The National Industrial Court on Thursday fixed May 30 to deliver judgment in the suit filed by the Federal Government against the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU.
In the suit, the federal government dragged ASUU before the court to determine the substantive suit filed during the 2022 ASUU’s eight-month strike.
When the matter came up before Justice Benedict Kanyip on Thursday, Ita Enang, the claimants’ counsel informed the court that the matter was slated for adoption of written addresses.
Femi Falana SAN, the defendant counsel on his part however informed the court that he had filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Mr Falana stated that he was contesting the ruling of the court of March 28, which ruled that the Minister of Labour and Employment has the power to refer the matter to the National Industrial Court.
He further prayed for a stay of execution and for the matter to be adjourned pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
He also submitted that the issue of competence of the appeal was for the Court of Appeal to determine as argued by Mr Enang.
Read Also:
Mr Enang urged the court to proceed with the matter of the day which was the adoption of written addresses.
The court in its ruling stated that time is of the essence in the delivery of justice.
”It is better to get a bad judgment quickly than a good judgment in delayed time in labour matters”.
The court also ruled that the authorities cited by the defence counsel were not applicable in the extant case.
The court equally cited Rule 47 of NICN 2006 proceeding and stated that an appeal did not translate to a stay of execution.
The judge also said that defence had shown a lack of seriousness by not filing its defence and instead opted to file an application for a stay of execution.
The court in addition said that the matter had been slowed down by various applications.
Mr Kanyip further said, “The application for stay of execution is rejected and the case will proceed and ruling is entered according”.
The court, therefore, directed the claimant’s counsel to proceed to adopt his written address.
The counsel in response urged the court to grant all reliefs sought as the suit was not challenged nor contested by defence through its failure to file processes of defence.
