Download PDF
This action was by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 16th February 2015 wherein the Claimant claimed against the Defendants as follows: 1. A Declaration that the conduct of the Defendants on the pretext of picketing or forcefully taking over the Claimant’s premises invading, barricading and locking the only gates into and out of the business premises of the Claimant and stopping production by preventing the staff and management of the Claimant from entry and exit from the Claimant’s factory and said business premises and from carrying out production and marketing of the Claimants products and stopping and paralyzing the business of the Claimant from 26th February 2014 to 4th March 20014 are wrongful and constitute acts of trespass. 2. Payment of N90m general damages. 3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or by their servants, agents and privies from interfering or further interfering in the business of the Claimant. Along with the Complaint, the Claimant filed an affidavit in verification of the complaint, a Statement of Facts establishing the cause of action, the Claimant’s list of witnesses, the Statement on oath of the Claimant’s witness, the Claimant’s list of documents and copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial. Pleadings were duly exchanged and preliminary applications taken and resolved. Hearing commenced on 17th February 2016. Chief Ghandi Ehiobu testified for the Claimant as CW1. Comrade Henry Urombo testified for the Defendants as DW1 while Comrade Saga Giobari Promise testified as DW2.Hearing ended on 26th April 2017 and parties were ordered to file their Final Written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The Defendants’ Final address was filed on the 12th day of May 2017. The Claimant’s Final address was filed on the 8th day of June 2017. The Defendants filed a Reply Address on the 23rd day of June 2017. Parties adopted their respective written addresses on the 7th day of July 2017. In the Defendants’ final written address filed on the 12th day of May 2017, three issues were raised for determination as follows: 1. Whether on the state of the pleadings and evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has made out a proper case for the grant of the reliefs sought in the Statement of Facts against the Defendants in all the circumstances of this case. 2. Whether having regards to the evidence before this Honourable Court; the PICKETING was done in accordance with the law. 3. Whether the Claimant has proved any damage suffered as a result of the PICKETING On Issue One the Defendants submitted that what the Claimant is simply contesting is the manner of the picketing and not the right to picket and that the Claimant has failed to establish a proper case for the grant of the reliefs sought in all the circumstances of this case. The Defendants also submitted that the necessary legal implication of this is that the Claimant is deemed by operation of law to have admitted the entire averments of facts in the Defendants' Statement of Defence which absolves the Defendants from proving that what was done was picketing. See LEWIS & PEAT (N.R.I) LTD. vs. AKHIMIEN (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 460 @465-466; (1976) 7 SC, 157 and Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendants argued that CW1’s evidence that the Defendants during the picketing, blocked the Claimant's premises and the public highway and that the Defendants were in the premises and in the highway for one (1) week while negotiations were going on and that the Defendants extorted the sum ofN1,500, 000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) from the Claimant before they left the premises is false. The Defendants contended that CW1 could not explain to the court how he came about Exhibits "A1" and" A2" and who was the maker of the said exhibits tendered by him during his evidence in chief. Counsel submitted that the said Exhibits "A1" and "A2" were wrongly admitted in evidence by this Court because the said pictures were not tendered by the maker who is not even known by neither the Claimant through whom they were tendered nor this court as provided for in Section 83(1) (b) of the Evidence Act with no explanation proffered by CW1 as to the where about of the maker. The Defendants also submitted that being electronically generated evidence, no proper foundation was laid by the Claimant's counsel for the admissibility of the exhibits. The Defendants submitted that Exhibits "A1" and "A2", having been wrongly admitted in evidence, have no evidential value and are improperly obtained evidence as envisaged by Sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendants further submitted that the said Exhibits supports the Defendants' case, as it lends credence to the undisputed fact that the said event of 26th February 2014 being complained about by the Claimant herein, was actually a peaceful picketing exercise and nothing more. On Issue 2, the Defendants submitted Section 43(1) of the Trade Unions Act provides, for peaceful picketing. The Defendant opined that an appraisal of the evidence and testimony before the court would prove that the picketing carried out by the Defendants was indeed peaceful and that the evidence of DW1 on the manner the picketing was carried out and indeed what transpired at the scene of the picketing, was never contradicted by the Claimant's Counsel. The Defendants submitted that the picketing was done in accordance with the provisions of the law and that there is no evidence before this court which shows that the workers misconducted themselves during the picketing nor tampered with or destroyed any property of the Claimant. On Issue 3, the Defendants submitted that having regard to the cause of action and subject matter of this case, the Claimant's monetary claim ought to be for special damages and not general damages, consequent upon which it must be properly particularized as required by law which implies that the Claimant is claiming damages without pleading and/or stating what was damaged and the particulars thereof. The Defendants contended that no evidence proffered by the Claimant justifies the monetary claim of N90,000,000.00 (Ninety Million Naira) or shows any damage suffered by the Claimant as a result of the picketing. See Section 131(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Defendants submitted that the Claimant is duty-bound in law to prove the alleged damages suffered as a result of the said picketing before the burden to disprove same can shift to the Defendants herein. Sections 132 and 133 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which is to the effect that the Defendants can only assume and/or shoulder the evidential burden to disprove the alleged damage suffered by the Claimant when the Claimant proves same to the satisfaction of this court. See TEWOGBADE vs. AKANDE (1986) NWLR 404 @ 408. In the Claimant’s final written address filed on the 8th day of June 2017, Counsel raised the following two issues for determination: 1. Whether the Defendants’ action against the Claimant amounts to peaceful picketing in contemplation of a trade dispute and whether the actions are lawful. 2. Whether the Defendants are liable for the Claimants claim. On Issue 1, Counsel cited the definition of “labour picketing” as contained at Page 875, Blacks’ Law dictionary 6th Edition 1990. He cited the case of LARKIN vs. BELFAST HABOUR COMMISSIONER (1908) 2 I. R. 214 and submitted that the manner of execution of picketing determines its legality. Counsel cited various foreign authorities such as Tynan vs. Balmer (1967) 1 Q.B. 91, PIDDINGTON vs. BATES (1960) 3 All E. R. 660, BROOME vs. DPP (1974) All E. R. 314 and THOMAS vs. NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS (SOUTHWALES AREA) (1985) 2 All E. R. 1 on the subject of picketing. According to the Claimant, picketing is an aspect of strike, but in the instant case, as can be garnered from the evidence of CW1, no employee of the Claimant was involved in the picketing. Counsel went on that DW1 had admitted under cross-examination that the workers were not on strike. Counsel submitted that on a balance of probabilities, the Claimant had established that none of its workers participated in the picketing. It is not the duty of Court to make a case for the Defendants. See UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. vs. ARIBA (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 763) Pg. 1868 at Pg. 1890 Paras E-G. See also AJAYI vs. TEXACO (NIG) LTD. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) Pg. 577. The Claimant also argued that Section 43(1) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not authorize attendance into or inside a house or place where it is intended to obtain, communicate information or persuade persons as that would amount to invasion as in this case where the defendants broke into, took over and invaded the Claimant company. The Claimant also argued that none of their employees were involved in the picketing as per the evidence of CW1 and that there were not on strike. The Claimants submitted that Exhibit B is a letter addressed to the 5th Defendant written and signed by the workers of the Claimant disassociating themselves from the activities of the 5th Defendant inside and outside CWAY which was not denied by the Defendants. The Claimant submitted that the Defendants’ claim that they picketed the Claimant because the Claimant terminated its staff is a misrepresentation as the terminated staff had accepted their terminations, collected their entitlements and moved on before the Defendants invaded the company, and that there is nothing to show that the disengaged staff were union members. The Claimant also submitted that the communiqué of 2013 (Exhibit D1) which was prepared when distributors/suppliers of CWAY sought unsuccessfully to be formed into a union and has no relevance in establishing any fact in issue in this case. The Claimants opined that their staff were duly terminated and were not dismissed and that Exhibits G, H, J, M, and D1-D3 show that the workers parted mutually after collecting their entitlements. The Claimant contended that the Defendants’ purpose of invading the Claimant and occupy the company for one week was to extort money from the Claimant and they vacated the premises immediately after collecting N1,500,000.00 from the Claimant. The Claimants submitted that the Defendants committed trespass and a violation of the Claimants rights and that the 5th Defendant did not unionize staff of the Claimant and the Defendants had no justifiable reason to carry out the unlawful picketing of the Claimant. The Claimant further submitted that by Section 34(3) part B, third schedule of the Trade Unions Act T14, Laws of the Federation 2004, the jurisdictional scope of the 5th Defendant does not include a privately owned food and beverages company like the Claimant and that because of this want of jurisdiction, the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) wrote to the Nigerian Labour Congress to complain that the 5th Defendant is trying to invade its territory and the matter was resolved in favour of NUFBTE (Exhibit C and D.) The Claimant argued that NUFBTE is the union authorized by law to unionize workers of the Claimant - a Food and Beverages Company. The Claimant argued that the picketing was unlawful and not peaceful and that no trade dispute was involved. On Issue 2, the Claimant submitted that the Defendants are liable for the Claim because in addition to the facts canvassed above, the Defendants did not lawfully conduct themselves and failed to justify their mass action against the Claimant. The Claimant also argued that by virtue of Section 44(2) of the Trade Union Act, the Defendant can be held liable in tort even if it is found that their action is in furtherance of a trade dispute. Relying on the Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Mrs. Esther Ighreriniovo vs. S.C.C. Nigeria Limited and 2 Ors (2013) 10 NWLR part 1361 p. 138 at page 153, paras F-G, and EFCC vs, ODIGIE (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 607) Pg. 627 Paras F-H Ratio 10, the Claimants submitted that they are entitled to their claim for general damages. According to counsel, the claim for declaration and injunction are also warranted, as the Claimant has established its claims against the Defendants. He urged the Court to resolve issue two in favour of the Claimant. In response to the Defendants’ address, the Claimant’s Counsel submitted inter alia that the Defendants did not plead or mention any worker of the Claimant that carried out the picketing while the Claimant led evidence to show that no staff of the Claimant was involved in the picketing by tendering Exhibit B, a letter addressed to the 5th Defendant by CWAY workers to confirm that they were not part of it. The law is trite that proof is on a balance of probabilities and that he who alleges must prove. See ORGAN vs. N.L.N.G. LTD (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1381) Pg. 506 at 542 Paras D-E, Pg. 547 Para A. The Claimant’s statement of facts averred that the Defendant invaded the Claimant Company and gave particulars of why it was not picketing that the Defendants carried out. See paragraphs 19 to 24 and 33 to 34 and also 1(o), p and q of the Claimants reply to Statement of Defence. Counsel contend that in the circumstances, the cases of Lewis PCat vs. Akhimien (supra) and other cases cited and Sec 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 does not apply to the Claimant. Counsel referred to the admission of DW2 during cross examination that the Defendants blocked and demonstrated on the said tarred road and that there was no proof that the Defendants only monitored and supervised the picketing. Counsel further submitted that there was no evidence adduced to controvert the testimony of CW1 that they were handed N1.5m at Elelenwo Police Station although DW1 and DW2 testified that they were not there when the negotiation went on and that the 1st to 3rd Defendants who were involved failed to testify. Counsel also submitted DW1’s testimony identifying Exhibits A1 and A2 which they claimed are relevant and rightly admitted to the case citing Sections 12(2) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Claimant counsel also submitted that the account of what transpired during recording of proceedings, the cross-examination of DW1 by the Defence counsel does not represent what transpired with regards to how long he was there or how long the Defendants remained. Counsel also argued that DW2’s testimony contradicted DW1’s testimony and that the Defendants picketing was unlawful as there was no trade dispute and the activities of the Defendants do not come within the ambit of the law. The Defendants’ counsel on the 23rd June 2017 filed a Reply Address submitting inter alia that it is the duty of the Claimant to prove on the balance of probability that the said picketing was actually violent and contrary to the law as alleged. See Nwaga vs. Registered Trustees Recreation Club (2004) FWLF (Pt 190) 1360 Ratio 2 & 6 and that the Claimant gave no evidence connoting violence during the said picketing and gave evidence during cross-examination of the presence of members of the Nigerian Police Force saddled with the responsibility of arresting and/or punishing violent offenders but no person involved in the picketing was arrested which is further proof of the peaceful picketing. See Ajabo vs Ademola (2005) NWLR (pt 913) 636 at 663 Ratio 7. Counsel contended that it was clear from the evidence of CW1 that he was not at the venue of the picketing and not in the position to speak on Exhibit A1 and A2 and on any violence and that if there was any violence, the Claimant would have taken photos of the same. Counsel argued that the Claimants could not have seen that the security mean were locked by the Defendants as CW1 was not at the scene of the picketing and that the Claimant failed to give evidence to the fundamental issues surrounding the security men especially considering that the picketing was organized by the claimants staff and that the Defendants only gave them moral support as a union body evidence of which was not rebutted. And therefore ought to be accepted in proof. See U.B.N. LTD vs. OGBOH (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 654 & 699. Counsel submitted that Exhibit B is not on a letter headed paper of the Claimant and that no evidence was before the court to show that any of the persons who signed Exhibit B neither are Staff of the Claimant nor was any signatory of Exhibit B present to prove the truth of the document. See Framo Nig. Ltd vs. Daodu (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 372 Ratio 4. Counsel contended that Exhibit B is a fabrication as the picketing was carried out on 26th March 2014 and Exhibit B was made on the 4th March 2014. The Defendants also contended that Exhibit B was addressed to them and not National Union of Food Beverages and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) a labour union of the Claimant’s workers under the 5th Defendants through whom the notice of picketing was given. Counsel submitted that the Claimant workers participated in the picketing and that the Claimant acknowledged the existence of the communiqué which contents include a provision that no worker of the Claimant be victimized as a result of union activity. Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s management intentionally set up the trade union conflict for personal gain. Counsel also submitted that the jurisdiction of the union is the job of the 4th Defendant and not the Claimants and that there is no evidence before the court to show that members of National Union of Food Beverages and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) did not participate in the picketing. On the allegation of extortion of N1.5m, Counsel submitted that it was a criminal allegation of fraud in a civil case hence the required standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and must be particularized but the Claimants failed to prove See Nwafornso vs. Taibu (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 619. COURT’s DECISION In its statement of facts, the Claimant averred that it is a Nigerian Company involved in production and sale of water and beverages and has its office at No.1, Shell Location Road, Aba/Port Harcourt Expressway, Port Harcourt, Rivers State. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are described as the Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of the Port Harcourt Council of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), which is the 4th Defendant, while the 3rd Defendant is the Rivers State Chairman of the 5th Defendant Union. CW1 narrated in his evidence that at about 5.30 am on 26/2/2014, the 1st to 3rd Defendants led about 50 thugs who forced themselves into the premises of the Claimant, occupied the premises and locked up the two gates of the premises. They used a bus belonging to the NLC to barricade one of the gates while they set up canopies and chairs on the other gate. They also prevented the management, staff and customers of the Claimant from entry or exit from the premises. This action went on from 26/2/2014 to 4/3/2014. The Claimant could not transact business in these days. The Claimant lost about N150,000,000.00 in expected sales in those days in addition to loss of goodwill and loss of money in payment of salaries when no work went on in the company. The 1st to 3rd Defendants also demanded and extorted the sum of N1,500,000.00 from the Claimant on 4/3/2014 before they vacated the Claimant’s premises. The employees of the Claimant were not involved in the action of the Defendants and they even wrote a letter to the 3rd and 5th Defendants on 4/3/2014 dissociating themselves from the action of the Defendants. The workers of the Claimant had never protested or gone on industrial action. The Defendants had no justification for the unlawful invasion of the Claimant’s premises as the purpose of the invasion was purely to extort money from the Claimant. The conduct of the Defendants was not picketing because it was an unlawful and forceful invasion; the employees of the Claimant were not on strike or on any industrial action or protest; the workers did not support or participate in the action and, in addition to occupying the highway and conducting themselves in a manner likely to cause breach of peace, the Defendants forcefully prevented management, staff and customers of the Claimant from accessing the premises. Before the occupation of the Claimant’s company by the Defendants, the 3rd Defendant had sought to organize the employees of the Claimant as members of the 5th Defendant union but the Claimant informed the 3rd and 5th Defendants that the workers sought to be unionized were not employees of the Claimant and that the Claimant’s employees cannot belong to the 5th Defendant union as the Claimant is a food and beverage company. When the 5th Defendant pressed to unionize some junior workers of the Claimant, a dispute arose between the 5th Defendant and the National Union of Food Beverages and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) as to which of the union should unionize workers in the Claimant’s employment. The rift was settled by NLC in favour of NUFBTE in February 2014. The 3rd Defendant became antagonistic to the Claimant and in his plan to embarrass and extort money from the Claimant before giving way for NUFBTE, he co-opted the 1st and 2nd Defendant into the invasion of the Claimant’s premises under the cover of the 4th and 5th Defendant in order to give their action a coloration of union action. The Defendants had no right to picket the Claimant and the manner it was done went outside the limit allowed by law. The Defendants called two witnesses in defence of the action. The evidence of these witnesses is the same. The summary of their evidence is that before the unionization of workers of the Claimant by the 4th Defendant under the 5th Defendant, workers of the Claimant were maltreated by the Claimant. The workers were not given appointment letters and their appointments were terminated without due process. The workers consequently sought refuge in the 5th Defendant. As a result of the hardship suffered by the workers of the Claimant, a meeting was held on 14/11/2012 between the Claimant, the 5th Defendant and the 4th Defendant. A communiqué dated 14/11/2012 was issued at the end of the meeting and it was signed by representatives of the parties which was an indication by the parties to be bound by the terms of the communiqué. Soon after the meeting, comrade Kenneth Maurice, the union secretary, was beaten up by the Claimant’s production manager, Mr. Wuh contrary to clause 6 of the communiqué. The Claimant also terminated the appointment of Mr. Lucky Gentle, Mr. Kenneth Maurice and Mr. Hope Lelesi Biabu without any cause and without following due process contrary to the communiqué. The 5th Defendant wrote letters to the Claimant to reinstate the sacked workers but the Claimant refused. Despite several warnings to the Claimant to desist from victimizing union members and for implementation of the terms of the communiqué, the Claimant continued its anti-labour activities against its workers. The 5th Defendant consequently sought the intervention of the 4th Defendant into the anti-labour activities of the Claimant and its breaches of terms of the communiqué. As a result, the 4th Defendant gave notice to picket dated 22/1/2014 to the Claimant and to the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State dated 24/2/2014. When the Claimant still refused to reinstate the workers after the 7 days’ notice, the picket was carried out on 26/2/2014 in exercise of the workers and union members’ right under the Trade Union Laws. The picket was done as a form of protest when members of the union gathered outside the Claimant’s premises with a view to prevent the Claimant from engaging in anti-labour activities against its workers, and to make the Claimant comply with the terms of the communiqué. The picket, which is a tactic used by trade unions during strike to prevent dissenting members of the union or unionized workers from working, was peaceful and there was no destruction of properties. Nobody was restrained and nobody was compelled to join the picketing who was not a union member. The employees of the Claimant who were all union members were involved and participated in the picket with the support of the 4th and 5th Defendants’ unions. The workers at no time dissociated themselves from the picket action and no money was extorted from the Claimant during the picket. The Defendants have a right under the Trade Union Act to picket, and their actions during the picket, which was within confines of the law, was justified by law. In the Claimant’s reply to the statement of defence and in the further evidence of CW1, it further averred that the Claimant’s workers were not treated inhumanly. The workers were issued employment letters and the company has a condition of service in its employment. The 4th and 5th Defendants did not unionize workers of the Claimant. The communiqué came about as a result of the 5th Defendant’s attempt to unionize independent contractors or distributors who were not staff of the Claimant. Lucky Gentle, Hope Lelesi Biabu and Kenneth Maurice accepted their disengagement, collected their entitlements and never complained to the Claimant. These former workers of the Claimant were not disengaged for union issues. The picket on the pretext that some workers were disengaged happened after the disengagement and after the workers had been paid their terminal benefits. The Claimant received the 7 days’ notice to picket on 24/2/2014 but before then, there was a meeting on 21/2/2014 where the 4th Defendant decided that it is NUFBTE that should unionize workers of the Claimant and not the 5th Defendant. The Defendants thus had no reason to invade and occupy the claimant’s business premises. Having reviewed the facts and evidence and having carefully considered the submission of counsels to both parties, it is my view that the following two issues have arisen for the determination of the court: ISSUES 1. Whether the action of the Defendants in the business premises of the Claimant on 26/2/2014 was wrongful. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to its claims in this action. ISSUE 1: The cause of dispute in this case was the action of the Defendants in the business premises of the Claimant on 26/2/2014. The Claimant said on that day, the 1st to 3rd Defendants led other persons to the premises of the Claimant, occupied the premises and barricaded the gates with a bus and canopies, thereby preventing the management, staff and customers of the Claimant from entry or exit from the premises. The Defendants’ case reveal that on 26/2/2014, there was a picket carried out in exercise of the workers and union members’ right under the Trade Union Laws whereby members of the union gathered outside the Claimant’s premises with a view to prevent the Claimant from engaging in anti-labour activities against its workers and to make the Claimant comply with the terms of the communiqué. The Defendants have thus admitted that there was a union action conducted in the premises of the Claimant on 26/2/2014 which they said was picketing. There appears to be no dispute on the fact that on 26/2/2014, the Defendants went to the Claimant’s business premises for a purpose the Defendants said was a picket. There is the dispute about the duration of the action. While the Claimant said it lasted from 26/2/2014 to 4/3/2014, the Defendants said it happened only one day on 26/2/2014. Upon examining the case of the Claimant, I find no evidence to support its allegation that the action lasted beyond 26/2/2014. The Claimant’s grouse about the Defendants’ action is that it was not picketing because it was an unlawful and forceful invasion; the employees of the Claimant were not on strike or on any industrial action and they did not participate in the action; and the Defendants’ conduct was unruly by forcefully preventing management, staff and customers of the Claimant from accessing the premises. The Defendants however contended that their action was a picket because the workers of the Claimant were their members and when the Claimant refused to desist from its anti-labour activities against its workers, the Claimant’s premises was picketed in exercise of the workers and union members’ right under the Trade Union Laws with a view to prevent the Claimant from engaging in anti-labour activities against its workers, and to make the Claimant comply with the terms of the communiqué. From the case of the parties, one issue that was seriously disputed is the membership of the Claimant’s workers in the 5th Defendant union. While the Claimant said its workers are not members of the 4th and 5th Defendants and these unions did not at any time unionize its workers, the Defendants said the workers of the Claimant were its members and the action was taken in their interest. The Defendants purported to have taken out the picket on behalf of its members in the Claimant’s employment who were victimized by the Claimant. The 1st to 3rd Defendants have also been described as officials of the 4 and 5th Defendants unions. That is to say their action in the Claimant’s premises on 26/2/2014 has a coloration of a trade union action. It is therefore necessary to know if the workers of the Claimant were members of the 4th and 5th Defendants’ unions. It is what will justify the Defendants’ action in the Claimant’s premises on 26/2/2014. Trade unions which were registered under the Trade Union Act 2004 have their area of jurisdiction defined in the Act. See the Third Schedule of the Act. Area of jurisdiction means the category of workers which the trade union can register as members. Item 2 in Part A of the schedule is the Amalgamated Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services Employees, which is the 5th Defendant in this suit. Its scope or area of jurisdiction as spelt out in Paragraph 2 of Part B of the schedule is as follows: “all junior staff employed in the Federal and State Corporations; civil service employees classified as technical; workers of sports commissions and stadia; public recreation clubs by whatever name called; swimming pools; amusement centres including carnivals, circuses, zoological gardens and services similarly classified, excluding Radio, Television, NITEL, NIPOST, Railways, Nigeria Airways and other corporation workers already unionized”. The components of the union are also listed as: (1) Civil Service Technical Workers Union of Nigeria. (2) National Union of Public Corporation Employees. (3) Recreational Services Employees Union. In Paragraphs 2, 7, 8 and 13 of the statement of facts, the Claimant said it is a food and beverage limited liability company involved in production and sale of bottled water, bottled soft drinks and beverages. The Claimant also averred that the nature of the business has no connection with the 5th Defendant union. The Defendants did not deny the fact that the Claimant Company is into food and beverage production. By the nature of the Claimant and its business, it does not fall into any of the scope or area of jurisdiction of the 5th Defendant union. The Claimant is not a Federal or State Corporation. Its workers are not civil servants, and the Claimant does not offer recreational services. The Claimant stated that the appropriate trade union for its workers is the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE). CW1 also tendered Exhibits C, D and F to show that the union had expressed intention to register the workers of the Claimant but there was a dispute between the 5th Defendant and the NUFBTE as to which union to unionize workers of the Claimant. The NUFBTE is number 11 of the trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act (TUA). In paragraph 11 of Part B of the 3rd schedule of the TUA, the scope or area of jurisdiction of NUFBTE is as follows: “workers engaged in manufacture of food for human consumption and of related products such as chewing gum, spices, prepared foods for animals and fowls; Slaughtering, preparation and preservation of meat; Manufacture of dairy products; Canning and preserving of fish and other sea foods. Manufacture of grain mill products; Manufacture of bakery products; Sugar factories and refineries; Manufacture of cocoa, chocolates and sugar, confectionery and miscellaneous food preparations; Distilling, rectifying and blending of spirits; Wine industries; Breweries and manufacture of malt; manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages such as soft drinks and carbonated mineral waters. Manufacture of tobacco products; Stemming, re-drying and their operations connected with preparing raw tobacco left for manufacturing”. The Claimant being a food and Beverage Production Company, its workers fit into the membership of this union. The workers of the Claimant do not come within the jurisdiction of the 5th Defendant. The implication is that the 5th Defendant union has no business unionizing workers of the Claimant. The claim of the 5th Defendant that the workers of the Claimant belong to its union is an admission that the 5th Defendant went outside its scope and dabbled into an employment where it has no jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Defendants merely said the workers of the Claimant were members of the 5th Defendant, but they failed to show any evidence of registration of the workers of the Claimant’s company as members of the 5th Defendant union. Under cross examination, DW2 said before a worker can be said to be a union member, he must have signed a form consenting to be a union member, and that the union members in the Claimant’s employment signed forms. However, such forms allegedly signed by workers of the Claimant consenting to be members of the 5th Defendant were not shown to the court. Although DW2 also said the workers were also paying check off dues to the 5th Defendant, the fact was not pleaded neither was any evidence to substantiate the allegation produced before the court. The Defendants failed to show evidence of payment of check off dues by the Claimant or evidence of registration of the workers as to believe that the workers of the Claimant were members of the 5th Defendant union. There is Exhibit D1 which is a communiqué released on 14/11/2012 after a meeting held between the Claimant, the 4th Defendant and the 5th Defendant “over the problems between AUPCTRE and management of C-way”. The Defendants appear to rely on the communiqué as evidence that the workers of the Claimant were members of the Defendants’ unions. The communiqué is in itself a void agreement in that the 5th Defendant union had no business unionizing workers of the Claimant Company. Therefore, there was no foundation on which the communiqué was made. Exhibit D6 is the 4th Defendant’s letter to the Claimant dated 22/1/2014 giving 7 days’ notice of the intention of the 4th Defendant to picket the Claimant’s company. From the evidence of DW1 and DW2, the 4th Defendant is an umbrella body of trade unions. That is to say the membership of the NLC is made up of affiliated trade unions. The 4th Defendant appears to be like a federation of trade unions. Accordingly, workers must first belong to a trade union which is affiliated to NLC before the NLC can be involved in the affairs of the workers or members of that trade union. In this case, since the workers of the Claimant were not registered with (nor are they competent members of) the 5th Defendant or any other union affiliated to NLC, the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants had no business in taking part in the action that took place in the Claimant’s premises on 26/2/2014. In the result, I find that the workers of the Claimant on whose behalf the Defendants alleged to have taken out the action of 26/2/2014 against the Claimant were not members of the 4th and 5th Defendant union. Now, the reasons given by the Defendants for the picket were that they were protecting their members in the Claimant’s employment because of the refusal of the Claimant to reinstate workers whose employments were terminated by the Claimant and refusal to implement terms of the communiqué reached on 14/11/2012. First of all, I have found out that the workers whose interest and on whose behalf the Defendants purported to have carried out the picket were not members of the Defendants. Secondly, I have held earlier that the communiqué was not a union agreement and invalid. Even at that, the Defendants are not expected to use self-help to enforce the terms of the supposed agreement. There are courts for that purpose. If the Defendants or the workers of the Claimant felt aggrieved with the Claimant’s failure to comply with terms of the communiqué or if they intend to make the Claimant comply with the terms thereof, the courts are there to seek redress. With respect of the allegation that the Claimant sacked some of its workers who were involved in union activities without due process and also refused to reinstate the sacked workers, I have read the letters of termination of the employment of Lucky Gentle, Hope Lelesi and Kenneth Maurice, which are Exhibits D3A, D3B & D3C respectively. The letters in Exhibits D3B and D3C simply stated that the employments of Hope Lelesi and Kenneth Maurice were terminated for services no longer required. In Exhibits D3A, the employment of Lucky Gentle was terminated for dereliction of duty after several warnings. There was nothing in the termination letters to show that the workers employments were terminated for involving in union activities as alleged by the Defendants. Let me state for the record that the employment of the Claimant’s workers is a personal contract between the Claimant and its workers. In an employment of master and servant, the employer is entitled to terminate the employment of its worker at any time, with or without notice and whether for a reason or no reason at all. Once the employer has exercised its right under the contract to terminate the employment, even the court cannot interfere with the termination unless it was done in breach of the agreed terms of the contract of employment. In this case, the Claimant exercised its right to terminate the employment of Lucky Gentle, Hope Lelesi and Kenneth Maurice and also paid them their terminal benefits which they collected. See Exhibits G and H. It is not the duty of the Defendants to insist that the Claimant must retain those workers in its employment. In fact, the Defendants cannot and do not have the competence to insist or force the Claimant to retain any person as a worker in its employment. It is also necessary to examine the manner the Defendants conducted the picket. Section 43 (1) and (1A) of the Trade Unions Act (TUA) defines picket in the following words: (1) It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or registered Federation of Trade Unions or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working. (1A)No person shall subject any other person to any kind of constraint or restriction of his personal freedom in the course of persuasion. From this provision, the purpose of picket is to peacefully obtain or communicate information or persuade any person to work or abstain from working and in doing that, the law forbids subjecting any person to any kind of constraint or restriction of his personal freedom. The Claimant averred that the Defendants forced themselves into the premises of the Claimant, barricaded the two gates of the premises by using a bus belonging to the NLC and canopies. They also prevented the management, staff and customers of the Claimant from entry or exit from the premises. According to the Defendants, during the picket exercise, the members of the union gathered outside the Claimant’s premises. The picketing was peaceful and there was no destruction of properties and nobody was restrained or compelled to join the picketing. However, when DW1 was cross-examined, he stated thus: He participated in the picket but he noticed only one gate. A canopy was placed in front of the gate and NLC bus was parked across the gate to block it. Nobody gained access into the compound. There were chairs and tables under the canopy were their members sat. The defendants picketed the claimant’s premises at about 5 am as that is the usual time for picketing in order to ensure no one is locked in. The evidence of DW1 corroborated the Evidence of Cw1 and the pictures in Exhibits A1 and A2. These are pictures showing the NLC bus placed across the Claimant’s gate and a canopy with chairs under it erected across the Claimant’s gate. From the evidence of DW1 and the manner of the blockade as seen in Exhibits A1 and A2, it is evident that the Defendants prevented people from entering or exiting the Claimant’s premises. The exercise might have been peaceful as alleged by the Defendants, but there was no evidence from the Defendants that the purpose of the picket was to obtain or communicate information or to persuade any worker of the Claimant from working. The Defendants merely barricaded the entrance into the premises of the Claimant preventing entry into the premises or exit from the premises. The freedom of movement of the workers and customers of the Claimant was, no doubt, restricted by the blockade. In my view, the action of the Defendants was not for the purpose of a picket and it violated the law. The Defendants also tried, although in vain, to present the action as a picket action by workers of the Claimant. The Defendants said the employees of the Claimant who were all union members were involved and participated in the picket with the support of the 4th and 5th Defendants unions. Under cross examination, DW1 and DW2 also stated that the Claimant’s workers championed the picket but the Defendants only gave them support. From this aspect of the Defendants case, it will appear as if it was the workers of the Claimant who staged the action but the Defendants only lent them support. But this is different from what the Defendants pleaded. In paragraph 2 (h-l) of the statement of defence, the Defendants pleaded that when the Claimant continued its anti-labour activities against the workers, the 5th Defendant sought the intervention of the 4th Defendant who consequently gave notice to picket dated 22/1/2014 to the Claimant and another one to the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State on 24/2/2014. The picket was carried out on 26/2/2014 in exercise of the workers and union members’ right under the Trade Union Laws. Then there are Exhibits D6 and D9 which are notices to picket the Claimant written by the 4th Defendant. There was no such notice from the workers to the Claimant. These notices reveal that the decision and the plan to picket the Claimant originated from the Defendants. In view of the averments of the Defendants and Exhibits D6 and D9 the Defendants’ allegation that it was the workers of the Claimant who championed the picket cannot be believed. The averments of the Defendants and the exhibits show clearly that the decision to picket the Claimant was taken by the Defendants and not the workers of the Claimant. The Defendants also stated that staff of the Claimant participated in the exercise. The Claimant, on the other hand, stated that its employees were not involved in the action of the Defendants and they did write a letter to the 3rd and 5th Defendants on 4/3/2014 dissociating themselves from the action. Exhibit B is a letter dated 4th March 2014 addressed to chairman of the 5th Defendant and signed by 51 staff of the Claimant for themselves and on behalf of other staff. The content of the letter contain that the workers dissociate themselves from the union and its activities in the Claimant’s premises. Although the Defendants aver that the workers did not at any time dissociate themselves from the picket action, the Defendants could not disprove the fact that Exhibit B was written by workers of the Claimant. Exhibit B contains a list of Claimant’s workers who signed the letter. The Defendant did not dispute the fact that those were the workers in the Claimant’s employment. But the Defendants could not mention any particular worker in that list who participated in the action and also could not call any of the workers of the Claimant as a witness to deny Exhibit B. The Defendants’ allegation that the workers of the Claimant participated in the action is not substantiated. The facts are clear that the Defendants actually invaded the Claimant’s business premises on 26/2/2014 in the name of picket. I find that the reasons given by the Defendants to justify the picket of the Claimant’s business premises are quite frivolous. The reasons are issues outside the province of the Defendants. The Defendants chose to invade the Claimant’s business premises in the name of picket, taking the laws into their hands in issues that do not concern them. Since the Defendants have no members in the Claimant’s employment whose interest they purported to pursue in the picket exercise, the picket carried out by the Defendants on 26/2/2014 was baseless and unjustified. The Defendants are no more than busy bodies and meddlesome interlopers interfering into the Claimant’s business when they had no competence to do so. Furthermore, the Defendants’ action was carried out in violation of the law. I find and hold that action of the Defendants in the Claimant’s premises on 26/2/2014 was wrongful. ISSUE 2: The Claimant sought payment of the sum of N90,000,000.00 as general damages. It is the Claimant’s case that during the action of the Defendants, it could not transact business and it lost about N150,000,000.00 in expected sales in those days in addition to loss of goodwill and loss of money in payment of salaries when no work went on in the company. The Claimant said that the 1st to 3rd Defendants also extorted the sum of N1,500,000.00 from the Claimant on 4/3/2014 before they vacated the Claimant’s premises. Let me mention it at once that the Claimant was not able to satisfy this court that it paid N1,500,000 to the 1st to 3rd Defendants. Although I have found earlier that the Claimant did not prove that the picket went on for 7 days, however, in view of the manner the Claimant’s premises was blockaded on the day of the action, it is evident that no business was transacted on that day. The implication is that the Claimant lost expected revenue for that day. Where the Defendants unlawful act caused losses to the Claimant, the interest of justice dictates that the Claimant be compensated for the loss in addition to damages for the unlawful act. Consequently, I hold that the Claimant’s claims in this suit succeed. The court hereby makes the following declarations and orders: 1. It is hereby declared that the invasion of the Claimant’s business premises by the Defendants on 26th February 2014 and their conducts thereat was wrongful. 2. The Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) to the Claimant as damages for the wrongful action of the defendants. 3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction is made restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and privies from interfering or further interfering in the business of the Claimant. 4. Cost of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) is awarded in favour of the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge