The National Judicial Council is one of the Federal Executive Bodies created by virtue of Section 153 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In order to insulate the Judiciary from the whims and caprices of the Executive; hence guarantee the independence of this Arm of Government, which is a sine qua non for any democratic Government, the National Judicial Council was created and vested with enormous powers and functions which the erstwhile Advisory Judicial Committee (AJC) it replaced.

The Court is empowered to hear and resolve all-
i. Disputes relating to or connected with employers and employees relationship;
ii. Disputes relating to or connected with environment, conditions and or terms of work;
iii. Disputes relating to or connected with health of workers;
iv. Disputes relating to or connected with workplace safety;
v. Disputes relating to or connected with welfare of labour, employee and workers;
vi. Disputes relating to or connected with Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Workmen�s Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Act or Laws;
vii. Disputes relating to or connected with an order granted to restrain any person or body from taking part in any of the following;
a. Strike; b. Lock-out; c. Industrial action; d. Conduct in contemplation or furtherance of a strike;
viii. Disputes relating to or connected with any disputes over the interpretation and application of Human Rights as they relate to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer�s association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine;
ix. Disputes relating to or connected with any dispute arising from minimum wage for the Federation or any part of the Federation; x. Disputes relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters;
xi. Disputes relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace;
xii. Disputes and matters relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards; xiii. Disputes and matters relating to or connected with child labour, child abuse, human trafficking, or any matter connected therewith or related thereto;
xiv. Disputes relating to determination of question as to the interpretation and application of any; a. collective agreement; b. an award made by an arbitration tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or trade union dispute; c. award or judgment of the Court; d. Trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in the memorandum of settlement; e. Trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour, industrial relations or work place;
xv. Disputes relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof;
xvi. Disputes relating to or connected or arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, and benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, a judicial officer, or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto;
xvii. Disputes relating to or connected with- (a) Appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith; (b) Appeals from the decisions recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; (c) Such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not;
xviii. Disputes relating to or connected with registration of collective agreement;
xix. Disputes relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified, relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith;
xx. Entertain any application for the enforcement of the award, decision, ruling or order made by any Arbitral Tribunal or Commission, or Administrative body or Board of Inquiry relating to or connected with, arising from or pertaining to any matter which it has jurisdiction to entertain.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to make some observations on the NIC under the Trade Disputes Act 1976 (TDA) as amended by the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Act 1925. As a product of an interventionist mechanism in industrial and trade disputes arena, the NIC was structured in a regimented disputes resolution regime under the firm control of the Minister of Labour. Thus, the NIC at inception was dogged with a lot of problems mainly traceable to the enabling Act. And these problems impacted negatively on the ability of the Court to effectively perform its duties. The identified shortcomings are summarized below:

i. The non-inclusion of the Court in both the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions was an albatross on the effective exercise of its jurisdiction as the Court was not afforded the needed respect by litigants and counsel. Even though, section 19(2) of the TDA 1990 (now repealed) which was inserted by Decree 47 of 1992 provided that the NIC shall be a Superior Court of Record. Despite this lawyers disregarded these provisions by asking the Federal High Court to judicially review decisions reached at the NIC in a number of cases. For example, SGS Inspection Services (Nigeria) Limited v. Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN)6, is one of such cases.

ii The fact that only very few cases which deals with interpretation of agreement could come to the court directly was itself a problem. To confirm this Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules, CAP T.8, LFN 2004 provides that “a trade dispute shall be commenced by reference from the Minister” This was equally against the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In effect, NIC was the only Court in the nation that litigants could not on their own volition activate its jurisdiction. The referral requirement also meant that cases transferred to the Court by other courts could not be heard until clearance had been obtained from the Minister. For example, the NIC had to decline original jurisdiction in the case of Incorporated Trustees of Independent Petroleum Association V. Alhaji Ali Abdulrahman Himma & 2 Ors7 on the ground that the dispute resolution mechanism set out in Part 1 of the TDA had to be fulfilled before the Court could assume jurisdiction.

iii. The President of the NIC was required to preside over all the sittings of the Court by virtue of section 19(4) of the TDA 1990 (now repealed). The practical effect of this is that adjudication on cases was totally at the willed and unwilled discretion of the President. This means whenever for any reason the President was unable to sit, even though the Court could form quorum, the case had to be adjourned. The full import of this anomaly was brought to the fore in 2002 when the Court lost its President. For almost a year the Court could not sit as a successor was not appointed.

iv There was also the problem of dual procedures for the appointment of the President and other Judges of the Court. The NIC has had the misfortune of being the only Court in the country with dual control over the mode of appointment of its judges. By virtue of sections 19 and 25 of the TDA, the President of Nigeria appoints its President on the recommendation of the Federal Judicial Service Commission while the other members were appointed by the President of Nigeria on the recommendation of the of the Minister of Labour. This appears to be a negation of the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.

v There was also the problem as to the extent and scope of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the NIC. Even though, the Decree No. 47 of 1992 seemed to have brought within the purview of the NIC inter and intra union disputes, the courts have held that for the NIC to have jurisdiction on inter and intra union disputes, the disputes must qualify as trade disputed. The equation of inter and intra union disputes with trade disputes as was done in this case meant that the intendment of Decree No. 47 of 1992 had been negated thus meaning that some of the cases meant for the NIC could not be entertained there.

vi Case law also created a lot of problems for the court. For example, Kalango V. Dokubo seemed to hold that jurisdiction can only be conferred on a court by sections expressly marked “jurisdiction” in the enabling statute. In arriving at its decision declaring sections 1A and 19 of the TDA invalid and holding that inter and intra union disputes must qualify as trade disputes for NIC to have jurisdiction on them, the Court of Appeal based its decision, amongst others, on the fact that inter and intra union disputes were not listed in section 20 of the TDA, the only section expressly marked at the side note with the magic words “jurisdiction of Court”.

vii The third problem created by Kalango v. Dokubo supra is that it further reiterated that NIC could not grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs. In arriving at this decision it relied on the case of Western Steel Works Ltd V. Iron and & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria. The implication is that although, the TDA (repealed) established the Court as a superior court, it lacked the essential powers of a superior court as it could no grant declarative or injunctive reliefs.

viii. The cumulative effect of the confusion created as to the scope of jurisdiction of the NIC was that several courts at the same time had concurrent jurisdiction on the subject matters on which NIC was supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the Federal High Court, the 36 High Courts of the States of the Federation, the Federal Capital Territory High Court and the NIC were held to have concurrent jurisdiction in the resolution of labour and trade disputes. The resultant effect was conflicting decisions, absence of clarity and uniformity in the decisions of the various courts on virtually the same issue. For example, at the High Courts, collective agreements were only binding if incorporated into the conditions of service of the employees, while at the NIC they were legally binding. Consequently, the culture of forum shopping by litigants was unwittingly created. This totally stalled the ideals for which the NIC was created in the first instance.

A good reference point is FGN v. Oshiohmole14. The case was commenced at the FCT high Court and it held that the Nigerian Labour Congress has power to call workers on strike. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter being matter under item 34 of the Constitution i.e. labour/trade disputes. The Court of Appeal then referred the case to the Federal High Court for determination. The Federal High Court, among others, relying on section 251 of the Constitution held that it lacked jurisdiction. It however heard the matter on other grounds.

With these conflicting decisions it became clear that there was a lacuna in the law as to which court would have jurisdiction over trade disputes under item 34 of the Constitution. And it therefore became imperative for the National Assembly to find solution to the problem in consonance with section 4(2) of the Constitution. This informed the National Assembly to vest the Court with exclusive jurisdiction.

After you have signed the terms of settlement, the file of your matter will be returned to the President of the Court or the Judge of the Court, so that the terms of settlement can be adopted and entered as the judgment of the Court. The Court will send to you a hearing notice stating the Court, date and time inviting you for your terms of settlement to be adopted and pronounced as the judgment of the Court.

The purpose of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Centre is to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques to assist parties to resolve their dispute and arrive at mutually acceptable agreement in less costly, speedy and efficient manner. It is aimed at preserving relationship through reconciliation of parties in dispute thereby engendering industrial peace and harmony ingredients that are germane for economic and industrial development of the country.