IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT.

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR Ph.D.

 

Dated: 20^th day of April, 2026                          SUIT NO:  NICN/PHC/88/2022

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR. EARNEST ASAK---------------------------CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

 

AND

 

CISCON NIGERIA LIMITED -----------------DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

 

Representations:

I. O. Egbetule for the Claimant/Applicant

U.0. Uwanya with Stanley Daopuye for the Defendant/Respondent.

 

Ruling.

This is a post judgment application filed by the Claimant/Applicant on the 21^st of October, 2025 via a motion on notice which was brought pursuant to Order 47 Rules 23 & 24 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and the inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court. The motion on notice is seeking for the following reliefs:

1.           An Order of Court interpreting the Judgment delivered in this suit on the 2^nd October, 2025, clearing perceived ambiguities/uncertainty thereto and explaining the true meaning and intent thereof; particularly with regard to the application or otherwise, of Exhibit C4 (Staff Manual) 2009, to the periods 2008 to 2012, and 2019 to 2022, respectively, Exhibit D (Defendant’s Communique) being on the face of it, limited to the period 1^st January, 2013 to 31^st December, 2018, only.

 

2.           And such further Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

The motion on notice is supported by 5 grounds, a 6 paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Ernest Asak accompanied by a written address. Arising from the written address, counsel to the Applicant formulated a lone issue for determination to wit:

Whether in the circumstances of this case, it is in the interest of justice for this honourable Court to interpret its Judgment in Suit No. NICN/PHC/88/2022.

In arguing the lone issue, counsel referred to the excerpts of the judgment of this court quoted on pages 25,26,27 and 29 and posited that Clarity/certainty is needed given a community reading of the quoted excerpts of the Judgment. Counsel submitted further that the Applicant would suffer injustice by reason of this ambiguity, except this honourable Court intervenes by way of the interpretation of the true intent and scope of the Judgment with particular regard to the redundancy benefits and gratuity, vis-à-vis the applicability of Exhibit C4.

Counsel concluded by urging the court to grant this application by interpreting the subject Judgment, as same will not occasion any injustice or prejudice the Respondent.

In response to the application, the Defendant/Respondent filed written address in objection to the motion on the 25^th of November, 2025. Arising from the written address, counsel to the Respondent formulated a lone issue to wit:

Whether there is need for the interpretation of the Judgment of this court delivered on 2/10/2025 in the light of the issues raised in the Claimant's Motion on Notice?

In arguing the lone issue, counsel contended that going by the provision of Order 47 Rule 23, of the Rules of this Court, interpretation of the Judgment should not be for the purpose of requesting the Court to rewrite its judgment or reverse itself.

Counsel posited that what the Applicant is seeking is not to interpret the judgment but Exhibit D6 which is the Defendant’s Communique. Counsel referred to page 29  of the judgment and posited that there was no ambiguity in the judgment of the court as it was unambiguous that the terminal benefits should be computed based on the Communique which amended the staff manual.

Counsel cited the cases of Ajudua v. FRN (2019) LPELR-47959 (CA) 14 to 15 and Nengesha Chin v. State (2022) LPELR-59408 (CA) 32 to 34 to posit that where the words of a document are clear and unambiguous, they must be so construed.

Counsel also argued that Exhibit D6 is limited to the period of 2013 to 2018 and a combined reading of the pages 26, 28, 29 and 36 of the judgment will reveal that the terminal benefits of the Claimant was ordered by the Court to be computed according to the formula stipulated in the amendment to the Defendant's Staff Manual 2009 as contained in the Communique duly communicated to the Claimant. Counsel posited that the one fundamental canon of interpretation of document or judgment is that it must be read as a whole and cited the case of Mbani v. Mbiabe Bosi (2006)11 NWLR (Pt.991) 400 at 417 and Kano State House of Assembly v. Umar (2014) LPELR-24008 (CA)27-28.

Counsel concluded by urging the court to dismiss the application with cost as same is an indirect invitation to the court to rewrite the judgment or reverse itself or entertain an appeal on it.

In view of all the foregoing, I have taken a careful consideration of the motion filed by the Applicant, the grounds and affidavit in support. I have also considered the arguments of counsel to both parties in their respective written addresses in support and in opposition. Consequently, the sole issue for the determination of this application is:

Whether there exists any ambiguity in the Judgement of this court warranting its interpretation under Order 47, Rule 23 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017.

In resolving the lone issue, there is no gainsaying that the rules of this court indeed permit the interpretation of a judgment delivered by this court. For avoidance of doubt, Order 47 Rule 23 provides thus:

“In a matter before the Court in which the Court has delivered its judgment, any of the parties in the suit may by an application with a Written Address to the Court apply for an interpretation of the judgment.

 

Provided that such an application shall not be for the purpose of requesting the Court to rewrite its judgment or reverse itself.

 

Provided further that the application with a Written Address shall only be for the purpose of clearing any ambiguity or uncertainty, or for ascertaining the true meaning of or the intent of any word used in the judgment”.

 

It is settled that the court retains the Jurisdiction to interpret its Judgement where there exist ambiguity, uncertainty or any inconsistency capable of impeding its enforcement. However, such Jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to rewriting, reviewing and varying the substance of the Judgement already delivered.

 

In the light of the foregoing limitation, I have taken into cognizance the grounds which the instant application is predicated and the facts deposed in the affidavit in support. More specifically, the Applicant stated to the effect that he was unable to decipher the computation of his terminal benefit in the light of Exhibit D6 and Exhibit C4. In considering the instant application, this court has carefully revisited the Judgement delivered on 2/10/2025 particularly the portions relating to the computation of the Claimant’s terminal benefits. To that end, I have perused the pages 25 – 28 of the Judgement referred to by counsel to the Applicant.

 

A holistic reading of the said Judgement reveals that this court made a clear and unequivocal pronouncement on page 34 of the said judgment, this court categorically stated that the computation of the Claimant’s terminal benefits is computed based on staff manual as revised by the Communique of March 2016.

 

For avoidance of doubt, the same was repeated in page 36 to the effect that:

 

Reliefs 15 and 17 are granted only to the extent that the Claimant’s redundancy and gratuity benefits shall be computed and paid in line with the amended staff Manual (Communique of 2016) and not the 2009 Manual (emphasis mine).

 

Read as a whole, I believe the foregoing is clear to all and sundry and do not require any interpretation whatsoever. For the purpose of certainty therefore, it is reiterated that computation of the Claimant’s terminal benefit is to be based on the Communique of 2016.

 

In the light of the foregoing, the lone issue formulated for determination of the instant motion on notice is resolved to the effect that there is no ambiguity or uncertainty to the Judgement delivered on 21/10/2025 to warrant Judicial interpretation. The said judgment is clear and unambiguous with regards to the orders made by this court.

Consequently, the motion on notice lacks merit and same is accordingly dismissed.

Ruling is accordingly entered.

I make no order as to cost.

 

…………………………………………………………………………

HON. JUSTICE Z. M. BASHIR, Ph.D.

         JUDGE.