High Court Has No Jurisdiction In Labour Matters

In The High Court Of Rivers State Of Nigeria In The Nchia Judicial Division Holden At Nchia

Before the Honourable Justice E. Suzzette Nyesom-Wike Sitting in Nchia on Wednesday, the 21st day of March 2012.

Suit No. NHC/5/2011

Between:

1.John Gberesuu

2.Chief Lawrence Enoch Claimants/Respondents

3.Williams I. Asuru

4.Festus B. Legbara

5.Ogbonna Worenwu

6.Comrade Tobin J. Ukuta

7.Comrade Chief Mikiomam T. Ebe

(For and behalf of the caretaker committee of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers Union, Rivers and Bayelsa State Chapter.)

And

1.John Amajuoyi

2.George Udofia Defendants/Applicants

3.Chief Anthony O. Okafor

4.Emeka M. Nzeh

5.Chima Chijioke

6.Dominic Nmerengwa

Ruling

The claimants/respondents, by their writ of summons dated the 5th of January, 2011 and filed on the 18th of January 2011 sought some declaratory reliefs and order of perpetual injunction against the defendants who consequently filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and a notice of preliminary objection which the claimants responded to. It is this application that the ruling of this court is concerned with presently.

The notice of preliminary objection is brought pursuant to section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006; section 254C (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. It is supported by a 6 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Bonye Pepple and a written address of counsel to the defendants/applicants. In opposition to the notice of preliminary objection, the claimants/respondents filed a counter affidavit of 6 paragraphs deposed to by Barinua Akata and attached to this is learned counsel’s written. I have perused through all the processes of court just mentioned, taken cognizance of the submissions and arguments made by both counsel while they adopted their written addresses, read the legal authorities cited in support of and in opposition to the motion and thus appreciate the basis of this objection.

In essence, the applicants seek an order of striking out of this suit as they contend that the cause of action in this matter relates to labour, including Trade Unions and Industrial actions which matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. On the other hand, the respondents contend, while referring to the claim before the court that this case falls within section 272 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which section provides for the general jurisdiction of a State High Court to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue. Learned counsel, while referring to section 54(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, submitted that the case between the parties if neither one of a trade dispute nor one between employers and employees and so this court is empowered to hear and determine this suit. Both  counsel are in agreement that it is the claim before the court that determines its jurisdiction to entertain a suit and on that submission, I cannot agree more as in determining a preliminary objection to jurisdiction, the court will consider only the writ of summons and the statement of claim before it Governor of Kwara State Vc. Lafiaji (2005) 5 NWLR pt.917 pg.139 at 151 para D, Ratio 1.

From the writ of summons before this court the claims of the claimants/respondents are as follows:

(1)        A Declaration that the claimants having been duly nominated and constituted as indigenous members of the Caretaker Committee of the Petroleum and Tanker Drivers Union (P.T.D.U) of Rivers and Bayelsa States branch are the only persons recognised as having the authority to head and control the affairs of the union pending when democratically elected officers union will emerge.

(2)        A Declaration that the defendants are not the executives of the Petroleum and Tanker Drivers Union (P.T.D.U) of Rivers and Bayelsa State branch and have not been vested with any authority to act as executives of the union hence the continuous parading (sic) themselves as the executives of the union is unlawful and illegal.

(3)        An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies etc from further parading themselves as the executives of the Petroleum and Tanker Drivers Union (P.T.D.U) of Rivers and Bayesal states branch.

(4)        Clearly, and in agreement with learned counsel to the claimants/respondents, this case has nothing to do with a trade dispute and is also not one between employers and employees however, it has everything to do with the running of a trade union also the petroleum and Tankers Drivers Union (P.T.D.U) of Rivers and Bayelsa States branch. Small wonder therefore, that the applicants have brought this application before this court, challenging its jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides that the court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to labour, including trade unions and industrial relations. If this is not clear enough, section 11 of the same Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, State High Courts, High Courts of the Federal Capital Territory and in fact, any other court from dealing with causes or matters mentioned in the provisions of the Act. The employ of the use of the word shall in both sections leave me in no doubt that the National Industrial Court and that court alone is vested with jurisdiction to entertain matters as specified in the National Industrial Court Act 2006. This is because the word “shall” connote a mandatory requirement.

(5)        As if this is not enough, I note that section 6 of the  Constitution Alteration Act (which was signed into law on March 4, 2011) has amended the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 by inserting a new section 254C(1)(a), the very same cited by learned counsel in hinging this application now being ruled on. The said section provides thus:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with ..trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace…”

Again I note the employ of the word shall as well as the fact that section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which counsel to the respondent relies upon in resisting this application is made subject to this section. It needs to be stated here that the Constitution, being the grund norm on which all other laws find their bearing, takes precedence over every other law of the land. It is for this reason that Bello CJN (as he then was) stated in the case of Osadebay Vs. A.G Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR pt.169 pg.525 at 557 para G thus:

“Where the constitution expressly and in clear and unambiguous terms ousts the jurisdiction of any court of law from determining a particular issue or question, then the court is bound to give effect to the ouster”.

Based on the foregoing reasoning, I am very certain that there is no confusing as to the conclusion to be reached by this court in this instance. In paying heed to the provisions of the laws cited, I accordingly decline jurisdiction in this matter and allow the prayers of the applicants, albeit in part. I say so because the order of striking out is not necessarily the answer in this instance as the claimants/respondents may very well have a triable cause of action, which grievances ought to be ventilated in a competent court, being the National Industrial Court. On this basis therefore, finding that I have no jurisdiction over this pending matter and having held that jurisdiction to entertain this case lies in the National Industrial Court and in giving effect to Order 37 Rule 1 (2)(a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2010, I hereby remit the case file in this suit to the Honourable, The Chief Judge of Rivers State for onward transmission to the National Industrial Court which is the court with competence to hear and determine this suit.