CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

NATIONAL UNION OF HOTELS APPELLANTS

---

BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The suit at the trial court arose from the failure of the parties herein to agree on the total sum of money due and payable as arrears of salaries and retirement benefits to the over 800 members of the Appellant, employees of privatized Nigerian Hotels Ltd. Group comprising, Ikoyi Hotels, Kano Central Hotel Ltd, Caterers Court Hotel, Bristol Hotel and workers of all the Federal Government Special Guest Houses located across the country. The present appeal is against the judgement of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. The contention between the parties at the trial court was whether a Registered Trade Union, registered under the Act, still needs to tender the members Labour Handbook/Conditions of service before being entitled to a liquidated sum in a collective agreement agreed by parties. The Respondent’s brief raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and that the grounds of appeal are incomplete as there is no valid record of Appeal transmitted to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Struck Out

---

ISSUES

---

Whether in the circumstance, a registered Trade Union Registered under the Act, still needs to tender the membership labour handbook/conditions of service before being entitled to a liquidated sum in a collective agreement agreed by parties. (Distilled from ground one). Whether in the circumstances not tendering of letter of appointment and the conditions of service of individual’s members of the Registered Trade Union, under the Act in a case of a collective bargaining for a liquidated sum agreed by parties during privatization of the Federal Government is fatal to the case (Distilled from ground two).

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

APPEAL AS OF RIGHT – INSTANCE WHEN AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT CAN LIE AS OF RIGHT

---

“An appeal against the decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) can lie as of right only on grounds that raise issues of fundamental rights as contained in chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. This is so by virtue of S.243(2) which provides that-‘An appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court as of right to the Court of Appeal on questions of fundamental rights as contained in Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to matters upon which the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction.”

---

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – RATIONALE ON PRONOUNCING ON ALL ISSUES BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT

---

“Having held that this appeal is incompetent, there would have been no need determining the merit of the appeal. But since this court is a penultimate court, I will proceed to determine the merit of this appeal, so that if the apex court, in case of an appeal to it from our decision, overrules our decision striking out the appeal for incompetence, it can consider our decision on the merit of the appeal. In Brawal Shipping v Onwudike Co (2000) 6 SCNJ 508 at 522 the apex court held that “it is no longer in doubt that this court demands of and admonishes the lower courts to pronounce as a general rule on all issues properly placed before them for determination in order, apart from the issue of fair hearing, not to risk the possibility that the only issue or issues decided by them could be faulted on appeal. It has made this clear in its observations in several cases including Oyediran v Anise (1970) 1 All NLR 313 at 317, Ojobue v Nnubia (1972) 6 SC 27, Atanda v Ajani (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. Ill) 511 at 539, Okonji v Njokama (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 at 150-152, Titiloye v Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 205) 519 at 529 and Katto v CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 241) 126 at 149. Failure to do so may lead to miscarriage of justice and certainly would have that result if the issues not pronounced upon are crucial. Consequently, there could be avoidable delay since it may become necessary to send the case back to the lower court for those issues to be resolved. The obvious exceptions are when an order of retrial is necessary or the judgment is considered a nullity, in which case there may be no need to pronounce on all the issues which could arise at the retrial or in a fresh action as the case may be. “See also 7up Bottling Co. Ltd. v Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd (2001) 6 SCNJ 18 at 49 where the Supreme Court emphasised that “where, however an intermediate court rests its decision on one of the issues, it should also express its views and pronounce on the other issues identified for its determination. Even where the intermediate Court is of the settled view that the sole issue on which its decision is anchored will be upheld, it is prudent to express an alternative view.”

---

LIQUIDATED SUM – DEFINITION OF LIQUIDATED SUM

---

“In Maja v. Samouris (2002) LPELR – 1824 (SC) 21 – 22, the Supreme Court defined liquidated sum in the following words:
A liquidated demand is a debt or other specific sum of money usually due and payable and its amount must be already ascertained or capable of being ascertained as a mere matter of arithmetic without any other or further investigation. Whenever, therefore, the amount to which a plaintiff is entitled can be ascertained by calculation or fixed by any scale of charges or other positive data, it is said to be ‘liquidated’ or made clear…. {Underlined for emphasis)”.
–

---

ISSUES – DUTY OF A CLAIMANT WHERE ISSUES ARE JOINED ON SOME ASPECTS OF A CASE

---

“When issues were joined on these aspects of the case, it is expected that the claimant would bring all related documents before the Court. In fact, since there is a disagreement on the total number of employees involved, it follows that their letters of appointment be adduced in evidence to show the true number. It would appear that that is the most sensible way to settle that score. It is also expected that since the defendant put the fact of the condition of service in issue, the claimant would do well to tender same. Though, it is not the law, as argued by the defendant’s counsel that letters of appointment be tendered in all situations – see , but as indicated in the above authorities, letters of appointment would be necessary where they are central to the determination of the case”.
–

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---