Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATE: MARCH 10, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/34/2008 BETWEEN Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) - Claimant AND 1. Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions 2. The Registrar of Trade Unions 3. Minister of Labour and Productivity - Defendants REPRESENTATION S. Iroye, for the claimant. Mrs. B. C. Anyanwu, for the 1st defendant. Mr. N. O. Ibom, for the 2nd and 3rd defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant commenced this action by way of Originating Summons dated the 21st of May, 2008, requesting the Court to determine as follows: Whether The Academic Staff Union of Research Institutes merit being or ought to be registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions as a separate and distinctive trade union, after having had her interests and rights guaranteed and protected by an existing trade union “SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES, TEACHING HOSPITALS, RESEARCH INSTITUTES, AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS (SSAUTHRIAI) OF NIGERIA having regard to the following: the provision of section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act 1973 as amended, Third Schedule, Part B of the Trade Unions Act, 1973 and Part A of the Trade Unions Amendment Act 1999 of the official Gazette dated the 6th day of January, 1999. The claimant then prayed this Court for the following orders: 1. An order of Court declaring the registration of the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutes as a trade union as illegal and thus null and void. 2. An order of Court ordering the cancellation of the registration of the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutes. The originating summons is supported by a seventeen-paragraphed affidavit dated the 21st of May, 2008, sworn to by Mr. Uzoalu Emmanuel Nzefili Chucks, a member of SSAUTHRIAI National Executive Council and the President of the Research Institute Sector of SSAUTHRIAI. The Claimant also attached to the supporting affidavit, a list of Exhibits, precisely Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B1’, ‘B2’, and ‘C’. The claimant also filed a statement of facts dated the 21st of May, 2008. The claimant relied on all the statements as contained in the supporting affidavit and the statement of facts in support of its case. The facts of this case in brief are that the claimant is a trade union duly registered and recognized as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act 1990. The 1st defendant is a newly registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, the 2nd defendant is the body authorized and saddled with the responsibility of registering the trade unions in Nigeria and the 3rd defendant is the Minister charged with responsibility of monitoring the activities of trade unions in Nigeria. Prior to the registration of the 1st defendant as a trade union, the claimant (SSAUTHRIAI), has been the only official trade union and umbrella body under which the members of the 1st defendant operated and had their interest and rights protected as senior members and staff of research institutes. When the claimant discovered that the 2nd and 3rd defendants registered the 1st defendant as a trade union, the claimant protested the said action as being contrary to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. It is on this ground that the claimant came to this Court to challenge the registration, asking the Court to declare the registration as illegal and to cancel same. The defendants entered appearances in the matter through their counsel by filling their Memorandum of Appearances respectively. All the parties agreed to argue the case on record. In its written address dated 1st April, 2010 and filed on the same day, the claimants raised three issues for determination as follows – (i) Whether the claimant’s suit has disclosed a reasonable cause of action. (ii) Whether the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is illegal giving regard to the provision of section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act 1973 as amended which forbids the registration of a new trade union where there already exist a trade union. (iii) Whether the Court has power to order the cancellation of the registration of the 1st defendant and strike out its name from the register of trade unions. On issue 1, the claimant relied on all the depositions in the supporting affidavit attached to the Originating Summons and all the paragraphs of the statement of facts with all the documents attached as exhibits. The claimant submitted that going by the whole depositions, the originating summons and the statement of facts, the 2nd and 3rd defendants exercised their power and discretion wrongfully, unlawfully, and illegally, when they by their action authorized the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union when it was obvious that it has its interest already protected by an already existing trade union which is the claimant. The claimant attached as an additional exhibit to the suit a copy of the certificate of registration of the 1st defendant, as a proof of the reckless acts of the 2nd and 3rd defendants which necessitated the complaint in this suit. The claimant argued that its case as filed is a complaint against an irregular and unlawful official action of the 2nd and 3rd defendants which has occasioned an injury on the claimant and such action amounts to an injustice which can only be remedied or addressed by this Court. To the claimant, It is trite law that, when a complaint arises from an injured person for a wrongful act, then there is a cause of action. That this position has been upheld in the case of Arabambi v. Advanced Beverages Industries Limited [2006] 3 MJSC 61 at 78 paras D – F, where the court held as follows: A cause of action arises from circumstances containing different facts that give rise to a claim that can be enforced in court, and thus lead to the right to sue a person responsible for the existence of such circumstances. There must, therefore, be a wrongful act of a party, i.e. the party sued which has given the plaintiff a reason to complain in a court of consequent damage to him. That from the above, the position of the claimant has been justified, as stated in the facts that gave rise to its claim which actually can be legally enforced in a court of law, and so the claimant in this case has a locus standi to present this case and such should be entertained by the Court. To the claimant the main issue for consideration as raised in its originating summons is an issue of law and not an academic or a hypothetical question. That the wrong complained of is an act of illegality, which contravenes the express provision of section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act which forbids the registration of a new trade union where one already exists. The law provides as follows: …but no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where there already exist a trade union. That the wrong complained of by the claimant is that the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union contravenes the provision of the law as quoted above and so is a wrongful act and that when there is a wrong in law, as in this case, this court is obliged to make a pronouncement in respect of the remedy. The claimant also submitted that from its argument it has established that a wrong has been occasioned against it and this, therefore, grants it the locus standi to institute this case and that this gives rise to a cause of action upon which the Court can validly exercise its discretion to act in its favour. As regards the second issue, the claimant relied on paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the supporting affidavit attached to the originating summons which it reproduced as follows: That the plaintiff herein “SSAUTHRIAI”, prior to the registration of the 1st defendant as a trade union, has been the only official trade union and umbrella body under which the members of the 1st defendant operates and have their interest and rights protected as Senior Members of Staff of Research Institutes. That the operations and jurisdiction of the plaintiff herein “SSAUTHRIAI” as governed by the constitution of the “SSAUTHRIAI” covers the 1st defendant herein. This is reflected in the said constitution. Portions of the constitution reflecting the jurisdictional coverage are hereby annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”. That the officers of the 1st defendant herein, past and present have at one time or the other served in different capacities as members and even National Officers of the plaintiff herein, an act suggesting that the 1st defendant was part and is part of the plaintiff. Copies of documents attesting to these facts are hereby annexed hereto and attached as Exhibits “B1” and “B2” respectively as stated below: (a) A letter written by one Mr. Roland Abigor (one of the promoters of the 1st defendant and the immediate past President of the 1st defendant) when he was the sectoral Chairman of the Research Institutes sector of “SSAUTHRIAI” between 1989 and 1993. (b) The oath of office of the said Roland Abigor when he was sworn in as the sectoral Chairman of Research Institutes Sector of “SSAUTHRIAI” on the 30th June, 1989. That the 1st defendant ought not to be an independent trade union as Academic Staff of Universities (Research Institutes Sector) as it is, since it is not a body of academic staff but are rather known, recognized and addressed as “Research Officers” and there is no statute or law that recognizes them or referred to the union as claimed. That the 1st defendant can only operate as Research Officers under the Research Institutes, the jurisdictional coverage of “SSAUTHRIAI” as rightly spelt out in the conditions of service for the Federal Research Institutes, Colleges of Agriculture and Allied Institutions which members of the 1st defendant played a prominent role in the drafting and presentation of same for approval. Relevant portions are hereby annexed and marked as Exhibit “c”. To the claimant, the foregoing has proved the fact that the 1st defendant has been a functional part of the claimant and its interest has been seen to be adequately protected and, therefore, has no reason by any means to want to stand out as a separate trade union. That as such the said registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is by all ramification not justified. Also that all attached exhibits have proved to a greater extent that the interests of the present members of the 1st defendant have been adequately secured and protected in the membership of the claimant. And so there should have been no ground for the registration of another separate trade union as the case is in point. That this has been the position of the law according to the Nigerian Trade Unions Act where section 3(2) provides as follows: …but no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where there already exist a trade union. The claimant further submitted that it is trite law that where a particular group of employees have been catered for by a wider and encompassing group, such application for the registration of another separate and distinct trade union ought to be disregarded in the circumstances. That this posture was maintained in the case of The registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria v. Medical Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors [2008] 3 MJSC 121 at 143 paras G – A where the Court held as follows: In the instant case, there are many materials in the documents before the court that confirm that the 1st appellant had all along been catered for by a wider and encompassing body, which is the 1st respondent. After an investigation there was no way the 1st appellant would have been registered in the circumstances. Besides, the law is not such that registration is automatic. It is at the discretion of the Registrar after he would have made his investigations and became satisfied. To the claimant, it has proved that it has been an all encompassing body for the protection of the interest of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union should have been discountenanced. But