Overview
AbstractThis case analysis examines the Supreme Court’s decision in SCC Nig. Ltd. & Anor v. David George & Anor (2024) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1971) 421, which dealt with whether or not disputes pertaining to the enforcement of fundamental rights are under the purview of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria under section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The Court explained that the content of the claim, not its coincidental relationship to labour or employment issues, determines jurisdiction in matters pertaining to fundamental rights. It concluded that, even in cases where the claimant is an employee, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria lacks jurisdiction when the claim is not based on employment rights or benefits.
Beyond resolving the jurisdictional contest, the judgment emphasises how employers must respond to claims of wrongdoing against workers, warning against instigating arrests without a factual basis. This decision reaffirms a liberal and citizen-centred approach to the enforcement of fundamental rights while clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of specialised Courts in Nigeria.1.0. IntroductionThe interpretation of jurisdictional boundaries under the 1999 Constitution (as amended) remains one of the most contested issues in Nigerian constitutional adjudication.
With the establishment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) as a specialised forum for labour and employment disputes, questions have arisen as to whether its jurisdiction extends to actions founded on the enforcement of fundamental rights where such disputes are tangentially connected to employment. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in SCC Nig. Ltd. & Anor v. David George & Anor (2024) 18 NWLR (Pt.1971) 421 provides important clarification on this matter. The case tested the scope of Section 254C of the Constitution, which outlines the jurisdiction of the NICN, vis-à-vis Sections 251 and 46 of the Constitution, which confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court and State High Courts in the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Central to the dispute was whether an action alleging unlawful arrest and detention, brought by an employee against his employer and the Nigerian Police, properly fell within the competence of the NICN or was rightly initiated at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
