Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimants commenced this action by way of Originating Summons on 13th May 2019. In the Originating Summons, the Claimants sought determination of the following questions: 1. Whether having regard to [1] Section 34 [2] and [3] of the Trade Union Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation 2004, Part B thereof, wherein the Defendant is listed as No. 2 and Part C wherein the 1st Claimant is listed as No. 16 of the 3rd Schedule of the said Trade Union Act; [2] Circular No. ML.AC/14/T3/65 of 27 June 2018 signed by the Registrar of the Trade Union [3] Circular no. ML.IB/23/1/206 of 19th August 1999; [4] Circular No. ML.IB/23/1/207 of 19th August, 1999 and the judgment of this honourable court in Suit No. NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on 16th May 2011, can the Defendant be a member of the Claimant/Applicant? Put differently, is the Defendant of a senior staff cadre in the Federal/States statutory corporation and Government owned companies having regard to its prescribed jurisdiction vide the Trade Union Act (supra)? 2. Whether if the answer to question one above is in the negative, can the Defendant unionise members of the Claimant/Applicant i.e. Senior Staff of the Federal/States statutory corporation and Government owned companies? 3. Whether the act of unionising or attempting to unionise members of the Claimant/Applicant in the following statutory bodies amongst others i.e. Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Federal/States Water Corporation etc. by the Defendant is not ultra vires the Defendant and so null and void and of no effect being contrary to the extant labour law and subsisting judgment of this honourable court? Upon the determination of the above questions, the Claimants sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that vide [1] Section 34 [2] and [3] of Trade Union Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004, Part B thereof wherein the Defendant is listed as No. 2 and Part C wherein the 1st Claimant is listed as No. 16 of the 3rd Schedule of the said Trade Union Act; [2] circular no. ML.AC/14/T3/65/of 27 June 2018 signed by the Registrar of the Trade Union; [3] Circular no. ML.IB/23/1/206 of 19th August 1999; [4] Circular no. ML.IB/23/1/207 of 19th August 1999 and the judgment of this honourable court in Suit No NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on the 16th May 2011, the Defendant cannot be a member or members of the Claimant/Applicant. 2. A Declaration that vide [1] Section 34 [2] and [3] of Trade Union Act Cap T14 Laws of the Federation 2004, Part B thereof wherein the Defendant is listed as No. 2 and Part C wherein the 1st Claimant is listed as No. 16 of the 3rd Schedule of the said Trade Union Act; [2] Circular No. ML.AC/14/T3/65/of 27 June 2018 signed by the Registrar of the Trade Union; [3] Circular No. ML.IB/23/1/206 of 19th August 1999; [4] Circular No. ML.IB/23/1/207 of 19th August 1999 and the judgment of this honourable court in suit No NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on the 16th May 2011, the Defendant cannot unionise members or attempt to unionise members of the Claimant/Applicants i.e. senior staff of the Federal/State Statutory Corporations and Government owned Companies however whatsoever. 3. A Declaration that the acts of the Defendant in unionising or attempting to unionise members of the Claimant/Applicant in Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Federal/States Water Corporation etc is ultra vires the Defendant and so null, void and of no effect being contrary to the extant labour law and subsisting judgment of this honourable court. 4. An Order of perpetual injunction prohibiting/restraining the Respondent from unionising or attempting to unionise however whatsoever members of the Claimant in Federal/State Statutory Corporations and Government owned companies as Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Federal/State Water Corporation etc. 5. Exemplary damages as this honourable court may deem fit to grant as if same has been applied for. 6. Three million being cost of litigation. The Claimants filed an affidavit and a written address in support of the originating summons. The Defendant, upon entering appearance, filed a notice of preliminary objection on 4th July 2019. It subsequently filed a counter affidavit in response to the originating summons on 4th October 2019. Both the Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Claimants’ suit were heard together on 22nd October 2019 and adjourned to today for the court’s decision. I will consider the Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection first before considering the substantive suit if it will still be necessary to do so. DEFENDANT’S NPO The Defendant prayed this court in the Notice of Preliminary Objection to strike out the suit for being incompetent and for the court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The grounds for the objections are as follows: i. The claims and reliefs of the Claimants as constituted in this suit relate to inter union dispute (a specie of trade dispute) within the contemplation of Section 7(3) of the National Industrial Act, 2006. ii. The jurisdiction of this honourable court over trade dispute is appellate after parties must have exhausted the processes under Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act and the dispute is not resolved. iii. The Claimant did not exhaust the processes under Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act before coming to this honourable court in this suit. iv. This suit as presently constituted is incompetent and an abuse of court process. In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, it was deposed that the claims and reliefs of the Claimants in this suit relate to inter union dispute between the Claimants and the Defendants over jurisdictional scope of the two trade unions. The dispute is a trade dispute. The processes of mediation, conciliation and arbitration under Part 1 of Trade Disputes Act ought to have been exhausted before the Claimants can approach this court over inter union/trade dispute. The Claimants did not exhaust the processes under Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act before commencing this suit. It was further deposed that it is in the interest of justice to strike out the suit to enable the Claimants exhaust the processes under Part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act with the institution having the requisite capacity to settle the dispute under Part 1 Trade Disputes Act. In the accompanying written address, learned counsel for the Defendant/Applicant formulated a sole issue for determination as follows: Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit as presently constituted. On the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Defendant/Applicant submitted that the appropriate process to consider in the circumstance of this case is the claim or reliefs contained in the Originating Summons before the court. Counsel placed reliance on the case of ABDULHAMID vs. AKAR & ANOR (2006) LPELR- 24 (SC) pp. 15-16, paras E-G and a plethora of other judicial authorities in support of this submission. Further counsel submitted that the defect in the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case goes to the root of this matter and this court has been enjoined not to embark on fruitless voyage in determining a suit that is not competent as such proceedings will be a nullity. See the case of ESUNG ASUQUO vs. BASSY ETIM WILLIAM (2013) LPELR-44045 (CA) P. 7r Paras. B-C. Counsel urged the Court to strike out/dismiss this Suit for want of jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit as presently constituted with a cost of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). The Claimants filed a counter affidavit in opposing the NPO. It was deposed therein that this court has the jurisdiction under the third alteration of the 1999 constitution, particularly Section 254C thereof, to entertain this suit. It was further stated that this suit is not about trade dispute but it is an invocation of the interpretive jurisdiction of the court. In the accompanying written address, the Claimants/Respondents adopted the same sole issue for determination formulated by the Applicant/Defendant. On the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents argued that it is the claim of the Claimant as expressed in the Originating processes that must be examined to see whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear this suit, and that Section 254(C) of the constitution provides the court with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel urged the court to discountenance with the arguments of the Defendant/Applicant’s preliminary objection and not to subject the constitutional jurisdiction given to this court to the mere provision of the National Industrial Court act to avoid a violation of the 1999 constitution. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application and to find in favour of the Claimants/Respondents. In their reply on points of law, it was the argument of the Defendant/Applicant that the suit constitutes an inter union dispute within the contemplation of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Trade Disputes Act. See the case of GEORGE UZOARU & ANOR vs. DANGOTE CEMENT PLC & ANOR (2013) 31 NLLR (Pt. 89) P 308 @ 322 -323, Paras. A-C. Counsel argued that the Claimants/Respondents’ submission in paragraph 2.10 of their Written Address that the decisions of the Court on the nature of its jurisdiction over inter and intra union disputes ceases to have effect after the Third Alteration by virtue of Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is misconceived as the Court repeatedly upheld the nature of its jurisdiction over inter and intra union disputes. See GEORGE UZOARU & ANOR. vs. DANGOTE CEMENT PLC & ANOR (2013) 31 NLLR (Pt. 89) P 308 @ 324-325 Paras C-B. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the entire argument of the Claimants as it has nothing to do with the nature of jurisdiction of the Court over inter and intra union disputes and to grant the prayers endorsed on the Notice of Preliminary Objection. COURT’S RULING ON THE NPO: In view of the questions for determination in the Originating Summons and the facts contained in the affidavit in support of that Originating Summons, there is an inter union dispute between the 1st Claimant and the Defendant. The jurisdiction of this court has been expanded in the Constitution [Third Alteration] Act 2010, which amended the 1999 Constitution, than that enumerated in Section 7 of the NIC Act. In Section 254C [1] of the 1999 Constitution [as amended], the NICN is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction on the subject matters which include civil causes and matters, among others, “[a]relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith; (b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws”. This provision of the Constitution clearly states that the NICN has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters involving trade unions or arising from the Trade Unions Act. The case of the Claimants is within these subject matters on which the court is granted original jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction of the court is as stated in subsection 1 [l] of the section and it includes appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith or appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations. Although this provision allows appeals to this court from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions or from the decisions of administrative body or commission which is connected to trade unions, it did not limit the original jurisdiction of the court to entertain trade union disputes. This is even more so that the jurisdiction of this court on trade union disputes is exclusive in the first place. It means that no other court, body or tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to trade union disputes other than this court. So, the question of this court having only appellate jurisdiction on issues of disputes between trade unions, as canvassed by the Defendant, is incredible. From the above, it is clear that inter or intra union disputes fall into the original jurisdiction of the NICN. This court has the jurisdiction to entertain matters first hand arising from disputes between unions as in this case. I find that the Preliminary Objection has no merit. It is dismissed. I will now consider the originating summons. ORIGINATING SUMMONS The AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS is deposed to by the 2nd Claimant who is the General Secretary of the 1st Claimant. He said that the 1st Claimant and the Defendant are creations of statutes vide Section 34 (2) and (3) of the Trade Union Act 2004. The Defendant is listed as No.2 in part B of the third Schedule to the Act where the jurisdiction, limitation and ambit as to who are the members of the Defendant were also stated. The 1st Claimant on the other hand is listed as No. 16 in part C of the third Schedule to the Act. The membership of the 1st Defendant covers senior staff and employers’ associations. The Defendant has however been strayed out of its jurisdiction by unionising or attempting to unionise members of the Claimants. The Federal Ministry of Labour had cleared the issue of the jurisdiction or membership of the 1st Claimant and the Defendant in the documents exhibited to the affidavit as Exhibits OOC.1, OOC.2 and OOC.3. It was further averred that in the said Exhibits OOC.1, OOC.2 and OOC.3, the Federal Ministry of Labour, stated that the Defendant can only unionise workers of Grade Level 01 to 06 or its equivalents in Ministries, Corporations or Departments while the 1st Claimant is in charge of senior staff of Corporations, Ministries or Departments. It was a similar act as now being done by the Defendant that led to Suit No. NIC/5/93 between ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS vs. NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION which judgement was delivered on 27th June 1995. Despite the clear demarcations in the jurisdiction of the 1st Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant has continued its act of unionizing or attempting to unionize members of the Claimant in Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Federal/States Water Corporation and others. It is for these reasons the Claimants have brought this action for it to be determined whether the Defendant can unionize members of the 1st Claimant. In the ACCOMPANYING WRITTEN ADDRESS, learned counsel for the CLAIMANTS argued the issues for determination as canvassed in the originating summons and sought to argue the issues for determination together. It was the submission of learned counsel for the Claimants that both unions cannot legitimately organize or unionize both the senior and junior cadre of staff in the organization; and that the Defendant being not of the Senior Staff Cadre cannot unionize or attempt to unionize members of the Claimant whatsoever. Counsel further submitted that having regard to the Trade Unions Act, Exhibit OOC.I, OOC.2, OOC.3 and OOC.4; the Defendant cannot continue its act of unionizing or attempting to unionize members of the Claimant in Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Federal/States Water Corporation which is a violation of extant laws and the subsisting judgment of this Honourable Court. Counsel urged the court to grant this Application and the reliefs herein and declare the Defendant as non-member of the Claimant; and declare the acts of the Defendant in unionizing or attempting to unionize members of the Claimant as ultra vires and void. In opposing the originating summons, the Defendant filed a COUNTER AFFIDAVIT deposed to by Comrade Raphael Imade, the Acting General Secretary of the Defendant. He averred that Section 34(2) and (3) of the Trade Unions Act 2004 did not provide for creation of the Defendant or its jurisdiction. He further stated that Part B of the 3rd Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, 2004 and Section 33 of the Act were deleted in Section 7 (1) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Defendant has never strayed out of its jurisdiction to unionize members of the 1st Claimant but unionises only workers who voluntarily subscribes to be members of the Defendant for the protection of their interest. The Federal Ministry of Labour does possess powers to interpret, clarify, define or delimit the jurisdiction of Trade Unions in Nigeria. The deponent said he is not aware of Exhibits OOC.1, OOC.2 and OOC.3 as they have nothing to do with the Defendant and the constitutional right of its members to belong to trade unions of their choice. He also said the Defendant was not a party to Suit no: NIC/5/93 and its interest was not determined in the suit. The deponent concluded that the originating summons does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. In the ACCOMPANYING WRITTEN ADDRESS, learned counsel for the DEFENDANT formulated a sole issue for determination to wit; Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. In arguing the sole issue, the defense Counsel submitted that the Claimants have failed to establish the reliefs set out in the Originating Summons before the Court and that the Claimants’ reliefs and arguments are predicated on a non-existent provision of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 LFN 2004. Counsel argued that the facts in the Affidavit of the Claimants in support of the Originating Summons did not disclose any legal rights of the Claimants that were infringed before coming to this Honourable Court. Counsel emphasized that the suit is not borne out of a legal right that has been contravened. See RINCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED vs. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LTD (2005) LPELR-2949 (SC) P.14 paras E-G. Counsel conceded that the Defendant is listed in Part A of the Third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, LFN, 2004, but argued that by virtue of Section 17 of the Trade Unions Act, the Act did not specify the jurisdictional scope of the 1st Claimant and the Defendant in the manner the Claimants have set out to mislead the Court in this suit. Counsel urged the court in the circumstance to discountenance the Exhibits and all the arguments predicated on the Exhibits; and to discountenance the submission of the Claimants on the decision in ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA vs. NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION, as the Defendant was not a party to the suit; hence, its interest and jurisdictional scope was not considered in the judgment. Counsel urged the court to discountenance all the submissions of the Claimants in their Written Address in support of the Originating Summons dated 13th May, 2019 and resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Defendant, and dismiss this suit with a cost of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). On the 10th of October 2019, the CLAIMANTS filed a REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW to the Defendant’s counter affidavit and written address in which learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the questions/issues in the originating summons clearly evinces clear cause of action by the Claimant against the Defendant. Counsel emphasized that the claim of the Claimant before the court is to seek a judicial interpretation of extant labour laws, judicial decision thereat and the consequences thereof so as to guide the conduct of the parties within the sphere of their statutory jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that the only relevant laws were those codified into the laws of the Federation 2004 and thereafter. Counsel sought to amend all references to Section 34 (2) and 3 in the originating summons to be reflected as Section 33 (4) of the Trade Union Act as amended by the Trade Union (Amendment) 2005. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the case of GEORGE UZOARU & ANOR vs. DANGOTE CEMENT PLC & ANOR (2013) 31 NLLR 308 which seeks to limit the jurisdiction of the court. Counsel urged the court to so hold. Further detailed arguments proffered by learned counsel on both sides, as well as authorities cited have been thoroughly reviewed and evaluated. I see no need to re-hash everything here. However, necessary reference will be made to them if required, in this judgment. COURT’S DECISION ON THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS: In determining this suit, I will consider the issues for determination in the Originating Summons together. From the questions for determination, the reliefs sought and the facts contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the case of the Claimants is for this court to interpret some provisions of the TUA, Circulars No. ML.AC/14/T3/65/dated 27 June 2018, No. ML.IB/23/1/206 dated 19th August 1999 and No. ML.IB/23/1/207 dated 19th August 1999 and the judgment in Suit No NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on the 16th May 2011 and pronounce on the jurisdictional scopes of the 1st Claimant and the Defendant or on the category of workers they can each unionise. According to the Claimants, the 1st Claimant is registered to unionise senior staff in Statutory Corporations by the effect of the provision of item 16, Part C of the 3rd schedule of the TUA while the Defendant is to unionise junior staff in public corporations by the effect of item 2 of Part B of the 3rd Schedule of the TUA. On this contention, the Claimants relied further on Circulars No. ML.AC/14/T3/65/dated 27 June 2018; No. ML.IB/23/1/206 dated 19th August 1999 and No. ML.IB/23/1/207 dated 19th August 1999 and the judgment in Suit No NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on the 16th day of May 2011. These are Exhibits OOC.1, OOC.2, OOC.3 and OOC.4 respectively of the Claimants’ affidavit. The Defendant did not make any averment which controverts the assertion of the Claimants that the Defendant can unionise only junior workers in public/statutory Corporations. The Defendant did not also mention which category of workers it was registered to unionise. The contention made by the Defendant in response however is that Section 34 (2) and (3) of the Trade Union Act 2004 did not make provision for the creation of the Defendant or its jurisdiction, and that Part B of the 3rd Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, 2004 and Section 33 of the Act were deleted in Section 7 (1) of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Defendant is not correct when it stated that Section 34 of the Trade Unions Act 2004 was deleted in Section 7 of the 2005 amendment. The section of the Principal Act which was deleted in Section 7 of the 2005 amendment is Section 33. Again, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the schedules to the 2004 Act were not deleted in the amendment. The Schedules remained an integral part of the Trade Unions Act. The provisions of the Trade Unions Act 2004 cited by the Claimants in support of their case were not deleted in the 2005 amendment. Furthermore, it is expressly stated in Section 35 (3) of the Trade Unions Act that the unions which had been duly registered or deemed duly registered under the Act shall continue to exist unless and until they are dissolved, amalgamated, judicially forfeited or their registration certificate cancelled. This provision relates to the trade unions registered under the Act as listed in Parts A, B and C of the 3rd Schedule of the Act. In Parts A, B and C of the 3rd Schedule of the Trade Unions Act 2004, the 1st Claimant and Defendant are listed as trade unions. By this fact, it is obvious that the 1st Claimant and the Defendant are trade unions registered under and pursuant to the Trade Unions Act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s attempt to deny its registration status under the Act and the delineation of its jurisdiction in the Act cannot be sustained. It is also clear to me, from the provisions of the Trade Unions Act 2004 in Parts A, B and C of the 3rd Schedule thereof relating to the 1st Claimant and the Defendant, that both unions have common areas of convergence, being able to unionise workers in public or statutory Corporations. The issue raised by the Claimants in this suit is with respect to the category of workers in Public or Statutory Corporations who can be members of either union. Put in another way, what category of workers can either union unionise? In Part A of the 3rd schedule, the Defendant is listed in No. 2 of the list of re-structured trade unions. In Part B of the same schedule, the jurisdictions of each trade union listed in Part A was set out. For the Defendant, its jurisdiction is said to cover all junior staff employed in the Federal and State Corporations; Civil Service employees classified as technical; workers of sports commissions and stadia; public recreation clubs by whatever name called; swimming pools; amusement centres including carnivals, circuses, zoological gardens and services similarly classified. For the sake of clarification, the category of workers in the aforementioned corporations or agencies which the Defendant is permitted to unionise is the junior staff. In Part C of the 3rd schedule of the TUA, the 1st Claimant is mentioned in number 16 of the list of trade unions titled “Senior Staff and Employers' Associations”. Although the jurisdiction or scope of the 1st Claimant is not expressed in the schedule unlike as done with the Defendant, the name of the 1st Claimant and the title of the part however indicate that the workers who are meant to be members of the 1st Claimant are the senior staff in Statutory Corporations and Government owned Companies. From the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Trade Unions Act in Parts A, B and C of the 3rd schedule, the 1st Claimant was registered to unionise senior staff in Statutory Corporations and Government owned Companies while the Defendant is registered to unionise junior staff in Public Corporations and certain aspects of the civil service. Without any doubt, there is a clear demarcation in the category of workers which the 1st Claimant and Defendant can unionise in statutory/public corporations. This very clear intent of the Act was explained by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Development in a letter to the Director-General of Standards Organisation of Nigeria dated 27th June 2018 which is Exhibit OOC.3 of the Claimants’ affidavit. The same Federal Ministry of Labour had previously, in letters dated 19th August 1999, clarified the jurisdictional scope of the Defendant to cover only junior staff employed in Federal and State Corporations and Civil Service employees classified as technical. See Exhibits OOC.1 and OOC.2 of the Claimants’ affidavit. The cause of action of the Claimants in this suit is the Defendant’s activities in unionising senior workers in Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Federal/States Water Corporation contained in Paragraph 3 [c] and [g] of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. In response to this allegation, the Defendant averred in Paragraph 7 of its counter affidavit that it has never unionised members of the 1st Claimant but unionises only workers who voluntarily joins it for the protection of their interest. The response of the Defendant is an admission that it accepts into its membership senior staff in Statutory Corporations and Government owned Companies. It appears that the allegation of the Claimants that the Defendant is unionising senior staff in Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON), Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), and Federal/States Water Corporation is not far from the truth. In the face of the glaring admission of encroachment outside its jurisdiction by the Defendant resulting to an inter union dispute between the 1st Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant still found courage to allege in paragraph 11 of its counter affidavit that the suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against it. I think otherwise. The Claimants have disclosed a reasonable cause of action in this case, which cause of action has not been put into any doubt by the Defendant. Trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act have their jurisdictional scopes defined therein. They have to keep within the jurisdiction as not to cause disputes of this nature. No trade union can validly unionise or attempt to unionise workers outside its coverage. Going by the line drawn in the Trade Unions Act in the category of workers the unions can unionise, the Defendant cannot unionise senior staff in Statutory Corporations and Government owned Companies. It is the 1st Claimant who has that coverage. The Claimants also sought the court to determine the questions for determination in this suit on the basis of a judgment of this court in Suit No. NIC/ABJ/4/2010 between NIGERIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNION vs. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA delivered on the 16th May 2011. The said judgment is annexed to the Claimants’ affidavit as Exhibit OOC.4. None of the parties in this case was a party to that suit. The issue in this case was also not the issue determined in that suit. That judgment can hardly form the basis for answering the questions the Claimants sought to be determined in this suit. In any case, flowing from all I have said so far, the questions the Claimants posed for determination in this suit are answered in the negative and in favour of the Claimants. Consequently, the declarations sought by the Claimants in Reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are made accordingly but Reliefs 5 and 6 fail for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the claims. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge