Faluyi & Anor V. Nut & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. 

The first respondent commenced this action at the Federal High Court, Abuja through an originating summons filed on May 20, 2008, against the appellant and the third and fourth respondent. They prayed this Court to determine the scope of the powers of the third and fourth respondents with respect to the registration of a trade union in view of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Trade Union’s Act.

They also prayed this Court to prevent the registration of an association known as Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools (ASUSS) which the first respondent contends is not registrable as trade union on the ground that the first respondent, is sufficiently, representative of the class of the interested person (i.e. Secondary School Teachers) whose interest the Said ASUSS is intended to represent.

The appellants and the third and fourth respondent in their Preliminary Objections contended that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is excluded by virtue of the Trade Union’s Act and the National

1

Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus, that the proper venue for the determination of this case is the National Industrial Court.

On the issue of Jurisdiction, it is the first respondent contention that their claims are all within Section 251 (1) (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution which means that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain them. Furthermore, with the aid of decided authorities, the first respondent contended that the issue of jurisdiction to adjudicate over disputes in democratic dispensation are regulated by the country’s ground norm which is the Constitution.

The provisions of the 1999 Constitution override every other provision on the same issue in any other legislation as the Trade Union’s Act and the National Industrial Act. All laws are required to conform and be consistent with the 1999 Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution is null and void to the extent of inconsistency.

In a considered Ruling dated March 10, 2009, the Federal High Court, Abuja, per M.G Umar J., dismissed the appellants and the third and fourth respondent’s objections and assumed the jurisdiction to

2

determine the first and second respondents’ action under Section 251 (1) (q) (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

The appellant’s dissatisfied with this judgment, appealed to the Lower Court, which dismissed the said appeal. Now he filed appeal to this Court. He formulated the two questions:

I. The complaint under this issue relates to the Constitutional issue of improperly constituted panel of the lower Court when the judgment was delivered on 11th day of July 2014.

II. Having regard to the Jurisdictional and radical nature of Section 254 (c) of the 1999 Constitution whether the lower Court was right to have refused to transfer the subject matter of this appeal to the National Industrial Court which is now the appropriate Court to the lower Court on 9th day of June.