Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">S. I. Azubuike, for the claimant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Lanre Balogun, for the defendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">RULING</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimant filed this action on 16th December 2014 vide a General Form of Complaint accompanied by the statement of facts, list of witness, written statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the statement of facts, the claimant is claiming against the defendant for the following reliefs –</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->a)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the agreement reached on 19/08/2010 (and adopted on 26/10/2010) between the Management of Promasidor (Nigeria) Ltd (defendant company) and Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->b)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N9,444,293.64 (Nine Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-Four Kobo) only being the sum due to the claimant as underpayment following the wrong computation of the claimant’s gratuities and final entitlements by the defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the said sum of N9,444,293.64 (Nine Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-Four Kobo) being the sum to which the claimant is entitled by reason of the wrong computation of the claimant’s gratuities and final entitlements by the defendant.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->d)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Interest on the said sum of N9,444,293.64 (Nine Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-Four Kobo) at the rate of 11% per annum until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% until final liquidation.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify; text-indent:-19.65pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]-->e)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span><!--[endif]-->Cost of this action assessed at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. The defendant entered formal appearance, filed its defence processes and the filed a preliminary objection pursuant to Order 11 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) Cap. T8 LFN 2004 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. By the preliminary objection, the defendant is paying for:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order of this Honourable Court striking out the claimant/r</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">espondent</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s suit for being incompetent.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">An order that this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the claimant/r</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">espondent</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">s suit herein.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">And for such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. The grounds upon which the preliminary objection is brought are:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant/r</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">espondent</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s claims are based on the outcome of the Agreement of 26th October, 2010 between the defendant/applicant, Food, Beverages and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) and the Ministry of Labour and Productivity.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant/respondent is not a member of the Food, Beverages and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) and he cannot validly initiate an action against the defendant/applicant based on the Agreement of 26th October, 2010 which agreement clearly excludes the claimant’s interests.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant/respondent’s entitlements as an ex-employee of the defendant/applicant had been fully paid and prior to the outcome of the industrial dispute that led to the Agreement of 26th October, 2010 with the Ministry of Labour and Productivity.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant/respondent’s action herein is against the principle approved in the Supreme Court decision in <i>Madukolu v. Nkemdilim</i> [1961] NSCC (Vol. 2) 374.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. In support of the preliminary objection is an affidavit with one exhibit and a written address. In reaction, the claimant filed a counter-affidavit with one exhibit and a written address.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The defendant framed a sole issue for the determination of this Court i.e. whether the claimant/respondent has a <i>locus standi</i> to sue in the circumstance of his position when in the employment of the defendant/applicant and whether the Honourable Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit by virtue of section 48 of the Trade Disputes Act (TDA) Cap. T8 LFN 2004. To the defendant, there is no cause of action in the first place to warrant the institution of this suit against the defendant/applicant. This is because the claimant/respondent lacks the <i>locus</i> to institute this action not being a member of the trade union covered by the Collective Agreement of 26th October 2010 to which the claimant/respondent relied upon to base his action. That the claimant/r</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT">espondent</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’s originating process is, therefore, incompetent, speculative, an afterthought and not cognizable in law. The defendant/applicant continued that there was no disagreement whatsoever between the claimant/respondent and the defendant/applicant as to the final entitlements due to the claimant and that had not been paid and prior to the outcome of the Collective Agreement of 26th October 2010 with the Ministry of Labour and Productivity. That “the claimant/respondent has made heavy weight alleged on difference in computation of his final entitlements and which arguably became due and prior to the outcome of the Collective Agreement of 26th October, 2010”. The defendant then referred to the claimant/respondent’s claim as stated in paragraphs 10 - 21 of the statement of facts dated and filed on the 16th day of December 2014; and submitted that the combined reading of the said paragraphs as alleged is to the effect that the reasonable expectations of the claimant/respondent as to his final entitlements were not met by the new gratuity policy of the defendant/applicant based on the outcome of the Collective Agreement of 26th October, 2010. That it was based on these reasonable expectations and the outcome of the collective agreement of 26th October 2010 that this suit was instituted to enforce the balance of payment of N9,444,293.64 (Nine Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-Four Kobo) as alleged.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. The defendant went on to refer to section 48 of the TDA 2004 as to what a c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement means and who is entitled to sue and be sued thereto. Section 48 of the TDA defines c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement to mean:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">Any agreement in writing for the settlement of disputes and relating to terms of employment and physical conditions of work concluded between -</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(i) An employer, a group of employers or one or more organizations representative of employers, on the one hand; and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(ii) One or more trade unions or organizations representing workers, or the duly appointed representative of any body of workers, on the other hand.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That by this provision, a collective agreement is any agreement in writing for the settlement of disputes and relating to terms of employment and physical conditions of work concluded between the trade union and the employer of labour or the representatives of any body of workers duly appointed to that effect. That the implication of the provision is that only the member(s) of the trade union, its representatives duly appointed and the employers of labour covered in the c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement can sue or be sued to enforce the agreement made in writing between the parties. Referring to </span><i><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">Itodo & </span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">o</span></i><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">rs v. Chevron Texaco Nigeria</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2005] 2 NLLR (Pt.5) 200 NIC and <i>Gbadegesin v. Wema Bank Plc</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2012] 28 NLLR (Pt.80) 274 NIC</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">, the defendant submitted that this Court held thus: “a party can take the benefits of a collective agreement only when it is a party to it; but as regards individual employees who are members of a union, they can take the benefit only through their unions or if the union is not minded to sue on their behalf, then they must show evidence of membership of the union in question”. That the fundamental principle is that for a party to claim the benefits arising from a collective agreement he must show evidence of membership as <i>locus standi</i> otherwise he will be bereft of cause of action against the defendant as to enforceability or otherwise of the collective agreement. That this rule is analogous to that of privity of contract.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. The defendant proceeded that in the instant case, the claimant has sued the defendant for the benefits of a c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement of 26th October, 2010 which the claimant is not a party to. That the claimant never belonged to the trade union, Food, Beverages and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) while in the employment of the defendant. That the defendant had upon the disengagement of the claimant paid his final entitlements to the tune of N27,048,814.69 (Twenty-Seven Million, Forty-Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen Naira, Sixty-Nine Kobo) being a combination of his gratuity, prorated leave allowance, redundancy pay, payment in lieu of notice and other benefits. That the payment was made prior to the outcome of the industrial disputes that led to the execution of the collective agreement of 26th October, 2010 of which the claimant was expressly excluded from in its paragraph 9 as not covered by the further entitlements negotiated with the Ministry of Labour and Productivity. It is also the</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> contention</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> of the defendant that the claimant never raised the issue of underpayment or wrongful computation of his terminal benefits with the defendant prior to the institution of this action. It is, therefore, the case of the defendant that all final entitlements due to the claimant has been duly paid and accepted by the claimant without any objections whatsoever either in words or in writing upon his disengagement. That the claimant’s action is clearly an afterthought, coming four (4) years after the claimant’s exit from the defendant company and upon the expiration of the claimant’s consultancy services with the defendant. That the claimant’s action can best be described as vexatious, frivolous, gold-digging exercise and a clear attempt to take advantage of the assumed prosperous position of the defendant. That the claimant's action must be condemned in its entirety as been a ploy to achieve an unwarranted advantage over the defendant.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. The defendant went on that it is trite that as a senior staff, the law is that “the employee is not assumed to be a member of the trade union. He/she has to “</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">opt in</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">”, individually and in writing…”, citing <i>Udo v. OHMB</i> [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt.142) 52 and <i>Nestoil Plc v. NUPENG</i> [</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT">2012]</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">29 NLLR (Pt. 82) </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">34 NIC.