Download PDF
This case was commenced by an Originating Summons dated 16th November, 2012 and issued by this Honorable Court on the same day. The reliefs claimed by the claimants are as reproduced below: a. A DECLARATION that having regard to Rule 6(q) of the Constitution Agriculture and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria (AAEUN), the 1st Claimant is eligible to contest election into the Branch executive of the Union at Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority his employment with the Authority having been confirmed by virtue of which he has become a permanent staff of the Authority and accordingly entitled to full membership of and unimpeded participation in the activities of Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria. b. A DECLARATION that by the provisions of the Constitution of the Agriculture and allied Employees Union of Nigeria (AAEUN) which governs filling of vacancies of elective executive positions in the branch of the Union at Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority, the 2nd Claimant is entitled to support or Nominate any candidates of his choice including the 1st Claimant provided the appointment of such a candidate has been confirmed by virtue of which the candidate has become a permanent staff of the Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority. c. A DECLARATION that by virtue of Rule 10 of the Constitution of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria which govern election into the Claimants’ Branch of the Union, the Defendants as persons who conduct Claimants Branch elections), lack the competence to unilaterally prescribe qualifications for eligibility for contesting elections to Claimant’ Branch executive in clear breach of the constitution of the Union. d. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from conducting any election into the Executive of the Claimants Union except as prescribed by the Constitution of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria. e. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, or whosoever that purports to be acting through them from excluding the claimants from legitimate participation in the activities of the Agriculture and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria. The Originating Summons is supported by a 23 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Joseph Ekpeyong Edet (the 1st Claimant in this suit). Accompanying the said Affidavit are - Exhibits A (Letter of Confirmation of Appointment), - Exhibit B (The Constitution of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria), - Exhibit C and D (A letter to the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria dated 16th October 2012 and Reply dated 29th October 2012). - Exhibit E (A letter addressed to the Managing Director AIRBDA tagged “A Deliberate Attempt by the Staff leadership at Owerri to deny OMOR staff their legitimate rights” dated 23rd October, 2012). The Claimants also filed a written address dated 14th November 2013, The Defendants entered a conditional appearance, and filed a joint Statement of Defence as well as a Counter Affidavit of 4 paragraphs exhibiting 2 Exhibits, and a written address in reaction to the Affidavit of the Claimant. Exhibit A attached to the Defendant’s Counter Affidavit is The Constitution of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria, while Exhibit B is a letter titled Call for Amendment of AAEUN Constitution. I hereby discountenance in its entirety, the Joint Statement of Defence filed by the defendants, as it is at variance with the Originating summons procedure. In support of the Originating Summons, Learned Counsel Filed a written address and formulated two issues for the court’s determination. 1. Whether in view of Rule 6(q) of the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria the 1st Claimant is not eligible to contest the branch election of the Union, his appointment having been confirmed by the Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority. 2. Whether having regards to Rule 10 of the Constitution of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria the Defendants do not lack the competence to exclude the 2nd Claimant as a pensionable staff of the Anambra/Imo River Development Authority, and bona fide members of the Agricultural and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria from nominating and or supporting any candidate of his choice for any election into the Authority’s Branch of the Agriculture and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria. The learned counsel adopted the written address as his final arguments in the suit. I will briefly examine the written address as submitted by counsel to the claimants. In arguing issue one, learned counsel Contended that the membership of the Agriculture and Allied Employees’ Union of Nigeria is automatic upon appointment into the Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority and by virtue of this, the claimant is a member and therefore eligible for election to the Union’s executives. He supported his point by citing Rule 6(q) of AAEUN Constitution. He stated further that Rule 6(q) (iv) provides as one of the qualifications: A Scheduled Officer in the organization he/she works i.e on permanent appointment of the employer. The Claimants also submitted that the defendants removed the provisions of the constitution and replaced it with conditions that any person desiring to contest an election must have worked for not less than four years in the establishment. The claimants further submitted, relying on the Case of PDP v SYLVA [2012] All FWLR (Part 637) 606 @ 651 paras C-D that the guidelines in which a party, like any other corporation, should operate must be within powers and duties set out in the constitution. He submitted that the constitution that governs the Union was grossly breached by the defendants. In addition, counsel submitted that the action of the defendant in the instant case shows gross bad faith, citing the case of SAVANNAH BANK OF NIGERIA PLS v CBN [2009] All FWLR (Part 481) 936 @ 991 paras F-G. and the case of A.G of BENUE STATE v. UMAR [2008] 1 NWLR (Part 1068 311 @ 363. The learned counsel urged the honorable court to resolve issue 1 in favour of the Claimants. In Arguing issue No. 2, Counsel submitted that the Court should invoke the true meaning and intent of the provisions of Rule 10 of AAEUN. He said since the words are unambiguous it should be given its true meaning. The Learned counsel referred the court to the case of AKAIGHE V IDAMA [1964] All NLR (Reprint) @ 322. In Conclusion the Claimant submitted that there is nothing in the constitution of the AAEUN that authorizes the defendant to slot in their discretion in purporting to conduct the election into the executive of the Claimants Branch at the Anambra/Imo River Development Authority. It was Counsel’s further submission that the functions of the defendants are set out in Rule 10 of the said constitution, and that there is nothing thereat that empowers the defendant to exclude the 2nd claimant who has inherent powers as a member. He urged the Honourable Court to resolve the issue against the Defendants’ In response to the Originating Summons, the Defendants filed a 14 paragraph Joint Statement of Defence and a 14 paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by one Blessing Nwokafor, a litigation secretary. Accompanying the Counter Affidavit is a Written Address canvassing arguments opposing the Claimants’ claims in their Originating summons. The learned counsel for the defendants formulated a sole issue for determination, that is:- “Whether the claimants are entitled to any or all the relief sought claimed”. In arguing this issue, the learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted that the Claimants have not complied with the Provisions of Section 6(q)(vii) of the AAEUN constitution which clearly prescribes the requirements for election into the leadership of the union at all levels. For the sake of clarity I will reproduce the provisions of Rule 6(q) (vii) as submitted by the defendants: A contestant for the state post from the Branch level; shall have been a member of State Executive Council (SEC) for Four (4) consecutive years. The Defendants/Respondents submitted that the 1st Claimant was appointed in September 2010 and confirmed in September 2012, two years after he became a permanent and pensionable staff of the Authority. This, counsel stated, falls short of the provision of Rule 6(q)(vii) of the Constitution of AAEUN which specifies 4 years as a condition precedence for election into the State Executive Council, and he urged the court to so hold. Counsel further submitted that the claimants are aware of this 4 year condition precedent for election; because it was contained in their letter dated 16th October 2013 (Exhibit B) to the defendant, calling for amendment to give room for qualification. The letter was replied by the Defendants/Respondents explaining to the Claimants, the agreement reached by the entire members of the AAEUN/AIRBD as to the conduct of the election which the claimants are complaining about. Counsel submitted that by virtue of the said Exhibit B, the Claimants are estopped from bringing this suit. On this point, Counsel relied on the provision of Section 169 of Evidence Act, 2011 which provides as follows: “When one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement, or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.” The Defendants/Respondents also stated that the 1st Claimant did not come forward for the elections because he is aware that he is not qualified, thereby disqualifying himself. That he cannot therefore be heard to deny the truth of Exhibit B which emanated from him. The Defendants/Respondents stated that they have not removed or replaced any provision of the Constitution of the Union. They further submitted that the judicial authorities cited by the claimants do not apply in this circumstance. By way of conclusion the defendants submitted that the state elections complained of by the claimants was successfully conducted by the state council on the 29th November 2012, and the candidates who emerged have already been sworn into office and have since resumed work. He submitted that the reliefs sought by the Claimants are belated and ungrantable; and that the act complained of by the claimants is a completed act, and therefore has no basis. He urged the court to dismiss the suit of the claimant for been frivolous, vexatious and baseless. I have most painstakingly read the relevant processes to this Originating summons and addresses of Counsel on the two sides alongside all the authorities cited. I have discountenanced the joint statement of defence filed by the defendants because it is at variance with the originating summons procedure. I have narrowed down the issues formulated by the Claimants and defendants in this case to one sole issue for determination. That is: “Whether in view of Rule 6(q) of the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria the 1st Claimant is not eligible to contest the branch election of the Union, his appointment having been confirmed by the Anambra/Imo River Basin Development Authority, to entitle the claimant to the reliefs sought”. By this, the court is being called upon to interpret the provisions of the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria (AAEUN) as it relates to appointment of officers into elective posts in the association. Rule 6, Paragraphs m, n and q of the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria (AAEUN) read as follows: Rule 6m: The National Executive Council shall have the power to deal summarily with any complaint arising from the election of branch delegates. Rule 6n: To be a delegate to the National or State Delegates Conference or Branch Congress, a member or officer of the union shall be in good financial standing in the Union for at least four consecutive years, up to three months preceding the Delegates Conference or Branch Congress. Rule 6q: REQUIREMENTS FOR LEADERSHIP There shall minimum formal academic requirement or standard attained by someone who aspires for leadership position in the union at all levels i.e. National, State and Branch. To contest for any National post in the Union, Contestant shall possess the following requirements: (i) G.C.E. O’level, WASC O’level, NECO or the equivalent. (ii) A member in good financial standing (iii) Free of adverse or gross misconduct report from the union or his/her employer (iv) A scheduled officer in the organization he/she works .i.e. on permanent appointment of the employer (v) A NEC member for at least one term/tenure of 4 years. (vi) Above requirements in Rule 6(q) except q(v) applies to contestants for posts at State and Branch organs of the Union. (vii) A contestant for the State post from the Branch level shall have been a member of State Executive Council (SEC) for four (4) consecutive years. The contention in this originating summons before this honorable court is for the interpretation of Rule 6(q) and Rule 6(q)(vii) AAEUN. I have carefully perused the submission of Counsel on both sides regarding the true interpretation of Rule 6 of the Constitution of the AAEUN. Claimant’s Counsel’s submission is that there are 3 levels of government in the Union: the National level, the State level and the Branch level. That Rule q(v) and (vi) above does not apply to those contesting at the Branch level; and that the 4 year requirement only applies to the National and State levels, and not the Branch levels. That Rule 6q(vii) refers to a contestant for the State post from the Branch level. The 1st Claimant cannot be said to fall in this category, because he was not vying for a State position. Rather, he was vying for a branch position. The issue is therefore narrowed down to whether by the above provisions of Rule 6q of the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria (AAEUN), whether the 1st Claimant is qualified to contest for the position of the Public Relations officer at the Branch level. It is Important to state at this juncture that Statute/Constitution simply means the set of rules and regulations that governs the affairs of a set of individuals or group. The generally accepted rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrase of technical legislation are used in the technical meaning if they have acquired one. Otherwise, they are given their ordinary meaning. Phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar. If there is nothing to modify, alter or qualify the language which the statute contains, it must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the sentences. In the interpretation of a statute, the ordinary literal meaning must first be examined. If the words are clear and unambiguous then the ordinary literal meaning must be given to them as the intention of the law maker has not been obscured. It is only where there is doubt or ambiguity, that recourse is made to other canons of interpretation. An attempt to go on a voyage of discovery to import a different meaning to the words as intended by the law makers will lead to manifest injustice. See the Cases of THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA & ORS (1985) NWLR (PT.3) 395, AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI 1079 6-9 SC.51. Per Eso J.S.C (P. 85, paras. D-F) After a careful look at the provisions of Rule 6(q) of the Union constitution and the above analysis of statutory Interpretation, it is my view that the words used in Rule 6(q) by the law makers are plain and unambiguous and must be given a literal interpretation in line with the rules of interpretation. The Law has set a condition precedence of 4 years of membership to qualify for election into the union Executive Council. The Constitution is what governs the activities of its members. The Claimants and defendants being members of the said Association are bound by the rules; and any attempt to give a liberal interpretation to suit their personal aggrandizements against the real intent of the lawmakers will lead to manifest injustice and will defeat the principle of interpretation of statutes. See AKAIGHE V IDAMA(Supra) The Provisions of Rule 6(q)(vii) which sets the requirements for election is clear and couched in plain language. It can therefore only be interpreted in its plain and literal term. The Constitution has stipulated four consecutive years to qualify for any election in the Union. It is observed that by Exhibit B, the Claimants called for the amendment of the AAEUN Constitution to allow for any confirmed staff to vie for elective positions. I have carefully perused the content of the said letter (Exhibit B), which I believe is the same letter referred to as Exhibit C in Paragraph 18 of the Claimant’s affidavit. The content shows clearly that the Claimants were all along, aware of their disqualification, and therefore sought an amendment to the constitution. I am inclined to agree with the submission of counsel to the defendants that this amount to admittance (sic) of ineligibility by the claimants. It is trite law that facts admitted in pleadings of any kind need not be proved by the other side. It is further observed that no further and better affidavits were filed to clarify this issue. The law is well settled also, that any fact which has not been categorically countered or denied by a party is deemed admitted in law by the other party. See the cases of EFET V. INEC & ORS [2011] 7 NWLR 423, NZERIBE V. DAVE ENG, CO. LTD (1994) 8 NWLR (PT.361) 124. The Claimants also contended that Rule 10 of the Constitution of the union must be given its true meaning since it is not ambiguous. I agree with learned counsel submissions in this regard, but I must point out that Rule 6(q) still stands as a condition precedent to Rule 10. For the sake of clarifications, Rule 10(e) stated that the relevant provisions of Rule 6(q) must be observed to qualify for elections. This simply means that Rule 6(q) is a condition precedent to Rule 10. In any case, Rule 10 cannot exist in isolation of Rule 6 of the AAEUN Constitution. Rule 6(q) can therefore not be read in isolation of Rule 10. Blacks’ Law dictionary 6th Edition defines Condition precedent as “one which must happen or be performed before the estate to which it is annexed can vest to be enlarged; or it is one which is to be performed before some right dependent thereon accrues or some act performed. The case of Adeleke v. Oska (2006) 16 NWLR (pt 1006) 608 at 710 is very germane in this regard. It is a settled principle of interpretation that the provision of the constitution or a statute should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the context of the constitution or statute as a whole. Therefore, in construing the provisions of a section of a statue, the whole of the statute must be read in order to determine the meaning and effect of the words being interpreted: See BUHARI & ANOR V. OBASANJO & ORS (2005) 13 NWLR (pt.219). Statutory provisions must be read as a whole to get the correct meaning of a particular expression as intended by the Lawmakers. Where the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, no interpretation is required; the words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. The grammatical construction “Shall” have been a member for four consecutive years” connotes mandatory and not discretional and must be given its true meaning. As regards the question as to whether the Defendants acted within the guidelines, powers and duties set in the constitution of the union as argued by the claimants, I refer to the case of PDP vs. Sylva (Supra) cited by the Claimants, where Chukwuma-Ene JSC held that “the party, like any other corporation, operates within the guidelines, the powers and duties set out in the constitution, all its members are bound by its provision and their rights and obligations created by their constitution can be remedied as provided by the constitution if breached by any of its members”. In this case, the Claimants and the Defendants are members of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria. Exhibit B of the Claimants’ affidavit and Exhibit A of the Defendants’ Counter- Affidavit, are one and the same document, and that is the Constitution of the Agriculture and Allied Employees Union of Nigeria. This implies that they are bound by this same constitution. The Claimants did not lead evidence as to whether that same constitution has been amended to accommodate candidates that fall below the four years requirement. The provision of the Constitution is clear as to the eligibility for election. I therefore hold that the Defendants acted within the provisions of the AAEUN Constitution as it is the only guiding principle that governs the Union. On the whole, and for all the reasons given, I hold that the case of the Claimants accordingly fails in its entirety, and is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Presiding Judge