THE NATIONAL Union of Food, Beverage, and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) and its principal national officers have filed a motion at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, seeking leave to appeal a landmark judgement delivered by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) on June 18, 2025, which nullified the suspension and expulsion of six union members and awarded ₦2 million costs against the union.
The appeal, filed under suit number CA/L/R/P/E/CY/REV1/2025, names Comrade Lateef Idowu Oyelekan, former National President of NUFBTE, and twelve other national officers, virtually all of whom have exited the union, including the union itself, as Appellants/Applicants.
The respondents to the appeal are the six members who successfully sued the union at the lower court, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN).
The motion, brought by a legal team led by A. J. Owonikoko, SAN, just three days to the appeal to become statute barred, seeks several orders from the appellate court, including an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal on grounds other than fundamental rights, an extension of time to file the appeal itself, and a stay of execution of the NICN judgment pending the hearing of the appeal.
Background of the Dispute
National Record reports that the case originates from a judgment delivered on June 18, 2025, by Hon. Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien of the NICN Lagos Division in suit no. NICN/LA/430/2020.
The court, National Record had reported, ruled in favour of Comrades Abiodun Philip, Rilwan Opaleye, Adebayo Clement, Abadom Amechi, Olawuwo Abiodun, and Osagu Vincent, all union activists who had consistently challenged Comrade Oyelekan over his despotic and unconstitutional attempt to endlessly be the national president of the union.
The activist-claimants had challenged their suspension by the union’s National Administrative Committee (NAC) on August 18, 2020, and subsequent expulsion by the National Executive Council (NEC) on October 21, 2020.
They argued that the punitive actions were retaliation for their activism in defence of the union’s constitution, including instituting a separate suit (NICN/LA/189/2020) to challenge a purported amended constitution and an emergency delegates’ conference convened by the union’s leadership.
Justice Essien, in his judgment, dismissed the union’s preliminary objections, holding that the matter was properly within the court’s jurisdiction as it involved the interpretation of the trade union’s constitution.
The court subsequently declared the suspension and expulsion unconstitutional, null, and void, stating that the union’s actions amounted to “self-help” and an “affront to the judicial powers of the court,” especially for proceeding with the delegates’ conference despite an existing interlocutory injunction.
The court also set aside the activist-claimants’ removal from their offices, granted a perpetual injunction restraining the union from interfering with their roles, and awarded ₦2 million in costs against NUFBTE and its officers.
Grounds for the Proposed Appeal
In their proposed notice of appeal, the appellants raised nine grounds, arguing that the trial judge erred in law.
The appeal challenged the National Industrial Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter, with the appellants contending that the dispute was an internal intra-union matter that should have been resolved through the union’s internal mechanisms and the processes outlined in the Trade Disputes Act, not directly through the court.
The appellants also argue that the claimants failed to join the National Executive Council (NEC) – the organ that effected the expulsion – as a necessary party, thereby breaching the NEC’s right to a fair hearing.
Also challenged by the appellants is the court’s judgement that the union’s disciplinary actions amounted to “self-help” taken during a pending litigation.
Stating that there was no evidence that the claimants were punished for filing a lawsuit, they appellants claim that the actions were based on other infractions, including an alleged attempt to set up a parallel union government.
The motion also argued that the trial judge misconstrued the union’s constitution by not reading the cited sections in isolation from other provisions that outline a code of conduct and internal disciplinary procedures for members.
The appellants also faulted the judge for deciding on what they described as contentious facts, such as alleged forgery (backdating of suspension letters) and disobedience of court orders, without calling for oral evidence, which they claim is required in procedures for originating summons when facts are disputed.
The appeal also argue that the ₦2 million cost award was unjustifiable and excessive for a trade union funded by members’ dues.
Appellants’ Plea to the Appellate Court
In the supporting affidavit, Comrade Mike Olanrewaju, the 11th appellant, and General Secretary of the union, stated that the appellants are dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling and judgment.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Skye Bank plc v. Victor Anaemen Iwu (2017), Comrade Olanrewaju emphasised the need for leave to appeal on grounds other than fundamental rights.
The affidavit further states that the proposed appeal raises “substantial and triable issues of law on fair hearing and jurisdiction” and that without a stay of execution, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
The appellants have undertaken to file their notice of appeal promptly if the application is granted.
Next Steps
The Court of Appeal is yet to schedule a hearing for the motion. If leave is granted, the appeal will proceed, potentially leading to a significant ruling on the balance between the internal autonomy of trade unions and the jurisdiction of courts to intervene in their constitutional disputes.
Legal experts confided in National Record that an appeal from the NIC to the Court of Appeal is possible, either as a matter of right for certain fundamental human rights cases or with the leave of the Court of Appeal for other matters. To go from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in an industrial relations case, an aggrieved party must obtain the leave (permission) of the Supreme Court to appeal.
