Download PDF
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP DATE: August 12, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/71/2011 BETWEEN 1. Comrade Jimoh Adisa 2. Comrade Jonah Ekwere - Claimants AND 1. The National Union of Chemical Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees (NUCFRLANMPE) 2. Mr. Isok Boniface 3. Mr. Douglas Adiele - Defendants REPRESENTATION , for the applicants. , for the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimants instituted this suit vide an originating summons pursuant to Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, section 46(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The originating summons is dated and filed on 19th July 2011. The claimants are seeking for the determination of the following questions – 1. What is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999? 2. Whether in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1st defendant in the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of the 1st defendant, is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants. 3. Whether by the wording of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant. 4. Whether by the wording of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. The claimants then prayed for the following – 1. A declaration that in the absence of specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1st defendant in the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st defendant is bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. 2. A declaration that by the wordings of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant cannot exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant. 3. A declaration that by the wordings of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of 1st the defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant cannot exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. 4. A declaration that the decision of the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant, presided over by the 2nd defendant, to suspend the 1st and 2nd claimants indefinitely from their respective positions in the 1st defendant, communicated to the claimants vide a letter signed by the 3rd defendant dated 27th of June, 2011, on the basis of an anonymous petition against the 1st and 2nd claimants, without a fair hearing given to the claimants, is a violation of the claimants’ rights to fair hearing under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and as such, the suspension is unconstitutional, null and void. 5. An order setting aside, nullifying or voiding the said suspension of the 1st and 2nd claimants and re-instating them to their respective positions in the 1st defendant with all the rights and privileges attached to the said positions. In support of the originating summons is a 25-paragraphed affidavit filed on 21st July 2011 and deposed to by Jimoh Adisa, the first claimant in this suit. The depositions in the affidavit are as follows – 1. That I am the 1st claimant herein by virtue of which fact I am familiar with the facts deposed to herein. 2. That I am a member of the 1st defendant, which is the National Union of Chemical, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employers. 3. That I am indeed the chairman of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Local Branch of the 1st defendant and the secretary, Lagos Area Council 1 of the 1st defendant. 4. That the 2nd claimant is also a member of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Branch of the 1st defendant and indeed the secretary of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd branch of 1st defendant and the assistant secretary, Lagos Area Council 1 of the 1st defendant. 5. That the 1st defendant is the national body of the union with control organs which include the Central Working Committee presided over by the 2nd defendant. 6. That the 3rd defendant is the acting secretary of the 1st defendant. 7. That through a letter dated 9th of March 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of my employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, signed by the 3rd defendant, and copied to my branch secretary who is the 2nd claimant herein, the 3rd defendant informed my employer that the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant had set up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against me and the 2nd claimant in an anonymous petition. Attached as Exhibits A1 and A2 are copies of the said letter and the said petition. 8. That through another letter dated 14th of March 2011, headed “REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI-UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of my employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, stated and copied to my local branch secretary who is the 2nd claimant herein, the secretary of the said three-man investigative committee informed my employer that the investigative committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, to carry out their investigation as mandated by the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendants, under the leadership of the 2nd defendant. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the said letter. 9. That all through the time till now, no formal information, notification or invitation was given to me or the 2nd claimant on the petition purportedly written against us, or on the particulars of the allegation contained therein or on the investigation to be conducted against us based on the said anonymous petition or even the date when the investigative committee would be coming to meet with us. 10. That this unfolding scenario, and our present predicament, is as a result of the case of financial recklessness and misappropriation of our union fund to the tune of N90 million Naira in a petition currently being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant by an anti-corruption group which members cut across many local branches of the 1st defendant and among whom are the 1st and 2nd claimants. [This is an opinion and is unsubstantiated.] 11. That since the EFCC started their investigation into this allegation of monumental corruption leveled against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant, the latter has launched a vitriolic counter-attack on all local branches’ officers and members of the 1st defendant who are perceived to be involved in the EFCC case against them, through police harassment and intimidation on spurious allegations, instigation of employers to terminate appointments, or vindictive and irregular suspension from the union. 12. That on the 15th of March 2011, I got an invitation from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, wherein I was asked to report on the 17th of March 2011 on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported. Attached as Exhibit C is the invitation letter. 13. That I reported to the Police on the said date and I was informed that the reason for my invitation was that I was mentioned in connection with the Petition sent to the Police by the 2nd defendant wherein he alleged one Yusuf Ajibola, with others, who was a former chairman of OM Ltd Local Branch of 1st defendant, before his appointment was terminated, and indeed the leader of the said anti-corruption group who spearheaded the EFCC petition against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant currently being investigated, was sending text messages to him that they were coming to kidnap him and his family 14. That I exonerated myself from such spurious allegation and was released the same day. 15. That the 2nd claimant told me and I verily believe him that he was also invited by the Police on the same ground as afore stated through a letter dated 17th of March. Attached as Exhibit D is the invitation letter 16. That without any notice or invitation, members of the said investigative committee suddenly appeared in our company on the 1st day of June 2011 and announced, to our dismay that they had come to commence their sitting on the investigation against me and the 2nd claimant based on the said anonymous petition. 17. That we demanded to see a copy of the said petition which, till then, we had never seen. 18. That we additionally demanded to be given some time to study the petition and prepare our defence. 19. That members of the committee rose that day with the hope that we would be communicated to on the next day of sitting when we would properly appear to make our defence. 20. That we immediately wrote to the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant through a letter dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform them of what transpired on that day and the need to be accorded a hearing. Attached and marked Exhibit E is a copy of the letter. 21. That to our chagrin, we received letters of indefinite suspension dated 27thof June, 2011, signed by the 3rd defendant under the directive of the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant. Attached and marked Exhibits F1 and F2 are copies of the said letters. 22. That the general congress of the workers of our local branch of the 1st defendant convened on the 7th of July 2011 and denied any connection with the said anonymous petition and demanded that the suspension order he lifted. Attached and marked Exhibit G is a copy of the resolution of the congress. 23. That arising from the above, therefore, we have filed this suit to seek the determination of the stated questions and the listed reliefs for it is only the URGENT intervention of the Court on the side of justice that can save us from this victimization as a result of the role we play or played in the 1st defendant, from the hands of our all time material to this case, contravene the constitution of the 1st defendant. Attached as Exhibit H is a copy of the said constitution. 24. That it is in interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought in this originating summons. 25. That I depose to this affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act. In reaction, the defendants filed a 27-paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by Comrade Boniface Ijoko, the National Auditor of the National Union of Chemical Footwear Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees (NUCFRLANMPE), the first defendant. The depositions in the counter-affidavit are as follows – 1. That I am the said Boniface Ijoko and quite conversant with the facts of this case. 2. That I have the consent and authority of all the defendants herein to depose to this counter-affidavit. 3. That sometime in March 2011, the 1st defendant acting pursuant to a petition addressed to her, constituted a three (3) member Investigative Committee with me as chairman. 4. That we immediately notified all the parties concerned including the Management of Stallion Plastics, the claimants’ employer and the claimants of the programmes of the committee as confirmed by the 1st claimant vide his letter dated 1st June 2011 (Exhibit E). 5. That the claimants willingly submitted themselves to the investigative activities of our Committee particularly in our efforts to unravel the allegation of illegal imposition of levies, which allegations were found to be unsubstantiated after a careful study of the payroll of Stallion Plastic Limited (the Claimant’s employer) as made available by the Personnel Manager of the Company. 6. That a rather volatile point occurred in the course of our investigation when the claimants could not account for the various large sums of money received as rebate from the 1st defendant, which said statutory sums are meant to serve genuine union interest. 7. That in fact during one of such sessions the claimants boisterously walked out on the Committee, thus prompting an official complaint to the Personnel Manager of the claimants’ employers. 8. That the subterfuge foisting of a non-existent allegation of want of fair hearing is merely an afterthought and designed to obfuscate the course of justice. [This is an opinion.] 9. That after the claimants’ letter of 1st June 2011 i.e. Exhibit E, and notwithstanding the fact that the claimants have hitherto participated in the sitting of Investigative Committee set up by the 1st defendant, the claimants were still given more opportunities as demanded to enable them present their response and or defence to the allegation against them as contained in Exhibit A1. 10. That the claimants merely embraced an opportunity to be heard only when it favoured them but ready to jettison same if prejudicial to them all in a desperate bid round to allege infraction of a diabolical right to fair hearing. 11. That it is curious that a selfsame claimant who had pleaded for time to countermand the allegation of misappropriation of rebate dues and was duly obliged could turn round to allege a repudiation of his right to fair hearing. [This is an opinion/conclusion.] 12. That based on the above, it is a misplaced argument and assertion that the claimants were denied fair hearing when at all material time, they participated fully in the proceedings of the committee. [This is an opinion/conclusion.] 13. That immediately thereafter the claimants’ desperation to cling on to a discredited power took a rather bizarre dimension as the claimants unleashed numerous death threats against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for which the claimants are currently being investigated by the State Criminal Investigation Department, Panti, Yaba. 14. That the reference to the now discredited petition to the EFCC by the claimants is clearly redundant as it merely established the real motive behind ill-fated adventure. [This is an opinion/conclusion.] 15. That the crude intransigence of the claimants were verified in our report submitted to the Central Working Committee, exhibited hereto and marked “AA-1”. [This is a conclusion.] 16. That it is patently false and wicked for the claimants to allege want to disclosure of the deliberation against them when their employers had on March 15, 2011 drawn their attention to same. The said letter is Exhibited and marked AA-2. 17. That I know as a fact that the National Administrative Council (NAC) and Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant are competent and eligible to take decisions on behalf of the National Executive Council being constitutionally empowered to preside over the day to day management of the Union. [This is an opinion/conclusion on a question of law.] 18. That by virtue of my office I also know that such decisions by the Central Working Committee are usually submitted or ratification of review to the National Executive Council during its yearly meetings. 