The National Industrial Court has ordered the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), to call off the ongoing seven-month-old strike.
Delivering a ruling on the interlocutory injunction filed by the Federal Government on Wednesday, 21 September 2022, Justice Polycarp Hamman restrained ASUU from continuing with the industrial action pending the determination of the suit.
Justice Hamman, who is a vacation judge, ordered that the case filed should be returned to the president of the Industrial Court for reassignment to another judge.
He further held that the industrial action is detrimental to public university students who cannot afford to attend private tertiary institutions.
Justice Hamman said that the Trade Dispute Act mandates workers not to embark on strike once an issue has been referred to the industrial court.
He also upheld the application of the Federal Government, saying it was meritorious and granted.
The court, therefore, restrained “ASUU, whether by themselves, members, agents, privies or howsoever called, from taking further steps and doing any act in continuance of the strike action pending the hearing and determination of the suit filed.”
The judge refused to fine the Federal Government as demanded by ASUU.
The Federal Government had in the suit prayed for an order for ASUU to call off its strike.
The Minister of Labour and Employment, on behalf of the Federal Government, had filed the matter before the court by way of referral to resolve the issue of the ongoing strike by ASUU.
Mr J.U.K Igwe, SAN, counsel to the Federal Government in his submission had informed the court that the application for the injunction was dated 12 September and filed on the same date.
He added that the application was brought in pursuant to the rules of the NICN 2017 proceeding.
Igwe further stated that it was predicated on 11 grounds, supported b21-paragraphraph affidavit deposed to Mr Okechukwu Wampa, a Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, attached with three exhibits and an undertaking as to damages deposed to by Wampa.
He also urged the court to grant the prayer sought and proceeded to adopt in its entirety and totality the written address, adding that the claimants had met all the requirements to enable the court to grant the injunction.
He cited that the claimant’s action was not apprehensive and regarding damages, he said the lost time of seven months of the strike could not be regained.
He concluded by saying that going by the provision of Section 18 (1) (e) of the Trade Disputes Act 2004, a worker should not embark on strike when a matter is already before the court and urged the court to grant the injunction.
Mr Femi Falana (SAN), counsel to the defendant stated that he had before the court a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit filed on 16 September deposed to by the president of ASUU.
He further submitted that attached to the affidavit were eight exhibits accompanied by a written address and proceeded to adopt the same as their argument in opposition to the interlocutory injunction.
Falana in addition argued that the minister lacked the power to order the court in the referral to direct ASUU to call off its strike.
He averred further that once a referral was before a court, no party could go outside of it.
Falana in his argument also pointed out that the claimants did not follow due process in part 1 of TDA 2004 which stipulated that only an individual has the right to approach the court as a trade union will first need to go to the Industrial Arbitration Panel ( IAP), before coming to the court.
He said the union can only approach the NICN to appeal the decision of IAP.
Falana also said that the letter that accompanied the referral had the name of the Attorney-General as a party in the suit, but that however, the application filed before the court was without the name.
He also said that the referral asked for