Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Isaac Essien of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos, has struck out the case filed by National Union Of Electricity Employees against Senior Staff Association Of Electricity And Allied Companies and other for being incompetent.
The court held that the conditions precedent to invoking the jurisdiction of the court have not been complied with before the institution of the matter.
The claimant (National Union Of Electricity Employees) is a registered trade union by a complaint filed on the 27/12/2017, sought against defendants among others; A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant being a trade union registered and recognized by law in Nigeria and the 2nd defendant being an officer in the 1st defendant to wit; the President General are bound to obey and observed the doctrine of Projection of Management prescribed by the mandatory provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, (as amended) in admitting employees into membership, allowing such employees to continue their membership, hold offices or continue to hold offices in the 1st defendant.
Likewise, A DECLARATION that the 2nd defendant ceased to be the President-General of the 1st defendant by operation of law upon the 2nd defendant appointment to the office of the General Manager (AGM) of Transmission Company of Nigeria(TCN).
AN ORDER of court restraining the defendants from poaching, harassing, intimidating, molesting, intervening or otherwise dealing with the claimant’s union activities and the checkoff dues paid by claimant’s members.
The defendant (Senior Staff Association Of Electricity And Allied Companies and other) filed a motion on notice prayed the court for An order dismissing this suit in its entirety or An order striking out this suit for being incompetent on the grounds that the Claimant lacks the requisite locus standi to institute the action, that the Court is consequently robbed of the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter.
Defendants counsel argued that the claimant has failed to comply with the statutory laid down procedure for resolving inter-union dispute before instituting this suit and as such the claimant has failed to ignite the jurisdiction of this suit.
In opposition, claimant counsel argued that the jurisdiction of the court to try this matter is original as stated the 1999 Constitution as amended, submitted that this is not a trade dispute within the meaning given in the interpretation section of the Trade Dispute Act.
Counsel urged the court to follow the above decision and to hold that this court has original jurisdiction to determine matters relating to Trade Unions and Trade Union Act.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Isaac Essien held that the case support its being treated as a trade dispute.
“In other words, the claimant in this suit cannot institute this suit directly in this court in view of the provision of section 4(2) of the Trade Dispute Act which stipulates that a trade dispute must first be subjected to the procedure of amicable settlement.
“This court hereby holds that failure of the claimant to subject this dispute to the procedure stipulated under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act renders this suit incompetent, the condition precedent to invoking the jurisdiction of this court having not been complied with before the institution of this suit.
“Accordingly the institution of this suit is pre-mature. It is accordingly hereby struck-out.” Justice Essien Rules
