LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

so the appellant cannot be seen to be speaking
from both sides of his mouth (i.e. approbating and
reprobating at the same time). From the above
surmises, I agree with the respondent that the
defendant/respondent on record is the same legal
person as the National Insurance Corporation of
Nigeria, a creation of Statute under Cap.263 Laws
of the Federation and is governed by its provisions.
Flowing naturally from that reasoning is the fact
that a pre-action notice is required by Section
26(2) of National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria
Act to be served on the respondent here and which
Section as I have also found above forms part of
the appellant's conditions of appointment and that
no pre-action notice has been duly served on the
respondent in order to render this suit competently
initiated.
Having construed the cases of the parties on the
two issues before this court as raised by appellant
in this appeal, I have no doubt that the appellant
has misconceived the fact that NICON Act governs
the appellant's employment relationship with the
respondent not having been repealed neither
expressly nor by necessary implication and that the
service of the requisite pre-action notice as
contemplated and prescribed under Section 26(2)
(supra) forms part of the appellant's conditions of
service and as the said pre-action notice required
by Section 26(2) (supra) has not been so served on
the respondent before instituting the instant action,
the trial court is precluded from exercising its
jurisdiction over the instant matter.