Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this suit by Originating Summons which it filed on the 5th day of August 2019. In the Originating Summons, the Claimant sought the determination of this sole question: Whether having regard to the judgement of this court in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018 delivered on 4th July 2019 by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip and the motion for leave to appeal and/or appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant against the judgment, the 1st Defendant is entitled to the demands made in its letter Ref. No: NUATE.GS/CEO.NEWASL.ENP/003-19 dated 19/7/2019 and can continue to interrupt or disrupt the business operations of the Claimant pending the determination of the motion for leave to appeal and/or appeal? Upon the determination of the above question, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant is not entitled to the demands made in its letter Ref. No: NUATE.GS/CEO.NEWASL.ENP/003-19 of 19/7/2019 until the court of appeal affirms the judgment of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018. 2. A Declaration that the rights of either 1st and 2nd Defendants to unionise employees of the Claimant is contingent on the court of appeal affirming or dismissing the appeal of the 2nd Defendant lodged against the judgement of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018. 3. A Declaration that it is wrongful for the 1st Defendant, pending the determination of the motion for leave to appeal and/or appeal against the judgement of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018 to continue to interrupt or disrupt the business operations of the Claimant. 4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, either through its officers, agents or privies from picketing, forcibly entering, disturbing or stopping operations of the Claimant pending the determination of the appeal lodged against the judgement of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018. The Claimant filed an affidavit and a written address in support of the Originating Summons. It also filed a further affidavit subsequently. The 1st Defendant did not file a counter affidavit to the originating summons even though it was served the originating processes. I have seen the proof of service in the case file. The 2nd Defendant, on the other hand, filed what it titled “2nd Defendant’s affidavit in respect of the Claimant’s originating summons”. The 2nd Defendant also filed a motion on 4th October 2019 seeking an order of this court setting aside the inauguration carried out by the 1st Defendant on 16th September 2019 in the premises of the Claimant. The Claimant’s suit and the 2nd Defendant’s motion were heard the same day (12th November 2019), and judgment/ruling to be given today. The affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was deposed to by Bernard Alese, the Unit Manager of the Claimant. He said in the affidavit that the 2nd Defendant instituted Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018 against the 1st Defendant and the Claimant and judgment in the suit was delivered on 4th July 2019 by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip. The judgment was annexed to the affidavit and marked Exhibit 1. Portions of the holdings of the court in the judgment were set out in the affidavit. It was further deposed that the 2nd Defendant has filed a motion for leave to appeal and a proposed notice of appeal appealing part of the judgement in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018. The motion for leave to appeal and the proposed notice of appeal is Exhibit 2 of the affidavit. Notwithstanding the steps taken by the 2nd Defendant to appeal against the judgment, the 1st Defendant has continued to disrupt the Claimant’s business operations. Attached to the affidavit and marked Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are copies of the 1st Defendants letters to the Claimant, newspaper reports and photographs of alleged activities of the 1st Defendant in the premises of the Claimant. On 30th July 2019, the 2nd Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting to be recognised as the rightful union to unionise Claimant’s workers. The letter is Exhibit 17. The Claimant now finds itself in the middle of the two unions. The 1st Defendant’s actions have caused huge losses to the Claimant and its customers. The Claimant stands the risk of being completely shut down by the 1st Defendant if this court does not intervene to preserve the business operation of the Claimant. The further affidavit of the Claimant in support of the Originating Summons was also deposed by Bernard Alese. He said that on 9th August 2019, the Claimant was served another motion for leave to appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant. This motion is annexed to the further affidavit as Exhibit F1. In the written address in support of the Originating Summons, learned counsel for the Claimant, Bola Okiji Esq., submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip delivered on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018, the 1st Defendant is not entitled to make the demands made in letter Ref. No: NUATE.GS/CEO.NEWASL.ENP/003-19 of 19/7/2019. It was submitted that the 1st Defendant is not permitted to resort to self help when parties are before the court. Notwithstanding the pendency of the motion for leave to appeal in Exhibit 2, the 1st Defendant has resorted to self help by disturbing the business operations of the Claimant. The 1st Defendant has no legal right to disturb the business operation of the Claimant until the Court of Appeal decides the appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant’s affidavit in respect of the Claimant’s originating summons was deposed by Comrade Cornelius Aiyeetan, a Senior Assistant/General Secretary of the 2nd Defendant. It was averred therein that the Claimant has disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the 1st Defendant who has attempted to take over the functions of the 2nd Defendant. The reliefs sought by the Claimant can be granted only against the 1st Defendant who has no jurisdiction to unionise workers of the Claimant as held in the judgment in Suit NICN/ABJ/207/2018. Since 30th July 2019, the 1st Defendant has made attempts to organise workers in the Claimant company contrary to the judgment of the court. The action of the 1st Defendant amounted to self-help. In the written address of the 2nd Defendant, learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant, James Abah Esq., left the issue formulated in the originating summons for determination to raise a different issue. The issue formulated by the 2nd Defendant is whether the 1st Defendant can take over the functions of the 2nd Defendant as it relates to the Claimant in view of the judgment of this court delivered by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip delivered on 4th July 2019 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018? It was submitted that the 1st Defendant cannot take over the functions of the 2nd Defendant as it relates to the Claimant in view of the said judgment and that the actions of the 1st Defendant amounted to self-help and a disregard to the judgment of the court. Judgment of a court subsists until set aside and every person affected by it must obey it even it was a wrong judgment. Counsel concluded that every court has inherent powers to enforce its judgment which enforcement can be interrupted by a stay of execution provided there is an appeal. COURT DECISION: The Rules of this court has defined the type of actions which can be initiated by the different originating processes of this court. Originating Summons is specifically to be employed for actions which are principally for interpretation of constitution, enactment, agreements or any other instrument. See Order 3 rule 3. Rule 16 [1] and [2] of order 3 provide as follows: 1. Any person claiming to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument may by originating summons apply to the court for the determination of any question of construction arising from the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the person[s] interested in so far as the question of construction arises from a subject matter over which the court has jurisdiction. 2. A party activating the interpretative jurisdiction of the court shall indicate with sufficient particularity the provision or part of the document sought to be interpreted. Let me also refer to Rule 17 [1]b] of Order 3 which provides that an originating summons shall be accompanied by copies of the instrument indicating the parts sought to be construed. From these provisions of the rules of this court, originating summons is for construction of instruments or documents and copies of the instrument or documents sought to be construed must accompany the Originating Summons. It must also be indicated which part of the instrument or document is to be construed. I have gone through the issue brought by the Claimant for determination in this suit, the reliefs sought by the Claimant and the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons but I did not find anything therein indicating that this suit is for the interpretation of any instrument or document. I have critically considered the question for determination and what I see is that this court is being called to consider whether the 1st Defendant can take steps to unionise workers of the Claimant in view of the judgment in Suit NICN/ABJ/207/2018 and the pendency of the motion for leave to appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant. The Claimant simply wants this court to examine the circumstances of the motion for leave to appeal or the appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant to decide if the 1st Defendant should be allowed to give effect to the judgment by unionising workers of the Claimant as demanded in its letter Ref. No: NUATE.GS/ CEO.NEWASL.ENP/003-19 dated 19/7/2019. This court has not been called to construe the judgment or the motion. Assuming that is the task before the court, I do not think this court has the competence to interpret a judgment that is subject of an appeal or a motion that is pending for hearing. In fact, this court has not been called to construe or interpret the judgment or the motion or any document at all. I have not seen anything in this suit that qualifies it to be brought or commenced by Originating Summons. The actual objective of the suit is seen in the reliefs sought by the Claimant. A community reading of the claims show that the Claimant is simply and clearly seeking this court’s order to restrain the 1st Defendant from unionising the workers of the Claimant or from giving effect to the judgment in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/207/2018 pending the determination of the motion for leave to appeal or the appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant. Exhibits 2 and F1 of the Claimant’s affidavit and further affidavit respectively are the motion for leave to appeal filed by the 2nd Defendant in suit NICN/ABJ/207/2018. The Claimant is not the one who filed these applications. In other words, the Claimant, although a party to suit NICN/ABJ/207/2018, did not file any process indicating intention to appeal the judgment. It is quite curious that it is the same Claimant who has now filed this suit seeking to have the 1st Defendant restrained from giving effect to the judgment pending the determination of the motion for leave to appeal or the appeal filed by another party. In any event, Originating Summons is not the procedure prescribed by the rules of this court through which to seek injunction or stay of execution pending appeal. The procedure for that is clearly provided in Order 64 of the rules. My view in this suit is that the Claimant has adopted the wrong process in advancing the reliefs it sought in this suit. In N.D.P. vs. I.N.E.C. (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 358) 1124 at 1143, it was held thus: “Where any proceedings are begun other than as provided by the rules, such proceedings are incompetent”. See also SALEH vs. MONGUNO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 87) 671. I hold that this suit is incompetent for the reasons I have given above. It is struck out. I have mentioned earlier that the 2nd Defendant filed a motion in this suit. I cannot proceed to consider the motion when the substantive suit under which it was brought is not competent. The motion too ought to be struck out and it is accordingly so ordered. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge