Back

The court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith.

LIVE Proceeding VIRTUAL COURT

News


Ruling: Industrial Court Dismisses An Application for Stay of Proceedings


965 Tuesday 20th February 2018

His Lordship, Hon Justice M. A. Namatari of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Uyo division on February 20th 2018 in a ruling delivered dismissed an application for stay of proceedings in the case of HON. ARCHIBONG UMOH   v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AKWA IBOM STATE & Another.

 

On 6th October, 2016, the Claimant/Respondent counsel GODWIN E. UDOH Esq. filed a complaint against the Defendants/Applicants claiming arrears of salary and allowances, severance package, leave grant and other declaratory reliefs.

 

Upon the receipt of this complaint, the Applicant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the grounds that the suit was statute barred having been instituted more than three months after the accrual of the cause of action. That was on 23rd November, 2016.

 

On 29th June, 2017, this Court in a considered ruling dismissed the Applicants’ Preliminary Objection per M. N. Esowe, J.

 

Not satisfied with this ruling, the Applicants brought a Motion on Notice filed on 28th September, 2017 pursuant to Order 64 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for a Stay of Proceedings in this suit pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal and such further orders as this Court deems fit.

In opposing the instant application and also in accordance with the rules of this court, the Respondent on 9th October, 2017 filed a Counter-Affidavit

 

 

After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by HON. JUSTICE M. A. NAMTARI, had this to say:

 

I have gone to a great length to examine the affidavit and counter affidavit and the arguments of both parties in this divide and it is my considered opinion that the issue for determination in this application is: “Whether the Applicants have satisfied the conditions for the grant of stay of proceedings in this case.” 

 

I have carefully examined two Affidavits and cannot find any deposition of material facts supporting or opposing the existence of special and exceptional circumstance, the greater hardship the refusal of this application will visit on the applicants or how the decision of the Court of Appeal be rendered nugatory. There was only feeble attempts to talk about the balance of convenience and the preservation of the res without any material particular. It is not enough for the applicant to merely parade before this court the legal principles for the grant of stay of proceedings. He must prove same by affidavit evidence that he deserves the application sought. In other words, when a party talks of any point of law, it should not be stated in general terms but efforts should be made to apply the law to factual situations. The court should not be left to do guess-work, conjecture or go on a voyage of discovery in balancing the conflicting interests of the parties. However, since the onus is on the Applicants to satisfy the conditions for the grant of this application, I would reconcile this lacuna against them. It is therefore my honest view that the Applicants did not place enough material facts before this court for the exercise of my discretion in their favour.

 

From whatever angle one looks at this application, be it, the law or the facts in their combined content, it is bound to fail. Having failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant of Stay of Proceedings, the application is hereby dismissed.

 

For Full Ruling, Click Here