Lawyers React To Supreme Court’s Decision On NICN

Some Lagos lawyers on Saturday reacted differently to the recent
judgment of the Supreme Court which vested jurisdiction in the
Court of Appeal on appeals from the National Industrial Court of
Nigeria (NICN).

The lawyers described the decision as a welcome development, but
cautioned that there was need to check what they called potential
arbitrariness by the finality of NICN’s decisions.

The Court of Appeal in Lagos had in 2014 referred to the Supreme
Court an appeal in the case of Mainstreet Bank Ltd vs Victor
Anaemen Iwu.

The case was consolidated with a related appeal in the case of
Coca-Cola Nig. Ltd vs Titilayo Akinsanya, in which the Court had in
2013 held that there was no right of appeal against the decision of
the NICN, except as limited in Section 243(2)-(4) of the 1999
Constitution.

The appellate court had referred the appeal to the Supreme
Court, seeking a resolution of the substantial question of law on
the finality of its decisions.

The issue of finality of the decisions of the industrial court
had generated a lot of controversy in the legal profession among
litigants, employees, employers of labour and the academia with
several appeals awaiting the outcome of the decision of the Apex
Court on the vexed issue.

In its judgment on June 30, a full panel of Justices of the
Supreme Court, presided by Justice Mary Peter-Odili, held that
there was no constitutional provision divesting the Court of Appeal
of jurisdiction to hear appeals emanating from the NICN.

The apex court also held that the right of appeal was not
limited to fundamental rights cases.

Mr Mike Dugeri described the judgment as “laying to rest” all
pre-existing confusions in relation to court’s jurisdiction.

He, however, stressed the need for a balance in the application
of the law so as to check arbitrariness.

“I have mixed feelings about this decision; on one hand, there
is the need to check potential arbitrariness by the finality of
NICN’s decisions, while on the other hand, there is the need to
ensure a speedy resolution of labour disputes.

“I say this due to the peculiar nature of cases touching on
worker-employee relationship.

“While tackling the perceived arbitrariness of the NICN, the
Supreme Court may have unwittingly given lawyers a tool with which
to stay or prolong labour disputes.

“There remains, in my humble view, the need to strike a balance
in a manner that works best for our nascent labour law
jurisprudence so as to avoid abuse, ” said the social critic.

A constitutional lawyer, Mr Aruta Ogah, who described the
judgement as a welcome development, said it was long overdue.

According to him, there appears to be a dissenting judgment on
the issue, the decision of the apex court remains final and has
resolved a plethora of unanswered questions in the nation’s legal
system.

He said:“This is a welcomed development in our legal system;
although, there is a dissenting judgment on the issue, I believe
this Supreme Court’s decision has helped to resolve every question
posed on the finality of NICN’s decisions.”

In the same vein, a human rights activist, Mr Justice Chimezie,
hailed the apex court’s decision, saying the coast is now clear for
litigants to do the needful in respect of appeals.

Chimezie, however, expressed concern that such decisions could
also lead to an abuse of court process by some litigants and
lawyers, who might employ same to frustrate the justice system.

Some Lagos lawyers on Saturday reacted differently to the recent
judgment of the Supreme Court which vested jurisdiction in the
Court of Appeal on appeals from the National Industrial Court of
Nigeria (NICN).

The lawyers described the decision as a welcome development, but
cautioned that there was need to check what they called potential
arbitrariness by the finality of NICN’s decisions.

The Court of Appeal in Lagos had in 2014 referred to the Supreme
Court an appeal in the case of Mainstreet Bank Ltd vs Victor
Anaemen Iwu.

The case was consolidated with a related appeal in the case of
Coca-Cola Nig. Ltd vs Titilayo Akinsanya, in which the Court had in
2013 held that there was no right of appeal against the decision of
the NICN, except as limited in Section 243(2)-(4) of the 1999
Constitution.

The appellate court had referred the appeal to the Supreme
Court, seeking a resolution of the substantial question of law on
the finality of its decisions.

The issue of finality of the decisions of the industrial court
had generated a lot of controversy in the legal profession among
litigants, employees, employers of labour and the academia with
several appeals awaiting the outcome of the decision of the Apex
Court on the vexed issue.

In its judgment on June 30, a full panel of Justices of the
Supreme Court, presided by Justice Mary Peter-Odili, held that
there was no constitutional provision divesting the Court of Appeal
of jurisdiction to hear appeals emanating from the NICN.

The apex court also held that the right of appeal was not
limited to fundamental rights cases.

Mr Mike Dugeri described the judgment as “laying to rest” all
pre-existing confusions in relation to court’s jurisdiction.

He, however, stressed the need for a balance in the application
of the law so as to check arbitrariness.

“I have mixed feelings about this decision; on one hand, there
is the need to check potential arbitrariness by the finality of
NICN’s decisions, while on the other hand, there is the need to
ensure a speedy resolution of labour disputes.

“I say this due to the peculiar nature of cases touching on
worker-employee relationship.

“While tackling the perceived arbitrariness of the NICN, the
Supreme Court may have unwittingly given lawyers a tool with which
to stay or prolong labour disputes.

“There remains, in my humble view, the need to strike a balance
in a manner that works best for our nascent labour law
jurisprudence so as to avoid abuse, ” said the social critic.

A constitutional lawyer, Mr Aruta Ogah, who described the
judgement as a welcome development, said it was long overdue.

According to him, there appears to be a dissenting judgment on
the issue, the decision of the apex court remains final and has
resolved a plethora of unanswered questions in the nation’s legal
system.

He said:“This is a welcomed development in our legal system;
although, there is a dissenting judgment on the issue, I believe
this Supreme Court’s decision has helped to resolve every question
posed on the finality of NICN’s decisions.”

In the same vein, a human rights activist, Mr Justice Chimezie,
hailed the apex court’s decision, saying the coast is now clear for
litigants to do the needful in respect of appeals.

Chimezie, however, expressed concern that such decisions could
also lead to an abuse of court process by some litigants and
lawyers, who might employ same to frustrate the justice system.