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> That the claimant being a senior staff in the defendant’s company never opted in to being a member of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB). That the claimant must show membership of FOTBTOB in order to benefit from the collective agreement of 26th October 2010. Also that membership of FOBTOB is not automatic and an employee who is a senior staff of a company must have voluntarily applied in writing to join the trade union before he can claim benefits of a collective agreement. That the claimant/respondent has not shown any document in his pleadings suggesting he is a member of the union. The defendant then referred to p</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">age 25 </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">of </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/30/2011, here it was held that “the issue whether or not an employee is a member of a trade union is essentially one of law given the current state of our trade union law; and so it cannot simply, without more, be bestowed by a third party...In the eyes of the law a non-member cannot enforce to his benefit a collective agreement entered into by a trade union that he is not a member of; neither can he have it enforced against him...Actual proof of membership is key to recovery under a collective agreement. Proof of that membership of a trade union has to be by direct documentary evidence”. Also referred to is <i>CAC v. AUPCTRE</i> [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 1) </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">l NIC. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">That in the instant case, the claimant did not prove his membership of FOBTOB, and so he cannot rely on it to claim benefits and/or entitlements arising from the collective agreement of 26th October 2010. In fact, that the crux of the claimant’s claim is stated categorically in paragraphs 10 - 21 of his statement of facts. It is to the effect that the reasonable expectations of the claimant based on the outcome of the industrial dispute as contained in the c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement of 26th October 2010 was not met. To the defendant, failure by the claimant to show evidence of membership of FOBTOB is fundamental and, therefore, goes to the root of the matter. That failure to do so is fatal to and bereaved the Court of jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the condition precedent has not been complied with by the claimant/respondent because there is no evidence to show same.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. It is the further submission of the defendant that as the claimant’s case is not covered by the provision of section 48 of the TDA, this automatically deprives this Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this action. That since membership of FOBTOB is in issue, it is not a mere irregularity but a fundamental defect that deprives this Court of the requisite jurisdiction, urging the Court to decline jurisdiction to entertain this suit because the issue of statutory provision is not a matter for the exercise of the Court’s discretion as there is no room for sentiment in law, </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>Agbi v. Ogbeh</i> [2006] 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65 at 135. The defendant also urged the Court to strike out this action for lack of jurisdiction and that the correct order to make where the Court lacks jurisdiction due to incompetence is that of striking out,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to </span><i><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">Nigerian Communications Commission v. MTN Nigeria Communication Limited</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> [2008] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1086) 229 at 257 - 258. That the judicial mandate of all courts of law is directed towards the achievement of a just, efficient and speedy dispensation of justice but this cannot be achieved if the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain an action as a result of the failure of the initiating party to comply with the necessary conditions before instituting an action as in the instant case. That a court of law which ignores the mandatory or obligatory provisions of statutes and toes the line of justice has not done justice. That courts of law can only do so in the absence of a mandatory or obligatory provision of a statute. In other words, that where the provisions of a statute are mandatory or obligatory as in the instant case, courts of law cannot legitimately brush the provisions aside just because they want to do justice in a matter,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>Mako v. Umoh</i> [2010] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 107 - 108. That n</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">o wonder Lord Denning in </span><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">UAC v. Mcfoy</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [1961] 3 ALL ER 1169 at 1172 states thus:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">If an act is void, then it is in law nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">It is in line with these decided authorities that the defendant </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">urge</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">d the Court to hold that the claimant/respondent has failed to comply with the mandatory provision of law before instituting this action and the suit is, therefore,</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT"> incompetent.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. The claimant in reaction also framed one issue for the determination of the Court i.e. whether the applicant has the <i>locus standi</i> to institute this action and whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit; and answered it in the affirmative arguing that where there is no cause of action, the issue of <i>locus standi</i> is ordinarily spent. The claimant then referred to <i>Kusada v. Sokoto Native Authority</i> [1968] 1 All NLR 377, <i>Savage & o</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">rs v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">.</span></i><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE"> Uwechia</span></i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1972] 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 251 at 256; [1972] 3 SC 24 at 221. </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: IT">Bello v</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. Attorney-General of Oyo State</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1986</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">]</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: DE"> 5 NWLR (Pt</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. 45) 828 at 876 and <i>Mulima v. Usman</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2014</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1432) 160 at 198 in terms of the meaning of cause of action as the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make the claim for the relief or remedy being sought i.e. an act on the part of the defendant which gives to the plaintiff his cause of complaint. Also referred to are <i>Shell BP Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd & ors v. Onasanya</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1976] 6 SC</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">89 at 94; and <i>Chevron Nigeria Limited v. Lonestar Drilling Nigeria Limited</i> [2007] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 168 SC at 178, which relied on </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Drummond</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">-Jackson v. British Medical Association & ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [1970] 1 WLR 688 at 696, in terms of the meaning of reasonable cause of action as a cause of action with some chances of success, when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. That if when those allegations are examined it is found that the alleged cause of action is certain to fail, the statement of claim should be struck-out.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. The claimant then submitted that a careful consideration of the entire facts as stated in the statement of facts dated 16/12/2014 is imperative. That t</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">he gist of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">his case is that he was denied his full entitlements to which he was entitled as an ex-employee of the defendant. That his claims in this suit are based on:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The agreement of 26/10/2010 signed by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, Abuja, the Management of Promasidor (Nigeria) Ltd (defendant company) and Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB); and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">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:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">On the defendant’s promise that the claimant would be paid in accordance with the gratuity payment scheme as contained in the Agreement of 26/10/2010.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">The claimant proceeded to refer to paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 4(b), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, and submitted that an oral promise or contract is enforceable, citing <i>J. </i></span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">E. Oshevire Ltd v. Tripoli Motors</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1997</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">] 5 NWLR (Pt. 503) 1. That it must be pointed out that the claimant’s claims as couched in paragraph 31 of the statement of facts are dependent on the entire facts and combination of facts as already pleaded in the preceding paragraphs of the statement of facts. That the law is that a p</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">laintiff</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s claims must have a factual basis. Thus, the factual basis for the claims as couched is that there was an agreement of 26/10/2010 and a subsequent promise by the defendant to the claimant to abide by that promise. That his cause of action is, therefore, founded on the defendant’s act of failing to comply with the agreement of 26/10/2010 and in breaching its promise to him that it would so comply. That the claimant reminded the defendant of this promise in his letter to the defendant dated 10/10/2013 (already frontloaded) which fact the defendant never denied, referring to paragraph 4(f) of the counter-affidavit and Exhibit LK. It is as a result of this that the claimant claims that the defendant’s acts are wrongful and as such approached this Court seeking to enforce his rights and to claim his legal entitlements.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">12. The claimant continued that contrary to the statement of the defendant’s counsel in paragraph 3.19 of their w</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:DE">ritten </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">address, the claimant actually raised the issue of underpayment and wrongful computation of his terminal benefits and communicated same to the defendant prior to instituting this action, </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 4(f) of the counter-affidavit and Exhibit LK. That it is trite principle that the law enjoins any party who makes a promise to another to stand by it and fulfill same especially when such a promise was made by that person in the expectation that the person to whom it was made would act on same. In this w</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ise,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> that a cause of action would definitely lie against that person in the circumstances of any breach of the promise and that person would be liable to answer to the suit of the aggrieved or injured party. The claimant then submitted that the defendant is bound to stand by its promises to the claimant. That he acted on the defendant’s promise and it was on this basis that he refrained from challenging the otherwise unfair gratuity policy which would amount to short-changing employees like him who had toiled for the defendant company,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraphs 4(f) and (h) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit. T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">hat this set of facts relating to the breach of promise by the defendant raises a reasonable cause of action with a chance of success at the trial, urging the Court to so hold. Furthermore, that in line with the Supreme Court authorities cited above, it is immaterial at this point what the contents of the defendant’s statement of defence states because the law says that it is not necessary to consider such defence at this stage, praying the Court to so hold, and citing <i>Opia v. INEC</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2014</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 431 at 453.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">13. On the issue whether the claimant has the <i>locus standi</i> to institute this action, the claimant answered that he has the legal capacity i.e. <i>locus standi</i> to institute the present action. That it is trite that for a person to have <i>locus standi</i>, he must be able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed, citing </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Adesanya v. The President</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">[1981] 5 SC 112. That in ascertaining whether a plaintiff such as the instant claimant has <i>locus standi</i>, the p</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">laintiff</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">’s pleading, that is, the statement of facts must disclose a reasonable cause of action vested in the p</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">laintiff</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> i.e. the pleading must show the rights and obligations or interests of the plaintiff which have been violated, referring to <i>Adefulu v. Oyesile</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [198</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">9] 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 377, </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Adesanya v. The President</span></i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(<i>supra</i>) and <i>Bakare v.</i></span><i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> Ajose-Adeogun</span></i><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> [2014</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1403) 320 at 351. That the claimant earlier established that he has a reasonable cause of action vested in him; therefore, he has the <i>locus</i> to institute the present action. That his <i>locus</i> flows from his constitutional rights, referring to <i>Odeneye v. Efunnuga</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> [1990</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">] 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618 at 631 - 632. That flowing from these submissions, it has become quite clear that the defendant’s counsel’s arguments on the issue of <i>locus standi</i> are highly misplaced. That the defendant’s counsel erroneously believes that the case of the claimant is wholly dependent on the agreement of 26/10/2010 being a c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">agreement. That the circumstances of the present case are, however,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:PT"> peculiar.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> To the claimant, his claims in this suit are not wholly based on the agreement of 26/10/2010 but also on the defendant’s promise, the breach of which, in itself, gives rise to a valid cause of action. Thus, that assuming (without conceding) that the claimant has no <i>locus</i> to sue on the c</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR">ollective </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">agreement, he has the right to sue on the independent promise made to him by the defendant, which promise the defendant never denied at the material time,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraph (j) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> That he has the right as an ex-employee of the defendant to sue the defendant on its wrongful act and that right was never dependent on membership of FOBTOB or any other u</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">nion</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraph 4(i) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> The claimant went on that it is absolutely unjust to assume that only union members are to take benefits of agreements which touch on employees. That usually, such agreements improve the working conditions of employees; thus, the emphasis is always on employees and never on the union or union members only. Otherwise, that would amount to elevating unionism against the principal issue of improved labour conditions for employees. Furthermore, that would amount to unjustified discrimination which is against the letters and spirit of the Constitution of Nigeria and of labour law in general,</span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">ring to paragraphs 4(c) and (d) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">14. The Court had referred parties to its decision in </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank P</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">lc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> Suit No. NICN/ABJ/30/2011 now reported in [2015] 55 NLLR (Pt. 186) 17 NIC. The claimant submitted that it is pertinent to note here that there was no issue raised by the Court </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">suo moto</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> for counsel’s legal address and no ruling was delivered by the Court on the date the Court referred parties to the case as erroneously stated by the defendant </span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:FR">in paragraph 6</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(e) of the supporting a</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language: IT">ffidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That the Court merely referred parties to the case, and nothing else. The claimant then submitted that resolving the issues which this peculiar suit raises is one that can only be determined by trial; that is, if same cannot be resolved by mediation at the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre as prayed by the claimant in his motion on notice dated 25/11/2015 pending before the Court, </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:FR"> paragraph 4</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">(n) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> Therefore, that it would be wholly unjust if this suit is determined <i>in l</i></span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">imine</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> as prayed by the defendant.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">15. Regarding the question whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit, the claimant pointed out that the defendant has not challenged the jurisdiction of this Court on any other ground other than that the claimant has no <i>locus standi</i> to institute this action; and then submitted that having established above that he has a cause of action and the <i>locus standi</i> to institute same, this Court, therefore, has the jurisdiction, conferred by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the NIC 2006, to entertain and determine this suit on the merits. That the claimant’s suit is competent and this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate over same. That membership of FOBTOB or any other union is not fundamental to confer jurisdiction on this Court to determine the claimant’s suit in the peculiar circumstances, referring to paragraphs 4(1) and (m) of the c</span><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">ounter-affidavit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> That the fact that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit is quite clear in the entire circumstances, </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">refer</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">ring to <i>Dosumu v. NNPC</i></span><span lang="PT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:PT"> [2014] 6 NWLR (Pt</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">. 1403) 282 at 304. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection for being grossly misconceived.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">16. The defendant did not file any reply on points of law.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">COURT</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span></u><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">S DECISION</span></u><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">17. The defendant by its preliminary objection is challenging the competence of this suit as filed. In determining the competence of a suit, <i>WAEC v. Akinola Oladipo Akinkunmi</i> [2008] LPELR-3468(SC); [2008] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1091) 151 SC; [2008] 4 SC 1 held that the determining factor is the plaintiff’s claim. However, it is not the manner in which the claim is couched, nor the categorization given to the claim by the defendant, that matters; what matters is that the Court has the duty to carefully examine the reliefs claimed to ascertain what the claim is all about. And by <i>Alhaji Tsoho Dan Amale v. Sokoto Local Government & ors</i> [2012] LPELR-7842(SC), referring to <i>Adeyemi v. Opeyori</i> [1996] 10 SC 31, “the appellant’s claim should determine the nature of the suit and <i>a fortiori</i> its competence”. However, <i>Taofk Disu & ors v. Alhaja Silicate Ajilowura</i> [2006] LPELR-955(SC); [2006] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 783; [2006] 7 SC (Pt. II) 1, referring to <i>Imade v. Military Administrator Edo State</i> [2001] 6 NWLR (Pt. 709) 478, held that where the opponent is challenging the capacity of a party to sue i.e. its <i>locus</i>, a statement of defence is very necessary in order to assist the Court in deciding the competence of the case before it, for the consequence of striking out a suit may be grave on a plaintiff. I earlier listed out the reliefs (a to e) claimed by the claimant. The defendant’s key argument is that this suit is incompetent given that the claimant has no <i>locus</i> to file this action since he is not a member of the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) as to rely on and take the benefit of the collective agreement of 26th October 2010 entered into by FOBTOB with the defendant and the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity.</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">18. The competence of the suit cannot, however, be determined without knowing exactly what the claimant's cause of action is. The claimant had referred to <i>Mulima v. Usman</i> [2014] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1432) 160 at 198, where His Lordship Okoro, JSC defined a cause of action as a combination of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in court for a remedy, which includes all things which are necessary to give a right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. The catch phrase here is “every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed”. In answer to the defendant, the claimant stressed the fact that an oral promise or contract is enforceable arguing that the factual basis for his claims as couched is that there was an agreement of 26/10/2010 and a subsequent promise by the defendant to him to abide by that promise. The claimant went on that it is absolutely unjust to assume that only union members are to take benefits of agreements which touch on employees given that such agreements improve the working conditions of employees. That the emphasis is always on employees and never on the union or union members only; otherwise, that would amount to elevating unionism against the principal issue of improved labour conditions for employees, or it would amount to unjustified discrimination which is against the letters and spirit of the Constitution of Nigeria and of labour law in general. This submission, aside from being emotional, betrays a poor appreciation of labour law rules by the claimant. Additionally, in making this submission, the claimant did not deem it fit to substantiate it with any authority even when this Court has made several pronouncements in that regard, none of which the claimant deemed it fit to refer to, even if only to urge this Court to reconsider its stance.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">19. The stance of this Court is typified by </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2015] 55 NLLR (Pt. 186) 17, a case this Court drew the parties’ attention to, where this Court held as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The rule that a party seeking to rely on a collective agreement must show evidence of membership of the trade union that entered into the collective agreement is one analogous to the privity rule in the general law of contract. Membership of a trade union carries with it benefits and burdens. One such burden is the payment of check-off dues. It is in this sense that <i>Habu v. NUT Taraba State</i> [2005] 4 FWLR (Pt. 283) 646 held that the deduction from salaries and wages as check-off dues of a worker and the remittance of same to a trade union is an incidence of membership of the worker. A person who refuses to join a trade union and so does not pay check-off dues cannot in the end seek to rely on it for a benefit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">As a senior staff, the law is…that the employee is not assumed to be a member of the trade union. He/she has to </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:NL">opt in</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">”, individually and in writing (unlike junior staff who are deemed members and so can only </span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">“</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">opt out”; for here, deduction of check-off dues is not based on membership but on eligibility – see <i>Udoh v. OHMB</i> [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 142) 52). The claimant in the instant case is a senior staff. She must show membership of ASSBIFI in order to benefit from Exhibit E, the collective agreement. That the defendant made payments to her on the basis of Exhibit E does not mean that thereby she automatically became a member of ASSBIFI as to be entitled to have the benefits from Exhibit E enforced by this Court. She still has to show membership of ASSBIFI in order to be so entitled. In other words, payment under a collective agreement to one who is not a member of the trade union which signed the collective agreement does not and cannot thereby (and by that fact alone) legitimize the non-member as one who can benefit or enforce a benefit from the collective agreement. In fact, where the person in question does not show evidence of membership of the trade union in question, that the fact of unionism is pleaded and not denied is not sufficient to clothe the toga of membership of the trade union and hence entitlement to benefits from the collective agreement entered into by the trade union. In other words, a deemed admission or even a direct admission itself in pleadings does not and cannot confer membership of a trade union. This is because the party making or being deemed to make the admission is not competent to and so cannot bequeath membership of a trade union on an employee. The issue whether or not an employee is a member of a trade union is essentially one of law given the current state of our trade union law; and so it cannot simply, without more, be bestowed by a third party such as the defendant in this suit.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">The issue here is that for non-members of a trade union, the collective agreement in question is not enforceable against them. As such, a party or parties in a suit cannot by admission make enforceable that which is unenforceable <i>ab initio</i>. In the eyes of the law a non-member cannot enforce to his benefit a collective agreement entered into by a trade union that he is not a member of; neither can he have it enforced against him. Even an admission by a defendant as the claimant argues in the instant case cannot thereby give legitimacy to a non-member. Actual proof of membership is the key to recovery under a collective agreement. Proof of that membership of a trade union has to be by direct documentary evidence. It is in this sense that <i>Habu v. NUT Taraba State</i> must be understood when it held that the deduction of check-off dues from salaries and wages of a worker and the remittance of same to a trade union is an incidence of membership of the worker. Even at this, the worker must by direct documentary evidence prove that such deduction of check-off dues and remittance of same to the trade union was done if his fact of membership of the trade union is to be held as established by a Court of law.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">In the instant case, therefore, as the claimant did not prove her membership of ASSBIFI, she cannot rely on it to claim redundancy. Even the evidence of the claimant under cross-examination as to her membership of ASSBIFI is not sufficient to so prove her membership. In paragraph 37 of her sworn deposition, the claimant had stated that she is a beneficiary of the collective agreement. Under cross-examination, the claimant testified that she paid her membership dues. She went on that the bank paid check-off dues in bulk for all members of ASSBIFI; and that the bank deducted check-off dues at source, but the deduction at source was not reflected on employees’ pay-slips. However, the claimant continued that she does not know how much the bank was deducting as check-off dues. She acknowledged that she did not advise her employer that she is a member of ASSBIFI; and that it will surprise her to know that no check-off were deducted from her salary by her employer. I indicated that earlier that a senior staff must individually and in writing opt to join a trade union before a valid membership of the trade union can be said to have been established. See <i>CAC v. AUPCTRE</i> [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 1) 1 NIC. The claimant in the instant case, as senior staff, acknowledged that she did not advise her employer that she was a member of ASSBIFI. On what (legal) basis then did the defendant make the deduction of check-off dues that the claimant claims was made? I reiterate that the claimant failed to prove her membership of ASSBIFI in order to have Exhibit E enforced in her favour. Exhibit E, the collective agreement upon which the claimant accordingly claims redundancy payment, remains unenforceable as against her; and I so find and hold. The claim for redundancy, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">See also </span><i><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">Samson Kehinde Akindoyin v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/308/2013 the judgment of which was delivered on 15th April 2015, <i>Mr. Valentine Ikechukwu Chiazor v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</i> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/122/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 12th July 2016 and </span><i><span lang="NL" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:NL">Mr C. E. Okeke</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> & 3 ors v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/09/2010 the judgment of which was delivered on 26th October 2016</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">20. I read through the claimant’s statement of facts. In all of the 31 paragraphs of the statement of facts, nowhere did the claimant plead that he is a member of FOBTOB; so the question of proof of membership of FOBTOB cannot even be met. There is nothing suggestive in the pleadings that the claimant met the requirements enunciated in </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> for a successful reliance on a collective agreement. Even when this Court referred parties to </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:IT">Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">, the claimant did not even deem it fit to appropriately address the case; instead, all the claimant did was to submit that it is unfair to hold that a non-member of a trade union cannot benefit from a collective agreement. The point then is that even if the instant case were to go to trial, the claimant cannot rely on and claim the benefit of the collective agreement he is presently relying on. In effect, there is no way the claimant can be granted relief a) which is for “a declaration that the claimant is entitled to the benefits of the agreement reached on 19/08/2010 (and adopted on 26/10/2010) between the Management of Promasidor (Nigeria) Ltd (defendant company) and Food, Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity”. If the claimant cannot be grated relief a), it naturally follows that he cannot be granted reliefs b), c) and d) either, given that these reliefs are dependent on the success of relief a). The sums the claimant is claiming as per reliefs b), c) and d) all depend on the collective agreement; they are the difference between what he was given upon disengagement from service and what he ought to be paid based on the collective agreement of 26th October 2010. So the failure of relief a) necessarily means the failure of reliefs b), c) and d). I so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">21. The argument of the claimant that it is absolutely unjust to assume that only union members are to take benefits of agreements which touch on employees given that such agreements improve the working conditions of employees misses the point even using the justice argument. Is it just for a non-union member who did not pay union dues to benefit from a collective agreement fought for and secured with union dues of union members who paid the union dues? By paragraph 14 of the statement of facts, the claimant was disengaged from the services of the defendant on 31st May 2009. The collective agreement he relies on was reached on 19th August 2010 and adopted on 26th October 2010. See paragraph 19 of the statement of facts. This means that the collective agreement relied upon by the claimant came about when the claimant was no longer an employee. Can the claimant even legally rely on such an agreement as conferring any benefit on him? <i>ECWA v. Dele</i> [2004] 10 FWLR (Pt. 230) 297 held that where the conditions of service applicable at the time of appointment had in the meantime been amended or replaced, the relevant conditions of service is the one that is applicable at the time of termination of appointment. The case went on that to hold that it is the one applicable at the time of appointment will mean that if the amended one introduces benefits such as improved conditions of service, which ought to be the case, the employee who was employed before it comes into effect will not take benefit of the same. From this case, <i>a fortiori</i> and without more, the law is that it is the conditions of service at the time of termination that determines the terminal rights and benefits of the employee in question. Something more concrete in terms of documentary evidence is needed if an employee in retirement is to benefit from a subsequent amendment to retirement or terminal benefits made after the date of retirement or termination. The pleadings of the claimant in the instant case do not show anything close to this. In the instant case, therefore, the claimant cannot accordingly rely on an instrument that came about after he ceased to be an employee. I so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">22. The claimant, however, pleaded and hence argued that the Chairman of the defendant company gave him a verbal undertaking that “he will see to it that the outcome of the decision of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity in the ongoing dispute is honoured and that payments due to the claimant will be made if the Ministry of Labour and Productivity upholds the protest of the unions”. See paragraph 18 of the statement of facts. The claimant then stressed the fact that an oral promise or contract is enforceable arguing that the factual basis for his claims as couched is that there was an agreement of 26/10/2010 and a subsequent promise by the defendant to him to abide by that promise. To the claimant, this is sufficient cause of action or reasonable cause of action to sustain this suit. But is this really the case? In the circumstances of this case, can a verbal undertaking confer an entitlement on the claimant as to sustain this suit? The claimant himself cited <i>Mulima v. Usman</i> (<i>supra</i>), which stressed a cause of action to be “every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed”. I indicated earlier that a material fact to success is proof of membership of FOBTOB. This i.e. membership of FOBTOB, the claimant did not even plead. Has this requirement i.e. proof of membership of FOBTOB been dispensed with by the verbal undertaking of the Chairman of the defendant company to the claimant? I do not think so.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">23. This Court has severally held that it is an instrument (a law, circular or collective agreement) that confers entitlements in labour relations. See <i>Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutions and Associated Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) and ors v. Federal Ministry of Health and anor</i>, unreported Suit No. NIC/12/2000 the judgment of which was delivered on 30th March 2006, <i>Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities v. Federal Government of Nigeria</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/8/2004 the judgment of which was delivered on 8th May 2007, <i>Ondo State Government v. National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwives and anor </i>unreported Suit No. NIC/1/2007 delivered on July 4, 2007 and </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Oyo State v. Alhaji Apapa & ors</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> [2008] 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 284. Other than the pleading as to a verbal undertaking given to him, the claimant did not allude to any other piece of evidence to authenticate this pleading. This means that even if this matter were to go to trial, the pleading as to a verbal undertaking given to him is insufficient to ground an action such as this; not with the authorities I just cited. So even on the premise of <i>Mulima v. Usman</i> (<i>supra</i>), it cannot be said that “every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed” is before the Court in terms of this case as filed; and I so hold.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">24. On the whole, I find merit in the defendant’s preliminary objection; and so it succeeds. The instant case of the claimant is incompetent; as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The case is accordingly dismissed.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">25. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><o:p></o:p></p>