By Ighomuaye Lucky. O
The Benin Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal has ordered the fresh trial of a case of wrongful disengagement of members of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), by Geco Prakla Nigeria Ltd, earlier dismissed on 21 April 2010 by the National Industrial Court sitting in Benin City, Edo State for want of cause of action.
NUPENG has dragged the management of Geco Prakla Nig. Ltd to the Benin Division of the National Industrial Court for disengaging 998 of its members who were junior staff of the company at party 773 location at Ijaw- Burutu in Delta State on 29 November 1993 and for allegedly breaching the provisions of a collective agreement dated 29th day of June, 1993 and the various communique the union members entered into with Geco Prakla Nig. Ltd.
The case of NUPENG challenging the alleged unlawful disengagement of its members in party 773 by Geco Prakla Ltd. was however dismissed by the Benin Division of the National Industrial Court and held that “For all these reasons, we hereby hold that the applicant, in activating the interpretation jurisdiction, is merely side-tracking the processes of Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act.
“This we cannot sanction, there is nothing in the brief of the applicant to suggest the interpretation of the documents listed; instead, what we have is a call by applicant to apply the provisions of applicant’s union.
“The case of applicant must, therefore fail, and we so hold. The case is accordingly dismissed for want of cause of action. Judgement is entered accordingly”.
In its suit at the Benin Division of the National Industrial Court, NUPENG had on behalf of its members prayed the court for, “An interpretation of the collective agreement entered into between the claimant and the defendant on 29th day of June 1993 as to whether the purported closure of party 773 and the purported termination of claimant’s members who are junior staff in party 773 by the Defendant lies in accordance with the said collective agreement.
“An interpretation as to whether the communique issued and signed on the 20th day of November 1993 by both parties is binding on the claimant and defendant for the benefit of members of the claimant at party 773.
“As interpretation of the Trust Fund Deed duly executed by the Defendant as to whether the Claimant’s members at party 773 under the Defendant are entitled to benefit under the said Trust Fund Deed.
“A declaration that the Claimant’s members under party 773 are entitled to all their allowances and benefits as contained in the various communiques and collective agreement between the Claimant and Defendant”.
On its part, Geco Prakla the Defendant at the National Industrial Court averred in its Statement of Defence, that NUPENG and its members lack the locus standi to institute the suit.
Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit by a panel of five judges of the Benin Division of the National Industrial Court presided over by the Honourable Justice B. B. Kaniyo, NUPENG filed a Notice of Appeal on 17th December, 2014 setting out five grounds of appeal.
According to the Appeal Court, the five grounds of appeal are: “Ground 1. Trial court erred in law when it visited its sin and the respondent’s sin on the Appeallant.
“Groud 2. The trial court erred in law on facts when it dismissed the Appeallant’s suit for want of cause of action.
“Ground 3. The trial court erred in law when it failed to give the Appeallant fair hearing.
“Ground 4. The trial court erred in law when it dismissed the suit on the ground that there was a marked lack of depth of research and scholarship by both counsels to aid the court and or referred the court to its relevant decision on the issue at hand.
“Ground 5. The trial court erred in law when it held that the Appeallant was wrong in invoking the interpretative jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court having earlier held that the matter should be heard on record without calling oral evidence in the resolution of the issues submitted to it for adjudication which holding occasioned a very serious miscarriage of justice”.
In a well considered judgement after submissions by counsels, B. O. Ojumah and Festus Onyia for the Appeallant and Respondents respectively, the Honourable Justice Sybil Onyeji Nwaka Gbagi who read the lead judgement resolved all the three issues distilled by the Court of Appeal for resolution in favour of the Appeallant, and held that, “As rightly pointed out by the Appeallant in her Reply Brief of Argument, particularly in the second to the last paragraph of page 13 thereof, the question as to whether the procedures set out in the Trade Dispute Act is the applicable procedures to the Appeallant’s case before the lower court do not form part of the issues raised before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court ought not to have pronounced on same without calling on the parties to address her on it.
“In the circumstance, the trial court’s pronouncement on the applicability of the Trade Dispute Act to the Appeallant’s action before her is a nullity. I so hold.
“In the light of the foregoing analysis, my noble Lords, I am of calm view that the Appeallant’s appeal is hereby allowed while the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside, and consequently, the Appeallant’s case is hereby remitted to the trial court for hearing De-novo by another judge or panel of the lower court.”.
The other brother justices of the Appeal Court, the Honourable Justice Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuf and Honourable Justice Lateef Adebayo Ganiyu also allowed the appeal and remitted the Appeallant’s case to the lower court for trial de-novo.