKERS VS BETCON BALL (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR - 58760 (CA).
23. In the final analysis it is my considered opinion that the application has merit and it is hereby ordered as follows:
This matter is hereby transferred to the Rivers State High Court for trial pursuant to Order 62 Rule l of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.
----------------------------------------------
Hon. Justice M. A Hamza
Judge