INTRODUCTION
For years, uncertainty persisted over whether the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) could adjudicate defamation claims arising from employment disputes, with conflicting Court of Appeal decisions deepening the confusion. Some panels of the Court of Appeal leaned towards restricting the NICN’s jurisdiction, while others adopted a more expansive interpretation of its powers under the Constitution and the Third Alteration Act.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria’s (“the Supreme Court or the Court”) landmark decision in Emmanuel Elegbe & Anor. v. HP International Schools Limited has now settled the debate, affirming the NICN’s competence in such matters and clarifying the scope or extent of its jurisdiction. By affirming the NICN’s competence to entertain defamation claims that are intertwined with employment relationships, the Court not only clarified the scope of the NICN’s jurisdiction but also underscored the evolving nature of labour jurisprudence in Nigeria. This judgment carries significant implications for employees, employers, and the broader legal community, as it harmonizes the intersection between workplace disputes and personal rights such as reputation.
Brief facts of the case
The 1st appellant, employed as Head of School by the 1 respondent, resigned following a breakdown in the employment relationship. In a letter to parents, the 1 respondent suggested that the 1st appellant’s resignation was linked to an investigation, which the 1 appellant considered inappropriate. She responded with an explanatory email, while her husband (the 2 appellant) also communicated with parents via WhatsApp. The respondents, including the school and members of the school’s board, felt aggrieved by these communications and instituted an action before the Lagos State High Court, alleging defamation.
The appellants challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claims were inseparable from the employment relationship and thus fell within the NICN’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 254C of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the objection and assumed jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeal, however, faced difficulty as its numerous earlier decisions on the same issue were divided, highlighting the deep controversy and division among its various divisions over whether the NICN could adjudicate defamation claims.
For instance, in cases such as Akpan v. UNICAL ; Olushola & Anor. v. Andrew ; UBA & Ors. v. Oladejo , etc., the Court of Appeal adopted a restrictive approach and held that being a court of limited jurisdiction, the NICN lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim in tort, as the tort of defamation stands on its own. However, in the second set of cases such as Nwagbo & Ors. v. National Intelligence Agency (NIA) ; Nasarawa State Specialist Management Board & Ors. v. Mohammed ; Omang v. NSA etc., the Court of Appeal adopted a liberal approach and held that any claim factually arising from or connected to the workplace falls within the jurisdiction of the NICN, irrespective of its tortious or contractual character.
Faced with these conflicting decisions, the appellants invoked Section 295(3) of the Constitution, which allows substantial questions of law to be referred to the Supreme Court as a case stated. Recognizing the importance of resolving the controversy and providing clarity for lower courts, the Court of Appeal granted the application and transmitted the jurisdictional question to the Supreme Court for authoritative determination.
