By Sandra Umeh
Lagos – Reactions have trailed the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which vested jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to hear appeals emanating from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that the Court of Appeal 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 then referred the appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking a resolution of the substantial question of law on the finality of decisions of NICN.
NAN recalls that the issue of ‘finality’ of the decisions of NICN 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 Supreme 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.
Some lawyers have expressed their thoughts on the apex court’s decision.
A social critic, 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 of any sort.
Dugeri said: “I have mixed feelings about this decision; on the one hand, there is the need to check potential arbitrariness by the finality of NICN decisions.
“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 and employee relationship.
“While tackling the perceived arbitrariness of the NICN, the Supreme Court may have unwittingly gifted lawyers a tool with which to stay or unduly 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.’’
A constitutional lawyer, Mr Aruta Ogah, simply sees the judgment as a welcome development, which he said was long overdue.
According to him, although there appeared to be a dissenting judgment on the issue, the decision of the apex court remained final and has resolved a plethora of unanswered questions in the legal system.
“This is a welcomed development in our legal system; although there is a dissenting judgment on the issue, I believe this Supreme Court decision has help to resolve every question posed on the finality of NICN decisions,’’ he said.
In the same vein, a rights activist, Mr Justice Chimezie, hailed the decision of the apex Court, adding that the coast is now clear for litigants to do the needful in respect of appeals.
Chimezie, however, shared the concern that such decisions could also lead to an abuse of the process by some litigants and lawyers, who may employ same to frustrate the justice system.
He called for the insertion of an enabling clause in the regulations, so as to cushion the effect of such practices.
