The Legal Standpoint Regarding the Retrospective Application of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2016

CASE TITLE: YOBE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION v. AUTA (2024) LPELR-61655(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: EMPLOYMENT LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: OLABODE ABIMBOLA ADEGBEHINGBE, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Employment Law.

FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, which was delivered on January 31, 2019.

The Claimant (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) who was a staff of the Appellant since 1st September, 1992, was on the 8th October, 2010, compulsorily retired from service.

Being aggrieved by the above action of the Respondent, on October 18, 2010, he filed Suit No. YBS/GDM/HC/002/2010 before the High Court, Damaturu, Yobe State, where judgment was entered in his favor on October 4, 2013, and his compulsory retirement was declared null, void, and of no effect, and his reinstatement was ordered by the said Court.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No: CA/J/141/2014, Between: Yobe State Judicial Service Commission v. Mohammed Hadis Auta, wherein the suit No. YBS/GDM/HC/002/10 was on June 17, 2015, struck out for want of jurisdiction.

The case was then instituted before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Jos Judicial Division, in which the trial Court in its judgment entered judgment in favor of the Respondent.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which birthed this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal by adopting the following issues formulated by the Appellant:

1. “Whether from the circumstances of this suit, the lower Court was not robbed of jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore decided the matter without jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Respondent was accorded a fair hearing at the sitting of the panel that investigated him before he was sanctioned.”

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

RATIOS:
• APPEAL – FRESH POINT(S) ON APPEAL – Whether leave of Court must first be sought and obtained before fresh point can be raised on appeal; effect of failure thereof
• COURT – NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT – Position of the law on the retrospective application of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2016
• LIMITATION LAW – STATUTE OF LIMITATION – Whether a defence of statute of limitation must be specifically pleaded under Order 30 Rule 8 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2016; effect of failure to plead same
• LEGAL PRACTITIONER – STAMP/SEAL – Rationale behind the requirement of affixing stamp and seal to a legal document; instance where it will be held that the requirement was fulfilled
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Whether an unsigned document is admissible in evidence
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – Principles of fair hearing; effect of breach of Same
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – Circumstance where an appellate Court will/will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower Court
• LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION OF ACTION – Whether the issue of limitation of action can be waived

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol