LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

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 provided by Section
11(2) of NNPC Act and not whether the NNPC Act
extended to suits of breach of contracts of
employment. This court set aside the decision of
the Court of Appeal and ordered the case heard by
another judge of the Lagos High Court, after finding
that all the requirements of Section 11(2) of the
NNPC Act had been met by the plaintiff. If ever
there was a case most irrelevant to the issue under
consideration Amadi v. NNPC supra is that case.
The issue in this case once again is whether a
plaintiff who sues on a specific contract (a contract
of employment) needs to serve pre-action notice on
the defendant, while in Amadi's case, a pre-action
notice was served but, did the pre-action notice
contain the required information as provided by