Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Enechi Onyia SAN appeared with C. I. Enechi Onyia Esq and E.C. Onuoha Esq. for the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">D.O. Eze Esq. appeared for the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 16<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2014 the claimants approached this Honourable Court through a Complaint and a Statement of Claim seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> – 6<sup>th</sup> Claimants have not been lawfully removed from office as officers of Nigerian Union of Pensioners, (Nigerian Coal Corporation Branch) since there was no valid election on 8<sup>th</sup> day of April 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Declaration that the purported election held on 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 is unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid and of no effect whatsoever.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of injunction restraining the defendants from parading themselves or acting as the lawful elected officers of Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Coal corporation Branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l14 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Any other order or orders as the Honourable court may deem just to make in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Accompanying the said Complaint are the Statement of Claim, Statement of Facts, Statement on oath of witnesses, list of documents to be relied upon at the trialand copies of those documents to be relied upon at the trial. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On their own part, the Defendants filed their statement of Defence and counter-claimed against the claimants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To give account of all monies which had come into the coffers of the branch from 2008 to 31<sup>st</sup> March, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To hand over to the 1<sup>st</sup> – 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants all the properties, finances, documents, offices or other belongings of the branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A perpetual order of injunction restraining the claimants from parading themselves as officers of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Coal Corporation Branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case proceeded to trial. The Claimants called CW1 and CW2 as witnesses who were duly cross examined. The Constitution of the Union was tendered by the Claimants and admitted as Exhibit C1. The defendants called DW1 and DW2 as witnesses who testified for them and tendered documents which were admitted by the court as exhibits D1 and D2. At the close of the case for both parties, the Court ordered for final written addresses which were duly adopted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In his final written address the learned counsel for the Defendants formulated and argued the following issues for the court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this suit as presently constituted is proper before this court?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit, the claimants not having fulfilled the conditions precedent to bringing this suit in court?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid and of no effect?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the respondents have proved their counter claim so as to warrant the reliefs contained therein?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing the first issue, which is<i>whether this suit as presently constituted is proper before this court, </i>learned defendants’ counsel stated that the answer to the question is in the negative. The matter(s) in this suit is about election of officers of Nigerian Union of Pensioners (Coal Corporation Branch) in which the claimants contested for distinct and separate offices. Each claimant contested, nay came out to contest for one office or the other. For instance the 1<sup>st</sup> claimant contested for the office of the Branch Chairman, the 2<sup>nd</sup> claimant for the Vice Chairman, the 3<sup>rd</sup> for the Secretary and so on. That the scenario above highlighted shows that each claimant has a distinct interest to protect as against a class action where all the claimants (plaintiffs) have one and the same interest to protect.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That although the claimants in this suit may belong to one group (party) each claimant has a distinct or separate interest to protect. For it is absurd and procedurally wrong for all those who failed the election to form a class and purport to represent a group in filing this action. That this absurdity could be likened to a situation where all the people in the All Progressive Congress (APC) or Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who failed in the 2015 general election form themselves as a group and filed a class action against the winner. Such action is bound to fail. The above scenario is exactly the case in the instant case and this court cannot and ought not to entertain this suit as presently constituted, learned counsel contended.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that the question may be asked as to who are the parties in an election petition? It is trite that any person who has a right to be elected or returned at an election has <i>locus standi</i> to challenge the result of the election, relying on the case of <b>Adegbite vs. Raji (1992)4 NWLR (pt. 236)478.</b> To the learned counsel, necessary parties to an election petition are the petitioner who may be a candidate to the election or a political party which participated at the election, and the statutory Respondents,referring to the case of<b>Buhari Vs. Yusuf (2003)14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446; Ngige Vs. Obi (2006) ALL FWLR (pt. 330)1041.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is further the Defendants’ contention is that every candidate who feels aggrieved by the outcome of the election in which he purportedly contested ought to bring a separate action and prove to the satisfaction of the court why the conduct of the election into the office which he contested should be nullified. That having not done that, this court has been robbed of its jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter for there is a feature in this case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction. He referred to the case of<b>Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the second issue, w<i>hether this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on this suit, the claimants not having fulfilled the conditions precedent to bringing a suit in court, </i>learned counsel submitted that the answer is also in the negative.He stated that it is settled that a court is competent to adjudicate on any matter before it when:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(i)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(ii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The subject of the case is within its jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">(iv)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He referred to the case of<b>Madukoluvs Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel submitted further that this suit was not initiated by due process of law as there are certain conditions precedent which were not fulfilled before initiating the suit. That the Constitution of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners to which the claimants (as former Executive Members of the Coal Corporation Branch of the union) swore to and subscribed to pay allegiance to provisions in its Rules 25 as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Rules 25: <u>Procedure of legal Action/Internal mechanism for Resolution of disputes, </u>Institution of legal action against the union either at the local state/sectoral or national level must follow the laid down rules:</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:2.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align: justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">An aggrieved member of the Union must exhaust the following procedures for redress before resorting to litigation against the Union…</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to learned counsel this Rule provides for (5) steps which an aggrieved member of the Union must take before resorting to court. In the instant case the question is whether the claimants actually exhausted the steps before resorting to this court. The simple answer to that question according to counsel is emphatically “No”. He recalled thatSuit No. <b>NICN/EN/112/2013 – Emmanuel Chima & 5 Ors Vs Gregory Eze & 8 Ors </b>died a still birth via a preliminary objection on the ground that the conditions precedent enumerated in Rule 25 of the constitution were not fulfilled before resorting to this court.Rather than fulfilling those conditions, the claimants did some surgical operations in the nomenclature of the parties. For they just named the 6<sup>th</sup> Defendant as J.C. Nebo Returning Officer without mentioning that he is the Secretary Nigerian Union of Pensioners Enugu State Council. But that that is being clever by half. As the Secretary of the state council, any suit against him is against the Union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thus in paragraph 2 of the Defendant’s statement of Defence/counter claim, it is pleaded that the 6<sup>th</sup> defendant is the secretary of the Enugu State Council of Nigeria Union of Pensionersand reference is also made to paragraph 2 of the statement on oath of Mr. J. C. Neboh.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That again, by virtue of Exh. D2 (A Letter of 17<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 introducing the newly elected officers) any suit against the 1<sup>st</sup> – 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants is a suit against the Union at branch level in which the conditions enumerated in Rule 25 of the constitution must be fulfilled.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">What is more, this court is a special court specifically for intra and inter Union matters. Therefore, there cannot be inter personal suit in this court but matters involving labour and trade Union. It follows therefore that the mischief which Rule 25 of the constitution intends to cure is to decongest this court and make way for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) via internal (dispute resolution) mechanism.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This provision could also be likened to an arbitration clause in a contract agreement whereby the parties agree in the event of any dispute to first of all resort to arbitration before going to court. If in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, none of them is entitled to resort to court without first of all exhausting the arbitration mechanism otherwise such suit would be incompetent before the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That having sworn to and subscribed to the Constitution of Nigerian Union of Pensioners, this suit is therefore incompetent before this court for not having fulfilled the conditions precedent to bringing this suit and counsel so urged the court to dismiss this suit with punitive cost. He referred to the cases of<b>Mbanefo Vs Molokwu & Ors (2008) LPELR-3696 p.29-30, Aniekwe Vs. Okereke (1996)6 NWLR (pt. 452) p. 60.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, learned counsel recapped the submission on this issue with the position of this court in <b>NICN/EN/112/2013- Emmanuel Chima & 5ors Vs Gregory Eze & Ors</b> when it intoned thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The fact that the claimants are members of the union and even seeking to occupy its position of leadership, it becomes incumbent upon them to comply with the clear provisions of the constitution … in the circumstance therefore, since the claimants had not complied with the provisions of rule 25 of the constitution of their Union, they are prematurely before this court. They have not done what they needed to do to activate the jurisdiction of the court.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> See <b>Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd & Ors Vs. Trans International Bank Ltd & Ors (2008) LPELR 962(SC).<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">According to counsel, since nothing has changed after the above decision was handed down, concerning compliance with Rule 25 of the constitution by the claimant, this court has no option than to restate, re-enact or re-emphasize the above statement of the law, but this time with the heavy hammer of dismissal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue three, <i>Whether the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid and of no effect,</i> learned counsel answered the issue in the negative. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was both constitutional and valid. The question whether the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 is constitutional, valid, unlawful and of no effect could only arise when it is contended that the electoral body is not properly constituted and the candidates who were elected were not legally qualified to contest the said election.In the instant case, the claimants contended that the date of the election was abridged from the 9<sup>th</sup> to 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013; that the election was flawed with irregularities and that they boycotted the election and thus prayed the court to nullify the said election. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue that the date of the election was abridged from the 9<sup>th</sup> to the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013, it is in evidence from CW1 that he stood out for the election but midway into the election, he boycotted. This evidence corroborates the evidence of DW1 (Mr. J.C Nebo) at paragraphs 11 & 12 of his statement on oath which was never challenged by the claimants to the effect that all the parties/stakeholders agreed that the date be abridged to the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 instead of 9<sup>th</sup> April, 2013.It is therefore too late in the day for the claimants to turn round and complain about the change of date when they had earlier consented to the change of date.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel asked how the change of date favoured the Respondents against the claimants. The answer is that the effect of change of date has the same and equal effect on the parties. This is shown in the result of the election where the margin with which the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant won the 1<sup>st</sup> claimants is very thin.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On this issue, it is defendants’ submission that the change of date of the election is not substantial as to warrant the nullification of a freely and fairly conducted election for where an allegation of substantial non-compliance is made, the onus lies on the petitioner (in this case the claimants) firstly to establish the substantial non-compliance, and secondly that it did or could have affected the result of the election. It is only then that the onus shifts to the Respondents to prove that the result was not so affected. He cited in support, the case of<b>Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2005)13 NWLR (pt.941)ISC; Obun Vs Ebu (2006) ALL FWLR (pt327)419; Ray Vs Maduabu (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 310)1637.</b>So even if the change of date is an act of non-compliance, learned counsel contended, it is not so substantial to warrant the nullification of the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted therefore that an election shall not be invalidated by reason of non-compliance if it appears that the election was conducted substantially with the constitution (in the instant case) and that non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election. He referred to the case of <b>Buhari Vs Obasanjo, supra.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of the election being flawed with irregularities, the claimants raised two points namely, that there were intruders or non-pensioners of Nigerian Coal Corporation who came to vote, and secondly that Mr. Benard Nnadi who contested for the chairmanship withdrew his candidature and joined the queue of the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of intruders coming to vote at the election paragraph 16 of the statement on oath of Mr. J.C. Nebo is very instructive and thus states:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">That the said election was free and fair. Even when the claimants wanted to pull wool in the eyes of the organizers by alleging that there were intruders, I confronted them to point out one or any intruder but they could not.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The above piece of evidence was never challenged, neither did the claimants lead evidence to show the intruder. The simple meaning is that the claimants cannot prove this aspect of irregularity and therefore fail on this point and counsel urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, that the claimants also complained that Engr. Bernard Nnadi’s withdrawal from the contest was an irregularity but paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 of the statement on oath of Mr. J. C. Nebo are very critical to that point.He noted that these paragraphs were never challenged nor controverted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is clear from the said paragraphs that the said Bernard Nnadi declined before voting commenced. It is also clear that having declined he did not lose his right to vote hence he voted for a candidate of his choice.He submitted therefore that the withdrawal of Engr. Bernard Nnadi from the contest before voting commenced did not affect the validity and constitutionality of the said election and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that assuming but not conceding that these two acts constitute irregularities, he submitted that an elected candidate cannot have his election nullified on the ground of corrupt practices, irregularities, and acts of violence or any other illegality committed in the process of the election unless it can be proved that the candidate expressly authorized the illegality. In other words, irregularities at an election which are neither the act of a candidate nor linked to him cannot affect his election. He referred to the case of<b>Buhari Vs Obasanjo, supra.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, on the issue of the claimants boycotting the election, he submitted that the maxim, <i>volunti non fit injuria</i> (he who has volunteered to be injured should not be heard to complain) should apply in this case.That counsel cannot appreciate the situation where a person who did not participate in an election could be challenging the outcome of the election on the ground of irregularities, relying on the case of <b>Chukwu Vs Umahi (unreported) daily sun of 8<sup>th</sup> July, 2015, p.11.</b>That in that case Prof Onyebuchi Chukwu challenged the legality of Nov. 2014 congress that produced Gov. Dave Umahi as the governorship candidate of PDP in the last general election. Dismissing the case, the presiding Judge stated that though Prof. Chukwu had the right to question the primary election as an aspirant but he ought to have participated in the exercise as stipulated by law. In the above case Prof. Chukwu boycotted the congress and afterwards challenged the exercise and his fate is now history. The instant case is in all fours with the above case and should suffer the same fate.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That having boycotted the election, this court cannot come to their aid otherwise, any person who anticipates failure in an election would boycott it and come to court for a re-election. That cannot be the intention of this court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On this ground counsel submitted that this court is helpless in this case for while 1<sup>st</sup> claimant (CW1) testified that he boycotted the election midway, CW2 testified that he boycotted before the election into the office he came to contest commenced. Therefore, the Respondents were all elected unopposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted therefore that it is too late in the day for the claimants to complain about the election which they boycotted and he urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On Issue four, <i>Whether the Respondents are entitled to their counter claim,</i> learned counsel answered the issue in the affirmative.That it is in evidence that the state council via CW1 wrote a letter (Exhibit DW1) to the managing Director of Nigerian Coal Corporation introducing the Respondent’s newly elected executives of the branch.It is also in evidence that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent served a demand Notice on the claimants requiring them to hand over their offices to the newly elected officers but to no avail.Again during cross examination CW1 was asked whether he had handed over his office to his successor and he answered in the negative.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To counsel all these pieces of evidence prove the fact that the claimants are still in custody of the funds of the Branch Union and still parading themselves as the incumbent executives of the branch whereas the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 has changed that status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He therefore submitted that in the circumstance, the Respondents have proved their counter claim and therefore entitled to the reliefs therein contained.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants on their part stated the facts of the case as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. The claimants are the legally recognized executives of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners, Nigeria coal Corporation Branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. The respondents on their own changed the date of the election of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch, which was scheduled to hold on 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. The claimants protested in respect of the change of date, but the respondents, with the aid of the 6<sup>th</sup> respondent, ignored the claimants protest and went ahead with the election.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. The claimants also complained to the 6<sup>th</sup> respondent that due process was not followed, no accreditation, but the 6<sup>th</sup> respondent ignored them.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. The claimants in order to show the respondents that, they do not want to be bound by the purported election, withdrew and left the venue, yet the 6<sup>th</sup> respondent went ahead with the election.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Since the claimants had no other alternative than to claim their rights and privileges, they resorted to this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned counsel for the Claimants formulated and argued the following issues for the court’s determination:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l3 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 is unconstitutional, unlawful, invalid and of no effect whatsoever?</span></i><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the 1<sup>st</sup> – 6<sup>th</sup> claimants have been lawfully removed from office as officers of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch since there was no valid election on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013?</span></i><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the claimants are entitled to an order of injunction restraining the defendants from parading themselves or acting as the lawful elected officers of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch?</span></i><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing issues 1 and 2 together, learned claimants’ counsel stated that both the claimants and the respondents from the statement of claim and the statement of defence agree that they are members of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners. That the Nigeria Union of Pensioners has a constitution. That Rule 5(i) (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the constitution of the union provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This document, and as it may from time to time be amended, shall be known as the constitution of the union.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">ii.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The constitution shall be deemed to be the basis of the contracts between the members to establish and operate the union.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">iii.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No new rules shall be made or any rule altered, amended or rescinded unless agreed by a majority vote in a secret ballot at the National Delegates Conference of the union.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">iv.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Alterations and amendments to the constitution by whatever process shall not be valid until they have been registered by the Registrar of Trade Union in accordance with the law.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Then, learned counsel asked the question thus: did the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 comply with constitution of the union? He answered ‘no’ and stated that Elder Gregory Eze, in his statement on oath at paragraph 6 stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">That the said election was conducted in the fairest manner by open election whereby voters were made to stand behind the candidates of their choice</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Constitution of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners provided thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">There shall be a Branch chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor, one Trustee and at most seven other members elected by majority votes by show of hands</span></i><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that the word “shall” was used in Rule 13(v)(a) cited above. He added that it is trite law asthe Supreme Court in the case of <b><i>ALADEJOBI v N.B.A (2014) VOL. 227 LRCN</i></b>held thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">It should be noted here that the word “shall’ is employed in Section 12(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1990 (as amended). The purport of same is not far-fetched. The word ‘shall’ as employed in the law denotes obligation or a command and gives no room for discretion. It imposes a duty. A peremptory mandate is enjoined.