19. That it is superfluous and self serving to allege express authorization as is being presently canvassed before day to day activities are carried on by the Central Working Committee. [This is an opinion.] 20. That the claimants’ hasty recourse to the hallowed tributaries of this Court without due adherence to laid down appellate procedures by the 1st defendant is highly suggestive of an attempt to hoodwink this Court and record unmerited advantage.[This is an opinion.] 21. That it is true and tandem with good industrial relation practice to secure the management’s consent for the use of premises before meetings, seminars or even elections are held. [this is an opinion.] 22. That the hurried contraption and forged assemblage of rented signatures by the claimants just to procure compliance is very revealing of the claimants’ desperation to conceal salient details. [This is an opinion and is unsubstantiated.] 23. That the date of the supposed meeting as gleaned from the contrived document verifying the various phantom signatures was manufactured after the claimants’ suspension. [This is an opinion/conclusion and is unsubstantiated.] 24. That the names and the signatures of the claimants are conspicuously missing in the attendance sheet of the meeting allegedly held on 7th July 2011 at the claimants’ local branch as indicated in Exhibit G further corroborate the fact that the said Exhibit G is a makeup and a failed attempt by the claimants to mislead this Court. [This is a conclusion/opinion.] 25. That there is no positive averment and or fast placed before this Court indicating that the claimants are candidates in a proposed election as to warrant the grant of the reliefs claimed. [This is a conclusion.] 26. That the present application was brought in bad faith being wholly speculative, anticipatory and highly provocative and ought to be dismissed. [This is an opinion/conclusion.] 27. That I depose to this counter-affidavit bona fide. [Note that the deponent is NOT deposing to the counter-affidavit in accordance with the Oaths Act. This most probably explains why the counter-affidavit is in the main opinions, conclusions and unsubstantiated generalizations.] Parties as earlier agreed filed written addresses. The claimants’ is dated 5th August 2011. Final Written Address of Claimants 1.0. Introduction 1.1 By the originating Summons dated the 19th day of July, 2011 and filed on the 21st of July, 2011, brought pursuant to Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 46 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the Claimants are seeking from the court the determination of the following questions: 1. WHAT is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999? 2. WHETHER in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over member or Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimant. 3 WHETHER by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant? 4. WHETHER by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimant. 1.2 AND THE CLAIMANTS seek the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over member or officers of 1st Defendant in the constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 2. A DECLARATION that by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant? 3. A DECLARATION that by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 4. A DECLARATION that the decision of Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st Defendant, presided over by the 2nd Defendant, to suspend 1st and 2nd Claimants indefinitely from their respective positions in the 1st Defendant, communicated to the Claimants via letters signed by the 3rd Defendant, dated 27th of June, 2011, on the basis of an anonymous petition against the 1st and 2nd Claimants, without a hearing give to the Claimants, is a violation of the Claimants’ rights to fair hearing under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and as such the suspension is unconstitutional, null and void. 5. AN ORDER setting aside, nullifying or voiding the said suspension of the 1st and 2nd Claimants AND re-instating them to their respective positions in the 1st Defendant with all the rights and privileges attached to the said positions. 1.3 In support of the Summons is an affidavit of 25 paragraphs deposed to by the 1st Claimant and 10 Exhibits marked as follows: EXIHIBIT A1 & A2 – Exhibit A1&A2 are copies of a letter dated 9th of March, 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employers, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, signed by the 3rd Defendant, informing the said employer that the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant had s et up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against the Claimants in an anonymous petition and the anonymous petition. EXHIBIT B – a copy of letter dated 14th of March, 2011, headed “REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI- UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of the Claimants’ employers, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, by the secretary of the said three-man investigating committee informing the said employer that the committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, on the 17th of March, 2011, to carry out their investigation as mandated by the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, under the leadership of the 2nd Defendant. EXHIBIT C - an invitation letter dated 15th of March, 2011 from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, written to the 1st Claimant to report on the 17th of March, 2011, on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported by the 2nd Defendant. EXHIBIT D - AN INVITATION LETTER DATED 17TH OF March, 2011 from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, written to the 2nd Claimant to report on the 17th of March, 2011, on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported by the 2nd Defendant. EXHIBIT E- a copy of the letter jointly written by 1st and 2nd Claimants to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform them of what transpired on the 1st day of the unannounced visit of the Investigation Committee and the request to be accorded a hearing. EXHIBIT F1 & F2- copies of letters of indefinite suspension of the Claimants from all union positions and activities, dated 27th of June, 2011, signed by the 3rd Defendant under the directive of the Cental Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant presided over by the 2nd Defendant. EXHIBIT G- a copy of the resolution taken at the general congress of the workers of the Claimants’ local branch of the 1st Defendant convened on the 7th of July, 2011, signed by about one hundred and ninety-one (191) members who were absent either for reasons of ill-health or leave, denouncing any connection with the said anonymous petition and demanded that suspension order be lifted. EXHIBIT H- a copy of the constitution of the 1st Defendant. Following the service of the Summons on the Defendants, the Defendants caused to be filed, through their Counsel, GODDY EZIMOHA Esq., a Memorandum of Appearance, dated 2nd day of August 2011 and a Counter Affidavit with its Annexures of two Exhibits, marked Exhibits AA1 & AA2, but the served copy of the counter-affidavit and exhibits are however undated and unsworn. In the Submission, the Claimants shall rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons and Exhibits attached thereto, in Support of the Originating Summons. The Claimants shall also have cause to refer to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Defendants in arguing their case. 2.0. Statement of Facts 2.1 This action is instituted to challenge the unconstitutional suspension of the Claimants from all union positions and activities of the 1st Defendant by the Central Working Committee presided over by the 2nd Defendant through letters of indefinite suspension (Exhibits F1 & F2 in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, signed by the 3rd Defendant. It is the contention of the Claimants that the said suspension and exercise of the such disciplinary powers, in the manner in which it was exercised, are in contravention of the due process of the laws, with particular regard to Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 on the fair hearing and the rules of natural justice. 2.2 THE Claimants are members of 1st Defendant, which is the National Union of Chemical Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non Metallic Products Employees and indeed the chairman and the secretary of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Local branch of the 1st Defendant respectively. 2.3 THE 1ST defendant is the national umbrella union of all the parties, with control organs which include but not limited to the Central Working Committee, presided over by the 2nd Defendant, as the national president of the 1st Defendants, while the 3rd Defendant is the acting national secretary of the 1st Defendant. 2.4 Through Exhibits A1 in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons a letter dated 9th of March, 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd signed by the 3rd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant informed the Claimants’ employer that the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant had set up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against the Claimants. It is of note here that his letter was addressed to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employer, and not the Claimants, through it was marked under the writer’s initials, cc: Branch union secretary, among others. It is also of much note that the particulars of the said allegation, which was said to include “other sundry anti-union activities”, were never disclosed in the said letter and no annexure was attached or referred to. 2.5 Through Exhibit B in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, another letter dated 14th of March, 2011, headed “RE:REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI-UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of the Claimants’ employers, the secretary of the said three-man investigating committee, one Inaede Thomas, informed the claimants’ employer that the investigating committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, to commence their investigation on the 17th of March, 2011. 2.6 However, through Exhibit AA2, attached to the Defendants’ Counter Affidavit, a letter dated 15th of March 2011, signed for the Claimants’ employer and addressed to the committee secretary as response to the Secretary’s letter of 14th of March 2011, the Claimants’ employer complai9ned of the shortness of the notice given to them and wrote in the concluding part of the letter. “We hereby request you to kindly give us time to retrieve al the required documents and invite you to come and commence your investigation as soon as we are through”. 2.7 From the above, it is impliedly clear that the said Committee did not commence their investigation on the 17th of March, 2011, as requested, based on the response of the Claimants’ employer as soon above. 2.8 That all through the time till the Claimants were indefinitely suspended, no letter of formal information, notification or invitation was addressed to both the 1st and 2nd Claimants on the petition purportedly written against them, or on the particulars of the allegation contained therein or on the investigation to be conducted against them or even the place or date when the said investigating committee would be coming to meet with them. 2.9 However, without any notice or invitation to the Claimants, members of the said investigating committee suddenly appeared in the Claimants’ company on the 1st day of June, 2011 and announced, to the Claimants’ dismay that they had come to commence their sitting of their investigation on the allegation against the 1st and 2nd Claimants. 2.10 The Claimants therefore demanded for a copy of the said petition which, till then they had never been privileged to see and the Claimants additionally demanded to be given some time to study the petition and prepare their defence and it was on this note that the members of the committee rose that 1st day of June, 2011. 2.11 Following this encounter, the Claimants immediately wrote to the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant through Exhibit E in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, a letter dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendants of what transpired on that day and the need to be accorded a hearing, 2.12 The Claimants did not receive a response form the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the said letter and did not hear from the investigating committee against till they received letters of indefinite suspension dated 27th of June, 2011, signed by the 3rd Defendant under the directive of the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant presided over by the 2nd Defendant and the reason for the suspension is “non co-operation with the investigation committee”. 2.13 The general congress of the workers of the Claimants’ local branch of the 1st Defendant however convened on the 7th of July, 2011, and through a resolution, Exhibit G in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, signed by about one hundred and ninety-one (191) members, with exception of the suspended Claimants, who, by the implication of their indefinite suspension from union position and activities are forbidden from participating in the local branch union congress and the deliberations, and about other ten members who were absent either for reasons of ill-health or leave, and addressed to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and copied to the national organs of the 1st Defendant, the entire workers denounced any connection with the said anonymous petition and did not stop there but also explained away, in TWELVE PARAGRPHS , marked 1-12, the allegations contained in that anonymous petition and state specifically in paragraph 5, 6, 8 & 11 thereof as follows: “(5) That the branch members in-session affirm that there was never an illegal levies in STALLION PLASTICS AND LIMITED: (6) That the branch members in-session condemned the descend low of NATIONAL for treated/acted upon a spurious allegation by faceless and ghost individual or group. (8) That the branch members in-session affirm the suspension letter to the chairman and secretary must be withdraw without delay: (11)That the branch members of STALLION PLASTICS IND. LIMITED in-session are solidly behind, recognized our branch chairman, secretary, treasurer and every others executives as our true leaders.” The resolution is further read in the concluding paragraph the thus: “In conclusion, we hereby attach the list of all staffs of STALLION PLASTICS IND. LIMITED duly sign to display our unalloyed loyalty to our branch executives and UNCFRLANMPE as a whole”. 2.14 Consequently, the Claimants have run to the hallowed refuge of this Honurable court to seek redress for he injustice that had been perpetrated on them by the Defendants for without the intervention of the court, the Claimants stand the risk of being permanently denied of the opportunity to clear the very sensitive allegations leveled against them in the course of their conscientious discharge of their duties as local officers of the 1st DEFENDANT and carry the stigma around for the rest of their public life. 2.15 In this suit, the Claimants are contending that their suspension on allegations contained in anonymous petition which was purportedly written “On behalf of the concern workers of stallion branch union”, as contained in the said petition, which is Exhibit A2 in the claimants’ affidavit in support of the Summons, without being heard, does run foul of the constitutional provisions on their right to fair hearing. 2.16 The Claimants bring the action to prevent mal–administration arbitrariness, vindictiveness in the affairs of their union and the consequent subversion of the rule of law and circumvention of constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the course of managing the affairs of the 1st Defendant. The Claimants state that unless this Honourable Court intervenes decisively by looking into their case and the circumstance surrounding it and pronounce accordingly, a dangerous precedent would have been laid and the Defendants and their successors in office will certainly bypass, at their whims and caprices, the due process of law in similar future cases in resorting to sanctions like this, to carry out vengeance, against members and local union officers who might be perceived to be too vocal or antagonistic of whatever mispolicies or malpractices in the 1st Defendant without recourse to lawful procedure. Further, the Claimants state that unless the issue of the legality and lawfulness of the Defendants’ action in suspending them indefinitely on trumped-up allegations, which has neither author, or at least a doubtful author, nor basis, without being heard, is quickly, completely and satisfactorily resolved by this Honourable Court, the administration of the 1st Defendant will be dogged in the next time to come by al sorts of rancour, suppressive and oppressive vindictiveness, illegality, illegitimacy and plagued by lack of credibility. 2.17 In response to the Summons and the Affidavit in respect thereof, the Defendants filed a 27 paragraph Counter-Affidavit, and as observed earlier the copy served on us is undated and unsworn, by which they intend to oppose the prayers being sought by the Claimants. It is significant to note that through the 27 paragraphs of the Defendants’ counter-affidavit, no specific denial of the averments contained in the Claimants’affidavit in support of their summons, and what they, at best, did was to make general vague, nebulous and open-ended unsubstantiated denials, which we will analyse seriatim in the following paragraphs. 2.18 In paragraph 4 of the Defendants’ counter-affidavit, they claimed to notify all the parties concerned and made referenced to the Claimants’ Exhibit E, but a cursory look at that document shows that it has not hearing to this assertion contained in the paragraph 4 of the Defendants’ counter-affidavit and there is no document from their own side to prove this avernment. 2.19 The Defendants claim to paragraph 6 and 7 of their counter-affidavit that a volatile point occurred in the course of the investigation and that the Claimants staged a walk-out on the committee, prompting an official complaint to the Personnel manager of the Claimants’ employer, but they failed to supply the dates of these incidents, the proceeding of the committee of those dates and a copy of the official complaint to the said Personnel Manager, to reflect and support their assertions. Their deponent carelessly lied on oath, in ignorance of the legal repercussion, as no such things ever happened. 2.20 In paragraph 9 of their counter-affidavit they claimed that the Claimants participated in the investigation committee’s sittings after 1st of June, 2011 encounter and were given opportunities to present their defence, but they didn’t exhibit things like the proceedings of the said sittings or even mention the dates of the sittings to convince the court of the truth of these assertions. This is another lying on oath as it is all a tissue of lies. 2.21 In the paragraph 16 their counter-affidavit the Defendants claimed that through their Exhibit AA-2 of their counter-affidavit that the Claimants employer drew the Claimants’ attention to whatever deliberation but unfortunately the said Exhibit, which is their document, betrays a total lack of connection between it and their claim in that paragraph. 2.22 In paragraph 20 of their counter-affidavit in an attempt to leg-kick and spite the jurisdiction of this Honourable court, the Defendants made reference to lack of adherence “to laid down appellate procedures by the 1st Defendant” but they failed to specify the said procedure or exhibit any document that contains the appellate procedures. 2.23 In paragraph 22, they alleged forgeries of signatures against the Claimants but they didn’t make any attempt to give ingredients and particulars to prove this allegation of forgery beyond any reasonable doubt, even if it is by presenting the authentic versions of the signatures of the workers who are after all their union members, as legally required. 2.24 At best, the gravamen of the Defendants’ averments and defence, as could be gleaned from their 27-paragraph counter-affidavit, is that they, in their judgment and imagination, satisfied, albeit mirageously, the requirement of fair hearing, as far as they were concerned, before onleashing on the Claimants the grave punitive measures of indefinite suspension, not just from the various offices held, but also from all union activities, which is as wide as including barring them from participating in union meetings, deliberations conferences, congresses, conventions and elections, and even workers’ rallies as all these fall into the category of union activities. The Defendants claim that the Investigating Committee put in place to look into the allegations purportedly leveled against the Claimants by their co-workers notified the claimants of the allegation and also did sit at different times and indeed have a report which was dully submitted to the Central Working Committee did find the Claimants guilty as charged and suspend them indefinitely. This is the whole case of the Defendants. 3.0 Issues for Determination 3.1 It is respectfully submitted that the issues for determination in this suit are as follows: 1. WHAT is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999? 2. WHETHER in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1s Defendant in the constitution of the 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee(CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & 2nd of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants? 3. WHETHER by the wording of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant? 4. WHETHER by the wording of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999? 5. WHETHER the Claimants are not entitled to the Reliefs being sought in this suit. 4.0 Argument As a preliminary point, we urge this Honourable Court to note that the core of this case borders on the denial of fair hearing to the Claimants before a disciplinary action of such magnitude like indefinite suspension from all union positions and activities is taken against them. We further urge the court to also note that the Defendants’ counter-affidavit and the two Exhibits remain their case and their Defence in this matter. We further urge the honourable court to treat this Defendants’ counter-affidavit Exhibit AA-1, which is the foundation of the disciplinary action taken against the claimants, being the report of the investigation panel, as mere piece of paper without any probative value as the said report contains no single elements of a report or recommendation of a credible investigative committee or panel, like terms o reference, date of commencement of proceeding, subsequent dates of sittings, parties who appeared before the panel and their evidence or testimony etc and the said report is not even dated. 4.1 On Issue 1: WHAT is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1) & (2) of the Constitution o the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999? 4.2 Section 36 (1) & (2) the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria State: (1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence an impartiality. (20) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, a law shall not be invalidated by reason only that it confers on any government or authority power to determine questions arising in the administration o a law that affects or may affect the civil rights and obligations of any person if such law. a. provides or an opportunity for the person whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before that authority makes the decision affecting that person; and b. contains no provision making the determination of the administering authority final and conclusive. 4.3 We humbly submit, that the case that is relevant for our guidance here is this notoriously old case Garba vs. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 18) 550. In that Garba’s case (supra), the Supreme Court, on what constitutes fair hearing, emphasized, Per Oputa J.S.C., that: “… To constitute a fair hearing whether it be before the regular courts or before Tribunals and boards of Inquiry the person accused should know what is alleged against him: He should be present when any evidence against him is tendered and he should be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict such evidence.” 4.4 We humbly argue and submit, that the connotation and denotation of the above constitutional provision on fair hearing has been held by the Supreme Court to imply that: a. A person knows what the allegations against him are: b. What evidence has been given in support of such allegations: c. What statements have been made concerning those allegations: d. Such a person has a few opportunity to correct and contradict such evidence: e. The body investigating the charge against such person must not receive evidence behind his back: On this submission, we humbly refer My Lord to the case of Garba vs. University of Maiduguri(supra) and we urge My lord, in line with that decision, to adopt this submission in deciding this instant case. 4.5 On Issue 2: WHETHER in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1s Defendant in the constitution of the 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee(CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & 2nd of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants? 4.6 Under Issue 2, we shall argue on two (2) threshold sub-issues, namely the concept of fair hearing and natural justice which are intertwinedly not just a common law requirement but also a constitutional issue. This, My Lord, seems to be the core of his case. 4.7 We submit that the old case of Garba above, even when it was a case of students and their authorities, it shares substantial semblance with the Claimants’ case ingredients and material particulars in that in Garba student went on rampage in University of Maiduguri, consequent upon which a disciplinary panel was constituted which sat and heard 104 witnesses, including the appellants, and the appellants were expelled by the Senate of the University based on the report of the panel and the appellants went before the court to enforce their right to fair hearing. This case went through the entire gamut of judiciary from the high court to the apex court 4.8 In the Claimants’ case, as contained in paragraph 7, 8, 9, 16 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 at no time was any letter written directly to the carried out, or the sitting details of the investigation panel, while the Defendants were busy communicating with the Claimants’ employer, when the Claimants were the subject of the allegation and the investigation, thereby trying to shave the Claimants’ head behind them, which they eventually did and the “author”, the concerned worker, was never invited to defend the petition, by bringing facts and figures before the committee, which the Claimants would have the opportunity to controvert. 4.9 In that Garba’s case (supra) the Supreme Court emphasized. Per Oputa J.S.C… at that: “… that fair hearing implies much more than hearing the appellants testifying before the Disciplinary Investigation Panel, it implies more than other staff or students testifying before the Panel behind the Panel: it implies more than other staff or students testifying before the Panel behind the back of the Appellants: it implies much more than the appellants being “given a chance to explain their own side of the story”. To constitute a fair hearing whether it be before the regular courts or before Tribunals and Boards o Inquiry the person accused should know what is alleged against him should be present when any evidence against him is tendered and he should be given a fair apportunity to correct or contradict such eveidence”. 4.10 The Supreme Court had long state, in Yusuf vs. UBN LTD (1996) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt. 457) 632 at 634, and same view re-adumbrated in N.E.P.A. vs. Arobieke (2006) 7 N.W.L.R. (pt. 979) 245, at 270, 271, 273, 274, paras H-A, that: “To satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected directly by disciplinary proceedings must be give adequate notice of the allegation against him… But the complaint against him need not necessarily be drafted in the form of a formal charge. It is sufficient if the complaint as formulated conveys to him the nature of the accusation against him. 4.11 In that Garba’s case (supra), the Supreme Court Per Nnamani J.S.C., said that: “The Appellants being among the 104 witnesses allegedly interviewed can be said to have been “heard” but they cannot, having regard the principles of natural justice, discussed above, be said to have had an opportunity of knowing the case they were to meet, or an opportunity of being heard in reply to the serious allegations made against them. There was therefore in my view a serious breach of the principles of natural justice”. 4..12 While in the case ( 1 mean Garba’s case), the court said per Coker JSC., that: “The audi alteram partem rule stipulates that each party must be given an opportunity of stating his case and answering if he can any arguments put forward against it. The rule requires that a person liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so as to give him an opportunity to make representation and effectively prepare his own case and to answer the case he has to meet. It is therefore essential that the person involved he given prior notice of the case against him so that he can prepare to meet the case.” 4.13 Therefore, on the duty of the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organ s of 1st Defendant to observe the rules of natural justice in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants, we humbly submit that any person or body, be it administrative, evil, quasi-judicial or intrinsically judicial is expected to observe and apply these principles or notions of natural justice in its deliberations. Their application or observance exempts none. On this submission we refer the court to the cases of Dr Akinlade Ore Falomo v. Lagos State Public Service Commission, 1977 1 AA N.L.R. 102 or 1977 5 SC 51 at 61: and Professor Olaniyan & Ors vs. University o Lagos & Ors [1985]2 nwlr (pt.9)599, among others. We urge the court to accept this submission and based on the facts and circumstances of this case, declare accordingly in favour of the Claimants. 4.14 On Issue 3 and 4: WHETHER by the wording of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant AND if they can, whether they can, Claimants without observing the rule of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & 2nd of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 4.15 In arguing these issues, we shall crave the indulgence of the court to reproduce verbatim the relevant provision of the constitution of the 1st Defendant, which is Exhibit H in the Claimants’ affidavit in support, which is hereby reproduced below; APPENDIX B DISCIPLINE 1. The National Executive Council shall have the power to impose Disciplinary measures on any member, officer, State Executive Council State Administrative Council, and Branches for serious misconduct for which such officers/member or organ has been found guilty. Mis- conduct shall include the following: a. Conduct prejudicial to the aims and objectives, interest and unity of the Union. b. Sabotage, Subversive/anti-Union activities. c. Attempted dissolution of the Union or any of its organs by means other than those prescribed in the Constitution. d. Unruly behaviour at meetings of organs of the Union or Conduct likely to bring the Union into disrepute. e. Refusal to comply with the order or decision of any committee having jurisdiction over the member under the Constitution. f. Embezzlement, Misappropriation of funds, fraud, dishonesty, falsification or conniving to cover all or any of the above mentioned offences. g. Acceptance of duties from any employer during periods of trade disputes between an employer and the Union. h. Insubordination. Non-compliance with orders or directives of the organs of the Union: gross negligence of duty, and conduct inimical to the interest of the Union generally or one that affects or tends to affect its good name. i. Non-remittance of Union dues, check-off and levies in accordance with the Constitution. j. Receiving of any of the welfare benefits of the Union by false pretence or misrepresentation. k. Acts capable of committing the Union to support any political party, faction or candidate for an election on the basis of his political affiliation. l. Any other activity which in the opinion of the National Executive Council is adjudged as anti-Union activity. 2. The National Administrative Council/Central Working Committee shall on behalf of the National Executive Council have the power to impose the underlisted disciplinary measures on members. Area Councils and Branches, for offences itemized in (a-k) above, save for expulsion. Dissolution, impeachment, retirement and dismissal/terminatioin. i. Fines ii. Warning iii. Reprimand iv. Demand for unreserved aplology v. Suspension vi. Prosecution vii. Freezing/closure of Accounts (as applicable) 3. Expelled or suspend members shall return any funds or properties of the Union in their possession and forfeit all rights and privileges of membership. A dismissed staff shall forfeit al benefits. 4. The Area Council of the union shall have the powers to discipline erring members/officials as it may deem fit in accordance with Appendix B 2(i) – (vii) above after a fair hearing, subject to the approval of national Administrative Council/Central Working Committee, provided that the affected person(s) shall have the right to appeal to the higher organs of the union for a review. 4.16 We argue that the relevant provision here is APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant which state that: “…Central Working Committee shall on behalf of the National Executive Council have the power to impose the underlisted disciplinary measures on members, Area Councils and Branches, for affences itemized in (A-K) above”. 4.17 We submit that the contentious phrase is “shall on behalf of”. We urge that this phrase alone, without resort to other provisions of the constitution of the 1st Defendant, is not enough to determine the extent of the powers that the Central Working Committee can exercise on behalf of the National Executive Council. 4.18 The law is clear on what is to be done when a Court is faced with the task of interpreting a provision of a statute. The Appellate Courts have held in several authorities that the Court must consider the whole sections of the statute while interpreting it, in order to bring out the intention of the lawmakers. For this submission, we humbly refer this Honourable Court to the Supreme Court cases of A.C.B. Plcv. Losada (Nig) Ltd. (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.405) 26 at P.47 Para 1) and Adeniyi v. Governing Council, Yaba Tech (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 426 at 437 Paras F.G.. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Chime v. Ude (1996) 3 NWLR (Pt.161) 379, the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division, Michael Eyaruoma Akprirorobi, J.C.A. – presiding , also stated the position of the law in Nwole v. Iwuagwu (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt.895) 61 when it held that “in the construction of a statutory provision, a statute must be read as a whole to get the correct meaning of any particular expressions. A section must never be read in isolation.” 4.19 We urge the court in interpreting APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, as to be question which has arisen for determination here, to look critically at APPENDIX B (1) and APPENDIX B (1) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant. 4.20 appendix B (1) states: “ The National Executive Council shall have the power to impose disciplinary measures on any member, officer, State Executive Council, State Administrative Council, and Branches for serious misconduct for which such officer member or organ has been found guilt”; now 4.21 The coantentious phrase is the concluding phase “has been found guilt”…. We argue that the National Executive Council, based on the wording of APPENDIX B (1) above, does not have the powers to impose any disciplinary measure on any member or officer of the 1st Defendant as specified in the sub-sections, except the person has been found guilty. We habet, we argue that the National Executive Council is not in a position to ratify such disciplinary measure of the Central Working Committee against the 1st and 2nd Claimants, in the manner in which the powers was exercised, that is suspending them indefinitely from the union without finding them guilty and therefore what the National Executive Council cannot ratify it cannot authorize and if it cannot authorize that, then the Central Working Committee has acted beyond the powers conferred on National Executive Council by the enabling provision and therefore it is ultra vires the National Executive Council and therefore null and void. We urge the court to so declare. We further submit that if the provision had contemplated the conferment of such wide powers on the Central Working Committee without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant, it would have said so. 4.22 In addition to that, since the procedure through which the Central Working Committee can act on behalf of the National Executive Council is not specified, we urge the court to have a resort to APPENDIX B (4) which specifies an elaborate procedure for a subordinate unit i.e. the Area Council of the 1st Defendant, which specifically stated how such powers could be exercised on behalf of and for the ratification of a higher organ in the hierarchy of authority which is the Central Working Committee. 4.23 APPENDIX B(4) states: The Area Council of the union shall have the powers to discipline erring members/officials as it may deem fit in accordance with Appendix B 2(i) – (vii) above after a fair hearing, subject to the approval of national Administrative Council/Central Working Committee, provided that the affected person(s) shall have the right to appeal to the higher organs of the union for a review. 4.24 The contentious phrase in APPLENDIX B (4) is “after a fair hearing”. We urge the court to read this provision into the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of the 1st defendant in order to fill in the missing gap. This is the sacred duty of this Honourable court which this court has been solemnly called upon today to carry out. If that is accepted and done, then it will be discovered that what the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant is empowered to do on behalf of the National Executive Council, as regards question of disciplinary measures, without express delegation is to do it after a fair hearing has been accorded the parties involved and not otherwise. To do otherwise will be tantamount to arbitrariness which this court must rise up to curtail. 4.25 In considering the question whether provisions in a statute (such as shall, may, must) are mandatory or directory, the object of the statute must be looked at. The court must look first at the particular section within the statute that is to be interpreted. If the meaning is not clear, then the court must look at the other related provisions within the statute or where necessary the statute as a whole to see exactly what it means. For this proposition of the law, we humbly refer your Lordship to the case of Ifezue v. Mbadugha (1984) J SCNLR 427; and Ude v. Nwara (supra) P.668 Paras. B-C. In the case of Bamigboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) to NWLR (Pr.622) 290 at PL. 348-349 Para. H-C, Uwaifo J.S.C. quoting foreign authorities with approval, stated that: There are some authorities, which suggest how to determine which way to go. In Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1981) 30 L.J Ch.379 at P380, Lord Campbell observed: “No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed.” 4.26 we submit that the Word “shall” used in APPENDIX B (2) AND APPENDIX B (4) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant is just used in a permissive and directory sense, which does not mandatorily empower the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant to do anything and everything even without recourse to law or enabling provision of the ratifying authority. 4.27 We therefore submit in conclusion that the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can’t exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant AND if they can, they can’t without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & 2nd of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. 4.28 On Issue 5: WHETHER the Claimants are not entitled to the Reliefs being sought in this suit. 4.29 We argue that the consequence of a breach of the rule of natural justice and fair hearing is that the proceedings in the case are null and void. This was the position affirmed by the Supreme Court in Salu vs. Egeibon [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt 348) 44. paras F-G. In that case, the Supreme Court said: “If a principle of natural justice is violated, it does not matter whether if the proper thing had been done the decision would have been the same. In other words, it is immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of natural justice: for, in such circumstnces the proceedings will still be null and void. The decision must be declared to be no decision at all.” 4.30 The position further finds support in Adigun vs. A-G, Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR.pt 53) 678. 4.31 We humbly submit, that given the fact and circumstances of the case of the Applicant herein, the decision to suspend the Claimants indefinitely from the activities of the 1st Defendant, taken against them, behind them and in the manner in which it was done here, and without availing them the opportunity of being heard, a re, in their entirety, nothing but a violent violation of the Claimants’ Right to fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36(1) and (2), of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and by reason thereof, null and void. 4.32 Relief (5) in the Claimants’ Summons- on careful examination, is a relief resting on reliefs (1) to (4), either all the reliefs or any of the reliefs. It is therefore incidental and consequential to those declarations. On this we humbly refer the court to Akapo vs. Hakeem-Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (pt.247)266. 4.33 The relief (5) in question in the instant case, by virtue of the fact that it flows necessarily, naturally, directly and consequently from either of releifs (1) to (4), it is, therefore, logically and inevitably, consequent upon the decision of the court as regards any or all of those reliefs being sought because it is to give effect to those reliefs. On this we humbly refer the court to Awoniyi vs. Reg. Trustees of Amore [2000] 10 NWLR (pt.676) 522. 4.34 We therefore submit, with respect, that the Clai