ROYALTY HOTELS & RECREATION LTD & ORS V. NATIONAL UNION OF PETROLEUM & ORS
(2011)LCN/4375(CA)
(2011) LPELR-4906(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 14th day of March, 2011
CA/C/179/2008
RATIO
TRADE DISPUTE: WHETHER A SUIT BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND THE WORKERS REPRESENTED BY THEIR TRADE UNION IS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TRADE DISPUTE
It is to be noted that the appellants in the lower court had seven heads of claim against the respondents who were the defendants. Four were primary claims and three were ancillary claims from the totality of claims of the Appellants in the trial Court, the wrong that led to the institution of suit No. HEK/23/2007 was the 1st appellant’s employees joining the respondents and the consequent strike action by those employees. Refer to paras 4, 5,6,7,8 and 9 of the Appellants’ statement of claim. Thus the suit before the trial court was indeed between the employer and the workers (represented by their trade union). This makes it clear that the suit was clearly within the ambit of trade dispute. Refer to the case of HABU vs. NUT Taraba State (2005) ALL FWLR (pt 270) 2066. PER JAFARU MIKA’ILU, J.C.A.
Justice
JAFARU MIKA’ILU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ROYALTY HOTELS & RECREATION LTD & ORSAppellant(s)
AND
NATIONAL UNION OF PETROLEUM & ORSRespondent(s)
JAFARU MIKA’ILU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the final ruling of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State holden at Eket delivered on Wednesday 30th July, 2008 striking out Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s suit No. HEk/23/2007. The said ruling was delivered after arguments on a preliminary objection brought by Defendants/Respondents that the suit is a Trade dispute and should be heard by the National Industrial Court and not the State High Court.
The plaintiffs/Appellants brought this appeal against the said ruling of 30th July, 2008. Plaintiffs/Appellants had brought an application for an order of injunction pending appeal before this Court dated the 21st day of January, 2009. The application for injunction came up for hearing on 30th April, 2009 but was withdrawn by counsel to plaintiffs/appellants herein on the hint of this court that the appeal proceeds to hearing by an accelerated order to avoid a duplication of the Ruling/Judgment of this court as issues raised in the application would substantially be the same as issues to be resolved in the substantive appeal.
In the appellant’s brief of argument the following issues have been formulated for determination:-
1. Whether the trial High Court was right in its conclusion that the suit of the Plaintiffs before it was a trade dispute and not a suit for the Protection of employment, investment, constitutional right of association, protection of helpless offshore workers who depend totally on Plaintiffs/Appellants for food, water and other means of survival offshore, the Qua Iboe Terminal injunctive reliefs and damages.
2. Whether the trial court was right in calling on the Superior courts to pronounce on a constitutional issue and at the same time applying the doctrine of supremacy of the constitution and the case of Adisa v Oyinwola in striking out Plaintiff’s case when the superior courts were not given an opportunity to pronounce on the constitutional issue and parties were not given the opportunity to address the court on the constitutional doctrine and case law respectively.
On the other hand a sole issue has been formulated for determination in the respondent’s brief of argument. It reads as follows:-
1. “Whether the Eket High Court was right in holding that suit No. HEK/23/2007 is a trade dispute within the meaning of the Trade Dispute Act and the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and therefore declined jurisdiction to hear the matter”.
I think consideration of the above issue is sufficient to determine this appeal. It is, therefore, the issue I will consider accordingly.
It is to be noted that the appellants in the lower court had seven heads of claim against the respondents who were the defendants. Four were primary claims and three were ancillary claims from the totality of claims of the Appellants in the trial Court, the wrong that led to the institution of suit No. HEK/23/2007 was the 1st appellant’s employees joining the respondents and the consequent strike action by those employees. Refer to paras 4, 5,6,7,8 and 9 of the Appellants’ statement of claim. Thus the suit before the trial court was indeed between the employer and the workers (represented by their trade union). This makes it clear that the suit was clearly within the ambit of trade dispute. Refer to the case of HABU vs. NUT Taraba State (2005) ALL FWLR (pt 270) 2066.
Contrary to the appellant’s view that the trial court raised a constitutional issue suo motu and resolved the same without affording the parties the opportunity to address the court on it and that the court should have stated a case to the Court of Appeal, it were (sic) the appellants as plaintiffs who raised this issue where they canvassed the position that section 272 (1) of the Nigeria constitution supercedes the provisions of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006.
In conclusion, it is clear that from the foregoing this appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. The decision of the trial court is hereby upheld. Costs in the sum of N10, 000.00 is hereby given to the respondents.
The appeal is dismissed.
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.: I have had the privileged opportunity of reading in advance, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mika’ilu, JCA. I agree with the conclusion reached therein, to the effect that this appeal should be dismissed. I also find no merit whatsoever in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed by me. I abide by the order as to costs.
ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Jafaru Mika’ilu JCA, gave me the opportunity of reading the draft of his lead judgment. I agree with the conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merit. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by the cost awarded.
>
Appearances
ROLAND S. DAN, ESQFor Appellant
AND
M. U. ETUKUDO, ESQFor Respondent
