Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><b><u><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Representation</span></u></b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">E. C. Briggs with M. Harry for the Claimants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">G. A. T. Adetola-Kazeem SAN; with him, G. J. Okirigwe and Ahmed Adetola- Kazeem for the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT/RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="Style" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants/Applicants on 3<sup>rd</sup> of February, 2016 filed a motion on notice brought pursuant to Sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Sections 97 and 98 of the Sheriffs and Civil<i> </i>Process Act, Order 4 Rule 4(3), Order 6 Rule 1(2) and Order 11 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The applicants sought an Order striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The grounds for this application are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the Claimants commenced this suit vide a defective and incompetent Originating Complaint/Process which was not signed by the Claimants or their Legal Practitioner as required by law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the subject matter of the Claimants suit relates to the internal domestic affairs of the Medical & Health Workers<i> </i>Union of Nigeria, Rivers<i> </i>State Council which are<i> </i>not justiciable before this Honourable Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That the Claimants suit is premature and incompetent in that they did not resort to and exhaust the remedies in the domestic forum of the Medical & Health Workers Union or the Nigerian Labour Congress constitutions, with a view to resolving the dispute before resorting to litigation in this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimants lack the locus standi<i> </i>to commence this action, they not being financial members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union, and they not being adversely affected in any special way by the alleged conduct of the 1st to 4th Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;tab-stops:54.75pt 87.6pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">That this Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction and cannot exercise its jurisdiction to entertain this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The application was supported by a 16 Paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant. In the written address attached to the application, counsel identified three issues for determination, thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the Claimant's suit is not incompetent and liable to be struck out for non-compliance with relevant conditions precedent to the invocation and assumption of jurisdiction by the Court? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction and can exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the Claimants suit in all the circumstances of this case? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the Claimants have the requisite Locus standi to institute this action? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">In arguing his issue one, counsel stated </span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">that the law is now well settled and that a Court of law can only have and properly exercise its jurisdiction to hear and determine a case before it where the following conditions are satisfied, namely: where the proper parties are before the Court, where the Court is properly constituted as to members and qualification, Where the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction and there are no features in the case which prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction; and Where the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">See the following case of: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <b>C.B.N vs. S.A.P. NIG. (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 152 at 177. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587 <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> SALATI vs. SHEHU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 198 at 218. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-font-width:110%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">urged the Court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the present suit on the basis that this suit was commenced by a defective and incompetent Originating Complaint, was instituted without due compliance with the provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and as such, the proceedings and orders of this Honourable Court of 21<sup>st</sup> April 2015 and 23rdApril 2015 were made in excess of jurisdiction especially as the Defendants/Applicants were not served with the relevant court processes leading to the making of the said orders. Also, the subject matter of the Claimants suit is not justiciable in that it relates to the internal domestic<i> </i>affairs of the Medical & Health Workers’<i> </i>Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council (a voluntary association) and the Claimants have not fulfilled the conditions precedent to the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in that they failed to explore, resort to or exhaust the internal remedies provided for in the Union Constitution before resorting to litigation and as such, this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction and cannot exercise<i> </i>its<i> </i>jurisdiction to entertain this<i> </i>suit. On the validity and competence of the originating complaint, counsel submitted that in commencing the instant suit, the Claimants/Respondents and their Legal Practitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Order 4 Rules 4(3) and Order 6 Rule 1(1)&(2) of the National Industrial Court Rules. It is counsel’s further submission that the claimants failed to sign the Originating Complaint before it was issued by the Registrar of this Honourable Court. It is counsel’s opinion that although there is a scribble of some sort squeezed in just below the formal part of the Complaint where the name of the persons who are said to have taken out the Complaint is contained, <a name="_GoBack"></a>there is no indication as to whether the said scribble constitutes the signature of any person or as to the name, designation and identity of the person who purported to insert the said scribble as his signature on the Originating Complaint, whether such a person is a Legal Practitioner duly called to the Nigerian Bar. Counsel argued that such does not satisfy the legal requirement of signing the Originating Process. See the cases of <b>ONWARD ENTERPRISES Ltd vs. OLAM INT'L Ltd (2010)</b> <b>All FWLR (Pt. 53I) 1503 at 1513 and SLB CONSORTIUM LTD vs. NNPC (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 583) 1902 at 1916.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In the instant case, there is nothing on the face of the said Originating Complaint to suggest that it was signed by the Claimants who purport to have taken out the Complaint by themselves or their Legal Practitioner whose address for service is merely indicated as the address of the Claimants on the Complaint. There is also no name of the person who purported to have inserted the said scribble as to enable this court determine whether it was a Legal Practitioner called to the bar. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any proper endorsements by the Claimants in the Originating Complaint as to the person who inserted the scribble as stipulated in the above case by the Supreme Court, it is not open to this Honourable Court to speculate on the issue of the identity of the person who inserted the scribble or to assume that because the said scribble was squeezed into the Complaint and positioned just below the formal part of the Complaint where the name of the persons said to have taken out the Complaint was written, that the same constitutes the signature, name and designation of the person who inserted it as his signature. See <b>OVERSEAS CONSTRUCTION CO. NIG. LTD vs. CREEK ENTERPRISES (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.13) 407 at 414</b>. Similarly, counsel argued that it was held in <b>SUNDAY ADENEYE vs. BUKAR YARO (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt.1342) 625 at 634</b> that the presence of a signature<i> </i>on the Originating Summons without specifically including the name of the person signing the Originating Summons was enough to make the Originating Summons valid. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Counsel submitted<i> </i></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">that the “scribble” on the Originating Complaint in the present case amounts to improper signing which renders the same defective and incompetent. The signatures on the accompanying Statement of Claim filed along with the said Complaint are incapable of ameliorating or curing the fundamental incompetence or defect in the Originating process. See <b>HON. UCHE ILOBI vs. HON. ALPHONSUS UZOEGWU & ORS (2003) LPELR- CA/E/EPT/8/2003</b>. Counsel urged<i> </i>the Court to set aside the improperly signed Complaint in this case and strike out this suit as the jurisdiction of this Court<i> </i>is<i> </i>not invoked properly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that a careful reading of the Claimants Originating Complaint and Statement of Claim reveal that the Claimants are members of the Medical & Health Workers’ Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council, an affiliate of the Nigerian Labour Congress and that the principal grouse of the Claimants in this case is that their alleged right to free and full participation in the affairs of the Medical & Health Workers’ Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council (2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant) including the interest to contest election into Chairmanship of the Nigerian Labour Congress (3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant), which is being hampered by the actions and inaction of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants contrary to the Unions’ constitution. It is counsel’s submission that the purport of the instant suit is to beckon on the Court to interfere in the internal management of the voluntary association and second guess the decisions<i> </i>of its<i> </i>leadership for<i> </i>the benefit of the Claimants. Counsel further submitted<i> </i>that these matters raised by the Claimants' suit are not justiciable in a court of law because they relate to the internal domestic affairs or management of the Medical & Health Workers' Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council (2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant) and as such, these disputes can only be remedied as provided in the Union constitution itself, see the case of <b>ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 at 261.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s argument that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant is a voluntary association of individuals governed by the principles of majority rule such that in all matters or decisions of the Union, the doctrine of ultra vires does not apply. Therefore, any decision or action taken by the Union is only subject to majority decision which can ratify any action or decision, whether right or wrong, on the principles of majority rule while any wrong done to its members can only be remedied by resort to the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the party as enshrined in its constitution. This is owing to the fact that all the rights as provided for and enshrined in the Union constitution are not civil rights but mere domestic rights the breach of which can only be remedied as provided for in the Union constitution itself. See the case of <b>MBANEFO vs. MOLOKWU (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 431 at 454</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">See also <b>OZIGBO vs. PDP (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1200) 601 at 655, JANG vs. INEC (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 46 at 78</b> and Article 32 (1 )&(2) of the Nigerian Labour Congress Constitution attached to the Complaint and Statement of Claim which provides to the similar effect. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The provisions of the Union’s Constitution affords the Claimants the opportunity to seek redress by taking their grievances, subject matter of this' suit, to the appropriate authorities within the Union hierarchy for redress, as a condition precedent to resort to litigation. Counsel contended that since the Union Constitution is the charter binding the Union members including the Claimants, they are duty bound to observe its terms and conditions especially as they are before this Court seeking to enforce other rights accruing to them from the same constitution, particular in light of the principle of Equity that: He who comes to equity must first do equity and also come with dean hands. See <b>ADEKEYE vs. CHIEF O. B. AKIN OLUGBADE (1987) SC 240.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Again, counsel is of the opinion that there is nothing in the Originating Complaint and Statement of Claim before this Court to suggest that the Claimants complied fully with these provisions of the Union Constitution or have resorted to or exhausted the internal remedies for conflict resolution within the Union hierarchy before instituting this suit. This renders the resort to litigation in this case premature and incompetent because there cannot be selective enforcement of the provisions of the Union Constitution and this Honourable Court cannot hear the Claimants seeking to enforce rights acquired under the Constitution in breach of the terms of the same Constitution. See <b>AKlNTEMI vs. ONWUMECHILI (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 68 at 85</b> and <b>OWOSENI vs. JOSHUA FALOYE (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719 at 757</b>. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the lst - 4th Defendants/Applicants and that this suit be struck out for being premature and incompetent. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue three, counsel referred to the case of <b>BABATUNDE & Ors vs. NITEL & Ors (2004) 49 NLLR (Pt. 162) 410 at 444</b> and submitted that to prosecute an appeal or a case, a party has to show that he has special interest, that is not vague or intangible speculative or that it is not an interest which he shares with other members of society. Above all, he has to show that such interest has been adversely affected by the act or omission which he seeks to challenge. See also <b>INAKOJU v. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427 at 601-602(H-A)</b>. Also, counsel submitted that the courts have in a number of authorities held that membership of a trade union is determined essentially by the payment of check-off dues. Thus, anyone who does not pay his/her check-off dues or whose check-off dues are not remitted to a Union, cannot claim any rights or privileges in the trade union. See <b>OKEIYI & ORS vs. PRUDENTIAL GUARDS LTD (2014) 41 NLLR (Pt.127) 357; EGHAREVBA & Ors vs. SSAUTHRIAI & Ors. (2014) 42 NLLR (Pt. 129) 137 at 161-162 (F-A).</b> Counsel argued that although the Claimants listed copies of some pay-slips of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Claimants as part of documents to be relied upon showing some check-off dues were deducted from the salaries of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Claimants by their respective employers, there is no evidence that the check- off dues so deducted were remitted<i> </i>to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union<i>. </i>Indeed, it is<i> </i>evident from Exhibits BLA, BLB AND BLC that the Claimants are aware that their check-off dues were not being remitted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union but to a rival Union, the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees – NULGE. Therefore, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Claimants are not bona fide financial members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union. In the same vein, the 5<sup>th</sup> to 6<sup>th</sup> Claimants are not bona fide branches of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union, since they are composed of workers whose check-off dues are not remitted to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union. In the circumstances, they lack the locus to institute this action. See <b>EGHAREVBA & Ors vs. SSAUTHRIAI & Ors. (supra)</b> and paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, counsel contended that every union affiliated to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant (NLC) (whether at national or state level) pays to the central labour organization a percentage of the check-off dues it collects from its members, and that the level of participation at the NLC delegates conference and election by any affiliates union depends upon qualification of being appointed. To be appointed a delegate to the NLC conference, one must be a financial member whose check-off dues contribution is part of what is remitted to the NLC by the union. Counsel further contended that for a member of a union or a branch of a Union to have a say in how the Union is run and to be qualified to be a delegate or to appoint delegates and to vote or be voted for at its election, he must be a financial member, which is determined by the payment of his check-off dues to the union, usually by his employer. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s submission that in this case, the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Claimants not being financial members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant lack the locus to question the appointment of delegates by the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant Union to the conference of the 3 Defendant Congress or the nomination of contestants to, any office either in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant Union or 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant Congress. It cannot therefore be said that their interest is being curtailed or is in danger of being curtailed by the alleged actions or decision of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants with regard to the appointment of delegates or nomination to contest for positions in the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant NLC Rivers State Council conference and elections. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s further submission that the Claimants have failed woefully in the reliefs sought by them to state how the nomination of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant to contest for the post of Chairman of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant Congress has adversely affected their civil rights and obligation or that such rights are in danger of being violated or adversely affected. There are clear authorities for the proposition that only a person who is in imminent danger of coming into conflict with a law or whose normal business or other activities have been directly interfered with by or under that law, has sufficient interest to sustain a claim that the law is unconstitutional or unlawful. See <b>OLAWOYIN vs. A.G. NORTHERN NIGERIA (1961) 2 NSCC 1651 and<i> </i>KEYAMO vs. LAGOS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 680) 196.</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In view of the foregoing, counsel urged the Court to grant this application and strike out the Claimants suit for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition, the claimants/respondents on 24/3/2016 filed a counter affidavit of 23 paragraphs deposed to state by the 4<sup>th</sup> claimant/respondent. In the accompanying address, counsel identified one issue for determination as follows: Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this action given the facts of this case and of the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing his issue, Counsel joined issues with the legal points raised by the Applicants in their address. Thus, counsel contended that the Applicants’ argument that the complaint in this suit is incompetent is made in bad faith. It is counsel’s opinion that the Rules of Court cited by the applicants entitles a claimant or his legal practitioner to sign a complaint. Counsel argued that the originating processes in this suit were prepared by D.M.A. Dayi the Claimants’ Counsel. The complaint shows the name, capacity, designation, chambers and addresses of Counsel. Also, the signature of Counsel on the complaint is the same on other relevant processes in this suit. The Court was urged to compare the signatures on the complaint and other processes filed in this court. It is Counsel’s further argument that Order 3(1) of the Rules of Court does not subscribe a particular mode a Counsel’s signature may be signed. Counsel submitted that the Applicants’ objection is misplaced and the cases cited in their address are distinguishable from the present case. Counsel submitted that the cases of <b>ONWARD ENTERPRISES</b> and <b>SLB CONSORTIUM</b> cited by Applicants’ Counsel are inappropriate as they are cases of an unidentified person. While ILOBI’s case bordered on the issue of the absence of signature on the writ. Counsel argued that the Applicants are aware of the signature of counsel on the complaint which they referred to as a “scribble of sort”, appears with the name, designation, capacity, office address of Claimants’ counsel. Counsel urged the court to discountenance this objection.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, counsel submitted that the Applicants are entitled to raise an objection to the claimants’ locus standi to bring this suit, provided that recourse is made only to the complaint and statement of facts and no other processes. See <b>OLORUNTOBA-OJU AND ORS vs. P.A. DOPAMU & ORS (2003) FWLR (Pt. 158) 268 at 283</b>. Counsel also referred the court to the case of <b>KAISERVE & 3 ORS vs. WABBA AYUBA & 4 ORS</b> in Suit NO: NICN/ABJ/15/2015. According to counsel, the Applicants’ contention that the claimants have no rights or interests in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s affairs because they are not members of the union is not premised on the originating processes filed by the claimant. Counsel further argued that the applicant’s affidavit in support of this application does not disclose any facts that disqualify the claimants as members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant. Rather, they support the case of the claimants that they are members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant as averred in paragraphs 1, 3, 7, 8 and 15 of the statements of facts. Counsel submitted that by the rules of pleadings, the claimants are required to plead facts not evidence which will be tendered during trial. Although, the claimants frontloaded some of their pay slips and other documents germane to support their membership status. Counsel urged the court to take notice of documents in its file particularly the documents attached to the statement of claim and make use of same as enunciated by <b>NWANOSIKE vs. UDOSEN (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 687 at 693.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">The averments pertaining to the claimants’ membership of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant were not denied by the defendants. Counsel contended that where facts as in the present case are pleaded by one party and the other chooses to take a preliminary objection and failed to traverse same as touching jurisdiction, the implication is that those set of facts remain uncontroverted and admitted. It is Counsel’s further contention that there are sufficient facts for the Court to hold that claimants are members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant union. In counsel’s opinion, it is admitted that the claimants are financial members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant because they regularly pay their check off dues when same is deducted from their monthly salaries at source by their employees and received by the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant. Thus, the claimants became representatives, chairmen and co-opted members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant’s executive council because they regularly paid their check-off dues to the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant. See the Reply Letter of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant dated 28<sup>th</sup> January 2015 attached as an exhibit to the Counter-affidavit. See also the judgment of this court attached to the statement of claim to the effect that the claimants are members of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Again, counsel argued that the claimants disclosed their rights and interests in the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant in the paragraphs 16, 18, 28 and 30 of their statement of facts. Counsel referred to Rules 3(a), (h), 41(a), (b), and (c) of Part 1, Rule 5(h) Part 2 of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant’s Constitution and Article 6 of the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant’s Constitution and asserted that the claimants are entitled to institute this suit to challenge the constitutionality of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant’s prolonged tenure as chairman of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant or his right to contest the said election. Counsel also argued that the legal personality of the defendants is pleaded in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the statement of facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">At this point, counsel addressed an issue raised by the Applicants whether in the event that the complaint is incompetent, the court can make the orders of 21<sup>st</sup> and 23<sup>rd</sup> April 2015. He argued that what is material is the service of the said court orders which the Applicants falsely contend that they were not served. Counsel relied on the bailiff’s affidavit in the court’s file and Order 7(1) of the Rules of Court and submitted that the officers of the 1<sup>st</sup> - 4<sup>th</sup> Applicants flogged and detained the bailiff until he was rescued by the police. Counsel referred the court to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit in support of this application deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> applicant to the effect that she became aware of the orders of the court but failed to attend court to show cause. Furthermore, the Applicants raised the issue of justiciability of the suit in that suit that it is a domestic matter of a union which laid down internal conflict resolution process and failing which the court’s jurisdiction is ousted. However, Counsel argued that the said Constitution did not oust the court’s jurisdiction but merely provided for a conflict resolution process and prescribed sanction for any failure to adhere to such process. See Rule 5(h) Part 2 of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant’s Constitution. From the foregoing, Counsel contended that any member of the union may approach the Court in respect of any breach of the provisions of the constitution, just as the instant suit which borders on claims including the breach of the Constitution regarding the tenure of office of the chairman.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">It is the further submission of counsel that Rule 28 relied on by the Applicants relates to conflicts between members or between members and the union; while the present suit’s subject matter extends to the 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> defendants which makes this suit an inter union dispute. This situation indicates that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain it. See <b>IME EKONG & ANOR vs. GODFREY OSIDE & ORS (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 216)562 at 566</b>. Counsel submitted that the internal conflict resolution process does not apply when parties who are not members are involved. Any failure to adhere will not affect the court’s jurisdiction. It is Counsel’s opinion that in cases where resort to arbitration is agreed on by the parties, failure to resort will not make the suit invalid. Rather, a stay of proceedings is granted to allow parties explore such conflict resolution process. The court was urged by Counsel to disregard the authorities cited by the applicant as inapplicable and refuse this application. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold the application is without merit and dismiss same accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">COURT’S DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The facts for and against the application, as deposed in the affidavit and counter affidavit of the parties, are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In the affidavit in support deposed by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, it is averred that the Originating Complaint </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">was not served on the 1st to 4th Defendants but the claimants obtained an ex-parte orders </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">on 21<sup>st </sup>April 2015 and 23<sup>rd </sup>April 2015 against the defendants to maintain status quo and to show cause. Upon becoming aware of the said orders on the 24<sup>th</sup> day of April 2015, the deponent consulted a legal firm who obtained a CTC of the Originating Complaint and other processes. It was discovered that the Originating Complaint was not signed by the Claimants or any Legal Practitioner acting for the Claimants. The Claimants, who purport to have taken out the Originating Complaint by themselves and their Legal Practitioner, D. M. A. Dayi Esq., did not sign<i> </i>the Originating Complaint <i>as </i>required by law. It is not indicated in the scribble below the formal part of the Originating Complaint whether the said scribble constitutes the signature of any person or as to the name, designation and identity of the person who purported to insert the said scribble as his signature on the Originating Complaint. Furthermore, the Complaint does not bear the mandatory endorsements as required by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act nor was leave of Court sought and obtained to issue and serve the Originating Complaint on the Defendants outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The deponent also averred that the Claimants complaint in this suit is the Claimants displeasure with the management and running of the affairs of the Medical & Health Workers' Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant and their right to free and full participation in the affairs of the Medical & Health Workers Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council including the interest to contest election into Chairmanship of the 3<sup>rd</sup> defendant. The Constitution of the Medical &Health Workers' Union of Nigeria, binds all the members of the union including the Claimants and it contains specific procedures </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">for internal dispute resolution</span><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">mechanism. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The Claimants have failed to explore the internal dispute resolution mechanisms before taking out the instant suit. The internal domestic affairs of the Medical & Health Workers Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council are not justiciable before this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:335.25pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The counter affidavit of the claimants was deposed by the 4<sup>th</sup> claimant. He averred that the order of court dated 21<sup>st</sup> April, 2015, the originating complaint and other processes of court were served on the 1<sup>st </sup>to 4<sup>th</sup> defendants and the bailiff of this court deposed to an affidavit of service to that effect. It is deposed that when the bailiff went to serve the defendants at the address indicated for service, he was assaulted by the chief security officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd </sup>defendants until the Police was invited to rescue the bailiff. The 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Applicants were duly served with the court order and other processes by the bailiff in the defendants’ premises</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">. The 4<sup>th</sup> claimant further stated that the Complaint was prepared and filed by the claimant’s counsel, D.M.A Dayi Esq. The said counsel for the claimants signed both the complaint and other processes filed in the suit. The signature on the complaint is same with the signature on the other processes and they are that of the claimant’s counsel whose name, designation and address also appear on the said processes. The 4<sup>th</sup> claimant averred also that the claimants have right or standing to sue or institute this action because they are members of the 2<sup>nd </sup>& 3<sup>rd</sup> defendants and have sufficient interest in the unions. Furthermore, it is averred that the conflict resolution process of the 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant's constitution does not oust the jurisdiction of this court to hear this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> defendants are by this application seeking the striking out of this suit. Their reason is that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. From the grounds of the application and the affidavit in support, the following have been identified as the issues raised in the application:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1. The Complaint </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">was not served on the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Originating Complaint was not signed by the Claimants or any Legal Practitioner acting for the Claimants.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> The Complaint does not bear the mandatory endorsements as required by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act nor was leave of Court sought and obtained to issue and serve the Originating Complaint on the Defendants outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> The Claimants have failed to explore the internal dispute resolution mechanisms before taking out the instant suit. The internal domestic affairs of the Medical & Health Workers Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council are not justiciable before this Court.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I will determine the application by examining these grounds of the Preliminary Objection one after the other. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">GROUND I:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The applicants contend that </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">the Complaint </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">was not served on the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In opposition to this contention, Claimants have averred in their counter affidavit </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">that the order of court dated 21<sup>st</sup> April, 2015, the originating complaint and other processes of court were served on the 1<sup>st </sup>to 4<sup>th</sup> defendants and the bailiff of this court deposed to an affidavit of service to that effect. I have observed these assertions to be true. I have also observed that the 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> Defendants entered appearance on the 28<sup>th</sup> day of April 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the opinion of </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">BELGORE JSC in </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">TOTAL INT. LTD. vs. AWOGBORO (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt. 337) 147</span></b></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> the desired purpose of drawing the attention or attracting the knowledge of the defendants to the existence of the suit having been achieved, and they having </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">entered appearance and taken further steps in the proceedings by filing processes and indeed reacting to the processes filed by the Claimants, and </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">having taken positive steps towards defending the action, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">or better still, having joined issues, whatever perceived irregularity may have been occasioned by non service or improper service can be seen to have been waived. T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">his is a court of law and equity which tends more towards substantial justice than technical rules. This ground of objection is overruled.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND 2<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 1<sup>st</sup> to 4<sup>th</sup> defendants contend that the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Originating Complaint was not signed by the Claimants or any Legal Practitioner acting for the Claimants. According to the Applicants, neither the Claimants, who purported to have taken out the Originating Complaint by themselves nor their Legal Practitioner, D. M. A. Dayi Esq., signed<i> </i>the Originating Complaint <i>as </i>required by law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This ground of objection can be resolved by determining whether or not the complaint </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">is in compliance with the Rules of this Court. In determining this, various provisions of the NIC Rules 2007 will need to be called to aid. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Order 3 Rule 1 of the NIC Rules 2007 provides that: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">"Any action for determination by the court shall be commenced by way of complaint which shall be filed and sealed. The Complaints shall be in form I with such modifications or variations as circumstances may require" <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Order 4 Rule 4(3) of the NIC Rules provides that <i>“an originating process shall be signed by the Claimant or his or her legal practitioner where the claimant sues through a legal practitioner.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Order 1 Rule 3 (2) of the NIC Rules defines an Originating process to <i>mean “a complaint or any other court process by which a suit is initiated.”</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Order 3 Rule 4 indicates that <i>“the complaint shall be accompanied by a statement of facts establishing the cause of action, copies of every document to be relied upon at the trial, and the list of witnesses to be called.”</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The cumulative effect of all the provisions cited above is that the originating process is made up of all the processes stated in Order 3 Rule 4. The complaint is not a document that can exist in isolation. Since the Form 1 does not contain any space for signature of the claimant or his solicitor, once the statement of facts, the list of documents and the list of witnesses to be called at the trial are appropriately signed by the solicitor, then Order 4 Rule 3 of the Rules has been complied with. This was the decision of the National Industrial Court in <b>UZOIGWE M. C. & OTHERS vs. AGBOEZE & OTHERS (2011) 22 NLLR (Pt. 63) 443 @ 445.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The applicants contend that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">it was not indicated in the scribble below the formal part of the Originating Complaint whether the said scribble constitutes the signature of any person or as to the name, designation and identity of the person who purported to insert the said scribble as his signature on the Originating Complaint. This gives an indication that there was a semblance of a signature, or what the applicants may refer to as scribble. Even though it is not clear whose signature is on the Complaint, the claimants have stated in their counter affidavit that the signature on the complaint is that of their counsel who also signed the other </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">processes. I have also observed that the<span style="color:red"> </span>signature on the complaint is consistent with the signature of the claimants counsel in the statement of facts and other processes signed by <b><i>D.M.A. Dayi Esq</i></b>. That is to say the complaint was signed by <b><i>D.M.A. Dayi Esq.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Assuming without holding that the Complaint was not signed, a</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> cursory look at the Complaint reveals that it has been issued in compliance with Form 1 being the general form of complaint as provided for in the Rules of Court. The said Form 1 makes no provision for the signature of the Claimant or his legal practitioner but that of the Registrar of the Court. Counsel to the Claimant </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">D. M. A. Dayi Esq</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">. has signed the Statement of Facts, the list of witnesses and the list of documents to be relied upon at the hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I find that the originating processes have been filed in compliance with Order 4 Rule 3 of the NIC Rules. The second ground of objection fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND 3<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The applicants contend that the Complaint does not bear the mandatory endorsements as required by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act nor was leave of Court sought and obtained to issue and serve the Originating Complaint on the Defendants outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This issue raised by the Defendants with respect to the applicability of the provision of Section 97 of Sheriff and Civil Processes Act to the originating process issued from this court and the need to seek and obtain leave to issue and serve the originating processes from the State of issue into another State has received judicial pronouncements in several rulings and judgments of this court.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In a judgment of the NIC in Suit <b>NICN/CA/75/2012: BRIGHT CHINEDU WODI vs. DIFFERENTIAL ALUMINIUM AND STEEL COMPANY LTD & ANOR,</b> delivered on the 21<sup>st</sup> day of January 2014, His Lordship, B. B. Kanyip, held that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">service of the processes of this court on any Defendant in other States is not service out of jurisdiction as to require the endorsement in Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil processes Act or the need to seek leave to issue and serve the Complaint in another State. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I have similarly expressed the same view in my ruling delivered on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">28<sup>th</sup> April 2014 in</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> suit No. </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">NICN/OW/38/2013 between UGOALA CHIDINMA JOY (MRS.) vs. ABIA STATE UNIVERSAL BASIC EDUCATION BOARD & 4 others</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> where </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I observed that:</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“I agree with the submission of the claimant to the effect that Sections 97 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act do not apply to processes emanating from this Court. The emphasis on service out of the State in which it was issued cannot be applicable to this Court especially if Section 12(2) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, which permits the Court not to be formal, is taken note of. Therefore, </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">objections based on failure of a Claimant to seek leave to issue an originating process or make the endorsement required by S.97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act on the complaint are bound to be dismissed as it was done in OLAMIJU v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE COMMISSION, EKITI STATE (Unreported) NIC/LA/157/2011…<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">By Section 21(1) of the National Industrial Court Act, “The court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose, the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the president of the court into such number of judicial divisions as the President may from time to time, by instrument published in the Federal Gazette decide”. Given the National geographic jurisdiction of the court, the National Industrial Court generally holds that it is not contemplated under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act 2004 for the purposes of the requirements of especially Section 97 thereof. Besides, it is specifically noted that this division of the court was established to entertain cases emanating from Imo State, Abia State and indeed Rivers State. The thought of issuing processes for service out of jurisdiction in strict compliance with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act would be misplaced.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">This position was also taken in </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Suit No: <b>NICN/EN/14/2012: IFINEDO NORRIS EBIBUM vs. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC. (NOW MAINSTREET BANK LTD)</b> delivered on the 24<sup>th</sup> day of August, 2012 and in suit No: <b>NIC/LA/46/2009. DR. AINA SIMEON ADEODUN & 3 ORS. vs. GOVERNING COUNCIL, OYO STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION</b> delivered on 8<sup>th</sup> February, 2011. Therefore, in view of the position of this court on the application of Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act to the originating process issued from this court and the nationwide jurisdiction conferred on this court in Section 21 of the NIC Act, I find that this ground of the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> has no merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">GROUND 4<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The applicants contend that the Claimants have failed to explore the internal dispute resolution mechanisms before taking out the instant suit. The internal domestic affairs of the Medical & Health Workers Union of Nigeria, Rivers State Council are not justiciable before this Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">An attempt to delve into this ground of objection makes it imperative to delve into the substantive suit. This is premature at this stage of the proceedings. I will therefore not delve into the internal mechanisms as doing so would appear to go into the substance of the suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the result, I overrule the first 3 grounds of the Defendants’ </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> to the competence of this suit and they are accordingly dismissed. I find that the 4<sup>th</sup> ground of their objection is premature at this stage. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Judge</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p>