The court, as a result, ordered that parties maintain the status quo and adjourned the matter until July 20, for a hearing.
During the proceedings, the Federal Government’s counsel, Ochum Emmanuel, informed the court that he was ready to proceed with his application.
He told the court that the matter was scheduled for Monday for the claimant to take its motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from embarking on strike.
On his part, the defendant’s counsel, Marshall Abubarkar, reminded the court that they had filed an application praying the court to vacate the order which restrained the organised union from embarking on strike.
Abubakar further said that the claimant was served the application on June 8, only for them to serve a counter-affidavit on Monday, in court.
He prayed for a short adjournment to look at the counter-affidavit and respond.
Opposing Abubakar’s application for adjournment, Emmanuel urged the court to allow him to take his motion on notice which was slated for hearing.
He averred that the defendants were not equally prepared before the court as they had not filed their memorandum of appearance.
He asserted that the defendants had only appeared before the court to vacate the order it granted on June 5.
Furthermore, he said, should the court grant Abubakar’s application for an adjournment, the court should also declare that the order restraining the defendants from embarking on strike granted on June 5 subsist.
Abubakar, in his response, said Emmanuel’s application was not necessary given the court’s earlier declaration that parties should maintain the status quo.
He also informed the court that parties were meeting later on Monday to try and resolve the issue.
The court, in its ruling, granted the application for adjournment.
It also directed the defendants to enter their memorandum of appearance and instructed parties to maintain the status quo.
Earlier in the month, on June 7, the NLC and the TUC had planned to embark on a nationwide strike in protest of the fuel subsidy removal.
The Federal Government, in reaction, instituted a suit to stop the defendants, stating that the proposed strike may gravely affect the larger society and the well-being of the nation at large.
