Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: June 26, 2015 SUIT NO. NIC/CA/01/2011 BETWEEN MR. VICTOR J. UDOM - CLAIMANT AND 1. PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (PENGASSAN) 2. BABATUNDE OGUN NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF PENGASSAN 3. MR. JUDE C. NWAOGU DEFENDANTS BRANCH CHAIRMAN, PENGASSAN MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) ULTD. 4. MR. DOMINIC ABANG BRANCH SECRETARY OF PENGASSAN 5. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, PENGASSAN REPRESENTATION Ekpo Ntekim for claimant. Dele Ogunji, with him Omowunmi Ajibade (Mrs). JUDGMENT The claimant filed this complaint against the defendants on the 9th of June 2011. By an amended statement of facts filed on the 25th April 2013, the claimant is seeking the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff by the defendants is null and void for non compliance with the relevant laws and rules of Petroleum And Natural Gas Senior Staff Association Of Nigeria. b) A declaration that the defendants’ lack the competence to direct and/or place the plaintiff on an “indefinite suspension”. c) A declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff from taking part or participating, as a delegate, in the 1ST defendant's chapter, branch, zonal and national elections is unlawful, wrongful, null and void. d) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their agents, servants of whatsoever description from interfering with or preventing the plaintiff from enjoying his rights, benefits and privileges in the 1ST defendant arising from the subject matter of this suit. e) An order of court directing the defendants to pay N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) only to the plaintiff being his an unpaid stipend (honorarium) between December, 2008 to June, 2011 due, to him as the 1ST defendant’s chapter secretary and ex-officio of the 1ST defendant’s branch executive committee, respectively. f) An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants either jointly or severally paying to the plaintiff N50,000,000.00 (fifty million naira) only as general damages for unlawfully and illegally victimizing him, and damage to his reputation and integrity arising from series of unfounded, baseless and frivolous allegations, in print and verbally made against him. Accompanying the amended statement of facts is the witness statement on oath and list of documents. The defendants filed an amended statement of defence on 17th March 2014 together with the documents to be relied upon. The claimant did not file an amended reply to the amended statement of defence but chose to rely on its reply filed on 4th February 2013. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he has been an employee of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited for about 20 years now and is presently working as its off-shore staff. That by virtue of his status, he was elected in November, 2008, as the 1st defendant’s Off Shore Chapter Secretary of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. The claimant pleaded that by virtue of that election and in line with the constitution of the 1st defendant and the branch union bye law of 2008 he became an ex-officio member of the Branch Executive Committee of the 1st defendant. That on 20th March, 2009, he co-signed a vote of no confidence on the Branch Executive Chairman of the 3rd defendant on behalf of his Chapter due to allegations of gross misconduct against the 3rd defendant after due process was followed in line with the Branch bye laws of the Mobil Producing Unlimited. The claimant pleaded that in April 2009, the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant invited him and other branch officers to resolve the issues affecting the branch that resulted in the vote of no confidence on the Branch Chairman. That at the end of the meeting, the Central Working Committee advised all the members to bury the hatchet and work together for the common good of the association. He pleaded that he together with the Branch Executive wrote to the 1st defendant on April 2009 through the General Secretary giving reasons why he and other Chapter Executives could not attend the 1st meeting called by the Intervention Committee in Eket. That on 28 April 2009, he wrote a letter on behalf of the Chapter Executive to the 1st defendant indicating the reason for the collective absence of the Chapter Executive. That in spite of letter showing the reasons why it was impracticable for the claimant as well as his Chapter Executive to attend the first meeting in Eket, the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant released a memo, purporting to have acted on a 4-man committee report and directed that the claimant and two others be suspended for three months. The claimant pleaded that after the three months suspension that expired on 21st August, 2009, the Branch Executive Committee cooked up fresh charges against him in his absence and issued a letter dated 24th August, 2009, informing him that he has ceased to be a member of Branch Executive Committee, Ex-officio. He pleaded that he wrote series of petitions to the Central Working Committee as well as the National Executive Committee stating that his suspension is due to malice and not in accordance with the bye laws of the branch and the constitution of the 1st defendant. That the Branch Executive Committee reviewed its decision to indefinite suspension and in December 22, 2009, a resolution was passed by the Chapter Executive Committee to recall him. He pleaded that the Branch Executive Committee turned the resolution down and issued another letter that he should not be recalled. The claimant averred that he is still under indefinite suspension till date and that the 1st defendant was still deducting its monthly dues from his income. The claimant pleaded that as a Chapter Secretary and an Ex-officio member of the Branch Executive Committee of the 1st defendant, he was entitled to honorarium of N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) and N20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) respectively which has not been paid from January, 2009 till date, and as at May, 2011 stands at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira). He pleaded that due to his suspension, his nomination as a delegate to the election of the new Chapter Executive Committee was voided in May, 2011, by the Branch Executive Chairman purporting to be working on the instructions of the National Executive Council. The claimant pleaded that the election of the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant came up on 1st and 2nd June, 2011 and he was supposed to be a delegate by virtue of his position as the Chapter Secretary or Ex-officio but his name was dropped from the delegates list for no just reason. That he has been subjected to untold high handedness at work, incessant queries, untold hardship, delayed promotion and denial of necessary basic training programmes due to the suspension which is malicious and intended to portray him in bad light to his employer; that he has protested his victimization to the NEC and Central Working Committee. The claimant pleaded that he has not committed any wrong or failed in his duties or showed any act of insubordination to the constituted authorities to warrant the treatment the defendants meted out on him. That he was never invited to answer to any alleged offence nor any charges leveled against him by the defendants. He pleaded that the defendants’ actions is intended to portray him in bad light to his employers thereby subjecting him to the risk of being laid off. The claimant testified in support of his case. His evidence in chief was by witness statement on oath which he adopted. It was in the exact terms of the pleadings. The defendants’ counsel elected not to cross-examine the claimant. The claimant then closed his case. The defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the claimant is an employee of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited and was in November 2008 elected as the Chapter Secretary of the Offshore Chapter of the Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Branch of the 1st defendant by virtue of his being a member of the 1st defendant in the employment of the company, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPNU). The defendants pleaded that the claimant co-signed a vote of no-confidence in the Branch Chairman of the Branch Executive Council in respect of allegations made by the claimant and his co-¬signers without following the due process stipulated in the constitution of the 1st defendant and the Bye-laws of the MPNU Branch of the 1st defendant. That there was a Memo of the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant dated 21st May 2009, announcing, among other decisions, the suspension of the claimant and other officers/members of the 1st defendant upon the recommendation of its Intervention Committee set up by the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant on 16th April 2009 in respect of Labour Relations Issues at the Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Branch of the 1st defendant. The defendants pleaded that the terms of reference of the Intervention Committee was to bring all parties to the table to state their grievances; identify causes and sources of conflicts, to identify the persons involved; establish the violations of trade union ethics and rules, and recommend appropriate sanctions where applicable; establish and explore necessary reconciliatory strategies for fostering harmony; make appropriate recommendations to forestall recurrence. The defendants pleaded that the Intervention Committee in carrying out the assignment convened meetings where all the MPN Branch Executive Committee (BEC) and Chapter Executive Committee (CEC) members were invited to state their grievances and/or present written submissions for consideration and recommendations. That the Committee held two meetings for the purpose of carrying out its mandate at Eket on April 21, 2009 and at the National Secretariat of the 1st defendant in Lagos on May 8, 2009. The defendants pleaded that the claimant was given the opportunity to present his own side. That the claimant and the Offshore Chapter of which he was Secretary were absent from the first meeting in Eket which the Intervention Committee frowned upon, but he attended the second meeting in Lagos and made his own presentation whereupon the Intervention Committee observed that he refused to pursue the path of truce and reconciliation. The defendants pleaded that the claimant explained his absence from the first meeting of the Intervention Committee in terms of a boycott. That upon the conclusion of its assignment, the Committee’s decision was communicated to all concerned by the General Secretary of the 1st defendant, which decisions included the suspension of the claimant. The defendants averred that during the subsistence of the period of suspension earlier visited upon him and other members of the MPNU Branch by the Central Working Committee, the claimant continued to engage in several anti-union activities inimical to the well-being of the 1st defendant, its MPNU Branch and the Offshore Chapter of the Branch as well as to the atmosphere of industrial peace and harmony. The defendant’s averred that the the election of the claimant was only for a term of three years by the provisions of the bye laws of the MPNU Branch and that the term has since lapsed. That the only deduction made from the income of the claimant are his monthly check-off dues which is statutory and is not a function of elective or appointive office but rather a requirement of membership of the 1st defendant and the obligation of every member of the 1st defendant. The defendants pleaded that payment of honorarium is only made to members validly holding and performing in the offices of the 1st defendant. That any wrongful treatment of the claimant by his employer, or risk to his employment is not due to any action of the defendants but only due to his disrespect to constituted authority. The defendant did not call oral evidence but elected from the on set to be heard on the record relying on the documents before the court. The parties were directed to file their final addresses. The claimant’s address is dated 26th June 2014 and filed on 27th June 2014. The defendant’s address is dated 4th November 2014 and filed the same day. The claimant’s reply on point of law is dated 16th February 2015 and filed on the 17th February 2015. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the purported suspension of the plaintiff by the defendants was done in compliance with or in the manner contemplated by the constitution of the 1st defendant and the bye-laws of the 1st defendant’s Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited branch. 2. Whether the refusal of the defendants to give the plaintiff opportunity to defend himself at the purported 5th defendant’s Committee is not an infraction of his right to fair hearing. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for unlawful and illegal victimization and damage to his reputation and integrity by the defendants’ action. He submitted that the evidence adduced has shown that the defendants failed to comply with the laid down procedures and rules of Natural Justice as provided in Rule 33(4)(ii) and Rule 29 (d) of the constitution of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) and Article 12(c) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria, Mobil Producing (Nig.) Unlimited Branch Bye-Laws. He submitted that the Rules and Bye-Laws are to be complied with. He further submitted that the claimant was not given a fair hearing as provided by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution having not been afforded the opportunity to state his case before the committee and that there has been non-compliance with the rules in the steps taken by the defendants against the claimant leading to his suspension. It was his contention that the suspension and the report of the committee is ultras vires the union constitution. He cited F.C.S.C v Laoye [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652 at 688-689, U.N.T.H.M.B. v Nnoli [1994] 8 NWLR (Pt. 363) 376 at page 407 – 408, Nagebu Co. (Nig.) Ltd v Unity Bank Plc [2014] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1405) P. 42. Learned counsel argued that it is a fundamental breach for the defendants to reach a decision to suspend the claimant’s membership without hearing him. He cited Iderima v R.S.C.S.C [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 378 at 414, GARBA v UNIMAID [1986]1 NWlR (Pt.18) 550, J.S.C. Cross Rivers State v Young [2013] 11 NWLR (Pt.1364) 1, Obiesie V. Obiesie [2007] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 223. He submitted that the claimant has proved that he was victimized and injury caused to his person occasioned by the acts of the defendants and is entitled to general damages. He cited Badmus V Abegunde [1999] 7 SCNJ P. 99 held 9 & 10, Igbinovia V Agboifo [2002] 12 NWLR (Pt. 681) at 345. He then urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the claimant. Learned counsel to the defendants submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether, from the totality of evidence placed by him before the Honourable Court, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought by him in this matter. He submitted that the claimant has not indicated in its pleadings or evidence which provisions of the constitution of the 1st defendant or the bye-laws of the MPNU branch the defendants had infringed upon. He argued that the claimant has not discharged the onus on him to prove the facts alleged and that the documents cannot prove the acts alleged or any part whatsoever of the claimant’s case as the documents are unsigned. He submitted that by section 93(1) of the Evidence Act, No. 18 of 2011, the requirement of signature is compulsory on a document and Section 93(2) does not avail the claimant as the documents in question are not shown to be electronic documents. He cited Charles Obazuaye v First Bank of Nigeria Plc. [2013] 38 NLLR (Pt. 118) 28, Global Soap and Detergents Industries Ltd. v NAFDAC [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 599) 1025 at 1047 and Aiki v Idowu [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 50. He submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him against the defendants having failed to prove his case. Learned counsel submitted that the defendants have adequately answered issues 1 and 2 submitted by the claimant in their pleadings by showing the steps taken by the 1st defendant and her officers and members to resolve the crisis experienced in the MPNU Branch of the 1st defendant, which steps are in accordance with the constitution of the 1st defendant and the bye-laws of its MPNU Branch. On the declaratory reliefs sought by the claimant, he submitted that the claimant must establish his claim with credible and acceptable evidence and that the claimant has not adduced evidence required by the law to establish the declaratory reliefs sought by him and as such his claims in this regard ought to be dismissed. He cited Chief J. Alao v. Alfa I. Akano [2005] 4 S.C. 25, Alh. F.A. Matanmi v Victoria Dada [2013] All FWLR (Part 682) 1634 at 1658. On the relief sought is for an order of perpetual injunction, he submitted that this relief is granted only to protect an established right at law or in equity in perpetuity and that from the state of evidence, the claimant has not established any right worthy of protection in perpetuity. Learned counsel submitted that the claim for the sum of N1,000,000.00 is in the realm of special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved which the claimant has failed to do. It was his further submission that the address of counsel cannot replace the evidence of the litigant and that the claims for Honorarium has neither been specifically pleaded nor proved at all. He submitted that by the combined effect of Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 and Order 13 Rule 35(5) of the Federal High Court Rules, 2009, a non-denial of damages by the defendants is not prejudicial to their defence. That Order 13 Rule 35(5) of the Federal High Court Rules, 2009 provides that: “No denial or defence shall be necessary as to damages claimed or their amount; they are deemed to be in issue in all cases, unless expressly admitted”. He submitted that the claimant has not placed any material before the Court to entitle him to damages flowing from any act of the defendants. He then urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claims. Replying on point of law, he submitted that the address of defence counsel cannot take the place of evidence no matter how beautifully couched citing Chiokwe v State [2013] 5 NWLR (Pt 1347) 205, NBA v Ntiero [2013] 18 NWLR (Pt 1386) 431. He submitted that it is a cardinal rule of evidence and of practice that an objection to the admissibility of a document sought by a party to be put in evidence is taken when the document is being tendered citing Ezomo V NN BP/C [2006] 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 624 AT 657. He further submitted that a signature is any name or mark or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document referring to S.I.B Consortium Ltd. V NNPC [2011] 9 NWLR (PT. 1252) 317 and argued that the authorities cited by counsel to the defendants on the issue of signature is not applicable. He submitted that the documents objected to do not fall into the categories of documents that are required to be signed before being admitted in evidence. It was his submission that failure to lead evidence in support of pleadings or challenge the adversary’s evidence by also leading cogent and credible evidence means accepting the evidence of the adverse party notwithstanding the general traverse. He cited Akintola v Balogun [2000] 1 NWLR (PT. 642) 532, Ochin V. Ekpechi [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 225 at 240. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led, written submissions and authorities cited. The issues for determination are: (i) whether the claimant’s suspension is in accordance with the 1st defendant’s constitution; (ii) whether the claimant’s right to a fair hearing was breached; (iii) whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The defendants’ counsel elected not to call oral evidence but to argue this case on the record. Their witness statement on oath having not been adopted is abandoned. Defence counsel also elected not to cross-examine the claimant. The effect of failure to cross examine the claimant is that the court has no option but to accept the claimant’s evidence. See Okoebor v Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444 at 449. The defendants have not placed any evidence in support of their averments in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of their pleadings. The law is settled that mere averment without evidence in proof of the facts pleaded is no proof. The averments will be taken as having been abandoned. See Ifeta v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria Ltd [2006] Vol.6, MJSC 123, Ibrahim v Ibrahim [2007] 1 NWLR (Pt 1015) 383. They are therefore deemed abandoned. The claimant however, must succeed on the strength of his case and discharge the legal burden of proof placed on him by law. See Section 131 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, Ogunyade v Oshunkeye [2007] 15 NWLR (Pt 1057) 218. At this juncture, it is necessary to look at the relevant provisions in the 1st defendant’s constitution. Rule 1 (a) states that the constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding effect on all authorities and persons throughout the branches and offices of the association; and Rule 1 (b) states that the association shall be governed only in accordance with the provisions of this constitution. The supremacy of the 1st defendant’s constitution is therefore established and clear to all its members. The question that naturally follows is who or which organ has the powers to suspend the claimant? To determine this, it is imperative to look at the structure of the 1st defendant as provided in Rule 5 (g) of its constitution. It provides: The structure of Government of the Association shall be as follows: (i) National Delegate’s Conference. (ii) National Executive Council (NEC). (iii) Central Working Committee (CWC). (iv) Zonal Executive Committee (ZEC). (v) Branch Executive Committee (BEC). (vi) Chapter Executive Committee (CEC). (vii) Unit Executive Committee (UEC). Rule 29 of the constitution deals with discipline of erring members. The relevant clauses are Rule 29 (d) and (g) reproduced as follows: (d) The National Executive Council may suspend for any reasonable period, any member who is PROVED, to the satisfaction of the National Executive Council, to have been guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the Association. It may recommend the expulsion of a member to the National Delegate’s Conference if the misconduct justifies such action. Any member so suspended or recommended for expulsion shall have the right to appeal to National Delegates’ Conference whose decision shall be final. (g) Branch Executive Council should have power to discipline any erring member subject to the approval of the Zonal Executive Council (ZEC) or National Executive Council (NEC) as the case may be. From the above provision, I hold that it is only the National Executive Council that has been vested with the powers to suspend a member, and this is only for a reasonable period and not indefinitely. The Central Working Committee set up a 4-man committee to intervene in the labour relations issues in Mobil Producing Nigeria (MPN) branch and to make appropriate recommendations to it. I find that all the MPN Branch Executive Committee members and Chapter Executive Committee members were invited to state their grievances and/or present written submissions for consideration. The Offshore Chapter and the claimant were present at this meeting. The committee in its report stated that having evaluated the conduct of the claimant recommended that he “be suspended for three months from any activity at all levels in the Association” and that “at the end of the three month period, the Chapter Secretary shall be reabsorbed into the Association while he will be placed under strict surveillance by the committee to avoid a repeat occurrence of any act of insubordination”. Now, the Central Working Committee not having been empowered by the constitution to suspend the claimant was to present the recommendation for the claimant’s suspension to the National Executive Council for approval. There is no evidence that the Central Working Committee presented the committees recommendation to the National Executive Committee for approval. There is also no evidence that it was the National Executive Council that suspended the claimant for three months. Indeed, the defendants in paragraph 5 of their pleadings averred that it was the Central Working Committee that suspended the claimant. The law is trite that parties are bound by their pleadings. I find that the Central Working Committee exceeded its powers when it suspended the claimant for three months on May 21, 2009. I hold that the suspension of the claimant by the Central Working Committee is ultra vires its powers, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. It is the claimant’s case that thereafter, the Branch Executive Committee (BEC) wrote exhibit CW5 informing him that he had ceased to be a member of the BEC effective August 21, 2009 and exhibit CW8 informing him that he had been placed on indefinite suspension. Learned counsel to the defendants has submitted that the documents are unsigned by the writers and therefore should be discountenanced. I find that the documents not having been signed have no probative value. I attach no weight to them. Now, the claimant in paragraphs 9, 11 and 13 of his witness statement on oath which is his evidence in chief has testified that the Branch Executive Committee of the 1st defendant brought fresh charges against him in his absence and informed him that he has ceased to be a member of Branch Executive Committee, Ex-officio. That thereafter it reviewed the decision to indefinite suspension till date. This evidence is unchallenged by the defendants, the claimant not having been cross-examined on it. I believe his evidence that he has been placed on indefinite suspension from his elected office till date and prevented from taking part in the 1st defendant’s activities as the Chapter Secretary. Rule 33 (4) (ii) of the 1st defendant’s constitution states that: Each member should have the right to fair treatment in the application of union rules and constitution. Trade Union disciplinary procedures should contain all the elements of fair play and the rules of natural justice that is, notice, hearing and judgment on the basis of evidence should be observed. A method of appeal to a higher body should be provided to ensure that judgments are not the result of prejudice or bias; While Rule 29 (g) states that: Branch Executive Council should have power to discipline any erring member subject to the approval of the Zonal Executive Council (ZEC) or National Executive Council (NEC) as the case may be. Article 12(c) of the MBNU Branch bye-laws states that: Any member of the association who commits a breach of any of the rules of the Association or acts in a manner calculated or likely to prejudice the interest of the Association shall be liable to expulsion from the Association or suffer such other penalties as the Branch Executive Council, (BEC) shall deem appropriate. Such a member shall be invited to answer the charges in writing or appear in person before the Branch Executive Committee (BEC) to defend himself. There is no evidence before me to show that the claimant was queried, made aware of the charges against him or invited to respond to them. There is also no evidence to show that he was given any hearing by the Branch Executive Committee before it withdrew his membership, reviewed its decision and placed the claimant on indefinite suspension. As I have held earlier, it is only the National Executive Council that is vested with the powers to suspend an erring member. The Branch Executive Committee has no powers to suspend any member and I so hold. Its disciplinary powers on other issues are subject to the approval of the Zonal Executive Council or the National Executive Council as clearly provided in Rule 29 (g) reproduced above. There is no evidence of such an approval by either body. I hold that the decision of the Branch Executive Committee to withdraw the claimant’s membership and place him on indefinite suspension is ultra vires its powers; it is null and void and of no effect. The claimant has been placed on an illegal suspension since May 2009, a period of six years. During this time, I find that he was prevented from participating in the activities of the 1st defendant yet the 1st defendant continued to receive his monthly check off dues. The receipt of the check off dues was not suspended. What a travesty of justice! I hereby order the defendants to pay the claimant his honorarium as a Chapter Secretary and an Ex-Officio member of the Branch Executive Committee from December 2008 to June 2011. I find that the claimant was denied his right to a fair hearing by the Branch Executive Committee and was unjustly punished by the illegal suspension. I hold that the Branch Executive Committee breached the provisions of Rule 33 (4) (ii) of the constitution, Article 12(c) of the MBNU Branch Bye-Laws and Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that guarantees the claimant a right to fair hearing. It is a fundamental right of the claimant that should not be trampled upon under any guise. The 1st defendant as one of the foremost trade unions is expected to be in the vanguard of ensuring that fundamental rights of workers in the labour movement are protected and that its own rules are strictly adhered to. Rather, I find in this instance, that the 1st and 5th defendants despite the letters written by the claimant seeking their intervention played a passive role and allowed the breach its own constitution by the Central Working Committee. It also by its inaction allowed the Branch Executive Committee of the MPNU to breach its constitution and Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. There can be no doubt that the claimant is entitled to an award of general damages; the defendants having breached his fundamental right to a fair hearing and denied him his civil rights to participate as a delegate or take part in any of the 1st defendant’s elections or other activities till date by reason of the illegal suspension. Consequently, and on the authority of Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, I award the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) as general damages in favour of the claimant. For all of the above reasons, I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. The suspension of the claimant by the defendants is null and void and of no effect for non compliance with the constitution of the 1st defendant Petroleum And Natural Gas Senior Staff Association Of Nigeria. 2. The suspension of the claimant from taking part or participating as a delegate, in the 1st defendant’s chapter, branch, zonal and national elections is unlawful, wrongful, null and void. 3. A Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, by themselves, their agents, servants of whatsoever description from interfering with or preventing the claimant from enjoying his rights, benefits and privileges in the 1st defendant arising from the subject matter of this suit. 4. The defendants are to pay the claimant his honorarium for the period December 2008 to June, 2011 due to him as the Chapter Secretary and Ex-Officio of the Branch Executive Committee. 5. The defendants are to pay the claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) as general damages for breach of the claimant’s right to a fair hearing and denial of his civil rights to participate in the activities of the Ist defendant. 6. Costs of N100,000.00 is awarded the claimant. 7. All sums are to be paid within 14 days from the date of this judgement. Judgement is entered accordingly. ____________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae