The Claimants/Applicants by an Originating summons dated 24th March, 2015 are seeking for the determination of the following questions; a. Whether having regards to the combined reading/effect of the Constitution of the National Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners and Riders Association, (NATOMORAS) and by virtue of its registration with the Corporate Affairs Commission, under part C, the 1st applicant is a body distinct from the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN)? b. Whether having regard to the above mentioned Constitution, it is proper for commercial Tricycle owners/Riders and Members of the 1st applicant to pay levy to the 1st respondent and or 2nd respondent, not being members of the same association and RTEAN not being a body empowered to organize commercial tricycle owners and riders? c. Whether the respondents have a right of control over commercial tricycle owners and riders being the applicant’s members? If the above questions are resolved in favour of the applicants, they shall seek the following reliefs, jointly and severally, from the respondents: a. A declaration that from the combined reading/effect of the Constitution of the National Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners and Riders Association, (NATOMORAS) and by virtue of its registration with the Corporate Affairs Commission, under part C, the 1st applicant is a body distinct from the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN)? b. A declaration that the National Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners and Riders Association, (NATOMORAS) is a distinct association, with distinct members and distinct eligible members separate from the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) and entitled to be accorded the recognition. c. A declaration that the respondents have no right of control over the applicants’ members and any commercial Tricycle and motor owner or rider. d. An order that the members of the Applicants’ association and commercial tricycle and motorcycle owners or riders are not to pay levy to the respondents. e. An order directing the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) Edo state Chapter, to render account and refund all monies, levies and dues collected from all commercial tricycle owners and Riders in Benin City, Edo state to the applicants. f. A perpetual injunctions restraining the respondents, their agents, assigns and privies from further harassing, assaulting and or compelling or co-opting members of the applicants’ association and other commercial tricycle and motorcycle owner and riders to belong to the respondents association. The applicants filed alongside their claims, a 37 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the 2nd claimant John Obozokhai, also filed documents to be relied upon and a written address. The respondents on the 4th of May, 2015 filed in response a 36 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by the2nd defendant one Comrade Osakpamwan Eriyo also filed documents to be relied upon and a written address. The respondents on the 9th of October, 2015 also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection praying the court for the following; Ground of Objection 1. The case herein is not a trade dispute Particular of Objection The disputes between the parties is not a dispute between employers/employees, workers and workers nor connected with the employment or non-employment or terms of employment etc. Ground Two 2. Abuse of court process Particular of Objection The case is an abuse of court process in that a similar case is pending before the High Court of Justice Edo State with same parties and similar subject matter. Ground Three 3. Improper/wrong mode of initiation of suit Particular of Objection The affidavits contain contentious facts. Ground Four 4. Fraudulent misrepresentation Particular of Objection This suit was initiated vide fraudulent misrepresentation of facts to court Ground Five 5. Proper parties are not before court Ground Six 6. The 2nd respondent/applicant is an agent of disclosed principal (1st respondent/applicant) who cannot be sued along with its principal Particular of Objection The 2nd respondent/applicant is an agent of the 1st respondent/applicant (Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) to the knowledge of the applicants/respondents and therefore cannot be sued together with the 1st respondent/applicant. Filed alongside the preliminary objection is a 32 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Hope Inyang, a litigation Secretary in the firm of the defendants. Also filed is a written address wherein counsel submitted that this case is not a trade dispute for which the court can exercise jurisdiction as enshrined in Section 254d(sic) 254C of the Constitution of the 1999, and Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. He stated that for the dispute to qualify as a trade dispute, the dispute must be between unions or inter/unions. He cited Section 47 (1) Trade Dispute Amendment Act, 1992, Section 48 Trade Dispute Act Cap T8 LFN 2004, Section 7 (1) (a)-(c) and 2 NIC Act, 2006; NURTW &Anor v RTEAN & 5 ORS  MJSC VOL 1-2P. 102. Continuing, counsel posited that while the 1st respondent/applicant is a registered trade union and 2nd respondent/applicant is a member of a registered trade union (RTEAN), the 1st applicant/respondent is not a registered trade union congress and other political offices as per exhibits A,C,D,E, and F does not qualify it as a trade union. They argued that proof of being a trade union is registration as such under the Trade Unions Act and other relevant laws, proof of it is the production of a certificate of registration as a trade Union. Also, they argued that the 2nd Applicant/Respondent is not a member of a trade Union. Reliance is placed on the case of N.U.E.E. v. S.B.P.E ALLFWLR (PT. 525)P.201 at 206 R 1-5. They submitted that this case is not a trade dispute because the case is neither between unions, inter/intra union, employer/ employee nor between workers and workers. They further submitted that this case is an abuse of court process. That it amounts to multiplicity of actions. Members of the 1st Respondent/Applicant sued the applicant/respondents over similar issues of harassment, intimidation, beating, extortion; disturbance and compulsion to belong to 1st Applicant/Respondent, in suit no: B/612/2014 pending before the Edo State High Court where the Applicants/ Respondents have been restrained as per exhibit C. They refer the court to Exhibits B and C which is the writ of summons and Restraining Order. They therefore submitted that parties and subject matter in suit no. B/612/2015 is the same with the parties and the subject matter in this suit. They relied on the following cases of BARIGHA V. PDP  ALL FWLR (PT 696)P.414 at 421 R.7; ARC v. JDP 5 MJSC 104 AT 106 R. 3-4 and submitted that this suit is an abuse of court process. Counsel urged the court to strike out this suit. They also argued that originating summons is not a proper mode to commence this suit, that originating summons is only proper when there are no contentious facts or when there are not likely to arise such contentious facts. They argued that from the affidavit evidence of the Applicants/Respondents, it is clear the facts are likely to be contentious facts. They therefore submitted that this suit has been commenced vide a wrong mode which is not proper before the court. They argued that the suit is incompetent and liable to be struck out as it incompetence robs the court of the requisite jurisdiction. Counsel cited in support these cases; APE v. OLOMO ALL FWLR(PT.668)P.895 at 902 R. 6; AJAGUNGBADE 111 v.ADEYELU 16 NWLR (PT.126)at 157 R. 2; KEYAMO V. LSHA  1 NWLR PT 799PG 607 R.1; JACK V. UNIMARKURDI  5 MJSC 172 at 177 R 8 and 9. Defendants also contented that this suit was premised on misrepresentation. Then they submitted that Applicants case herein cannot be justifiable in the light of the fraudulent misrepresentation. Then they urged the court to look at and rely on Exhibit G vis a vis Exhibits B and C in this regards. They further argued that the Applicants case is aimed at using the court as a shield from unlawful arrest and prosecution for giving false information to the Police, SSS and other security agencies. They argued that a person who is made a party in an action must be a legal person, which must be able to sue and be sued. That the party must be able to sue or be sued by the name with which it is registered. They relied on IYKE V. PFIZER4 MJSC 136 at 138-13A R. 3-6; AGBONMAGBE BANKLTD V. GENERAL MANAGER, GB OLIVANT LTD AND ANOR. ALL NLR 116 PG 195 PARAGRAPHS E-G. Defendants submitted that 1st Respondent in this suit is not a juristic person known to law with the power to sue and be sued. Counsel then urged the court to dismiss the suit. In response to the preliminary Objection filed by the defendants/applicants, the claimants’ filed their written address on the 18th day of November, 2016, where they framed six issues for the determination of this court. The issues are as follows: 1. Whether this suit instituted by the Applicant/Respondent is a Trade Dispute and subject to the Jurisdiction of this court? 2. Whether the suit before this court is an abuse of court process? 3. In view of the commencement of this suit by way of an Originating Motion, whether this matter was instituted under the wrong mode and liable to be struck out/ dismissed? 4. Whether the action was instituted based on fraudulent misrepresentation? 5. Whether proper parties are before this Honourable Court? 6. Whether the 2nd Respondent/ applicant can be sued along with his principal? Claimants in answering the first question raised, argued that the 1st Applicants/ Respondents is an association/union of commercial Motorcycle riders and owner while the Respondents/Applicants are an association/ union of road transport employers. To this argument, they refer the court to paragraphs 3(c) of the Applicants/Respondents counter affidavit and paragraph 6 of the Respondents/ Applicants affidavit in support of motion. For their argument on this issue, they relied on SECTION 254 C(1)(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(3RD ALTERATION ACT); AND ALSO SECTION 7(1)(C) (IV) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ACT; they also placed reliance on the Section 54 of the Trade Unions Act. They finally submitted that from above authorities cited, that none of the authorities mentioned specifically that a union has to be registered under the Trade Unions Act before it can function as a union. Claimants urged the court to resolve the issue in their favour. Counsel submitted as regards issue two, that the parties in the suit before the Edo State High Court and this court are not the same and the reliefs sought are not the same. He argued that the Edo State High Court does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the National Industrial Court over the subject matter of trade relation. They in their view submitted that the processes filed before the Edo State High Court and the National Industrial Court of Nigeria does not amount to an abuse of court process. Counsel finally, submitted that where this court in the event find that it’s has no Jurisdiction that the suit cannot be dismissed/ or struck out. That option left for the court is to transfer same to the court with jurisdiction and then placed reliance on Section 24 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. On issue three, they submitted that the questions to be determined are already contained in the originating summons. They argued that assuming but not conceding that a writ of summons is the appropriate mode of commencing this action as against the procedure adopted by the Applicants/Respondents (Originating Summons), it is submitted that it is trite that the appropriate action of the Court is not striking out. They relied on the case of ADEYELU II V. AJAGUNGBADE III  14 NWLR (PT.1053) 1. On issue four, they argued that in considering a preliminary objection, the court does not delve into the merits of the case. That the Defendants/Applicants stating that the case is based on fraudulent misrepresentation is already delving into the merit of this suit. It is the further argument of counsel that they are issues to be dealt with in the course of this matter. Counsel argued that allegation of crime even in a civil suit should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Which have not been proved by the defendants’ alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. They relied on FSB INT. BANK V. IMANO (NIG.) LTD. 7 SCNJ 65; UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD. V. I.K. MARTINS (NIG.) LTD 2 SCNJ 224 and urged the court to discountenance issues raised by the defendants/ applicants. On issue five, it was argued that all the parties before the court are persons that can sue and be sued. He went on to further state that in reacting to the argument of the Defendants/Applicants that the 1st Respondent/ Applicant was not brought to the court with proper name. Counsel submitted that it is trite that justice should not be based on the altar of technicalities, and that the era of technicalities are long gone. Claimants argued that when there is a misnomer especially when the party that committed the misnomer is ready and willing to make necessary adjustment that it is not proper for the court to strike out such process on the ground of misnomer. Cited in support is the cases of OKECHUKWU AND SONS V. NDAH MNLR 366; C.S. MBH AND CO. V. EMESPO 5 CONT. LTD 3 NWLR PT. 753. P. 235 AT 215 PARA E-F.; MEARSK LINE V. ADIDE INVEST LTD. 11 NWLR PT. 778 PG. 317 AT 377. Finally, claimants submitted that striking out the 1st defendant at this stage would occasion a prolongation of this case as the case survives without the 1st Respondents/ Applicants. On issue six, it was argued that the Respondents/ Applicants did not address this issue which is presumed to have been abandoned. And as earlier stated that the Respondents/ Applicants is a juristic person that can sue and be sued. Claimants urged the court to dismiss this preliminary Objection in its entirety with excruciating cost and order accelerated hearing of the case. After a careful consideration of processes filed by parties, the defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection, submissions and authorities cited by counsel to both parties in their written addresses. It is in my respectful view that the determination of these two issues will do justice to the parties; i.e. whether or not this case as constituted is competent, in other words whether the parties are trade unions under the Trade Unions Act; whether there is a trade dispute for which this court jurisdiction is activated, whether this suit is an abuse of court process; and whether this suit was initiated by a proper procedure and thus confers jurisdiction on this court; and whether or not this case is one that can be transferred or strike out. In determining the issues, the first question to answer is whether or not the 1st claimant is a trade union and whether the 2nd and 3rd claimants are members of a trade union? It is the defendants/applicants contention that the 1st claimant is not a trade union registered under the Trade unions Act, in response, the claimants/respondents averred that the 1st claimant/respondent is a Trade Union and nothing to evince that fact on record. The respondents/applicants exhibited the certificate of registration of the 1st respondent/applicant as a Trade union in Nigeria. It is important to state that a Trade Union by Section 2(1) of the Trade Unions Act[Hereafter called '''TU Act], which provides that“ A trade union shall not perform any act in furtherance of the purposes for which it has been formed unless it has been registered under this Act”. It is in the absence of any document on record to evince that the 1st claimant has been registered under the TU Act, that I find and hold that the 1st claimant is not a Trade Union and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are not members of a Trade Union. I so find and hold. Now, flowing from the above, is it proper therefore to hold that the grievance of the claimants against the defendants/applicants in this suit is a trade dispute, for which this court can assume jurisdiction? Trade dispute as the law is trite is any dispute between employers and employees or between employees and employees connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or conditions of employment of any person. See ANIGBORO V. SEE TRUCK(NIG.) LTD. 6 NWLR (PT.399)35; APENA V. N.U.P.P.P.P. 8 NWLR(PT.822) 426; also, see. B.P.E V. N.U.E.E 13 NWLR (PT.837) 382; OSHIOMHOLE V. FGN  8NWLR (PT. 1035) 58; Where the court held that ‘’ for a dispute to be declared a trade dispute within the meaning of Section 47 of the Trade Dispute Act, the following ingredients must be present: (a) There must be a dispute; (b) The dispute must involve a trade; (c) The dispute must be between: (i) Employers and workers (ii) Workers and workers; (iii) The employment or non- employment ; (iv) The terms of employment; (v) Physical conditions of work of any person ‘’. It is clear by the affidavit evidence of parties before me; that the dispute before this court is between an association and a Trade union which does not fall within the ambit of the ingredients enumerated supra. I find that the grievances of the claimants as endorsed on their originating summons and affidavit evidence before this court, evince that there is no trade dispute between the applicants and the respondents in this case. Consequent upon which I hold that the dispute before this court is not a trade dispute in the light of the above cited statutory and case law authorities. I so find and hold. Next, is whether or not this process is an abuse of the process of this court. The defendants/applicants contended that this suit amounts to multiplicity of actions, that members of the 1st defendant/Applicant sued the claimants/respondents over similar issues in suit no: B/612/2014 pending before the Edo State High. By R-Benkay Nig. Ltd V. Cadbury Nig. Ltd LPELR-7820 SC, an improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice was held to be an abuse of the judicial process. It is also trite law that, where a party(s) institutes multiplicity of actions or is on a frolic act of forum shopping, i.e. seeking for a favourable court to entertain a matter is an apparent abuse of court process. See NDIC V. UBN Plc & AnorLPELR-24316CA; Unity Bank Plc. V. Olatunju 15 NWLR (PT.1378) 503 , P. 533( ParaC-G). The defendants/applicants annexed to their preliminary objection the writ of summons of suit B/612/2014, a suit filed at the Edo State High Court by the respondents/applicants in this case against the applicants/respondents in this application. The reliefs endorsed on it seeking for reliefs restraining the defendants from forcing or compelling the claimants to belong to the 1st defendant which is also the 1st claimant in this instance; the reliefs sought in this case is also in all fours with it. That they are to stop paying dues to the 1st defendant. I therefore, find from exhibit B' annexed to this application that the parties are the same and the reliefs sought are similar to this present. The Edo State High court has given an interim order restraining the defendants in that case who happens to be the claimants/ respondents in this case from taking any steps in intimidating, harassing, or disturbing, or doing anything inconsistent with the rights of the claimants in that case who are defendants in this case. It is obvious from these two exhibits i.e. exhibits B and C, that the claimants/applicants in this case have embarked on forum shopping, i.e. seeking for a favourable court to entertain their suit. Apparently, the applicants who have been restrained by the Edo State High court quickly ran to this court on a frolic and to run away from justice. In a bid to arm twist the arm of the law in their favour ran to this court in March 2015 after they were restrained by the Edo State High Court, instead of waiting for the final determination of the suit in Edo High Court. They are even restrained from taking any action inconsistent with the rights of the defendants/applicants in this case. Their action in this case is clearly in breach of the order of Edo State High Court. I find that they are not entitled to be given a right of hearing in this court having flouted the order of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. It is in the light of all this that I also find and hold that the applicants have grievously abused the process of this court. I therefore, find merit in this preliminary objection. Finally, is this case one of those that should be transferred to the High court? It is the respondents submission that this court should transfer this case to the High court, if it finds that it is supposed to have been filed in the State High court, or Federal High court. Section 24 of the NICA 2006, enjoins this court to transfer any suit it finds not to have jurisdiction to the appropriate court. The scenario in this suit is different from the situation envisaged by Section 24 of NICA. I say so in view of the fact that the applicants in this case have apparently, abused the process of this court. It is the basic principle of law that where a party is found to have abused the process of court, the latter case is to be either struck out/dismissed. which in this case is this instance case. Accordingly, I uphold the preliminary objection filed by the defendants/applicants and thus dismiss this suit for being an abuse of the process of court. I so find and hold. It is obvious from all decided supra that it will amount to a mere academic exercise, to delve into the other issues raised by the applicants, such as the wrongful initiation of this suit, this is because the court having held that this suit is not a Trade disputes as the claimants are not Trade Union and also that this suit is an abuse of court above. I find this suit incompetent and consequently dismissed. I award the sum of N100,000.00 as cost against the claimants. Ruling is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyebiola Oyejoju Presiding Judge.