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He further referred to the case of <b><i>BAMAIYI v. ATTORNEY – GENERAL, FEDERATION & ORS (2001) 12 NWLR (PT. 727) 466@497.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He stated that the election was officially scheduled to hold on 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013. In respect of that the union on agreement made media publication on radio in addition made arrangement with the Nigeria Police Force for security.The respondents on their own decided to change the date of the election from 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 back to 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013. No formal information notification in respect of the new change was passed and no security was on ground.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In addition, the claimants in their statement of claim and statement on oath show clearly that there was no accreditation, the respondent did not deny that.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From all indication it is clear, that the 6<sup>th</sup> respondent in collaboration with the 1<sup>st</sup> – 5<sup>th</sup> respondents imposed the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 on the union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having not complied with the constitution of the union, the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 is invalid and void. He urged the court to hold that the claimants are still the executive members of Nigerian Union of Pensioners Coal Corporation Branch, as the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 is void ab initio.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue three, <i>whether the claimants are entitled to an order of injunction restraining the defendants from parading themselves or acting as the lawful elected officers of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch, </i>learned counsel stated that the claimants were validly elected in accordance with the Provisions of the Constitution of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners. And it is the law, that for the claimants to be relieved of their post, there must be a valid election of Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The respondents by parading themselves as the executive officers of Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Nigerian Coal Corporation Branch without going through any valid election, constitute a breach of the rule of conduct of practice of the union as stated in Section 13 of the Code of Practice. Counsel urged the court to agree with the claimants and grant the order as prayed in issue 3.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the word ‘void’ has been defined by the Court of Appeal in the case of <b><i>BURAIMOH v. KARIMU (1999) 9 NWLR (PT.618) 310 C.A</i></b> as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">‘Void’ means ineffectual, nugatory, having no legal force or binding effect, which is unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended in its strictest sense, it means that which has no force, and effect, without legal efficacy and is incapable of being enforced by law or has no legal or binding force. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In <b><i>ISHOLA v. ALIBOYE (1998) 2 NWLR (PT. 532) 71 C.A.</i></b>the Court of Appeal held thus: <i>‘when a thing is void, it does not exist, you cannot put something on nothing, it will just not stand</i>’.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the court, based on the reasons, that the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013, did not comply with the provisions of the constitution of the union, which provided that, the election must be by show of hands and not by standing behind the candidate of one’s choice.Secondly, that there must be accreditation before voting proper, and also presence of securities personnel; and so the Honourable Court should order that the purported election held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013, is void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In answer to the issues raised by the defendants in their final written address the claimants stated thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That Issue 1 raised by the defendants is not with any merit as the illegal election into the offices of Nigerian Union of Pensioners Executive in issue was held on 08<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 and the plaintiffs have common interest in this case. The claimants have common interest to protect and not separate interest to protect as what is in issue is upholding the Provision of the Constitution of the Union which both parties agree exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the claimants have satisfied all the conditions contained in the classical Decision in the <b><i>Case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That there are no conditions precedent to the exercise of claimants right under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This case is not against the Union as the Union is not even joined as a party. The defendants unlawfully exercised powers they do not have under the Constitution. The Chairman of the Union who should fix the Election for a definite date with the other members decided that the election be held on 09<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 but the defendants without lawful authority, held an unlawful election. One cannot give out what one does not possess. The totality of the election is an action in futility. Aggrieved in the Constitution means aggrieved against the Union. This case is neither intra nor inter Union matter and can only be resolved between the contending parties the plaintiffs and the defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is no condition precedent for this action to be filed against the defendants as the Union is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant and did not at any time apply to be joined. The only issue is whether the defendants wereelected into the offices in accordance with the Provisions of the Constitution of the Union and the answer according to the learned counsel is NO.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Under Section 13 of the Constitution it is obligatory on all trade Union members to ensure that official who wield power are responsive to the desire of the workers whom they represent. The responsiveness of the Union official depends upon the regularity of the honest count of ballots. Every Trade Union member is therefore obliged not to obstruct the Free and Fair conduct of elections and when they fall due in accordance with the Union Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He referred to RULES 13 (v)(a) and 8(v) of the Constitution which stipulate the conditions which must be satisfied (majority votes and secret ballot).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the Argument of the defendants in their Brief of Arguments or written address go to no issue and not substantiated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel therefore urged the Honourable Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Replying on points of law, learned counsel for the Defendants stated that the claimants filed a reply Address otherwise called claimant’s Final Address and therein raised (3) three issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Although the claimants argued their issues 1 & 2 together, the Claimants’ issues 1 & 3 are in tandem with the Respondents’ issues 3 & 4. Counsel replied on the claimant’s issue 2 accordingly.To learned counsel, the major contention of the Claimants was that the manner of election was not in compliance with the constitution of the Union to wit, that the election was not conducted by show of hands as provided for in Rule 13(v)(a). He submitted that no matter how well constructed a written address might be, it can never take the place of pleadings. By this counsel means that any fact which is not pleaded goes to no issue. He referred the court to particulars of claim of the Claimants. He then stated that the court could see that their major grouse was not as to the show of hands or body but that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">There was no credible accreditation. See paragraph 9 of the Claim.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The defendants decided to rig the election when they saw that they had more supporters. See paragraph 10 of the Claim.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The withdrawal of engr. Bernard Nnadi from the contest. See paragraph 11 of the Claim.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l5 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(d)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Multiple voting and impersonation. See paragraph 15 of the Claim among other complaints which did not touch on the show of hand or body court.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then contended therefore that the issue of show of hands did not arise from the facts before this court and it does not suffice in the duty of counsel to supply facts through his address. It is in that note that he urged the court to discountenance the said issue and the argument appertaining thereto.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In answering Respondents’ issue 2, the Claimants alluded to the fact that this case is not against the Union, neither was the Union joined as a party and concluded with the blunder that this case is neither intra nor inter union matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the 6<sup>th</sup> Respondent in this case is the Secretary, Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Enugu State Council. By the Constitution of the Union, it is the State Council of the Union that has the responsibility of conducting branch elections and person who is aggrieved with the outcome of the election which they conducted and sues for redress has sued the Union simpliciter. The Claimants were merely being clever by half as the 6<sup>th</sup> Respondent is not a member of the Coal Corporation Branch of the Union but was sued in his capacity of his official function as the Secretary of the State Council of the Union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, if the Claimants have deliberately excluded the Union and the State Council, then their suit is again wrong in law as they have not brought the proper parties to court. For in an election matter, the electoral body is a necessary party without whom the matter cannot be completely and effectively adjudicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He therefore urged the court to hold that this case is incompetent before it as the necessary parties are not before it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence led as well as the arguments and submissions of the parties in this case. The issues for determination of the case here are:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l15 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether or not from the facts and circumstances of the case the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was unconstitutional, illegal null and void?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l15 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Claimants are entitled to their reliefs?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l15 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the Defendants are entitled to the reliefs in their counterclaim?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before going into the issues let me give a brief statement of the facts of the case. The Claimants approached the Honourable Court to ventilate their grouse with the Defendants following the outcome of a purported election held on the 8<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 for the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Coal Corporation Branch. Prior to the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013, the claimants were the incumbent Executive members of Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Coal Corporation Branch. The said election was earlier slated to hold on the 9<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 but it was shifted to the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013. According to the Claimants the decision to hold the election on 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013 was communicated to all concerned but that date was changed by the Defendants to the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013, i.e. a day earlier. The election took place on the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 and the Claimants’ contend that it was the Defendants’ who shifted the date of the election, conducted it on the new date and that the election was unconstitutional, null and void. The result is that their tenure in office has not ended and those elected during the election of 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 were not duly elected. This is the scenario painted by the Claimants in approaching this Honourable Court for the reliefs stated in their Statement of Claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">For the Defendants however, they claim that the change in election date from the 9<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 to 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 was with the consent of the Claimants. That the Claimants even presented themselves for election on that date and lost to the Defendants. That the necessary procedure for the holding of elections was followed; there was due process which complied with the Constitutional provisions of the Union. They pleaded that after the screening of voters, election commenced with that of the chairman in which the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant polled 145 votes while the 1<sup>st</sup>defendant polled 160 votes and the latter was declared the winner of the election into the office. That at that point other claimants (2nd – 6th) boycotted the subsequent elections and marched out of the election area and in the circumstance, the 2<sup>nd</sup>to the 5<sup>th</sup>defendants were declared winners of their respective positions.They denied all the claims of the Claimants and presented their own counter-claim to the suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before considering the first issue, the Defendants have raised a preliminary objection in their final written address alleging that the suit was not properly constituted. The ground of the objection is that each of the Claimants contested for a distinct and separate office in the union and therefore each one of them had a distinct and separate interest to protect. To the Defendants the Claimants cannot bring a ‘class action’ to challenge the election since each one of them had his own interest to protect. Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that even though all the claimants in this suit belong to one group (party) they cannot after losing the election form themselves into a class and file this action. He added that they are not the right persons to bring an election petition, referring the court to the decision in <b><i>Adegbite vs Raji (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 236) 478.</i></b> He also argued that necessary parties to an election petition are the petitioner who may be candidate to the election or a political party which participated at the election, referring to the case of <b><i>Buhari vs Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446</i></b> and <b><i>Ngige vs Obi (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 330) 1041.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In essence his argument is that every person who contested in an election and is aggrieved must bring a separate action to ask the court to nullify same. The Claimants having not done that in this case,the Court has been robbed of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, for there is a feature which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction, relying on the case <b><i>Madukolu vs Nkemdilim, supra.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Defendants counsel also argued another ground of objection which is that the Claimants had not complied with the provisions of Rule 25 of the Constitution of the Union which stipulates that a member of the union must exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the union before proceeding to the court for the resolution of any dispute. To the learned counsel the failure of the Claimants to exhaust the internal dispute resolution condition means that they have not fulfilled a condition precedent for the institution of this action. This means that the suit is not properly constituted going by the authority of <b><i>Madukolu vs Nkemdilim, supra.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part learned Claimant’s counsel responded to the objection by arguing that the suit is properly constituted as all the claimants have a common interest to protect in the suit. He added that the Claimants have also fulfilled all the preconditions for instituting the suit and therefore complied with the requirements stipulated in the case of<b><i> MADUKOLU v. NKEMILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 587.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned Claimant’s counsel argued further that this case is not against the Union as the Union is not even joined as a party. That the defendants unlawfully exercised powers they do not have under the Constitution, by shifting the election date from 9<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 to 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013.Thereforethe totality of the election is an action in futility. That the term aggrieved in the Constitution means aggrieved against the Union. This case is neither intra nor inter Union matter and can only be resolved between the contending parties, the plaintiffs and the defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel contended that the defendants were unlawfully elected into the branch executive of the Union.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In considering the objection of the Defendants, let me point out straight away that the Defendants repeated an objection which this court had earlier on considered and ruled upon. This is with regard to the issue of Rule 25 of the Constitution of the Nigeria Union Pensioners. This Rule of the Constitution of the Union makes provision which stipulates that a member that is aggrieved must first exhaust all internal dispute resolution mechanism of the union before proceeding to court. The Defendants had filed an objection in that respect on 20<sup>th</sup> June, 2014. The court on 4<sup>th</sup> November, 2014, gave a Ruling dismissing the objection as lacking in merit. Therefore the court cannot decide the same issue again as it would amount to sitting on appeal over itself andthis cannot be done. See <b><i>Guffani (Nigeria) Plc vs PidrellaInstalt-Vaduz & Ors (2012) LPELR-8027;AdebanjoOlayinka v. AdebolaAdeparusi& Anor (2011) LPELR-8691(CA);and Lawani vs Yakubu (1972) 8-9 SC 83.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The other ground of objection raised by the defendants is that each of the Claimants should have brought a separate suit as each one of them contested for his own office in the union election separately. The learned defendants’ counsel did not provide the legal basis for this argument but it is quite clear that the issue he raises relates to misjoinder of causes of action. By their objection the Defendants are saying that the Claimants have wrongly come together to sue the defendants over the elections of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013. The facts on which the defendants rely upon are that each of the Claimants contested for his own seat in the election and having lost, each one must now file his own case separately for the court to determine the matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, looking at the reliefs of the Claimants, which I have earlier on set out at the beginning of this judgment, they are asking the Honourable Court to grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the Defendants. The first relief is that the Claimants are still in office as they have not been lawfully removed from office as officers of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Nigeria Coal Corporation Branch. That the basis of this declaration is the fact that there was no valid election held on the 8<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013. The Claimants further claimed for orders of court. A careful and dispassionate examination of the claim shows that they are such that they can be tried together and determined together by the court. The essence of joinder of parties and causes of action was stated in the case of <b><i>Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited v. Chief TrueloveOruambo& Ors(2011) LPELR-4954(CA)</i></b>where the Court, Per EKO, J.C.A (P. 27, paras. C-E) held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The rule permitting joinder of causes is designed to prevent multiplicity of actions and thus save the parties unnecessary costs. It is also convenient and economical for the court. In EDILIT LTD v. ELIAS KHAWAM & OTHERS LTD (1966) NMLR 289 where the Plaintiff joined on the same writ claims in respect of two building contracts against the Defendants, it was held to be proper since no injustice was thereby caused to the Defendants.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is equally provided in Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 that the court has the duty to consider and decide disputes between parties that have been properly brought before it, to completely and finally determine same in order to avoid all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters. The said section 14 of NICA, 2006, states that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">14. The Court shall, in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by (sic, ‘to’) the Court so that, as far as possible, all <u>matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided</u>. (Underlining mine for emphasis).<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is quite clear that the Act establishing this Honourable Court makes provision for the situations in which parties would avoid having to bring about multiplicity of actions over the same issue. If every officer of the union of the claimants has to file his own suit definitely there would be a multiplicity of actions and the principle in this section would be violated. It is therefore unnecessary to raise the issue of misjoinder of causes of action in this case. Furthermore, the decision in <b><i>Ayankoya v. Olukoya (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.440)1</i></b>establishes that a misjoinder of parties or causes of action would not defeat an action as enunciated by <b><i>Adio, JSC</i></b>as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">The rules in the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Oyo State permitting joinder of parties or joinder of causes of action are designed to prevent multiplicity of actions and prevent delay and thus save the parties unnecessary costs. See Adediran v. Interland Transport Ltd., (1991) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.214) 155. Consistent with the beneficial and laudable objectives of the aforesaid rules, any defendant who intends to raise the issue of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action has to do so without delay by making an application to the court so that the remedy provided by the rules can be granted. The situation would not be allowed to degenerate into using the defect as a technical point upon which an opponent's claim will be defeated when the whole case has been heard on merit and the only thing left is to adjourn the case to a later date for judgment</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In view of the foregoing therefore, it is my humble view, which I so hold, that the Claimants suit is properly constituted. Consequently therefore, the objection of the defendants fails and same is hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I will now proceed to the substantive matter before the court. Taking both issues 1 and 2 together, the Claimants in their statement of claim pleaded that the date initially announced for the election was the 9<sup>th</sup> day of April, 2013. However the defendants shifted the date to 8<sup>th</sup>April, 2013 and the 6<sup>th</sup> defendant conducted the election on that date. The grouse of the Claimants is that the change of the date for the election has disenfranchised some of their supporters.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">There is also the allegation from the Claimants that the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was characterized by serious irregularities, particularly that there was no proper accreditation of voters before the actual voting. They also alleged multiple voting at the election. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the part of the Defendants they alleged that the election was shifted from the 9<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 to 8<sup>th</sup> April 2013 as a result of an emergency meeting that arose for chairmen and secretaries of the union in Abuja on 9<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013. They have also pleaded that the Claimants actually participated in the elections of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 although they withdraw from same before its conclusion and brought this suit to challenge the outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From their case, the Claimants have the duty to prove that the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was unconstitutional, null and void, going by the provisions of the union’s constitution. The said Constitution was tendered and admitted as Exhibit C1. The provisions cited and relied upon by the Claimants are Rules 13 (v)(a) and 8(v) of the Constitution of the Union. I have gone through these provisions. They provide for the election at the branch to be conducted for the constitution of a branch executive committee membership which was listed therein. It is further provided that the election shall be conducted by show of hands. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, the provision of Rule 8(v) clearly provides as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <i> <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(v)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To be elected a member of the National Executive Council, a candidate must obtain a majority of votes of the delegates present and voting in secret ballot.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This provision is clear enough and must be given its clear meaning. It specifically relates to the election of the National Executive Council members of the union. What we are concerned with in this case is the election of a Branch Executive Committee. Therefore this provision of the Constitution is not relevant in the determination of the dispute in this case. This I so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Going back to the other provision of Rule 13(v)(a), it states as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(v)(a) There shall be a Branch Executive Committee comprising the Branch Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor, one Trustee and at most seven other members elected by majority votes by show of hands.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This provision states that Branch Executive Committee members are to be elected by majority of votes by show of hands. Apparently, this is the only provision in the constitution of the Union that refers to how the election is to be conducted. Here I have carefully perused the Statement of Claim (28/02/2014), Statement of Facts (28/02/2014) and reply to Statement of Defence/Counter Claim of the Claimants (18/11/2014) and there is nowhere they pleaded that the non-compliance included the failure to conduct the election by show of hands. It is only in paragraph 10 of the Statement on oath of the CW2 that he gave evidence on the fact of election by show of hands. This means that the fact of show of hands has not been pleaded and so the evidence led on same goes to no issue. See the case of <b><i>REPTICO S. A. GENEVA v. AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC(2013) LPELR-SC.72/2001;</i></b>and<b><i>NWAKODO v. OHAJURUKA & ORS. (2008) LPELR-CA/PH/EPT/176/2008.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants have put up their case on the unconstitutionality of the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 on the ground that it was conducted on a shifted date. The Claimants only seem to place the wrongness or otherwise of the shifting of the date of the election on the assertion that their supporters were mobilized for the 9<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013 instead of the new date of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013. That there was no meeting held, to the knowledge of the claimants, to re-schedule the date of the election to the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013. But the important point here is the fact that the Claimants became aware of the new date and equally participated, albeit half way, in the said elections of 8<sup>th</sup>April, 2013. Can they therefore say that the change of date was of any consequence? I do not think so. This is because they have not shown that the change of date in itself was unconstitutional or that those who effected the change lacked the power to do so. It seems quite clear that having started to participate in the elections of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 they realized that the odds were against them and they decided to withdraw from the entire election process and challenge its validity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The challenge to the validity of the April 8, 2013 elections of the union was predicated on alleged irregularities at the venue of the said elections. The irregularities were identified as absence of accreditation, multiple voting by supporters of the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant, voting by intruders and the withdrawal of a candidate, Bernard Nnadi, for chairmanship, who subsequently supported the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant against the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of failure to conduct accreditation the Claimants only stated that there was no accreditation of the members before the voting exercise. See paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim and paragraph 8 of the Statement on oath of the CW1. For the defendants it was pleaded in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence/Counter Claim that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l15 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the election was an open election in which the voters lined up behind the candidates of their choice while raising their pension identity cards above their heads for all to see, contrary to the Claimants’ Statement of Claim.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Then in paragraph 6 of the Statement on oath of DW2 he testified as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. That the said election was conducted in the fairest manner by open election whereby voters were made to stand behind the candidates of their choice while raising up their pension identity cards above their heads for all to see.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">See also paragraphs 15 and3 of the Statement on oath of the DW1 and DW2 respectivelyfor the further evidenceled on that fact. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From the above state of the pleadings and evidence on accreditation of voters, the claim that there was no accreditation at the election has not been proved. To start with, the Claimants have not shown that there is any particular method stipulated in the Constitution of the union or any of its rules or bye-laws for effecting the accreditation. This means that it was what those conducting the election chose to do that everyone must contend with, so long as that may be termed reasonable. In fact the participation of the Claimants in the election itself, although they subsequently withdrew from it, testifies to the fact that they accepted the method of the accreditation adopted at the election. There is evidence for instance that the votes were even cast at the election where the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant scored a number of votes as against the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. With all that therefore, it is my finding that the allegation of non-accreditation of voters during the election has not been proved.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of multiple voting the Claimants alleged that there was multiple voting on the day of the election. The defendants on their part denied same and challenged the claimants to bring forth the evidence. The constitution of the union does not have any provision on multiple voting as such. However the national laws do have what may be termed guiding principles on the issue. In the case of <b><i>IGBE & ANOR. V. ONA & ORS (2012) LPELR-8588(CA),</i></b> the issue of multiple voting and the standard of proof required in same was enunciated by Tsamiya JCA at pp 21-22, paras D-C as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Allegations of multiple voting and thumb-printing are some of the most notorious form of electoral malpractices in Nigeria. They are the most disgraceful and dishonest acts that should be condemned in its entire ramification, they are illegal acts. And no person involved in any form of immoral or illegal acts or transactions shall be allowed to come to court to seek redress. "No polluted hand shall touch the pure foundation of justice:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">An allegation of multiple voting and thumb-printing during an election amounts to an allegation of criminal act and the petitioner who makes such allegations has the onus to prove the allegation beyond all reasonable doubt as provided by Section 138 of the Evidence Act.”</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The act of multiple voting is an act of illegality and a petitioner must be prepared prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard of proof where it is alleged that an election has been ridden with over-voting. But what is more important is the fact that, as it is with other kinds of irregularities, a party has the onus to show that the act was traceable to the opponent either directly or indirectly before it can lead to the nullification of an election. See <b><i>Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (pt.941) I SC; Obun Vs Ebu (2006) ALL FWLR (pt327)419; Ray Vs Maduabu (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 310) 1637.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the instant case, the Claimants alleged multiple voting but what is the evidence? The claimants have not specifically pleaded and led evidence on multiple voting as such. The Constitution or Rules of the Union have not stipulated what amounts to multiple voting.Etymologically however, the words “multiple voting” are each defined by THE NEW INTERNATIONAL WEBSTER’S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, DELUXE ENCYCLOPEDIC EDITION, Typhoon Media Corporation 2010 Edition, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in; line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Multiple- Containing or consisting of more than one; repeated more than once; manifold.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Voting- To cast one’s vote.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Therefore when read together the term means the situation where one person was allowed to vote several times over or repeatedly as against the legally allowed single vote in an election. Here the Claimants have not pin-pointed to any specific allegation of multiple voting against any person during the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013. Therefore this point too has not been proved by the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The next act of irregularity raised by the Claimants concerned the claim of intruders trooping to the venue of the election. The Defendants denied this and put the Claimants to the proof of same. I have gone through the pleading and evidence of the parties. There is nothing put forward by the Claimants supporting the assertion that intruders in fact entered the premises of the election and participated in same that would have confirmed the allegation of the claimants. I therefore do not find same as proved.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The next allegation of irregularity is that one Engr Bernard Nnadi participated in the election initially by lining up against the contestants for the office of Chairman but later withdrew from the election and he and his followers supported the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant against the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant. On this point too the claimants have not placed before the court how the withdrawal of the said Engr Bernard Nnadi actually affected the credibility of the election. Most importantly, there is nothing put before the Court either in the Constitution of the Union or Rules and bye-laws of the union wherein the withdrawal of a candidate was disallowed. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the whole the claimants have failed to make out a case for the court to grant their reliefs in this suit. The claims fail and they are accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the counter-claim of the defendants, they counter-claimed as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(a) To give account of all monies which had come into the coffers of the branch from 2008 to 31st March, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(b) To hand over to the 1st – 5th Defendants all the properties, finances, documents, offices or other belongings of the branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:1.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(c) A perpetual order of injunction restraining the claimants from parading themselves as officers of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Coal Corporation Branch.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A counter-claim is the Defendant’s own claim against the Claimant in the same suit and is proved by the same standard of proof as the claim of the Claimant. See the case of <i>KWALLO & ORS v. ABBAS(2016) LPELR-CA/K/302/2012</i>where the Court of Appeal, per AKEJU, J.C.A. (Pp. 17-18, Paras. F-B) described it as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">A counter claim is known in law as a claim made by the defendant in the same action filed against him. The counter claim is an independent claim or action wherein the defendant in the action assumes the position of the plaintiff while the plaintiff becomes the defendant. The burden of proving the counter claim and the standard of its proof are the same as any other civil action. See MAOBISON INTERLINK ASSOCIATE LTD. V. U.T.C. NIGERIA PLC (2013) LPELR SC 215/2003, (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 694) 52.</span></i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendants’ in this case counter-claimed the reliefs stated above against the claimants. The pleadings in support of the counter-claim are contained in paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Statement of Defence/Counter Claim. In support of these averments the Defendants/Counter Claimants through the DW2 testified in support of the averments. See paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16of the Statement on oath of the DW2, Mr Gregory Eze.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the part of the Claimants/defendants to the Counter-claim they filed a reply to the statement of defence and counter-claim denied the facts averred in support of the counter claim and set same out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the defence to counter claim. The averment in opposition to the counter-claim was supported by evidence on oath of CW1. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having gone through the processes of the parties, evidence led as well as the arguments and submissions of their respective counsel on the counter-claim, the sole issue is whether the defendants/counter-claimants are entitled to their reliefs? The Defendants/counter claimants have predicated their counter claims on the validity of the election of 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013. The Defendants have pleaded and led evidence on how each of the 1<sup>st</sup> to 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants was elected at the said election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013. Furthermore, I have earlier on in this Judgment dismissed the claims of the Claimant that the said election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was unconstitutional, null and void. From the pleadings and evidence in this case, I am satisfied that the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013 was duly held and defendants/counter-claimants emerged as the officials of the union. The election was held on the 8<sup>th</sup> of April, 2013. The Claimants/defendants to counter-claim participated in it but withdrew half way in protest. This was only after the election of the chairman was concluded and votes counted. When the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant realized that he had lost by 145 votes to 160 votes he decided to pull out of the process. The question is whether he would have pulled out if his votes were higher than those of his opponent? It is clear that the 1<sup>st</sup> claimant and indeed all the other claimants opted to pull out when they realized they were losing out at the said election. Here, the claimants having accepted to participate in the elections and in fact took steps to participate by voting in it, cannot simply pull out without any legally justifiable reason. They have not been able to demonstrate that there is such legally justifiable reason either from the provisions of the constitution of the union or its bye laws. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the reliefs sought in the counter-claim, relief (a) relates to the giving of account of all monies which had come into the account and coffers of the branch from 2008 till March, 2013 and refund of all such monies. I have closely examined the said relief and it seems to me that the pleadings and evidence are short of the details of the accounts which the court should make the order upon. There is also no detail as to which monies were to be refunded. The court cannot grant a payer that is vague. See <b><i>KALU v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2012) LPELR-CA/A/224C/2009; Onwuka v. Ediala (1989) 1 S.C. (P.11) 1; Shugaba v. UBN Plc (1999)11 NWLR (Pt.627).</i></b> The relief is accordingly refused.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Reliefs (b) and (c) are granted, the court having upheld the validity of the election of 8<sup>th</sup> April, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the whole the Claims of the Claimants are refused and dismissed. The Counter-Claim of the Defendants succeeds in part.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"> </o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="A9D7F436" style="width:468pt;height:379.5pt;visibility:visible; mso-wrap-style:square"> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Ajax\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png" o:title="A9D7F436"> </v:imagedata></v:shape><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>