By Robert Egbe
The National Industrial Court (NIC) in Lagos has dismissed an application by Exxon Mobil Corporation seeking to strike out its name from a suit by one of its executives, Mr Paul Arinze, challenging his alleged unlawful retirement.
Exxon Mobil Corporation is the American oil giant and parent company of Mobil Producing Nigeria (MPN).
Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae, in an 11-page ruling on a motion on notice by Exxon Mobil, held that the corporation is a party to the suit and has been properly joined.
In the suit, Arinze joined Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited and Exxon Mobil Corporation as first and second defendants.
His counsel, Mr. Emeka Ozoani (SAN), contended that Exxon Mobil was not a stranger to the employment of the claimant and, as such, the claimant could sue it for any liability arising from any default or wrong done to him during his employment.
He argued that the claimant was holding both the first and second defendants liable for his unlawful retirement, and that it was misleading for Exxon Mobil to state that the claimant’s reliefs were against the first defendant only. Claimant’s counsel added that the second defendant was a proper and neccesary party whose presence wais required for the just determination of the issues as presented in the suit.
Besides, Ozoani also argued that the first defendant was a subsidiary of the second and that the incentive award given to the claimant by the second defendant, was as a result of the employment relationship that existed between them both in recognizance of the claimant’s diligence and hardwork.
He urged the court to hold that the claimant’s suit was properly constituted and that the court had unfettered jurisdiction to entertain same.
But Exxon Mobil, through its counsel Mr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), filed a February 3, 2020 motion on notice in suit NICN/LA/288/2019, seeking an order striking out its name from the suit “in limine”.
Ajogwu contended that the reliefs sought by the claimant against Exxon Mobil were not capable of being granted, as the company was neither incorporated nor carried on its business in Nigeria in any manner.
He prayed the court to strike out the name of the second defendant from the suit
In his ruling, Justice Obaseki-Osaghae noted that the basis upon which the claims were made, flowed from the pleadings.
“It is clear from the claims and the pleadings that the case against the second defendant falls within the jurisdiction of this court, and there is no condition precedent preventing him access to the court in respect of his alleged forceful termination of employment.
‘I hold that the second defendant is a neccesary party and has been properly joined; this court is not deprived of jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint against the second defendant.
“I must also state that the second defendant has in its submission delved into substantive issues that cannot be resolved at this preliminary stage; it is important to bear in mind that at this stage there is no trial on the merit.
“The application is hereby dismissed.”
He adjourned hearing till November 9.
Leave a Reply