Download PDF
1. AN ORDER OF INTERIM INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, employees, workmen, servants or proxies from embarking on the planned industrial action of any nature pending the hearing and determination of the Claimants/Applicants’ motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. AND such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. ORDER UPON READING the application, affidavit in support of Motion Ex-Parte and affidavit of urgency herein sworn to by Mrs. Evan Enekwe, Nigerian Citizen of WAEC building, Maitama, Abuja. And after hearing the counsel to the Claimant, Abubakar Malami SAN, Hon. Attorney General of the Federation (HAGF), who moved in terms of the Motion papers. RULING Before I commence my ruling in this Motion Exparte, I must refer to Section 7 (1) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, which gives this Court the jurisdiction and power to hear and entertain matters relating to matter of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike or contemplation of a strike or lockout amongst other things. This statutory provision has constitutional blessing by virtue of section 254C (1) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended by the Third Alteration Act, 2011. In effect, this Court has the jurisdiction and power to entertain this type of application. I have gone through the originating processes and of particularly interest is the fact that the Motion Exparte was filed along with Motion on Notice in compliance with the provision of Order 11, Rule 1 (2) of the National Industrial Court Practice Direction 2012. I have listened to the adumbration of the learned HAGF after the adoption of their Written Address in support of their application. I have gone through both the main affidavit in support as well as the affidavit of urgency. I have particularly gone through and comprehended paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the main affidavit as well as paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit of urgency. Having gone through all the above, I am satisfied that a case of urgency has been established by virtue of Exhibit FG3 which is a communiqué issued by the Defendants/Respondents jointly threatening to shut down all Banks, Sea and Airport, Government and Private Offices as well as Markets and commence indefinite strike. This threat could be seen in paragraph 5 – 6 of the said communiqué. The Honourable Attorney General of the Federation equally satisfied the Court that there is a res to be protected from been damaged irreparably. He addressed the Court that the res is the breakdown of Security and the Economy of the Nation, breakdown of law and order as well as peace and good governance. I am equally satisfied that no amount of damages can be enough to indemnify the applicant if this application is refused and the consequences seeking to be ousted occurred. I am also of the view that the applicants have not delayed before filing the application, as they got the wind of the Communiqué on 14th May, 2016 and filed their application on 16th May, 2016 which was the first working day. I am of the candid view that the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation has made enough points which the Court should consider and grant the application, see the case of UTB Limited V Dolmetsch Pharm Nig. Ltd, (2007) 16 NWLR (PT 1061) PAGE 500 at 524 paragraphs E – F Per Niki Tobi JSC (Rtd). See also the recent cases of both the Court of Appeal in BAA V Adamawa Emirate Council & Ors 2013 LPELR 22068 and see also the decision of the apex Court on what to look for before granting Exparte of interim Order. See the case of AZUH V UBN Plc (2014) LPELR 22913 SC. I have equally considered all the exhibits attached to the affidavits of the applicants. This Court is a Court that is established to ensure that there is harmonious industrial relations in the country. And to settle disputes that may arise between employers and employees. Not to allow breakdown of law and order arising from issues relating to or connected with workplace. These duties should be done in national interest. A labour court anywhere in the world also considers the consequences of its pronouncement not based on the disputes between or among the parties before it alone but also how same may affect the larger society. I say no more. It is in view of the above that I order as prayed. It is therefore the Order of this Court that the Defendants/Respondents and their agents, employees, workmen, servants or proxies or any person whosoever or whatsoever are hereby restrained from carrying out their threat as contained in their communiqué released on 14th May, 2016 at 21:05hours pending the Hearing and Determination of the Motion on Notice filed on the 16th May, 2016. It is the Order of this Court that status quo ante as at 17th May, 2016 be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice. It is also the Order of this Court that none of the parties herein shall be engaged in any act or conduct overtly or covertly and that may jeopardize peace in the workplace and/or the nation at large pending the Hearing and Determination of the pending Motion on Notice. By Virtue of the powers conferred on me by Section 21 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, I hereby order that this case be assigned to Honourable Justice B.B. Kanyip, the presiding Judge in charge of Lagos Division, the next in command to come down to Abuja and hear the substantive Motion on Notice. The case is so assigned. Case Adjourned to Monday 23rd May, 2016 for the hearing of the Motion on Notice by Honourable Justice B.B. Kanyip in Court 1 Abuja. Hearing notices and other processes already filed by the Claimants/Applicants shall be served on the Defendants/Respondents within 24 hours. HON. JUSTICE B. A. ADEJUMO, OFR PRESIDENT ISSUED AT ABUJA under the Seal of the Court and hand of the President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria dated this 17th May, 2016. O. O. Arowosegbe, Esq. Ag. Deputy Chief Registrar