Court order: ASUU files 14 grounds of appeal
The Academic Staff Union of Universities has filed an appeal challenging the ruling of Justice Polycarp Hamman of the National Industrial Court Abuja which ordered the lecturers to call off their seven-month-old strike and return to the classrooms.
The Counsel to ASUU, Femi Falana, SAN based their appeal on 14 grounds.
The appeal which Falana made available to The PUNCH was also accompanied by a request for stay of execution on the ruling by Justice polycarp Hamman.
The NIC had in a judgement that was delivered last Wednesday by Justice Polycarp Hamman, ordered the striking varsity lecturers to return to the classroom, pending the determination of a suit the Federal Government filed to query the legality of their strike action.
The interim injunction directing ASUU members to resume work, followed an application FG filed through its lawyer, Mr. James Igwe.
Justine Hamman held that the order was both in national interest and for the sake of undergraduates in the country that have been at home since February 14.
He held that the strike action was detrimental to public university students that cannot afford to attend private tertiary institutions.
One of the grounds of appeal filed by the union through its counsel goes thus, “The learned Trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he decided to hear and determine the Respondents’ motion for interlocutory injunction when he knew or ought to have known that the substantive suit filed by the Claimant was not
initiated by due process of law.
The appeal also faulted the judge’s order that the strike was an infringement on the right of students.
The appeal further stated, “The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the roll over strike is an infringement of the right of the Nigerian students and the government who is the owner of the universities.
“The learned trial judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he granted the order of interlocutory injunction in favour of the Respondents without exercising his discretion judicially and
“The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that ‘there is no doubt that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Claimants/ Applicants’.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that ‘there is no undue delay on the part of the Respondents in bringing the application for interlocutory injunction’.
“The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that ‘pursuant to Section 17 of the Trade Dispute Act, Section 18(1) E mandates the members of the Defendants/Respondents not to take part in any strike pending the determination of the suit”.