LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

ordinary meaning. Where the words or phrases
have been judicially interpreted especially by the
Supreme Court and similar courts abroad that
interpretation will apply to the same words or
phrases and all that the courts need do is follow
decided cases, thereby showing consistency in
interpreting them.
Section 26 (1) and (2) of NICON Act, Section 97 of
the Ports Act, Section 11 of the NNPC Act are all
identical or similar provisions which provide for
service of a pre-action Notice on the Corporation by
anyone with intentions to sue. Section 97 of the
Ports Acts was interpreted in the Construzioni case.
That case has shown the limitations of Section 97
of the Ports Act and all similar provisions. Once a
claim is founded on a specific contract Section 26
(1) and (2) of the NICON Act is no longer
applicable. The 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