Download PDF
The Claimants commenced this suit by a Complaint dated and filed on the 29th day of February, 2012 and endorsed on the Complaint is the relief sought against the defendants stated as follows: The Claimant’s ciliate is for an order of the court declaring null and void the leaders of the Association having emerged without recourse to the constitution of the Association, that there is nothing like Truck and Lorry Unit of the Association and an order of court that the 1st defendant cannot hold any post being corrupt and autocratic person. The Complaint was accompanied by a Statement of Facts, list of witnesses, and list and copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial. Endorsed in paragraph 35 of the Statement of facts are the following reliefs sought by the Claimants against the defendants: 35 Wherefore the plaintiffs claim against the defendants. (a) A declaration that they are illuminate leader of the Association having emerged without recourse to the constitution of the Association and therefore null and void. (b) An order of this court that there is nothing like Truck/lorry unit of the National Union of Road Transport Workers and should cease to exist. (c) An order of this court that the 1st defendant cannot hold any position/post in the Association again being corrupt, autocratic and having spent 19 years as the chairman of the pick up unit. (d) An order of court to refund the N520, 000.00 (five hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira ) only belonging to the Association. (e) Any other order(s) the court might deem necessary to make under this circumstance. However, the defendants entered appearance in the suit on 30th March 2012. The defendants also brought a motion on notice dated and filed on the 30th day of March 2012, praying the Court for the following reliefs: 1. An order striking out this case on the following grounds: a) That the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case; being an intra union dispute. It is caught up by section 7(3) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and ought to have gone through the process of conciliation and arbitration under Part I of the Trade Disputes Act. b) The action is not properly constituted without the joinder of the NURTW and the Registrar of Trade Unions. c) The Claimants have no locus standi in respect of relief 35(b) of their claim. d) The Claimants have not exhausted internal or domestic remedies before filing this action. 2. Any other order(s) the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case. The motion is supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Ifeanyi Ezeaku, an associate in the law firm of the counsel for the defendants. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibits D1 and D2. There is also a written address accompanying the motion. The Claimants/Respondents filed a counter-affidavit of three paragraphs deposed to by Gift Abugu, a litigation clerk in the office of the counsel to the claimants. Annexed to the counter affidavit are Exhibits A and B. there is also a written address. The defendants/applicants thereafter filed a reply on points of law dated and filed on 30th day of July, 2012. I have carefully considered the processes, submissions and arguments of the parties in this case. I have also considered the submissions for and against the preliminary objection raised by the defendants/applicants. The issue for determination is whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine the suit as it is presently constituted. The learned defendants counsel has argued that the claimants and the defendants belong to the same union and the dispute between them is essentially an intra-union dispute and therefore the court does not have the original jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. He referred to averments contained in the Statement of Facts of the Claimants as well as the authority of NCSU vs ASCSON (2005) 4 NLLR (Pt. 9) 1 at 3; National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers vs National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees & 1 Anor (2004) 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 286; MHWUN vs NLC (2005) NLLR (PT. 10) 270 at 288 and Peter Okafor & Anor vs Anthony Ugozor & 44 Ors (2008) Unreported Suit No. NIC/6/2006 delivered on 11th March 2008. In reaction thereto, learned counsel for the Claimants/Respondents in his written address in response to the preliminary objection argued that section 7 (3) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 (NICA 2006) relied upon by the defendants/applicants is not applicable to this case since they are coming to court under section 7(1)(c)(iv) of NICA 2006 and not section 7(1)(a) of NICA 2006 as envisioned in the said section 7(3) of the NICA 2006. In their own submission, the claimants have called exclusively for the determination of and interpretation of the constitution of the Pick Up Unit of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, Nsukka vis-à-vis the manner and mode in which the defendants are running the Association and abusing the constitutional provisions. The question is does the statement of facts of the claimants really show that they are asking the court to interpret the said union’s constitution? In order to activate the interpretative jurisdiction of this court the claimant must pinpoint the particular section or sections of the Constitution that he wants the court to interpret and apply to his/her circumstances. If that is not done then the case cannot be said to relate to interpretation worthy enough to activate the jurisdiction of the court. See the case of Mr I. D. Benson & 2 Ors vs NASU & 3 Ors (2008) Unreported Suit No. NIC/56/2007 delivered on June 9, 2008 where the court held that: The Claimants also argued that their claim relates to the interpretation of the constitution governing the University of Benin branch of NASU. Unfortunately, the complaint and the claims of the claimants do not show this. At best, the affidavit in support of the claim merely reveals that the claimants claim relates to applying the said constitution, not interpreting it. Since the court is not being called to interpret the provisions of the union constitution exhibited, the original jurisdiction of this court cannot be activated. In consequence, the claimants are advised to exhaust the processes of Part 1 of the TDA before coming to this court. See also the case of NCSU vs ASCSON (2005) 4 NLLR (Pt. 9), supra, National Union of Hotels and Personal Services Workers vs National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees & 1 Anor (2004) 1 NLLR (Pt. 2), supra; MHWUN vs NLC (2005) NLLR (PT. 10), supra and Peter Okafor & Anor vs Anthony Ugozor & 44 Ors (2008) Unreported Suit No. NIC/6/2006 delivered on 11th March 2008, supra. In the instant case, the Claimants’ contention that they are before the Court for the interpretation of the constitution of their union does not seem to be borne out by the Statement of Facts and the reliefs they are seeking before the Court. From my understanding of the statement of facts and the reliefs which were earlier on reproduced in this Ruling, the claimants are seeking for the determination of intra-union dispute, as both parties belong to the Nigeria Union of Road Transport Workers though to different Units. I agree entirely with the submission of the defendants/applicants that the said dispute cannot be entertained by the court in its original jurisdiction without same having been processes through the steps outlined in Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap T8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (TDA). It has to be pointed out that the TDA which is an Act of the National Assembly has stated the measures or steps that parties must take in conjunction with the Minister or Ministry of Labour and Productivity in order to bring such a dispute to end before such dispute can come to this court in its appellate jurisdiction. In the circumstance therefore, I hereby hold that this suit is prematurely before this court as it should go through the processes outlined in part 1 of the TDA and this court lacks the original jurisdiction to entertain same. Accordingly it is hereby struck out. i make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim Presiding Judge.