Download PDF
JUDGMENT. By an originating Summons dated 24th day of November 2017 and filed on the same day, the Claimants seeks the determination of the following questions: 1. WHETHER by the supreme authority of the Constitution of the 16th Defendant the four years tenure of the 1st to 15th Defendants who are the Executive members of the 16th Defendant had elapsed on 18th October 2017, having been elected in Port Harcourt Conference of the 16th Defendant held on 17th and 18th of October 2013. 2. WHETHER continues stay in office by the 1st to 15th Defendants as the executive members of 16th Defendant and exercise of powers, enjoyment of entitlements and perquisites associated with such office does not constitute infractions of the Constitution of the 16th Defendant. 3. WHETHER by the amendment of the Constitution of 16th Defendant in 2009 and the attendant inclusions of Oil And Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers Association (SUTAKED) does not derogate from the objectives of the 16th Defendant. THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE QUESTIONED AS RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. By the congress of the 16th Defendant conducted in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on the 17th and 18th October, 2013 the 1st to 15th Defendants were elected into offices as the executive members of the 16th Defendant for a four year tenure in accordance with the provision of RULE 6 (C) (IV) of the Constitution of the 16th Defendant. 2. The 1st to 15th Defendants acted in flagrant breach of the provision of RULE 6 (C) (IV) of the Constitution of the 16th Defendant by staying beyond the four years tenure of their offices and continuously indulges in exercise of executive powers as the executive members of the 16th Defendant when their mandates had elapsed on 18th October 2017. 3. The Constitution of the 16th Defendant was amended wherein by RULE 3 (1) Oil And Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealer Association (SUTAKED) who are not ‘workers’ but ‘employers’ where made members of the 16th Defendant and same constitution was filed with the 17th Defendant. On the basis of the anticipated favourable resolution of the above questions, the Claimants claim the following reliefs from the Honourable Court. 1. ADECLARATION that the Constitution of the 16th Defendant is supreme and binding on all the parties. 2. A DECLARATION that the four years mandate of the 1st to 15th Defendants had lapsed on 18th of October 2017 and all the acts done from 19th October 2017 and continuing is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. 3. AN OEDER that all salaries, remunerations, entitlements and perquisites collected by the 1st to 15th Defendants whilst still in office from 19th October 2017 till they vacate offices be paid back into the account of the 16th Defendant. 4. A DECLARATION that the Constitutional Amendment 2009 which includes Oil And Gas Suppliers (OGS), and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers Association (SUTAKED) who are not ‘workers’ but ‘employers is illegal, null and void. 5. A PERPERTUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st to 15th Defendants from further parading themselves in whatsoever guise as the executive members of the 16th Defendant either collectively or individually. 6. ANY OTHER RELIE(S) TO WHICH THE Claimants be found entitled by this Honourable Court. In support of the Originating Summons was a 10 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Chinonso Emeto, a litigation Secretary in the law firm of Ikechukwu Emeto & Co, counsel to the Claimants. Attached to the affidavit are annexures marked as Exhibits. The Claimants also filed a 6 paragraphs further and better affidavit with annexures marked as exhibits 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F. Claimants through their Counsel also filed a written address along with the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and another written address was filed along with the further and better affidavit. Ikechukwu Emeto, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant in his oral submission before the Court relied on all the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. Counsel also adopted the written addresses as his argument in support of the Originating Summons. In the written address Counsel formulated three issues for determination, to wit: 1. WHETHER BY COMMUNITY READING OF RULE 6 (C) (IV) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT THE 1ST TO 15TH DEFENDANTS HAVE STAYED IN OFFICES BEYOND THEIR FOUR YEARS TENURE AS SUCH HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT 2. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT IS SUPREME AND BINDING ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT INCLUDING THE 1ST TO 15TH DEFENDANT 3. WHETHER OIL AND GAS SUPPLIERS (OGS) AND SURFACE TANK KEROSENE DEALERS ASSOCIATION (SUTAKED) ARE WORKERS WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE NAME NIGERA UNION OF PETROLUEM AND NATURAL GAS WORKERS (NUPENG) ARGUMENT: ISSUE ONE In arguing issue one, Counsel submitted that it is trite law that the cardinal principle in interpretation of statute is that where the words used in the statutes are unambiguous the courts are enjoined to interpret the words or provision(s) literarily, devoid of any extraneous words. On this submission Counsel relied on FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH & 1 OR V COMET SHIPPING AGENCIES LIMITED (2009) 4-5 S.C. (PT11) PAGE 130, BASINCO MOTOR S LIMITED V WOERMANN – LINE & 1 OR (2009) 5-6 S.C (PT 11) PAGES 140-141 PARAS 20, 25, 30 AND 35, Counsel urged the Court to hold that the 1st to 15th Defendants have stayed in office beyond their tenure. ISSUE 2 WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT IS SUPREME AND BINDING ON ALL MEMBERS OF THE 16TH DEFENDANT INCLUDING THE 1ST TO 15TH DEFENDANT It is the contention of Counsel that parties who made constitution for themselves are bound by same constitution. To buttress his submission Counsel cited the case of LABOUR PARTY & 25 ORS V COMRADE RUFUS OYATORO (2016) LPELP-40135(CA) PAGE 14 PARA A-B The Court of Appeal Akure Division citing with approval the earlier authority of UGWU V ARARUME (2007)12 NWLR (PT 1048) 367 at 499-500, where the Court stated thus: ‘However, and as it relates to the instant case, this position of the law must be considered alongside the legitimate rights of the party and its members. This is because, the party or association as well as its members are bound by the Constitution of such party and also subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Counsel submitted that on the above authorities the 1st to 15th Defendants are tied and bound inextricably by the Constitution of the 16th Defendant. 3. ISSUE 3: WHETHER OIL AND GAS SUPPLIERS (OGS) AND SURFACE TANK KEROSENE DEALERS ASSOCIATION (SUTAKED) ARE WORKERS WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE NAME NIGERA UNION OF PETROLUEM AND NATURAL GAS WORKERS (NUPENG) ARGUMENT: It is the contention of Counsel that the term ‘ worker’ as defined in Section 91 (1) Labour Act Cap 198 Laws of The Federation of Nigeria as: ‘Worker ’means any person who has entered into or work under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is express or implied or oral or written, and whether is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, but does not include- (a) Any person employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer’s business, or (b) Persons exercising administrative, executive, technical or professional function as public officers or otherwise, or (c) Members of the employer’s family, or (d) Representatives, agents and commercial travelers in so far as their work is carried outside the permanent work place of the employer’s establishment; or (e) Any person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired or adopted for sale in his own or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the articles or the materials; or (f) Any person employed in a vessel or aircraft to which the laws regulating merchant shipping or civil aviation apply’ It is the submission of Counsel that eagle eye view of the above provision of the Labour Act does not at any stretch envisage that persons who are employers as such as Oil AND GAS SUPPLIERS (OGS) AND SURFACE TANK KEROSENE DEALERS ASSOCIATION (SUTAKED) be made workers as the name of the 16th Defendant by its name suggests that it is only open for workers and not employers. Counsel urged the Court to declare that inclusion of Oil AND GAS SUJPPLIERS (OGS) AND SURFACE TANK KEROSENE DEALERS ASSOCIATION (SUTAKED) is ultra vires the constitution of the 16th Defendant. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to resolve all the questions formulated on the originating summons in the Claimant’s favour and grant all the reliefs sought therein. OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS. In reaction to the Originating Summons the 1st to 16th Defendants herein opposing the claims of the claimants in the originating summons filed a counter-affidavit of 6 main paragraphs and sub-paragraphs deposed to by one Comrade Christopher U. Akpede, the Senior Assistant General Secretary and Administrative Head of the 16th defendant/respondent union at its Zonal office in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Counsel place reliance on all the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the said counter-affidavit and on the purported Exhibits 1A, 1B, 2 and 3 attached to the supporting affidavit of the claimants’ originating summons. In the affidavit it was stated that the claimants herein who purported to be members of the 16th defendant union are not known financial members of the 16th defendant union. It was also stated that the purported membership identity cards of the petroleum Tanker Drivers’ branch of the 16th defendant union are not enough facts of membership of the union imbuing the claimants with the standing and competence to initiate this action against the defendants. It was stated that for the claimants to have the right or competence to initiate this action they must show that they are financial members of the 16th defendant union by producing proof of deductions and remittance of their check-off dues to the 16th defendant union. It is averred that the claimants were never part of the delegates of the petroleum Tanker Drivers branch of the 16th defendant supposedly conducted in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on the 17th and 18th October, 2013 where the 1st defendant was purportedly elected President of the 16th defendant union for a four year tenure in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of the 16th defendant. It was also stated that the date of the said Congress and conduct of the purported election was not the same day with the date of the inauguration or assumption of the offices by the 1st to 15th defendants as offices of the 16th defendant, which was much later in time. It is not true that the tenure of office of the 1st to 15th defendants commenced on 18th October, 2013 and lapsed on the 19th October, 2017. It was also stated that the 16th defendant union membership is for workers in oil well and natural gas well operations and workers in Oil and Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) who exercised their rights to freedom of association by joining the 16th defendant were admitted and that the amendment of the 16th defendant’s Constitution in 2009 was made in good faith and within its scope. It was averred that the documents attached by the claimants to their supporting affidavit as EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 3 respectively are just selected pages of the said 16th defendant’s Constitution and not the full copy of the same. In the written address Counsel for the 1st to 16th Defendants formulated three issues for determination, to wit: i. Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case the Claimants have shown sufficient interest, rights and locus standi to institute this action. Or, whether this action filed by the claimants on record is competent? ii. whether from the facts presented the claimants have proved that the tenure of office of the 1st to 15th defendants commenced on 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on 18th October, 2017 and also that Oil and Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) members of the 16th defendant union are employers but not workers and therefore not supposed to belong to the 16th defendant union? iii. Whether the Honourable Court can in law safely rely on the document attached to the claimants supporting affidavit as EXHIBIT 2 and on the said provisions of Rule 6(d)(iv) purporting it to be the Constitution of the 16th defendant to hold as of fact that the tenure of offices of the 1st to 15th defendants as elected executive officers of the 16th defendant was for four years commenced on 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on the 18th October, 2017? ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS: ISSUE ONE: Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case the claimants have shown sufficient interest, rights and locus standi to institute this action. Or, whether this action filed by the claimants on record is competent. It is submitted by Counsel for the 1st to 16th Defendants that from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case the claimants have failed to establish or show sufficient interest, rights and or locus standi to institute this action against the defendants. Counsel contended that Exhibits 1A and 1B relied on by the claimants to show that they are registered members of the 16th defendants are not enough as anybody could easily generate those documents purporting the same to be identity card issued to him or her by the 16th defendant. It is the submission of Counsel that the only means of establishing membership of a trade union is by showing that your check-off dues are being deducted and remitted to the concerned trade union as at when due. The claimants herein did not and have not shown any evidence of payment of check-off dues to the 16th defendant union by their ipse dixits or by merely flaunting Exhibit 1A and 1B. Counsel contended that he did not know why the claimants decided only to attach particular pages of the purported Constitution of the 16th defendant they wanted this Honourable Court to interpret. Perhaps there is a reason for that because by the provisions of RULE 5(vii) of the purported Constitution the claimants if they are actually members of the 16th defendant ought to know that only financial members shall have the right to initiate action in connection with any breach of the provision of the said Constitution. ISSUE TWO: Whether from the facts presented the claimants have proved that the tenure of office of the 1st to 15th defendant commenced on 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on 18th October, 2017 and also that Oil and Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) members of the 16th defendant union are employers but not workers and therefore not supposed to belong to the 16th defendant union. Counsel started argument on issue two by submitting that the claimants by the facts they presented in their supporting affidavit to the originating summons have not established or proved that the tenure of office of the 1st to 15th defendants commenced on 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on 19th October, 2017. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said supporting affidavit the claimants stated thus: 5. That by the congress of the 16th defendant conducted in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on 17th and 18th October, 2913 the 1st defendant was elected the president of the 2nd defendant for a four year tenure in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant. A copy of the constitution page 7 verged yellow is attached and marked as EXHIBIT 2. 6. That being a four year tenure that 1st to 15th defendants’ electoral mandate commenced on 18th October, 2013 and lapsed on 19th October, 2017. It is the contention of Counsel that no minutes of the proceedings of the congress or any other document evidencing such historic and landmark event was attached to substantiate their assertion of facts. Counsel submitted that the 1st to 16th defendants on the other hand have deposed to the facts that the date of the elections in most cases and in this case are not the same day with the date of inauguration or assumption of offices by the elected officers and as such it was wrong and complete fallacy for the claimants to state that the tenure of office of the 1st to 15th defendants commenced on the 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on 19th October, 2017. Counsel refers to paragraph 9 of the supporting affidavit where the claimants stated that by amendment of the 16th defendant’s Constitution in 2009 Oil and Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) were introduced into the Constitution of the 16th defendant as her members and same was filed with the 17th (not 3rd) defendant. Attaching EXHIBIT 3 which is page 3 of a copy of the said Constitution in proof. Counsel contended that the said document attached and marked as EXHIBIT 3 cannot not be relied upon by this Honourable Court in the determination of this case as it was just one piece out of a bundle. Counsel submitted that the whole Constitution ought to be produced and read together before it could be properly interpret and relied upon by this Honourable Court and not just a page of it. It is further submitted that this Honourable Court would not be able to ascertain if there were any alleged introduction of Oil Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) as members of the 16th defendant union in the said Constitution without first knowing the content and context of the 16th defendant union’s Constitution prior to the purported amendment in 2009. Counsel also contended that there is nothing in the said affidavit of the claimants showing or establishing that the said persons in Oil and Gas Suppliers (OGS) and Surface Tank Kerosene Dealers (SUTAKED) are in fact employers and not workers. In the absence of all these essential facts from the claimants, Counsel submitted that the said persons have voluntarily exercised their constitutional rights to freedom of association by joining the 16th defendant union those exercises of rights ought to be respected and recognized by all. More so when no other trade union or association is laying jurisdictional membership claim to them. To buttress this point Counsel relied on the case of NESTOIL PLC VS. NUPENG (Unreported No. NIC/LA/08/2010 Judgment delivered on 8th March, 2012 at pages 26 to 28) where this Honourable Court held that the claimant company’s has no right whatsoever to interfere or sue the defendant union for unionizing its workers even if it reasonably believe that the unionizing union was the wrong one it is only another trade union with jurisdictional interest over the concerned workers that can challenge their unionization. The Court went further to say in that Nestoil was a busy-body and meddlesome interloper. In the same vein Counsel urged this Honourable Court to discountenance the claims of the claimants herein that OGS and SUTAKED are not supposed to be members of the 16th defendants and treat them as mere busy-bodies and meddlesome interlopers. ISSUE THREE: Whether the Honourable Court can in law safely rely on the document attached to the claimants supporting affidavit as EXHIBIT 2 on the said provisions Rule 6(d)(iv) purporting it to be the Constitution of the 16th defendant to hold as of fact that the tenure of offices of the 1st to 15th defendants as elected executive officers of the 16th defendant was for four years that commenced on 18th October, 2013 and elapsed on the 18th October, 2017 in the absence of any other tangible evidence. It is the contention of Counsel that the documents attached by the claimants to their affidavit in support of the Originating summons and marked as exhibits 2 and 3 respectively just specific pages of the purported Constitution of the 16th defendant amended in 2009, the booklet itself was not exhibited by the claimants. Counsel further submitted that for this Honourable Court to give full effect to the intent and purpose of the said Constitution of the 16th defendant, the said EXHIBIT 2 and 3 cannot be read and interpreted in isolation of the other contents of the entire booklet or framework. The National Delegates’ Conference shall be held every four years on dates and venues to be decided by the National Executive Council or by the previous National Delegates Conference. It is the contention of Counsel that on a careful study or perusal of the above provisions and applying all the rules of interpretation it only succinctly state that the National Delegates’ Conference shall be held every four years and never mentioned nor hinted anything on the election of officers of the 16th defendant to their offices. The said Rule also did not provide that the tenure of the elected officers shall be for four years. It would have been appreciated if the argument of the counsel to the claimants would have been valid if they urge that based on that Rule that the 1st to 15th defendants be ordered by the Honourable Court to hold the National Delegates Conference of the 16th defendant. This Honourable Court cannot even make such an order in the circumstances of this case as the Honourable Court is not a Father Christmas that would grant a relief not specifically sought for. It is further argued that there is nothing that would point conclusively to the alleged facts as claimed by the claimants that 1st to 15th defendants were elected into office on the 18th October, 2013 and that their tenures of offices had lapsed on the 19th October, 2017. That being the case, it is submitted that the Honourable Court does not act based on mere suppositions and conjectures but on substantiated facts. It is also submitted that the claimants have completely failed to discharge the burden of proving their case herein on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence adduced herein. It is trite law, that assuming without conceding that our defence herein is weak, the claimants cannot win base on the weakness of the defence case but on the merit and on the strength of their case. In concluding his submission Counsel urged the Court to hold the claimants lack the requisite locus standi and competence to initiate this action as they failed to show that they were in fact financial members of the 16th defendant union. That there is nothing adduced or presented by the claimants as evidence and nothing also upon interpreting the said Rule 6(d)(iv) of the 16th defendant’s Constitution amended in 2009 that would conclusively establish or prove that the tenures of offices of the 1st to 15th defendants commenced on 18th October, 2013 and lapsed on 19th October, 2017 as claimed. That there is nowhere in their depositions that the claimants proved that OGS and SUTAKED branches members of the 16th defendant were actually employers and not workers and as to disentitle or deny them of the exercise of their legitimate and constitutional rights of freedom of association by joining or belonging to a trade union of their choice namely the 16th defendant union. On the strength of all of the above, Counsel urged this Honourable Court to refuse and dismiss the suit as lacking in merit and good faith. REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW The Claimants in reaction to the Defendants, counter-affidavit filed a 13 paragraphs further and better affidavit, sworn to by one Chinonso Emeto, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Ikechukwu Emeto & Co, counsel to the Claimants in this suit. The salient averments in the further and better affidavit are to the effect that the 1st and 2nd Claimants are registered and financial members of the 16th Defendant in this suit as such imbued with the competence to commence this action against the 1st to 17th Defendants and particularly the 1st to 16th Defendants. It was stated that the 1st and 2nd Claimants as shown in exhibits 1A and 1B of the affidavits in support of the Originating Summons dated 24th November, 2017 are identified by their names, photographs and particularly their membership numbers. It was also stated that the membership numbers of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as shown in exhibit 1A and 1B of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons are KAD/7141 and KAD/8461 respectively. It was averred that in response to paragraph 3 i of the Counter Affidavit of the 1st to 16th Defendants, financial membership cards of the 1st and 2nd Claimants they are identified by their membership numbers being for the 1st Claimant KAD/7141 and the 2nd Claimant KAD/8461, respectively. It was further averred that in response to paragraph 3 i, ii and iii of the Counter Affidavit of the 1st to 16th Defendants, that the 1st and 2nd Claimants have paid their monthly membership dues/fee up to December, 2017. Copies of the financial membership cards wherein the 1st and 2nd Claimants are identified by their membership numbers are attached and marked as exhibits 1C AND 1D. it was stated that in further response to paragraph 3i, ii and iii of the Counter Affidavit of the 1st to 16 Defendants, that exhibits 1C AND 1D mentioned in paragraph 8 above clearly shows that there were monthly payment of N200 (Two Hundred Naira) made by the Claimants and official Kaduna unit of stamp of the 16th Defendant imprinted on exhibits 1C AND 1D. It was stated that in response to paragraph 3 v of the 1st to 16th Defendants Counter Affidavit, the Congress of the 16th Defendant was conducted at Presidential Hotels, Port Harcourt, Rivers State on the 17th and 18th October, 2013 wherein the 1st to 15th Defendants were elected into different offices and sworn in same day at the same venue. A copy of the handbill for the conference is attached and marked as exhibit 1E. It was also stated that in response to paragraph 3 vi of the 1st to 16th Defendants Counter Affidavit, the OIL AND GAS SUPPLIERS (OGS) AND SURFACE TANK KEROSENE DEALERS (SUTAKED) are employers association. It was further averred that in response to paragraph 4 of the 1st to 16th Defendants Counter Affidavit, the 1st and 2nd Claimants are now seized with the full pages of the Constitution of the 16th Defendant. A copy of the Constitution is attached and marked as Exhibit 1F. In the written address filed by the Claimants along with the further and better affidavit two issues were distilled for determination, to wit: 1. WHETHER from the totality of the facts and materials placed before this Honourable Court, the 1st to 15th Defendants took oath of office on the same date they were elected into office. 2. WHETHER arising from the issue raised in number 1 above, the tenure of the 1st to 15th Defendants had lapsed on the 18th Day of October, 2017 LEGAL ARGUMENT Counsel begin his submission by making reference to Sections 167 and 168 of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides that “ the court may presume the existence of any fact which it deems likely to have happened, regard shall be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public private business, in their relationship to the facts of the particular case…. s.168 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that “when any judicial or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.” Counsel contended that the combined reading of Sections 167 and 168 of the Evidence Act gives the presumption of regularity in that after the conduct of the election, it is presumed that they were sworn in and assumed office the same day as the election took place. Counsel further submitted that conclusively, if they were sworn in and assumed office the same day the election took place, it then means that the tenure of 1st and 15th Defendants had lapsed on the 18th Day of October, 2017 being four years since they were elected and took oath of office. In conclusion Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Counter Affidavit of the 1st to 16th Defendants and grant the reliefs sought by the 1st and 2nd Claimants in the Originating Summons. COURT’S DECISION Having carefully perused the originating processes commencing this suit, and all the processes filed by Counsel for both parties. It is my humble view that the question calling for resolution in this suit is, whether the Claimants have in view of the facts of this case adduced sufficient, cogent and credible evidence in proof of the reliefs being sought from the Court. It is to be noted at the onset that the 17th Defendant has not deemed it fit to enter appearance or file defence to this action despite being served with the originating processes and the hearing notice for the hearing of this suit. However before resolving the main dispute, I shall consider the preliminary issue arising from argument of Counsel for the Defendants in their written address. The issue has to do with locus standi of the Claimants to institute this action. This issue is germane because there cannot be any determination, if there is no locus to institute an action. For a party to possess locus standi to institute an action such a party must show that he has a legal right to be protected and he has interest in the subject matter of dispute. The Claimants have stated that they are members of the 16th Defendant in support of their membership they exhibited their identity card showing that they are members of the 16th Defendants. The 1st to 16th Defendants on the other hand have insisted that the Claimants are not members of the 16th Defendant due to non-production of evidence of financial contribution to the 16th Defendant. In reaction to this submission, the Claimants have filed further and better affidavit wherein they exhibited their again exhibited photocopies of their membership card and a document with columns on it and a stamp of NUPENG Kaduna Branch. I have carefully examined the content of exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, respectively. The 1st to 16th Defendant have in their counter-affidavit averred that the Claimants in this suit lacks the locus standi to institute this suit. According to Counsel for the Defendants, exhibits 1A and 1B attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons are not capable of donating locus to the Claimant. Counsel submitted that for the Claimants in this suit to have locus standi they must show that they are financial contributors to the Union. The Claimants on their part tendered exhibits 1C and 1D attached to the further and better affidavit and submitted that with those exhibits the Claimants have established their locus standi. To determine whether or not a party has locus standi to initiate an action, the nature of the claim and the cause of action must be ascertained. See YUSUF V AKINDIPE (2000) 5 SCNJ. A party prosecuting an action would have locus standi where the relief claimed would confer some benefits on such a party. OLORIODE & ORS. V OJEBI & ORS. (1984) NSCC 286; MOMODU OLUBODUN & 4 ORS. V OBA ADEYEMI LAWAL & ANOR. (2008) 6-7 SC PT.1, 1. A person is said to have locus standi if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or in danger of being infringed and that the onus of proof is on the party who has initiated the proceedings. See BENEDICT OJUKWU V LOUIS CHINYERE OJUKWU & ANOR. 2008 12 SC PT.II, 1. In law Locus standi could only be accorded to a party who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected. The existence of legal right is an indispensable prerequisite of initiating any proceedings in a court of law. ADEREMI LADEJOBI & 2 ORS. V OTUMBA AINA AFOLORUNSHO OGUNTOYO & 9 ORS. (2004) 9-12 SCM (PT.I), 105. A party bringing an action must have vested interest in the issues raised and in its outcome. See OLORI MOTORS COMPANY & ORS. V UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2006) 4 SCNJ 1. The issue of locus standi does not depend on the success or the merit of the case but on whether the plaintiff has or the plaintiffs have sufficient interest or legal right in the subject matter of the dispute. See Benedict Ojukwu (supra). A party can satisfy the court that he has locus standi, if he is able to show that his civil right and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There must be a nexus between the party and the disclosed cause of action concerning his rights or obligations, and locus standi is determined by examining only the statement of claim. Furthermore, in determining whether a party has locus standi the chances that action may not succeed is an irrelevant consideration. See SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO V SERAH ADEGBORO & 2 ORS. (2011) 5 SC (PT.II), 179. When a party’s standing is in issue in a case, the question is whether the person whose standi is in issue is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable. See OLOWOSAGO V ADEBANJO (1998), 9 SC 108. When a party submits that his adversary has no locus standi, such objection only amounts to a submission that his adversary is not the proper person to sue for the declaration and injunction. The party is not contending that the claim is not justiciable. See ODEYE V EFFUMUGO (1990) 11-12 SC 185. It is trite law that where legal capacity of a party is challenged the onus is on him to prove his legal capacity. The burden is discharged by leading evidence, oral or documentary in proof of same. See BANK OF BARODA V IYALABANI COMPANY LIMITED (2002) 12 SCM 30. The fundamental aspect of locus standi is that it focusses on the party seeking to get its complaint heard before the court. See JOLLY TEVORU NYAME V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2010) 3 SC PT.1, 78. It is against the background of the above principles of law that the issue of locus standi of the Claimants to sue as they did in this case will be considered and resolved. The Claimants in their quest of discharging the burden of establishing their locus standi or capacity to sue or maintain this action, they relied heavily on Exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating summons and the further and better affidavit. Albeit, exhibit 1A and 1B clearly shows that the Claimants are members of the 16th Defendant that alone cannot clothe the Claimants with requisite capacity to institute an action against the Defendants in this suit. The reason being that for members of a trade union they have certain obligation to fulfil for them to be bona fide members of the trade union. In this respect Rule 5(vii) of the Constitution of the 16th Defendants clearly and unambiguously requires that for any member to have right to institute an action to challenge infraction of the Union Constitution, that member must be a financial member i.e he has been paying his dues as stipulated in the Constitution of the Union. The Claimants in a bid to show that they are financial members tendered exhibits 1C and 1D, attached to the further and better affidavit. However, a close perusal of those exhibits will clearly show that there is nothing on them to establish or indicate that the amount of two hundred naira, written in some column therein are financial contributions of the Claimants to the Union. This finding clearly goes to debunk the Claimants position that they are financial members of the 16th Defendants. This position is strengthened by the fact that Trade Union Rules are considered contractually binding on members of the union. See the case of AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF CARPENTERS & CABINET MAKERS AND JOINERS V BRAITHWAITE. The bidingness of trade union rules as defining contractual relations between the union and members has been further reiterated in the decision of this court in the case of COMMRADE IDAH LAWRENCE ONAH V NLC & A. I. OMAR (2013) 33 NLLR (PT.94) 104. It is my view that the Claimants having not shown that they are financial members lacks the capacity to institute or maintain this action as it is presently constituted. They have also not shown that they participated at the election that produced the 1st to 15th Defendants as executives of 16th Defendants. They have also not indicated that they are interested in contesting election for the offices of the 1st to 15th Defendants. This finding can dispose of this suit. But, I shall proceed to determine the main issue to show how my decision will be if the Claimants have got the requisite locus standi to bring this action. As pointed out earlier in this judgment can the facts as disclosed by the affidavit evidence sufficient, cogent and credible to prove the relief being sought from the court. All the exhibits tendered in this suit by both the Claimants and the Defendants are photocopies. The originals have not been produced for the inspection of the Court as required by sections 86 and 89 of the Evidence Act 2011. It is pertinent to note that none of the parties have given explanation as why the original exhibits were not brought before Court as required by law. It is to be remembered that this suit was commenced vide originating summons see Order 3 Rules 1(1)(b) and 3, of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Rules 2017, which does not allow for oral testimony except where there is need to resolve conflict in the affidavit evidence being relied upon by the parties in proof of their respective position before the court. It is settled law that exhibits attached to affidavit evidence for use in an action commenced by originating summons must comply with the requirement of evidence Act on admissibility otherwise such exhibits have no value in the eyes of the law. In the case of THE KANO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS. V ALHAJI MUHAMMADU FALALU UMAR (2014) LPLER-24008 (CA), where the Court has this to say on issue of exhibits attached to affidavit in proof of substantive matter. ‘‘The law is that documents attached to affidavits and especially to originating summons where no oral evidence is taken must fully comply with the requirement of the Evidence law to be acted upon by the court. It makes no difference that same are only attached to the motion or the originating summons, in so far as they are intended to be acted upon by the court to determine any matter, they must meet the requirement of admissibility. Where such documents, as in the instant case, are by their nature public documents, they must be certified to be admissible in evidence and or be relied upon’’. I must quickly add here that the issue of admissibility would have been different if the objection is at preliminary stage where an interlocutory application is being considered by the Court see NWOSU V IMO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (1990) 4 SCNJ 94, ADEJUMO GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1970 ALL NLR 183. All exhibits being relied upon by the Counsel for both parties as the basis of proof of their respective position before the Court are in law not admissible. The documents are photocopies and no explanation has been given as to why the original were not produced. See sections 85, 86 and 89 of the Evidence Act, having not done so the Claimants cannot rely on photocopies. In view of my finding all the exhibits tendered in this suit as attached to the various affidavits are hereby discountenanced. With this holding there is nothing before the Court to interpret. The reason being that the document which the Claimants want this Court to interpret are no longer before the Court. This case therefore lacks merit and deserved to be dismissed. However, with the earlier finding that the Claimant lacks locus standi this means the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the originating summons the suit is hereby struck out for lack of locus standi and dismissed for lack of credible evidence to prove the claim before the Court. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.