that having been registered as in this situation where it has been registered as a separate trade union, such registration amounts to a violation of the provision of the law and so this court should declare it illegal. On this issue the claimant finally submitted that in line with the above submission, the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is needless, unwarranted, unprocedural and a contravention of the Trade Unions Act and same should be declared an illegality by this court and consequently cancelled by this court. On the third issue, the claimant submitted that asking this Court to exercise its power to cancel/nullify the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is to request the court to exercise its coercive power to that effect and this is dependent on whether this court has jurisdiction to sit in judgment over this suit. That this position was projected in the case of Akinbola v. Plisson Fisko Nigeria Ltd [2004] 22 WRN 53 at 72 Line 30 where Karibi-Whyte, JSC held as follows: It is well settled that where the court has no jurisdiction, it cannot enforce its coercive powers. The coercive powers of the court are founded on the existence of its legal jurisdiction to exercise the judicial powers of the Constitution. To the claimant, for it to be able to invoke the power of this court to nullify the registration of the 1st defendant, it must be established that the court has jurisdiction to sit over this suit because it is in the exercise of the jurisdictional power of the court that the exercise of all of its power flows from. The claimant, therefore, submitted that this court has jurisdiction over this matter. That it is indeed a notorious fact that this court is the only court that has power to entertain matters that relate to intra/inter-union matters or questions of illegality arising there from such as in this suit. That the claimant’s position is premised on the fact that the National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides that the Court can exclusively entertain any matter arising from trade union issues as it is in this case, referring the court to section 7(a)(i) of the National Industrial Court Act which states that this Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters relating to labour, including trade unions and industrial relations. That since the enabling Act provides for the power of the Court to entertain matters relating to trade unions then it shall so exercise such power without any encumbrance thereto. That this position has been justified in the case of Rivers State Government v. Specialist Konsult [2005] 5 MJSC 19 at 54 paras D – G, where the Court in stating the conditions that warrant the competence of the Court to entertain a suit held thus: A court is only competent to exercise jurisdiction where the following conditions are satisfied: a. The Court is properly constituted as members and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another. b. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and c. The case comes before the Court by due process of law and upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. To the claimant, it has fulfilled all conditions stated above as this Court is properly constituted and the case is within its jurisdiction and the due process has been followed in bringing the matter before it. The claimant, therefore, submitted that this Court has power to assume jurisdiction over this suit. And that this, therefore, implies that this court can further exercise its power as is required for the justice of this suit. The claimant concluded that having ascertained the power of the court to assume jurisdiction over this suit as stated above, it has rightly come to the conclusion that this court can, therefore, exercise unfettered coercive power in this matter by declaring as illegal and unconstitutional the actions of the 2nd and 3rd defendants by which they without due process unlawfully registered the 1st defendant as a separate trade union. And that this court should order the nullification and cancellation of the said registration of the 1st defendant. The claimant concluded by summarizing its submission as follows – That the 2nd and 3rd defendants unprocedurally and wrongfully registered the 1st defendant as a separate trade union and have, therefore, contravened the provision of the Trade Unions Act 1990 (as Amended). That the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is maliciously motivated, illegal and constitutes a breach of the provision of the Trade Unions Act which forbids the registration of a new trade union where one already exists. That this Court has power to assume jurisdiction over this suit and should, therefore, exercise its coercive power in this suit by declaring the actions of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as illegal and nullify the registration of the 1st defendant. The claimant then prayed that this Court should consider and grant its prayers. In response to the originating summons, the 1st defendant filed a 24-paragraphed counter-affidavit along with exhibits and relied on same. The said counter-affidavit was deposed to by one Akinwale Mohammed-Monzooh, a principal research officer and a member of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant admitted that its members who are the academic staff of Research Institutes and Allied Institutions were prior to its registration, illegally being organized by the claimant. That the 1st defendant was given birth to following a discovery by the said academic staff that the claimant has no jurisdiction to unionize the academic staff of these Institutes and that owing to its structure and composition, the claimant has failed to protect the interest of the said academic staff in so many areas where the said staff needed their union to fight for them. That there has been incidents which revealed that the claimant, owing to its composition which comprise in the majority of non-academic staff of the said Institutes, is working against the interest of the academic staff instead of protecting their interest. To the 1st defendant, the sole issue that calls for the determination of this Court is, whether the claimant can rightly unionize academic staff of Research Institutes and Allied Institutions. The 1st defendant contended that by the provisions of section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, every person has a right to belong to any trade union or any other association for the protection of his interest. Thus for a person to join a trade union, he must ensure that the trade union would protect his interest. The position of the law, therefore, is that a person can only seek membership into a trade union that covers his industry and has the ability to protect his interest as required by the Constitution. That in Sea Trucks (Nig) Ltd v. Pyne [2004] 1 NLLR (Pt. 1) 58 at 69, the Court of Appeal in construing the provision of section 37 of the 1979 Constitution now section 40 of the 1999 Constitution stated the following: The phrase ‘for the protection of his interest’ is certainly restrictive; it is not as wide as the right guaranteed in section 33(6)(c) where the phrase ‘of his own choice’ was used. If it were the intention of the makers of the Constitution to make the right to join a trade union unfettered or unrestrained, it would have used the words ‘of his own choice’ but that was not the case. The respondent, respectfully in addition to indicating a trade union he proposes to join, ought to go further to show how it protects his interest”. The 1st defendant further submitted that it is, therefore, settled law that a worker is not entitled to join any trade union of his fancy, but one that protects his interest. Hence the categorization of trade unions in the various industries on cadre/level basis and general or specialized services basis. Thus a worker in an industry/public or civil service is only eligible to join a trade union which covers his cadre and the nature of his service for the protection of his interest. That it is the 1st defendant’s case that its membership is drawn from persons who carry out the duties of teaching/lecturing and/or research in Research Institutes and its associated Institutions who are otherwise known as the academic staff of these Institutes, referring the court to paragraphs 4 – 5 of the 1st defendant’s counter-affidavit and Rule 3 of the 1st defendant’s constitution which clearly shows that membership of the 1st defendant is restricted to persons engaged in teaching and or research in these Institutes. That it is also the 1st defendant’s case that Research Officers otherwise known as researchers owing to the nature of their functions in the institutions, which involves intellectual duties to wit research and teaching are academic staff of the Institutes and are recognized by the Head of Service of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development as such, referring the court again to paragraphs 4c – 5 of the 1st defendant’s counter-affidavit and Exhibits MA 2A – 2E which are copies of letters from the office of Head of Service of the Federation and that of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the retirement age of employees of Research Institutes and Allied Institutions which clearly show that research officers in these institutes are academic staff and there is a distinction between their retirement age and that of non-academic staff employed in the institutes. The court was further referred to an IAP Award Exhibit MA 6 showing that by the constitution of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), membership of ASUU is drawn from persons who are engaged in teaching/research in the universities. That this shows clearly that research officers in the universities are referred to as academic staff. The 1st defendant therefore urged this court to discountenance the claimant’s argument that the research officers are not academic staff of the Research Institutes and Allied Institutions. The 1st defendant further submitted that prior to its registration, the claimant illegally unionized the academic staff of the Research Institutes. That its members have equally made it clear in the 1st defendant’s counter-affidavit that they did not at the inception of their employment in the Institutes voluntarily seek for membership in the claimant’s union but where conscripted into the claimant and only realized the fact of their membership at the point of receiving their first salaries that monies were being deducted from their salaries and remitted to the claimant without their authorization. That during the period they were being illegally unionized by the claimant, the claimant failed to protect their interest. The court was also referred to paragraphs 8 – 15 of the 1st defendant’s counter-affidavit and Exhibit 3, which is a letter from the National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission which shows clearly the disadvantages/injuries the said academic staff of Research Institutes were made to suffer by being placed on lower salary structure than their counterparts in the Universities contrary to the law establishing the Research Institutes owing to the failure/refusal of the claimant to protect their interest. The court was further referred to Decree No. 35 of 1973 which established the Research Institutes. The 1st defendant also relied on Exhibits MA 4 being a letter by the then Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations written on 2nd August, 1993 to the effect that the claimant has no jurisdiction to unionize the academic staff of the Research Institutes. That the said letter equally made it clear that the Nigeria Union of Teachers is a parallel union to ASUU while NASU is a parallel Union to the claimant. In other words, that the claimant only has jurisdiction to organize the senior staff of Research Institutes who are non-academic staff. The 1st defendant further contended that owing to the nature of the functions of academic staff in any Institute, different conditions of service apply to the academic and non-academic staff of the Institutes, for example, in the area of retirement age and salary structure (referring the court to Exhibits MA 2A-2E). That while members of the 1st defendant were unlawfully being unionized by the claimant owing to its structure and composition (having the non-academic staff in its majority and executive offices) refused to ensure the application of these differential conditions of service to the academic staff as obtainable in the Universities. That since the registration of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant has been agitating for those hitherto neglected rights of the academic staff and the claimant has been opposing the application of those conditions of service, for instance, the enhanced salary structure as obtainable in the universities thus making it clear that the interest of the claimant conflicts with the interest of the academic staff of the Research Institutes (referring the court to para. 19 of the counter-affidavit and Exhibit MA 5). The 1st defendant then submitted that the said academic staff of Research Institutes have a constitutional right as guaranteed by section 40 of the 1999 Constitution 1999 to join a trade union for the protection of their interests and having realized that they are not eligible to be members of the claimant and that the claimant does not have the capacity to protect their interest, they lawfully opted out of the claimant and joined an association to wit the 1st defendant for the protection of their interest. That the 1st defendant’s members cannot, therefore, be forced to remain in the claimant or be victimized for refusing to remain its members as this is prohibited by section 12(4) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in this Act, membership of a trade union by employees shall be voluntary and no employee shall be forced to join any trade union or be victimized for refusing to join or remain a member. Also that the 1st defendant was registered as a staff union covering the academic staff of Research Institutes and allied institutions following the refusal of ASUU to admit and allow the then Academic Staff Union of Universities (Research Institutes Sector) (ASUU-RI) to function as a constituent unit of ASUU as required by section 20 of Decree 27 of 1978 which gave ASUU the jurisdiction to cover all academic staff of Nigerian Universities, Research Centres, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education, referring again to the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel made on 20th August 2004 on the issue (Exhibit MA 6) which found as a fact that the academic staff of Research Centres are entitled to be members of ASUU but that the only obstacle they have is the provision in the constitution of ASUU which restricts its membership to any person who is engaged in full-time teaching/research in the University. That going by the provision of Decree 27 of 1978, the claimant’s jurisdiction does not cover the academic staff of the Research Institutes and this fact is further buttressed by the IAP Award and the letter of 2nd August, 1993 written by the then Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations (Exhibit MA 4). That the registration of the 1st defendant, therefore, does not contravene the provision of section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap.T14 LFN 2004 as there was not in existence any trade union covering the interest of the said academic staff of Research Institutes and its associated Institutes at the time the 1st defendant was registered. To the 1st defendant, the Registrar of Trade Unions did not contravene the provision of section 5(4) of the TUA Cap T14 when it registered the 1st defendant having seen that there was no existing trade union which was sufficiently representative of the interest of the academic staff of Research Institutes and its associated Institutions. That the Registrar of Trade Unions duly exercised his power under the law when it registered the 1st defendant and issued it with a certificate of registration. The 1st defendant urged the court to so hold and dismiss the reliefs sought by the claimant. Concluding its submission, the 1st defendant pointed out that its members have a constitutional right to join a trade union for the protection of their interest. That though the claimant illegally unionized its members prior to the registration of the 1st defendant, the claimant did not protect their interest because it does not have the structure and composition to do so. That the interest of the claimant is in conflict with the interest of the 1st defendant, thus making it impossible for the claimant to be willing to protect the interest of its members. That the 1st defendant’s members exercised their lawful and constitutional rights to withdraw from the claimant and form or join an association that will protect their interest to wit: the 1st defendant. That the 1st defendant ab initio had no jurisdiction to unionize the academic staff of Research Institutes and Allied Institutions. That at the time of registering the 1st defendant, there was no trade union which was sufficiently covering the interest of the academic staff of Research Institutes and Allied Institutions who form the membership of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant once again urged this Court to dismiss the claimant’s reliefs. The 2nd and 3rd defendants on their part filed a 7-paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by one Ibrahim Umar Kwasare. The 2nd and 3rd defendants through its counsel in response to the suit and in addition to the counter-affidavit raised one issue for determination and that is: Whether the registration of the 1st defendant as a trade union by the 2nd defendant with the approval of the 3rd defendant was in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Counsel submitted that in Nigeria Civil Service Union v. Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria [1978 – 2006] DJNIC 354 at 357 this court held that the basis for the jurisdiction and eligibility of membership of a trade union is as contained in the Restructuring of Trade Unions, Government Notice No. 92 Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria No. 6 of 8th February, 1978. That by No. 20 of the said Official Gazette, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) was listed as a trade union to organize the “Academic Staff of all types employed in the Universities, Research Centres and other Institutions of Higher Learning”. Thus, the existence of the Academic Staff in Research Institutes or Centres was recognized contrary to the imputation of the claimant to the contrary in paragraph 10 of its affidavit. Also, that members of the 1st defendant are Research Officers/Lecturers that constitute the Academic Staff in Research and Development Institutions, Colleges, Inter-University Centres and Associated Institutions of Higher Learning, referring the court to paragraph 4 (d) of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ counter-affidavit and also Rule 3 of the constitution of the 1st defendant. That, however, ASUU refused to admit and allow the 1st defendant to belong to, function/operate as a “constituent union (sector) of ASUU” for reasons best known to it. That as a result, the 1st defendant declared an intra-union dispute against ASUU and the matter was referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) by the 3rd defendant for determination. In its award, the IAP decided that ASUU-RI was entitled to be a member of the Academic Staff Union of Universities in line with the organization of the structure of trade unions and the law. That the Notice of Award was attached in its counter-affidavit as Exhibit B in paragraph 4(g). Counsel further submitted that at the material time relevant to the foregoing, the claimant did not join nor did it challenge the award in any manner or at all. That following the continued refusal of ASUU to integrate members of the 1st defendant as its constituent unit, the 1st defendant applied to the 2nd defendant for registration as a trade union. Counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants then submitted that the 1st defendant was duly registered as a trade union by the 2nd defendant with the approval of the 3rd defendant pursuant to sections 3 and 5 of Cap. T14. Further that the 1st defendant complied with the requirements of the law before it was registered. To counsel most worrisome is the fact that pursuant to section 5(2) of Cap. T14, the notice of the application of the 1st defendant for registration was published in the Federal Gazette calling for objections to its registration and the claimant never objected. Aside from the foregoing, counsel also faulted the claimant’s argument regarding the provision of section 3(2) of Cap. T14 which provides that no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where there already exists a trade union. To counsel, this contention appears misleading, misconceived and should be discountenanced by this Court. That section 3(2) Cap. T14 comes into operation where under section 5(4) of Cap T14, it appears to the Registrar of Trade Unions that an existing trade union is sufficiently representative of the interest of the class of persons whose interest it is intending to represent, citing Nigerian Nurses Association and others v. Attorney General of the Federation unreported Suit No. SC 69/1980 delivered in November 1988 where the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in a unanimous decision, held that the registration and recognition of National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act of 1978 had extinguished the Nigerian Nurses Association as both bodies cover the same interest. Counsel further argued that the point being made from the above decision of the Supreme Court is that where there is already in existence a trade union that sufficiently represents the interest of a class of persons, the Registrar of Trade Unions will refuse to register another union to represent the same interest of the same class of persons. But that the instant case differs on all fours from the contention of the claimant. That the claimant and the 1st defendant represent different class of persons (the non-academic staff and academic staff) respectively and both also clearly have different interests. Also that the alleged representation of members of the 1st defendant by the claimant was a misnomer, illegal and in contravention of the law as it had no power and authority so to do. That the mere fact that the claimant unionized them at a point in time (albeit illegally) does not mean that it had power or authority to do it or that it was lawful and legal under the law. Moreover, this Court in National Union of Public Corporation Employees v. Kwara State Utility Board [1978 – 2006] DJNIC 302 at 304 held that though trade unions are “creatures” of law, there is good justification for the demarcation of unions. It may be into workers’ unions and senior staff unions. Similarly, under the Official Gazette of 8th February 1978, supra, trade unions may be senior, junior, professional personnel or re-grouped as co-operative unions. Also that this Court in the National Union of Public Corporation Employees’ case further held that the demarcation was very desirable on grounds of public policy, and that it was imperative for union members in exercising their right of free association as entrenched in the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria (now section 40 of the 1999 Constitution) to ensure that they join appropriate unions which accord with their status in the organization to which they belonged. Counsel further contended that it is this right of free association as exercised by the 1st defendant in accordance with the law and the Constitution and acknowledged by the 2nd and 3rd defendants that the claimant is frowning at. That this should not be. Counsel also underscored the fact that the essence of a worker forming or belonging to a trade union or any other association as envisaged under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution is for his interest to be projected. This, it was submitted, does not mean that the worker is free to join any trade union that catches his fancy. That the right to associate with other persons to form a trade union is within limits set by the relevant provisions of Cap. T14, citing the Nigerian Civil Service Union’s case, supra. However, the overall aim is that the intended union must protect the worker’s interest. Counsel in conclusion submitted that the registration of the 1st defendant as a trade union was legal because there was no existing trade union that was sufficiently representing and protecting the interest of its members. That the 1st defendant was registered to fill the vacuum and accord its members with the status they rightly deserve in their different institutions. Counsel, therefore, urged the court to dismiss this suit for lacking in merit and refuse the reliefs claimed by the claimant. We have carefully considered the submissions of all the parties in this suit including all the exhibits filed and the arguments in support of the said exhibits. We have also gone through the issues for determination as formulated by the parties, to our minds, there is only one issue for determination in this suit, and that is, whether the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate trade union is legal and hence valid. A quick preliminary point must be made. The claimant in its submissions severally referred to the Trade Unions Act as that of 1973, 1990 and 2004 without indicating how the difference in the years advances the cause of its submissions. It is by far neater if counsel were to restrict his submissions to the law of the particular year that advances the cause of his submissions. This point made, the sole issue for determination is whether the registration of the 1st defendant as a separate union by the 2nd defendant is legal and hence valid. In other words, is the 2nd defendant right in registering the 1st defendant as a separate union? The claimant argued that the 2nd defendant was wrong in so acting. That given the existence of the claimant, the 1st defendant ought not to have been registered. In support, the claimant cited among others the case of The registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria v. Medical Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors [2008] 3 MJSC 121 at 143 paras G – A where the Court held as follows – In the instant case, there are many materials in the documents before the court that confirm that the 1st appellant had all along been catered for by a wider and encompassing body, which is the 1st respondent. After an investigation there was no way the 1st appellant would have been registered in the circumstances. Besides, the law is not such that registration is automatic. It is at the discretion of the Registrar after he would have made his investigations and became satisfied (emphasis is the court’s). This decision does not say that the Registrar of Trade Unions cannot register new unions. In fact it acknowledges that the registration of a new trade union by the Registrar of trade Unions is at his discretion after he has made his investigations and is satisfied as to the necessity of registering a new trade union. The 2nd and 3rd defendants indicated to this court that the 2nd defendant was satisfied that the claimant’s jurisdictional scope does not cover the members of the 1st defendant and that when the claimant unionized members of the 1st defendant, this was done without regard to the law and so was unlawful. As held by this court in several cases, for instance, Nigeria Civil Service Union v. Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria, supra, the basis for the jurisdiction and eligibility of membership of a trade union is as contained in the Restructuring of Trade Unions, Government Notice No. 92 Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Nigeria No. 6 of 8th February, 1978. By that instrument and the succeeding instruments, which all culminated in the Trade Unions Act, as amended there is a deliberate policy of ensuring that the academic sector is stratified into unions along specified lines: National Union of (NUT) for teaching staff in primary and secondary schools; Non-Academic Staff union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU) for all non-academic workers employed in publicly and privately owned education, research and associated institutions including university teaching hospitals except professional, administrative, medical and para-medical staff; Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) for academic staff of Universities; and Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI), the claimant in the present case, for senior non-academic staff of the institutions there listed. The Registrar of Trade Unions has satisfied himself that the 1st defendant ought to be covered by ASUU but was not so covered. More importantly, section 3 and item 45 of Part C of the Third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act 2004 provide that the Registrar of Trade Unions has the power to register new unions. Even when section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act 2004 provides that “no combination of workers or employers shall be registered as a trade union save with the approval of the Minister on his being satisfied that it is expedient to register the union either by regrouping existing trade unions, registering a new trade union or otherwise howsoever, but no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where there already exists a trade union”, it must be appreciated if the Minister of labour thinks it expedient, then the new trade union may be registered. The 2nd and 3rd defendants have indicated to us that it was expedient to register the 1st defendant and that the jurisdictional scope of the claimant does not cover the 1st defendant, a fact we agree with. For all the reasons given, we do not think that the action of the 2nd defendant in registering the 1st defendant as a separate union upon the approval of the 3rd defendant is unlawful as canvassed by the claimant. We hold that the said registration is legal and hence valid. The claimant’s claims lack merit and are hereby dismissed. We make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ________________________ Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge _____________________________ __________________________ Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge