IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:

HONOURABLE JUSTICE BUHARI SANI…….JUDGE

ON MONDAY THE 25^TH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

CHARGE NO: NCN/ABJ/CR/01/2026

BETWEEN:
DR. BADIRU ADEYEMI OLUWAFEMI …………… COMPLAINANT
AND
ACI E. N. ENETE ……………………………………… DEFENDANT

                                     RULING
This is a Direct Criminal Complaint brought by the Complainant pursuant to Sections 87, 88 (1), 90, 93 (1a) (2), 110 (C), 117, 120 & 121 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 6 (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

The Complainant prayed for this Court to grant him the  the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court issuing a Criminal Summons or Bench Warrant against the Defendant, ACI E. N. Enete, to enable her appear before this Honourable Court and stand her criminal trial.
2. AND such FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The application is supported by a 44-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Complainant, an Affidavit of Extreme Urgency, and a Written Address in support.

The facts giving rise to this application are as follows:

The Complainant is a Superintendent of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS). He avers that on July 30, 2019, he was assaulted and brutalized by a senior colleague, ACI Umar Nasir Mohammed, while on official duty. He reported the assault to the police, which allegedly led to his being victimized by the NIS. He claims he was detained, transferred without pay, and subjected to multiple disciplinary actions intended to lead to his dismissal. His promotions were subsequently denied.

The Complainant states that he obtained a judgment in his favour from this Honourable Court in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/136/2023, which declared the disciplinary actions against him null and void and ordered his promotion and participation in the next promotion examination. He alleges that the NIS, through the Defendant (who is in charge of the Department of Discipline and Awards), failed to comply with these orders.

Following further perceived victimization, the Complainant filed other suits, including Suit No: NICN/ABJ/253/2025. He avers that during the pendency of these suits, the Defendant initiated a fresh disciplinary procedure against him. Consequently, he filed Suit No: NICN/ABJ/235/2026, wherein this Court, on July 2, 2026, issued an order restraining the NIS and its agents from taking any further disciplinary actions against him.

The crux of the present Complaint is that the Defendant, in flagrant disregard of the court order of July 2, 2026:
a. Refused to allow the Complainant to sit for the year 2026 promotion examination held on July 3, 2026.
b. Suspended the Complainant from the service of the NIS on August 10, 2026.

The Complainant avers that these actions constitute contempt of court, an obstruction of the course of justice, and a perversion of justice.

 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Complainant, in the Written Address in support of the Direct Criminal Complaint, submitted a lone issue for determination:

Whether the Honourable Court can grant the reliefs sought by the Applicant?

Having examined the processes, this Court is of the view that the sole issue formulated by the Applicant is apt for the determination of this application.

 WRITTEN ADDRESS

Learned Counsel for the Complainant, submitted that the Court has the inherent power to grant the application. Counsel argued that Section 6(6) of the Constitution vests the Court with the power to do substantial justice in any matter before it. He relied on the combined interpretation of Sections 87, 88(1), 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, and 121 of the ACJA 2015 to submit that the Court is empowered to compel the attendance of the Defendant upon the complaint of the Complainant. He quoted these sections extensively to support his position that a complaint can be made, and a summons or warrant can be issued by the Court to bring a suspect to justice.

 COURT'S DECISION

This Court has carefully considered the Direct Criminal Complaint, the supporting affidavit, the Affidavit of Extreme Urgency, and the Written Address of the Complainant. The central question is whether the procedure adopted by the Complainant is proper and whether the application is competent.

The Complainant has invoked the criminal jurisdiction of this Court by way of a Direct Criminal Complaint under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) is a court of superior record of limited jurisdiction, with its powers primarily derived from Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.

The jurisdiction of this Court is fundamentally civil in nature, concerned with labour, employment, trade unions, and industrial relations matters. While the Court has the power to punish for contempt, which is a power inherent in all courts of record, the procedure for doing so is specifically provided for in the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. Order 63 of the NICN Rules governs committal for contempt of court.

Order 63, Rule 2(1) of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 explicitly states that an application for an order of committal must be made by Motion on Notice, supported by an affidavit, a copy of the judgment or order, and a Written Address. The rule further prescribes that the motion and its supporting processes must be served personally on the person sought to be committed.

The Complainant has not adopted this procedure. Instead, he has filed a "Direct Criminal Complaint" seeking the issuance of a criminal summons or bench warrant. The ACJA 2015, upon which the Complainant relies, is an Act of the National Assembly that applies to criminal trials for offences established by an Act of the National Assembly and other offences punishable in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Section 2(1) ACJA). While this Court can try criminal offences related to its jurisdiction, the power to punish for contempt of its own orders is a special, inherent jurisdiction governed by its own rules.

The procedure for contempt of court is not a criminal trial in the conventional sense; it is a special proceeding designed to protect the dignity and authority of the court. The law is settled that where a specific procedure is prescribed by the rules of a court for the enforcement of its orders, that procedure must be followed. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure renders the application incompetent.

Our Superior Courts in a long line of cases have emphasized that the procedure for committal for contempt must be strictly complied with, as it involves the liberty of the individual. The use of a criminal complaint and summons under the ACJA is alien to the established procedure for contempt of this Court's orders. See the cases of:

Access Bank Plc. V. U.I.O. Consult. Ltd (2009)12 NWLR (pt.1156) 534, Dikibo V Ibuluya (2006)16 NWLR (pt.1006) 563, Abbelles V. Gbadamosi(2003) 13 NWLR (pt.838) 512.

The procedure adopted by the Complainant is not allowed under the law. The proper procedure for seeking an order to commit a person for contempt of an order of this Court is by a Motion on Notice under Order 63 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The Complainant's reliance on Sections 87, 88, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, and 121 of the ACJA 2015 is misplaced in the context of an application to punish for contempt of this Court's orders. Those sections relate to the general procedure for instituting criminal proceedings for the trial of an offence, not the special procedure for the enforcement of the Court's own orders through committal proceedings.

This Court, therefore, finds that the procedure adopted by the Complainant in bringing this application is not supported by the rules of this Court. A party seeking to enforce an order of this Court through committal proceedings must strictly follow the procedure laid down in Order 63 of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The Direct Criminal Complaint is therefore incompetent and procedurally defective.

Having found the application to be procedurally incompetent, the merits of the allegations become secondary. The fundamental defect in the procedure robs the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the application as presently constituted.

Accordingly, the Direct Criminal Complaint is hereby struck out for being procedurally incompetent.

This is the ruling of this Honourable Court.

 

HON. JUSTICE BUHARI SANI

JUDGE 

 

APPEARANCES:

A. B. Andrew-Jaja, Esq, for the Complainant/Applicant.