Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE Date: January 14, 2016 SUIT NO: NICN /EN/01/2014 Between 1. FRANK I. NWOSU 2. PETER NDUBUSI ONYEOKORO (FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTING THE SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES (SSANU) ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER) 3. SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES (SSANU) 4. JAMES AGBAI IGWE 5. CANICE ONUOHA (FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTING NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF CLAIMANTS/APPLICANTS EDUCATIONALANDASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS (NASU) ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER) 6. NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS (NASU). 7. NDIMELE OKORO 8. NWABINE CHIDOWE (FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTING NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ACADEMIC TECHNOLOGISTS (NAAT), ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHAPTER) 9. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ACADEMIC TECHNOLOGISTS (NAAT) AND ABIA STATE UNIVERSITY …… DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT Representation: Chief G. E. Akonani for the Claimants/Applicants Grant Osu for the Defendant/Respondent RULING This ruling is premised on a motion on Notice filed on the 6th November 2015, brought pursuant to Order 14 Rules 1, 2 (i) &(3) of the National Industrial Court Rules and inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, wherein the Claimants/Applicants sought for: 1. An order of mandatory injunction mandating the defendant whether by itself or through its relevant authority, it's council, it's vice chancellor, it's bursar, any board created by it or it's agency acting jointly and/or severally to pay the claimants/applicants and/or those of their members and/or those they represent on record their salaries from the month of January, 2015 upwards in terms of the university elongated salary structure otherwise now called consolidated university senior staff salary (CONUSSS)/consolidated university non-academic salary (CONUNASS) as it stood when this suit was filed and paid to the claimants/applicants as aforesaid up till December, 2014 pending the trial and determination of this suit. The motion was supported by an affidavit of sixty paragraphs, to which twenty exhibits were annexed, deposed to by the 1st claimant/applicant. In the accompanying written address, the claimants/applicants’ Counsel relied on all the paragraphs of the affidavit and exhibits and raised one issue for determination, thus: Whether it is just, convenient and proper to issue an order for mandatory injunction mandating the defendant and its relevant authority to pay the claimants/applicants and those they represent their salaries from January, 2015 according to the terms of their contracts of employment with the defendant pending the hearing and determination of this suit. In introducing his argument, counsel stated that the claimants/applicant and those they represent are employees of the defendant who were appointed with letters of appointment to various positions before being posted to various positions in the defendant's staff schools, and the said letters containing the terms and conditions of the employment . The claimants/ applicants are both senior and junior workers of the defendant who belong to the claimant unions which have specific agreements with the Federal Government of Nigeria regarding the terms and condition of their employment which were domesticated by the defendant making them parts of the conditions of service of the claimants/applicants who work with the defendant. It is Counsel’s submission that the defendant’s refusal to heed the order of court to maintain the status quo has foisted on the claimants a fait accompli; by stopping their salaries in March, 2015 when it paid other of its workers and removed the claimants names from its payroll whilst this suit and the parties were before the court. In this circumstance, counsel contended that a mandatory injunction is a proper order for the court to make in the instant application to reverse the unlawful action of the defendant through its Vice Chancellor and Bursar to remove the names of the claimants/ applicants from .he defendant's pay roll and refusing to pay them in March, 2015 when it paid its workers the salary for January, 2015.See the cases of: 1. C.B.N. vs. U.T.B. (NIG) LTD (1996) NWLR (Pt. 445) 694 2. A.G. ANAMBRA STATE vs. OKAFOR (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 224) 396 3. UNIPETROL (NIG.) PLC vs. ABUBAKAR (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 470 Counsel argued that the circumstances for granting mandatory injunction have been satisfied in the circumstances of this case as shown in the affidavit evidence, and in particular paragraph 59. These circumstances according to the applicant’s Counsel include: i. Where the injury done to the claimant(s) cannot be estimated and sufficiently compensated for by damages. ii. Where the injury to the claimants is so serious and material that the restoration of things to their former condition' is the only way justice can be adequately done. iii. Where the injury complained of is in breach of an express agreement. iv. Where the act done is simple and can easily remedied. v. Where the defendant attempts to foist upon the claimant(s) a fait accompli. Furthermore, the defendant’s act of removing the names of the claimants/ applicants from its pay roll in March, 2015 when it paid its other staff their salary for January, 2015 and other subsequent salaries till now has reduced the claimants/ applicants to penury, slave labour and whittled down their ability to continue to prosecute this case by even stopping this payment to the Unions of their check off funds due to them to frustrate this suit which they are now finding impossible to prosecute. In opposition, on 16th March 2015, the defendant filed a counter affidavit of thirteen paragraphs deposed to by Miss Chibuzo Ogbonna, a litigation Clerk in the defendant counsel’s Law Office. In the written address filed alongside, counsel proposed two issues for determination, to wit: a) Whether the facts in the affidavits for and against in this motion can be said to weigh in favour of granting the injunction sought in this application? b) Whether or not the granting of the injunction sought in this motion will not amount to delving and/or deciding the substantive suit? Counsel elected to argue both issues together. He submitted that the Claimants/Applicants have not deposed to any facts which can tilt the scale of justice in this case in their favour. This is owing to the fact that the issues in this application are the same for the substantive suit, which renders the issues unsafe to be determined at this stage. Also, the motion seeks to obtain one of the reliefs of the Claimants’ in the substantive suit by splitting the Claimants' main reliefs into sub- reliefs. It is counsel’s argument that a mandatory order such as is sought by the Claimants/Applicants will amount to the Court deciding the substantive suit. The Courts have been enjoined in a plethora of cases to be careful whilst determining an application for interlocutory injunction to ensure that it does not decide the substantive suit. See the cases of: i. WILLIAMS vs. DAWODU (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 88) 210 ii. KOTOYE vs. C.B.N (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 It is Counsel’s contention that the important factor to be decided in the instant application is whether the Council of the Defendant act of transferring the salary scale of the workers in the staff school to TSS was lawful? This issue cannot be determined at this stage. More so, the act of the Council of the University has been completed, an injunction cannot lie against a completed act. See: CBN vs. INDUSTRIAL BANK LIMITED (MERCANTILE BANKERS) (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.522) 712. It is the Defendant counsel’s submission, that this application discloses no cause of action to clothe this court with jurisdiction. In this instance, the only germane document that the Court will consider to do justice of the case is the letter of employment. Counsel contended that the Defendant was not a party to the 2009 agreement, signed by the members of the staff of the Staff Schools through the agency of the 3rdClaimant, through which they unilaterally abandoned the EUSS and USS salary scales under which they were employed and opted for CONUSS. Thus, these said members of staff have abandoned the salary scales under which they were employed. Counsel concluded by submitting that the Claimants have not made out a reasonable case to on that suggest that the balance of convenience is in their favour. He urged the Court to refuse this application. Court’s Decision To fully understand the substance of this application, a review of the facts of the application is imperative. In the affidavit in support of the motion, which was deposed to by the 1st claimant, it is averred that in January 2015, the defendant paid the claimants members in the defendant’s staff schools their salary for December 2014 but after this suit had commenced and after the defendant had been served the originating processes and the motion for interlocutory injunction, the defendant paid the salary for January 2015 to its staff but excluded the names of the members of the claimants. Also, in March 2015, the defendant removed the names of the claimants members from an authorization list sent to the manager, Union Bank Okigwe for the payment of staff salary. The claimants have not been paid their salaries from January 2015 till date because they brought this action against the defendant and the defendant has continued to refuse to pay the claimants salaries despite the interim order made by this court on 16/3/2015 which was served on the defendant. It is deposed that it is in the interest of justice to mandate the defendant to pay the Claimants their outstanding salaries as paid last in December 2014 either from the accounts of the ABSU staff schools or from any account of the defendant pending the hearing and determination of this suit. Before the deponent got to state the fact of none payment of salaries however, he did give a background of the employment contract of the staff of the defendant’s staff schools and the series of interactions and dispute between the parties regarding the employment status of the affected staffs which culminated in the present complaint of stoppage of payment of the salaries to staff of the staff schools. In paragraphs 10 to 44 of the supporting affidavit, it is averred that the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th claimants are members of the 3rd, 6th and 9th claimants and they are also staff of the defendant in various capacities. They filed this action on behalf of members of the 3rd, 6th and 9th claimants in the defendants’ staff schools. The communication authorizing them in that behalf was annexed as Exhibits ABSU 1, ABSU l(a), ABSU l(b), and ABSU l(c). It is deposed further that recruitment of Staff of the defendant has always been by advertisement of vacancies and such advertisements will also state the salary structure for the advertised position in the nature of the elongated University salary structure (USS) which has translated to CONUSSS/CONUNAS. After their employment, many of the claimants were seconded or posted as teachers to the defendant's staff schools. When the defendant placed adverts for Academic or Administrative positions, some of the teachers in the staff schools applied for such positions. After the exercise, some of the teachers in the staff schools were converted to either Academic or Senior Administrative positions in the defendant. In either place of service, the same CONUSS/CONUNASS salary structure is applied in the payment of salary of the claimants since the time it was domesticated and implemented in the defendant. During the administration of Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, a visitation panel was set up to audit the period from 1989 – 1999. In the course of its assignment, the academic staff under the umbrella of ASUU made a complaint to the panel that the non-teaching staff was over-established but because the claimants were not aware of the ASUU complaint, they did not react to it. The visitation panel however found from the background of the National Universities Commission's guideline on staff/ students ratio that the Senior Administrative Staff membership was over-staffed by 132, the Senior Technical Staff (Technologists) were 64%under staffed and that the Junior Staff was under-staffed by 800 personnel. The visitation panel then recommended the movement of staff from the areas of surplus to the areas of need and the placement of embargo on employment of Senior Administrative Staff and to allow deaths, retirements or removals to trim down the excess staff. The Abia State Government accepted these recommendations of the panel. Subsequently, the employments of some of the claimants’ members were terminated. In 2009, agitations for improved conditions for staff and funding for University education resulted in strikes. In the negotiations which followed the strikes, in which the CONUSS/CONUNASS salary structure was agreed, the Federal Government of Nigeria accepted responsibility for 100% expenditure on all staff primary schools, Federal Government/University joint responsibility for capital expenditure for staff Secondary Schools and Joint University/Parents Teachers Association responsibility for recurrent expenditures, which includes salary, for Staff Secondary Schools. The defendant accepted the said 2009 FGN/Staff Unions agreement and domesticated it since 1st January 2011. In 2011, during negotiations for payment of arrears of salary, the Secretary of the sub-committee set up by the defendant’s council suggested that the salary of the staff schools go to boards of the schools under the Teachers Salary Structure (TSS). The deponent, on behalf of the claimants, disagreed with the suggestion and also refused to endorse the recommendation. The deponent said he also wrote a letter on the subject to complain to the chairman of Council but the Governing Council of the defendant went ahead to accept the recommendation on 18th December, 2012 and communicated same to the heads of the staff schools through a letter dated 7th October, 2013 but to take retroactive effect from 1st January, 2013. The heads of the Staff Schools met with their subordinate staff and decided against such unlawful treatment and communicated this development to the Unions of the claimants who asked them to take the necessary action to correct this unlawful situation. EXHIBITS ABSU 1, ABSU l(a), ABSU l(b) and ABSU l(c) refers. Abia State University law conferred on the defendant the duty of provision for the general welfare of children of members of staff. It is in fulfillment of this duty that the defendant established the staff schools. The staff schools are not intended to be profit making agencies. The claimants were dissatisfied with the defendant’s bid to transfer the staff of the schools, who had a contract of employment with the defendant, to teachers salary structure (TSS) obtainable in public schools and subsequently wrote to the pro-chancellor rejecting the policy and also gave notice of intention to take legal action against the defendant. The defendant’s decision to transfer the salary scale of the claimants who work in the staff schools from the CONUSSS/CONUNAS salary structure to the TSS salary scale has the effect of giving a different status to the claimants different from those of their colleagues who serve the defendant in administrative, technical and junior staff capacities. Although the affected members of claimants have been paid their salaries for the months of November and December, 2014 in accordance with terms of their employment, the defendant has been threatening to implement the decision to change the terms of their employment from the CONUSS/CONUNASS to TSS. It was the decision and the threat to implement it that informed this suit. The defendant’s counter affidavit to the application was deposed to by Chibuzo Ogbonna, the litigation Clerk in the law office of the defendant's counsel. She averred that the teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the Defendant for the various staff schools are not the defendant’s mainstream staff and are also not members of the 3rd, 6th and 9th Claimants. The advertisements of vacancies through which the present staff in the staff schools were employed were specifically in respect of the staff schools. The salary scales previously applicable to the various teaching staff of the staff schools were either the Elongated University Salary Scale (EUSS) or the University Salary Scale (USS). These are no longer in use since the introduction of CONUSSS and CONUNAS in 2009. While relying on the front-loaded letters of employment of the teachers, the deponent stated that the said teachers of the staff schools are not employed with the CONUSSS or CONUNAS salary scale. These scales which came into existence in 2009 are strictly for the mainstream staff of the defendant. The various staffs of the Staff Schools are therefore not entitled to the new salary scales of CONUSSS and CONUNAS. The defendant does not second staff in the University to the staff schools but from time to time, it sends relevant staff to the staff schools either for auditing or administrative verifications of the goings on in the staff schools. The employments of all the staff of the University as well as the staff of the staff schools are subject to the powers of the Council and the law setting up and governing the Abia State University. The Governing Council of the Defendant is empowered under the Abia State University Law of Abia State, 2005, to take such decisions and formulate such policies that will be in the best interest of the Defendant with regard to income and expenditures. The financial burden of the Defendant has often led to industrial actions by the Claimants and other Unions against the university and to resolve such problems, the Defendant and the relevant Unions have from time to time engaged in several negotiations and one of the areas the parties have had to examine is the financial cost of running the staff schools. The staff schools have never generated enough money to pay the salaries of their staff and they have instead incurred losses and deficits. It is the Defendant that had to bear the burden of providing money to meet the deficits of the schools and may have to continue to bear the deficits. It was this situation that made the defendant’s council resolve, at its 115th regular meeting held on the 28th September, 2012 that the staff schools should be made to retool their revenue generating system in other to be financially self sufficient and that since the staff in the Staff Schools are not in the University mainstream, a specialized salary scale called Teachers' Salary Scale (TSS) be created for them. This decision of the Council was duly communicated to the Heads of the Staff Schools vide a letter dated 7/10/2013 but the heads of the various Staff Schools refused to implement it. As a consequence, the Council at its 70th Exra-Ordinary Meeting, held on 25/8/2014, resolved that with effect from 31st December, 2014, Council would no longer be responsible for the funding of the Defendant’s Staff Schools and the Vice Chancellor was mandated to set up a Management Team run the Staff Schools. This decision of Council was duly communicated to the various Heads of the Schools by the Vice chancellor of the Defendant. The Management Boards to run the Staff Schools was set up in September 2014. The decision of the Council to transfer the salary of the Teachers in all the Staff Schools from CONUSS and CONUNASS to TSS is lawful and valid and within the contemplation of the terms of employments or appointments of the said staff of the Staff schools. It is further deposed that after serving the court processes on the Defendant and putting the defendant on notice of the motion for injunction, on 20/2/2015 the Claimants served the Defendant three different notices of 7 days warning strike over the same issues as the ones before this Honorable Court in this case and the claimant actually proceeded on warning strike for 7 days. The deponent averred that by that act, the claimant’s are not entitled to the order sought as they have resorted to self help and did not approach the court with clean hands. Let me briefly state, from the record, the events leading to this instant application. The Complaint in this suit was filed on 6th January 2014 and the claimants subsequently filed a motion on notice and another one ex parte on 18th December 2014 for an interlocutory order restraining the defendant from interfering with the employment of the claimants and those they represent from CONUSS and CONUNASS to TSS. On 18th February 2015, the claimant’s counsel moved the motion ex parte. I didn’t grant that application but rather directed that the defendant be put on notice and the motion on notice was adjourned to 16th March 2015 for hearing. The record of this court shows that the defendant was served the complaint and the motion on notice on 23rd February 2015. On 16th March 2015, the claimant’s counsel informed this court that notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has been served the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction, it went ahead to stop payment of salary to the claimants from February 2015. Based on this report, I ordered the parties to maintain the status quo existing before this action was instituted pending when the motion on notice will be heard and determined. The said motion on notice is yet to be heard when the claimants filed this application on 6th November 2015 seeking a mandatory order compelling the defendant to pay the salaries of members of the claimants from January 2015 based on CONUSS/CONUNASS applicable at the time the suit was filed pending the determination of the suit. From all the foregoing, I have noted these very clear facts. This suit was instituted on behalf of staff of the defendant’s staff school. The defendant’s Governing Council had resolved at its 115th Meeting held on the 28th September, 2012 to transfer the salary scale of the staff of the staff school from the CONUSSS/CONUNAS salary structure to the TSS salary scale and this decision was communicated to the heads of the staff schools through a letter dated 7th October, 2013. Furthermore, at its 70th Extra-Ordinary Meeting, held on 25/8/2014, the council also resolved that with effect from 31st December 2014, Council would cease to be responsible for the funding of the Defendant's Staff Schools. This decision was also communicated to the various Heads of the staff schools by the Vice chancellor of the Defendant. In January 2015, the defendant paid the December 2014 salary of staffs of the defendant’s staff school and has since not paid the salary from January 2015 to this period. It is the failure of the defendant to pay the staffs their salaries from January 2015 that informed this instant application where the claimants seek a mandatory order of this court to compel the defendant to pay. Mandatory injunction is an order of court mandating a specified course of action or conduct. Courts have discretionary power to grant mandatory injunctions, but the discretion is usually exercised judicially and judiciously. Therefore, where a mandatory order is sought, the court must consider the following fundamental principles: 1. Whether in the circumstances as they exist after the breach, a mandatory order is necessary, and if so, what kind of mandatory order will produce a fair result; 2. The benefit which the order will confer on the plaintiff and the detriment it will cause the defendant; 3. A plaintiff should not be deprived of a relief which he is justly entitled merely because it will be disadvantageous to the defendant; 4. A plaintiff should not be permitted to insist on a form of relief which will confer no appreciable benefit on himself and will be materially detrimental to the defendant. See NKPORNWI vs. EJIRE (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 499) 450 at 475-476; EKANEM vs. UMANAH (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 367) 928 at 942. It is also a very well settled principle of law that courts should be wary of granting mandatory injunctions, especially where it is obvious that it would result in inflicting damage upon the defendant out of all proportion to the relief obtained by the plaintiff. In that respect, before the courts grant mandatory injunctions, they require a higher degree of assurance that at the trial, it would still appear that the order of mandatory injunction was rightly made. See KWANKWASO vs. GOVERNOR, KANO STATE (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 363) 179 at 197. The onus is on the applicant to show that his prayers come within the above settled principles guiding courts in applications for mandatory injunction. This includes showing that the act of the respondent complained of is pre-emptive of the substantive action thus making it imperative for an order of mandatory injunction to issue requiring the respondent to retrace his steps. The claimants seek in this application, an order mandating the defendant to pay their salary from January 2015 based on CONUSS/CONUNASS as it was before the institution of this suit. Although this suit was filed in January 2014, the defendant was not served the complaint until 23rd February 2015 after the Complaint was renewed by order of court made on 18th February 2015. From the facts, the defendant had already started implementing the resolution of its council from 1st January 2015 by stopping payment of the salaries of staffs of the staff school. The salary paid in January 2015 was the last salary under the CONUSS/CONUNASS to precede the implementation of the TSS. That is to say the defendant had already taken steps to implement its policy on the staff salary before both the Complaint and the motion of notice for injunction were served on it. This state of affairs already existed even as at the time this court made the order for status quo on 16th March 2015. I do not think the defendant stole a match on the claimants. However, I have looked at the reliefs sought by the claimants in the Complaint as well as the facts contained on the statement facts and I see that the facts of this application are the same set of facts as there is in the substantive suit. The claims of the claimants on the complaint challenges the right of the defendant to alter the contract of members of the claimants from CONUSS/CONUNASS to TSS and an order to the defendant to reverse the condition of service of the members of the claimants to CONUSS/CONUNASS. Now, in this application, the claimants sought that the defendant be mandated to pay the salaries of members of the claimants from January 2015 based on CONUSS/CONUNASS. I have also perused the facts of the defendant’s statement of defence and I also find that it is the same facts reproduced in the counter affidavit. What I observed from the foregoing exercise is that the order sought by the claimants in this application cannot be separated and determined independent of the substantive suit. While the claimants case in this application is that members of the claimants who work in the staff schools should be paid their salaries from January 2015 based on the CONUSSS/CONUNAS salary structure, the defendant contends that staffs of the Staff Schools are not entitled to the salary scales of CONUSSS and CONUNAS, the council of the defendant having transferred them to TSS effective 1st January 2015. Therefore, the dispute in this suit arose from the defendant’s transfer of the staffs of its staff schools from CONUSS/CONUNASS to TSS and the main questions that will arise in this suit will be what salary scale are the staffs of the defendant’s staff school entitled to be paid their salaries from January 2015? But the claimants’ instant application wants this court to order the defendants to pay the salary from January 2015 based on CONUSS/CONUNASS. If the issue whether the members of the claimants are entitled under CONUSS/CONUNASS or not has not been resolved, it will not be proper for this court to make any order in that regard. It is my very strong view that the order sought is in this application has the effect of touching substantially on main case such that I will have already interfered with the issues to be resolved in the substantive suit if I attempt to grant the application at this stage. I cannot therefore make the order at this stage as it will amount to delving into the substantive suit. In the determination of an interlocutory application pending the trial of a substantive suit, the court has a duty to take care not to make pronouncements which may prejudice the claims in the substantive suit. The law is trite that at the stage of interlocutory applications, the court should avoid the resolution of issues of fact which touch on the merit of the matter in controversy, otherwise, the court will be tempted to determine the case at that stage thereby leaving nothing for the just and proper determination of the suit after hearing. See EKANEM vs. UMANAH (supra) at 941; DUWIN PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL CO. LTD vs. BENEKS PHARMACEUTICAL AND COSMETICS LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1420 at 1437; AGBOGU vs. OKOYE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 414) 1494 at 1524. Having considered the affidavit evidence of the parties and all other surrounding circumstances of the matter, I do not think that granting the order sought by the claimants at this stage will produce a fair result. I will therefore refuse the application. But then, will the staff of the defendant’s staff school remain without salary till the conclusion of this case? I think that will not accord to good conscience. Although the salary scale with which the said staffs of the defendant’s staff school are to be paid their salaries can only be determined in the substantive suit, the defendant’s counsel has made this court to understand on 26th May 2015 that the staff of the defendant’s staff school were being paid by the Management Team but the staff are the ones that have been refusing to accept payment. Without prejudice to the outcome of the substantive suit, I will direct thus: The defendant or the said management team for the staff schools shall forthwith pay the salaries of the affected staff at the scale presently adopted by the defendant for the staff schools from January 2015 into the individual staff’s bank accounts until the determination of this suit. This court, bearing this order in mind, shall make any appropriate or incidental orders upon the determination of this case. I intend this order to supersede the order I made on 16th March 2015. I have noted the averments in the defendant’s affidavit and the documents annexed thereto to the effect that the claimants gave notice of warning strike and actually went on a 7-days warning strike in respect of the same subject matter they have submitted before this court. The parties are directed to sheath their swords and cooperate with this court to quickly bring this suit to conclusion. No order as to cost. Ruling is delivered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge