The Constitutional Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court: The Unsettled Exclusiveness Question

Philip E. Oamen, Abdulhakeem A. Tijani

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    This paper examines the jurisdictional problem occasioned by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration Act, 2010) (the ?Third Alteration Act?) amidst the existing controversy surrounding the exclusive Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court (NIC). The NIC was established pursuant to the Trade Dispute Decree No. 7 of 1976 (TDD). Since 1976, there had been myriad of controversies as to whether the NIC was indeed a Superior Court of Record as the TDD purported it to be. Controversies also trailed the exclusivity of the Jurisdiction, with respect to causes and matters conferred on the NIC by the TDD. The Nigerian Federal Legislature, however, recently laid the above mentioned controversies to rest by amending the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (the ?1999 Constitution?) vide the Third Alteration Act, which amendment was assented to by the President on 04 March 2011. Interestingly, Section 2 of the Third Alteration Act amended section 6 of the 1999 Constitution. By this amendment, the NIC was constitutionally upgraded to the status of a Superior Court of Record. Again, Section 254C(1) of the Third Alteration Act now vests exclusive jurisdiction on the NIC with respect to causes and matters stated thereunder. This, ordinarily, should have been a salutary move by the National Assembly in settling the long over-flogged jurisdictional contention. Alas, this is not to be as the Third Alteration Act has yet germinated another problem or otherwise compounded the earlier problem relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC. The arising problem is as inherent in section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution vests exclusive Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court (FHC) with respect to matters stated thereunder. Emphatically, the section commences with: ?Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters?. Similarly, section 254C (1) of the Third Alteration Act also begins with: ?Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters?. The constitutional question agitating concerned legal minds is, which, as between the FHC and the NIC, would assume jurisdiction in matters touching on the jurisdictional purviews of both the FHC and NIC. For example, where the contract of employment of an employee of a federal government agency is terminated which of the courts, FHC or NIC, will assume jurisdiction over such matter? Which of the ?notwithstanding clauses? in sections 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution and 254C(1) of the Third Alteration Act would prevail since the termination is both an administrative or executive action by a federal government agency as well as a labour/employment related matter? This is the issue addressed in this paper.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-18
    Number of pages18
    JournalAmbrose Alli University Law Journal
    Volume3
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished (VoR) - 1 Aug 2013

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The Constitutional Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court: The Unsettled Exclusiveness Question'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this