Download PDF
JUDGMENT The claimants took out a complaint in the General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 29th July 2011 praying the Court to resolve the following question – Whether the election conducted on Thursday 9th June 2011 by the defendant at Ogba Factory Premises of Boulos Corporate Headquarters, Ogba, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos State for the positions of officers of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Ltd Unit Branch is valid given the establishment of Caretaker Committee by virtue of Rule 38 (on caretaker Committee). The claimants then went on to pray for the following reliefs – (a) A declaration that the branch election conducted on Thursday 9th June 2011 by the defendants at Ogba Factory Premises of Boulos Corporate Headquarters, Ogba, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos State into Branch Executive Committee of National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Production Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch is in violation of Rule 38 (on Caretaker Committee) of the constitution of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers. (b) A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to conduct the unit branch election of Thursday 9th June 2011 after the dissolution of the Branch Executive Committee on 1st February 2011. (c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant either by itself or any other body at all from conducting any unit branch [election] without compliance with Rule 38 (on Caretaker Committee) of the constitution of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers. Accompanying the complaint is the statement of facts, list of two witnesses and list of documents as well as the four documents frontloaded. In reaction, the defendant filed a statement of defence dated 11th October 2011 together with a list of one witness, list of documents as well as four documents frontloaded. The defendant did not, however, file any formal memorandum of appearance. The claimants are members of the defendant and are employees of Bel Papyrus Bel Impex Ltd Oregun/Agidingbi Factories, Ikeja, Lagos State. The case of the claimants is as follows – 1. On 7th January 2011, a circular was issued and signed by Mr. Mr. Peter Okeowo, the Zonal Coordinator of National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Production Workers on the Guidelines for the conduct of branch election into the Branch Executive Committee of National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Production Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch to hold on Thursday 13th January 2011 at the company premises, Boulos Corporate Headquarters, Ogba, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos State. Attached and marked Exhibit 1 is the said circular. 2. The claimants applied to contest in the branch election with the 1st claimant aspiring for the position of branch Treasurer. 3. The election into the Branch Executive Committee of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Ltd unit branch, which would have allowed the entire members elect the leaders of their choice, was aborted on two occasions. 4. As a result of the aborted elections, the National Secretary of the union, by a letter dated 1st February 2011, signed by Mr. F. A. Salami, dissolved the Branch Executive Committee under the chairmanship of Comrade O. Odeyemi to be replaced by Caretaker Committee members. Attached and marked Exhibit 2 is the dissolution letter. 5. A circular dated 13th May 2011 signed by Mr. F. A. Salami, General Secretary of the Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, was issued for the conduction of branch election into the Branch Executive Committee of National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch on Thursday 9th June 2011. Attached and marked Exhibit 3 is the said circular titled, “Notice of Branch Election – Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited”. 6. On Thursday 9th June 2011an election was conducted into the Branch Executive Committee of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch without any recourse to the Caretaker Committee or Zonal Council as stipulated in the letter of 1st February 2011 (Exhibit 2). The defence of the defendant as forth in its statement of defence is as follows – 1. The defendant denies all allegations contained in the complaint of the claimants. 2. The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, as the suit is incompetent and an abuse of process in so far as the defendant as endorsed i.e. National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch is not a juristic person and not known to law and that its address for service is not 30 Akinremi Street, Ikeja, Lagos State. 3. The defendant states that the election that produced the last executive was conducted on 15th August 2007 upon which the 1st claimant was elected as the branch Treasurer and had a 3 year tenure which expired on the 15th August 2010. 4. The defendant states that election was subsequently fixed twice and was aborted by the claimants who wanted to remain in the office without testing their popularity among their staff. 5. As a result of the crisis generated, the National Secretariat of the defendant, as the parent of the branch, invited the parties appealing to them for peace and to allow the rules to operate but the crisis persisted. 6. In so far as the tenure of the claimant had elapsed, the union from its headquarters dissolved the Executive Committee headed by Comrade Olajide Odeyemi in May 2011, since its tenure expired since 15th August 2010. 7. Contrary to the complaint, the said Committee/Unit was dissolved based on the fact that its tenure had elapsed or expired for about a year and it will be contrary to the spirit and intendment of the union constitution to continue recognizing it rather than holding election. 8. The Secretariat, therefore, appointed a 3 man committee to organize the said election along with the union, Lagos Zonal Council official. 9. However, the two claimants in this case had their appointment terminated by letters addressed to them dated 28th January 2011 by their employer (the defendant pleads the said letters and shall rely on them as exhibits). 10. The Secretariat consequently filed a trade dispute against the Management after it failed to get the letters withdrawn (the defendant shall rely on trade dispute dated 7th March 2011 from Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity). The trade dispute is still pending and yet to be concluded to the knowledge and parties of the claimants. 11. On 9th June 2011, a new election was conducted under a very peaceful atmosphere. 12. The defendant shall contend that the claimants have no locus standi to institute this action as at the institution of this suit their appointment with Bel Impex Limited which placed them as members of the branch/unit has been terminated on the 25th January 2011 and, therefore, they are not members of the branch/unit. 13. The defendant further contends that this suit is incompetent and an abuse of process, and so ought to be dismissed. The claimants, in arguing their case, filed a written address dated 5th December 2011 but filed on 6th December 2011. In the written address they raised only one issue for the determination of the Court, namely – Whether the election conducted on Thursday, 9th June 2011 by the defendants at Ogba Factory Premises of Boulos Corporate Headquarters, Ogba, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos State for the positions of officers of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Ltd unit branch is valid given the establishment of a Caretaker Committee by virtue of Rule 38 (on Caretaker Committee) and without recourse to the Caretaker Committee or Zonal Council as stipulated in the letter of 1st February 2011. As preliminary issue, the claimants pointed out that the election to the branch unit that was fixed twice and cancelled was not at the instance of the claimants as stated in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Defence of the Defendants. It is also far-fetched that the defendants in the same paragraph 4 of the Statement of Defence stated that the reason for the scheduled election being aborted was as a result of the “Claimants who wanted to remain in the office without testing their popularity among their staffs”. To the claimants, it is noteworthy that only the 1st [claimant] was a member of the Branch Executive as the Treasurer while the 2nd [claimant] was only aspiring to become the Treasurer expectants in the aborted election. Meanwhile, the 1st defendant who wanted to become the Branch Chairman as well as the 2nd defendant who wanted to become the Branch Treasurer printed posters to that effect to test their popularity contrary to the claim of the defendants. That it was the contention of the workers that the modalities given to them for the conduct of the election which was that selected people will vote in secret balloting with their identity cards, and that this was not acceptable to them. They then requested for the use of open ballot system which they have been putting to use for over 15 years. Thus, for being in the vanguard of open balloting, the 1st claimant was harassed, beaten up and wounded by one Mr. Olajide Odeyemi on 13th January 2011, which was brought to the attention of the Management in writing on the 14th January 2011 and subsequently to the Police on 17th January 2011. As a fallout of all this, the 1st claimant was given two days off-duty excuse on 24th and 25th January 2011 to take care of her health. (I must state that the information here is unsubstantiated and not backed by any evidence.) Later, on the resumption of duty on 26th January 2011 she was informed that the Management had terminated her appointment. It is this termination of the claimants ostensibly on their involvement in union matters that was brought to the notice of the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Productivity and is yet to be determined. In effect, the defendant cannot presume the outcome of the trade dispute to the extent that they claim finality on the determination of the termination land use this as a sword against the claimants. The claimants went on to submit that the election could not hold as scheduled on two occasions due to non-agreement on the modalities of the conduct of the election and not that the claimants wanted to remain in office. That it is curious that the members of the caretaker committee were not disclosed to the entire workers and that no nexus was established between the caretaker committee members and the Lagos Zonal Council in the organization of the election of 9th June 2011. That this is contrary to what was communicated to the members of the union in the letter dated 1st February 2011 (Exhibit 3) as well as the provision of Rule 38 of the constitution of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers (on Discipline and Caretaker Committee). The claimants then submitted that the election of 9th June 2011 conducted by the defendant is invalid considering all that have been stated. In conclusion, the claimants contended that from the totality of all that have been presented above, the Branch Election conducted on 9th June, 2011 by the defendant at Ogba Factory Premises of Boulos Corporate Headquarters, Ogba, Agidingbi, Ikeja, Lagos State into Branch Executive Committee of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Production Workers, Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Limited unit branch is in violation of Rule 38 (on Caretaker Committee) of the constitution