Categories: General

Whether the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court Extends to an Action Founded on Defamation Merely Because the Statement was Made in the Context of Employment

CASE TITLE: ELEGBE & ANOR V. HP INTL SCHOOLS LTD & ORS (2026) LPELR-83245 (SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH FEBRUARY, 2026

PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This Constitutional Reference borders on the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.

FACTS:

This decision is based on a reference by the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.

The 1st appellant was employed as the head of school by the 1st respondent, while the 2nd appellant is her husband. Their children attended the 1st respondent’s school. The 2nd – 4th Respondents are members of the Board of Directors of the 1st Respondent. The 1st appellant resigned her appointment. The 1st respondent, in a letter sent to parents, alleged that she resigned as a result of an ongoing investigation. The 1st appellant considered it to be a damaging insinuation against her character and proceeded to send an email to the parents explaining the circumstances of her resignation. The 2nd appellant, being a parent, responded to enquiries from other parents via a WhatsApp message. The respondents equally felt aggrieved by the content of the email and WhatsApp message and instituted an action before the High Court of Lagos State seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the 1st appellant’s letter (shared via email) and the 2nd appellant’s WhatsApp message were defamatory.

Upon being served, the appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court on the ground that the entirety of the respondent’s claim fell exclusively within the purview of Section 254C(1) of the Constitution. In its ruling delivered on 4th September 2024, the High Court dismissed the objection and assumed jurisdiction.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court found itself in a bind, as its attention was drawn to decisions of various divisions of the Court in no less than 13 appeals on the issue as to whether the National Industrial Court (NIC) had jurisdiction to try the tort of defamation. In some decisions, the Court adopted a restrictive approach and held that, being a Court of limited jurisdiction, the National Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim in tort. It held that the tort of defamation stands on its own.

In the second line of decisions, the Court adopted a liberal approach of interpretation and held that any claim factually arising from or connected to the workplace falls within the jurisdiction of the NIC, irrespective of its tortious or contractual character. In view of these conflicting decisions, the appellants invoked Section 295(3) of the Constitution and applied to the Court to refer the substantial question of law to the Supreme Court in order to lay the controversy to rest and for the guidance of the Courts. The Court granted the application.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether, by virtue of Section 254(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State is affected or excluded in respect of a claim in defamation arising from, relating to, or connected with labour and employment.

2. Whether, having regard to Section 254(c) of the Constitution, the mere termination of an employment relationship is sufficient to vest the High Court of Lagos State with jurisdiction to entertain a claim in defamation arising from or connected with labour and employment.

3. Whether an alleged defamatory publication emanating from an employee’s work relationship, but made by a person who is not an employee, can properly be entertained by the High Court of Lagos State, having regard to Section 254(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

DECISION/HELD:

The Court answered the first question in the negative, the second question in the negative, and the third question in the affirmative.

RATIOS:

COURT- JURISDICTION: What determines jurisdiction of Court to entertain a cause/matter?
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- SECTION 254C OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED): Interpretation of Section 254(C) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) with respect to jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION: Rules governing the interpretation of Constitutional provisions
JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Statutory provisions vesting exclusive jurisdiction in matters of trade disputes in the National Industrial Court
JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court extends to an action founded on defamation merely because the defamatory statement complained of was made in the context of employment
JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the fact that an employment relationship has ceased will automatically divest the NICN of jurisdiction and vest jurisdiction in the State High Court
JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT: Whether the State High Court can exercise jurisdiction over an alleged defamation arising from a work relationship but made by a non-employee