LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

provisions of Section 26(2) (supra) amply apply to this matter and it provides: "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 provision of the foregoing Section is clear and unambiguous and has to be given its literal meaning. See Oviawe v. I.R.R. (supra). By the phrase "No Suit" it is beyond argument that all suits, causes and matters whether or not it is founded upon a contract of services or specific contract are within its ambit and so each of such cases requires the service of pre-action notice to constitute a competent action severally against a defendant as the respondent here otherwise it is fatal to the action. It has been the contention of the appellant that the provision does not cover contracts of service or specific contracts and has relied on such cases as N.P.A. v. Construzioni e.t.c. (supra) and the like cases as I have mentioned herein for so contending. I think the appellant has misconceived the meaning of the phrase "No Suit" as used in the context of the Act vis-a-vis the processes
initiating any actions by due process of law upon fulfilling the condition precedent. I have no misgivings that the above provision as I have surmised herein is wide enough to cover all manner of actions, causes or matters including the instant one. The phrase does not admit of any exception. See: Amadi v. NNPC (supra) where Karibi Whyte, JSC interpreting a similar phrase has stated that the expression, "No suit" in Section 11(2) NNPC Act, 1977, has been construed in Section 46(1) as wide and all embracing". Guided by this dictum once it has been established that the provision of Section 26(2) (supra) forms part of the conditions of employment of the appellant as I have found herein there can be no gainsaying that the instant action is within the ambit of the said provision to require serving of pre-action notice on a defendant as the respondent here. So that all the furore that has been raised by the appellant in contending contrariwise pales into insignificance being baseless. In that vein, all the cases cited by appellant in support of his contention as per issues 1 and 2 in this appeal, are inapplicable and at best distinguishable on the particular facts of this matter. And I agree with the respondent that most of cases cited by the appellant are hinged on the principle of freedom to enter into contracts without any interference by the courts, which have been misconceived by the
Page 1 and 2: GODWIN UGWUANYI v. NICON INSURANCE
Page 3 and 4: 2 ACTION - PLEADINGS: Whether parti
Page 5: instant matter. That said; if I may
Page 9 and 10: face of the record thereafter. In o
Page 11 and 12: (Pt.355) 171, Kano State Developmen
Page 13 and 14: irregularity by an application chal
Page 15 and 16: conditions to be fulfilled before a
Page 17 and 18: same shall have been served upon th
Page 19 and 20: case is in consonance with judgment
Page 21 and 22: appellant was correct not to serve
Page 23 and 24: violation of some principle of law
Page 25 and 26: Effect of unchallenged averments/de
Page 27 and 28: Dissatisfied with the decision, the
Page 29 and 30: for service of pre-action notice be
Page 31 and 32: other things not specifically there
Page 33 and 34: until repealed not having been cont
Page 35 and 36: of service agreed with NICON and no
Page 37 and 38: Act is still extant. I think I shou
Page 39 and 40: 26(2) simply put is to serve pre-ac
Page 41 and 42: severally including the appellant.
Page 43 and 44: so the appellant cannot be seen to
Page 45 and 46: corporation before the expiration o
Page 47 and 48: with the power to deal with matters
Page 49 and 50: & Ind. Engr. Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 NWLR
Page 51 and 52: this question by both parties to th
Page 53 and 54: matter. Besides, I hold this view i
Page 55 and 56: judgment of my learned brother, CHU
Page 57 and 58:
NICON Act 1969 and 1990 that regula
Page 59 and 60:
applicable to action based on contr
Page 61 and 62:
NWLR pt.152 p.572 Obada v. M. G. of
Page 63 and 64:
"...The issue in that case was a ma
Page 65 and 66:
thereof, or any officer of a local
Page 67 and 68:
struck out the case for lack of jur
Page 69 and 70:
never a hearing of the appellant's
show all

LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?