A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS

OF THE JURISDICTIONS OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

AND THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA VIS-
-VIS THEIR SEEMING CONFLICTS.
Onyeisi Chukwudi Kingsley Igbokwe*

Abstract

The lingering constitutional conflicts in the Federal High Court and the National
Industrial Court that bedevilled the progress of the administration of justice have been
somewhat laid to rest by a legislative intervention. The Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 undoubtedly brought some landmark
changes and alterations to, particularly, the powers and jurisdiction of the National
Industrial Court. The jurisdictions of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial
Court were in conflict with other courts partly as a result of military Decrees that tainted
their viability in the hierarchy of courts in Nigeria. Moreover, the Federal High Court
had had constitutional conflicts with State High Courts which undermined its powers for
effective dispensation of justice vis--vis the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High
Courts. However, the case was laid to rest though unfortunately resurrected after a
military junta. This article seeks to analyse the constitutional framework for the
jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (FHC) and also to highlight the expansion of the
jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court (NIC), especially, in trade dispute
resolutions beyond the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act.

INTRODUCTION

Jurisdiction is fundamental to any adjudication. The issue of jurisdiction indeed goes to the root

of any suit and can be raised at any time even on appeal to the Supreme Court because of its

fundamental nature. Jurisdiction has been defined as the power of a court or judge to hear and

decide on a case.1 Also, it has been defined as the substantive and procedural competence of a

court to entertain a case and exercise judicial powers;2 It is extrinsic and intrinsic to adjudicate.3

*OCK IGBOKWE is currently a Third Year Law student at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus and a Judge
of the LAWSA High Court for the 2016/2017 academic session; can be contacted via Tel.: +2348032238828. Email:
kingsleychuckwudiigbokwe@yahoo.com
1
L. B. Curzon. A Dictionary of Law (London: MacDonald & Evans Ltd., 1979) p. 184.
2
Anthony Nwazuoke & Chinedu Igwe, Appraisal of the Jurisdiction Regime of the National Industrial Court of
Nigeria (2013) 11 Nig. J. R. Vol. 11, p. 39
3
Ibid., see Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & 4 Ors v. Prof. Shaubibu O. Abdek-Raheem & 3 Ors (2009) 39 NSCQR
105; NDIC v. CBN [2002] 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272; Madukola v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCQLR; Akeem v. UNIBADAN
Jurisdictions of courts in Nigeria are provided for either in the constitution or in a statute.4 Courts

have no jurisdiction to go outside the jurisdiction vested in them as they are bound by the

provisions of the constitution or statues vesting jurisdiction in them.5 The grant of jurisdictions,

i.e. the jurisdictions as conferred and affirmed by the Constitution and where applicable, statutes,

give the court in question the power of adjudicatory6 competence to handle any matter within its

ambit.

The jurisdictional tussle between the Federal High Court (hereinafter referred to as FHC) and the

National Industrial Court (hereinafter referred to as NIC) was mainly as a result of legislative

oversight and probably military legislative incompetency. With the enactment of the Third

Alteration Act, the FHC and the NIC have been captured in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria (as amended). And, consequently it has brought to an end the lingering

controversies that had hitherto surrounded the FHC and the NIC and their jurisdictions.7 In this

work, we shall in greater detail, examine the constitutional status of the FHC and the NIC

together with their jurisdictions on separate notes.

THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (FHC)

Indeed, the creation of the FHC represents the culmination of a long and somewhat arduous

journey towards the perfection of the type of federalism begun more than a quarter of a century

[2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 829). This underscores the fact that jurisdiction is the life-wire of any court, and any act by
that court without competent and composite jurisdiction amounts to nullity.
4
Nyame v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010) All FWLR (pt. 527) 618.
5
Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abubakar (2009) All FWLR (pt. 449) 401.
6
However, superior courts of records are accorded supervisory powers and jurisdiction.
7
The seeming contradiction and jurisdictional conflicts in the FHC and the NIC have been conclusively laid to rest,
though not without some doubts. The conflict includes, but not limited to, the jurisdictional tussle FHC and NIC had
had to grapple with SHC (State High Courts), High Court of the FCT.
ago.8 Kabiri-Whyte also insists that even before the need for a Federal Court became urgent,

there were factors pointing towards the inevitability of such courts.9 It is generally understood

and accepted that beside other reasons of policy, the Federal Revenue Court was set up to relieve

the State High Court from the recurring congestion of cases in their court list.10

The FHC has its long arduous history and is traced to the military decrees for its establishment; it

was established by Section 1(1) of the Federal Revenue Act 1973.11 It was designated the The

Federal Revenue Court, which was established in 1973 by Decree No. 13 of 1973 and it is also a

Court created under Section 228 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and

was consequently renamed the FHC. The Federal High Court is the third in the hierarchy in the

Nigerian Courts after the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal though in coordinate

jurisdiction with the State High Courts and High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

Section 230(2) of the 1979 Constitution which amended Section 7(1) of the principal Act that

originally conferred power on the Court on some causes or matters, albeit did not expressly give

the Court an exclusive power to exercise jurisdiction. It could be said that the provisions of

Section 230 of the 1999 Constitution conferred a limited jurisdiction on the FHC, which was, in

respect of the matters presented in that section and by due reference to the provisions of Section

7 of the FHC Act No. 13 of 1973.12 Under the 1979 Constitution, before the advent of Decree

107 of 1993, the Federal High Court shared its jurisdiction with State High Courts which resulted

in a clash between the Courts in jurisdictional matters; although, the State High Court was a

Court of unlimited jurisdiction as was held in Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Pan Atlantic

8
Karibi-Whyte, A.G. The Federal High Court Law and Practice (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co., Ltd.,
1986) p.8.
9
Ibid., p3.
10
Report of the Constitution Drafting Committee, containing the Draft Constitution (1976) vol. 1, para. 8, 4-2.
11
Decree No. 13 1973, laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1973.
12
Unreported case of Hon. Mr. Justice M.A. Odesanya & Ors. v. London African Oversees Ltd. case No. FRC/L/ 50/
79.
Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd. & Anor.13 Even the Decree No. 16 of 1992 repealed the

Decree No. 60 of 1991 that wanted to expand the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain more

matters. Decree 107 of 1993 widened the jurisdiction of the FHC and amended Section 230 of

the 1979 Constitution. The current jurisdiction of the FHC is in Section 251 of the 1999

Constitution which is in pari materia with Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution (as amended by

Decree 107 of 1993). The FHC has been subjected to controversies since its inception. Ogbu

captures the controversies surrounding the FHC thus: The controversy revolve around the

following questions:

Whether the jurisdiction of the FHC is limited to matters stipulated in Section 7 of Decree No. 13

of 1973 and further jurisdiction to be conferred by the National Assembly; whether in the light of

the principle of federalism the FHC has original and exclusive jurisdiction in all federal causes or

matters; whether in the light of the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court under the 1979

Constitution, the State High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the FHC; and whether matters

coming within the jurisdiction of the FHC must relate to the revenue of the Federal

Government.14

The jurisdictional tussle between the FHC and the State High Court was as a result of provisions

of Section 251 of the Constitution which vested exclusive jurisdiction on matters relating to the

federal government and its agencies in the FHC; this was further strengthened by the provisions

of Section 272(1-2), which provides thus:

Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court

of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the

existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is

13
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212.
14
Ogbu, O. N. Modern Nigerian Legal System. (Enugu: SNAPP Press Ltd, 2013) p.262.
 in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty,

forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offense committed by any person.15

The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the

proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the

High Court to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory

jurisdiction.16

By virtue of the above section, the State High Courts are courts of unlimited jurisdiction. They

have generally criminal and civil jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter subject to those

already expressly and specifically vested in other courts. Moreover, where certain specified

matters are expressly vested in the FHC, NIC, etc. (which are all courts of coordinate

jurisdiction) the State High Courts cannot adjudicate.

However, Section 286 of the 1999 Constitution created a variation of sorts to the arguments for

the FHC. One of the landmark cases that proffered a resolution to the tussle between the courts

was NEPA v. Edegbenro,17 where it was held that the State High Court

would no longer have jurisdiction in such matters...in which the Federal government or any of its

agents was a party.18

The jurisdictional conflict between the Federal High Court and the State High Court was laid to

rest finally in the case of Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank,19 Savannah Bank Ltd. v. Pan

Atlantic,20 and Eze v. Republic.21 Unfortunately, the conflict was resurrected by Decree 107 of

1993 and subsequently the provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Although, it is not clear whether

15
s. 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
16
ibid., s. 272(2).
17
(2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79.
18
At p. 79 and which was also held sway in Cyril O. Osakwe v. Federal College of Education LER (2010) SC
4/2003, p.11.
19
[1983] 1 SCNLR 296.
20
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212.
21
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 51) 506.
the FHC has exclusive criminal jurisdiction because in Section 251(2) and (3) of the 1999

Constitution, the word exclusive was not used and this brings to question the constitutional

validity of the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of the FHC. Also, in cases or matters of land

disputes, Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution prescribing the jurisdiction of the FHC to the

exclusion of any other Court in Nigeria is silent on the issue.22 In addition, the Supreme Court

has held in Adetona v. I.G. Enterprises Ltd23 that the FHC enjoys nationwide territorial

jurisdiction while a State High Courts jurisdiction is confined to the territory of a state.

In Fagbola v. KCCIM & Anor, Rhodes-Vivour, JCA held that words and intendment of Section

251(1) (e) of the Constitution are clear, plain and straightforward. The FHC has exclusive

jurisdiction to entertain matters specified in subsections (a)-(q) of Section 251 of the

Constitution. According to the Court, exclusive jurisdiction vests in the FHC where the suit

involves:

(a) regulating, running or management or control of companies;

(b) formation, winding up of a company

(c) the consideration in some detail of the memorandum and articles of association, shares and

share holding

(d) the appointment, removal, alteration or change of directors;

(e) appointment of receiver and his various obligations and claims arising from the conduct of a

receiver.

Finally, the powers of the FHC were then extended to cover more than just revenue matters of

the Federation. It includes the interpretation of the Constitution as it affects the Federal

22
Josiah Ayodele Adetayo & 3 Ors v. Kunle Ademola & 2Ors [2010] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169 in this case,
however, the only issue raised for determination in appeal was 'whether by virtue of the provisions of Section
251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action for a declaration of
title to the land.
23
(2011) LPELR-159 (SC).
Government and its agencies; and in addition the FHC has all the original jurisdiction and

powers in respect to treason, treasonable felony and allied offences. In respect to the added

jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the Third Alteration Act expanded the jurisdiction by

including powers in respect of criminal causes and matters,24 and also jurisdiction to determine

any question as to whether the term of the office or seat of a member of the Senate or the House

of Representatives has ceased or his seat has become vacant.25

Moreover, The FHC as a premiere Court of first instance has recorded impressive growth since

its inception in 1973 and has become, arguably an important pillar among the Courts in the

Federal Judiciary of Nigeria.26 The Court is a superior Court of records in Abuja and has

divisions in almost all States of the Federation. It is worthy to note that the Court has thirty-one

judiciary divisions, twenty-eight which are fully operational. The court has about 2,329 staff

spread across its now 36 judicial divisions including the Lagos headquarters. The President

appoints the judges of the FHC on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.27 The

qualification requires that the person is a qualified legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been so

qualified for not less than ten years.28 After the series of struggles for its ultimate existence, the

FHC has finally succeeded and survived the numerous oppositions, particularly from the regional

and state judiciary who were exercising jurisdiction over matters that were now conferred

exclusively on the FHC.

THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

24
s. 251(3) CFRN (As Amended).
25
Ibid., s. 251(4).
26
About Federal High Court, as posted on the Courts website: available at http://www.fhc-ng.com/aboutus.htm.
Last accessed on 25 March 2016 at 5:54 PM.
27
s. 250(1) CFRN (As Amended).
28
Ibid., s. 250(3).
The NIC was established on 1 January, 1976 by virtue of section 19(1) of the Trade Disputes

Decree No. 7 of 1976. In 1992, the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) was amended by the Trade

Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 of 1992 which later became the Trade Disputes Act

(TDA).29 In order to raise the status of the Court and to expand its jurisdiction to meet emerging

challenges in industrial relations, the National Assembly in the exercise of its statutory duties

enacted the new National Industrial Court Act (NICA) on 14th June 2006 which was assented to

by the then Nigerian President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. The Act, therefore, takes its root from

the powers derived by the legislators who made it from the Constitution.30

The jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court right from its inception from the old military

Decree No. 7 of 1976 has been fraught with contentions; before the advent of the Third

Alteration Act, 2010; labour relations and practice in Nigeria were near comatose. This was

largely due to the jurisdictional complications of the various courts over the subject matter,

labour. Prior to the Third Alteration Act, there was uncertainty as to which court has the

jurisdiction over industrial dispute, as was seen in the case of FRN v. Oshomole.31 Sequel to this,

there have been conflicting judgements from different courts on labour issues and which indeed

have resulted in lack of uniformity in labour jurisprudence. Several courts at the same time had

concurrent jurisdictions on the subject matters on which the NIC was supposed to have exclusive

jurisdiction. Therefore, the FHC, 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.32 The consequences were conflicting decisions, absence

of clarity and no uniformity of decisions of the various courts virtually on same issues. However,

29
Cap. 432 LFN 1990.
30
The History of the National Industrial Court, as posted on the Courts website: available at
http://nicgov.ng/history.html last assessed on 25 March 2016 at 6:38 PM.
31
(2004) NWLR (Pt. 1) 339 at 355.
32
See AG of Oyo State v. NLC, Oyo Chapter & Ors [2003] 8 NWLR 1 at pp. 33-34.
with the coming into effect of the Third Alteration Act, 2010 and the entrenchment of the

National Industrial Court of Nigeria as a superior Court of records with specialized and exclusive

jurisdiction over labour, employment and industrial dispute-relations practice in Nigeria, and

also interpreting employment related documents in a bid to ensure industrial harmony33 which

have, to some extent brought calm to the tussle.

Section 20(1) of the Trade Disputes Act,34 conferred on the NIC exclusive jurisdiction to make

award for the purpose of settling trade related disputes and to bring to a halt the recurrent

industrial conflicts between employers and workers. In addition, to also determine questions as

to the interpretation of any collective agreement, any award made by an Arbitration Tribunal.35

Section 20(1) and (3) of the aforementioned Act was to give the NIC exclusive jurisdiction to

handle trade dispute matters when by virtue of Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution (now

Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution as amended) gave unlimited jurisdiction to the State High

Court. The section reads thus:

Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court

of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the

existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is

in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty,

forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offense committed by any person.36

33
Anthony Nwazuoke & Chinedu Igwe, Appraisal of the Jurisdiction Regime of the National Industrial Court of
Nigeria (2013) 11 Nig. J. R
34
Cap. 432, LFN, 1990 later Cap. T8, LFN, 2004 and now Cap T8 LFN, 2004 previously known as Trade Dispute
Decree N0. 7 of 1976 (as amended).
35
Before now, the statutory mechanism for the settlement of trade disputes was found in the Trade Disputes
(Arbitration and Enquiry) Act. see s.3 CAP. 201, Laws of Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958. The Act gave
powers to the Minister of Labour to intervene by way of conciliation, formal inquiry and arbitration where
negotiations had broken down. The Trade Disputes (Emergency Provisions) Act No. 21 of 1968 was enacted and it
suspended the Trade Disputes (Arbitration and Enquiry) Act.
36
See footnote 16.
The import of this section means a rob to the jurisdiction of the NIC, because the State High

Court has been given a wide jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal matters

though subject to the provisions of Section 251, and the jurisdiction encompasses that of trade

disputes. However, in the case of Western Steel Works Ltd. & Anor. v. Iron & Steel Workers

Union of Nigeria & Anor,37 the jurisdiction of the State High Courts over trade dispute related

matters was brought to question. Section 5 of the Decree N0. 47 of 1992 expressly stipulated that

the NIC was a superior Court of Records and as such conferred on it exclusive jurisdiction over

trade disputes.38 Although, the Supreme Court held in NUEE v. BPE39 that Decree No. 47 only

attempted to make the NIC a superior Court of record. It was due to the controversies that

surrounded it that the National Assembly came to its rescue to enact the National Industrial

Court Act, 200640 and again Sections 1(3) & 7 respectively conferred on the NIC the status of a

superior Court of record and exclusive jurisdiction over trade disputes thus bringing to an end the

lingering controversies that hitherto surrounded the jurisdiction of the NIC.41 Though the Court

was established as a Superior Court of Record, it lacked the essential powers of a superior court

as it could not grant declarative and injunctive reliefs.42 Although, it lacks criminal jurisdiction.43

It was intended to be the final court for the settlement of trade disputes in Nigeria. 44 However,

this is subject to the 1999 CFRN as amended.45 Part IV of the Trade Disputes Act relating to the

NIC has been repealed,46 and if any provision of the Trade Disputes Act is inconsistent with the

37
[1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284.
38
A. G. Oyo state v. Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 1.
39
(2001) 41 NSCQR (Pt. 1) 611.
40
National Industrial Court Act, Cap N115, LFN, 2004.
41
National Union of Electricity Employees & Anor. v. Bureau of Public Enterprises.
42
See Kalanga v. Dokubo (2003) 15 NWLR 32
43
Ekene Dili Chukwu Ltd. v. Mrs. G. I. Akinbaboye, Chief Magistrate Court N0. 1 Lagos & Ors [1987] 1 NWLR
(Pt. 49) 306.
44
See ss. 11(2), 15(2) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1976.
45
see particularly s. 9(1) of the NICA.
46
NICA, s. 36(1) On Practice and Procedure.
provisions of the National Industrial Court Act, provisions of the latter prevails.47 Also, for the

purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution or as may be

conferred by an Act of the National Assembly, the NIC shall have all the powers of the High

Court.48 The powers enjoyed by the NIC are so wide that section 254(d)(2)49 further confers on it

powers additional to those conferred by this section as may appear necessary. The jurisdiction of

the court as provided under the Principal Act extends to the whole country, and accordingly, the

President of the Court is empowered to create by instrument judicial divisions of the court in any

part of the federation and may designate any such judicial divisions or part thereof by such

name as he deems fit.50 Moreover, appeal lies as of right to the Court of Appeal only on

question of fundamental right as contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution.51 In other words,

once a party, apparently, alleges that his fundamental right has been, is being or likely to be

contravened in the hearing of his matter, then that amounts to the ground upon which an appeal

can lie against the decision of the court. In this regard, the Court of Appeal is the final arbiter of

the trade dispute.52 Sections 48 and 57 of the Trade Dispute Act53 defines a trade dispute as any

dispute between employers and workers or between workers and workers which is connected

with employment or non employment or terms and conditions of employment.

Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which before the Third Alteration

conferred wide jurisdiction on the FHC particularly section [p], [q], and [r] are now limited by

Section 254(1) to civil causes and matters bordering on trade disputes. In lieu of this, most cases

47
NICA, s. 53(2). see also Akintunde Emiola, Nigerian Labour Law, 4th edn., (Ogbomosho: Emiola Publishers Ltd.,
2008) p. 517.
48
s. 254(d)(i) CFRN (Third Alteration) Act No. 3 of 2010.
49
ibid.
50
NICA, s. 21.
51
Ibid., s. 9(2) and Section 243(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
52
see Reuben O. Bashorun v. IAP & Ors (1971) LD/105/71.
53
Cap. T8, LFN 2004 (as amended) adopts the definition of trade dispute under section 54 of the Trade Union Act,
Cap. T14, LFN 2004.
decided in the past at the High Courts are now within the constitutional jurisdiction of NIC.

Example of such cases are, Akinyanju v. Unilorin,54 Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited v. Udo.55

The NIC has been given jurisdiction to the exclusion of all Courts whatsoever by virtue of

Section 254(1) to handle cases in civil matters connected with or arising from Factories Act,56

Trade Union Act,57 Labour Act,58 Employees Compensation Act,59 Trade Dispute Act,60

discrimination and harassment in workplace.61 The controversy whether the NIC is a superior

Court of records has been put to rest by virtue of Section 6(5)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as

amended). Again, under Section 254C(5), the NIC now has criminal jurisdiction arising out of

matters it has exclusive civil jurisdiction. It is important to also note that in Section 254C(6),

appeals lie as of right to the Court of Appeal in respect of criminal jurisdiction of the NIC; The

NIC exercises appellate jurisdiction in respect of;

(a) decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions or matters relating thereto; this may arise from the

Registrars refusal to register associations as a trade union on any ground, i.e. Registered Trustees

of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & 2 Ors. v. Medical and

Health Workers Union of Nigeria.62

(b) decisions or recommendations of any Administrative Body or Commission of Inquiry arising

from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations.63 Appellate and

supervisory jurisdictions are also conferred on the NIC over decisions of an Arbitral Tribunal or

Commission, Administrative Body or Board of Inquiry in respect of any matter which it has

54
[2005] 7 NWLR (Pt. 323) 87.
55
(2009) All FWLR (Pt. 482) 1177.
56
Factories Act, Cap. T14 LFN, 2004.
57
Cap. T8 LFN, 2004.
58
Labour Act, Cap. L1 LFN, 2004.
59
Employees' Compensation Act, Cap. E7A LFN, 2004.
60
Trade Dispute Act, Cap. T14 LFN, 2004.
61
Section 254(1) (g), 1999 Constitution (as amended).
62
(2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1072.)
63
Section 254(1)(i)(ii), 1999 Constitution (as amended).
jurisdiction to entertain or other matters as may be prescribed by an Act of the National

Assembly or any law in force in any part of Nigeria. 64 On 24 February 2010, The Supreme

Court, in the case of National Union of Electricity Employees & Anor v. BPE65 gave the decision

to the effect that the NIC is a subordinate Court to the High Court and that Decree No. 47 mainly

attempted to make NIC a superior Court of Record. In Ekong v. Oside66 when the issue of

jurisdiction of the FHC to handle an intra trade union dispute was raised, the Court held: The

only Court that is conferred with the jurisdiction to hear trade dispute matters is the National

Industrial Court. Decree No. 47 of the 1992 now Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

Taking the Third Alteration Act into perspective, the Act did not repeal the National Industrial

Court Act (NICA), but altered the 1999 Constitution to include the establishment status,

jurisdiction and composition of the NIC. It provides for the establishment of the Court, its

qualification, appointment, and privileges of its judges, jurisdiction of the Court, appeals from its

decisions and other matters relative to the exercise of its judicial powers as a Superior Court of

records.

In the establishment and composition of the NIC, the Third Alteration Act alters Chapter VII,

part 1 of the 1999 Constitution especially at Section 254 and it provides for the establishment of

the NIC. The Alteration makes provision for the President who shall preside over the affairs of

the Court and other such judges as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. The

appointment of the judges as in the FHC are appointed by the President on the recommendation

of the National Judicial Council. As prescribed by the Act, judges must be legal practitioners

who have been so qualified for a period not less than ten years. The Third Alteration Act repealed

64
Section 254(3), 1999 Constitution (as amended).
65
(2010) 7 NWLR (Pt 1194) P. 538.
66
[2004] All FWLR (Pt. 216) 559.
by implication Section 1(4)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act which provided that a

graduate from a recognized Nigerian University with ten years experience in labour practice

could be appointed a judge of the Court.

CONCLUSION

Jurisdiction is the limit imposed on the power of a validly constituted court to hear and determine

issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process by reference to the persons

between whom the issues are joined or the kind of relief sought. How can courts determine

issues between parties if their powers and limits, i.e. jurisdiction are not well demarcated? This,

of course, can be nothing but a fundamental error. The legislative intervention is commendable,

though not without reservations. It is important that courts within the hierarchy of courts in

Nigeria should have clear-cut jurisdictions, to avoid conflicts. Where two or more courts are

accorded same jurisdictions, the judges are encumbered in the dispensation of justice to litigants

that come before their courts, as was seen in FRN v. Oshomole (supra).

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act), constitutes a

watershed in the history of the NIC, with regard to its powers, status and jurisdiction which are

now extended and enlarged. It was made a superior Court of records and given exclusive

jurisdiction to entertain labour matters and also to deal with any matter connected to or

pertaining to the application of international labour organization and conventions. It has been

suggested67 that the NICs exclusive jurisdiction over trade dispute cases should be confined to

differences whether between employers and workers, or workers and workers, or involving inter

and intra-union disagreement, which are related to the employment or non-employment, or the

terms of employment or physical conditions of work of any person.

67
C. C. Obi-Ochiabutor, Trade Disputes Resolution under Nigerian Labour Law (2002-2010) 9 Nig. J. R.
Most importantly, the court has been pulled out of Trade Disputes Act and integrated into

Nigeria regular court system. This entails that the scope of the operation of the court is no longer

limited to that provided under the Trade Disputes Act but extends far beyond it to meet with the

multiple challenges of trade disputes68 and challenges.

We doubt the rationale of the combined effects of the provisions of NICA, 2006 and the

Constitution (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010, which prohibits appeal from the decision

of the Court with regards to trade disputes and labour matters to the Court of Appeal. Indeed, any

law that sets to impinge on the right of appeal from a court of first instance portends calamity

and impedes the roll of justice. Also, the disparaging provisions such as section 7(6) of NICA,

2006 and section 254C (2) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 are a mess to the

Legislature. The view is that those sections be streamlined for the interest of justice.

68
In Kalanga v. Dokubo (2003) 15 NWLR 32 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, among other things, 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 the Court