of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers. That the reasons adduced for the cancellation of the conduct of the branch elections on two occasions were not the true position of the matter and that the actual position has been made explicit. That the combined effect of the involvement of the claimants in union matters and their aspiration towards elective positions occasioned injustice on them resulting in the unlawful termination of their employment which the defendant now wants to employ after inflicting untold injuries on the claimants. The claimants then urged the Court to find in their favour and grant them all their prayers. The defendant’s written address in reaction to that of the claimants is dated and filed on 5th January 2012. To the defendant, it filed its statement of defence wherein it challenged the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain same on the ground that the defendant as endorsed is not a juristic person and that the claimants as at the time the suit was filed had been relieved of their employment and were no longer members of the branch of the union. That since January 2011 (six months before the institution of the suit) they ceased to be in the employment of their employer which made them members of the union in the first place. That there is no reply by the claimants to the statement of defence or a denial of the assertion of the defendant. To the defendant, in paragraph 12 of the statement of defence, it stated that the claimants have no locus standi to institute this action as, at the institution of this suit, their appointment with Bel Impex Limited which placed them as members of the branch unit has been terminated on the 25th January 2011 and, therefore, they are not members of the branch/unit. That it is trite that a court will be said to be properly constituted and have jurisdiction if the claimants have the capacity or locus standi to sue. From the facts of this case it can be seen from the complaint, the defence and the list of documents listed as exhibits filed before the court that it is not in dispute that the claimants’ employment with their employer, Bel Impex Limited, has been terminated on 25th January 2011 while their complaint, this suit, was filed or instituted on the 29th July 2011 about 6 months after they were no longer in the employment and members of the unit. To the defendant, the question is what right of the claimants that was violated by the defendant as this action is not against the employer; it is not a complaint against their removal but an action challenging the power and competence of the union after their exit from the company to conduct union election. The defendant then submitted that the claimants do not have any cause of action as clearly they lack locus standi as they failed to show their rights and obligation that have seen adversely affected or threatened by the election done or conducted by the union, referring to Alhaji Abba Asheik v. Governor of Borno State & ors [1994] 2 NWLR (P. 326) at 351. It also submitted that the claimants have failed to show their locus. That they are busy body meddlesome interlopers. The defendant further referred the Court to the decision in Rinco Construction Company v. Veepee Industries Ltd [2005] 7 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85 at 87, where the Supreme Court held thus – A cause of action is the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim, it is in effect the fact or combination of facts which gives rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements: (a) the wrongful act of the Defendant which gives the Plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage. Furthermore, that the Supreme Court held in Cookey v. Fombo [2005] 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) at 153 that – A cause of action is the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving the plaintiff a substantive right to make a claim for the relief sought. To the defendant, the claimants failed to put before this Court sufficient materials to show that they have a reasonable cause of action, the consequence of which is that they have no locus standi. The documents attached to the list of documents filed by defendant clearly show that the claimants are no longer in the employment of their employer and no longer members of the unit of the union. The question is what wrong was done by the defendant to the claimants? The defendant answered that there was none; and that without locus standi on the part of the claimants the court will lack jurisdiction. The defendant continued that where parties have no locus standi to prosecute a case, that court cannot assume jurisdiction, referring to Orakul Resources Ltd v. NCC [2007] 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 270 at 276; and then submitted that locus standi is an aspect of justiciability, the fundamental aspect of which focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the court and not on issues which the plaintiff wishes to have adjudicated upon. The defendant then cited Government of Kogi State & or v. Adavi Local Govt Council [2005] 16 NWLR (Pt. 951) 329, where it was stated that – Locus standi means standing to sue. It is basic and fundamental because if a person lacks it, he becomes a busy body with no sufficient legal interest in the matter being adjudicated in court; such a person has no right to be entertained or granted audience by a competent Court. That the defendant as endorsed on the complaint is not a juristic personality recognize by law, there being no union known as National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers Bel Papyrus/Bel Impex Ltd unit/branch. On the substantive issue of caretaker committee, the defendant submitted that the whole constitution ought to be read together and not a section in isolation. That the union constitution did not prohibit the union from conducting the election of the union unless caretaker committee is first set up. In conclusion, the defendant submitted that the issue sought for determination in the instant case is purely academic and the claimants are mere busy bodies. On the whole, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the suit. The claimants did not file any reply on points of law. I have read through the processes and the submissions of the parties. I shall address first the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendant. The argument of the defendant here is that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter at hand because the defendant as sued is not a juristic person known to law. I must dismiss this argument at once. In RTEAN Osogbo, Osun State v. NURTW Osogbo, Osun State [2009] 16 NLLR (Pt. 44) 286 at 309 – 310, this held as follows – We must dismiss out rightly the argument of the respondent that the parties before the court are wrong. This court has held time without number that branch unions or unit chapters of unions have the right of audience in this court. See Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities v. Federal Government of Nigeria, unreported Suit No. NIC/8/2004 decided on May 8, 2007 and Oyo State Government v. Alhaji Bashir Apapa and ors, unreported Suit No. NIC/36/2007 delivered on October 3, 2007. The peculiarity of the disputes that are addressed in this court make this imperative. It is foolhardy to expect that parent unions will at all times be made parties to a dispute when they are not in any way concerned with it. Branch unions or unit chapters negotiate with employers independent of the parent unions and so we do not see why they should not sue independently of the parent union if the need arises. The law reports are replete with cases where branch unions sued even before the regular courts and they were heard. See, for instance, the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney-General of Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour Congress, Oyo State Chapter [2003] 8 NWLR 1 where the Oyo State chapter of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) was entertained as such. The argument of the respondent in this regard must, therefore, fail. In the instant case, therefore, the argument of the defendant in that regard must equally fail; and I so hold. The next issue relates to the documents frontloaded by the claimants. Exhibit 4 frontloaded is supposedly a copy of the constitution of the National Union of Printing, Publishing and Paper Products Workers; but what the claimants did is only to frontload the cover page and pages 50 – 55, the pages at have Rule 38 (the provision on caretaker committees). Other pages of the constitution are not frontloaded. The question is how the claimants expect the Court to make a decision based on only some pages of the constitution when it is a truism that the provisions a constitution cannot be interpreted in isolation given that the provisions are interrelated and one may actually qualify another. Since, there is no complete constitution frontloaded I cannot make any decision regarding the prayer of the claimants in that regard. Then there is the argument of the defendant that the claimants, at the time of filing this suit, were no longer employees of Bel Impex Ltd and so could not be members of the defendant union. The defendant frontloaded the termination letters of the claimants. Both letters are dated 25th January 2011 and titled “Termination of Appointment”. Both letters are similarly worded and make the termination effective from the date of the letter. The entitlements of the claimant were calculated in the letters together with payment of one month basic salary in lieu of notice. Although the national body of the defendant union declared a trade dispute over the matter vide a notification of trade dispute dated 16th February 2011, the matter is still pending within the processes of Part I of the Trade Disputes Act 2004. The present suit was filed by the claimants on 29th July 2011, some six months after the claimants’ appointments were supposedly terminated. The question then is whether at the time of filing this suit the claimants were validly members of the defendant union. As an industrial union, the law deems junior workers to be members of the union once they are in employment of the industry or company over which the union has jurisdictional scope. As employees of Bel Impex Ltd, the claimants were members of the union; but once they cease to be employees, are still members of the union? Only the constitution of the union can answer this question, which constitution was not fully exhibited in this matter. The claimants did not file any reply on points of law to argue that even as a terminated staff, they are entitled to continue in membership of the defendant especially when they are still contesting the termination of their appointments. Since the constitution of the defendant was not fully exhibited, I hold, based on the termination letters of the claimants exhibited, that the claimants are no longer in the employment of the defendant; and not being in the employment of Bel Impex Ltd, they cease to be members of the defendant and so cannot bring the present action. They lack the locus standi to do so. Aside from all of this, the arguments of both parties regarding especially issues touching on the botched elections of the defendant, the setting up of the caretaker committee, etc were essentially based on facts that were not substantiated by evidence. To, therefore, make any pronouncements on them would be to make decisions based on conjectures and speculations. On the whole, and for all the reasons given, I hold that this case of the claimants lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly.