Media
- Home
- Details
Bayelsa – His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. A. Alkali of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, on Monday 14th January 2019 in a ruling delivered, ordered AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATION CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATION SERVICES EMPLOYEES (AUPCTRE)-claimant, Delta State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission (DESOPADEC)- defendant to maintain status quo and not to do anything that will render the matter nugatory since the matter is subjudice, that the court cannot delve into the substantive matter at the interlocutory stage.
The Claimant instituted this action vide a complaint dated 16th April 2018 claimed against the Defendant among others; A DECLARATION that the employment of the claimant’s members in the Defendant is regulated by the Delta State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission (DESOPADEC) staff conditions of service 2012. A DECLARATION that the queries, transfers, and suspension of claimant’s members on ground of their union activities is unlawful, constitute unfair labour practice and offends international best practice.
Likewise, AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from further deducting and withholding 30% of salaries for members of the claimant from May 2018 as being contrary to the terms of their contract and extant labour laws in Nigeria.
Also, By a Motion on Notice dated the 19th day of June, 2018 and filed on the same date the claimant is praying for AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION restraining the Defendant/ Respondent, its agents, associates, privies howsoever described from taking any step towards transferring the claimant’s members from their duty post before the commencement of this suit pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
Counsel further stated that this application is brought as it relates to the impending action of the Defendant to decimate the claimant despite service of the originating process on the Defendant Challenging its ploy of transferring claimant members because of their union activities, and the Applicant has placed before this Honourable court relevant materials upon which this Honourable court can exercise its discretion its favour.
It is the contention of the claimant that there is a substantial issue to be tried and balance of convenience is on their side and if the Defendant/Respondent is not restrained, the essence of this suit will obviously be defeated.
The Defendant in response to the claimant’s Further Counter Affidavit formulated a sole issue for determination Whether the claimant is entitled to the prayers sought in the motion.
Learned counsel to the defendant argued that a clear reading of the conditions of service, the Defendant has the right and sole discretion to transfer or second staff to other agencies as it deems fit and urged the court to so hold.
Learned counsel submitted that where the grant of an order of injunction will paralyze the operation of the defendant and encourage a breakdown of law and order as shown in this case, the order of injunction ought to be refused.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice B. A. Alkali expressed thus;
“it’s trite that at an interlocutory stage, no court whether trial or appellate, is allowed to delve into the substantive matter at an interlocutory stage and decide on it.
“In view of the foregoing facts enumerated ab-initio, this court cannot delve into the substantive matter at this interlocutory stage.
“I ordered that parties shall maintain the status quo, and counsel shall admonish their clients/parties not to do anything that will render this suit nugatory since the matter is subjudice.
“And I order for an accelerated hearing.”
His Lordship Ruled.
