Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LALGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: January 27, 2016 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/56/2011 BETWEEN MR. FELIX OLUSEGUN OMOBOYE (SECRETARY OF JUDICIARY STAFF UNION OF CLAIMANT NIGERIA LAGOS STATE BRANCH) AND 1. JUDICIARY STAFF UNION OF NIGERIA 2. BADMUS MORENIKE BOSEDE 3. ABDUSALAM OLUWOLE ABDURAHMON 4. HEZEKIAH SOLA ADENIYI 5. ADEWUYI ABIODUN EMMANUEL DEFENDANTS 6. AYINDE SAMSIDEEN 7. DAWODU KUBURAT OMOWUNMI (MRS) 8. OLUDARE AYOYINKA KIKELOMO (MRS) 9. MR. ADEKANYE SAMSON OLUSEGUN REPRESENTATION Omoniyi Akinmola for claimant. No appearance for defendants. JUDGMENT The claimant filed this complaint against the defendants on the 17th June 2011 together with the prescribed accompanying processes. By an amended complaint and statement of facts dated 2nd August 2011, he is seeking the following reliefs against the defendants jointly and severally: (i) A declaration that both Mr. Abdusalam Oluwole Abdurahman and Mr. Samson Olusegun Adekanye have no power or authority to call the general meeting of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria Lagos State Branch not being the Secretary or even a member of the executive of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (hereinafter called JUSUN) as stipulated by their constitution. (ii) A declaration that the meeting via a Notice dated 29th March 2011 called by Mr. Abdusalam Oluwole Abdurahman and Mr. Samson Olusegun Adekanye on the 1st of April 2011 are illegal, null, void and of no effect having not been issued and called by the Secretary of JUSUN Lagos Branch as stated by constitution. (iii) A declaration that every business done or decision reached which include the appointment of Electoral Committees members and every other thing done or business on that day is equally illegal, null, void and of no effect having not complied with the provisions of the constitution of JUSUN. (iv) A declaration that the Election guidelines/conditions set out by the Electoral Committee is illegal and or that all the contents and guidelines/conditions set out by the Electoral Committee is illegal and or that all the contents and guidelines to the proposed election that are not contained in the constitution of the 1st defendant are illegal, null, void and of no effect. (v) A declaration that the election into the executives of the Lagos State Branch of the 1st defendant held by the 2nd to 8th defendants on the 30th of June 2011 which produced the 9th defendant as Chairman and 9 other persons as the executives of the Branch while this suit is pending in court is overreaching, unfair, lack of respect for the Honourable Court and the rule of law and therefore null, void and of no effect. (vi) An order of Court setting aside the notice of meeting dated 29th March 2011 prepared by Mr. Abdusalam Oluwole Abdurahman and Mr. Samson Olusegun Adekanye and the meeting held on 1st April 2011 pursuant to the said notice of meeting and all business done and decisions reach therein having not been called by the Secretary as being illegal, null, void and of no effect. (vii) An order of Court setting aside the said election referred to in relief 5 above as same is null, void and of no effect (viii) An order of Court dissolving the illegal electoral committee constituted pursuant to the meeting of 1st April 2011 to conduct election into the yet to be vacant executive committee of the Lagos State Branch of the 1st defendant. (ix) An order of Court that, the claimant is still the Secretary of the Union being the status quo before the illegal meeting called by Mr. Abdulrahman and Mr. Adekanye, which was held on the 1st of April 2011 and the subsequent election of 30th June 2011. (x) An order of Court restraining the 9th defendant and all other persons whether herein named or not but who are the products of the election of 30th June 2011 from parading themselves as members of executive of the Union Lagos State Branch and the officers involved include Chairman, Vice Chairman, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Public Relations Officer, Organizing Secretary, Welfare Officer, Financial Secretary, Internal Auditor, Ex-officio Member, Legal Adviser. (xi) An order of injunction restraining all the persons/officials referred to in paragraph 10 above from dealing with anybody or organization including Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Establishment and Training both of Lagos State as representatives of the Union and from handling or dealing with any property or money of the Union pending the conduct of a valid election or determination of this suit. (xii) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, servants or anybody claiming under their instruction from conducting any election into the executive committee of the Lagos State Branch of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria until proper steps are taken in the accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Union. The 1st defendant did not appear or file any process in defence. The 2nd to 9th defendants filed their statement of defence together with the prescribed accompanying processes on the 2nd October 2013. The claimant filed a reply on the 20th November 2013. The matter then went to trial. The claimant’s case on the pleadings is that he is the current Secretary of the 1st defendant’s Lagos State Branch and is suing in that capacity. The 2nd to 9th defendants are members of the 1st defendant’s Lagos State Branch, and members of the electoral committee illegally appointed to conduct elections into the yet to be vacant executive committee of the Lagos State Branch of the 1st defendant. The claimant pleaded that convening meetings of members of the Union for any purpose is guided by the union constitution. The claimant pleaded that he was surprised to come across a notice of General Meeting of JUSUN dated 29th March 2011 signed by S.O. Adekanye and O. Abdusalam as conveners. That immediately he saw it he made it known to the defendants that it was an illegal meeting which should not hold but the conveners refused to yield. He averred that in furtherance of this notice a purported meeting was held on the 1st April 2011. The claimant pleaded that he as the Secretary is the one empowered by virtue of Part (v) Rule 19(c) (vii) of the unions constitution, to convene, prepare and send out notice of meetings to members. He pleaded that pursuant to the notice issued by Mr. S. 0 Adekanye and Mr. O. Abdulrahman the meeting was held on the 1st of April 2011 are contrary to part (v) Rule 17 (iii) of the Unions Constitution. That as the Secretary and by the constitution, he is the person entitled to receive letters of intention to contest for election but none was submitted to him. The claimant averred that he is interested in contesting for the office of the Chairman of the Branch and he obtained a nomination form to contest the election. That he observed that some of the conditions and guidelines on the form are unconstitutional. The claimant pleaded that he is member of the union and he wrote a letter of objection to the electoral committee dated 7th June 2011 to correct the illegal guidelines and conditions but they did not rather they confirmed them with another letter of 9th June 2011. That he equally notified the 1st defendant by letter dated 10th June 2011 but there was no response. The claimant averred that by virtue of Part (IV) Rule 15(v) of the union constitution, when the committee of a branch/chapter of the Union is dissolved, a caretaker committee is to be set up to conduct an election and not an electoral committee. He pleaded that the defendants are bent on disobeying the unions constitution and as the Secretary of the branch he is to see that the constitution is complied with. That he shall be prejudiced and seriously injured, if these illegal steps are allowed and elections are contested. The claimant averred that the defendants have fixed election for 30th June 2011 and even though he was not pleased with the violation of the unions constitution he participated in the election but he was unjustly excluded and no reason was stated for his disqualification. The claimant admitted that his employment was terminated but that it is being contested at the Lagos State High Court. He stated that despite filing this suit challenging the locus of the defendants to conduct an election and same served on the defendants they still went on to conduct the election on the 30th of June 2011. The claimant pleaded that his exclusion from the election without any reason is unfair, unjust, and is an unconstitutional deprivation of his right to contest. The claimant testified in support of his case. His evidence in chief was by his witness statements on oath which he identified and adopted. The defendants did not appear in court to cross-examine the claimant. Consequently, the claimant’s case was closed. The 2nd to 9th defendants’ case on the pleadings is that they are members of Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), Lagos State Branch and that the claimant was a former staff of the Lagos State Judiciary whose employment was terminated with effect from May 9, 2006. The defendants averred that having ceased to be a staff of the Lagos State Judiciary on May 9, 2006, the claimant had no locus standi to maintain this action. They pleaded that a meeting of Stakeholders, Assistant Chief Registrars and Heads of Sections was called to address the issue of non-existence of Executive Committee Members to champion the fight for the welfare of staff in those capacities, and not in the capacity of the JUSUN. That a seven-member ad-hoc committee was put in place with the responsibility of liaising with the National Body of JUSUN for necessary advice on the best way to end the inactivity of the union and to invite the National Executive Body to formally ratify the dissolution of the then moribund Executive Committee and pave the way for the election of new officers that would run the affairs of the State branch for the next four years. The defendants averred that the ad-hoc committee sat and invited the National Body of the Union to address the house accordingly. That the 1st defendant, at the request of the 2nd to 9th defendants, visited the branch on May 19, 2011 and formally dissolved the Executive, appointed and inaugurated a seven-man Electoral Committee headed by the 3rd defendant, with the mandate to conduct a free and fair election for the management of the affairs of JUSUN for the next four years. The 2nd to 9th defendants pleaded that there has never been any point in time where the claimant was either elected or nominated and or appointed as the General Secretary of JUSUN, having regard to the fact that under the constitution of the union as amended, the General Secretary is appointed from the members of the Public and never a Judiciary Staff. That the National Officers presided over the election, and declared the winners in accordance with the unions constitution. They pleaded that the claimant was never the Secretary of the Union before June 30, 2011 or at any time. The defendants did not appear or call evidence in support of their pleadings despite the several hearing notices sent to them. Consequently their case was closed and the claimant ordered to file the final address. Learned counsel to the claimant submitted one issue for determination as follows: Whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs in this suit. He submitted that the 1st defendant who did not file any statement of defence nor participate in the proceedings is deemed to have admitted the claims of the claimant and has no objection to the reliefs being granted. He submitted that where a party files a statement of defence and does not lead evidence in support at the trial such pleadings will be struck out or deemed abandoned as pleadings do not constitute evidence citing Etim Jeremiah Akpan V The Registered Trustees Of Qua Iboe Church Of Nigeria & Ors [2001] 34 W.R.N 58 at 73. He urged the court to hold that the 2nd to 9th defendants having failed to lead oral evidence in support of the averments in their statement of defence they are deemed to have abandoned it. Counsel submitted that the law is settled that in pleadings and affidavit evidence, an averment which is left unchallenged is deemed admitted by the opposite party and that since the claimant’s case is undefended, he only needs a minimal proof citing N.E.P.A V R.O Alli [1992] 8 NWLR part 259 at 301, The Governor Of Kwara State & Ors V Mr Joseph Alabi Eyitayo & Ors In Re: Alahji Ibrahim Bolomope Aribara [1996] 5 N.W.L.R (Pt. 451) Page 692 At 703 Para B. He then urged the court to grant the reliefs of the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes, documentary evidence and written submissions. The 1st defendant did not appear or file any process in defence. The 2nd to 9th defendants entered appearance and filed a statement of defence but they adduced no evidence in support of their pleadings. The effect of a party’s failure to call evidence in defence of a claim against him is that he is presumed to have admitted the case made against him by the other party and a trial court has little or no choice than to accept the unchallenged and un-controverted case placed before it by the claimant. See Ifeta v Shell Petroleum Development Corporation of Nigeria Ltd [2006] Vol.6, MJSC 123, Consolidated Res Ltd v Abofar Ventures Nig. [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt 1030) 221, Okolie v Marinho [2006] 15 NWLR (Pt 1002) 316. This however does not mean automatic victory for the claimant because he must succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the fact that there is no defence before the court. The absence of evidence by the defendant does not exonerate the claimant of the 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. The claimant must adduce credible evidence worthy of belief. Evidence does not become credible merely because it is unchallenged. See Akalonu v Omokaro [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt 821) 190. Now, this is a trade union matter and the first question that arises is whether the claimant has adduced any evidence to show that he is a member of the 1st defendant, the Judiciary Staff Union Of Nigeria Lagos Branch. This is necessary in order to give him the locus standi which is the legal capacity to institute this complaint and proceedings in this court. In order to invoke the judicial powers of the court, the claimant must show sufficient interest or threat of injury he will suffer as a result of the actions of the defendant. See Josiah Kayode Owodunni v Registered Trustees of CCC &Ors [2000] 6 SC(Pt iii) 60, Thomas & Ors v Olufosoye [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 669, Prof T.M Yesufu v Governor Edo State & Visitor Edo State University [2001] 6 SC 56. The Constitution of the Judiciary Staff Union Of Nigeria (Exhibit C1) provides as follows: Rule 3: MEMBERSHIP (i) The Membership for the Union shall comprise all pensionable workers in the Federal and State Judiciaries throughout the Federation, but excluding Magistrates, Judges, Chief Registrars, Deputy Chief Registrars, Judges of the Area/Customary/Sharia Courts and Tribunals. The 2nd to 9th defendants averred in their statement of defence that the claimant was a former staff of the Lagos State Judiciary whose employment was terminated with effect from May 9, 2006. The claimant in Paragraph 1 of his reply to the statement of defence has admitted that his employment was terminated but that he was challenging the termination in the Lagos State High Court. The law is that facts admitted need not be proved. It is his employment in the Lagos State Judiciary that qualifies him to be a member of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria. I find that the effect of the claimant’s termination of appointment from the Lagos State Judiciary is that he ceased being a member of the Union from May 2006. The claimant therefore has no stake or interest in the affairs of the Union and cannot be properly so called a claimant but a mere busybody. His claims do not reveal a legal or justiceable right neither do they show sufficient or special interest that is adversely affected. I therefore hold that the claimant lacks standing to institute this action. This case is hereby dismissed. Judgement is entered accordingly. ____________________________ Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae