Download PDF
The Claimants commenced this action by way of a writ of complaint filed on the 11th of July 2014 in which they prayed for the following orders: 1. An Order of this Honourable Court stopping the State Delegate Conference/election of the National Union of Hotels and Personal Service Workers scheduled from 14th July, 2014 to 25th July 2014. 2. An Order declaring the purported election guideline of National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers produced by the central working committee who are not saddled with the responsibility as null and void due to its inconsistency with the Union Constitution and that of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. 3. An Order declaring the seat of the President of the National Union of Hotels and Personal Service Workers Comrade Leke Success and the Central Working Committee vacant due to the expiration of their tenure in office which elapsed on the 18th day of December 2013. 4. An Order of this Court mandating the Central Working Committee of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit. 5. An Order of this Court directing the President of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers comrade Leke Success, the 1st Defendant to return all the Union documents in its possession to the Central Working Committee. 6. The sum of N500, 000 being the cost of the litigation. The Claimants also filed on the same date 11th July 2014 a motion on notice seeking interlocutory injunction restraining Defendants, their servants, privies or persons acting on their behalf from conducting the delegate conference/election pending the determination of the substantive suit. They also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents their agents, servant, privies or persons acting on their behalf from parading themselves as the National President and as well as the Central working committee of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers pending the determination of the substantive suit. They also sought an order directing the respondents to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit. Lastly, they sought an order directing the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to take charge in the administration of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers pending the determination of the substantive suit. This motion, for the records is hereby struck out as it was not heard before this Court. On the 15th of July 2014, the Defendant/Applicants filed a motion on notice which sought to have the suit struck out for want of jurisdiction and non-disclosure of a reasonable course of action on the Defendant on the 20th February 2014 when this case was first called up for hearing, the application was heard, both parties having been heard. On the 3rd of December 2014 the motion was over ruled and by the 23rd of February 2015 hearing commenced. The Claimants’ claim as registered members of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers in Abuja; Through CW1, one comrade Suleiman Abdulmumin they maintain that the 1st claimant (the Union) has a Constitution (admitted as exhibit B to B75 in the course of the hearing) which regulates the powers and activities of its members. The Claimant maintain that the 1st Defendant Comrade Leke Success was the ex-president of the Union whose tenure elapsed as at December 18th, 2013, but he pleaded for additional 3 months in order to place the union in a better position, a request which was granted by the National Executive Council. The Claimants maintained further that the 2nd Defendant was the person who signed what they call a: “the Kangaroo” election guidelines for the state delegate conference which denied the Claimants the right to vie for their respective positions. They also maintain that the 3rd Defendant Central Working Committee (CWC) was not saddled with the responsibility to produce elections guidelines for the delegate conference/elections scheduled from 14th – 25th July, 2014 but went ahead and did same. The Claimant maintains that upon the expiration of the tenure of the National President of the Union, the Central Working Committee was to conduct an election which they failed to do and after much pressure brought out a guideline against the Claimant depriving them of their rights to participate and contest in the election. This, they maintain caused them to instruct counsel to write to the parental body (the Nigeria Labour Congress) an SOS letter cum intention to commence legal action, as they maintained that the Central Working Committee elected by the union was not working in conformity with the Claimants Union Constitution. The Claimants aver that its constitution provides that elected officers tenure of office and functions of such officers and the condition under which they are duly elected and eligible to contest and when they will be removed. CW1 by his deposition on Oath avers that upon the expiration of the tenure of the 1st Defendant, 1st Defendant refused to conduct election but instead started witch hunting any member of the Union that asked him to conduct the delegate conference election. He maintained that this witch hunting came to light when the 2nd and 3rd Defendants produced the election guidelines stopping CW1 and other Claimants from exercising their rights to participate and to contest the election contrary to the Union. The Claimants maintained further that constitution supersedes the election guidelines and that the aims and objectives upon which the Claimants’ Union was incorporated has been endangered by the activities of the Defendants. They maintained also that they (Claimants) and its Union members have been humiliated by the manner the Defendant usurped power and by the way they produced the election guidelines and their refusal to vacate their offices since their tenure elapsed. The Defendants on their part in denying the claim maintain that the National and State delegate conference election of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers which took place on the 14th of July to the 25th July 2014 was conducted in compliance with the constitution. They denied signing any “Kangaroo” election guidelines of the state delegate conference. They maintain that the 1st Defendant was the president of the Union and the office of the president was not at any time vacant. The Defendants averred further that the National delegate conference of the Union could not hold in December 2013 owing to the resolutions reached by the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Union held in Imo State on 24th of October 2012. They aver that the NEC unanimously resolved and empowered the 2nd Defendant (CWC) to consider suitable dates for the state delegates conference after the 1st quarter of the year 2014, owing to the fact that the Union had financial challenges. The Defendants relied on the minute of the said meeting of which they averred that the CW1 comrade Abdulmumin was in attendance where it was resolved that the 5th quadrennial National Conference was resolved to hold 3 months after the conclusion of State Conferences. They further maintained that the constitution of the Union allows for three month tenure extension when there is genuine reason to do so which necessitated the resolutions reached as the union was having financial challenges. The Defendants pleaded and relied on parts of the Union’s Constitution and averred that the State delegate conference/election of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers of the 14th to 25th July 2014 was held in compliance with it is constitution. The Defendants relied on the meeting of the Unions CWC of 15th May 2014 where the CWC accepted the report of the Credential/Accreditation Committee which was mandated at a meeting of 24th October 2012 to handle issues of the conference vis a vis credentials of contestants and eligibility to contest. The Defendants also relied on Rules 21 (B) and (c) of the Unions Constitution on grievance procedure. They also maintain that the 3rd and 7th Claimant had admitted that they were misled to filing the suit and they had written to the CWC of the Union to withdraw their signatures from the suit herein. These letters were marked in evidence as exhibits DD dated 22nd December 2014 and DD1 dated 20th July, 2014. At the close of hearing and after written addresses had been filed by the Defendant on the 11th January 2016. The Claimant filed a motion on notice for leave to amend their writ of summons and Statement of Facts. They also attached and filed the said amended writ of summons. This, on the 1st of April 2014. The prayers in the motion were refused and parties proceeded to adopt their written addresses. The Defendants formulated a sole issue for determination “Whether from the facts and circumstances of the suit, the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs being sought in the suit.” The Claimants on their part raised 4 issues for determination. 1. WHETHER the so called election guidelines exhibited in this suit produced by the Central Working Committee does not amount to alteration of the constitution, if so whether the alteration is consistent with the constitution of the 1st Claimant. 2. WHETHER the eleven months additional period Mr. Leke Success led administration stayed in office as president of the 1st Claimant does not amount to a breach of the 1st Claimant Constitution, and an abuse of office. 3. If issue 2 is held in the affirmative, whether every such subsequent action done/carried out by Leke Success (1st Defendant) led administration to the extent of its inconsistency is not null and void. 4. WHETHER the election that led the present leadership/executive Administration of the 1st Claimant into office is not null and void being in consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Counsel for the Defendant in the Written Address, in maintaining their position that the Claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought, submitted that the suit has been overtaken by events. Counsel referred to the reliefs being sought by the Claimants which seeks to stop the national and state delegate conference elections conducted and concluded from 14th of July 2014 to the 25th of July 2014. Counsel referred to the cross examination of the CW1 who testified that he was aware that the said National and state delegate conference elections was conducted and concluded on the aforementioned date. He submitted further that the admission of the CW1 makes the suit academic, that the Courts do not give decisions for purely academic reasons, that the Court is never a proper forum for academic exercise citing LIASU V SALAU (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 1283) at 162 PP pg. 180 and MADUEKE V. MADUEKE (2012) 4 NWLR PT 1289, @ 77 PG. 98 para E. Counsel also pointed out that the Claimants are also asking the Court for an Order declaring the seat of the president of the Union vacant in spite of the admission of the CW1 that the said National and State delegate conference elections of the Union was conducted and concluded. Counsel for the Defendants also maintained that it is on record that the 1st Defendant was previously the president of the Union and the said office was not at any time vacant. Counsel stated that the testimony of the DW1 (Babatunde Inumutole) was not in any way contradicted by the Claimant. He submitted that the law is clear that where evidence adduced is un challenge, the Court is entitled to rely on it for its decision and relied on A.M. Co (Nig) Ltd V. VOLKSWAGEN (NIG) LTD (2007) 7 NWLR PT 1192 @ 97.PP. 123 paras A-B. Counsel urged the Court to hold that suit herein is grossly academic that it is well settled law that an academic issue or question does not ensure any right or benefit on the successful party. He cited NNABUDE V. G.N.G LTD (2010) 15 NWLR PT 0216 amongst others and referred to exhibits DD and DD1 which he maintained clearly showed that the 3rd and 7th Claimants are no longer interested in the suit; that exhibits revealed that they were misled to file the suit. Counsel for the Claimant stated further that going through the materials available to the Court, the seat of the 1st Defendant is no longer vacant nor was it vacant at any time. That the person now occupying the position is not even a party would be tantamount to making reliefs against a person not even a party before this Court, that a grant of the claimant prayers to the proceedings. He cited the cases of IMEGWU V. OKOLOCHA (2013) 9 NWLR pt. 1359 @ 347 PP. 373 paras D-E, paras C-D and UGWU V. BANGE (1997) 8 NWLR (pt518) amongst others. Counsel for the Defendants also submitted further that cursory examination of the reliefs sought by the Claimants as endorsed on the Originating Complaint and the reliefs sought in the Statement of Facts revealed that reliefs 4 and 6 are fundamentally different in all respects. That reliefs 4 and 6 of the Originating Complaint states. “An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Central Working Committee of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.” “The sum of N500,000 being cost of litigation.” While those in the Statement of Facts state: “An Order of this Court mandating the Central Working Committee of the National Union of Hotels & Personal Service Workers to produce a new election guideline to accommodate all and sundry members of the Union.” “The sum of N2,000,000 being cost of the Litigation counsel submitted that these clear contradictory reliefs sought by the Claimants was an abuse of the Court process. He cited TAIWO V. AKINBOLAJI (2012) 2 NWLR PT 1284 @ 201 Pp. Pg. 212-213 para C-D. Counsel submitted for the Defence that the Claimant failed to lead evidence as to how they are entitled to the reliefs sought. That the Statement of Fact of the Claimants does not in any way justify the reliefs sought from the Court. The Defence also maintained that it had been the case of the Claimants that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants produced election guidelines stopping the Claimants and denying them the right to participate and to contest the election which they claim is contrary to the constitution. Counsel submitted that the averment in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim to this effect was never backed by any evidence and should be deemed abandoned and be struck out. He relied on the case of KAYDEE VENTURES LTD V. MIN, F.C.T (2010) 7 NWLR PT 1192 @ 171 PP. PG 204. Paras D-H. The Defendants went further to point out that they led evidence to the fact that the whole election guidelines (Exhibit C-C3) was drawn from the Constitution of the National union of Hotels of the Union. They referred to Rule 7 (ix) and Rule II (i) of the constitution. (Exhibit B-B75 same as Exhibit DC-DC74. Counsel reproduced the rules and submitted that the election guidelines does not in any way conflict with the said Rule 7 (ix) and Rule 11(1) of the constitution of the Union. He submitted that it is trite that the Court would not interfere in a case where members of a voluntary association or Union have come to the decision within the provisions of their constitution even if the decision is unreasonable. He cited MBANEFO V. MOLOKWU (2014) 6 NWLR PT. 1403 at 377 PP pg. 409. Where the Supreme Court held amongst others that …”The association is in its own right supreme over its own affairs. This must be said loudly and clearly and unless it has violated its own constitutional provisions the Court would not interfere…..” Counsel submitted also that the Claimant failed to adduce facts to show the seat of the president of the National Union of Hotels &Personal Service Workers Comrade Leke Success and central working committee is vacant and that there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed against the Defendants in this case. The Claimants in their first issue for determination as to whether the election guidelines produced by the CWC does not amount to alteration of the constitution of the Union relied on the contents of exhibit C-3 the election guidelines. Counsel for the Claimant then stated that the election guideline for the position the 2nd Claimant was contesting for (i.e. State Executive) had fully been taken care of by the provisions of the constitution on eligibility to contest state executive office. Counsel went on to state that a juxta position of the provisions of Section 11(1)(a)-(h) with the provisions of eligibility guideline purportedly produced by the Central Working Committee brings to the fore an alteration, amendment or change of the provisions of rule 11(1) that while rules 11(1) contains sub section a-h alphabetically, numerically 1-8, that the guideline in exhibit C-C3 contains provisions 1-13, that paragraphs 9-13 were not contemplated by the constitution of the 1st Claimant on record. Counsel stressed that the question that follows is was the provision of the Constitution of the 1st Claimant followed in the oblivious amendment done by the CWC. For this, he referred to Section 5(11) of the Constitution in exhibit B-B75 which provides: “No new rules shall be made or any rule altered, amended or rescinded unless agreed to by majority votes of members in secret ballot at the National Delegates Conference of the Union.” He submitted for the Claimant, the Constitution never made provision for the amendment alteration or rescission carried out by a selected few i.e. Central Working Committee “in an unknown gathering purportedly signed by the second Defendant on record. He submitted further that Rule 5(11) of the Constitution of the 1st Claimant provides for the binding effect of the provision of the Constitution and all and sundry within the 1st Claimant. He relied on the case of MAXWELL V. EMERENGWA and 1Or (2014) 46 NWLR (pt. 149) 455, NIC. He maintained that a community reading of the aforementioned provisions vis a vis judicial authorities reveals that the Defendants in their production of exhibit C-C3 acted ultra vires the dictates and provisions, of the 1st Claimant Constitution. He urged the Court to hold as much. As to the 2nd issue whether the 11 (eleven) months additional period Mr. Leke Success led administration stayed in office as president did not amount to a breach of the Constitution. On this issue counsel for the Claimants referred to the provision of Rule 6(viii) which provides that tenure of office for the national and state elected officers shall be a period of four (4) years. And that of rule 6(ix) which provides further that no elected officer shall occupy the same office for more than two consecutive terms.” Counsel maintains that this was not the position with the Defendants in this matter, that instead of handing over office at the end of four years in December 2013, which marked the end of the second terms, the 1st Defendant led administration schemed their ways to remain in office. Counsel referred to paragraph 3 Statement of Facts where the above was pleaded and paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence where the Defendants stated that the national delegates conference of the union could not hold in December 2013 owing to resolutions reached by the national executive council (NEC) of the union in the meeting held in Imo State. The Claimants maintain that the Constitution of the Union had envisaged a situation of this nature, by not allowing for a vacuum or lacuna when such a situation occurs. Counsel cited Rules 8 (xv) which he stated provides steps to take: “In the event of the tenure of the office of national elected officer approaches its end and there exists a genuine reason why the national delegates’ conference may not hold immediately at the expiration of their tenure, the National President in conjunction with the General Secretary shall within 3 months before the expiration of the said tenure, summon the national executive council to consider the need for the overstay, but such overstay must not be more than 3 months from the date of expiration of their tenure and within 3 months extension if granted, the national elected officers and the national secretariat must ensure at all costs that the National Delegates Conference is held.” Counsel submitted that rule (XV) given its literary meaning gives leverage to the office of the elected national office holder an overstay period of 3 months and nothing more from when their tenure expired. Counsel relied on the evidence of the DW1 that the 1st Claimants tenure expired by December 2013 and the 1st Defendant led administration handed over office on the 20th of November, 2015 which amounts to a period of 11 months and some days which amounts to a grave violation and abuse of the constitution and urged the Court to so hold. Counsel for the Claimant referred to the defence of the Defendant which placed reliance on Exhibit DA to DA22 which is the minutes of the meeting of the NEC Union held in Owerri at Imo Concorde Hotel and casinos on 24th October 2012. Counsel for the Claimant referred to paragraph 2 of page 17(Exhibit DA 16) which provides. Consequent upon the above, NEC- in session unanimously resolved and empowered the Central Working Committee (to consider suitable dates for the State Delegates’ Conference after the first quarter of the year, 2014 while the 5th Quadrennial National Delegates' Conference will hold three months after the conclusion of State Conference. Counsel submits for the Claimant that the above “So called unanimous decision was for elected office holders who ought to have handed over office in December 2013 by effluxion of terms which powers of extension beyond the constitutionally provided period of overstay that the NEC in session and/or the Central Working Committee never had to operate from the clear provisions of the 1st Claimant’s constitution. That it should be borne in mind that at no time whatsoever was the constitution or any of its provision suspended thereof. On this basis counsel for the Claimant urged the Court to hold that the NEC in session and the CWC had no basis whether constitutional or otherwise to allow, empower and give effect to a breach of the 1st Claimant’s Constitution, that page 17 of Exhibit DA-DA22 said the National Conference should hold in 3 months after the State Conference was held on the 14th to 25th July, 2014 while the National Conference was held on the 20th of November 2014 a period of 4 months apart. That this went on to render null and void every act done by the Leke led administration, that the decision of the NEC in session in exhibit DA-DA22 particularly pages 16 & 17 of the said exhibit and the decision of the Central Working Committee (CWC) are an abuse and breach of Rules (XV) of the Claimant’s Constitution. Counsel also urged the Court to hold that the 11months period of overstay by the Leke led administration is a grave violation of the union’s constitution and therefore null and void. As to issue 3; if issue 2 is held in the affirmative whether every such subsequent action done/carried out by Leke Success (1st Defendant) led administration to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the 1st Claimant Constitution is null and void. Counsel ruled on the Lord denning’s holding that “You don’t place something on nothing and expect it to stand. To this extent counsel urged the Court to hold that the elections that has the present leadership of the 1st Claimant in power is therefore unconstitutional null and void, and in the same swoop order a re-election of the state and national officer of the 1st Claimant in accordance with the constitution of the 1st claimant Exhibit B-B75 the same election. As to the Defendant’s contention that the case does not disclose a cause of action, counsel referred to ODUNTAN V. AKIBU (2000) 75 Sc (part 11) 106 where the Court held that: “A cause of action is the entire set of circumstance given rise to an enforceable claim. It is the fact or combination of facts, which gives rise to a right to sue and consists of two elements, viz the wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, and the consequent damage”. Counsel relied further on IDACHABA V. LLONA (2007) 6 NWLR (PT 1030) 277 CA and NICON INSURANCE CORPORATION V. OLOWOFOYEKU (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 973) 244 CA and submitted that a painstaking consideration of the averment of the complaint and pleadings will disclose a weighty triable action against the Defendant. The Court was urged to hold that the Claimant’s case discloses a manifest cause of action. Counsel relied further on the grievance provision of the Constitution which provides that a member shall have the right to initiate action at his own expense in connection with any breach of the provision of the Constitution. Counsel urged the Court to find in favour of the Claimant and do the following: 1. DECLARE null and void exhibit C-C3 as being unconstitutional. 2. Nullify every action carried out during the period the 1st Defendant led administration overstayed their office particularly the election into the national elective officer conducted outside the constitutionally stipulated time. 3. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court ordering a fresh election in accordance with the 1st Claimant’s Constitution officiated by a neutral body the Federal Ministry of Labour. In the reply on points of law counsel submitted that documents i.e. the Constitution and Exhibit DA to DA22 speak for themselves and the law being well settled that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to be added or to vary from the terms of any written instrument to contradict the said instrument citing the cases of ANYAWU V. UZOWUAKA (2009) 13 NWLR PT 1159 @ 445 PP 468 paras A-D and LARMIC V. D.P.M.S LTD (2006) 12 W.R.N at 150 PP PG 177-178 lines 40-45 counsel then reproduced the provisions of rules 5 vi and vii and submitted that the National Executive Council and the CWC are appropriate organs of the Union as provided in the Constitution of the Union and all resolutions passed by appropriate organs of the union are binding on all members of the union including the Claimants. Counsel replied to the relief laid out at the end of the Claimant’s Written Address. He stated that the reliefs were not sought for in the Originating Complaint in the suit herein, submitting that the law is that a claim originates an action being the pivot and cynosure of the case, that a Claimant is bound by his claim and must not deviate from it willy-nilly. That a Claimant cannot present a case different from his claim as the law regards such an unsolicited procedure completely outside the law. He referred to the Supreme Court in OSUJI V. EKOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR (PT 1166) 810 125 para F-G and GEO MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTRE V. N.D.E (2013) 35 W.R.N AT 110PP PG 134 line 25-35. That a party cannot obtain through the backdoor what he did not claim in a suit, relying on EGONU V. EGONU (1978) 11-12 Sc 111@ 133 amongst others and urged the Court to dismiss the suit of the Claimant. Now, the facts of the case is quite settled, much of what lies before me is to determine in accordance with the originating process, the claim endorsed on the writ of complaint. This is whether the constitution of the 1st Claimant Union was breached by the election guideline of National Union of Hotels and Personal Service Workers produced by its central Working Committee who were not saddled with the responsibility as null and void. This is the main issue to be determined. It is the 2nd head of claim of the Originating Complaint. The other heads of claims numbers 1, 3 and 4 relate to events which were set to take place a few days before the filing of the Originating Process for this suit and the motion for interlocutory injunction which has earlier been struck out having not been heard. Exhibit C to C3 dated 18th June 2014 is headed state council elections and contains a schedule for the State Council election. C1 provides for eligibility to contest for state elective office as provided in Rule 11(1). It provides: 1. Any member wishing to contest as a member of the State Working Committee must be a member of the State Executive Council. 2. Any member who wish to contest as state council Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer, in addition to (a) above, must be a serving member of the state working committee. 3. Any state working committee members found liable of an act or conduct or omission prejudicial to the interest, image progress and unity of the Union shall be disqualified from contesting for any elective post in the state council 4. Where all the state working committee members are disqualified from contesting election, opportunity shall be given to the state executive council members to contest for post of their choices. 5. Any branch member in arrears of check off dues and levies shall not be eligible to participate or attend the state delegate conference. 6. National elected officers residing in a state shall also attend state quadrennial delegate’s conference but with no voting right. 7. In order to promote harmony, love and peace and stability in the union, candidates contesting for posts in the state working committee, are not allowed to use posters or any other publication(s) that can cause chaos within NUHPSW family. Anyone caught using poster will be disqualified from contesting. 8. Any member or branch whose past activities has been detrimental or adjudged to be anti-union activities shall not be eligible to participate in the conference. 9. In addition to the above, all state council and returning officers for state council election should also abide with the following: 10. Candidates who served in a position for two terms even though one term in acting capacity shall not be qualified to vie for the same position for the third term. 11. State Council who have less than three units shall constitute a state council of five (5) officers namely: Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and two executive members which must include at least two women. 12. Any member, unit or branch that did not pay the conference levy will not participate in the state delegated conference. 13. The accreditation and credential committee is empowered to consider and give waiver to unit(s) who in their opinion are loyal and supportive to the union in the past, who due to circumstances beyond their control are unable to pay the conference levy. Counsel for the Claimant maintain that the election guideline for the position the 2nd Claimant was contesting for (i.e. state executive) was fully taken care of by the provisions of the constitution at Exhibit B 30 (i.e. page 30 to 32) to B32 these being items a to h or provisions 1 to 8 as numbered in the guideline; the guideline provision being an exact reproduction of the constitutional provisions. Counsel goes on to insist for the Claimant that the provisions of paragraph 9 to 13 above were not contemplated by the constitution of the first Claimant; that this amounted to an alteration, change or amendment of the provisions of rules 11(CL) a-h by the Central Working Committee; that this amounts to a breach of the constitution in Section5 (iii) which provides that no new rules shall be made or any rule altered amended or rescinded unless agreed to by the majority votes of members in secret ballot at the national delegate conference of the union. In response counsel for the Defendant relies on the provisions of Rule 7 (ix) on eligibility to contest for National Executive Office. It provides: (a) Any member wishing to contest as a National officer must be a member of the National Executive Council. (b) In addition to (a) above, a member that intends to contest as a president or treasurer must be a serving member of the central working committee (c) A person who is not a financial member for at least two consecutive years shall not be eligible for election as a national officer (d) Any branch or member in arrears of check-off dues and levies shall not be eligible to participate or attend national Delegate Conference. (e) Any member found liable of an act or conduct or omission prejudicial to the interest, image, progress and unity of the union shall be disqualified from contesting for any elective post in the union. (f) Where all members of the Central Working Committee are disqualified from contesting election, members or the National Executive Council shall be eligible to contest for any post of their choice. (g) In order to promote harmony, love, peace and stability in the union, candidates contesting for posts in the Central Working Committee, are not allowed to use poster or any other publications (s) that can cause chaos within NUHSW family. Anyone caught using posters will be disqualified from contesting. (h) Any member or branch whose past activities has been detrimental or adjudged to be anti-union activities shall not be eligible to participate in the conference. Counsel for the Defendants then goes on to produce the provision of rule 11(1) on eligibility to contest for state elective office (which I already reproduced above). Counsel then goes on to submit that the election guidelines (i.e. exhibit C-C3) does not conflict with rule 7 (ix) and Rule 11(1) of the constitution of the Union. I have laid out these 2 constitutional provisions and what I see is that the elections guidelines was made to cater for State Councils and clearly the provisions of paragraphs 9-13 are not part of the unions constitution with regard to the state council elections. Counsel for the Defendants also relied on Rule 9 (iii) of the constitution of the union which provides that the CWC (Central Working Committee) shall administer the day to day affairs of the union between the meetings of the National Executive Council. He also relied on the provisions of Rule 21 (B) and (C) of the constitution of union on grievance procedure. It provides: i. A member at the branch level shall have his/her grievance addressed by the branch executive committee. If he/she is not satisfied with the handling of his/her grievance by the Branch Executive Committee, the said grievance shall be reported to the state council for adjudication. But if it is still not resolved, then it shall be transferred to the National Secretariat of the union. Furthermore if the National Secretariat is unable to resolve it, then it shall be reported to the CWC, from CWC to the NEC and it is remains unresolved it shall be reported to the National Delegates’ conference whose decision on the matter shall be final. ii. Similar procedures shall be followed in handling grievances that may arise at the state and National levels. That is to say that any grievance that may arise shall handle by the appropriate organ of the union. I find that the Claimants did not exercise this Constitutional option, they relied instead on the right of a member to initiate action in connection with any breach of the provision of the Constitution.” Now, I also find that the exercise of this right is proper because a cause of action remained in the 2nd head of claim. Therefore the contention that Claimants suit disclosed no cause of action by the Defendants is hereby discountenanced. The law is that the Court must not take in to consideration the weakness of a plaintiffs claim before determining whether or not a suit disclose a cause of action. What is important is for the Court to examine averments in the pleading to see if they disclosed some cause of action or raise some questions which are fit to be decided by it.” See NICON INSURANCE CORPORATION V. OLOFOYEKU (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 973) 244 CA. However, I find the fact that the 1st Defendant the ex- president of the union whose tenure elapsed as at December 18th 2013 and he pleaded for additional 3 months in order to position the union in a better position which was granted by the National executive council was condoned by the Claimants. If by the provisions of Rule 8 (xv) the tenure of national elected officers could not be extended by more than 3 months. It means that the National Delegates Conference must have been held before the end of March 2014. The Claimants did not complain until 1st July 2014 when they briefed a lawyer to write exhibit D & D1 to the NLC after they had seen the provision of exhibit C-C3 which was not to their liking which was dated 18th June, 2016. I also find that the Claimants particularly the CW1, did not give evidence in detail of how he was affected by the provisions of paragraph 9 to 13 of the guidelines in exhibits C to 3. The evidence of what those provisions amounted to in excluding him was not fleshed out in the pleadings. So even though paragraphs 9 to 13 were not specifically in the constitution. I cannot for lack of evidence hold that those extra provisions breached the constitution. I so hold. As to the provision of Rule 8 (xv) I have held earlier that the national executive stayed for more than the constitutionally allotted 3 extra months, but the Claimants have not shown what immediate steps they took in April, May and June of 2014 to forestall further breaches or address the situation of the constitution’s breach. Which I hereby hold there was. But the Claimants condoned it. Equity aids the vigilant and this is a Court bound to do both equity and law in a bid to do Justice see S.15 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. I therefore fail to see how the breach can be held in absolute terms to stand because the Claimant has not told the Court what provision of the Constitution says that the national delegate conference should be declared null and void in the event of a breach of the constitution. On the whole, I see that both parties have relied on the provisions of the constitution. And the provision of a constitution is best read together as a whole. The law is that the Court will not interfere in a case where members of a voluntary association or union have come to the decision within the provisions of their constitution even if the decision is unreasonable. See the case MBANEFO V. MOLOKWU (2014) 6 NWLR 1403 @ 377 PG. 409 paras B-C, 409 to 410 paras D-A. On the basis of the above reasoning I hold that the Claimants claim fails in all heads of claim as it is clearly seen that claims 1,3, 4 have been overtaken by events. Any contrary decision would do a graver damage to the union. Judgment is entered accordingly. There are no awards as to costs, parties to bear their own costs. ____________________________ HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE JUDGE