BREAKING: Court Strikes Out NANS’ Suit Against, ASUU, FG Over Strike

AMILOADED MEDIA HUB NEWS UPDATE

The National Industrial Court, sitting in Abuja, has struck out a suit brought before it by the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), seeking to compel the University lecturers and the Federal Government to call off the ongoing strike action.

Ruling on the matter on Tuesday, the trial Judge, Justice Polycarp Hamman also terminated further proceedings in the matter, after it was withdrawn by the factional President of NANS, Umar Faruk Lawal, who said, he filed the suit marked NICN/ABJ/273/2022, for himself and on behalf of NANS.

Joined along with ASUU as second and third respondents are the Minister of Education and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Minister of Justice.

When the matter was called on Tuesday, the plaintiff informed the court that he filed a motion for the withdrawal of the suit on account of the challenge by the student body which contested his standing and denied that he is the President of NANS as he had deposed to.

Though the other two Respondents were not represented during the proceedings of Tuesday, however, counsel to ASUU, Marshal Abubakar, informed the court that he was not opposed to Lawal’s application to withdraw the suit and the trial Judge consequently struck out the matter.

It would be recalled that the National Industrial Court had last week, ordered ASUU to call off its seven-month-old strike action to enable the University lecturers to go back to work.

ASUU had however appealed against the judgement before the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, asking it to set aside the NIC judgement. The union also applied for a stay of execution of the judgement.

ASUU, in its appeal, maintained that Justice Hamman “erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he decided to hear and determine the Respondents’ motion for an interlocutory injunction when he knew or ought to have known that the substantive suit was not initiated by due process of law”.

It argued further that, the mandatory steps and procedure stipulated in Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act (TDA) were not followed by the Federal Government, adding also that the trial judge acted ultra vires and misdirected himself when he unlawfully assumed jurisdiction to entertain the matter.