Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Representation</span></u></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">T.D.O. Onyejureze for the Claimants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">J.C. Ibe (Mrs) Assistant Director Civil Litigation, Imo state Ministry of Justice, for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Obiora Ibeziakor for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">L. E. Osuiwu for the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2.0in;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Claimants commenced this action on 30/03/2015 by way of Originating Summons, seeking the determination of the following questions: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether having regards to the provisions of the Global Memorandum of understanding (GMOU) entered into on the 1<sup>st</sup> of Jan. 2012 between the Imo State Government, Chevron Nigeria Ltd. and Jisike Communities Regional Development foundation (represented by the <br> Claimants), the action of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant (represented by the Secretary to the Imo State Government) as expressed in the letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2015 and headed: RECONSTITUTED MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF JRDF, Wherein the appointment of the Claimants for a fixed term of 4 years beginning from 26<sup>th</sup> September 2014, was terminated, is not ultra vires the powers and authority of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant and accordingly null, void and of no effect whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) aforesaid, the appointment of the Claimants for a term of 4 years vide the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 with Reference No MPE/S. 183/vol.11/26 is not subsisting. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Upon the resolution of these questions, the Claimants sought the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration that by virtue of the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) entered into between the Imo State Government, Chevron Nigeria Ltd and Jisike Communities Regional Development Foundation on 1<sup>st</sup> January 2012, with particular reference to paragraph 12 and 13 thereof, and the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> day of September 2014 , the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant acting through the Secretary to the Government of Imo State lacks the capacity, authority, powers and legal vires to terminate or revoke the Claimants’ appointment vide his letter date 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015 which purported to have terminated the Claimants appointment and terms of office is illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration that by virtue of the afore pleaded GMOU, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant lacks the legal capacity, authority, powers and vires to terminate and/or revoke the Claimants’ appointment vide the letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015 on grounds of agitations and protects from the Claimants’ community as there was no such protects and agitation from members of the Community. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">An Order of Court setting aside the purported reconstitution or termination of the Claimants’ appointment by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant vide its letter of 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">5.<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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Declaration that the Claimants appointment on 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 for a term of 4 years vide the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September 2014 is still running and subsisting till 2018. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">6.<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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">A Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, servants, agents, privies, workmen and/or anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with and disturbing the Claimants’ already running appointment as conveyed in the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 by the Government of Imo State in line with the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">The Originating summons was supported by an affidavit of 16 paragraphs deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant. In the accompanying written address, Counsel distilled two issues for determination as follows:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether originating summons is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l10 level1 lfo11"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether having regard to the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit A) and the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September 2014 (Exhibit C), the 1st Defendant’s termination or reconstitution of the Claimants’ appointment vide the Secretary to the Imo State Government’s letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015 (Exhibit D) is not unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Arguing issue one, Counsel stated that it is incontestable that originating summons is used whenever the law so provides and is used when the sole or principal question in issue is or is likely to be one of construction of a written law or any instrument or any deed, will, contract or other documents or questions of law or in a circumstance where there is not likely to be in dispute any issue as to facts. See <b>INAKOJU vs.<i> </i>ADELEKE (2007) All FWLR (Pt.353) 3 at 202</b>. Counsel further argued that paragraph 2 (1) (2) (a) & (b) of the practice direction of this Court 2012 provided for the use of originating summons where the issues are for construction of instruments, agreements and so on. See paragraph 15 (c) and (D) of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. See also the case of <b>FAMFA OIL LTD vs. A.G FEDERATION (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 184) 205</b>. It is counsel’s argument that in the present case, what the Court is called upon to do is to interpret the provisions of Exhibits A and C vis-a-vis the letter of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb 2015 (Exhibit D) and to determine whether the said Exhibit D was not made ultra vires the powers of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, since the same was not made in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit A. Counsel submitted that since the question involves only a matter of construction and interpretation of documents, originating summons is the appropriate procedure. See <b>OSSAI vs. WAKWAH (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 303) 239 at 255</b>. The Court was urged by Counsel to answer this first issue in the affirmative. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that the Secretary to the State Government while acting under the instructions of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant purportedly terminated the appointment of the Claimants by a letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb 2015 (Exhibit D) reconstituting the members of the Claimants. See paragraph 10 of the supporting affidavit. It is Counsel’s submission that the Secretary to the State Government while acting under the instruction of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, had no legal authority/capacity to do so, having regard to the provisions of Exhibits A and C. Also, counsel contended that it is not disputed that the provisions of Exhibit A binds the parties to it and the Claimants were appointed and indeed inaugurated vide Exhibit C for a fixed term of 4 years beginning from 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014. Furthermore, counsel argued that by Paragraph 14 (c) at Page 23 of Exhibit A,<i> </i>it was provided as follows: <b><i>“this GMOU shall not be modified or altered except by a written Agreement signed by the parties”</i></b>. It is counsel’s submission that the appointment of the Claimants was made pursuant to the provisions of the GMOU (Exh "A"). Thus, any unilateral alteration of Exh "A" cannot stand. The Defendant acted contrary to the provisions of Exhibit "A"</span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE"> by</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> terminating the appointment of the Claimants vide Exhibit "D". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:145%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel argued that the intendment of paragraph 14 (c) of the Exhibit "A" is that none of the parties can unilaterally terminate, alter or modify the contents. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, under Exhibit "A" was not given any authority to reconstitute or terminate the appointment of validly appointed members of JRDF. See paragraph 3 (3.1) (c) of Exhibit A. Thus, by purporting to have reconstituted the appointment of the Claimants, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant acted without authority and outside the scope of her role under Exhibit A. See the case of <b>OFODILE vs.<i> </i>C.O.P ANAMBRA STATE (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 699) at 139</b>. It is the argument of Counsel that the construction of Exhibit C reveals that the appointment of the Claimants and others was done in line with the provisions of Exhibit A. Paragraph 2 of Exhibit C reads: <b><i>“we wish you a successful tenure and urge you to ensure that the GMOU process between JISIKE COMMUNITIES AND CHEVRON NIG. LTD are fully implemented”</i></b>. Finally, Counsel submitted that where the provisions of an agreement are clear, no party would be allowed to alter such provision. See <b>TUKUR vs. GOVT OF GONGOLA (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517</b>. Also, an act done in contravention of the provision of an agreement validly entered is ultra vires the powers that did it. Counsel further submitted that the provisions of the GMOU are incorporated into the letter appointing the Claimants (Exhibit C) by reference. Thus, any breach of its provisions is unlawful, null and void. In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Claimants have proved their claim as contained in the originating summons. Counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs in this suit accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">In opposition, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant on 21/10/2015 filed a counter affidavit of 3 paragraphs deposed to by one Thompson Dede, a legal practitioner in the law office of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant’s Counsel. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant on 29/2/2016 filed a counter affidavit of 9 paragraphs he personally deposed to. In his accompanying written address, counsel distilled 3 issues for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l12 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether originating summons is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l12 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant was nominated/elected as the chairman</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> of Jisike Regional Development Foundation (JRDF) in accordance with article 4, section B, sub-section A and C of the Jisike Regional Development Foundation's (JRDF) Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l12 level1 lfo14"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Assuming but not conceding to the fact that Imo State Government has the power to reconstitute</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> Jisike Regional Development Foundation 2014 which is not a creation of statute; whether the purported reconstitution of Jisike Regional Development Foundation's officers and members for a term of 4 years commencing from 2014 by the office of the Secretary to the Imo State Government in a letter dated 21<sup>st</sup> July 2014 and that of permanent secretary Ministry of Petroleum whose schedule is strictly under public service of a state is superior and will prevail over the reconstitution of the same Jisike Regional Development Foundation carried out by the Executive Governor of Imo state which said office as provided under section 176 and 196 of the 1999 Constitution(as amended)?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">With regard to issue one, counsel aligned himself with the arguments of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s argument on this issue which does not need to be repeated here. However, Counsel cited the cases of <b>REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CHERUBIM AND SERAPHIM CHURCH MOVEMENT vs. IJADOLA</b> <b>(2008) All FWLR (Pt. 408) 271, FGN vs. Zebra Energy (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 162 and A.G. ABIA STATE A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt.763) 266</b> and urged the court to dismiss the Claimant suit and grant his counter claim. Counsel went further to argue that by Article 4, Section B of the JRDF Constitution the position of chairman and secretary are rotated among the oil producing villages. Going by the zoning arrangement it is legally the turn of the Obeabo Autonomous Community to produce the chairman. It is the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant who was nominated/elected in the elections conducted at the JRDF secretariat in Owerri and at Obeabo Autonomous community. Counsel submitted that the instead of recognizing him as Chairman, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant is according recognition to the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant who was not elected on the Okwudor village, in particular Obeabo Autonomous Community without any recourse to the JRDF Constitution and GMOU. Counsel urged the court to bring the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant to his rightful position. It is the further argument of counsel that the parties in this suit are in agreement that JRDF is a community based organization, whose executive committee is elected by the communities and not the Government. The Government will only intervene in a conflict such as the one occasioned by the imposition of the 1<sup>st</sup> claimant. Again, counsel submitted that the claimants have been unable to substantiate their claim with documentary evidence. Thus, the court was urged by counsel to grant the counter claim and dismiss this application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Arguing issue two, counsel submitted that clause 1(d),(e), (u) and (x) of the GMOU show that the component members of the JRDF as written on the GMOU’s first page remain the same, since there is no existence of any written alteration anywhere. Thus, the permanent secretary Ministry of Petroleum Imo state lacks the power to interfere with the activities of the JRDF. Counsel submitted that the GMOU empowered the Jisike communities to form an organization named </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Jisike Regional Development Foundation, which has a constitution that defines the leadership transition process. The present JRDF constitution in its Article 2 spells out the process of acquiring membership, the number of JRDF’s members and how they are nominated by the respective Jisike communities. Article 3 of the Constitution provides the number of JRDF’s executive members and the particular Autonomous communities to produce them. Therefore, the SSG’s action imposing the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant who hails from Umunwama, (the same community as the immediate past chairman Hon. Felix Nwakuche) as Chairman, when it was the turn of Obeabo was an abuse of his powers and a breach of the JRDF constitution by not respecting the election of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant as chairman of JRDF 2014. However, the SSG in his letters dated 2<sup>nd</sup> and 16<sup>th</sup> February 2015 retracted and corrected his mistake. With respect to the third issue, counsel contended that section 176(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes the Governor of a state the highest in the hierarchy within any State in Nigeria. Thus, any act taken by the office of the Governor takes precedence over an act of the SSG. Counsel submitted that the nomination/election of the 4<sup>th</sup> defendant as chairman of JRDF 2014 and the subsequent confirmation by the office of the Governor, Deputy Governor, Imo House of Assembly and later the SSG be declared by the Court as authentic. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit as it lacks merit and allow the object of the letter from the office of SSG dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015 to take effect. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant relied on the averments of his counter-affidavit and the written address and counter-claimed against the Claimants and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">A Declaration that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant is the authentic chairman of Jisike Regional Development Foundation having been nominated and elected by the component stake holders of Jisike people of Obeabo Autonomous Community in accordance with the stipulations of the Global Memorandum of Understanding and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"> Jisike Regional Development Foundation’s Constitution and duly confirmed by the office of the Executive Governor, office of the Deputy Governor, Office of the Secretary to the Government of Imo State and Imo House of Assembly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">A Declaration that the list of JRDF officers and members approved and adopted by the Jisike communities by the office of the Secretary to the Government of Imo state 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2015 with the consent and input of the Jisike community is the authentic list.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo15"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">c)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic">An Order of the court mandating the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant to recognise the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant as the chairman of </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Jisike Regional Development Foundation Izombe, Oguta 2014 together with the officers and members as nominated/elected by the people of Umunwama Autonomous Community and Obeabo Autonomous Community (all of Izombe clan) and accord all the necessary rights and privileges accruing to the office of JRDF Chairman and members for a term of 4 years commencing from the date of this judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants on 15/03/2016 filed a 20-paragraph counter-affidavit and written address vide a motion for extension granted by the court on 11/5/2016. In their address, counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendant raised </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">3 issues for determination, as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:38.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the instant application is not incompetent where by the court is robbed off jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:38.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether or not the facts contained in the claimant's affidavit in support are not hostile and whether the claimants are not required to lead evidence while his reliefs are purely declaratory.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:38.9pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l16 level1 lfo12"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether having regards to the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) and the JRDF constitution, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant reconstitution of the Jisike Regional Development Foundation (JRDF) based on the nominations</span><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">from the community vide its letter of 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015 is unlawful.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">In arguing the first issue, counsel submitted that 254(A) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) expressly ousts the jurisdiction of this Court on matters relating to proceedings on how Autonomous Communities run their affairs. Counsel submitted further that with the above constitutional provision, the claimant/respondents' action as presently constituted is not justiciable before this court. It is counsel’s submission that the subject matter of this suit is disputed leadership in Autonomous Communities of the JDRF proceedings. This being the case, this action as presently constituted is incompetent. Similarly, counsel submitted that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the competence or otherwise of a suit. See <b>WAEC vs. AKINKUMI (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1091) 42 at 44</b>. See also <b>ASOGWA vs. CHUKWU (2003) 17 W.R.N 71 at 99 – 100</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Similarly, counsel argued that jurisdiction is always dependent upon the claim before the Court. See the following cases of:<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in; line-height:normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">SLB CONSORTIUM LTD vs. N.N.P.C. (2011) All FWLR (Pt.583)1902 at 1916 </span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">OKOLO vs. U.B.N. (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87 </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo13"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE">UWAZIRI vs. STATE (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) 689<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s humble submission that it is only when the civil right and obligation of the person who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court are in issue for determination that the judicial power of the court may be invoked. Thus, jurisdiction constitutes a radical and crucial question of competence which a Court of Law must necessarily possess before entertaining a matter so as not to render its decision or order a nullity ab initio. See <b>EGHAREVBA vs. ERIBO (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1199) 411 and </b></span><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">A.G. FEDERATION vs. ABACHA (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 1 at 28</span></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">. Counsel urged the Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-font-width: 105%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">Regarding issue two, counsel submitted that any suit instituted in contravention of the relevant law is incompetent and the Court of Law for that reason lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. See May I refer the Court to the decided case of <b>BABALOLA vs. OSOGBO L. G. (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 465</b>. It is counsel’s submission that an Originating Summons procedure is a process devised to enable the Court interpret legal or legislative provisions. No facts shall be in dispute. It is not designed for proceedings where evidence shall be led to establish disputed facts. It is not appropriate for hostile proceedings where affidavit and counter affidavit are filed. Once there are disputed facts as in the instant case, the proceeding is not amenable to the procedure of Originating Summons. Claimants claim that they are the proper parties while Defendants are saying it's not true and that they are not. See the case of <b>OSUAGWU vs. EMEZI (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 460 at 649, paras F - G</b>. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this suit as the Claimants’ case is not one that should have been instituted by way of originating summons. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">With respect to issue three, counsel submitted that the act of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was excellent by recognizing and confirming the nominations from the Community in his letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2015. This was guided by the provisions of the GMOU as well as the J.R.D.F constitution. See Article 3, Section B(C) of Jisike Regional Development Foundation's Constitution and the GMOU module paragraph l(e) & (u). Counsel further submitted that a constitution is the frame work a state or organization works with and anything done contrary to same is null and void. See <b>UTIH vs. ONOYIWE (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) </b><b>166</b>. It is counsel’s contention that the Claimants were erroneously reconstituted by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant by a letter from the Office of Secretary to the Government of Imo State dated 21<sup>st</sup> July 2014, after which the SSG realized that the foundation had a constitution which stipulated transition process. The reconstitution of the Claimants was done by the SSG without the input of the Community and same was resisted by the people of Obeabo and Umunwama Autonomous Community with protests and series of demonstrations to the Government House. Counsel contended further that it is an elementary law that he who hires, has the right to fire as well and there is no better time to correct a wrong, than the moment one realizes it. The Secretary to the Government of Imo State single handedly reconstituted the Claimants on 21<sup>st</sup> July, 2014. It is counsel’s opinion that such a letter together with one claimed to have been given by the Permanent Secretary Ministry of Petroleum dated 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 ought to be disregarded by this Court as such letters were done without the input of the community which runs contrary to the stipulations of the GMOU & JRDF constitution. The nominations from the community had one Barr. Obinna Ugochukwu as Chairman of JRDF - See Exhibit C. Counsel argued that this suit cannot succeed because the Claimants are asking the court to uphold their reconstitution as officers and members of JRDF against the wishes and intentions of the community. The proper thing to do my lord is to strike out this matter for its lacking in merit. The 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant's name was never on the list of nomination from the Community and he should not be allowed to impose himself on the people of Jisike Communities. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant who is the head of Imo State Government has an obligatory role to play in the implementation of the GMOU process. One of these roles is to play supervisory and conflict resolution roles in the implementation of the GMOU. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s argument that in the instant case there was wild spread conflict and protest regarding the reconstitution of JRDF Board in 2014. However, after extensive consultation with the Jisike Communities and relevant stakeholders, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant finally adopted nominations from the community which was communicated to Chevron Nigeria Limited in a letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2015. Counsel urged the court to give the letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February, 2015 from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of Imo State the effect it deserves, which is in line with the stipulations of both the GMOU and JRDF constitution and hence accordingly strike out the Claimants' suit for its lacking in merit and also made with bad faith to impose the Claimants on the good people of Obeabo and Umunwama Autonomous Communities. From the foregoing, counsel urged the court to uphold the arguments of the Defendants and dismiss the Claimants' originating summons as incompetent and robs the Court of jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The Claimants on 14<sup>th</sup> March, 2016 filed a further affidavit of 25 paragraphs deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant. In the written address filed alongside, counsel identified two issues for determination thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l8 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the counter claim is not misconceived and therefore lacking in merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l8 level1 lfo16"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant has proved the counter-claim to warrant the declarations sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s counter-claim is misconceived because it is not directed at the parties at the proper authorities, that is the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants whose office are in a position to obey the court’s orders. Similarly, counsel argued that the counter claim is incompetent; owing to the fact that the Claimant did not make any claim against the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. A counter-claim presupposes the fact that there is a claim against the counter-claimant by the Defendant to the counter claim. See <b>AKAIGBE vs. PAULOSA NIG LTD (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 373 at 383</b>. In the instant case, there is no case by the Claimants against the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant. The procedure of making a counter-claim against a party that has no claim is unknown to law. The court was urged by counsel to discountenance the counter-claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Again, counsel submitted that the counter claim as an independent claim was not assessed, and no assessment fees were paid. The law is settled that a court process that is unpaid for is incompetent. See <b>ONWUGBUFU vs. OKOYE (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 424) 252, OKOLO vs. UBN (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87 at 108</b>. In the light of the foregoing, counsel urged the court to dismiss the counter-claim. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Regarding issue two, counsel contended that it is clear that the documents attached to the counter-affidavit of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant are documents made for the purposes of this suit and are inadmissible. More so, counsel is of the opinion that the bone of contention of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s counter-affidavit is that the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant is not a native of Eziama, a fact that the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant in paragraph 9 of his further affidavit has averred to and has gone further to name who is father is. Therefore, the onus shifted to the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant to prove his assertion. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Again, Counsel argued that the processes of the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant have no stamp affixed to them in contravention of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007 and the unreported Supreme Court’s decision in <b>APC vs. SARKIN YAKI SC/722/2015</b>. An act that renders the processes not properly signed and filed. Counsel urged the Court to strike out the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s counter-affidavit and counter claim. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">In conclusion, counsel urged the court to hold that the originating summons has not been challenged; the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant has not asked the court to interpret his own documents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">The 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant on 11<sup>th</sup> May 2016 filed a further and better affidavit of 8 paragraphs in the accompanying address; counsel distilled two issues for determination, to wit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the Claimants have made out a case to the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo17"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant’s counter-claim is lacking in merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Counsel submitted that the issues raised in the present suit are clear on the fact that JRDF is a community based organization and the selection and election of its officers is a domestic affair of the communities in the GMOU. The role of the government is to confirm the recommendation or input from the community. It is the further submission of counsel that in proof of the claimants’ case, they only attached an un-certified appointment letter from the permanent secretary Ministry of Petroleum Imo state, an action ultra vires the powers and duties of the office of permanent secretary Ministry of Petroleum. Counsel contended that the Claimants failed to prove with concrete evidence how the people of Obeabo Autonomous Community nominated and elected him as chairman of the JRDF in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(B)(c) of the JRDF Constitution. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case with substantial cost because granting any relief of the claimants amounts to a breach of the JRDF Constitution, which in itself is a promotion of illegality. See <b>UTIH vs. ONOYIWE (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.166).</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Regarding the second issue, counsel argued that the Claimants’ counsel misconstrued the principles of counter-claim. A Defendant may counter claim against some other person who is not a party in the action, provided the claimant in the suit is made a defendant, while any other people would be additional defendants. See <b>HARRIS vs. GAMBLE (1877) 6 ChD 748</b>. Counsel also referred to <i>Civil Procedure </i>by Fidelis Nwadialo 2<sup>nd</sup> edition 2000, pages 395-396. Again, the other person may be a complete stranger to the action brought by the Claimant or a co-defendant in that action. The Defendant may counter-claim against the Claimant and the person jointly or in the alternative. See <b>SMITH vs. BUSKELL (1919) 2 KB 362</b>. Finally, counsel argued that the counter-claim was properly assessed and the processes were sealed by the legal practitioner who signed and filed the process. The court was urged to grant the reliefs in the counter-claim which the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant proved with concrete documentary evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">On 23/5/2016, counsel for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants filed a Notice of Preliminary objection on the issues that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit, and this action is incompetent liable to be struck out and dismissed because it discloses no reasonable cause of action. In the supporting written address, counsel distilled three issues for determination, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l17 level1 lfo18"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether this Honourable Court has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the provisions of section 254(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l17 level1 lfo18"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the facts contained in the Claimant’s affidavit in support are not hostile and whether the Claimants are not required to lead evidence while their reliefs are purely declaratory.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l17 level1 lfo18"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">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:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Whether the Claimants have reasonable cause of action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">With respect to issue one, counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the claim and not the parties because it is the claim that connects the parties against whom there may be a right of relief sought in the claim. Also, counsel submitted further that it is the claim that relates to the statute creating the court, in the instant case- the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It is counsel’s contention that Section 254(c) of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of this Court on matters relating to town union leadership tussles, and the instant action is not justifiable before this court. Counsel cited the cases of <b><i>Calabar Central Cooperative Thrift &Credit Society Ltd vs. Ekpo (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1083) 362</i></b>, <b><i>NDIC vs. Okem Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 850) 107</i></b>, and contended that the duty of the court facing clear and unambiguous statutory or constitutional provisions is to apply it, giving a literal and grammatical meaning. Similarly, counsel submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any matter strictly founded on town union tussle like in the instant case, citing <b><i>Asogwa vs. Chukwu (2003) 17 WRN 71 at 99-100</i></b>. It is the contention of counsel citing <b><i>WAZIRI vs. STATE (1997) 3NWLR (Pt. 196) 689</i></b> that the jurisdiction of the court is fundamental, and an objection relating to it must be dispensed with before any further step can be taken in the proceedings, and where there is a defect in the court’s jurisdiction, the entire proceedings is a nullity. In addition, counsel referred the court to the cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal; mso-list:l11 level1 lfo19"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Okolo vs. UBN (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 859) 87 </span></i></b><i><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo19"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">Egharevba vs. Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 411</span></i></b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style: italic"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l11 level1 lfo19"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language:HE">A.G. Federation vs. Abacha (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 1 at 28</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">In the same vein, counsel asserted that the operative word in Section 254(c) of the Constitution is “shall” which when used in an enactment connotes a command or “mandatoriness”, citing <b><i>Ogidi vs. State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.918) 286 at 327</i></b>. Further, counsel submitted that the court has a duty to examine the reliefs claimed to ascertain the ambit of the action, and an examination of the instant action will lead this court to the conclusion that it is incompetent and outside the court’s jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">Regarding issue two, counsel argued that the originating summons’ supporting affidavit discloses contentious facts that call for evidence, to which cannot be instituted by an originating summons. Counsel cited the cases of <b><i>Osuagwu v Emezi (1998) 12 NWLR (pt. 579) 460, Global Soap &Detergent Ltd v NAFDAC (2011) 50 WRN 108 </i></b>and<b><i> Adeyelu vs. Ajagunbiade III (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1053) 1 at 10</i></b> in support of his argument. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">On issue three, it is counsel’s argument that the present suit discloses no reasonable cause of action because this Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine it. Citing <b><i>SPDC Ltd vs. FARAH (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 382) 1 </i></b>and<b><i> Egbe vs. Adefarasin (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 549</i></b>, Counsel argued further that a cause of action consists of every fact necessary for the Claimant to prove to support his right to judgment, and same accrues when there is a proper party to sue and another to be sued. Also, counsel argued that an examination of the reliefs sought in this action indicates a heavy reliance on the memorandum of understanding entered into by the Imo State Government, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and Jisike Communities Regional Development Foundation; which not being a contractual agreement cannot be enforced by this court. See <b><i>Star Furnace Property Ltd vs. NDIC (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1309) 522</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">More so, counsel contended that the fourth relief sought by the Claimant in the present suit cannot be granting because the court cannot restrain the Defendant from doing a completed act. In conclusion, counsel urged the court to decline jurisdiction in view of the foregoing submissions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-language: HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.5in"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">COURT’s DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants as well as the 4<sup>th</sup> Defendant have raised some preliminary issues of law touching on the jurisdiction of this court and the competence of the Claimants’ suit. The two points of objection raised by these Defendants are: (1) that the subject matter of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of this court, and (2) that the nature of the suit is such that it ought not to have been commenced by way of Originating Summons. I have to determine these issues, starting with the issue of jurisdiction, before going ahead to consider the merits of the summons. This is in view of the principle of law that once the issue of a court’s jurisdiction is raised, it must be settled first and timeously too before any other step is taken in the matter. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Supreme Court, in <b>ISAAC OBIUWEUBI vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465 at 494</b> held:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“It is thus mandatory that courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to consider any other matter. Usually, where a court’s jurisdiction is challenged by the defence, it is better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hear a case on the merits. Any failure by the court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which renders further step taken in the proceedings a nullity.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It was similarly held in <b>A.P.G.A. vs. ANYANWU (2014) All FWLR (Pt.735) 243 at 256-257</b>, that-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“The law is by now well settled that jurisdiction is the life blood of any adjudication and where it lacking, it will render any proceedings, no matter how well conducted, liable to be set aside for being a nullity. Jurisdiction is so fundamental that once the court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter is challenged, it must be dealt with and resolved first before taking another step in the proceedings. It is because it is so fundamental that it can be raised at any time, in any manner and at any stage of the proceedings. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also <b>INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 at 588; AIGORO vs. C.L & H, KWARA STATE (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 663) 1998.</b> Since it is a</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> well founded doctrine that where an action is not competent or properly instituted, the court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain and determine same, it is thus most imperative that the issue of jurisdiction of this court be dealt with first and foremost before determining the action on the merits. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In paragraph 6 of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants’ counter affidavit to the Originating Summons, it was averred that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s suit. In a subsequent Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 23<sup>rd</sup> May 2016, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant contended that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Claimants’ suit on the grounds, among others, that the subject matter of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of this court. In her arguments in support of this ground of the objection, the learned counsel to the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants, J.C Ibe (Mrs.), submitted that the subject matter of the Claimants’ suit pertains to town union leadership tussle which subject is not included in the subject matters on which this court is conferred with jurisdiction in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This court has observed that the Claimants did </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">not file any response to the </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Notice of Preliminary Objection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The causes or subject matters which this court can entertain are set out in section 254-C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The provisions of the section relevant to the resolution of this objection are contained in subsection 1 thereof. It provides that the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters Connected therewith or related thereto; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising therefrom; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(i) connected with or relating to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;tab-stops:199.7pt"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(j) relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(i) collective agreement; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(iii) award or judgment of the Court : <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour industrial relations or work place; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(l) relating to-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(i) appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith ; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; and <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly; <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(m) relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreements.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:364.5pt"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:364.5pt"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The implication of the provisions of Section 254C (1) of CFRN 1999 set out above is that before this court can assume jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Claimants suit, the subject matter of the suit must come within any of the subject matters specified in the section. The question arising at this point is whether the Claimant’s suit falls into any of the above subject matter jurisdiction of this court. It is a fundamental principle of law that the jurisdiction of a Court of law is determined by the claimant’s claim. That is to say, it is the claim before the Court that should be examined to ascertain whether it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on the Court. See <b>IZENKWE vs. NNADOZIE 14 WACA 361 at 363; ADEYEMI vs. OPEYORI (1976) 9- 10 S.C. 51;</b> <b>WESTERN STEEL WORKS vs. IRON & STEEL WORKERS (1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 49) 284; TUKUR vs. GOVT. GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 549.</b> In <b>INAKOJU vs. ADELEKE (supra) at 588 – 589, </b>Tobi JSC (as then was) expounded the law on how jurisdiction of a trial Court is determined when he held-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">"In determination of whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, the Court process to be used is the pleadings of the Plaintiff, which is the statement of claim; it is the case put up by the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court."<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Taking the foregoing authorities into consideration, it is quite plain that in resolving the issue of jurisdiction in the instant case, the Court processes to be examined are the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support containing the cause of action, facts of the case and the reliefs sought. Let me first examine the facts of the Claimants’ case. The </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was deposed to by the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant. <u>He said he is the Chairman of Jisike Communities Regional Development Foundation (J.R.D.F) having been so elected on 26<sup>th</sup> September 2014</u>. A Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) was entered into on behalf of Izombe Community on 1<sup>st </sup>January 2012 between the JRDF, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and the Imo State Government. The GMOU, annexed as Exhibit A to the affidavit, has been in effect since 2012 without any external influence from any of the parties. As provided in the GMOU, the main duty of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is only to play a supervisory and conflict resolution role in the implementation of the GMOU. <u>The appointment into office of chairman of JRDF and other representatives of various Communities in the JRDF is done through election or Community nomination</u>. <u>The 1<sup>st </sup>Claimant and other members of the JRDF were nominated from their various villages through their various village Chairmen and in accordance with the GMOU and the Constitution of the JRDF. The deponent annexed the constitution of JRDF as Exhibit B</u>. After their nomination, the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant as the Chairman and other Claimants were duly inaugurated on the 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014, for a term of 4 years as stipulated in Paragraph 12 of the GMOU. By a letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014, the Government of Imo State through the office of the Commissioner for Petroleum and Environment wrote the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant confirming his appointment as the Chairman of JRDF for a four year tenure. While the tenure of the Claimants was still running for a 4 year term, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant acting through the Secretary to the Imo State Government terminated the appointment of the Claimants vide a letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015 on the grounds of agitations and protests from the Community. The effect of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015 is to divest the Claimants of their rights to work for their communities for the next 4 years <u>contrary to the provision of the GMOU</u> and the intention of the Secretary to Government of Imo State in the said letter is to replace the Claimants with his own cronies who were not duly nominated by the community. The 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant, acting through the Secretary to the Government of Imo State, lacks the legal authority or powers to terminate the Claimants appointment or reconstitute the JRDF neither did the Claimants breach any provision of the GMOU to warrant the <u>reconstitution of JRDF by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant</u>.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The reliefs sought by the Claimants in this suit have earlier been reproduced in this judgment. However, for a proper consideration of the issue at hand, it is necessary to set them out here again. The Reliefs sought are these: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans 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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A Declaration that by virtue of the provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) entered into between the Imo State Government, Chevron Nigeria Ltd and Jisike Communities Regional Development Foundation on 1<sup>st</sup> January 2012, with particular reference to paragraph 12 and 13 thereof, and the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> day of September 2014, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant acting through the Secretary to the Government of Imo State lacks the capacity, authority, powers and legal vires to terminate or revoke claimants appointment vide his letter date 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2015.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans 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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendants letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015 which purported to have terminated the Claimants appointment and terms of office is illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans 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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A Declaration that by virtue of the afore pleaded GMOU, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant lacks the legal capacity, authority, powers and vires to terminate and/or revoke the Claimants appointment vide the letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015 on grounds of agitations and protests from the Claimants community as there was no such protests and agitation from members of the Community. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans 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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">An Order of Court setting aside the purported reconstitution or termination of the Claimants appointment by the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant vide its letter of 2<sup>nd</sup> Feb. 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">5.<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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A Declaration that the Claimants appointment on 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 for a term of 4 years vide the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September 2014 is still running and subsisting till 2018. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l13 level1 lfo20"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">6.<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: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">A Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, servants, agents, privies, workmen and / or anybody claiming through or under them from interfering with and disturbing the Claimants already running appointment as conveyed in the letter dated 26<sup>th</sup> September, 2014 by the Government of Imo State in line with the Provisions of the Global Memorandum of Understanding. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The document annexed to the affidavit as Exhibit B is the Constitution of JRDF and the objectives and functions describe the foundation as a pressure group for the promotion of development, social welfare and economic empowerment of the indigenes of Jisike communities. The constitution provides for the election of members of the JRDF council and the executive officers for a tenure of 4 years. The functions of the Executive officers of JRDF are contained in the Constitution. Exhibit A is a GMOU dated 1<sup>st</sup> January 2012, whereby the JRDF, Chevron and the Imo State Government entered into an agreement for the purpose of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">identifying a framework within which Chevron and JRDF can work together to create a climate of understanding between the parties so as to achieve the objectives of participatory partnership, transparency and accountability, capacity building, safety, security and Rule of law, Community empowerment and sustainable development</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> and harmonious relationship between the JRDF communities and Chevron. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">From the facts in the Claimants’ affidavit and the contents of Exhibits A and B, the following facts are clear to me:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">i. The GMOU is an agreement between the parties to it in respect of an arrangement for harmonious relationship between the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and the JRDF communities. The GMOU is not an employment agreement nor does it create labor or employment relationship of any form between the parties.</span><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">ii. The JRDF is a community association or foundation set up to pursue interest of the concerned community, particularly with reference to the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant and the GMOU. The objectives of the JRDF in its constitution show that is more of a pressure group. The JRDF does not qualify as a trade union.</span><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">iii. The appointment into office of chairman of JRDF and other representatives of various Communities in the JRDF is done through election or community nomination. As stated by the 1<sup>st</sup> Claimant in his affidavit, he and other members of the JRDF were nominated from their various villages through their various village chairmen and in accordance with the GMOU and the Constitution of the JRDF.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In view of these obvious facts, e</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">lection or nomination into the executive office of JRDF is not an employment or labor or trade union matter. The dispute in this suit is not a trade dispute nor is it a trade union dispute. Consequently, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">t</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">he election or nomination of members of the executive officers of JRDF, the termination of their appointment or reconstitution of the members and officers of JRDF is not the business of this court. Secondly, the reliefs sought by the Claimant have to do with interpretation and enforcement of terms of the GMOU. The GMOU is purely a civil agreement between the parties to it and it does not have anything to do with employment or labor matter. This court cannot interpret or enforce an agreement unless it is connected with issues of employment or labour or matters which the court has jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Having reviewed and considered all the facts of the Claimants case against the provision of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution, I have no doubt that the case of the Claimants does not come within the jurisdiction of this court. It is quite clear to me that none of the provisions of Section 254C (1) cover the subject of determining validity of removal or reconstitution of executive officers of a community association or entertaining disputes resulting from an agreement which is not connected to labour matter. Clearly, this court does not have jurisdiction on the issues brought before this court. I find therefore that the Claimant’s suit does not come under any of the subject matters in Section 254C (1) of the Constitution. I find merit in the preliminary objection of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">With this finding, any further consideration of the issues in the Originating Summons becomes merely academic. The suit is hereby struck out. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p>