LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

appellant was correct not to serve a pre-action
notice on the respondent. Heavy weather was
made of the decision of this court in Amadi v.
NNPC 2000 10 NWLR pt.674 p.76 Before I
consider the case I must observe that a case
is only relevant for the question it determined
and upon which it based its decision See:
Fawehinmi v. NBA (No.2) 1989 2 NWLR
pt.105 p.558 Clement v. Iwuanyanwu 1989 3
NWLR pt.107 p.39 In the Amadi case, the
appellant (Mr. Amadi) was employed by the
respondent (NNPC). He was suspended then
dismissed. He sued his employers. In a
preliminary objection the learned trial judge
struck out the case for lack of jurisdiction.
This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The suit was struck out and affirmed by the
Court of Appeal because the appellant as
plaintiff failed to comply with Section 11(2) of
the NNPC Act. It reads: 2. No suit shall be
commenced against the Corporation before
the expiration of a period of one month after
written notice of intention to commence the
suit shall have been served upon the
Corporation by the intending plaintiff or his
agent, and the notice shall clearly and
explicitly state the cause of action, the
particulars of the claim, the name and place of
abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief
which he claims. The issue before the court
was whether the pre-action notice served on
the respondent contained the information as