On Monday, the National Industrial Court ruled that the injunction preventing the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) from carrying out their prearranged industrial action remains in effect.
According to Justice Olufunke Anuwe, the order, as given on June 5, is still in effect while the move on notice is being heard and decided.
The dispute was postponed until July 20 for a hearing and the court also ordered that the parties preserve the status quo.
When the case was called earlier, Mr. Ochum Emmanuel, the attorney for the Federal Government, informed the court that the claimant will be putting its move on notice for an interlocutory order to stop the defendants from going on strike on Monday.
As the defendants had been served, he continued, he was prepared to move forward with his application.
The defendants’ attorney, Mr. Marshall Abubakar, responded, however, that they had submitted a request asking the court to overturn the injunction issued on June 5 prohibiting his clients from going on strike.
Abubakar added that the counter-affidavit was served on the claimant on Monday in court after the application had been delivered to them on June 8.
The claimant filed the counter-affidavit on June 16 and gave the bailiff instructions not to serve them until Monday in court, he said.
When the court asked if the defense had been properly served before the court, Abubakar said he wasn’t sure but that he would find out and take the appropriate action.
He also asked for a brief recess so he could see the counter-affidavit and respond.
Abubakar’s request for an adjournment was rejected by Emmanuel, who requested the court to allow him to take his move on notice, which was scheduled for hearing.
The attorney reaffirmed that the federal government would never file legal paperwork and give a bailiff instructions not to serve the other party.
The bailiff was forced to serve the defense attorney in court on Monday, he claimed, perhaps as a result of his late filing of the processes on June 16.
Emmanuel asserted in his submission that the defendants were not properly before the court since they had not submitted a memorandum of appearance and had instead merely come to ask the court to reverse the decision it had issued on June 5.
According to him, the defendants cannot request an adjournment because they are not properly before the court.
In addition, he argued that if the court thought it appropriate to approve Abubakar’s request for an adjournment, it should also declare that the June 5 injunction prohibiting the defendants from going on strike is still in effect.
Abubakar responded by claiming that Emmanuel’s plea was superfluous because the court had already instructed the parties to maintain the status quo while the substantive matter was heard and decided.
The parties were meeting later on Monday to try to address the matter, he also told the court.
In its decision, the court approved the request for an adjournment, ordered the defendants to file their memorandums of appearance, and told the parties to keep things as they were.
According to the evidence, the defendants had intended to stage a national strike on June 7 in opposition to the elimination of gasoline subsidies, which resulted in the new pump price for Premium Motor Spirit.
In order to halt the defendants, the federal government filed a lawsuit, claiming that the proposed strike may have a negative impact on society as a whole and the health of the country.
The claimant further claimed that the strike could impair economic activity, particularly those in the health and education sectors.
