Download PDF
RULING. The Claimant commenced this suit via a complaint dated 8/12/17 and filed on the same day, claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: i. A declaration that employment into the 4th Defendant is regulated by the Public Servant Rules. ii. A declaration that the steps taking by the Honourable Minister of Health towards resolving labour agitations, establishment errors arising from the 2013 recruitment exercise in the 4th Defendant including the setting up of Committee on Stagnation at National Health Insurance Scheme is in Consonance with the Public Service Rules and the duties of the Federal Ministry of Health as the supervisory Ministry for the 4th Defendant. iii. A declaration that the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017 which was arrived without inviting the Claimant and other stakeholders/parties to the dispute, offends the rules of fair hearing. iv. A declaration that the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017 and implementation directed thereof is contrary to the provisions of Public Service Rules on Recruitment, promotions and discipline. v. An order setting aside the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017for being contrary to the provisions of the Public Service Rules on procedure for discipline, promotion and recruitment in the public service of the Federation. vi. An order of injunction restraining the 4th Defendant from taking any step towards the implementation of the resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017 for being at variance with the Public Service Rules and extant labour laws that regulate recruitment, promotions and discipline in the 4th Defendant. vii. An order injunction restraining the 1st 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their agents privies or any person, committee or body acting through them or on their behalf howsoever described from taking any step towards compelling the implementation of the resolution of the Senate Committee on Health as contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017 for being at variance with the Public Service Rules and extant labour laws that regulate recruitment, promotions and discipline in the 4th Defendant. viii. An Order compelling the 4th Defendant to implement the Report of the Committee on Stagnation at National Health Insurance Scheme (ANNEXURE 8) forthwith. ix. Cost of this suit. Upon being served with the originating processes commencing this suit, the 5th Defendant and 1st and 2nd Defendants separately filed notices of preliminary objection against this suit. There are also two applications filed by different set of parties seeking to be joined as parties in this suit. The two preliminary objections and the two applications for joinder were taken at the same time. I shall now consider the applications and their argument one after the other. THE 5TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. The application by the 5th Defendants is seeking for:- 1. An order of the Honourable Court dismissing this action for want of jurisdiction. 2. And for such further or order as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The grounds for seeking the aforementioned reliefs are as follows:- 1. It is wrong for the Claimant to have approach this Honourable Court as a Court of 1st instance without recourse to the process of medication, conciliation and arbitration enjoyed by part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act and sanctioned by section 7(3) of the national industrial Court, Act. 2. That the matter for which Claimant have approached the Court is a trade dispute and the Claimant is an aggregate body for its members. That the Claimant has disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the 4th Defendant, 3. Further take notice that the 4th Defendant shall rely on all the process already filled before this Honourable Court. The notice of preliminary objection was brought pursuant to PART 1 of the Trade Dispute Act. In the written address three issues were formulated for determination, to wit: i. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain action as a court of first instance. ii. Whether the Claimant have requisite locus to institute its action iii. Whether the order being sought through the motion on notice dated 7th December, 2017 will not determine the main action. ARGUMENT ISSUE NO 1 On issue one, Counsel submitted that the claim of the Claimant is a trade dispute and by virtue of section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, this court does not have original jurisdiction to entertain same. Counsel referred to section 47(1) of the Trade Dispute Act Cap 432 LFN, on the definition of the term ‘Trade Dispute which was defined ‘to mean” any dispute between employers and workers and or between workers and works which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment and physical condition of work of any person. According to Counsel this definition was reinforced by sections 54(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 in the following word “ trade dispute” mean any dispute between employers and employees, including dispute between their respective organization and federations which is connected with a. The employment or non-employment of any person b. Term of employment and physical conditions of work of any person. c. The conclusion or variation of collective agreement and d. An alleged dispute. It is submitted, that the Claimant’s claim in this suit is a trade dispute and in determining issue of jurisdiction it is the claim of the Claimant that determine the jurisdiction of the court. On this submission Counsel relied on the Supreme Court case of OLORUNTOBA OJU VS DOPAMU (2008) 7 NWLR (PT1085) 1 AT 23 held: It is the claim brought by Claimant and not capacity on which the claim where brought that should be the relevant consideration in determining if the court has jurisdiction in the matter. It is also the submission of Counsel that the Claimant is an association which is an aggregate of its members and by virtue of the provision of part 1 of the Trade Act and section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act, the Claimant not being an individual cannot come to this Honorable Court as a Court of first instance without them going first through the process of mediation, conciliation and arbitration as prescribed by part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act and by section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act. To buttress his position, Counsel referred the Court to the unreported decision of this Court relying in suit No NICN/7/2008 between Anothony Adekunle Oyekanmi & 6 other for themselves and on behalf of all other members of the Association of Telecommunication Employees vs Nigerian Telecommunications Limited & 1 or, delivered on the July, 15 2008. According to Counsel Compliance with Part 1 of Trade Dispute Act is Condition precedent which must be fulfilled, the case of MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILI (1962) NSCC P 374, was cited as authority to the effect that all conditions precedent must be fulfilled for a suit to be properly before the Court. It is the submission of Counsel that where a suit was commenced without compliance with condition precedent for setting legal process in motion, the suit instituted in contravention of the condition is incompetent and the Court is equally incompetent to entertain the suit. On this submission Counsel relied on NUC LTD VS SAMBA PET CO LTD (2006) PAT 993 12 NWLR 98 AT 102 and SKEN CONSULT V UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6 NWOYE V ANYSIE (2008) 1 NWLR PT 6 39 PG 66 & MOBIL NIG PT PAN (2004)5 NWLR PT AT 506. ISSUE NO 2 ‘‘Whether the Claimant has requisite locus to institute this action’’. Counsel started argument on issue two, by submitting that no person can approach a court of law for a relief without first showing his or her competence to so approach the court i.e Locus standi. Counsel referred to the of C. Kekwogor Investment (Nig) Ltd v Asco investment ltd (2011)12 NWLR (pt 1265) p. 565 at 583, and submitted that it is the duty of a Plaintiff to show in his averment that in the statement of claim that he has locus standi to institute or else the statement of claim will be struck out. It is the contention of Counsel that in the case at hand and all the documents filled before this Honourable court, the claimant has not disclosed whether by their statement of claim or affidavit in support of their application their rights or obligation has been interfered with or likely to be interfered with by the Defendants going ahead to implement the decision of the Senate Committee on Health. Counsel submitted that the onus placed on the Claimant to disclose his right must be a personal right. On this submission Counsel referred to the locus classicus case of ABRAHAM ADESANYA V THE PRESIDENT & 1 OR (1981) ALL NLR AT 36. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant did not have the requisite standing to bring this action having not disclosed any in the processes filed before this Court. ISSUE NO 3 ‘‘Whether the order sought by the Claimant through the motion on Notice of 17th December, 2017 will not decide the substantive matter’’. According to Counsel the order sought in the interlocutory injunction will determined the substantive suit, therefore, Counsel urged the Court not to grant. Reliance was placed on this submission to the cases of IDEH V GODBLESS MOTOR LTD (1991) 4 NWLR (PT 185) 699 AT 710 and EZEBILO VS CHMWUBA (1987) 7 NWLR 9 PT 511) 108 that where the substantive reliefs will be granted in interlocutory the application for injunction will not be granted. It is contended by Counsel that going by the motion dated 7th December, 2017, the Claimant is seeking for an order restraining the Defendants from taking step to implement the resolution of the Senate Committee on Health, and this same relief is capture word for word in the claim at page 2 of the suit. Counsel urged the Court to refuse the application as it will make the substantive relief in the cause to vanish, on this contention Counsel relied on the case of John Hold NIG LTD VS MAREN OF CAMEROON (1963) 1 ALL NLR 329 AT 383 In concluding his submission Counsel urged the court to dismiss this action based on statute law, judicial authorities and affidavit in support and award substantial cost against the Claimant. RESPONSE BY THE CLAIMANT. In reaction to the preliminary objection of the 5th Defendant, the Claimant filed a 14 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address. In his oral submission before the Court Counsel for the Claimant relied on all the averments in the counter-affidavit and adopted the written address as his argument. In the counter-affidavit it was averred that the Senate Committee on Health did not invite the Claimant’s members for a hearing before it issued its resolution contained in the letter dated 29th November, 2017 the subject matter of this suit. It was stated that the 5th Defendant had in accordance with Public Service Rules constituted a committee and the issues relating to the promotion had been addressed in the Keana’s Committee Report. It was also averred that the officers affected by the Committee Report did not challenge or appealed the findings of the Committee before proceeding to obtain a resolution of the Senate Committee on Health. It was stated that the Claimant/Respondent commenced this suit in apprehension of the effect of implementation of the Senate Resolution on its members in the 4th Defendant/Respondent. It was averred that the Claimant as registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act and extant laws that regulate trade unions in Nigeria has the mandate and duty to ensure protection of rights and interest of its members in the 4th Defendant who will be affected by the implementation of the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health dated 29th November, 2017, as contained in Exhibit A. it was stated that the Claimant’s prayers in the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction are temporary relief pending the determination of the substantive suit. The grant of the prayers cannot determine the substantive suit. The reliefs in the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction are not the same with the Claimant’s reliefs in the Originating process before this Honourable Court. It was stated that the claims of the Claimant in this suit are for declaratory and injunctive reliefs. Declaratory and injunctive reliefs are not within the jurisdiction of the institutions under the processes of part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act. That the appropriate court vested with jurisdiction over injunctive and declarative reliefs on matters connected to or incidental to traded dispute is this Honourable Court. In the written address the Claimant identified lone issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether having regards to the Claimant’s reliefs in its Complaint and the Statement of facts, this suit is competent and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as presently constituted’’. ARGUMENT OF ISSUE In arguing the issue for determination Counsel submitted that it is settled law in determining whether a court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit before it, the appropriate process to consider is the claim or relief of the Claimant as contained in the Complaint and the statement of facts before the Court. On this submission Counsel relied on the case of Abdulhamid V. Akar & Anor. (2006) LPELR – 24 (SC) Pp. 15-16, E-G. It is submitted that an examination of the reliefs endorsed on the Complaints and the Statement of Facts shows clearly that the Claimant is praying this Honourable Court for injunctive and declaratory reliefs. The power of this Honourable Court to hear and determine claims and reliefs of injunction and declaration is provided in Sections 16 and 19 the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. It is the contention of Counsel for the Claimant that the prerogative reliefs of injunction and declarations as constituted in this suit are within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. This Honourable Court is competent to hear and determine the suit as presently constituted. It is submitted that, the submission of Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant to the effect that the Claimant ought to have gone through and completed the processes of trade dispute under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act before commencing this actions and that the action is premature, is misconceived. According to Counsel the 5th Defendant/Applicant has failed to appreciate the nature of reliefs upon which the case of the Claimant/Respondent is predicated and that the nature of prayers/reliefs under the processes of part 1 of Trade Dispute Act are radically different from the reliefs before this Honourable Court as presently constituted. It is the contention of Counsel that Declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought before this Honourable Court in this suit do not fall within the powers and jurisdiction of the processes under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act. While Section 7 (3) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 recognize and enjoined trade dispute to first go through the processes under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act, where the reliefs sought border on declaratory and injunctive prayers which the processes under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act do not have jurisdiction to hear and determine, this Honourable Court will assume jurisdiction and the parties will not need to go through the processes under part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act. Counsel submitted that this Honourable Court in a plethora of cases like the case of Engr.F. N Ugwu V. Bob Sose4 Eke & 8 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NIC/76/2008 decided on 11th June, 2009 and Partricia N. Ugwu & Ors. V. Ossy Rocke Feller Ogboso (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt.58) 164 @ 180 Paras E-H, Particia N. Ugwu & Ors. V. Ossy Rocke Feller Ogboso (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt.58) 164 @ 180 have long settled the issue. Counsel urged the Court to follow the above decisions in resolving this application in the interest of justice. Counsel submitted that this suit is properly constituted before this Honourable Court. It is only this Honourable Court to the exclusion of all other courts that has jurisdiction to hear and determine the reliefs in this suit as presently constituted. It is contended that the submission of the Defendant/Applicant to the effect that the Claimant/Respondent does not have the locus standi to institute this action on behalf of its members, is misconceived and misplaced. Counsel went on to submit that the 5th Defendant/Applicant is oblivious of the very essence of trade unions in industrial relations. The Claimant is a duly registered and recognized including maintaining actions in court on matters relating to labour, employment and industrial relations as it affects its members. On this submission Counsel relies on the case of Comrade Abdulfatai Bakare & Anor. V. C.G.C Nigeria Limited (2013) 30 NLLR (Pt. 87) 37 @ 424. Counsel contended that the Claimant/Respondent has pleaded abundantly in the Statement of facts its interest which gave rise to the institution of this suit. To buttress this position Counsel relied on paragraphs 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 of the Statement of Facts among other paragraphs sets out the frame of rights and interests sought to be protected in this Suit. Counsel also submitted that the reliefs of the Claimant in this suit are clearly with the mandate of the Claimant/Respondent in the protection of the interest and welfare of its members in the 4th Defendant who will be affected by the implementation of the Resolution of the Senate Committee on Health (Exhibit A). Counsel urged the Court to discountenance all the submission of the 5th Defendant/Applicant in this regard and hold that the Claimant has the requisite locus standi to institute this action and that the suit is properly constituted against the Defendants. On the submission of the Respondent/Applicant on issue 3, in its Written Address that granting the Claimant’s Motion on Notice dated 7th December, 2017 for interlocutory injunction will determine the substantive suit and urge this Honourable Court to refuse the application, was described as absurd, thoroughly misconceived and abuse of Court process. It is contended that the Applicant by its prayers on the Preliminary Objection wants this Honourable Court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, so counsel wonders how interlocutory injunction will amount to determining substantive suit. Counsel submitted the preliminary Objection challenges the substantive suit and not the interlocutory application pending in the suit. The prayer on the Notice of Preliminary Objection has nothing to do with the Motion no Notice dated 7th December, 2017. The Applicant has not set out its objection to the hearing of the Motion on Notice dated 7th December, 2017. Therefore, the Applicant cannot at the point of arguing its objection to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court takes argument on issue that has not been prayed for in the Notice of Preliminary Objection. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and discountenance the argument in issue 3 as same is not predicated on the prayers in the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th January, 2018. It is contended that the grant of the prayers on the Motion on Notice dated 7th December, 2017 cannot determine the substantive suit as it is temporary reliefs which if granted will expire with the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. We urge your Lordship to so hold and discountenance the argument of the 5th Defendant/Applicant in this regard. In conclusion, Counsel submitted that they have shown that the Claimant’s reliefs as endorsed in the Complaint and Statement of facts in the suit are for injunctive and declaratory reliefs which this Honourable Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine. The reliefs fall within the allowable exception to the requirement of going through the processes of part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act. It is submitted that the Claimant has also shown that the law is settled on the right of the Claimant to maintain actions touching on trade dispute on behalf of its members as held in the case of Comrade Abdulfatai Bakare & Anor V. C.G.C Nigeria Limited supra and Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria V. Federal Civil Service Commission supra. It is contended that this suit is properly constituted and competent. This Honourable Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the Claimant/Respondent’s lone issue in its favour. Counsel also urged the Court to discountenance all the submissions of the 5th Defendant/Applicant and dismiss the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th January, 2018 with substantial cost for being unmeritorious and abuse of judicial process. REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW. The 5th Defendant/Applicant filed further and better affidavit and a reply on points of law to the Claimant’s counter-affidavit and written address in opposition to this objection. In the further affidavit it was averred that contrary to the averment in the counter-affidavit the issue before the Senate Committee on Health was the issue of promotion of some Senior Staff of National Health insurance Scheme and the Scheme Management (NHIS) were present as parties. It was also averred that in the NHIS law a notice of one month by a party that desire to institute an action against it, must be given which was not given in the present case. It was stated that the NHIS has the power to employ, promote employee and there is nowhere the law says that the power should be shared with the employee or any Association. It was stated that the senior staff whose promotion is the issue before the Honourable Court are members of the Claimant and there is no law which permit the Claimant to fight against the interest of its members. In the reply on points of law Counsel submitted lone issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether the Court can hear this matter as presently constituted’’. Counsel submitted that by virtue of section 34(3) and (4) of National Health Insurance Scheme, provides for giving of one notice where suit is to be commenced against a member of the Council, the Executive Secretary, officer or employee of NHIS. It is contended that failure to satisfy condition for giving of notice has deprived this Court of jurisdiction to hear and entertain this suit. Counsel Further submitted that the NHIS Council is yet to be constituted and by the instrument dissolving the Council, the Minister and the Ministry is given the power to act instead of the Council pending such time as the President and commander in Chief will constitute a new Council. Counsel referred to the case of NUC LTD SANBA PET CO LTD (2006) PART 993 12 NWLR PG 98 AT 102 and submitted that commencing suit without fulfilling conditions precedent renders the suit incompetent and deprive the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel also relied on SKEN CONSULT VS UKEY (1981) 1 SC 6 AND NNOYE VS ANYSIE (2000) 1 NWLR PT 639 PG 66 AND MOBIL NIG PT PAN (2004) 5 NWLR PT 637 PG 506. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to toe the line of this well-established authorities to discountenance the Claimant’s counter affidavit and dismiss this suit for want of jurisdiction. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants vide a notice of preliminary objection dated22/2/18 and filed on the same day are praying for an order of this Honourable Court dismissing or striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction. The notice of the preliminary objection was brought pursuant to section 6(6) (B) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The grounds of the objection are:- 1. The Claimant lacks the legal capacity to institute this action. 2. The suit discloses no reasonable cause of action. 3. Pre-action notice was not served on the 4th Defendant Counsel adopted the written address filed as his argument. In the written address lone issue was formulated for determination, to wit: ‘‘WHETHER THE CLAIMANT HAS THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE THIS ACTION AND WHETHER THIS HONOURABLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS MATTER’’. Counsel contended that the claimant in his pleadings stated that he is a registered body with the aim of protecting the rights of its members. The claimant equally stated that there were irregularities in the recruitment exercise carried out by the 4th defendant which led to serious crises and disharmony in the 4th defendant. It is contended that from the totality of the claimant’s pleading, there was nowhere any of the member of the 4th defendant complained whether in oral form or written form. It is submitted that by the provision of section 6 (6) (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is only the member of the 4th defendant that can complain that their rights is been violated or about to be violated and clothed with capacity to sue. Counsel went on to submit that since no member of the 4th defendant complained that their right is been violated or about to be violated, the claimant lacks the legal competence to institute this action. Counsel submitted that for the above Constitutional provision, to entitle a person to invoke judicial power, he must show that either his personal interest will immediately be or has been adversely affected by the action or that he has sustained as injury to himself and which interest or injury is over and above that of the general public, See the cases os Adewumi & Ors v. A.G. Ekiti & ors (2002) 9 BSCQR pg 66, Fawehinmi v. I.G.P (2002) 10 NSCQR (pt.2) pg.825 It is submitted that locus standi of the claimant is a fundamental requirement touching on the competence of the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on any matter before it. It is settled law that jurisdiction is very fundamental and crucial in any adjudicatory system. Jurisdiction is what gives life to any action. If a Court lacks jurisdiction, no matter how well conducted a case is, the proceedings will be declared a nullity as laid down by the Supreme Court in the locus classicus of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2.S.Cn.L.R. 341. Counsel also citedthe case of Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 172, DONGOTE V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE (2001) 4 S.C (PART 11) 43, Furthermore, by the virtue of Section 34(3) of the National Health Insurance Scheme Act, Cap N LFN 2004 no action shall lie against the 4th Defendant or any of her officers except a pre-action notice of one has been served on the 4th Defendant. Section 34(3) of the National Health Insurance Scheme Act, Cap N LFN 2004. It follows from the provision above that a pre-action notice is a condition precedent to instituting an action against the 4th Defendant. In the instant case there is nowhere in the Claimant’s pleadings it was exhibited that the 4th Defendant was served with a pre-action notice. It is trite in law that the absence of a condition precedent to instituting an action robs the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case. On this Counsel relied on Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (Supra), ZAMFARA STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR v. UNITY BANK PLC & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41813 (CA.. In all we urge the Court to dismiss or strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. CLAIMANT’S OPPOSITION TO THE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJCTION OF 22/2/18 In opposition to this preliminary objection the Claimant filed a 19 paragraphs counter-affidavit and a written address. Counsel relied on all the averments in the counter-affidavit and the two exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address filed along with the counter-affidavit as his argument. In the written address lone issue was distilled for determination, ro wit: ‘‘Whether having regards to the Claimant’s reliefs in its Complaint and the Statement of facts, this suit is competent and this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as presently constituted against the 1st and 2nd Defendants’’. Counsel submitted that the issue for determination touches on competence and jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this suit. As presently constituted. Counsel submitted that in determining issue of jurisdiction it is the claim of the claimant that will be considered by the Court, Counsel cited the case of ABDULHAMID V AKAR & ANOR. (2006) LPE<R-24 (SC). It is the submission of the Claimant that the examination of the reliefs endorsed on the complaint and the statement of facts shows clearly that the claimant is praying this Honourable Court for injunctive and declaratory reliefs. Counsel submitted that the power of this Court to determine reliefs of injunctive and declaratory reliefs is provided under sections 16 (1) and 19 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Counsel submitted have set out frame of right and interest which give rise to the institution of this suit. It that the prerogative reliefs of injunction and declaration are within the exclusive jurisdiction of this court. It is contended that the members of the 1st and 2nd Defendants are oblivious of the very essence of trade unions in industrial relation. It is submitted that the Claimant being a duly registered and recognized trade union with the mandate to protect the interest of its members including maintaining actions in Court on matters relating to labour, employment and industrial relations as it affects its members. Counsel relied on the cases of COMRADE ABDULFATAI BAKARE & ANOR. V C. G. C. NIGERIA LIMITED (2013) 30 NLLR (Pt.87) 379 @ 424, MIX & BAKE V NUFBTE (2004) 1 NLLR (Pt.2) 24 @ 228, and ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA V FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Supra). It is submitted that paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the statement of facts have set out frame of right and interest sought to be protected by this action. It is further contended that the reliefs of the claimant are within the mandate of the claimant in the protection of interest and welfare of its members in the 4th Defendant who will be affected by the implementation of the resolution of the Senate Committee on Health. Counsel urged the court to discountenance all the submission of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants and hold that the Claimant has locus standi to institute this action against the Defendants. On the issue of pre-action notice Counsel submitted that the Counsel for 1st and 2nd Defendants not being Counsel to 4th Defendant does not have the authority to defend the 4th Defendant in this suit who is represented by counsel on record. The Defendants are meddlesome interlopers who do not deserve countenance on this issue. Counsel also submitted assuming without conceding that 4th Defendant was not served with pre-action notice, the objection can only avail the 4th Defendants APPLICATION FOR JOINDER Vide motion on notice dated 24/1/18 and filed on the same day, 9 applicants applied for: An order that the Applicants namely; Diogu C. Uchenna, Joshua O. Mohammed Shehu G. Ebiokobo Williams, PhiliphYates K, and Okoli Pamela U, be joined as the 6th – 14th Defendants in this suit. The grounds for the application for joinder are as follows:- 1. The Applicants are staff of the 4th Defendant and were involved in the 2013 recruitment exercise of the 4th Defendant. 2. The Applicants were employed in 2013 following the Senior Staff recruitment exercise of the 4th Defendant which was duly approved by the 5th Defendant. 3. Following satisfactory performance the Applicants employments were duly confirmed by the 4th Defendant in 2014. 4. The Applicants petitioned the Senate on the purported cancellation of 2016 promotion and correction of effective date of promotion by the 4th Defendant. 5. The resolution of the Senate on the said petition is the subject matter of this suit. 6. The said resolution is beneficial to the Applicants and the Applicants will be prejudiced if this suit is heard without joining them as a party. 7. He Applicants have sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of this suit and their presence before the Honourable Court is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in this suit. 8. The Applicants will be affected by the order(s) that will be reached by this Honourable Court after the trial. The motion on notice is supported by a 27 paragraphs affidavit and a written address. Ramat Isa, Esq; Counsel for the parties seeking to be joined relied on all the averments in the affidavit in support with the two exhibits attached therein. Counsel also adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address Counsel submitted lone issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether in the circumstance of this suit, the Applicants’ application for joinder ought to be granted’’. It is the contention of Counsel that it is well settled law that it is the duty of court to ensure that parties that are likely to be affected by the result of an action are joined accordingly. Counsel submitted necessary party should be allowed to have his fate in his own hands, he should not be shut out, reliance was placed on AZUBUIKE V PDP (20140 7 NWLR (Pt.1406) 292, IGE V FARINDE (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.354) 42, CHINWEZE V MASI (1989) 1 NWLR (pt.97) 254 It is contended that by the affidavit in support the Applicants have sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of this suit and their presence before the Honourable Court is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the question involved in this suit. The resolution of the Senate on the said petition is the subject matter of this suit. Counsel urged the Court to grant their prayer. It is to be noted that none of the parties in this suit filed a counter-affidavit to contradict or controvert the averments in the affidavit in support of this application. This means they have accepted the averment in the supporting affidavit as the true. Indeed, all the Counsel that appeared did not object to granting of this Application. THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR JOINDER. The second application for joinder was dated 24/1/18 and filed on the same day. The application is praying this Court to join Dr, Uchenna Eugenes Ewelike and Dr. Ugonna Nwigwe as Defendants respectively in this suit. The application was brought pursuant to Order 17 Rule 1 and Order 13 Rule 11(30 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The application is supported by a 24 paragraphs affidavit and a written address. Ike Nwauzoigwe Ike, Esq; Counsel for the applicants place reliance on all the paragraphs of the affidavit in support and adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address Counsel submitted two issues for determination, to wit: 1. ‘‘Whether the parties sought to be joined are necessary parties to this suit’’. 2. ‘‘Whether the Court can grant this application in the circumstances of this case’’. In arguing issue one, Counsel submitted that the Applicants are necessary parties they deserved to be joined in this case because they are at the heart of this action. On this submission counsel relied on JOKOLO V GOVERNMENT OF KEBBI STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1152) 394, ANABORONYE V NWAKHAIHE (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.482) 374.all questions involved in a cause or matter. On issue two counsel submitted it is in the interest of justice in this case for all the necessary parties to be joined. The joinder will enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle. It is submitted the peculiar nature of the claimant’s claim have made it necessary for the court to hear the parties sought to be joined declarations borders on the interest and rights of the parties seeking to be joinder since the issues in which the court was called upon to make. The Claimant and the 1st – 5th Defendants did not deemed it proper to file counter-affidavit to contradict the averments in the supporting affidavit. This amount to admission of truthfulness of the content of the affidavit in support. The Counsel for the parties in this suit did not object to the grant of this application when it was argued. COURT’S DECISION. I have thoroughly examined all the processes filed in this suit as well as the two notices of preliminary objections and the two applications for joinder by two different sets of Applicants. The two applications for joinder will be considered first, since there is no objection to their grants. The application for joinder of Diogu C. Uchenna, Joshua O. Mohammed Shehu G. Ebiokobo Williams, Philiph Yates K, and Okoli Pamela U, dated 24/1/18, moved by Ramat Isa, Esq; having not been objected to is hereby granted as prayed. The Applicants are hereby joined in this suit as 6th to 14th Defendants, in the order of their listing on the motion papers. The application for joinder of Dr, Uchenna Eugenes Ewelike and Dr. Ugonna Nwigwe, moved by their Counsel, Ike Nwauzoigwe Ike, Esq; having not been objected to by the Claimant and the Defendants is hereby granted as prayed, the Applicants shall be joined as 15th to 16th Defendants, respectively. Having dealt with the two non-controversial applications for joinder. I now turn to the two notices of preliminary objections. After a careful perusal of the notice of preliminary objection of the 5th Defendants the affidavit in support, counter-affidavit and the further and better affidavit and the reply on points of law, as well as the notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ notice of preliminary objection dated 22/2/18, I am of the view that the two notices of preliminary objections can be dealt with on the issues submitted hereunder:- 1. Whether or not this suit is premature due to non-fulfillment of conditions precedent. 2. Whether or not pre-action notice is required before commencement of this suit. 3. Whether grant of interlocutory injunction will be synonymous with granting the substantive suit. 4. Whether or not the claimant has locus standi to institute this action. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE In their submission on this issue Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Defendants have contended that the Claimant’s action is premature due to non fulfilment of conditions precedent. According to Counsel this suit ought to have gone through the procedure provided under part 1 of the trade Dispute Act, since the controversy falls under trade dispute. But, the present claims falls within the exception to the general rule since the reliefs’ are seeking for injunctive and declaratory orders. The combine effect of section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act, section 48 of the Trade Dispute Act as well as section 54 of the National industrial Court Act 2006, shows clearly that a trade dispute shall undergoes the procedure of part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act before being brought to the NICN for adjudication. This mean any suit instituted without following the procedure of part 1 of TDA, if instituted will be incompetent until the condition precedent is fulfilled. See MADUKOLU V NKREMDLIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 341. However, this Court has held in numerous cases that the general rule has exception. That is to say where the reliefs borders on area in which IAP does not have power to grant this Court will assume jurisdiction so as not to leave litigants without remedy. Looking at the reliefs of the Claimant which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this ruling, they are seeking for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, since IAP does not have power to determine injunctive and declaratory reliefs, this has made the reliefs to be within the purview of the jurisdiction of this Court as per sections 16, 18 and 19 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. In the circumstance it is my finding that this suit falls within the exception to the general rule. Therefore, this Court is clothe with requisite jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs as contained in the statement of facts. I so hold. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE TWO. The 1st 2nd, and 5th Defendants have all argued that by section 34(3) of the National Health Insurance Scheme (herein after called NHIS), the Claimants is required to give the 4th Defendants pre-action notice of one month before issuing this complaint. The Claimant on the other hand has argued that the Applicants are not appropriate to raise issue of pre-action notice. It is the party to enjoy the benefit that can raise the issued and not the Applicants. Counsel contended it is only 4th Defendant alone that can raise the issue through its counsel. It is trite law that objection to pre-action notice can only be raised in a suit by the benefitting party only. In MOBIL OIL PRODUCING UNLIMITED V LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.798) 1, the supreme Court has this to say:- ‘‘A suit commenced in default of service of a pre-action notice is incompetent as against the party who ought to have been served with a pre-action notice provided such party challenges the competence of the suit’’. On the authority of the Supreme Court decision above I resolved the issue against the Applicants. On another breath a careful perusal of the provision of section 34(30 of the National Health Insurance Scheme Act will clearly reveals that the section is not applicable in this case. For roper appreciation and grasp of the position of the law the sub-section is reproduced below:- Section 34(3) provides thus: “No suit shall be commenced against a member of the Council, the Executive Secretary, officer or employee of the Scheme before the expiration of a period of one month after written notice of intention to commence the suit shall have been served upon the Scheme by the intending plaintiff or his agent.” The above provision of the law is plain, clear and unambiguous it says what it is. Therein, it is manifest that those entitled to pre-action notice as per this section are a member of the Council, the executive Secretary, officer or employee of the Scheme i.e NHIS. This section clearly exclude the 4th Defendant frim those to be served or given pre-action notice when an aggrieved party contemplate going to Court to seek for redress. In view of the foregoing, the objection to this suit based on section 34(3) of the National Health Insurance Act is based on misconception of law. It is therefore not applicable in this case. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE THREE The 5th Defendant argued that the grant of interlocutory injunction will mean grant of the substantive suit. The Claimant in countering this contention submitted that the purpose of prayers in interlocutory application is aimed at maintaining status quo pending determination of the substantive suit. The argument of the 5th Defendant to the effect that grant of interlocutory injunction will amount to grant of the substantive suit, is totally based on misconception of law. The argument is uncalled for since the application is yet to be argued. The submission of counsel on this issue is discountenance as being irrelevant to the determination of the notice of preliminary objection of the 5th Defendant under consideration. Counsel is enjoined by law to restrict his submission to the prayer contained in his motion papers. Any deviation like in this case will go to naught. Issue three is resolved against the 5th Defendant. RESOLUTION OF ISSUE FOUR In making submissions on this issue Counsel for Applicants have contended that the Claimant does not have locus standi to institute this action. According to Counsel the Claimant has not established his standing to sue. For the Claimant he contended that being a union duly registered it is cloth with right to sue and be sued. An assiduous examination of the complaint and the entire statement of facts, shows clearly that the reliefs as endorsed therein borders on issue of promotion and recruitment. Albeit, a trade union, like the Claimant, once registered is invested with an attribute of corporate personality, with power to sue and be sued on behalf of its members in its affiliate name. See NIGERIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION V A.G. OF FEDERATION 1981 SC 11. Trade union enjoys a legal standing to lawfully perform any act in furtherance of its object and purpose that of regulating the term and conditions of employment of workers its own members. However, it is to be noted that for a trade union to be allowed to maintain an action it must be shown that the acts which the union want enforce must be that of collective interest of the majority of its members. Where the act invades or is a violation of a right of an individual member. The member affected has a right to sue in that case. In the case at hand, it has not been established by the Claimant that the right to be protected by this action is that of the majority of its members. Rather the state of the facts before the Court shows that there are divisions amongst the members of the Claimant under the employment of the 4th Defendants. The two applications for joinder goes to establish the rift amongst the members of the Claimant under the employment of the 4th Defendant. In view this finding to allow the Claimant to prosecute this suit will amount to allowing the Claimant protect only a segment of its members and disenfranchise the other segment whose interest could not taken care of by this suit. The Claimant must be seen always to give equal treatment to its member and not be seen to take side. The right to promotion and recruitment which is a personal right of the individual members of the Claimant can best be pursued by the individual member affected. Since the present litigation is not for protection of collective interest of the members of the Claimant, the Claimant lacks locus standi to prosecute this matter. In the circumstances I hold the Claimant is not proper party to institute this suit more particularly when the right sought to be protected is peculiar to each of the employee of the 4th Defendant Having disqualified the Claimant from this suit. I have no choice than to strike this suit due to lack of requisite locus standi on part of the Claimant to commence this action. This suit is hereby struck out, accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.