The demystification of the Industrial Court

ADMITTEDLY, it is implicit in every adjudicatory process that a court of law cannot be one of first approach as well as that of last resort. The general appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is conferred on it by Section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended). Of note, the said Section 240 is however “subject to the provisions of the constitution”. Consequently, given the provisions of Section 243(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended), appeals from the decisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria to the Court of Appeal is only that of appeal as of right on questions of fundamental rights as contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution as well as in criminal causes as they relate to matters upon which the National Industrial Court of Nigeria has jurisdiction to entertain. Thus, making the Court the final or Supreme Court in such civil suits. This was the position of the Court of Appeal in Lagos Sheraton Hotel And Towers Vs. Hotels And Personal Services Senior Staff (2014) LPELR 23340 (CA) as affirmed by a full panel of the Court of Appeal in Coca-Cola (Nig) Ltd & 2 Ors Vs. Akinsanya (2013) 1 ACELR 28 and in Zenith Bank Plc. V. Durugbor CA/L/116M/2014 reported in (2015) LPELR – 24898 (CA).

That remained the position of the law until the apex Court on June 30, 2017, in Mainstreet Bank Ltd  (now Skye Bank Limited) vs Victor Anaemen Iwu and Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited vs Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya, the consolidated appeals that came by way of reference under Section 295 of the 1999 Constitution, held that there was no constitutional provision divesting the Court of Appeal of jurisdiction to hear appeals emanating from the NICN. A précis of the pros and cons of the aforesaid decision is set out below. The pros of the decision of the apex Court are as follows: the need for a balance in the application of the law so as to check arbitrariness; to protect against miscarriage of justice; appeals ensure a better decision making system; it is a necessary feature of every system of adversarial administration of justice that errors in the judicial process should be capable of being corrected, reversed or varied at a higher level; the NICN already has the wide powers to depart from applying the provisions of the Evidence Act to proceedings before it, the litmus test being the generic use of ‘interest of justice’ where it so decides; Court actions seeking to enforce fundamental rights of citizens are readily accommodated at the traditional fora for such, viz the Federal High Court and the High Court, hence nothing special about fundamental rights appeal jurisdiction imbued on NICN; need for expeditious dispensation of cases should not be sacrificed on the altar of proper adjudication by way of appeals.

The cons of the decision of the apex court are as follows: the shortfalls of NICN having finality of decisions may still be made by the appellate Court; the need to ensure a speedy resolution of labour disputes; the peculiar nature of cases touching on employer-employee relationship requiring prompt adjudication; further entrenches an imbalance in employment relations in the face of mounting unemployment, underemployment, disguised employment relations problems, amongst others; non recognition of inequality of  bargaining powers; costs of appeals will negatively affect aggrieved employees; likelihood of objections as to the merit of the exercise of right of appeal, amongst others.

Flowing from the above, it can be gleaned that the position of the apex Court has left some germane issues that need to be addressed to uphold the rationale for the establishment of the NICN. Succinctly, alternative approaches that could be adopted to create a ‘win-win situation’ between the contending views illuminated above, are hereunder set out: while reverting to the previous position, the NICN should be imbued with jurisdiction to review its decisions by a panel headed by the President of the NICN; and close supervision by the National Judicial Council of the process of dispensation of justice in the NICN. Other options, even while not restricting right to go on appeal against a judgment of the NICN, are that interlocutory appeals can be restricted to be taken at the end of the substantive matter ; and the National Assembly should by an amendment of the relevant provisions of the Constitution streamline appeals from NICN by limiting same to the Court of Appeal only. Better still, the National Assembly may create a National Industrial Court of Appeal (NICA) like the Sharia Court of Appeal or the Customary Court of Appeal and vests it with exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from the NICN.

Of note, it is suggested that such appeals should be by leave. Happily, this will not be far from the structural requirements of the right to a fair trial under Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Unless these issues are addressed, the resultant effects on the already clogged dockets of the Court of Appeal will be unpalatable. It is respectfully submitted that in the interim, aggrieved workers can seek solace by exploring the provisions of the Rules of the Appeal Court with respect to litigants appealing or defending as persons without means.

• Ogunjobi, an attorney, lives in Lagos