The Academic Staff Union of Universities has appealed Justice Polycarp Hamman’s order requiring lecturers to end their seven-month strike and return to the classroom, which was issued by the National Industrial Court in Abuja.
Femi Falana, SAN, the attorney for ASUU, based their appeal on 14 reasons.
The appeal, of which Falana informed the court, also included a request for a stay of execution pending the outcome of Justice Polycarp Hamman’s decision.
Justice Polycarp Hamman’s decision, handed down last Wednesday, ordered the striking varsity lecturers to resume teaching while the Federal Government’s lawsuit challenging the validity of their strike action is being adjudicated.
Following an application made by the FG through its attorney, Mr. James Igwe, the interim injunction ordering ASUU members to get back to work was issued.
According to Justine Hamman, the directive was both in the best interests of the nation and of the students who have been staying at home since February 14th.
According to him, public university students who cannot afford to attend private postsecondary schools suffered as a result of the strike action.
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
judiciously.
“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”.
