The Scope of the Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court over Tort Claims Arising in the Context of Employment

CONTRIBUTOR: IFEDIORA OBIORA CHISOM

Introduction

Before the Third Alteration of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, there was no dispute as to the jurisdictional competence of courts over tort claims, particularly the tort of defamation.^[1] Such claims fell within the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court (SHC) and were exclusively entertained by that court.^[2]

However, following the constitutional amendment in 2010, controversy emerged over whether the SHC retains jurisdiction where the tort arises from or is connected with an employment relationship. This uncertainty is largely attributable to section 254C(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the Constitution). The provision states as follows;

“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, and 272 of this Constitution, and in addition to such jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court (NIC) shall have and exercise jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other court in Nigeria, in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations, and matters arising from the workplace, including conditions of service and matters concerning the health, safety, and welfare of employees, workers, and labour, as well as matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.”^[3]

In light of this provision, the Court of Appeal has adopted inconsistent positions in determining the NIC’s jurisdictional competence over tort claims. At various points, particularly before 2020, the court adopted an expansive approach, holding that the constitutional amendment was intended to extend the NIC’s jurisdiction to encompass tortious claims.

This inconsistency has generated uncertainty within Nigeria’s legal framework. Accordingly, this article re-examines the issue. It analyses the oscillating decisions of the courts and their implications for tortious claims arising from the workplace. It also considers the recent Supreme Court decision in Emma Elegbe v HP International Schools, which appears to have settled the controversy and clarified the current law.

Analysis of Decisions

Two of the leading authorities in which the Court of Appeal considered this issue are Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria v Ehigiegba,^[4] and Dr Emmanuel Akpan v University of Calabar (UNICAL).^[5] n Ehigiegba, the court held that the NIC has jurisdiction over tort claims arising from an employment relationship. Conversely, in Akpan, the court reached the opposite conclusion. In Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria v Ehigiegba,^[6] the appellant union, through its counsel, wrote to the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, making allegedly damaging remarks concerning the competence of the respondent, who was the Chief Medical Officer of the University of Benin Teaching Hospital. Aggrieved by these statements, the respondent commenced an action against the appellants, claiming N100,000,000 as damages for defamation arising from the publication of the statements to the Head of the Civil Service and the general public.

At the commencement of proceedings before the Edo State High Court, the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The objection was premised on the argument that, following the Third Alteration, jurisdiction had been vested in the NIC not only in respect of labour disputes but also in matters incidental to or connected with employment. It was contended that, although the claim was founded on defamation, it arose from and was sufficiently connected to the employment relationship between the parties and, therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the State High Court.

The trial court rejected the respondent’s objection and held that it had jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, the defendant/appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that the constitutional provision should be given its full effect and that the draftsman intended to extend the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC beyond core labour matters to include claims incidental to or connected with such matters. Notably, the decision was not further appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Dr Emmanuel Akpan v Unical,^[7] the appellant/claimant was demoted from the rank of Senior Lecturer to Lecturer I following an assessment by the respondent’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, which found that the publications submitted in support of his promotion to Associate Professor were not genuine. Subsequently, the respondent circulated statements across its media platforms alleging that the appellant had acted fraudulently and attempted to mislead the University in pursuit of promotion.

The appellant instituted an action before the NIC. The defendant contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the defamation claim was independent of any claim relating to wrongful dismissal or employment rights. The NIC upheld this objection and declined jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the defamatory claims and reliefs sought were independent and could not be regarded as ancillary to a claim arising from employment. The court further held that section 254C of the Constitution should not be interpreted expansively to confer jurisdiction on the NIC where none exists.

Where then does the Current Position of the Law Stand?

Given that the Court of Appeal is, in most instances, the court of finality in respect of civil matters arising from the NIC, the question arises: which of the two conflicting decisions should prevail? This question is particularly significant because Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria v Ehigiegba^[8] did not proceed to the Supreme Court, despite originating from the SHC.

It is a settled principle of law that where there are conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal, the later decision in time prevails. On that basis, Ehigiegba, being the latter decision, would ordinarily represent the applicable legal position over Dr Emmanuel Akpan v Unical.^[9]

However, the uncertainty created by these conflicting authorities necessitated judicial clarification. This was ultimately provided by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in Emma Elegbe & Ors v HP International Schools Ltd.^[10] The decision sought to resolve the longstanding controversy over the NICN’s jurisdiction over tort claims arising from employment.

In that case, the appellant resigned from her position as Head of School of the first respondent, alleging that defamatory statements had been made against her in her professional capacity. She commenced an action in 2020 before the Lagos State High Court. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the SHC, contending that the alleged defamatory statements were connected to the appellant’s employment and, by virtue of the Third Alteration to the Constitution, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC.

The SHC overruled the objection and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, thereby placing the jurisdictional issue squarely before the court.

Owing to the Court of Appeal’s conflicting decisions on this issue, the court considered it appropriate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

The Supreme Court, after a thorough consideration of the facts and the submissions of amici curiae, held that where a tortious claim is severable from a claim for wrongful termination of employment, the NIC lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. In such circumstances, jurisdiction properly resides with the SHC.

This decision affirms the earlier position adopted in Dr Emmanuel Akpan v Unical,^[11] namely, that a tortious claim is a standalone cause of action and cannot be treated as merely ancillary to a claim for wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, where the claim in tort is independent, the SHC retains jurisdiction, notwithstanding the existence of an employment relationship between the parties.

Conclusion

It is now settled that the Supreme Court has clarified the longstanding debate over the NIC’s jurisdiction over tortious claims. While litigants may now exercise greater caution in framing and distinguishing their claims, one point remains clear: the mere existence of an employer–employee relationship between parties does not convert a purely tortious claim into one within the jurisdiction of the NIC. This is particularly so where the tort in question is defamation.

Reference:

1. David Eyongdi and Kingsley Onu, ‘The National Industrial Court’s Jurisdiction over Tortuous Liability Under Section 254C (1) (A) of the Constitution: Sieving Water from Blood’ (2022) (1) Cavendish University Law Journal<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cavendish.ac.ug/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paper-19-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi69dSv96eTAxUEVUEAHXpRDbQQFnoECE0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0fYELZ1-4bku0-44l4oZdG> accessed 16 March 2026. ↑
2. Ibid. ↑
3. Constitution Of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act) 2010. ↑
4. (2017) LPELR-44972 (CA). ↑
5. (2016) LPELR-41242 (CA). ↑
6. Ibid n5. ↑
7. Ibid n6. ↑
8. Ibid n5.. ↑
9. Ibid n6. ↑
10. Ibid n4. ↑
11. Ibid n6. ↑