Media
- Home
- Details
Hon. Justice Muhammed Hamza of the Portharcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has declared that the Practice Directions issued by the President of the Court on Filing of Applications/Motions in Trade Union Matters and marking of Exhibits 2022 as valid, intra vires, and constitutional.
The Court held that the Practice Direction was issued within the statutory and constitutional competence of the President of the Court, and that the requirement to file certain matters in Abuja or Lagos is a procedural directive aimed at ensuring the efficient administration of justice, and not discriminatory in the constitutional sense, nor does it inhibit a lawyer’s right to practice.
From facts, the claimant- Daniel Ahiakwo had asked for the determination whether the practice direction 2022 made by the Industrial Court President made pursuance to Section 12 of the National Industrial Act and Section 254F is not a gross violation of Section 46 CFRN 1999, and whether the provision of the Practice Direction, as it relates to filing of all trade union matters in Abuja and Lagos State not discriminatory among others?
Daniel also claimed against the Industrial Court President jointly and severally for a declaration that the provisions of the Practice Direction issued by the Respondent are discriminatory against lawyers practising in other States, especially Rivers State, where the Applicant practices.
In defence, the defendant- President of the National Industrial Court, filed a Preliminary Objection and submitted that Daniel Ahiakwo’s action is statute-barred, that Daniel waited for 3 years, two months before filing the instant Suit against the 3 months allowed by the Public Officers Protection Act, and that the suit as presently constituted has disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the Industrial Court President.
Counsel to the NICN President argued that the instant suit seeks to challenge an act carried out in discharge of the Respondent’s judicial duty, i.e. the National Industrial Court Practice Direction, 2022, the President of the Industrial Court is cloaked with immunity by virtue of the provisions of Section 52 (1) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.
Further, Counsel submitted that the opposing party has not disclosed nor demonstrated that the President of the National Industrial Court has committed any infraction of Daniel’s legal right.
In opposition, Daniel’s counsel argued that until the cessation of the continued injury or damage, the time does not start to run for the purpose of the application of the statute of limitation. Counsel submitted that the Practice Direction 2022 was issued in 2022, but its effects and the injury it inflicts on litigants and lawyers still persist to this minute.
Learned counsel argued that while lawyers and litigants resident in Abuja stroll across the next street to commence action in Court on intra-trade union election matters, Lawyers from Port Harcourt and other States of the federation must travel thousands of kilometres, running the risks of accident and banditry to commence action in the same subject matter.
Counsel submitted that the Applicant used Originating Summons to challenge the provisions of the Practice Direction 2022, which directly affronts his fundamental right, and that the public officer’s Protection Act does not apply to the case, and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the NICN President, H.A. Bello, SAN, appearing with S.K. Deemua and D.C. Amani, submitted that the said Practice Direction does not have any provision which discriminates against any person, state, religion, or sex in Nigeria.
Counsel argued that Daniel failed to demonstrate how the Practice Direction had infringed upon his constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the Court. Counsel maintained that all the allegations raised by the Applicant are unfounded and not material to make the Court interfere with the Constitutional and Statutory powers of the Respondent, as explicitly vested by the Constitution and other statutory provisions.
Counsel submitted that the President made the said National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Filing of Applications/ Motions in Trade Union Matters marking of Exhibits) Practice Direction (No.1) for convenience purposes, and the Applicant does not have a stance to challenge the exercise of the Respondent’s Powers in the circumstances of the instant suit.
In a well-considered judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Muhammed Hamza, overruled the objection and held that the Public Officers Protection Act or Law and the Statute of Limitation do not apply to fundamental rights.
The Court distinguished between Personal Liability and Judicial Review of Administrative Action and reasoned that while Section 54 of the NIC Act is designed to protect the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that Judges are not harassed by civil suits for their decisions, the section cannot be interpreted to mean that the administrative instruments or Practice Directions issued by the Head of a Court are above the Constitution.
Justice Hamza stated that where a litigant alleges that an administrative directive restricts access to the Court, thereby impacting his rights, the Court has a duty to examine that claim under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution.
On whether the designation of specific judicial divisions for the filing of certain types of cases constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Section 42 of the Constitution, Justice Hamzanoted that the Practice Direction was subsidiary legislation designed for the efficient management of the Court's administrative functions, and does not alter the jurisdiction of the Court but regulates the manner in which that jurisdiction is exercised.
The Court reiterated that the Practice Direction in question was based on administrative criteria, specifically, the need to centralise complex or sensitive trade union matters for consistent judicial oversight, and that it does not target any group based on their protected characteristics.
In all, the court dismissed the case for lacking merit.
Visit the judgment portal for full details
