CASE TITLE: OSAKPAMWAN v. RTEAN & ORS (2025) LPELR-81731(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH JULY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on civil procedure.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division (the trial court),, delivered on 13th October,2020,0 by Hon. Justice O.Y. Adnuwe in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/CS/278/2019.
The facts leading to this appeal, are that the 1st – 35th Respondents (as Claimants) instituted this action against the Appellant and Yusuf IbrahimAdeniyi,i who was the 36th Respondent (as the 1st and 2nd Defendants) vide anamended originating summons,, wherein they sought the determination of a number of questions by the trial Court and the grant of some reliefs.
The Appellant, together with Yusuf Ibrahim Adeniyi, the 36th Respondent (who were the 1st and 2nd Defendants), filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the said Amended Originating Summons with a Written Address. They also filed a Counter Affidavit with a written address in opposition to thesummons..
The 1st to 35th Respondents (Claimants) then filed a Further and Better Affidavit in support of their Amended Originating Summons.
The parties adopted their processes on the 7th day of August, 2020, both on the preliminary objection and on the Amended Summons. The trial Court delivered its judgment on the 13th day of October, 2020, in which it held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed this appeal. The respondent filed a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the merits of the preliminary objection on the following issue:
“Whether the instant Appeal has become academic and consequently, robbing this honourable Court the requisite jurisdiction to entertainthe same.””
The Court also considered the appeal on the merits on the issue of:
“Whether the trial Court was right when it entertained the case filed by the 1st to 35th Respondents in light of the provisions of Part One of the Trade Disputes Act Chp. T8. LFN 2004, having regard to the claims filed by the 1st to 35th Respondents at the trial Court showing the fact of inter-disputes among the parties.”
DECISION/HELD:
The preliminary objection was upheld, and the appeal was accordingly struck out for being academic. On the merits, the appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION: Whether the constitution of a voluntary association binds the members of the association
- JUDGMENT AND ORDER- JUDGMENT OF COURT: Effect of a decision of an intermediate Court after finding that it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal
- JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT: Whether the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain intr-unionn disputes as a Court of firstinstance.
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ISSUE OF JURISDICTION: Whether the issue of jurisdiction must be determined first when raised
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ACADEMIC OR HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION(S)/ISSUES/SUIT/EXERCISE: Whether Courts should restrict hearings to consideration of live issues only
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
