Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATE: June 17, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/11/2009 BETWEEN 1. Barrister Friday Jomani 2. Comrade Uzzi Abiodun 3. Barrister Oduwa Julius 4. Barrister Omoruyi Nosakhare 5. Comrade Osaro Equavoen - Claimants AND 1. John Ungoro (Sec. NULGE, Edo State) 2. Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees, Edo State Branch 3. Comrade Patrick Okeranhen 4. Kingsley Iyamu 5. Henry Enogheghase 6. Maxwell Ogedengbe 7. Michael Aiyanyor 8. Nosa Omokaro 9. Young Ilerikhena 10. Sunday Ikhinmwin - Defendants REPRESENTATION M. U. Edadi, with him are O. N. Aizebeokhai, F. F. Afengbai and Uwa Chinedu, for claimants. Prof. A. O. O. Ekpu, with him is D.C. Onyeamata, for defendants. JUDGMENT The claimants took out an originating summons against the defendants on 24th April 2009 supported by an 11-paragraphed affidavit sworn to by the 1st claimant to which is annexed 3 exhibits, FJ1 (i-v), FJ2 and FJ3. By an order of court dated 20th April 2010, leave was granted the claimants to amend the originating summons to include the names of the 3rd to 10th defendants and also to amend the reliefs sought. By the amended originating summons the claimants seek the determination of the following questions: 1. Whether the purported State Delegates Conference of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), Edo State Branch fixed and held on the 30th of April 2009 for the purpose of electing new State Officers amongst other business contravened the NULGE constitution. 2. Whether there was substantial compliance with the provisions of the NULGE constitution and NULGE Electoral Regulations before and during the conduct of the purported Delegates Conference of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees, Edo State Branch held on 30/04/2009. In the event of the determination of the questions in favour of the claimants, the following reliefs are hereby sought: 1. A declaration that the delegates from the Nineteen Branches of NULGE, Edo State for the State Delegates Conference fixed and held on the 30/04/2009, having been selected instead of being elected as provided by NULGE constitution is null and void and of no effect. 2. An order restraining the defendants from jeopardizing or interfering with the claimants’ rights as members of the Union to contest for the various posts (offices) they are interested in either now or in the future. 3. An order declaring the entire lists of the delegates submitted by the 19 Branch chairmen of Edo State NULGE invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. And order declaring the state delegates conference of the 2nd defendant held on the 30/04/2009 invalid, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. A declaration that the purported delegates election of the 2nd defendant held on the 30/4/2009 wherein the 3rd – 10th defendants were purportedly elected is unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect. 6. An order of this court declaring all elective offices of the 2nd defendant vacant. 7. An order of this court appointing a public trustee to manage the affairs of the 2nd defendant pending when a valid election into the various offices of the 2nd defendant is held. 8. An order compelling the 1st, 3rd – 10th defendants to render account of all the income and expenditures of the 2nd defendant from 30/04/2009, to when judgement is delivered. 9. An order of mandamus compelling the 3rd – 10th defendants to refund the perquisites of office they received from the fund of the 2nd defendant from 30/04/2009 to when judgement is delivered. 10. And for such order or other orders as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case. The amended originating summons is supported by a further affidavit of 28 paragraphs sworn to by the 1st claimant. Annexed to the further affidavit are Exhibits FJ4 (1) and (2), FJ5, FJ6, FJ7, FJ8 (1) and (2) and FJ9. Also filed by the claimants is a further affidavit of 5 paragraphs sworn to on the 20th July 2010 by Prince Richard Oniha. The defendants in reaction to the originating summons entered a conditional appearance on 19th May 2009 and also filed a notice of preliminary objection on the grounds that the condition precedent for filing of actions by members of the 2nd defendant has not been complied with; and secondly that the 2nd defendant is not a juristic person. In a considered ruling delivered on the 25th November 2009, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and the matter proceeded to hearing. Parties agreed to argue the matter on the record and filed written addresses. The claimants’ final written address is dated 20th July 2010 and filed on the same day while the defendants’ final written address is dated 13th January 2011 but filed on the 14th January 2011. The claimants also filed a reply on points of law dated 24th February 2011 but filed on the 28th February 2011. Put succinctly, the facts of this case are that the claimants who are members of the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) Edo State Branch are desirous of contesting for elective offices at the NULGE state delegates’ conference. Their complaint is that the provisions of the NULGE constitution were not complied with in the process leading to the choice of local branch delegates for the state delegates’ conference in which state officers are to be elected. As a result they are aggrieved that their rights to contest for elective office in the union have been violated. Learned counsel to the claimants framed two issues for the determination of this court as follows: 1. Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced in the affidavit, further affidavit and the documentary evidence attached, the purported delegates’ conference of NULGE Edo state branch fixed and held on the 30th day of April 2009 contravened the NULGE constitution. 2. Whether there was substantial compliance with the provisions of NULGE constitution and NULGE electoral regulations before and during the conduct of the purported delegates’ conference of NULGE, held on the 30/4/2009. He submitted that contravention is synonymous with violation or disobedience to set down rules or procedure for carrying out a process while non-compliance means that those procedures were not followed before carrying out the action. He argued that when there is non-compliance, it renders the subsequent action a nullity. He referred to Rule 10(vii) and Rule 10 (xii) of the NULGE constitution and reproduced Rule 10(vii) which provides that – The state delegates’ conference shall be composed of the following: (a) 7 elected local branch delegates to represent each local government branch in the state. The elected delegates must be fully paid up members of the union. The claimants’ counsel contended that the operative word is ‘election’ and that instead of conducting an election at the local branches for the purpose of electing the 7 delegates, the defendants selected their cronies as delegates contrary to Rule 10(vii) of the NULGE constitution. The claimants’ counsel stated that in protest and in compliance with the provisions of Rule 5(A) of the NULGE constitution, the claimants wrote a protest letter to the National President and Acting General Secretary dated 20th April 2009. That as a result of the non-compliance with the constitution, the executive members of Egor local government passed a resolution against the branch chairman for non-compliance on the 29th April 2009 and issued a communiqué to that effect marked Exhibit FJ6. That a certain Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhueme brought an action in the Edo State High Court seeking a declaration nullifying the election as a result of non-compliance with the NULGE constitution. A letter of protest was also written by the said Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhueme to the National President. The letter and writ of summons are marked as Exhibits FJ8 and FJ9. Counsel submitted that due to the non-compliance with the provisions of the NULGE constitution, the Edo State Local Government Service Commission and Edo State Government cancelled the election, referring to Exhibits D and E. Learned counsel submitted that the practice of selecting delegates is not the same as election which means ‘exercise of adult suffrage, involves voters, materials for voting and supervision and counting of votes by electoral personnel’, citing Ojukwu v. Obasanjo [2004] 121 LRCN 4705 at 4805. He submitted further that election involves all the procedures and actions mentioned above and that apart from the lists of the delegates sent to the 1st defendant by branch chairmen, there is no evidence to show that there was any election. He contended that there is no evidence as to who the contestants were, the scores obtained, the score sheets or how the delegates emerged as winners. The claimants’ counsel went on to submit that in civil cases, while the burden of proof lies on the claimant, the proof or rebuttal of issues which arises in the course of proceedings may shift from the claimant to the defendant and vice versa. He referred to Mech. Ltd v. Agility & Brothers Ent. (Nig) Ltd [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 298) 1289 as reported in Law of Evidence in Nigeria: Substantive and Procedural by Sabastine Tar Hon at page 117. The claimants’ counsel submitted that the lists submitted by the branch chairmen did not indicate what transpired during the delegates’ election. That in paragraph 7 of the claimants’ further affidavit, they deposed to the fact that the delegates’ lists from Owan East and Owan South were prepared when this case was pending. Counsel argued that from all the depositions of the 1st defendant in both the counter-affidavit and further counter-affidavit, he was the arrow head upon which the activities leading to the conference revolved. Counsel to the claimants submitted that Rule 10 (xii) of the NULGE constitution which provides that “the local government branch union may invite observers from the state executive council to attend the meeting organized for the election of delegates to the state conference” was not complied with by the defendants as no observers were present during the delegates’ election. He submitted further that the operative word in the section is ‘may’ and that there are circumstances where the word ‘may’ used in legislation should be construed as being mandatory, and the word ‘shall’ as being mandatory or discretionary. It was counsel’s submission also that where a statute imposes a duty on a public officer to be carried out in a particular form for the benefit of a private citizen, the word ‘may’ used in the particular section must be construed as mandatory and or meaning ‘shall’ or must’. That the word ‘may’ is sometimes construed as not discriminatory but imperative; in other words, ‘may’ can be “shall”, citing Ekong v. Effanga [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 505) 1650 at 1653 and Ogunlaji v. A. G. Rivers State [1997] 50 LRCN 1451. The claimants’ counsel then went on to argue that the purpose of this provision for observers is to ensure fair play and strict compliance with the provisions of the NULGE constitution. That the presence of observers is mandatory and violation of this provision renders the whole proceedings a nullity. He argued that the defendants’ Exhibit JU8 which is a return in respect of elections conducted in year 2007 shows that all the branch delegate elections had observers present in compliance with Rule 10(xii) and that this exhibit is contrary to the defendants’ claims that observers were not required and is a clear case of admission against interest. He submitted that a claimant is entitled to take advantage of the evidence of the defendant that supports his case, referring to Orianmo v. Okene [2002] 102 LRCN 2143 at 2145. Learned counsel to the claimants also submitted that Rule 6(xi) of the NULGE constitution which provides that the names of elected delegates shall be forwarded to the General Secretary of the union to reach him not later than one month before the conference was breached as the lists were submitted less than one month to the state delegate conference. He contended that Rule 6(xi) operates mutatis mutandis in the state delegates’ conference and went on to submit that failure to have observers present during the delegates’ election and submission of the delegates’ list after the period prescribed by the constitution renders the entire proceedings a nullity ab initio. The claimants’ counsel submitted that the NULGE constitution stipulates that aggrieved members should channel their grievances to a higher organ of the union which is the National body; and this, the claimants did. That there is no provision that stipulates that aggrieved members should channel their grievances to the 1st defendant and so the defendants’ Exhibit JU7 which is a letter written by the 1st defendant inviting the claimants for a meeting in respect of their grievances of non-compliance with the NULGE constitution should be discountenanced as it was made when proceedings were pending and, therefore, caught by section 91(3) of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel to the claimants submitted that the mere fact of publishing or announcing that delegates’ elections will be conducted is not conclusive proof that there has been an election in compliance with the provisions of the constitution. The claimants’ counsel further submitted that where there is non compliance with electoral regulations, such elections will be nullified by the courts. He referred to Adams Oshiomole & ors v. Prof. Osunbor & ors (no citation was supplied). He argued that there is a preponderance of evidence that the provisions of the NULGE constitution were not complied with, referring to the protest letters, cancellation order from the Local Government Service Commission, resolution of the executive members of Egor local government, writ of summons taken out against the 2nd defendant by Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhume. Learned counsel argued that the defendants have not been able to show by credible documentary evidence that elections were conducted in compliance with the relevant provisions of the NULGE constitution but that the claimants have discharged the burden of proof on them. He argued further that by the action of the defendants the legal rights of the claimants as financial members of the union who have the right to vote and be voted for has been denied them as they had filed nomination forms and were interested in contesting for the state delegates’ elections held on the 30th April 2009. He submitted that when non-compliance with a provision of an enactment affects the interest of a party adversely, the entire proceedings should be set aside as the non-compliance renders it a nullity, void and of no effect, citing Savannah Bank v. Starit Industries [2009] 175 LRCN 154. The claimants’ counsel finally urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought in the amended statement of claim and referred the court to section 50 of the Trade Disputes Act, section 19(a) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 and “Road Transport Employees Association v. Sunday Ogunganye & 6 ors, the ruling of which was delivered on 10th November 2008 by this court” in support of the prayer that the court should appoint a Public Trustee to manage the affairs of the 2nd defendant. Note should be taken of the wrong citation by the claimants’ counsel regarding the Road Transport case. In reply, the learned counsel to the defendants decided to adopt the claimants’ two issues. He submitted that in a civil matter such as this, the burden of proof is on the claimants to prove their assertion that the delegates from the local government branches were not elected as required by the NULGE constitution. He cited A. G. Bayelsa State v. A. G. Rivers State [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 349) 1012 at 1035 and submitted that the claimants have failed in discharging this burden to prove that elections were not conducted in any of the 19 branches of NULGE in Edo State to elect delegates to the conference. That the depositions in the affidavits are just bare assertions without any concrete evidence to support them as there was no evidence from any person who contested for the local delegates’ election saying there was no election. The learned counsel to the defendants submitted that the claimants’ Exhibits FJ8 and FJ9 which are the writ of summons taken out by Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhume on the 27th April 2009, and a letter of protest dated 24th April 2009 written by him to the National President should be discountenanced as they are inadmissible by virtue of section 91(3) of the Evidence Act, having been made during the pendency or in anticipation of this action, citing Owie v. Ighiwi [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 248) 1762 at 1760. He also submitted that paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of originating summons in which the claimants deposed to the fact that the 1st defendant issued a circular for the procedure to be followed in the election of delegates has been refuted by the 1st defendant in his counter-affidavit to the effect that all he did was to inform stakeholders of the schedule of activities of the union. That this was not controverted by the claimants and once evidence is not controverted it is taken as admitted and requires no further proof, citing WAEC v. Oshionebo [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1505. The defendants’ counsel argued that the 1st defendant’s affidavit evidence that there was election of delegates at the branches was corroborated by the returns from all branch chairmen that elections were held in the 19 local government branches and also the affidavit evidence of the 4th claimant who deposed to the fact that there was election of delegates in his local government council area, referring to Exhibit DE1. He submitted that a trial court can rightly rely on admission against interest made by a party in a matter before it, referring to Owie v. Ighiwi, supra, and urged the court to hold that the 4th claimant’s evidence was evidence against interest, citing Kimdey v. Milad Gongola State [1988] 1 NSCC 827, N.B.C.I. v. Integrated Gas Ltd [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 250) 1. Learned counsel submitted further that the state delegates’ conference of NULGE Edo State Branch fixed and held on 30th April 2009 for the purposes of electing new state officials was in substantial compliance with the reviewed NULGE constitution 2005 particularly Rule 10(ix). Arguing further, he contended that Rule 5A of the NULGE constitution did not in any way contemplate appeals or protest to employers or 3rd parties but to higher organs of the union, citing Adeola v. Ayeoba [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 458) 355 and White v. Kuzych [1951] AC 585. That the claimants’ action is premature as they did not exhaust all internal remedies as provided by the union’s constitution before heading to this court. He argued that the claimants did not wait for the state delegates’ conference which is the highest organ in the state or the national delegates’ conference to look into their grievance. That members’ rights are derived and dependent upon the NULGE constitution and courts are enjoined to give force to the contract as it is trite that courts cannot rewrite the terms of a contract for the parties. He referred to Inakoja & ors v. Adeleke & ors [2007] All FWLR (Pt. 353) 3 at 88, Nigerian Civil Service Union v. Essien [1985] 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 306, Faramus v. Film Artistes Association [1964] 1 All ER 25 and argued that the national executive council found there was substantial compliance with the provisions of the constitution and so permitted the conduct of the election. Regarding the interpretation of the word ‘may’ in Rule 10(xii) of the NULGE constitution wherein the claimants’ counsel submitted that where a statute imposes a duty on a public officer to be carried out in a particular form for the benefit of a private citizen, the word ‘may’ used in the section must be construed as mandatory and/or meaning shall, the defendants’ counsel submitted that this rule of interpretation is not applicable as an officer of a trade union cannot be regarded as a public officer as the duty imposed on the chairman of a branch is meant for the benefit of the generality of the union or branch and not an individual. He argued that the discretion given to the chairman is to prevent the state executive breathing hard on the branches to do its biddings forcefully. On the issue of forging and backdating of documents raised by the claimants in their written address, the defendants’ counsel, submitted that such criminal allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and there is no evidence to prove backdating and forgery and, therefore, he urged the court to discountenance it as address of counsel cannot take the place of evidence, referring to Nzeribe v. Anyim [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 488) 378. Learned counsel to the defendants also submitted that Rule 6(xi) of the NULGE constitution does not operate mutatis mutandis in the conduct of the state delegates’ conference as that rule only applies to national delegates’ conference. He submitted further that Rule 10(xiii) of NULGE constitution provides that only Rule 7(iv) – (xi) pertaining to national delegates’ conference shall apply mutatis mutandis to the conduct of the state delegates’ conference. The defendants’ counsel then stated that the reliefs in the claimants’ final address are different from those in the originating summons. He finally urged the court to dismiss the action of the claimants as lacking in merit and vexatious. Replying on points of law, learned counsel to the claimants submitted that it is trite that the existence of a counter-affidavit does not make issues in an originating summons hostile particularly when parties on both sides have annexed material documentary evidence to their affidavits, citing Anyanwoko v. Okoye [2010] 41 NSCQLR (Pt. 1) 46 at 69. He submitted also that the information at paragraph 14 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons is within the personal knowledge of the 1st claimant and paragraph 8 of the further affidavit is in compliance with section 88 of the Evidence Act. Counsel contended that the case of Owie v. Ighiwi (supra) is not applicable as what determines whether a document is inadmissible in evidence if it is prepared during the pendency of a suit is whether the person has the temptation of departing from the truth or a person who can be swayed by personal interest, referring to Sabastine Tar Hon on Law of Evidence. The claimants’ counsel argued that every incident which occurred till the 30th April 2001 when the election was conducted forms part of the originating summons by virtue of Order 3 Rule 3 of the NIC Rules 2007. He submitted that the facts not denied are deemed admitted, citing Olejede v. Olaleye [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 55) 1503, and that where a party has filed affidavits that are self contradicting, there is no need to call oral evidence as the courts will consider such affidavits as having destroyed or weakened the party’s case. The claimants’ counsel finally urged the court to grant the reliefs prayed for in the originating summons. Having carefully considered the documentary and affidavit evidence of both parties, their written addresses and submissions of counsel, we will begin with the defendants’ submission that this action is premature because the claimants did not exhaust the internal mechanisms provided by the NULGE constitution particularly Rule 5A and B, which gives the claimants the right to initiate an action in connection with any breach of the constitutional provisions only after an appeal to higher organs of the union. This court had in a considered ruling on the 25th November 2009 dismissed this same objection for lacking in merit. We will, therefore, not give any further consideration to it in this judgment except to caution counsel that, except on appeal, it is unprofessional to re-argue issues already raised and pronounced upon by the court. The main issue for determination is whether the local branch delegates representing each local government for the state delegates’ conference in Edo State were elected according to the provisions of Rule 10(vii) and (xii) of the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) constitution. Rule 10(vii) provides that – The state delegates’ conference shall be composed of the following – (a) State Officers. (b) Local branch chairman. (c) 7 elected local branch delegates to represent each local government branch in the State. The elected delegates must be fully paid up members of the union. Rule 10(xii) provides that “the local government branch union may invite observers from the State executive council to attend the meeting organized for the election of delegates to the State conference. The claimants’ contention is that the delegates from the 19 branches of NULGE Edo State were ‘selected’ instead of being ‘elected’ as provided by Rule 10(vii) of the NULGE constitution reproduced above. In civil cases, the burden of proof is cast on the party who asserts the affirmative of a particular issue, whether claimant or defendant, and is determined on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability. See Ibrahim v. Ojomo [2004] vol. 4 MJSC 143, Elias v. Omobare [1982] 5 SC 25. Where the claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on him by law, it then shifts to the defendant. The legal burden placed on the claimants cannot be shifted to the defendants as the claimants have tried to do by arguing that the defendants must show credible evidence that elections were conducted in compliance with the provisions of the NULGE constitution. It is the claimants who must first prove that the elections were not conducted before the burden shifts to the defendants. The affidavit evidence of the claimants in support of their contention that delegates were not elected consists of the claimants’ protest letters written to the National President and Acting General Secretary of NULGE, the protest letter written by one Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhume, the cancellation order of the state delegates conference by the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, the resolution of the Executive members of NULGE Egor local government, the writ of summons taken out by Mr. Aigbonoga Igienekhume against the 2nd defendant and the State president of NULGE. The evidence also includes the submission of the list of elected delegates to the General Secretary of the union less than one month to the State delegates’ conference and the failure to have observers present during the elections. In analyzing this evidence, we note that the cancellation order from the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs was as a result of the protests of aggrieved staff of local governments in the process of choosing delegates to the conference. The Edo State Local Government Service Commission has no statutory role to play in the resolution of a union crisis. We make haste to add that the Edo State Local Government Service Commission is an employer, and by its cancellation order was interfering in the activities of the NULGE. Therefore, we attach no weight to this piece of evidence as it has not added any value to the resolution of the dispute at hand. The next piece of evidence consists of the resolutions of the executive members of NULGE Egor local government which are as follows – (i) That the imprest for the NULGE bus be withheld forthwith until all Exco members agree to its release. (ii) That the bus be impounded because it serves more private use of the chairman than the official needs of the staff and union. (iii) That the monthly NULGE dues be kept in the treasury until all members collectively decide to effect withdrawal. (iv) Finally, all financial benefits accruing to the chairman as a person on the strength of the union should be disclosed to other members to avoid complacency and other monopolistic tendencies on his part. There is no resolution in respect of the process of choosing local branch delegates for the State delegates’ conference and so it is unhelpful. Thirdly, the writ of summons said to be taken out by Mr. Aigbonoga Igienehkume and exhibited by the claimants is not a certified true copy as required by section 111 of the Evidence Act and is, therefore, inadmissible. Fourthly, Rule 6(ix) which is to the effect that the names of delegates must be forwarded to the General Secretary of the union to reach him not later than one month before the conference does not apply to the States delegates’ conference but the National delegates’ conference. Finally, on the interpretation of the word ‘may’ and the presence of observers as provided in Rule 10(xii), we agree with the submissions of the defendants’ counsel that an officer of a trade union cannot be regarded as a public officer and hold that the use of the word ‘may’ is not mandatory and, therefore, it is not necessary that observers be present at the election of delegates to the States delegates’ conference. In any event, the word ‘may’ imposes a duty only when used in the negative as where a person ‘may not’ do something; but when the word ‘not’ is not used alongside the word ‘may’, it assumes its ordinary meaning of being permissive. We must also state that the NULGE constitution is not a statutory instrument to which the strict rules of interpretation will be applicable. Regarding the claimants’ allegation that the defendants were involved in forging and backdating of returns and other documents, there is no evidence before the court to sustain this allegation. The defendants’ position is that elections of delegates were held at the branches. The affidavit evidence tendered is the returns from all branch chairmen and the evidence of the 4th claimant that election of delegates held in his local government council area Egor which is contained in a letter addressed to the State Secretary NULGE dated 22nd May 2009 with the heading “A letter of Dissociation”. We find that this document marked Exhibit DE 11 was made when these proceedings were pending; specifically after the filing of this action and is, therefore, inadmissible by virtue of the provision of section 91(3) of the Evidence Act. All the returns from the chairmen of the local branches marked Exhibit JU4 apart from the returns from Akoko-Edo local government branch and Oredo local government branch indicate that the local branch delegates were elected to attend the States delegates’ conference. An analysis of the list of delegates from Akoko-Edo local government branch shows that it is not on a letter headed paper but on a plain sheet; it is in manuscript form, not addressed to anyone; and does not state the process in which the delegates were chosen. It is signed by NULGE CM and NULGE SEC on 14/04/09. This piece of paper is not evidence of a return that any delegates’ elections were held in Akoko Edo local government branch. The returns from the Oredo local government branch chairman is written as follows – I wish to forward to you the names of delegates from Oredo local government council union branch for the forth-coming state delegate conference (Election) holding on 30th April 2009, at the limit hotel, Benin City. Based on the resolution taken at its meeting held on Monday 30th March 2009. The names of the delegates are as follows:…. A resolution is not an election within the meaning of Rule 10(vii) of the NULGE constitution. We are, therefore, of the firm view that no elections took place in Oredo local government branch. The defendants’ counsel had argued that the reliefs in the final address of the claimants are different from what is in the originating summons. We must point out that the court granted leave to the claimants to amend their originating summons; and the reliefs sought for in the final address are the same reliefs as claimed in the amended originating summons. From the totality of the evidence adduced in this case, we hold that the claimants have not proved to the reasonable satisfaction of this court that the delegates from all of the 19 branches of NULGE Edo State for the States delegates’ conference fixed and held on the 30th April 2009 were selected instead of being elected as provided by the NULGE constitution. We hold that the delegates from Akoko-Edo local government branch and Oredo local government branch were not elected as provided by the NULGE constitution. Despite this holding, however, the fact that the delegates’ election in two local government areas are flawed does not imply that all other elections must be annulled. We therefore and hereby hold that the claimants have not succeeded in proving their case against the defendants. The claimants’ case in that regard lacks merit and so is dismissed. We, however, order the defendants not to jeopardize or interfere with the claimants’ rights as members of the union to contest for any elective positions at any time. Judgment is entered accordingly. We make no order as to cost. ……………………………… Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Presiding Judge ……………………………………... ……………………..…………… Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge