News & Publications

INTRODUCTION

On May 5, 2021, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in The Vessel MT Sam Purpose (Ex MT. Tapti) & Anor v Amarjeet Singh Bains & 6 Ors (hereinafter referred as MT Sam Purpose) and held that by virtue of section 254C(1) of the Constitution, the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to unpaid  crew wages.

FACTS

The Plaintiffs/Respondents at the Federal High Court sought several reliefs against the Defendants/Appellants bordering inter alia on crew wages, cost of Admiralty Marshall expenses, cost of arrest and detention of Vessel.
The Respondents also filed an exparte application seeking among others the arrest and detention of the vessel, MT Sam Purpose, pending the provision of a satisfactory bank guarantee to secure the Respondents’ claim. The Court after hearing argument of the Plaintiffs granted the exparte application by ordering thearrest of the MT Sam Purpose.
The Appellants upon entering conditional appearance, challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit and relied on section 254C(1) (a) and (k) of the constitution. The Trial court refused the Appellant’s application, leading to an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Respondents’ interlocutory appeal, set aside the order of arrest and struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

In upholding the Respondents’ interlocutory application, the Court of Appeal held that Section 254C(1) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on National Industrial Court over maritime labour related matters, inclusive of crew wages. According to the Court, Section 2(3)(r) and 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, which conferred similar jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, was void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution whilst relying Section 1(3) of the Constitution.

IMPLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

By this judgment, the National Industrial Court now has jurisdiction over labour matters involving appointment, condition of service, remuneration, and termination of employment of crew or seamen. Aggrieved seamen are now required to approach the National Industrial court to ventilate their grievances on unpaid crew wages.

The judgment was however silent on how a Plaintiff in an action in rem before the National Industrial Court would arrest a vessel as customarily done in admiralty matters for unpaid wages before the Federal High Court.

Undoubtedly, the judgment has raised concerns amongst maritime lawyers, workers and stakeholders, with some calling for a law review and others calling for vesting of concurrent jurisdiction on both courts on this narrow compass. It is now incumbent on the apex court, upon appeal of the matter, to lay this lingering issue to rest to ensure stability in the sector.