Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2012 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/15/2011 BETWEEN Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU) - Claimant AND Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta - Defendant REPRESENTATION Benjamin A. Ogunleye, and with him is Matthew Ogunleye, for the claimant. B. O. Ogunmodede, and with him are S. A. Bakare and Tope Akigbogun, for the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant took up an originating summons against the defendant. The originating summons is dated and filed on 5th April 2011, and it prays for the determination of the following questions – Whether the letter Reference No. UNAAB/REG/74/111, Exhibit ‘A’ hereof, from the Acting Registrar at the instructions of the defendant requesting for the names of the members of the claimant’s union who are to constitute the Caretaker Committee of the Branch of the claimant in the defendant’s establishment does not contravene the provisions of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN. Whether the content of the letter Reference No. UNAAB/REG/74/111, Exhibit ‘A’, which emanated from the office of the Acting Registrar at the instruction of the defendant, does not amount to the meddling with the internal affairs of the union. Whether the content of the letter Reference No. UNAAB/REG/74/111 is not illegal, unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires the office of the defendant vis-à-vis the activities of the claimant as provided for under the relevant Act and the International Labour Organisation. Whether the interference of the defendant in the internal affairs of the union is in tandem with international labour practice. Whether the aforesaid directives contained in Exhibit ‘A’ is not a violation of the fundamental rights of the claimant’s members in the establishment of the defendant to elect their officers without hindrance and in accordance with the provision of the Amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2011. The claimant then went on to ask for the following reliefs – A declaration that the decision of the defendant as contained in Exhibit ‘A’ to the effect of constituting a caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the claimant union at the defendant’s establishment is not in consonance with provisions of the Trade Unions Act, as amended and, therefore, illegal, unlawful and ultra vires the defendant’s office. A declaration that the decision of the defendant to constitute a Caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the union at the defendant’s establishment is a violation of the fundamental rights of the claimant’s members who are willing to elect their officers through democratic means. A declaration that the decision of the defendant to constitute a caretaker committee to run the affairs of the union at the defendant’s establishment amounts to interfering in the affairs of the claimant’s union. An order of injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, privies or whosoever is connected with carrying out the content of the letter Reference No. UNAAB/REG/74/111 from constituting any caretaker committee to run the affairs of the claimant in the defendant’s establishment. OR ALTERNATIVELY An order setting aside any Caretaker Committee the defendant or its agents, servants, privies or whosoever have constituted any Caretaker Committee or whatever name it is called to run the affairs of the claimant’s union in the defendant’s establishment. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to withdraw the directive contained in its letter Reference No. UNAAB/REG/74/111, Exhibit ‘A’, which was signed by its Acting Registrar. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to provide a conducive atmosphere whereby the claimant could conduct a free and non-violent election to elect its officers that would run the affairs of the Branch in accordance with its election guidelines. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant or its servants, agents and privies from intimidating, threatening, sacking or victimizing any of its worker(s) in any manner whatsoever on the ground that such worker(s) participate or actually participated in trade union activities with the claimant’s union. Accompanying the originating summons is an affidavit in support sworn to by Matthew Ogunleye Esq., a counsel in the chambers of the claimant’s solicitors. Attached to the affidavit in support are 8 exhibits, Exhibits ‘A’ – ‘H’. Also accompanying the complaint is a document titled, ‘list of witnesses’ but indicating that no witness will be called in this matter. Reacting to the originating summons, the defendant entered conditional appearance by filing its memorandum of appearance. The memorandum of appearance is dated 30th April 2011 but filed on 3rd May 2011. The defendant also filed a counter-affidavit to the claimant’s affidavit in support of the originating summons. The counter-affidavit is dated and filed on 3rd May 2011 and was sworn to by Bayo Ogundimu, a Senior Assistant Registrar with the defendant. The defendant had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter as file; but in a considered ruling delivered on June 30, 2011, the Court held that it has jurisdiction over the matter. Parties then agreed to argue the case on record by filing written addresses. The Court agreed with them and then ordered the filing of the respective written submissions. The claimant’s written address is dated and filed on July 18, 2011. That of the defendant is dated 17th October 2011 but filed on 18th October 2011. The claimant’s reply on points of law is dated 27th October 2011 but filed on 28th October 2011. On the appointed day (25th January 2012) for adoption of written addresses only the defendant’s counsel showed up in court. The claimant’s counsel did not. The Court, therefore, permitted the defendant’s counsel to adopt his written address. The written addresses of the claimant, already filed and served, were then deemed adopted by the Court. The fact upon which the claimant premised his questions for determination and reliefs in the origination summons are as contained in the 5 paragraphs of the affidavit in support thereof and are succinctly put thus: that by an internal Memorandum with Ref. No. UNAAB/REG/74/III which was attached to the origination summons as Exhibit A, the Acting Registrar acting on behalf of the defendant demanded for names of the members of the claimant’s union in its institution who were to be made members of a Caretaker Committee despite the various correspondences of the claimant to the defendant expressing its willingness to conduct a democratic election to its various branch offices, referring to Exhibits E, G and H attached. The claimant then formulated one issue for determination by this Court, namely, whether or not the defendant is entitled under the Trade Unions Act or under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to meddle with the affairs of the claimant by constituting a caretaker committee to run the affairs of the Branch of the claimant in its establishment. To the claimant, in line with plethora of authorities, the Court has always frowned on any Management meddling with the internal affairs of a trade union. That this Court in the case of Nigerian Sugar Company Ltd v. National Union of Food, Beverages and tobacco Employees DJNIC 23 at 25 paragraph 1 said – It is contrary to good trade union practice for management of Company to get itself mixed-up in its workers’ union‘s internal affairs in such a manner as to either subjugate the union to its own whims and caprices or to frighten the workers from making what they consider to be legitimate demands, whether or not such demands will be met. The claimant continued that it is not in doubt that Exhibit ‘A’ attached to the originating summons and subsequent constitution of the caretaker committee as shown in Exhibit ‘B’ attached to the claimant’s motion on Notice dated 13th May 2011 together with Exhibit ‘A1’ attached to the defendant’s counter-affidavit in respect of this suit amount to the defendant meddling within the internal affairs of the claimant’s union. That the defendant’s attempt to constitute a Caretaker Committee for the claimant’s union is an attempt by the defendant to subjugate the union to the defendant’s whims and caprices which is not only contrary to good trade union practices but a clear violation of the Trade Unions Act and section 44 of the Constitution of the Federation Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, which provides for workers’ right to trade unionism. The claimant then submitted that the constitution of a Caretaker Committee by the defendant for the claimant’s union is anti-trade unionism which runs contrary to the provision of the Trade Unions Act, referring to the case of National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees v. Management of Nigerian Industrial Development Bank DJNIC 235 at 236 holding 1, where this Court held as follows – Comments by the Managing Director of a company that a trade union in the Company is set up to cover staff inadequacies, indolence or to cover malpractices of some staff without giving any genuine examples of such malpractice or mentioning specific cases, are patently anti-trade unionisms. The claimant then further submitted that the action of the defendant in the issuance of Exhibit ‘A’ is not only illegal, unlawful but ultra vires its office. In conclusion, the claimant submitted that from the antecedents of this suit vis-à-vis the affidavit evidence that the claimant has availed this Court with, it is safe and just to conclude that the claimant is entitle to all reliefs sought. The claimant then urged the Court to so hold by acceding to all the reliefs contained in the claimant’s originating summons. In reacting to the claimant’s written address, the defendant once again raised another preliminary objection as to jurisdiction despite the fact that the its first preliminary had been disposed of by a considered ruling of this Court. The practice by counsel of having to raise preliminary objection twice in one single case must be abhorred and condemned. When counsel raised a preliminary objection at the start of the case, counsel ought to have canvassed all the issues pertaining to it at that stage. To canvass one issue, and then leave another (where both issues pertain to jurisdiction) till at a later stage of the proceedings smacks of unprofessional practice. Such a practice is annoying and simply imputes to counsel unpreparedness as to the defence of the case coupled with an element of dubiety. The only issue framed by the defendant for the determination of this Court is whether the defendant is a juristic person, proper party and whether the reliefs sought are grantable by the Court. To counsel to the defendant, the defendant in this suit is the Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. That the Vice-Chancellor is no doubt an agent of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta while the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta itself is the principal. That it is trite that where the principal of an agent is known or disclosed, the correct party to sue for anything done or omitted to the done by the agent is the principal, referring to Vasillev v. Paas Industries Ltd [2000] 12 (Pt. 681) 347 at 348 and Takum LG v. UCB Ltd [2003] (Pt. 846) 288 at 291. Furthermore, that ‘it is trite that no legal action can be instituted by or against any party in a court of law other than a natural person unless such a person is accorded by a statute expressly or common law’, referring to Nkponwi v. Ejire [2009] All FWLR (Pt. 450) at 482 paras A – C. That section 2(2) of the Federal University of Agriculture Act Cap. E22 LFN 2011 which created the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State, the University where the defendant is the Vice-Chancellor provides: “Each University shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name”. That this provision implies that the proper party or defendant in this case should be the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State and not the Vice-Chancellor of University of Agriculture, Abeokuta and, therefore, the proper party is not before the Court. That it further implies that the Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta is not a juristic person and proper party or defendant to this suit as he was not clothed with legal personality by the above enabling law of the University, referring to Coteena Intl Ltd v. Churchgate (Nig.) Ltd [2011] All FWLR (Pt. 575) 252 at 286 C – E, where it was held that – For a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified before an action can succeed. The parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties in whom right and obligation arising from the cause of action attached. The question of parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as its goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where the proper parties are not before the court then the court lack the jurisdiction to hear the suit. The defendant further referred the Court to Goodwill & Trust Inv. Lt v. Witt & Butt Ltd [2010] (Pt 576) 517 at 542 – 543 G – B (incomplete citation). Continuing, the defendant argued that it is trite that a party relying on a statute must plead and state specific area or statute relevant to his case, citing the cases of Udegbunam v. FCDA [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 487 and Onibudo v. Akibu [1982] 7 SC 60. That in Udegbunam (supra) particularly as page 498 paragraphs C – H, it was held that “…similarly, it is not enough for a party relying on a statute to merely plead same. He should refer the court to the specific area relevant to his case”. To the defendant, the grouse of the claimant in this suit is the alleged contravention by the defendant of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN and the Amended Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 2011. That the claimant has not referred to a particular or specific provision or section of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN and the Amended Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2011 contravened by the defendant. Equally, that the basis of the claimant’s allegation of contravention by the defendant of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN and the Amended Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 2011 is Exhibit “A” attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons of the claimant. The exhibit is the letter emanating from the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Establishment Matters Union (Junior). That the University of Agriculture is no doubt a public institution and any document emanating from it is a public document and the original copy (primary evidence) of same must be tendered in court or attached to processes filed in court and not photocopy which is secondary evidence. That the attached Exhibit “A” is a photocopy making it a secondary evidence. To the defendant, the law is that the only admissible secondary evidence of a public document is a Certified True Copy of same, referring to Nzekwe v. Nzekwe [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373, Okotie-Oboh v. Okotie-Oboh [1986] 1 SC 479, Alataha v. Asoh [1999] 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) 32, and Ajiboye v. Duro [2010] (Pt. 507) 136 at 152 (incomplete citations). That the fact that the suit is commenced by originating summons does not matter, referring to Ajiboye’s case (supra) at page 177 paras B – C (the court could not access this case given its incomplete citation) where, according to the defendant, it was held that “The only evidence of a public document admissible in law is a Certified True Copy of such document… This is so irrespective of whether the evidence is given by affidavit in an interlocutory proceedings or in a substantive suit”. That the claimant has not fulfilled the requirement of the law by attaching photocopy of Exhibit “A” and not Certified True Copy of same. The defendant’s counsel then concluded by submitting that the defendant is not a juristic person, proper party and that the reliefs sought in the originating summons are not grantable by this Court. The defendant’s counsel then urged the court to dismiss this suit in its entirety. The claimant reacted on points of law. On the issue whether the defendant is not a juristic person, proper party and that the reliefs sought are grantable by this Court, the claimant submitted that the defendant in this case acted ultra vires of his duty and thereby is personally liable for his ultra vires and illegal activities. That a claim founded on vicarious liability cannot be determined until the trial court hears and determines the liability of the alleged principal tortfeasor who must be joined as a defendant to the suit, referring to Iyeri v. BFFM Ltd [2001] FWLR (Pt. 37) 1166 especially at 1168 – 1169 and 1171, where the Court of Appeal clearly stated that master and servant relationship has to be established and the servant held liable before a vicarious liability of the matter can be imposed. But that where a servant acted ultra-vires his office and the servant decided to contest the action brought against him like in this particular case wherein the defendant has joined issues with the claimant by filling a counter-affidavit against the originating summons of the claimant and admitting all the claimant’s depositions and attaching Exhibits ‘A’ showing meddling in the internal affairs of the claimant’s members in the defendant’s institution contrary to all known labour norms, the question whether the admission in the defendant’s counter-affidavit and the Exhibit attached thereto do not constitute admission and estopped the defendant to raise the issue of a juristic person. The claimant continued that in the case of Bank of the North v. Yau [2001] FWLR (Pt. 54) 280, Achike, JSC said – Estoppel is an admission or something equivalent to an admission. By its very nature, it is so important, so conclusive, that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it or adduce evidence to contradict his previous acts or declaration to the prejudice of a party, who, relying upon them, has altered his position. This has also been given statutory backing by section 151 of the Evidence Act which provides that when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe anything to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing. “Certainly, it will be inequitable for anyone, such as the Respondent herein, to enjoy the liberty of making statements by himself or through his accredited agents or representatives, which, having been acted upon by another to his detriment in the belief that the statements were true, is thereafter allowed to renege on such statements. The law has accorded reasonable protection to unsuspecting members of society who are misled by such statements because the maker thereof is absolutely estopped to contradict or deny the truth of such statements. Thus, section 151 of the Evidence Act provides – When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe anything to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest to deny the truth of that things. Where a person by words or conduct made to another a clear and unequivocal representation of a fact or facts either with knowledge of its falsehood, with intention that it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted upon, and that other person in fact acted upon that representation whereby his position was thereby altered, to his detriment, an estoppel arises against the person who made the representation and he will not be allowed to aver to the contrary of what he presented it to be (Oyerogba v. Olaopa [1998] 13 NWLR 509 referred) (P. 306, paras. E – F). On whether a document exhibited in an affidavit forms part of the Exhibits, that the Court of Appeal in the case of University of Ilorin v. Oyelana [2001] FWLR (Pt. 83) at 2193 at 2197 held thus: “A document exhibited in Affidavit is part of that Affidavit”. However, that in a plethora of authorities, a trial court has a right to join parties’ suo motu, referring to Green v. Green [2001] FWLR (Pt. 76) 795 at 800 Ratio 8. That where a suit has been filed, the trial court becomes dominus litis and then, assumes the duty and responsibility to ensure that the proceedings accord with the justice of the case by joining either the Plaintiff or Defendants all the persons who may be entitled to, or who claim some share or interest in the subject-matter of the suit, or who are likely to be affected by the results, if these had not already been made parties. That this joinder by the court suo motu can be done at any stage of the proceedings, even after the final addresses pending final judgment. The claimant went on that the Supreme Court further held at page 801 of Green v. Green (supra) that – Where there has been a non-joinder either by failure of the parties or an intervener to apply for such joinder or failure of the Court to join suo motu; this non-joinder will not be taken as a ground for defeating the action. Failure to join a party will not be fatal to the proceeding and the court may determine the issues or questions so far as they relate to and affect the rights and interests of the parties actually before the Court. Furthermore the Supreme Court in green v. Green (supra) at page 802 said – Where a Plaintiff has the necessary capacity and locus standi to bring his action and then brings it, failure to join a desirable Defendant will not deprive the Plaintiff of his initial locus standi and then rob the Court of jurisdiction to entertain his action. That although the present Rules of this Court do not provide for joinder of parties, Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 envisages the present situation where it states – Where no provision is made in these Rules as to practice and procedure or where the provisions are inadequate, the Court may adopt such procedure as will in view do substantial justice to the parties”. In the case of Western Textile Industries Company Ltd v. Ado Ekiti Westexinco Workers Union reported at pages 5 – 6 of the Digest of Judgments of National Industrial Court, 2006, this Court said: “The Court has the power in a proper case to join any party to the proceedings, as no court would like to act in vain”. That this Court further said: “The Court has the power to amend a Court process”. The claimant then urged the Court to suo motu join the FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, ABEOKUTA, the University where the defendant is the Vice-Chancellor and order for amendment of all processes in this suit to reflect the joinder of the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta while the amended processes should also be ordered to be served on the joined party. The claimant then referred the Court to Niyorodum v. Ezeani [2001] FWLR (Pt. 40) 1696, where the Supreme Court at page 1698, restated the position of the law in regards to the joinder of parties in the following words – In view of the provisions in all procedural rules of High Courts, if a party appears to be necessary as a third party so as to have a just decision in a suit, such third party can be joined. Joinder of the third party can be at the instance of the parties to the suit or at the instance of the third party and at the instance of the Court. That in order for this Court to do substantial justice, the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta should be joined as a necessary party in this suit and amendment of all processes in this suit should be made to reflect the joined party and same he served. On the issue of not pleading or stating the specific area of the relevant statute, the claimant submitted that there is a presumption by virtue of section 148 of the Evidence Act of the genuineness of every document purported to be the official gazette of Nigeria or of a state which include the Trade Unions Act and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and specifically the reliefs sought by the claimant through its originating summons clearly shows its claims. On whether Exhibits ‘A’ attached to the claimant’s originating summons qualified as public document requiring certification, the claimant submitted that Exhibit ‘A’ attached to the originating summons is an Internal Memorandum distributed to four specific people and thereby not qualified as a public document and not required to be certified. Moreover, that the defendant never denied that the document emanated from its instruction and, therefore, a document admitted needs no further proof, referring to Chindo Worldwide Ltd v. Total Nigeria Ltd Plc [2002] FWLR (Pt. 115) 750 especially at 756. Also, that in the case of Ejebu v. Okoko [2001] FWLR (Pt. 79) at 1354, the Court held that what is admitted requires no further proof as an admission is the strongest form of proof. Section 21(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) clearly states that – Statements made by party to the proceeding or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards in the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them are admissions. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to suo motu join the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta and an order for necessary amendment to reflect the party joined and same processes to be ordered to be served on the party joined. Before considering the merits of the case, I must state that the reply on points of law by the claimant is anything but a reply on points of law. In the first place, the defendant did not raise issues of estoppels; neither were the issues of joinder raised early enough to enable the defendant react to same. To raise the issue of joinder at the stage of reply on points of law and then urge the Court to suo motu join a party simply because the defendant’s counsel objects to the status of the defendant as a party in the matter is certainly late in the day. Counsel to the claimant ought to know who he wants to sue. It is true that a Court may suo motu join a party to a suit, but this cannot be at the stage of reply on points of law. When the counsel to the claimant urged this Court to join the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, as a party to this suit, amend the court processes accordingly and serve the said University the court processes, was counsel expecting that we should reopen the case to enable all of this to be done? I do not think counsel to the claimant is serious with that submission, knowing that neither the counsel to the defendant, nor the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, will have the opportunity of reacting to his submissions. Since the issues addressed by the counsel to the claimant in the reply on points of law were not issues raised by the defence counsel to warrant reaction, I shall for the purpose of this judgment discountenance the reply on points of law; and I so do. I now turn to the merit of the case. The claimant is in Court praying this Court to stop the defendant from meddling in the internal affairs of the claimant union branch of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta (the University). This can only be if in fact the defendant is found to have meddled into the internal affairs of the claimant union in the University. Exhibit A attached to the originating summons is an Internal Memorandum dated March 28, 2010 (this date appears erroneous given the content of the memo and the surrounding circumstances of the case as can be seen from all the exhibits frontloaded) from SAR, Estab. Matters (Junior) to Mr. I. O. A. Fadairo, Mr. I. O. Odunjo and Mr. A. A. Okundayo with Ref. No. UNAAB/REG./74/III. It is titled, “Submission of Names of Members of the Proposed NASU caretaker Committee” and states as follows – Sequel to the meeting held on the above on Monday, March 28, 2011, I have been directed to re you to forward the names of the members of the union who are to constitute the Caretaker Committee, to reach the Ag. Registrar not later that Thursday, March 31, 2011. The Memorandum is signed by O. A. Ogundimu, SAR (JSEM), for: Ag. Registrar. Now prior to this Exhibit A, based on communications as can be discerned from Exhibits B, C, D, E, G and H, the claimant was at pains to hold elections for its branch at the University. Mr. Fadairo and Mr. Ekundayo, who were at one time the Branch Chairman and Branch Secretary respectively of the university branch of the claimant union, were expelled for anti-union activities. This fact and the difficulty of holding elections were brought to the notice of the defendant by the claimant. And when the claimant sought for security coverage to enable it hold elections in the University, by Exhibit F attached to the originating summons, the defendant, under the hand of A. O. Adeboye, the Ag. Registrar, declined the request citing examinations and the presence of a Visitation Panel as reasons. While the case was still pending, the claimant filed an affidavit of urgency on May 13, 2011 together with a motion on notice for interlocutory orders. The basis for this was essentially Exhibit B attached to the said motion on notice. This exhibit is again an Internal Memorandum from the Ag. Registrar to 8 named persons, namely, Mr. Jolaoso, G. F.; Mr. Sotunde, Olalekan Anthony; Mr. Osundiya, O.; Mrs. Praise, Funmi; Mr. Olukan, Noah; Mrs. Afaraetu, O. T.; Mrs. Idowu, M. O.; and Mr. Chukwu, Vitus O. It is dated April 4, 2011 with Ref. No. UNAAB/REG.74/III and is titled, “Appointment as Member of Caretaker Committee of NASU-UNAAB Branch”. The memo states as follows – I write to inform you of your appointment to serve as a member of the Caretaker Committee put in place for the Non-academic Staff Union of Educational And Associated Institutions (NASU), University of Agriculture, Abeokuta Branch. Consequently, you are to note that, you have been recognized by Management as the Caretaker Committee for NASU-UNAAB Branch until a substantive elected council is put in place. You are enjoined as a group to democratically elect from amongst yourselves, those to hold different portfolios of the Committee and inform Management accordingly. In the meantime, the group is invited to a meeting with the University Management and the internal Council Members at the Council Chamber on Thursday, April 7, 2011, at 9.00a.m. prompt. By April 14, 2011, vide a letter of that date from NASU, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta Chapter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, signed by Comrade G. F. Jolaoso (as Chairman) and Comrade (Mrs.) O. M. Idowu (as Secretary) titled, “Re: Constitution of a Care-taker Committee for NASU UNAAB”, the 8 named persons in the Internal Memo titled, “Appointment as Member of Caretaker Committee of NASU-UNAAB Branch” referred to above were supposedly presented to the Vice-Chancellor as the Caretaker Committee members with Comrades Jolaoso, Idowu and Afaraetu as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. Of note are paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Internal memorandum, which are as follows – We are pleased to inform the Vice Chancellor that the General Meeting of our Union was held yesterday, 13th April, 2011 at the Julius Okojie Lecture theatre to deliberate on the way forward for our Union at the Branch level vis-à-vis the ugly events of the past relating to the conduct of the Branch Election and the need for a Care-taker committee to continue steering the ship of the Union until a proper Executive Committee is put in place. Consequently, we must say that our members unanimously endorsed the constitution of the committee and conceded to the committee the power to democratically appoint among them the three principal officers of the Union i.e. Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. All powers to represent the Union in all ramifications were also vested in the constituted Committee. We wish to place on record members’ appreciation of Management magnanimity at assisting our Union to overcome the political quagmire that the entire Union at the Branch level was thrown into, arising from certain decisions/indecisions taken by different organs of the Union that gave rise to the political logjam. On behalf of all our members, we assure Management of our unalloyed commitment to all efforts aimed at sustaining peace and ensuring improvement on the lots of all members of the Community while we also solicit for the extension of Management’s usual cooperation to our leadership in all matters affecting our Members’ welfare. The letter ended by thanking the Vice Chancellor for ‘usual cooperation’. On the face of the letter is a minute dated 16/04/11 and addressed to the Ag. Registrar and Ag. Bursar presumably from the Vice Chancellor in the following words – For your noting and appropriate action vis-à-vis the matters arising from NASU’s cohesion/disintegration. It must be noted that this letter of April 14, 2011 supposed comes after the Internal Memo of April 4, 2011. My take on both documents is that the letter of April 14, 2011 was deliberately issued as a counter to the memo of April 4, 2011. A combined reading of Exhibit A attached to the originating summons and the internal memo of April 4, 2011 clearly shows that the Management of the University was proactively instrumental to the formation and constitution of the caretaker committee for the branch union of the claimant in the University. This certainly amounts to interference in the internal affairs and the running of the claimant’s branch union of the University; and I so find. The right to trade unionism is a fundamental right of workers entrenched in the Constitution. The right is so important that employers are enjoined not to interfere with its exercise in any way. An employer cannot compel workers to join a particular union; or form a union for the workers; or determine how a union is run or administered. The fundamental nature of the worker’s right here was succinctly captured by His Lordship Akpabio, JCA when delivering the lead judgment in Panya Anigboro v. Sea Trucks Nigeria Ltd [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 299) 35 at 62 in the following words – …it becomes crystal clear that the right to form or join any…trade union is exclusively that of the individual citizen and not that of the employer. His employer has no business forming a trade union let alone compelling his workers to join it. It was therefore a violation of or breach of…our Constitution for the defendant to insist that the plaintiff and his co-workers should join the Nigerian Union of Seamen and Water Transport Workers instead of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG). And to go further and dismiss them summarily for refusing to carry out the order virtually amounted to aggravating a bad situation or adding insult to injury, which must be redressed. A fortiori, I must state that no employer is permitted to interfere, no matter how minutely it may be, in the internal running and management of a trade union. That is the exclusive preserve of members of the trade union itself. This statement of principle accords with section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) jurisprudence regarding the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No. 87), which establishes the right of workers’ and employers’ organisations “to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes” (Article 3) and recognizes the aims of such organisations as “furthering and defending the interests of workers and employers” (Article 10). This freedom entails a number of principles, which have been laid down over time and which (according to the trio of B. Gernigon, A. Odero and H. Guido – ‘Freedom of Association’ in International Labour Standards: A Global Approach, 75th anniversary of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, First Edition 2002 at pp. 27 – 40) include the following: right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organisations of their own choosing; right to establish organisations without previous authorization; right of workers and employers to establish and join organisations of their own choosing; free functioning of organisations in terms of right to draw up their constitutions and rules; right to elect representatives in full freedom; right of trade unions to organize their administration; right of organisations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes; right of workers’ and employers’ organisations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers; right against dissolution and suspension of organisations except through judicial procedure; protection against acts of anti-union discrimination; and adequate protection against acts of interference. The defendant, in its written address, did not actually contest the fact of interference in the internal affairs of the claimant’s branch union in the University. The argument of the defendant is that it is not the proper party sued. That the proper party to have been sued is the University itself. It is not in doubt that the present defendant is the Head and Chief Executive Officer of the University, the University’s alter ego, who oversees the day-to-day running of the University. This will not be the first time that a Vice Chancellor is sued as a Vice Chancellor. The Law Reports are replete with such. See, for instance, Emuze v. VC, University of Benin & anor [2002] 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 378. I do not, therefore, see anything wrong in having to sue the Vice Chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta as the claimant has done in this case. The arguments of the defendant in that regard, though coming late in the day, therefore, go to no issue and so are hereby rejected. For all the reasons given, I find for the claimant and hold that the claimant’s case has merit and, therefore, succeeds. In consequence, I hereby declare and order as follows – The decision of the defendant to the effect of constituting a Caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the claimant union at the defendant’s University is illegal, unlawful and ultra vires the defendant’s office. The decision of the defendant to constitute a Caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the union at the defendant’s University is a violation of the fundamental rights of the claimant’s members who are willing to elect their officers through democratic means. The decision of the defendant to constitute a caretaker committee to run the affairs of the union at the defendant’s University amounts to interfering in the affairs of the claimant’s union. The Caretaker Committee set up to run the affairs of the branch union of the claimant in the University and consisting of Mr. Jolaoso, G. F.; Mr. Sotunde, Olalekan Anthony; Mr. Osundiya, O.; Mrs. Praise, Funmi; Mr. Olukan, Noah; Mrs. Afaraetu, O. T.; Mrs. Idowu, M. O.; and Mr. Chukwu, Vitus O. as officers and members is hereby set aside. This said Caretaker Committee is to render account of its stewardship to the claimant within 30 days of this judgment. The defendant, its servants, agents and privies are ordered to provide a conducive atmosphere whereby the claimant could conduct a free and non-violent election to elect its officers that would run the affairs of the Branch in accordance with its election guidelines. The defendant, its servants, agents and privies are restrained from intimidating, threatening, sacking or victimizing any of its workers in any manner whatsoever on the ground that such workers or workers participate or actually participated in trade union activities with the claimant’s union. Judgment is entered accordingly. Cost is put at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000) against the defendant in favour of the claimant. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip