Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Dr. Chima E. Nnaji, for the claimant. B. A. Ogunleye, and with him is Clement Bassey, for the defendant. RULING The claimant had taken a complaint dated and filed on 18th October 2013 against the defendants praying for – a) A declaration that the claimant is the duly elected candidate for the post of Chairman of RATTAWU NTA Lagos/ETV Chapter in the Chapter Election of 21/6/2013, on account of the 2nd defendant’s crediting as valid i favour of the 1st defendant, extra void votes of lawfully disenfranchised NUJ members of staff of NTA Channel 10, Lagos, notwithstanding that the claimant scored the highest valid votes at the first round of voting at the said election ; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, a declaration cancelling the said election for blatant irregularities, as same was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the union’s constitution and Resolutions on Guidelines for the Election, as well as the Circular No. NTA/NCR/UI/Vol.XI/185 of 18/9/2012, and that the substantial non-compliance affected the result of the said election. b) A declaration that the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is a distinctly registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, and that by virtue of RATTAWU constitution, 2003, and the contents of Circular No. NTA/NCR/UI/Vol.XI/185 of 18/9/2012, NUJ members of staff of NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, are not entitled to vote or be voted for at the said Chapter’s elections. c) A declaration that the action of the 2nd defendant who conducted the election by allowing the NUJ members of staff of NTA 10 Lagos to cast their votes at the said election was unlawful, unconstitutional, and a flagrant breach of the duly published Circular No. NTA/NCR/UI/Vol.XI/185 of 18/9/2012, and resolution 3 of the Chapter’s Congress of 18/6/2013. d) A declaration that the NUJ members’ votes cast and counted as valid at the said election was void ab initio, and therefore of no effect whatsoever. e) A declaration that the 1st defendant stood disqualified as a candidate for the said election for violating Resolution 1 of the Congress of 18/6/2013 cited above, and openly and physically campaigning more so on ethnic sentiments shortly before the election by distributing at the venue of the election Handbills with ethnic connotations capable of conferring undue advantage to him, contrary to the Electoral Rules. f) A declaration that the 3rd defendant was wrong, blatantly biased, and flagrantly breached the fundamental right of the claimant to fair hearing when it unilaterally concluded that the claimant lost the election to the 1st defendant without even setting up a panel to investigate and hear the claimant’s petition of over two months. g) Interlocutory and perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading or holding himself out as the duly elected Chairman of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, or engaging in or discharging in any manner whatsoever any of the functions of the offices of the Chairman of the said Chapter. h) Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants, jointly and severally, from imposing any sanctions or taking any punitive measures under any guise whatsoever against the claimant on account of this action. i) And for such order and further orders the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of facts, list of witnesses, claimant’s written statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon at the trial. The defendants entered appearance by filing their memorandum of appearance. They would, however, later file their statement of defence, written statements on oath of 6 defence witnesses, list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon at the trial. Before trial commenced, the claimant filed a motion on notice. The motion is dated 16th November 2013 but filed on 5th December 2013. In support of the motion are an affidavit in support, an affidavit of urgency and a written address. The motion is praying for – 1. An interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from parading or holding himself out as the duly elected chairman of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, or engaging in, or discharging in any manner whatsoever, either acting alone or in concert with any person or persons howsoever called or addressed, any of the functions of the office of the Chairman or Executive Committee of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, pending the final determination of this suit. 2. An order of this Honourable Court directing that the status quo before the purported election of the Chapter on 21/6/2013 be maintained until the final determination of this suit. 3. An order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants/respondents, jointly and severally, not to take any steps or action against the claimant which is capable of prejudicing or threatening his unfettered liberty to lawfully pursue his case, until the final determination of this suit. 4. And for such further or other orders the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds upon which the motion is made are – a) To prevent dissipation of the valuable assets of the Chapter by any imposter that will not be accountable to the Chapter. b) To ensure equity by disallowing any of the contending parties from enjoying any undue advantage over the other. c) To forestall the Court from being hamstrung by the 1st defendant/respondent’s actions if allowed to discharge the functions of the office of the Chairman during the pendency of this suit. d) That the 1st defendant/respondent has resorted to intimidating bona fide members of the Chapter, vastly my supporters, with a view to cowing them into accepting the dubious outcome of the said election of 21/6/2013. e) That the 1st defendant/respondent has so far exploited his advantageous position over the claimant where, by acting in cahoots with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, is at the verge of prevailing on the NTA Management to transfer the claimant out of Lagos to frustrate this action. f) That the 1st defendant/respondent, defiantly parading himself as Chairman of the Chapter with the active and malicious support of the 2nd and 3rd defendant/respondents, has resorted to the malicious use of law enforcement agents to intimidate and threaten the claimant/applicant to drop this action or be slammed with malicious prosecution on trumped-up but undisclosed allegations. In reaction, the defendants filed a counter-affidavit and a written address. Both are dated and filed on 13th February 2014. The case of the claimant is that he was one of three candidates who contested for the position of Chairman in the elections of the RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter held on 21/6/2013 (the 1st defendant/respondent being another candidate and the declared winner of the said election). The 2nd defendant was the Returning Officer at the said election who declared the 1st defendant as the Chairman-elect in utter violation of the union’s constitution and electoral rules – hence the present action. The 3rd defendant is the National President of the union who according to the claimant displayed grotesque bias and unfairness against the claimant in his utterances and conduct, which culminated in denying the claimant fair hearing on his written petition to him. To the claimant, he has deposed to an affidavit stating how he was robbed of his victory at the said election through the machinations of the defendants. The claimant went on that since the filing of the case, the defendants have seen the long adjournment granted by the Court as an opportunity to foment trouble with a view to placing the 1st defendant in an undue vantage position over and above the claimant, leveraging on their positions and influence in the union. It is against this backdrop that the claimant filed the instant motion praying to prevent the defendants from exploiting the long adjournment of the matter to inflict an irreparable damage to the claimant and his pursuit of this suit. The claimant raised one issue for the determination of the Court, namely – Whether upon the facts of this application the claimant/applicant has made out a case for the Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour. In arguing his motion, the claimant referred the Court to Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court, which provide for the jurisdiction of this Court on interlocutory injunctions. The claimant also referred the Court to Florence Owolabi Enterprises Ltd v. Wema bank Plc [2011] 37 WRN 30 and submitted that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to regulate the position of the parties pending trial whilst avoiding a decision on such issues which would only be resolved at trial. The claimant went on to refer the Court to a number of case law authorities on what courts must look out for before granting interlocutory injunctions; and then submitted that he has filed a valid and subsisting case in this suit with claims that are not frivolous. That in the affidavit in support, the claimant deposed to serious violations of his legal rights with the defendants behind the infractions; and that no monetary compensation will be enough to assuage or ameliorate the damage to the claimant. The claimant continued that the balance of convenience favours him as he is the only one living under threats of violence and intimidation from the defendants who are bent on frustrating his constitutional rights to approach the Court upon violation of his rights. That the defendants have nothing to lose if this application is granted. The claimant concluded by urging the Court to this application in the best interest of justice. The defendants also framed only one issue for the determination of the Court, namely – Whether the applicant [has] made out a case sufficiently to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunction against the respondents and whether the grant of an interlocutory injunction can lie over a completed act such as an election of this present one in dispute. The defendants then contended that this Court cannot grant the prayers of the claimant given the extraneous matters, speculative and unfounded allegations in the supporting affidavit of the claimant, referring to Kosofe Local Government v. Demuren [2002] FWLR (Pt. 131) 1861 G – H. That be resorting to cheap, baseless and unsubstantiated allegations without any shred of documentary evidence in support, the claimant cannot be said to have come with clean hands to warrant the Court’s grant of a discretionary remedy. The defendants went on that interlocutory injunction is not granted where it will appear as if a party in the suit is given what amy be referred to as underserved victory before the real contest, referring to Owoi v. Wilson [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 320) 1155 at 1159 and Mbagu & ors v. Aniwetu & anor [2011] 22 NLLR (Pt. 62) 292 at 312. That until this Court finds and nullifies the election in dispute or declares the claimant the winner of the election, the election remains valid, free and fair and the 1st respondent remains the elected Chairman, referring to Alaikum & anor v. Yaba & ors [2005] All FWLR (Pt. 286) 712 at 725 – 6, 728 – 9 CA, Ezenwa v. Okeke [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 142, SCC (Nig.) Ltd v. Elemadu [2004] All FWLR (Pt. 230) 1168 at 1189 CA and Odutola v. Mariam [1981] 5 SC 197. The defendants continued that the three requirements of the existence of a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience being in favour of the applicant as against the respondents and damages not being adequate to compensate the applicant, are related requirements that must co-exist before the interlocutory injunction can be granted, referring to Obeya Memorial Hospital v. AG, Federation [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 and Kotoye v. Central bank of Nigeria [1989] 1 NWLR 419. That regarding the balance of convenience, the defendants contended that they stand to suffer more inconvenience if the injunction is granted as there would be vacuum in government/absence of executive officers of the said Chapter, the violation of the RATTAWU constitution, the possible collapse of the Chapter, etc. On the issue of adequacy of damages, the defendants went on that the office of Chairman in issue cannot be destroyed or consumed so as to warrant damages to be inadequate in compensating the claimant should the Court refuse the present application and subsequently declare the claimant winner of the said election in the substantive suit. On the other hand, that the defendants will not be adequately compensated in damages by the applicant in the event of their winning at the end of the substantive suit as the grant of the instant application for injunction will result in complete disorganization of the NTA Lagos Chapter, which disorganization cannot be assuaged by an award of damages. In conclusion, the defendants urged the Court to refuse the application, dismiss same for lacking in merit and hold that the election stands valid until the Court finds otherwise. The claimant did not file any reply on points of law. I heard learned counsel in the matter and considered all the processes and submissions advanced. The claimant contested in an election for the office of Chairman of NTA Lagos/ETV Chapter of RATTAWU where the 1st defendant was declared the winner. He is accordingly contesting the outcome of the said election. The substantive matter is yet to be heard on merit. Pending the hearing of the substantive suit on merit, the claimant filed the present motion praying for the interlocutory orders already spelt out in this ruling. In the grant of interlocutory orders, courts are enjoined not to grant same where such grant would result in the grant of the substantive reliefs sought. In other words, courts are not grant interlocutory orders where such would also entail resolving the substantive issue(s) at an interlocutory stage. Relief g) prayed for in the substantive suit is for “interlocutory and perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from parading or holding himself out as the duly elected Chairman of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, or engaging in or discharging in any manner whatsoever any of the functions of the offices of the Chairman of the said Chapter”. Relief 1 prayed for in the instant application is for “an interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from parading or holding himself out as the duly elected chairman of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, or engaging in, or discharging in any manner whatsoever, either acting alone or in concert with any person or persons howsoever called or addressed, any of the functions of the office of the Chairman or Executive Committee of RATTAWU NTA 10 Lagos/ETV Chapter, pending the final determination of this suit”. In both reliefs, the claimant is praying for an interlocutory injunction. If this Court is to, therefore, grant the interlocutory prayer of the claimant in the instant motion, it will mean that it has equally granted relief g) of the substantive suit. Relief h) in the substantive suit is for a “perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants, jointly and severally, from imposing any sanctions or taking any punitive measures under any guise whatsoever against the claimant on account of this action”. Relief 3 in the instant motion is for “an order of this Honourable Court directing the defendants/respondents, jointly and severally, not to take any steps or action against the claimant which is capable of prejudicing or threatening his unfettered liberty to lawfully pursue his case, until the final determination of this suit”. Both reliefs once again are similar and the grant of one (relief 3) is the grant of the other (relief h). This leaves out relief 2, which is for “an order of this Honourable Court directing that the status quo before the purported election of the Chapter on 21/6/2013 be maintained until the final determination of this suit”. The issue in dispute is an election. The claimant wants the status quo before the election to be maintained pending the determination of the substantive suit; but he did not show to the Court how the NTA Lagos/ETV Chapter of RATTAWU would be governed in the interim. In orally adumbrating on his written address, counsel to the claimant argued that the immediate past executive committee would hold sway in the interim; but the identity of members of the immediate past executive committee has not been disclosed to the court in order for the court to know who to hold responsible/accountable in the event of any infractions. I acknowledge that under section 16 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, this Court has the power to grant an injunction in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient so to do; and any such order may be made either unconditionally or on such term and conditions as the Court thinks just. And by section 19, this Court may in all other cases and where necessary make any appropriate order, including the grant of urgent interim reliefs, declaratory orders, the appointment of a public trustee for the management of the affairs and finances of a trade union or employer’s organization involved in any organizational dispute and the award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear. However section 18 of the NIC Act 2006 provides that “in any case where any person acts in an office in which he is not entitled to act, the Court may grant an injunction restraining him from so acting and may (if the case so requires) declare the office to be vacant”. This Court, therefore, has the power to declare the occupant of an office as unlawfully occupying same. But the question that presently arises is this: what will the claimant lose if he succeeds in the substantive suit and his prayers are granted? The Court has the power to ask an illegal occupant of an office to render account of his stewardship in the office. I do not, therefore, really see the need for this motion for interlocutory injunctions in the first place. In any event, the substantive dispute in question, being one related to an election, is one that can go either way. The balance of convenience, therefore, supports not granting the interlocutory prayers of the claimant; and I so find and hold. The claimant argued very strongly about threats by the defendants to his “unfettered liberty to lawfully pursue his case”. He also complained of the defendants prevailing on the NTA Management to transfer him out of Lagos State to frustrate the present action. These complaints constitute grounds e) and f) on the motion paper as supported by paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 16 and 17 of the affidavit in support. Beyond the averments, however, there is no other proof from the claimant to substantiate all these assertions, assertions that the defendants denied in paragraph 5 of their counter-affidavit. What we consequently have is the word of the claimant as against that of the defendants. In like manner, ground d) on the motion paper is to the effect “that the 1st defendant/respondent has resorted to intimidating bona fide members of the Chapter, vastly my supporters, with a view to cowing them into accepting the dubious outcome of the said election of 21/6/2013”. No proof has been shown to the Court to substantiate this ground. Further still, in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support, the claimant averred that the 1st defendant and his cohorts are plundering the resources of the Chapter and fanning the embers of disunity among members. Other than the averment itself, no proof has been shown to the Court to substantiate this averment. On the whole, I do not think that the claimant has made out a case for the grant of the interlocutory orders he prays for. The motion accordingly fails and is hereby refused and dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip