Federal Ministry Of Health V. The Trade Union Members Of The Joint Health Sectors Unions & Ors (2014)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL
JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Lead Ruling)
The Federal Ministry of Health (hereinafter called “the appellant”) is seeking the following reliefs from the Court of Appeal against the respondents, namely:
“1. Extension of time within which the Applicant may seek the leave of Court to appeal against part of the decision of the National Industrial Court contained in its judgment on Monday the 22nd day of July, 2013 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/238/2012 between the Trade Union Members of the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) (as complainants) and Federal Ministry of Health (as Respondent).
- Leave of this Honourable Court to the Applicant to appeal against part of the decision of the National Industrial Court contained in its judgment delivered on Monday the 22nd day of July, 2013 in Suit No.NICN/ABJ/238/2012 between: The Trade Union Members of the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) (as complainants) and Federal Ministry of Health (as Respondent).
- Extension of time within which the Applicant may appeal against the decision of the National Industrial Court contained in its judgment delivered on Monday 22nd day of July, 2013 in Suit No.NICN/ABJ/238/2012 between: The Trade Union Members of the Joint Health Sectors Unions (JOHESU) (as complainants) and Federal Ministry of Health (as Respondent).”
The grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows:
“(i) The trial Court entered final judgment in suit No.NICN/ABJ/238/2012 between The Trade Members of the Joint Health Sectors Unions (JOHESU) (as complainants) and Federal Ministry of Health (as Respondent) on Monday, the 22nd day of July, 2013.
(ii) The Applicant is desirous of exercising its Constitutional right of appeal against the judgment.
(iii) The Applicant is entitled to appeal against the said judgment of the Court below within three months from the date the judgment was delivered but with the leave of this Honourable Court.
(iv) However, by virtue of the provision of Section 243(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the leave of this Honourable Court is required to enable the Appellant exercise its right of appeal.
(v) The Applicant had earlier filed an application for leave to appeal at the Registry of this Honourable Court on the 19th of August, 2013.
(vi) In the Notice of Appeal attached to the application filed on 19th August, 2013 the word “proposed” was inadvertently omitted.
(vii) In the affidavit in support of the Motion filed on 19th August, 2013, the proposed Notice of Appeal was inadvertently described as a Notice of Appeal without the word “Proposed”.
(viii) It is in the interest of justice and the Applicant’s Constitutional right to fair hearing that the instant application be granted by this Honourable Court.”
The application is supported by a ten paragraph affidavit deposed to by Fayemi Stephen Olaposi, a Legal Practitioner in the Law Firm of Okungbowa Adesina, SAN & Co. as follows:
“1. I am a legal practitioner in the Law Firm of Okungbowa Adesina, SAN & Co., Counsel to the Appellant/Applicant (“Applicant”) herein and I am personally involved in the conduct of this suit, by virtue of whereof I am conversant with the facts of this case.
Leave a Reply