Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N.L. Igwe Eq. appeared for the Claimants/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Kevin Eyah Esq. appeared for the Defendants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the 5<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2017 the Claimant filed a Complaint along with a Statement of Facts against the Defendants praying for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A declaration that the forceful closure of the Claimant business premises at Trans-Amadi Port Harcourt for many months by the Defendant without any justification whatsoever is illegal, unlawful and an infringement on the right of the Claimant to carry on business in Nigeria freely.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of this court that no salary or entitlement should be paid to any member of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants under the employment of the Claimant within the months they closed the Claimant’s business premises at Trans-Amadi Port Harcourt Rivers State and did not work for Claimant within the said period of closure.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, agents, servants, privies, or of whatever name so called from further closing down the Claimant’s business premises under whatever guise without an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Payment of the sum of Five Hundred Million Naira (N500,000,000.00) only as general damages for the lost of (sic) huge income by the Claimant as a result of the Defendants closure of its business for a long time.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimants filed along with the Complaint an application for interlocutory injunction dated 4<sup>th</sup> January 2017 on 5<sup>th</sup> January, 2017 in which they seek the following relief against the Defendants/Respondents:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">An order of Interlocutory injunction mandating the Defendants to immediately vacate the gate of the claimant and its premises to enable the Claimant and its staffs(sic) access their respective offices which are under lock and key as a result of the Defendants unlawful shutting down of the company.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The interlocutory application was supported by an affidavit of 13 paragraphs deposed to by one Mrs Edidiong Nwineh, the General Manager Administration/Personnel of the Claimant. There is also a written address in support of the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendants/respondents entered appearance in the matter and filed counter affidavit on 9/2/2017. Attached to the counter-affidavit are exhibits D1-D11. There is a written address in opposition to the interlocutory application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Thereafter the claimant on 8<sup>th</sup> February, 2017 filed a further affidavit of ten paragraphs with three exhibits attached. They equally on 24<sup>th</sup> of February, 2017 filed a further and better affidavit of 19 paragraphs with exhibits C, D, S1 to S11 attached thereto. There is also a reply on points of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Parties adopted their respective written addresses on 3/3/2017. In his written address in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction, the learned counsel for the Claimant/Applicant formulated and argued one issue for determination, namely, whether considering the facts and circumstances of this application, is this a proper case which this court can exercise its discretion in granting the prayers of the claimant/applicant? He submitted that the answer to the issue is in the affirmative. He continued that there are principles laid down for grant of interlocutory injunction, hence once those principles are present in any application of this nature, the court will exercise its unfettered discretion in the favour of the applicant at a time like that. That the Supreme Court of Nigeria per Karibi-Whyte JSC has this to say in the case of <b><i>ObidiegwuOnyesoh vs Nze Christopher Nnebedum& 3 Ors (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 315 at 336, para E-H </i></b><i>thus:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions as is the case before us, have been stated with uncanny clarity in several decisions of this court. It is unnecessary to cite the cases. The law is that an injunction can only be granted to support a legal right and we refuse where no prima facie case of a legal right to the matter sought to be restrained has been established. The remedy by interlocutory injunction, as its name implies is temporary. Being an equitable remedy it is also discretionary. Hence the central objective of the court granting an interlocutory injunction is to exercise its discretion to keep the parties in status quo pending the determination of the substantive action. Hence the basis of the decision to grant the application is that the court has before it a substantive action seeking for the determination of the issue subject matter of the application. That the applicant has shown from the affidavit in support of his application that there is a prima facie case that there is genuine dispute between the parties to be determined before the court. It has always been a strong ground in favour of an applicant to show that the conduct of the respondent is unjustified and that applicant cannot be satisfactorily or adequately compensated in damages.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel continued that the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunction was also enunciated by the apex court in the well celebrated case of <b><i>Obeya Memorial Hospital vs A-G Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 </i></b><i>and <b>Kotoye vs CBN (1989) 2 SCNJ 131. </b></i>The following factors should be taken into account. They are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The strength of the applicant’s case in the substantive suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the balance of convenience is on the side of the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">c.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That monetary damages will not be an adequate compensation for the injury resulting from the violation of his right if he succeeds in the action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">d.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the conduct of the parties is a relevant factor.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">e.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">That the applicant has given a satisfactory undertaking as to damages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Applying these legal principles to this case, learned counsel submitted that from the statement of facts and affidavits of the Claimant, the applicant has satisfied all the conditions sine qua-non to the grant of this application. He referred to paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the supporting affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He continued that the claimant/applicant has a legal right to contest the legality and otherwise of the defendants/respondents forceful closure of its premises without any court order. From the foregoing counsel submitted that the applicant is fully entitled to the grant of the prayers in the face of the motion paper.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On his own part, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents adopted the lone issue formulated by the Claimant/Applicant’s counsel. He submitted that the decision of whether or not to grant an order of interlocutory injunction is within the Honourable Court’s discretion and that the courts are enjoined to exercise that discretion judiciously and judicially based on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. Therefore the grant of an order of injunction is not automatic upon being asked by the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the issue of legal rights, counsel contended that the legal right of the applicant to pursue their business operations without interruption would be considered along corresponding rights of the defendants to embark on industrial actions to protect the interest of their members in the employment of the claimant who is deliberately and unilaterally taking anti-union actions against their welfare in defiance of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement it entered into with 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants’ unions’ inspite of the defendants several efforts of peaceful resolution of the issues of chronic deliberate delay and non-payment of workers salaries as at when due, the non-payment of workers accumulated arrears of 10% annual increment of 2014, 2015 and 2016; Christmas bonuses of 2014, 2015 and 2016; non-conclusion of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), negotiation process, the extant ones of 2012 having matured and become due for review since the 1<sup>st</sup> day of May 2014, not giving employment letters to contract workers who have served for more than 6 months and non-payment of resigned workers their terminal benefits from 2208 till date. He referred to paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Counter-affidavit as well as Exhibits D1 to D11 attached to the said counter-affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel further contended that the right to industrial action is cognizable law and is therefore not unlawful unless the pre-conditions for its exercise have not been complied with. He submitted that there is no place in the supporting affidavit of the claimant/applicant where it showed or stated that the defendants did not comply with the conditions precedent for the exercise of their right to industrial action of picketing. More so the defendants even gave 21 days ultimatum to the Claimant/Applicant hopefully that the Claimant/Applicant would utilize the said period to reason with them on the perennial issues between them but the Claimant/Applicant treated the same with indifference and levity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel submitted further that on the issue of preservation of the res or status quo that the status quo to be maintained or preserved is the status quo prior to the institution of this suit as the claimant/applicant has not in the processes it filed before this Honourable Court adduced any credible evidence to show that the industrial action purportedly embarked upon by the defendants against it is wrong and unlawful in the eyes of the law. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On the balance of convenience counsel submitted that it cannot favour the claimant but is more in favour of the defendants. There is no basis for the grant of the order of interim injunction in the first place not to talk of granting this present application for interlocutory application against the defendants as it is only a scheme of the claimant/applicant to further delay and or evade paying the said workers their said entitlements and the other things it is obligated to do in line with the CBA it signed with the defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel further submitted that damages will not be adequate compensation to the defendants whose memberships are being harassed, intimidated and their entitlements being deliberately withheld by the claimant/applicant since 2007 when they joined the unions. The 1999 Constitution and statute have permitted the said employees to exercise their rights of freedom of association and joining free trade union in order to protect their interest. The law had anticipated the over bearing attitude or uncomplimentary antecedents of some employers before providing for constitutional safeguards in the freedom of association rights. He contended that the denial of these rights in whatever guise cannot adequately be compensated by damages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Learned counsel reiterated his submission that the matter between the parties herein is a trade dispute and therefore contended that where the cause of action discloses declaratory and injunctive reliefs touching on issuesfalling squarely within the definition of trade dispute under section 48(1) of the Trade Disputes Act and Section 54 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to order injunction as a Court of first instance. He referred to the book by Bamidele Aturu, Law and Practice of the national Industrial Court, Published in 2013 by Hebron Publishing Co. Ltd at page 243-244.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally counsel submitted that the court has the discretion to order accelerated hearing rather an injunction in the circumstances of this matter. He urged the court to refuse and dismiss the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Replying on points of law, the learned claimant/applicant’s counsel stated that the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents in paragraph 3.3 of his written address in support of their counter affidavit raised the issue of right to industrial action being recognized by. In reply to same counsel for the claimant submitted that the said right is not without restrictions. The operations of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents is guided by the Trade Unions Act. Section 43 of the said Act, subsections (1A) and (1B) provides thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(1A) No person shall subject any other person to any kind of constraint or restriction of his personal freedom in the course of persuasion.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(1B) No trade union or registered federation of trade unions or any member thereof shall in the course of any strike action compel any person who is not a member of its union to join any strike or in any highways, institutions or premises of any kind for the purpose of giving effect to strike.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that the law guiding the modus operandi of the trade unions does not allow to hold their non-members hostage by not allowing them to go to their respective offices on the ground that eh unions are on strike. The purported picketing which has lasted for over four months is not in line with the law. He urged the court to so hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, counsel stated that the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents in paragraph 3.7 of his written address submitted that by provision of section 54 of NICA, 2006, this court lacks jurisdiction to order injunction as a court of first instance. In swift reply to this point of law, counsel reproduced the meaning of trade dispute by the Interpretation section of the said Act towit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">54(1) In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, trade dispute means any dispute between employers and employees including dispute between their respective organizations and federations which is connected with-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 126pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The employment or non-employment of any person,<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 126pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">b.<span style="font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 126pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">c.<span style="font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The conclusion or variation of a collective agreement, and alleged dispute.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He submitted that from the length and gamut of the said provision there is no place where this court is barred from ordering for an injunction in any trade dispute. He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, counsel continued, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents raised the issue of declaratory and injunctive reliefs. Learned counsel submitted that by the express provision of Order 22 Rule 1 (1) of National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, application for injunction can be granted by this court whether the applicant has an injunctive relief in his main relief or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He then reproduced the provisions of the said Order 22 Rule 1(1) as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Any application for the grant of an injunction may be made by a party to an action before, at or after the trial of the action whether or not a claim for injunction was included in that party’s action.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">He urged the court to discountenance the argument of the Respondents counsel as same is misconceived, misdirected and above all a misapplication of the law. He finally submitted that the grant of an injunction is not the final determination of the matter. Rather it is only designed to protect the res from being destroyed by the parties. He cited the case of <b><i>Ezebilo vs Chinwuba (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 551) p. 108.</i></b> He urged the court to so hold and grant the Claimant/Applicant’s application for the best interest of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have carefully considered the processes filed, the arguments and submissions of the parties in relation to the application for interlocutory injunction made by the Claimant. The sole issue for determination is whether or not the Claimant/Applicant is has shown its entitlement to the order of interlocutory injunction against the defendants/respondents in this case. The Claimant alleges that the members of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants/respondents’ unions on the 29<sup>th</sup> day of November 2016 barricaded its entrance gate and shut down its operations and that they have remained there till date. They equally claimed that the management of the Claimant have been denied access to their offices to carry out their official assignments. There is thus a forceful closure of the company premises of the Claimant/Applicant. This has resulted in heavy losses in terms of money and contracts that the Claimant should have heard in December 2016. The facts further put forward show that the defendants/respondents closed the Claimant’s gate thereby preventing other persons from entering into the premises of the Claimant as the defendants were there all through the day from that 29<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On their own part the defendants/respondents maintained that on the 29<sup>th</sup> of November, 2016 they picketed the claimant company after the effort to avert the industrial action failed. What necessitated the industrial action was non-payment of salaries of the members of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants, amongst other reasons. The Defendants/respondents deposed that the non-payment of salaries in particular was for the months of September, 2016 to November, 2016. They deposed further that the said industrial action was preceded by a 21 day ultimatum issued on 31<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2016. The defendants denied that they caused loss to the claimant or prevented access to the claimant/applicant’s premises in December 2016 when SPDC and ExxonMobil visited the claimant’s site for inspection. They alleged rather that it was the Managing Director of the Claimant that on 15<sup>th</sup> December 2016 who visited the defendants (with other unknown persons and uniformed policemen) while on peaceful picketing to harass and intimidate them in a bid to physically stop the picketing. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Both parties relied on exhibits to argue their respective positions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Before going into the issue for determination let me deal with an issue of original jurisdiction in the case raised by the defendants/respondents’ counsel in paragraph 3.7 of his written address in opposition to the application for interlocutory injunction made by the claimant. The learned defendants counsel has argued that the dispute in this case is one that concerns a trade dispute within the meaning of section 48(1) of the Trade Disputes Act and section 54 of the National Industrial Court Act and therefore the court lacks original jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. He relied on the views of the learned author, Bamidele Aturu, in his book, Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court, published in 2013, pages 243-244. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The learned claimant/applicant’s counsel in his reply on points of law submitted that there is nowhere it is stated in the law that the court cannot grant an injunction even in matters of trade dispute. He further referred to the provisions of Order 22 rule 1(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and submitted that an application for injunction can be granted by this court whether the applicant has an injunctive relief in the main relief or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Having carefully considered the arguments of both counsel on the point, let me point out straight away that the provisions of section 7(1)(b) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 (NICA 2006) clearly provides that the court has the power to entertain and hear matters relating to grant of injunctive orders concerning strikes, lock outs and other industrial actions. The provision reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -36pt;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">(b) relating to the grant of any order to restrain 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 strike, lock-out or any industrial action.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The main claim of the claimant in this suit is against the purported industrial action of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> defendants unions and their respective members. The Claimant alleges that the defendants have congregated at the gate of its business premises thereby denying it access thereto. The defendants themselves have argued that they are exercising their right to engage in an industrial action. Given this scenario I have no difficulty in holding that this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application of the claimant as presently constituted. The provisions of section 7(1)(b) of the NICA 2006 are in fortification of this view and I so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Turning to the resolution of the issue before the court it is necessary to point out that both counsel to the parties have rightly indicated the conditions that must be met by an applicant for an interlocutory injunction such as the Claimant in this case. The position of the law as reiterated by Karibi-Whyte JSC in the case of <b><i>ObidiegwuOnyesoh vs Nze Christopher Nnebedum& 3 Ors (1992), supra, </i></b>cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant/applicant is apposite here. The Supreme Court, per Karibi-Whyte JSC held that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The law is that an injunction can only be granted to support a legal right and we refuse where no prima facie case of a legal right to the matter sought to be restrained has been established. The remedy by interlocutory injunction, as its name implies is temporary. Being an equitable remedy it is also discretionary. Hence the central objective of the court granting an interlocutory injunction is to exercise its discretion to keep the parties in status quo pending the determination of the substantive action. Hence the basis of the decision to grant the application is that the court has before it a substantive action seeking for the determination of the issue subject matter of the application. That the applicant has shown from the affidavit in support of his application that there is a prima facie case that there is genuine dispute between the parties to be determined before the court. It has always been a strong ground in favour of an applicant to show that the conduct of the respondent is unjustified and that applicant cannot be satisfactorily or adequately compensated in damages.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">From this dictum it is quite clear that the first and foremost condition to satisfy is the existence of a legal right of the applicant, followed by the existence of a triable dispute before the court. The injunction itself is temporary in nature being available to the applicant pending the determination of the substantive suit. In the instant case, the Claimant is a company in the oil and gas industry based in Port Harcourt. It has shown that since the 29<sup>th</sup> day of November, 2016 its management and staff have been denied access to their premises to conduct their lawful business. See paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support of the application. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On their part, the defendants have stated their position to be that they have engaged on an industrial action and that they have been picketing the Claimant’s place of business to push their legitimate demands against it. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The defendants themselves have not denied the legal right of the Claimant to operate its business activities but they have raised the issue of the lingering dispute over the payment of salaries and other issues of their members’ welfare. Therefore they point to their right to engage in an industrial action and picket the Claimant in pursuance of same. See paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Counter-affidavit of the defendants/respondents. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">However, the step of denying access to the business premises of the Claimant is the concern of this application. From the depositions and attached exhibits of the claimant, particularly paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the further and better affidavit of the claimant, I am satisfied that the Claimant has shown the existence of serious issues to be tried. See the case of <b><i>Oyeyemi v Irewole Local Government, Ikire (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 270) 462 at 461. </i></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The next point to consider is that of balance of convenience. The issue of balance of convenience has been explained by AfeBabalola, SAN, in his book<b><i> “Injunctions and Enforcement of Orders”,</i></b> (2003), published by O.A.U. Press, at page 60, as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">What is meant by balance of convenience is the disadvantage to one or the other side which damages cannot compensate. It has been aptly defined as the balance of the risk of doing injustice…The plaintiff must show that the balance of convenience is on his side. As stated by Nnameka-Agu, JSC in Kotoye CBN (supra), it means that more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing it. Put in another way, the two questions are:- Will the applicant suffer more inconvenience if the application is granted? Or will the defendant suffer more inconvenience if the injunction is granted? Perhaps the meaning of balance of inconvenience cannot be better put than the definition given to it in the case of <b>ACB v Awogboro (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 176) 711 at 719</b> by Tobi JCA (as h hen was):-<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The balance of convenience (the opposite of inconvenience) between the parties is a basic determinant factor in an application for interlocutory injunction. In the determination of this factor, the law requires some measurement of the scales of justice to see where the pendulum tilts. While the law does not require mathematical exactness, it is the intention of the law that the pendulum should really tilt in favour of the applicant.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With the background as stated above, it is quite clear that the court must consider the facts and circumstances in arriving at a decision as to whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant or it is not. In the instant case, the applicant’s concern is with the grant of access to its staff for it to continue to function as a service company in the oil industry. It has shown that it needs to function by having such access to the premises pending the determination of the substantive suit. A careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the pendulum tilts in favour of the applicant. The balance of convenience is in favour of allowing the claimant access to its premises by its staff and others so as to carry out its business activities pending the determination of the substantive suit. This is so find and hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant has also given undertaking as to damages. See paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of the application and the need to fulfil this requirement following the authorities in <b><i>Kotoye vs CBN (supra) </i></b>and<b><i>Vee Gee (Nig) Ltd vs Contact (Overseas) Ltd (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 266) 503 at 515.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:467.25pt;height:643.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\MBR\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg" o:title="4C54E4BF"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img width="623" height="858" src="file:///C:/Users/MBR/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_7"><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>