Court Overrules Belview Airlines On Ex-Staff’s Suit

The National Industrial Court, Abuja, on Tuesday overruled the preliminary objection raised by Belview Airline to challenge the competence of the suit filed against it by its former employees.

The Tide recalls that the claimants, who were former workers of Belview Airline, had sued the company and two others demanding for the payment of their entitlements.

The claimants, Reuben Wada and eight others, joined the First-Nation Airways Support Services Ltd and its Chairman, Mr. Kayode Odukoya, as defendants in the suit.

The claimants are praying the court to declare that the indefinite leave of absence without pay given to them by the defendants was unlawful, null and void.

They are also asking the court to order the defendants to recall them and pay all their salary arrears since May 2009 to date.

It would berecalled that when the matter came up for mention in February, the defendant’s Counsel, Mr. A.B Ige, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.

Ige urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claimant’s case did not disclose any cause of action against the defendants.

The claimants’ Counsel, Mr. Emmanuel Audu, told the court that the claimants were in the employ of Belview Airlines until May 2009 when they were sent on an indefinite leave.

Audu told the court that the company asked the claimants to embark on an indefinite leave of absence because there was no operation at the time.

He also told the court that the company resumed operations with another name called “First-Nation Airways Support Services Ltd’’ without recalling the claimants or disengaging them.

However, Audu urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection and ordered for hearing in the case.

Justice Maureen Esowe, while delivering ruling on Tuesday, held that the issues before the court for determination were whether the parties in the suit were properly joined.

Esowe declared that the action was in order since it concerned the employment of the claimants with the defendant.

She also held that the service of writ of summons on the defendant outside the jurisdiction was in order and that there was disclosure of cause of action by the claimants.

“The court therefore holds that the provision of sharing and service rules does not beset the case of the claimants in this suit.

“The court so holds that there is disclosure of cause of action since the claimants are seeking for a declaration that they are being owed by the defendants,” Esowe ruled.

She adjourned the case to Sept. 17 for commencement of hearing.