Subsidy: Order restraining NLC, TUC from embarking on strike subsists, court rules
AREWA AGENDA – The National Industrial Court on Monday declared that the order restraining the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) from embarking on their planned industrial action subsists.
Justice Olufunke Anuwe stated that the order granted on June 5 subsists, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The court also ordered the parties to maintain the status quo and adjourned until July 20 for a hearing.
When the case was called, the federal government’s counsel, Ochum Emmanuel, informed the court that the matter was slated for Monday for the claimant to take its motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from embarking on strike.
He added that he was ready to proceed with his application as the defendants had been served.
However, Marshall Abubakar, the defendants’ counsel, replied that they had filed an application praying the court set aside its order granted on June 5, restraining his clients from embarking on strike.
He added that he was ready to proceed with his application as the defendants had been served.
However, Marshall Abubakar, the defendants’ counsel, replied that they had filed an application praying the court set aside its order granted on June 5, restraining his clients from embarking on strike.
Mr Abubakar submitted that the claimant was served the application on June 8, only for them to turn around and serve on them a counter-affidavit on Monday in court.
He added that the claimant filed the counter-affidavit on June 16 and instructed the bailiff not to serve them until Monday in court.
Read Also:
The court enquired if the defence was properly served before the court, Mr Abubakar responded that he was unsure but would find out and do the needful. He also prayed for a short adjournment to look at the counter-affidavit and respond.
Mr Emmanuel, in response, opposed Mr Abubakar’s application for adjournment and urged the court to allow him to take his motion on notice, which was slated for hearing.
The counsel also reiterated that the federal government would never file a process and instruct any bailiff not to serve the other party. He argued that it was probably because he filed the processes late on June 16 that made the bailiff serve defence counsel in court on Monday.
Mr Emmanuel, in his submission, equally averred that the defendants were not properly before the court as they had not filed their memorandum of appearance but only came to urge the court to vacate the order it granted on June 5.
He stated that the defendants are not properly before the court and cannot seek an adjournment.
In addition, he submitted that if the court should deem it fit to grant Mr Abubakar’s application for an adjournment, the court should equally declare that the order restraining the defendants from embarking on strike granted on June 5 subsist.
In his reply, Mr Abubakar submitted that Mr Emmanuel’s application was unnecessary as the court had earlier stated that parties should maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
He also informed the court that the parties were meeting later on Monday to resolve the issue.
In its ruling, the court granted the application for adjournment, directed the defendants to enter their memorandum of appearance and instructed parties to maintain the status quo.
The defendants had planned to embark on a nationwide strike on June 7 to protest the fuel subsidy removal that brought about the new pump price for petrol.
The federal government had, therefore, instituted the suit to stop the defendants, stating that the proposed strike may gravely affect larger society and the well-being of the nation at large.
(NAN)
