ABSTRACT

The National Industrial Court (hereinafter referred to as the NIC) was established in 1976 by the Trade Disputes Decree No 7 of 1976 with jurisdiction to settle trade disputes, the interpretation of collective agreements and matters connected therewith. There were identifiable lapses in the status, powers and jurisdiction of the NIC that impacted negatively on its operations; the jurisdiction of the Court which was expressed to be exclusive was shared with the Federal and State High Courts, the Court lacked competence to make declarations and orders of injunction and thus seen as an inferior court. This state of affairs gave impetus to the enactment of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 (hereinafter called the NIC Act 2006) which granted the NIC a superior court status, with exclusive civil jurisdiction to deal with labour and other related matters. This NIC Act 2006 generated a lot of controversies in terms of the exclusive jurisdiction and superior court status granted the Court by the Act, in view of the constitutional provisions thereof. Consequently, the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010 was enacted to remedy the situation. The perceived problem that motivated this study is the heated controversy generated by the inadequacies of the NIC Act 2006.The objective of this work is to ascertain whether the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010 addressed those inadequacies of the NIC Act 2006 and achieved the goal of institutionalizing the NIC as a specialised court for the resolution of labour labour disputes and other related matters, employment, industrial relations, and other related matters. The method employed was to examine the provisions of the NIC Act 2006 and that of the Constitution (Third) Alteration Act 2010. This work found out that though the Constitution (Third) Alteration Act 2010 corrected some of the lapses of the NIC Act 2006 and expanded the jurisdiction of the NIC, there still exist loopholes identified among others to include the inadequate Constitution of the NIC by at least 13 (thirteen) judges and lack of prescription by an Act of the National Assembly for appeals to the Court of Appeal over its decisions. It was recommended among others that the NIC should be constituted of not less than 37 Judges and that the National Assembly should make a prescription for appeals to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of the NIC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1.         BACKGROUND TO STUDY

The National Industrial Court, was established in 1976, by virtue of the Trade Disputes Decree No. 7 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the TDA)  which, Decree was later amended by the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Act 1992.[1] Later, it was included as Cap 432 in the 1990 edition of the laws of the Federation of Nigeria with jurisdiction to settle trade disputes, the interpretation of collective agreements and matters connected therewith.[2]

 

There were many obvious and identifiable lapses in the status, powers and jurisdiction of the NIC then that impacted negatively on its operations. The first, being the fact that, neither the 1979 nor the 1999 Constitution included the NIC as one of the courts in the country. Granted that section 19(2) of the TDA1990, which was inserted by Decree 47 of 1992 provided that, the NIC shall be a superior court of record. Lawyers and litigants disregarded these provisions by asking the Federal High Court to judicially review decisions reached at the NIC in a number of cases.[3] The second is the referral requirement in commencing proceedings in the NIC which, means that, only the Minister of labour could initiate a case in the court in its original jurisdiction by way of referrals.[4] The President of the NIC was required to preside over all the sittings of the Court.[5] The practical effect of this was that adjudication of cases was totally dependent on the discretion and availability of the President. This means that, whenever, for any reason, the President was unable to sit, even if the Court could form a quorum, the case must be adjourned. The full import of this anomaly was brought to the fore in 2002 when the Court lost its President. For almost a year, the Court could not sit as a successor was not appointed.[6]

 

There was also the problem of dual procedures for the appointment of the President and other Judges of the Court. The NIC was the only Court then in the country with dual control over the mode of appointment of its judges, the President of Nigeria appoints its President on the recommendation of the Federal Judicial Service Commission[7] while the other members were appointed by the President of Nigeria on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour.[8]

 

Apart from the foregoing, there was also the problem of the extent and scope of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the NIC. Though, Decree No. 47 of 1992 seemed to have brought within the purview of the NIC inter and intra union disputes, the courts held that, for the NIC to have jurisdiction over inter and intra union disputes, the disputes must qualify as trade disputes.[9]

 

Case law also created a lot of problems for the NIC in that it was held that the NIC then could not grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs.[10] The implication is that although, the TDA, established the NIC as a superior court, it lacked the essential powers of a superior court as it could not grant declarative or injunctive reliefs. The cumulative effect of the confusion created as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the NIC was that, several courts at the same time had concurrent jurisdiction on the subject matters in which NIC was supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction.[11] This state of affairs resulted in conflicting decisions, absence of clarity and uniformity in the decisions of the various courts on virtually the same issue.[12] This gave rise to a culture of forum shopping by litigants. This totally stalled the ideals for which the NIC was created in the first instance. A good reference point is FGN v Oshiohmole.[13] The case was commenced at the FCT High Court and it was held that the Nigerian Labour Congress has power to call out workers to embark on strike.

 

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter being one of the matters under item 34 of the Constitution, that is; labour/trade disputes. The Court of Appeal then referred the case to the Federal High Court for determination. The Federal High Court, among others, relying on section 251 of the Constitution held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain some aspects of the case. It, however, heard the matter on other grounds. With these conflicting decisions, it became clear that, there was a lacuna in the law as to which court, would have jurisdiction over trade disputes under item 34 of the Constitution. It therefore, became imperative for the National Assembly to find solution, to the problem in consonance with section 4(2) of the Constitution. To correct these states of affairs, the National Assembly enacted the NIC Act 2006 as “an Act to provide for the establishment of the National Industrial Court as a superior court of record and for related matters.” It vested the Court with exclusive jurisdiction over all labour related matters.[14] The NIC Act 2006 is divided into six (6) parts, with fifty-five (55) sections.

 

However, the enactment of the NIC Act 2006 generated a lot of controversies in view of the obvious conflicts in the provisions of the Act with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution. The first conflict was on the superior court of record status granted the NIC by the NIC Act 2006,[15] second was on the exclusive civil jurisdiction granted the court over labour, including trade unions, industrial relations and other related matters,[16] third is the finality in the judgments of the Court which are not subject to appeal to any court unless matters related to fundamental human rights.[17] The greatest of these problems is the one touching on the jurisdiction of the court as granted by the NIC Act 206. It was a recurring issue until the decision of the Supreme Court in The National Union of Electricity Employees and 1 Or v Bureau of Public Enterprises[18] when the Supreme Court finally confirmed that the NIC is a subordinate Court and that it had no exclusive jurisdiction over the matters assigned to it under section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 and other enabling Acts on that behalf.

 

The Supreme Court held thus:

The least that has changed is that State High Court under section 272 now has power to deal with trade disputes it has previously lacked. It means therefore that Decree No. 47 of 1992 arrogating to the National Industrial Court a superior court of record without due regard to the   amendment of the provisions of section 6(3) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution which has listed the only superior Courts of record recognized and known to the 1999 Constitution and the list does not include the National Industrial Court; until the Constitution is amended, it remains a subordinate court to the High court.

 

This decision dealt a heavy blow on the existence and operation of the National Industrial Court. The decision in effect meant that all the State High Courts, the Federal High Court and the High Court of the FCT shared concurrent jurisdiction with the National Industrial Court on the subject-matters on which it sought to have exclusive jurisdiction. It equally meant that all these courts could review the decisions of the NIC on application by either of the parties. In essence, the basis for the establishment of the court was effectively put on hold for the time, that decision lasted as lawyers and litigants had a field day, employing all the avenues provided by that decision to stall cases.[19]

 

These conflicts which were impediments to the realization of the set objectives of the NIC Act 2006, necessitated various discourses and calls for solutions to enable the NIC achieve its set objectives.[20] It was in response to those calls that a bill for the amendment of the relevant constitutional provisions was introduced   and passed by the National Assembly.  President (Dr.) Goodluck Jonathan gave his assent to this passed bill on the 4th day of June 2011, which is now known as the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010. This research will examine that Act, with a view to asserting whether its intention of institutionalizing a specialized court with exclusive civil jurisdiction to expeditiously and judiciously deal with labour matters has been achieved.

 

 

1.2  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The statement of the problem shall bother on the fact that, in spite of the coming into force of the NIC Act 2006, and the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010,[21]  there still exist loopholes in these laws which, if filled, will provide better, fair and just administration of labour matters in Nigeria.

1.3  RESEARCH QUESTION

This research will seek to address the question:

Whether the NIC Act 2006 and the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010 achieved their goals?

1.4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology of research will embrace the qualitative approach with recourse to primary source materials based on relevant statutes, such as, the NIC Act 2006 itself, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended by the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010. Also, secondary source materials based on Law Reports, Case Laws and the Received English Law made up of the Rules of Common Law and the Principles of Equity and Statutes of General Application which were in force in England as at 1^st January 1990 will be used. In addition, Books of Authority, Encyclopedias, Journals and periodicals, Digests, Legal Dictionaries, News papers, Treatise and internet sourced materials will be very helpful.

 

1.5  OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The set objectives of this research are as follows:

1. To understand how the NIC has developed over the years.
2. To highlight some of the challenges that faced the NIC which necessitated the enactment of the NIC Act 2006 and appraise whether they were resolved by the Act.

iii.        To identify the intention the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010 and appraise whether the intention was realized.

1. To identify the overall challenges of the NIC from the provisions of the NIC Act 2006 and the Constitution (Third) Alteration Act 2010 and to make recommendations  on  how to overcome those challenges.

1.6  SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This topic is important in view of the apathy towards the NIC in resolution of labour disputes. Thus the NIC which ordinarily ought to provide comprehensive, conclusive and acceptable platform and mechanisms for the resolution of those labour disputes is not usually approached by the disputants, necessitating a research in order, to proffer probable solutions to remedy the situation.

1.7  LITERATURE REVIEW

The origin of statutory provisions for the settlement of labour disputes in Nigeria, has been traced to the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Inquiry) Ordinance, later Act, which was enacted in 1941.[22] That Act was applicable in Lagos only. The limitation to Lagos in its application then, according to Esan,[23] was because up to January 1966, both the National and Regional Assemblies could pass laws relating to labour matters simultaneously, but from 1979, when labour matters was listed as item 32 on the Executive Legislative list of the Constitution.[24] The Federal Government took over legislative matters pertaining to labour. The 1941 Act, was later repealed by the Trade Disputes Decree No 7 of 1976, which decree was included in 1990, edition of the laws of the Federation of Nigeria as Trade Disputes Act Cap 432 and now Cap T8 Trade Disputes Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which Act is applicable to the whole country.

 

This Decree introduced for the first time, the NIC. The learned author aforesaid, used the term “trade dispute” which may be used to mean the same thing as industrial dispute or labour dispute,[25] He defined trade disputes in line, with the definition of the term as contained in the Trade Disputes Act[26] as “any dispute between employees and employers or between employees which is connected with the employment or non employment or the terms of employment and physical conditions of works of any person.” Sam Erugo[27] opined and rightly too, that the two vital aspects of that definition are: (i) the parties, which must be a worker/employee or workers/employees on one side or on both sides of the dispute and (ii) the subject matter of the dispute which must be connected with (a) employment or non employment (b) terms of employment or (c) conditions of works of any person, see Niki tobi JCA (as he then was) in National Union of Road Transportation Workers v Ogbodo[28] and Adekeye JCA (as he then was) in Attorney General of Oyo State v Nigeria Labour Congress and others.[29] The above definition is not only narrow, but limited, in scope and application when compared with the definition of the term in other jurisdictions, for instance in India, the term is defined as: “any dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen or between employers which is connected with the employment or non employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person.”[30]

 

From the foregoing, while the Nigerian definition is limited to dispute regarding the physical conditions of work, the use of the phrase “the terms of employment, or the conditions of labour, of any person” the India definition includes not only the physical conditions but also the mental, social and economic conditions of work.

 

Not only that, while a dispute between two sets of employers on both sides of a dispute regardless of the subject matter is not a trade dispute in Nigeria, in India a dispute between employers and employers which is connected with employment is a trade dispute. The afore-stated definition of the term in India has been described as wide by Srivastava.[31]

 

It is with a view to address the obvious limitations in the definition of industrial disputes under the Trade Disputes Act that, the NIC Act 2006, enlarged that definition, as contained in the Trade Disputes Act, to be similar with the definition of the term in other jurisdictions.[32] It must be noted here, that, in conferring jurisdiction on the NIC, the NIC Act 2006 itself, in Section 7(1)(i) specifically, avoided the use of the terms ‘trade disputes’, and ‘intra’ or ‘intra’ union disputes, rather the Act used the word ‘Labour’, including trade unions and industrial relation matters.

 

It is important to point out here that, in the body of the NIC Act 2006, that term ‘trade disputes’ was not used anywhere, in all the sections. Rather, the terms; ‘labour disputes’ and ‘organizational disputes’ were preferred and used.[33] Kanyip B.B.[34] argued that this is deliberate given the diverse conception of the term ‘trade dispute’ by especially the courts who refused to recognise that ‘trade dispute’ is a term of art in industrial relations law and practice. However, the NIC Act 2006, did  define the term ‘trade disputes’, ‘inter’ and ‘intra’ union disputes which terms were not used in Act, without defining the terms ‘labour disputes’, and or ‘organizational disputes’ which terms were actually used in the Act. The question is what then constitutes ‘labour disputes’, ‘trade union disputes’, ‘organizational disputes’ and ‘industrial relation matters’? It is arguable that, though the definitional enlargement of the ‘term trade disputes’ under the NIC Act 2006, is a welcome development, but that enlargement,  is of less utility value since that term was not used in the body of the Act.

 

As noted above, the NIC was first introduced by Section 14(1) of the Trade Disputes Decree No 7 of 1976. Under Section 20 (1) of that Decree, the NIC was granted original jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other courts, to hear and determine trade disputes and allied matters. By an amendment in 1992, the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to hear and determine inter and intra union matters were ousted thereof.

 

Amadi argued that, the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree 1992, seemed to confer exclusive jurisdiction to the NIC in respect of matters involving inter or intra union disputes. He disagreed to the view that, the case of Udoh & others v Orthopedic Hospitals Management Board[35] established the principle that: “such inter or intra-union matters as to the discipline of erring members concerning interpretation of the rule book fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC.”[36]

 

He rightly argued that, since a trade union constitution is a contract between members and the union that, the ordinary courts have and should be allowed to exercise jurisdiction on contractual matters involving trade unions. However, the foregoing argument can no longer be sustained in view of the express provisions of the NIC Act 2006[37] and the expanded jurisdiction of the NIC by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2010.[38]

 

In any case, the terms ‘inter’ and ‘intra-union’ disputes were not defined by the Trade Disputes Decree of 1976, and its amendment of 1992. However, the NIC Act 2006, defined the term[39] ‘inter union dispute’ to mean “dispute between trade unions or employers’ associations” and ‘intra union dispute’ to mean a “dispute within a trade union or an employers’ association.”

 

It has already been pointed out that, the definition of the term ‘trade dispute’ under the NIC Act 2006, does not envisage a dispute, wherein employers are on both sides of the dispute. But the definitions of the terms ‘inter union dispute and intra union dispute’ under the NIC Act 2006, seem to suggest otherwise. The question then is, which court has the jurisdiction to entertain inter-union and intra-union disputes especially, when the disputants are employers on both sides of the dispute?

 

Furthermore, one would have thought that, with the enactment of the NIC Act 2006, the controversy concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the court over trade disputes would have been completely settled, but the reverse became the case. Ejere[40] argued that, since section 272 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, granted wide jurisdiction to the High Court of a state, section 11 of the NIC Act 2006 which excluded the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital territory, Abuja or any other courts from those matters upon which, exclusive jurisdiction has been granted to the NIC under the NIC Act is null and void.

 

Woruji et al[41] submitted that, the claim of exclusiveness of jurisdiction over those issues is “far from reality” because the High Courts are creations of the constitution with what appears to be “unlimited” jurisdiction and that since the constitution is the organic law of the country no other legislation can supersede it.

 

Also, Gbenga Ojo,[42] agreed with the foregoing positions of Ejere and Ine Woruji el al. He argued further that, because section 251 of the constitution, has vested in the Federal High Court, exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts, in matters involving the Federal Government and its agencies, no law therefore, can curtail, restrict or limit the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on the Federal High Court.[43] However, the 1999 Constitution[44] has now clothed the NIC with exclusive jurisdiction over labour and industrial related matters. What then is the extent and or effect of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the NIC in labour and industrial matters by the NIC Act 2006, and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended by the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010? This work shall seek an answer to that question.

 

By the provision of section 1(1) of the NIC Act 2006, the Court shall consist of the President and not less than 12 (twelve) other Judges. The Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010 ^[45] provides that the Court shall consist of (a) President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria and (b) such number of Judges of the National Industrial Court as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. Dr Ogwezzy Michael C[46] argued that that the intention of the legislature  is premised on the believe that the number of National Industrial Courts of Nigeria will increase as time goes on and more judges will be appointed to man these courts. It is arguable that the instant law on that issue is the provision of the NIC Act 2006 since the National Assembly has not made any further prescription.

 

Another issue of great controversy then is the status of NIC. Talking about status, Amadi, opined that, status is a “determent of rank or position,…designed for a purpose and or for convenience, but its origination is always based on some norm or rule, which serves as a measure of certainty and or reference.” [47]

 

Under the common law, courts are generally divided into two statuses, namely, the superior courts which are courts of record, starting from the High Courts to the Supreme Court and the inferior courts comprising of the Magistrate Courts, Customary courts and the likes. The proceedings of the inferior courts are usually under the control and supervision of the superior courts through judicial review and orders of certiorari.[48] Not only that the NIC was entangled in jurisdictional dispute with the State High Court Nwagbogu G.M.[49] submitted that the root cause of this was the vesting of “unlimited jurisdiction” on a State High Court by the 1999 Constitution[50], that the controversy heightened when the Supreme Court held that that notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction vested on the NIC under TDA[51], the jurisdiction of a State High Court on labour matters, including trade disputes remained intact and curtailed.[52]

 

The NIC Act 2006, in its preamble stated the objectives of the Act to include “…the establishment of the National Industrial Court as a superior court of record”. Also section 1(3) (a) of the Act provides that “the court shall: (a) be a superior court of record…”  Bamidele Aturu,[53] maintained that, the NIC is a superior court. He argued that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria empowered the National Assembly to create courts to adjudicate on matters in respect of which it can make laws, therefore granting such courts the status of a superior court of record is acceptable and cannot be faulted. But Chiafor,[54] disagreed with the views as expressed above. He argued that, section 6(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria listed superior courts and clearly provided that those courts “shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria” the NIC therefore, not being one of those courts enumerated under the aforesaid provision, cannot be said to be a superior court of record by any imagination, he concluded. While the controversy was raging on, the Supreme Court, in the case of National Union of Electricity Employees of Nigeria & 1 Or. v Bureau of Public Enterprises[55] held  that, because the NIC was not expressly and directly listed in section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, which contains the list of the superior courts of record in Nigeria, the NIC was an inferior court. However, this controversy surrounding the status of the NIC has now been finally laid to rest by the listing of the NIC in section 6 (5)(cc) of the 1999 Constitution as amended[56], which makes it a superior court of record. Even at that, it is still important to examine the purport of that on the NIC Act 2006.

 

Besides the aforementioned controversies, surrounding the NIC, Ubeku[57] stated that labour disputes may be grouped into two types, the first being disputes concerning individuals while, the second are disputes concerning the group, that is to say; the union. He argued further that, while the individual disputes often deal with the legal rights of the individual based on contractual relations, the second type – collective disputes more often deal with economic matters. Iwuji,[58] is of the view that, any  discussion on settlement of trade disputes must centre on the rights of the individuals as opposed to their interests, which rights may be provided for them by statutes, established practice or collective agreement reached by process of collective bargaining between representative parties to the disputes which are justiceable and disputes over interest, which because they are non-justiceable are better settled by haggling or through negotiations, conciliation or arbitration.

 

Apart from the above, Annie de Roo and Rob Jagtenberg[59] argued that, the classifications of labour disputes are important in that, often they determine which resolutions techniques that, may be applied in resolving any particular dispute. After reference to recommendations of the ILO (International Labour Organisation),[60] they concluded that, individual or collective disputes or disputes over rights and interests are the commonly accepted classifications. The question to be answered here is, whether the jurisdiction granted the NIC can be said to be in line with the foregoing classifications of labour disputes. That is so, because in granting jurisdiction to the NIC, the NIC Act 2006, simply used the phrase “relating to,” while Section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010 used “relating to or connected with any labour, employment…”

 

Apart from that, the learned authors compared the institutional non adjudicatory framework for settlement of industrial disputes through voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation methods in Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.[61] This research shall, also examine the provisions of the NIC Act 2006 and the Constitution, dealing with such out-of-court settlement of labour and industrial disputes.

 

Above all, section 53(1) of the NIC Act 2006, repealed Part 11 of the TDA, while the other sections of the TDA are still extant and part of the labour dispute resolution mechanisms. It has been argued that, this provision is intended to prevent a confusion, between the jurisdiction of the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) under the TDA and the NIC.[62] On this point  Olu Abiala[63] submitted that the implication of this is that settlement of Trade disputes through mediation, conciliation and arbitration which often engender delay in the process before reaching the National Industrial Court, remain preserved and no matter what sanctimonious defence is given for its retention, can be dysfunctional towards quick dispensation of justice in trade disputes. Contributing on this issue, Bamidele Aturu [64]submitted that, the use of the phrase ‘to the exclusion of any other court’ used in conferring jurisdiction to the NIC, implies that the exclusive jurisdiction of the court to deal with labour matters does not affect the ‘jurisdiction’ of the IAP to entertain labour disputes as conferred by the TDA, because the IAP, is not a court, but a special administrative panel or arbitral body for resolving labour disputes. However, Amucheazi and Abba[65] argued differently that the NIC could entertain matters brought before it directly by aggrieved parties even without first of all exhausting the laid down procedures under sections 1 to 18 of the TDA. That is in line with the decision of the Court of Appeal in N.U.T, Niger State v C.O.S.S.T, Niger State[66], wherein the court held that the subject matter of the suit was a trade dispute, and consequently held that it was the NIC that has the jurisdiction to try the case and consequently ordered the NIC hear and determine the matter. Commenting on the decision in this case Bimbo Atilola[67] argued that a legal puzzle whether the NIC can immediately assume original jurisdiction over a trade dispute matter as in this case which has not explored the processes as led down in Part 1 of the TDA. He submitted that the proper thing for the NIC to due in the light of the order of the Court of Appeal is to decline jurisdiction and refer the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Panel.

 

From the foregoing, it is obvious that there exist gaps in the works reviewed above in determining whether the NIC Act 2006 and the Constitution (Third) Alteration Act 2010 will be able to address the challenges confronting the NIC in the realisation of its set objectives in resolution of labour disputes and related matters in Nigeria.

1.8 ORGANISATION OF THE WORK

This thesis is divided into 7 chapters, with clearly designated headings and sub-headings. Chapter one is the general introduction. It introduces the entire research, states the problem of the research, the research question, the methodology, objective of the research, significance of the research and the literature review.

Chapter two deals with the; Historical development of related laws and the NIC. This chapter traces the origin of labour courts, development of other related Laws in Nigeria, the historical development of the NIC of Nigeria, and a summary of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act 2010.

Chapter three examines the legal and statutory frame work on the NIC topics like establishment and constitution, composition, status, judicial divisions, assignment and transfer of cases, amendment and jurisdiction over private individual employment disputes were treated.

In chapter four, the scope of the jurisdiction of the NIC, under original, appellate and interpretative jurisdictions were examined. Also, examined are, the special powers of the NIC, enforcement provisions, injunctive remedies and judicial review.

Chapter Five deals with the expanded jurisdiction of the NIC, under the following sub topics; jurisdiction over international treaties and conventions, sexual harassment and discrimination at workplace, child abuse and human trafficking, national minimum wage, criminal matters and free trade zone.

Furthermore, chapter Six analyses the proactive provisions for trial at the NIC, under the following topics; use of assessors and referees, arbitration, mediation, conciliation and negotiation. Also treated are the National Industrial Court Rules and the issue of appeal over the decisions of the NIC to the Court of Appeal.

Finally, chapter seven deals with the findings of this research, contribution to knowledge, recommendations and general conclusions.

 

 

[1]. See Decree No. 47 of 1992.

[2] Now CAP T8 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

[3] See Adejumo  B.A; The National  Industrial Court of Nigeria: Past, Present and Future; being a paper delivered at  The Refresher Course Organised for Judicial Officers of between 3 – 5 years post appointment by the National Judicial Institute, Abuja on March 24, 2011, Kanyip B.B; The National Industrial Court :The Journey so Far., being text of a paper delivered at 2008 Annual / Delegates, Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association which held from 23^rd – 28th August 2008, at the International Conference Centre Abuja. See also SGS Inspection Services (Nigeria) Limited v Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) (1978 – 2006) DJNIC Pg. 424 at 430

[4] sections 14 and 17 of the TDA.

[5] Section 19(4) of the TDA.(now repealed).

[6]  Adejumo B.A.. The National  Industrial Court of Nigeria: Past, Present and Future;op.cit

[7] Section 19 TDA

[8] Section 25 ibid

[9] See Kalango & ors v Dokubo & ors (2003) 15 WRN 32, (2004) 1NLLR 180

[10] For instance, in Western Steel Workers v Iron & Steel Workers, (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284  the Supreme Court held that Section 15 of the TDA 1976 conferring jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court did not include jurisdiction to make “Declaration and to order injunction”. The Court of Appeal also in Kalango & ors v Dokubo & ors (supra) held that “considering the nature and scope of the jurisdiction and powers of the National Industrial Court as clearly spelt out in the Act, the court lacks competence to make declarations and orders of injunction of the type sought by the Plaintiffs/Respondents in the instant case” see further the case of Oluruntoba -Oju v Abdul-Raheem (2009) 13NWLR(1157)83.

[11]The Federal High Court, the 36 High Courts of the States of the Federation, the Federal Capital Territory High Court and the NIC were held to have concurrent jurisdiction in the resolution of labour and trade disputes, See Attorney-General Oyo State v Nigeria Labour Congress, Oyo State Chapter & Ors (2003) 8 NWLR 1 at pp.33. See also Abidogun Taiwo NIC: The Challenge of Forum in Grievance/Dispute Resolution (3), Vanguard Friday, July 25, 2008, P.3

[12] For example, at the High Courts, collective agreements were only binding if incorporated into the conditions of service of the employees, see Nwanjagu v Baico (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 687) 356, Afribank (Nig.) PLC v Kunle Osisanya (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) while at the NIC they were legally binding , in the case of  National Union of Civil Engineering Construction, Furniture and Wood Workers v Beten Bau Nigeria Ltd and Anor, (2008) 11 NLLR 1 at 18-19. The NIC held that the decisions referred to by the respondent to justify that collective agreements are only binding in honour when not incorporated into the condition of service were common law decisions and as such distinguishable from the present case based on statutory provisions of the TDA, a law the NIC is bound to give effect to.

[13] (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt. 678) 339 at 355.

[14]See generally,  Adejumo B.A.  The National Industrial Court of Nigeria: Past, Present and Future, ibid see foot note 3(supra). Adejumo B.A.  The National Industrial Court has Exclusive Jurisdiction on Labour Matters, The Guardian , Tuesday, January9, 2007. Awomolo Adegboyega; National Industrial Court Act 2006:A Progressive Development. The Guardian, Tuesday, July 25 2006 P.70, Abidogun Taiwo, Only NIC can assume jurisdiction on Labour disputes, The Punch, Monday, January 21,2008.

[15] See Amaechi B. Chiafor; Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Superior Court of Record Status and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses of the NIC Act 2006; NJLIR.Vol.1, N0. 3, (2007) p. 290., Ejere O.D: Further Reflections on the Constitutionality of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006.NJLIR Vol.1 No4 (2007) p.60.,Woruji I.N.E;  National Industrial Court Act 2006 in Annotated Nigerian Labour Legislations, Bimbola Atilola, ed. Hybrid Consult, Lagos 2008. It is important to note that the aforesaid controversies as regards the status of the court is because of the glaring conflict between section 1 (3) (a) of the NIC Act 2006 which stated that the court shall be a superior court of record and the  provisions of  section 6 (3) the 1999 Constitution, which categorically stated that the courts listed in section 6 (5)(a)-(i) to which that section relates shall be the only superior courts of record in Nigeria and the NIC was not one of the courts so listed.

[16] See Ejere O.D: The High Courts’ Jurisdiction to hear and determine inter and intra union disputes is not completely ousted by the Trade Disputes Act as amended and the 2006 NIC Act, NJLIR Vol.1No.2(2007) p.56., Woruji I.N.E: The NIC Act 2006 and the Jurisdictional Conflict in the Adjudicatory Settlement of Labour Disputes in Nigeria,NJLIR,Vol,1 No.2(2007) p.32-34.Gbenga Ojo: Legal Anatomy of the NIC Act 2006; the Need for Legislative Rethinking, NJLIR Vol.2,No.2 (2008) p.1 and Alatise Taofeeq Nasir: Obstacles Before National Industrial Court: ThisDay Newspaper, Tuesday August 24, 2010, Leaders & Company Ltd Abuja Vol.15,No5602 P.19.It is imperative also to state that under Section 251 of the Constitution,  the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in any matter where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party to a suit while a state High Court enjoyed unlimited jurisdiction to all cases and  matters subject to the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Federal High Court as provided under Section 251 aforesaid. The question then was a situation in which the Federal Government is party in respect of a labour dispute, is it the Federal High court under Section 251 of the Constitution or The National Industrial Court under Section 7 (1)  of the NIC Act that granted exclusive jurisdiction over labour matter in the NIC ?, See further the case of Oloruntoba Oju & Ors v Dopamu,(2008) All FWLR Part 411,810 where the court held that such jurisdiction is exercisable by the Federal High Court only

[17] See Section 9 of NIC Act 2006.

[18](2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 538

[19]   Adejumo B.A. ibid.

[20] See footnotes 15 and 16 above

[21]The Third Alteration Act 2010 expanded the powers and jurisdiction of the court, and constitutionally provided for the status of the court as a superior court of record having all the powers of a high court.

[22]  Uvieghara, E .E ., Labour Law in Nigeria. Malthouse Press Ltd, Lagos 2001,p.415.

[23] Esan R.S.M; Legal Framework of Industrial Relations in Nigeria ;in  Otobo D. and Omoole M. (ed.) Readings in Industrial Relations in Nigeria. Malthouse  Press Ltd. Lagos,(1987) pg.205.

[24] Listed as item no. 32 of the Second Schedule to the 1979 Constitution and item no.34 on the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended.

[25] see Bryan A. Garner; Black’s Law Dictionary, Thomson West, USA (2008) 8th edition pg.505. see also John S. James: Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases; Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. London 1986 Vol.5 p.2662.

[26] Section 48.

[27]Erugo Sam, Introduction to Nigerian Labour.  Mikky Communications, Lagos 1998 p.184.

[28] (1998) 2NWLR(Pt.537)189

[29] (2004) 1N.L.L.R.(Pt.3) 591.

[30] Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act 1926 as amended  by the Trade Union Amendment  Act of 1947,see generally: S. N. Misra & S.K Misra; Labour &Industrial Laws,(2007) 23rd edition, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, India p.273.

[31] Srivastava, S.C.: Industrial Relations and Labours, Vikas Publishing House PVT, New Delhi 2007,5th ed.pg.66

[32]Compare section 54 of the NIC Act 2006 with  section 29 of the Trades Disputes Act 1974 of Britain, see also I. T. Smith et al; Industrial Law.  Butterworths, London 1980,pg 326.

[33] Section 7(1)(c)

[34] Kanyip B.B.; An Overview of the Scope of the Expanded Jurisdiction of the National Industrial of Nigeria. Being a paper delivered in a one day public Enlightenment Symposium on Status, Power and Jurisdiction conferred on the   Court by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act)2010.Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos, Monday, August 15,2011.

[35] (1993)7 SCNJ (Pt.2)436.

[36] Amadi G.O.S;A Legal Guide to Nigerian Trade Unions, ibid, at page 57

[37] Section 7(1)(iv) granted the NIC jurisdiction over disputes relating to any trade union constitution.

[38] See section 254C of the 1999 Constitution as variously amended.

[39] Section 54

[40] Ejere O.D., The High Courts’ Jurisdiction To Hear And Determine Inter Or Intra Union Dispute is Not Completely Ousted By The Trade Disputes Act As Amended And The 2006 NIC Act ; NJLIR Vol.1No.2(2007) p.56.,

[41] Woruji,I.N.E. et al : The NIC Act 2006 and the Jurisdictional Conflict in Adjudicatory Settlement of Labour Disputes in Nigeria;  NJLIR,Vol,1 No.2(2007) p.32-34.

 [42] See footnotes 15 and 16 supra

[43] See further, Alastise Taofeeq Nasir : Obstacles Before National Industrial Court ; THISDAY   Newspaper of Tuesday, August 24, 2010

[44] Through the 3rd Alteration Act 2010.

[45] Section 254A of the 1999 Constitution

[46] Dr Ogwezzy Michael C. A Critical Examination of the Jurisprudence of National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Contemporary Issues on Labour Law ,Employment and National Industrial Court Practice and Procedures; Essays in honour Honourable Justice Adeniran Adejumo edited by Prof.Yemi Akinsaye-George(SAN) et al, (2014)Lawlords Publications, Abuja Nigeria.

 [47]Amadi, G. O. S.; Jurisprudence of Trade Union Status,  Afro-Orbis Publications Ltd., Nsukka (2002) Pg.1

[48] See Umoh, P.U., Precedent in Nigerian Courts, Fourth Dimension Publishers, Lagos 1984 Pg.171  Obilade A.O; The Nigerian Legal System , Sweet & Maxwell London 1979 Pg.116 and  Nwadialo Fidelis; Civil Procedure in Nigeria, University of Lagos Press, Lagos (2000)2nd ed. Pg 1055.

[49] Nwagbogu G.M., Piecemeal Evolutionary Trend of Modern Industrial Relations Practices in Nigeria : Putting the Cart before the Horse. NJLIR, Vol. 7 No .1(2013) p.49-60.

 

[50]Section 236(1) of the 1999 Constitution, under section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, a similar provision exists but without the word “unlimited”.

[51] Section 20 of the Trade Disputes Act 1976 as amended

[52]Western Steel Works Ltd v Iron & Steel Workers of Nigeria (1987)2SC11,Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd(1982) 1NWLR (Pt. 49)212.

[53] Bamidele Aturu; Nigerian Labour Laws; (Principles, Cases, Commentaries and Materials), Frankad Publishers, Lagos (2008) p.239-244.

[54] Chiafor Amaechi B. : Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Superior Court of Record Status and exclusive Jurisdiction Clause of the NIC Act 2006; (2007) NJLIR Vol.1,No.3 pg.29.

[55] [2010] LPELR – 1966 SC.

 [56]Through the Constitution Third Alteration Act 2010.

[57] Ubeku Abel K. : Industrial Relations in Developing Countries; The Case of Nigeria; Macmillan Press London (1938) Pg.157.

[58] Iwuji, E. C.; Settlement of Trade Disputes in Otobo D. and Omoole M. (ed.) Readings in Industrial Relations in Nigeria.   op.cit Pg.205.

[59] Annie de Roo and Rob Jagtenberg : Settling Labour Disputes in Europe ; Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers Deventer, Boston (1994),Pg.20.

[60] ILO (1951) Voluntary  Conciliation and Arbitration Recommendation No.92.

[61] Annie de Roo and Rob Jagtenberg op.cit, see also  Wurogji I.N.E, et al: Institutional Mechanisms for the Settlement of Labour Disputes in Nigeria; The Prospect for maintaining Industrial Peace[61]  Nnabue U.S.F: Promoting Conflict Resolution Through Non-adjudicatory Process, (1997) Abia State University Law Journal Vol.1 Pg.59 and Simon Deakin et al; Labour Law, Hart Publishing Oxford and Portland, Orgon (2005) 4the edition,Pg.92

[62] Agomo Chioma Kanu : Nigerian Employment and Labour Relations Law and Practice,  Concept Publications Limited,2011 pg.327.

[63] Olu Abiala, Trade Union Laws and Practice in Nigeria: The Travails;2011 St. Paul’s Publishing House,Ibadan,Pg.124

[64] Aturu Bamidele ; Law and Practice of The National Industrial Court , Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd, 2013 pg.47

[65] National Industrial Court,Law,Practice and Procedure,Wildfire Publishing House, 2013 pg.56.

[66] (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt.1307) 89

[67] Bimbola Atilola; National Industrial Court of Nigeria and Exclusive Jurisdiction on Labour, Trade Union and Employment Related Matters under the Third Alteration Act: Review of N.U.T, Niger State v C.O.S.S.T Niger State (2012) ) NJLIR Vol.6,No.2 pg.1.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :