BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: JULY 17, 2025                             SUIT NO NICN/AWK/53/2024

 

BETWEEN

Dr. Peter Ngoesina Ekemezie                                      -           Claimant

 

AND

  1. Nnamdi Azikiwe University
  2. Federal Government of Nigeria                
  3. Amb. Greg Ozuomba Mbadiwe                              -           Defendants

 

REPRESENTATION

Peter Ngoesina Ekemezie represents himself.

Uchenna Idenyi Nwamini, Esq. for the 1st Defendant.

No legal representation for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

 

RULING

  1. This ruling pertains to a motion on notice dated the 30th day of May 2025 and filed on the 4th day of June 2025, brought by the claimant pursuant to Order 15 Rule 2(8) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The motion seeks an order of the Honourable Court to enter judgment in favour of the claimant for the defendants’ failure to disclose any defence in the matter.

 

  1. The claimant's application is predicated on the ground that since the inception of the suit on the 29th of October 2024, the defendants have failed to file any statement of defence or response to the claimant’s pleadings. Affidavits of service on record, dated 12th November 2024, 29th and 30th April 2025, and 5th June 2025, confirm that the defendants were duly served with the originating processes.

 

  1. On the 10th day of June 2025, when the matter came up for hearing, the claimant moved his application for the court to enter judgment in this suit. From the court’s record, the 1st defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection along with a Statement of Defence; however, both were filed after the Court had sat and the application was not heard as no legal representation was present for any of the defendants during the court’s sitting. Consequently, those processes, though now on record, did not form part of the material before the court at the time of hearing of the claimant’s motion and therefore cannot be treated as a defence to the claim.

 

  1. Thus, Order 15 Rule 2(8) of the Rules of this Court provides as follows:

"Where the defendant fails to file a defence within the time stipulated by these Rules, the claimant may apply to the Court for judgment in default, and the Court may, where appropriate, enter judgment as may be just having regard to the reliefs claimed."

 

  1. The import of this provision is that where a party fails to respond to the claimant’s pleadings, the court is empowered to enter judgment, subject to the justness of the reliefs claimed. However, this discretion is not automatic or mechanical. The claimant must still satisfy the court that the reliefs are legally competent and supported by credible evidence, even in the absence of a defence.

 

  1. This position is well-established in our jurisprudence. In U.B.A. v. Jargaba (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 247, the Supreme Court held that where a defendant fails to controvert facts properly pleaded and supported by evidence, the claimant is entitled to judgment on those unchallenged facts. However, declaratory reliefs in particular must still be proved, even where uncontroverted. See also: Dumez Nigeria Ltd v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 SC; TN v. Corporate Communications Investment Ltd (2019) LPELR-47041 (SC). Thus, in considering this application, the court must evaluate whether the statement of facts, the affidavit in support, and other accompanying processes annexed are sufficient to sustain the reliefs sought.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant avers that he was appointed into the 1st defendant’s institution (Nnamdi Azikiwe University) in July 2010 after his Ph.D. dissertation on the production of automotive brake pads using kaolin was submitted for patenting by the 2nd defendant’s agency, NOTAP. The patent was eventually granted in 2016 and registered as Patent No. NG/P/415/2016 in the joint names of the claimant and the 1st defendant.

 

  1. The claimant further alleges that his efforts to commercialize the patent through franchise negotiations with notable automobile companies were frustrated by actions of some members of the 1st defendant’s Governing Council, who instigated adverse publications against him. These publications led to the public withdrawal of his Ph.D. and eventual dismissal from service on 10th October 2019.

 

  1. The claimant also challenges the conduct of the 3rd defendant, the Pro-Chancellor of the 1st defendant, in allegedly usurping the powers of the university senate in the appointment process for the Vice-Chancellor and other officers. The claimant seeks wide-ranging reliefs, including declarations, monetary compensation, appointment as Emeritus Professor, removal of the 3rd defendant from office, and publication of apologies.

 

  1. Although the 1st defendant's Preliminary Objection and accompanying Statement of Defence were filed after the Court had sat and heard the claimant’s application for judgment in default, the objection raises a jurisdictional issue that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a court can and should consider an objection to jurisdiction at any stage, even suo motu, where the facts are on record. See: Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Dingyadi v. INEC (No. 2) (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 154; Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517.

 

  1. In particular, the 1st defendant draws the Court’s attention to a previous judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 19th October 2023 in Suit No. NICN/AWK/47/2019, involving the claimant in this suit as well as the 1st defendant and others. In that earlier suit, the claimant had sought similar reliefs, including a declaration that the withdrawal of his Ph.D. was unlawful, orders for reinstatement, payment of emoluments, and publication of apology. The Court, after hearing the matter on the merits, dismissed the claimant’s case. It is important to state that the doctrine of res judicata precludes this Court from reopening issues that have already been adjudicated between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction. While the claimant has filed a counter-affidavit to the said Preliminary Objection, the fact of the earlier judgment is now a matter of public record and forms part of the Court’s own judicial history. The Court is therefore entitled, and indeed bound, to take judicial notice of its previous decisions, especially where doing so will prevent the re-litigation of concluded issues or the delivery of conflicting judgments. See: Ezeokafor v. Ezeilo (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 619) 513, Ogunremi v. Dada (1962) LLR 40 Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156.

 

  1. This Court cannot sit on appeal over its own final judgment. Consequently, all reliefs in the present suit that substantially replicate or arise from the same cause of action previously adjudicated are incompetent and must be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

 

  1. Thus, having reviewed the processes filed by the claimant and considered the effect of the prior judgment of this Court delivered on 19th October 2023, I find that reliefs a and b, which relate to the public withdrawal of the claimant’s Ph.D. and the resultant economic loss, are fundamentally tied to issues previously adjudicated and dismissed in the earlier suit. They are accordingly caught by the doctrine of res judicata and cannot be relitigated. Reliefs e and j, which respectively seek perpetual royalty payments and the publication of an apology and reinstatement, are also intrinsically linked to that same prior cause of action and are likewise barred. Reliefs f to i, seeking various forms of injunctive and declaratory orders involving appointments, removals, and institutional restructuring, are not only unsupported by sufficient legal authority or evidence but also fall outside the jurisdictional competence of this Court, as they pertain to executive discretion and internal governance of the 1st defendant. Only reliefs b and c, which address the abuse of office and gross misconduct of the 3rd defendant in relation to university governance, are novel, justiciable, and sufficiently supported by unchallenged facts and affidavit evidence.

 

  1. In the circumstances, I now make the following Declaration:
    1. A declaration that the actions of the 3rd defendant in the Usurpation of the powers of the 1st defendant’s Senate amounted to abuse of office hence unlawful.
    2. A declaration that the abuse of office by the 3rd defendant constituted act of gross misconduct and rendered him unworthy of holding a public office as lofty as the position of pro-chancellor of the 1st defendant.
    3. Reliefs a b, e, and j are hereby struck out. 
    4. Reliefs f, g, h and i are hereby refused.

 

  1. This is the ruling of this Honourable Court. I make no order as to cost.

 

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD