Download PDF
<p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Miss Toluwase Bankole and Kroma Wenike-Briggs, for the claimant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Sola Iji, with Enaya Emuveyan, Temidayo Adeyemi, Miss Bukola Lasabi, Femi Abimbola and Miss Joy Udochi, for the defendants.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">RULING</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">1. The claimants commenced this suit by way of an originating summons filed on 29th June 2016. By the originating summons, the claimant is praying for the determination of the following questions:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">A)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether or not by the combined effect of section 17(a) of the Trade Unions Act Chapter 566 Volume 16 of the Annotated Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2014 and section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), every worker or employee of the claimant must compulsorily be a member of the 1st defendant union.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">B)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">If the answer to A) above is in the negative, whether or not the claimant can be compelled by the defendants to make deductions form (sic) the wages of its employees who are not members of the 1st defendant in order to pay same directly to the 1st defendant as union dues.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">C)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Whether or not the claimant is entitled in the circumstances to an order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, privies and officials howsoever called from disturbing picketing or disturbing the day-to-day operations and running of the claimant’s offices and factories on the pretext that the claimant is violating extant labour laws of Nigeria.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">2. The claimant accordingly prayed for the following reliefs:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">A declaration that by the combined effect of the provisions of section 17(a) of the Trade Unions Act Chapter 566 Volume 16 of the Annotated Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2014 and section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the claimant is not bound in law nor does it have an obligation to the defendants to make deductions from the wages of its workers or employees who are not members of the 1st defendant and pay same over to the 1st defendant as union dues.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents, servants, privies and other officials howsoever called from disturbing, picketing or disturbing the day-to-day operations and running of the claimant’s offices and factories on the pretext that the claimant is violating the extant labour laws of Nigeria. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">3. In response, the defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking for the following orders:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(1)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order dismissing or striking this suit for the reason that the claimant lacks <i>locus standi</i>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(2)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An order granting cost of N2,500,000 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) being cost of this suit.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="margin-left:19.65pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-19.65pt; mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">(3)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">An for such further or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">Accompanying the preliminary objection is a written address.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">4. The claimant reacted by filing its written address in opposition to the preliminary objection; to which the defendants filed a reply on points of law.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">5. The defendants’ preliminary objection is hinged on the ground that the claimant lacks <i>locus standi</i> to institute this action. To the defendants, the claimant is a busybody and a meddlesome interloper in filing this suit; and that in the absence of <i>locus standi</i>, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit since <i>locus standi</i> is a fundamental feature which can prevent this Court from exercising jurisdiction, citing amongst others <i>Babatunde & ors v. NITEL</i> [2014] 49 NLLR (Pt. 162) 410 at 444, <i>Inakoju v. Adeleke</i> [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427 <i>Keyamo v. Lagos State House of Assembly</i> [2000] 12 NWLR (Pt. 680) 196, <i>Bakare & anon v. CGC Nig. Ltd</i> [2013] 30 NLLR (Pt. 87) 338 - 504 and <i>Nestoil Plc v. NUPENG</i> [2012] 29 NLLR (Pt. 237) 557. To the defendants, <i>Nestoil</i> delimited the right to sue in jurisdiction scope matters to only a rival union or the affected staff in question, not an employer. That applying these authorities, he claimant has no right or interest in bringing this suit. In any event, that the claimant is speculative in this suit as it did not show any where in the originating summons that the defendants threatened to picket or disturb the claimant’s operations on account of the failure or refusal to commence operation of the check-off dues system. The defendants concluded by urging the Court to strike out tis suit fro lack of <i>locus standi</i>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">6. The claimant adopted he see issue of the defendants i.e. whether the claimant has the <i>locus standi</i> to institute this action. Given the reliance of the defendants on <i>Nestoil Plc v. NUPENG</i>, the claimant submitted that he case is inapplicable to the instant suit since the issues in that case are not the same as the instant suit. That <i>Nestoil</i> dealt with the issue whether an employer has the <i>locus standi</i> to protest against workers joining a particular union. That this is not the issue in the instant case. That the instant case is not challenging the freedom of the workers to join NUFBTE; that the issue is simply one of interpretation of the extant laws as to whether deductions can be made from the wages of the workers without their permission or prior indication of their membership. That the Trade Unions Act (TUA) authorizes the claimant company to make deductions only after the workers is a member of the union in question; as such, it behoves of the claimant to ensure that before it makes deductions, it must be sure that the requirements in terms of membership have been satisfied. The claimant concluded by asserting that to the extent that its case has to do with the interpretation of section 5(3) of the Labour Act and section 17 of the TUA, <i>Nestoil</i> is distinguishable, and so it has the <i>locus</i> to come to this Court. The claimant then urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">7. In their reply on points of law, the defendants reiterated their earlier submissions as to the claimant not having the <i>locus</i> to come to this Court; stressing that <i>Nestoil</i>, <i>NASU v. Governing Council of Kwara State Polytechnic, Ilorin & anor</i> [2013] 34 NLLR (Pt. 1010 576 and <i>NASU v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta</i> [2012] 29 NLLR (Pt. 83) 221 categorically stated that an employer has no right whatsoever to interfere in union matters. That the submission of the claimant that it behoves on the claimant to ensure that the requirements as a worker being a member of the said union have been satisfied is nothing but evidence of interference. That there is nothing in section 17 of the TUA that says that it is the responsibility of a company to ensure that its employees are truly members of the union. The claimant went on to address the issue of unionization of junior staff given that the 1st defendant unionizes only junior staff, citing <i>NUSDE v. SEWUN</i> [2013] 35 NLLR (Pt. 106) 606 and <i>Nestoil</i>. The defendants then urged the Court to dismiss or strike out this case.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><u><span lang="DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:DE">COURT</span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">’</span></u><u><span lang="ES-TRAD" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; mso-ansi-language:ES-TRAD">S DECISION</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">8. The issue before the Court is whether the claimant as an employer has the <i>locus</i> to come to this Court in terms of this suit. The issue of <i>locus</i> is so much about the interest a litigant has in a matter to enable him/her/it come to court. From the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the defendants had established a branch of the 1st defendant in the claimant company. The claimant demanded for the comprehensive list of the defendants’ members in the branch but the list was not supplied. Even when the defendants wrote to the claimant to state that all non-management staff of the claimant are members of the 1st defendant, the claimant interpreting this to mean that the defendants are insisting on having their way. It is, therefore, the contention of the claimant that it is not obliged to compel any of its workers to belong to the defendants’ union and also not obliged to deduct from the wages of non-members of the union and pay same to the 1st defendant as union dues. The question is whether the claimant has the <i>locus</i> to come to this Court on these issues and seek the reliefs that it seeks.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">9. To the claimant, the instant case is not challenging the freedom of the workers to join NUFBTE; but simply seeks the interpretation of the extant laws as to whether deductions can be made from the wages of the workers without their permission or prior indication of their membership. That the Trade Unions Act (TUA) authorizes the claimant company to make deductions only after the worker is a member of the union in question; as such, it behoves of the claimant to ensure that before it makes deductions, it must be sure that the requirements in terms of membership have been satisfied. The claimant does not here seem to understand what the law means when it states that membership of trade unions for junior staff is based on eligibility. In paragraph 4.12, the claimant described <i>Nestoil</i> as stating that the requirement for deductions from wages in respect of a trade union is mere eligibility to be a member of the respective unions. Since the claimant is aware that deductions is hinged on “mere eligibility”, I wonder why the claimant came to Court in terms of the instant suit. If membership of the requisite union is based on mere eligibility, then the claimant ought to know that once its staff are eligible to be members of NUFBTE, deductions must be made. It is only the staff who can say that he/she does not want the deductions to be made. In other words only, the staff can come to Court to raise the issues raised by the claimant, not the claimant. The claimant cannot assume the role of a policeman here or be more Catholic than the Pope or cry more than the bereaved. All that the claimant has done in bringing this suit is nothing but interference. <i>Nestoil</i> frowned on interference of whatsoever nature by an employer in union matters. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No. 87) ratified by Nigeria also frowns on interference by employers in union matters. </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Premier Lotto Limited </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">v. National Union of Lottery Agents and Employees & anor</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/218/2016, the ruling of which was delivered on 9th November 2016 reinforced <i>Nestoil</i> and the ILO Convention No. 87. The claimant cleverly lost sight of this stance of <i>Nestoil</i>. The argument of the claimant that section 5(3) of the Labour Act must be interpreted in the light of section 17 of the TUA, the necessity of this suit, does not take away the fact that it is the employee that has the right (<i>locus</i>) to raise that issue and come to Court, not the claimant. The claimant is nothing but an interloper and a busybody. The error made by the claimant is that it thinks that it can be a claimant. The ratio of the cases is that the employer should remain passive; it can be defendant but not a claimant. See <i>Panya Anigboro v. Sea Trucks Nigeria Ltd</i> [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 299) 35 at 62, <i>ASCSN v. INEC and 2 ors</i> [2006] 5 NLLR (Pt. 11) 75 at 89, <i>Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) v. Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria and anor</i> [2007] LPELR-8882(CA) and <i>ACSN v. National Orientation Agency and ors</i> unreported Suit No. NIC/9M/2003 delivered on September 27, 2007. In </span><i><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Premier Lotto Limited </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">v. National Union of Lottery Agents and Employees & anor</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS""> (<i>supra</i>), this Court stressed that an employer cannot arrogate to itself the right to determine who can be a member of a union. In like manner, the claimant in the instant case has no right to ask whether deductions can be made from the wages of the workers (junior staff) without their permission or prior indication of their membership, the subject matter of this suit. To come to this Court as a claimant over this issue is nothing but interference in union matters. The obligation to make such deductions is already laid down by law and so there is no need for the claimant coming to ask that question.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">10. On the whole, the preliminary objection of the defendants has merit. It succeeds. The claimant’s case is accordingly dismissed.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"">11. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS"">……………………………………</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Body" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="IT" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-font-family: "Arial Unicode MS";mso-ansi-language:IT">Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>