Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Ambrose Nwabueze, with Godwin Duru Inyang, Ademola Iroko and Chioma Enwereji (Mrs) for the Claimants. Femi Aborishade with Olufemi Akanni for the Defendants. RULING The Claimants in this case by their General Form of Complaint dated 13/3/14 approached this Court and claimed as follows: a. A declaration that the 1st Defendant being a trade union registered and recognized by the law in Nigeria and the 2nd Defendant being an officer in the 1st Defendant to wit; the President-General are bound to obey and observe the doctrine of Projection of Management prescribed by the mandatory provisions of section 3(3) of the Trade Unions Act Cap.T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, (as amended) in admitting employees into membership, allowing such employees to continue their membership, hold offices or continue to hold offices in the 1st Defendant. b. A declaration that no staff, including the 2nd Defendant, recognised as a projection of management within the management structure (whether of the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) or of any of the successor companies of Power Holding Company of Nigeria [PHCN] covered by the 1st Defendant trade union) shall be a member of or hold office in the 1st Defendant when such membership or of the holding of such office in the 1st Defendant will lead to a conflict of his loyalties to either the union or the management. c. A declaration that the appointment of the 2nd Defendant to the office of the Assistant General Manager (AGM) of Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) at its Akangba Sub-Region, Lagos sometime in July, 2013 with executive authority by his status, authority, powers, duties and accountability makes the 2nd Defendant a projection of management in Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN). d. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant ceased to be the President-General of the 1st Defendant by the operation of law upon the 2nd Defendant’s appointment to the office of the Assistant General Manager (AGM) of Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN). e. A declaration that the Resolution of the 1st Defendant’s National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held at Aso Hotel, Kaduna, on the 15th – 16th August, 2013 directing the 2nd Defendant to vacate office by the end of February 2014 in recognition of the doctrine of Projection of Management and in compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 3(3) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, (as amended) is valid and enforceable by an order of court. f. A declaration that the subsequent Resolution of the 1st Defendant’s National Executive Council (NEC) of 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja authorizing the 2nd Defendant to continue in office as the President-General of the 1st Defendant being a Projection of Management in contravention of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, (as amended) is illegal, unlawful, wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. g. A declaration that the purported National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of the 1st Defendant held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja is invalid and unlawful and the decision and resolution taken thereat is null and void, of no effect whatsoever having not been convened in accordance with the provisions of the 2005 Constitution and Code of Practice of the 1st Defendant. h. A declaration that the purported decision of the 1st Defendant’s purported National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held at Abuja on 21st – 22nd February, 2014 directing the 2nd and 3rd Claimants to sign out as signatories from the 1st Defendant’s Bank accounts is unlawful, unconstitutional and against the spirit and intendment of the extant Constitution of the 1st Defendant. i. A declaration that the purported decision of the purported National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of the 1st Defendant held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja, to set up an Ad-hoc Committee with the Deputy President-General (North) as Chairman and four (4) others to investigate and report to it on alleged violation of Code of Practice of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution by the Claimants (who are the National Treasurer and National Trustees of the 1st Defendant) and referring them to the aforesaid Committee on Disciplinary Matters constituted by the 1st Defendant under the leadership of the 2nd Defendant who is not a member of the 1st Defendant by operation of law is invalid, null and void of no effect. j. A declaration that the purported decision of the purported National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of the 1st Defendant held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja, directing the investigation of the Claimants over alleged irregularities in the process of opening of another 1st Defendant’s account and alleged refusal to comply with National Executive Council (NEC) Resolution of 7th November, 2013 and referring them to the aforesaid Committee on Disciplinary Matters constituted by the 1st Defendant under the leadership of the 2nd Defendant who is not a member of the 1st Defendant by operation of law is invalid, null and void of no effect. k. A declaration that the purported decision of the 1st Defendant at a purported National Executive Council (NEC) meeting held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014 at Abuja referring the Claimants as National Treasurer and National Trustees of the 1st Defendant to the aforesaid Committee on Disciplinary Matters is invalid, null and void being an act of victimization and unfair labour/industrial relations practice against the Claimants for the Claimants’ refusal to aid and abet the commission of financial irregularities by the 2nd Defendant with the 1st Defendant’s funds. l. A declaration that the Claimants cannot be suspended or directed to face a Disciplinary Committee or expelled except by a lawfully constituted appropriate organ of the 1st Defendant and upon following due constitutional process enshrined in the 1st Defendant’s extant constitution. m. An order of court directing that the 2nd Defendant to cease to continue to hold office as the President-General of the 1st Defendant by reason of the mandatory provisions of Section 3(3) of Trade Unions Act, Cap.T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, (as amended). n. An order nullifying/voiding and/or setting aside the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of the 1st Defendant held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja and the decision and resolution taken thereat authorizing the 2nd Defendant (being a Projection of Management in contravention of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, [as amended]) to continue in office as the President-General of the 1st Defendant. o. An order nullifying/voiding and/or setting aside the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting of the 1st Defendant held on 21st – 22nd February, 2014, at Abuja and the decisions and resolutions taken thereat referring the Claimants to an Ad-hoc Committee of the 1st Defendant on Disciplinary Matters for being invalid and unlawful having not been convened in accordance with the provisions of the 2005 Constitution and Code of Practice of the 1st Defendant and the decision being an act of victimization and unfair labour/industrial relations practice against the Claimants. p. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, officers and/or privies from suspending, trial/expulsion or taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the Claimants. q. General damages in the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). The General Form of Complaint was accompanied by List of Witnesses to be called at the trial, statement on oath of the Claimants' witnesses, and copies of the documents to be relied on at trial. On 17/3/14, the Court heard an application brought ex-parte by the Claimants for interim injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents. The ex-parte order was granted restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, servants, officers and/or privies from suspending, trial or expulsion or taking any disciplinary action whatsoever against the Claimants/Applicants pending the determination of the Motion on Notice filed on 13/3/14. On 27/3/14, Defendants in this suit entered an appearance and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging both the competence of the Claimants'/Respondents' suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the Claimants'/Respondents'. The Notice of Preliminary Objection was heard on 12/5/14. In arguing the preliminary objection, learned Counsel relied on a 33-paragraph affidavit in support. Counsel further adopted his written address dated 26/3/14 and filed 27/3/14 as his argument in support of the objection. In the said written address, learned counsel set down 4 issues for determination. The issues are as follows: 1 Whether the Constitution of the 1st Defendant made pursuant to the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) empowers the National Executive Council, as the Supreme Authority in between National Delegates Conferences, to administer the affairs of the 1st Defendant, including exercising disciplinary powers over NEC members. 2. Whether the action of the Claimants/Respondents is not premature where the internal procedures for resolution of issues have not been exhausted by the Claimants/Respondents before resorting to external adjudication. 3. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over a premature action. 4. Whether the suit of the Claimants is not an abuse of court process. In arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the 1st Defendant's Constitution in Rule 9 (i),(ii) and (xv) empowers the National Executive Council as the supreme authority to conduct the affairs of the 1st Defendant in between National Delegate Conferences. Counsel further submitted that the power of the National Executive Council to initiate disciplinary action which may lead to the removal of any national officer derives from the First Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Learned Counsel referred to paragraph 7 of the First Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, 2004. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour and answer in the affirmative. On issue 2, Counsel submitted that Claimants/Respondents had not exhausted available internal procedure for the resolution of disputes before resorting to court action. According to Counsel, Rule 16 (xiv) of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant empowers the National Executive Council to remove any National officer subject to the right of the officer concerned to appeal to the National Delegates Conference. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimants/Respondents have not utilised that right of appeal. Secondly, Counsel argued that under Rule 7 (i) of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant, Claimants/Respondents are also allowed to seek support of the resolution of a majority of the Branches of the 1st Defendant to demand a Special Delegates Conference to address their concerns. Learned Counsel submitted that exhaustion of domestic remedies is a pre-condition to the institution of this action and not having exhausted same Counsel urged the Court to hold that this action is premature. Counsel cited Akintemi v. Onwumechili (1985)1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 168 at 85,Bamisile v. Osasuyi (2007)9 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 225 and Ojogbede v. Ogundipe (2008)12 NWLR (Pt. 1101) 585. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that where it is established that an action is premature, the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. Counsel relied on University of Ilorin v. Oluwadare (2006)14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 751 at 773 where the Supreme Court held that when a litigant prematurely takes issues belonging to the domestic affairs to the arena of litigation, the Court lacks jurisdiction for the incompetence of the suit. It was the argument of learned Counsel that the Constitution of the 1st Defendant binds all members and the 1st Defendant can only be governed in accordance with the provisions of the said Constitution. Counsel therefore submitted that having brought issues of domestic affairs of the 1st Defendant to the Court without first exhausting the domestic remedies, the action is incompetent and the incompetence affects the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on same, citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) NSCC 374 at 379-380. Arguing issue 4, Counsel stated that if it is agreed that the suit of the Claimants/Respondents is prematurely instituted and that there are available domestic remedies which the Claimants/Respondents have not exhausted, then the suit is an abuse of court process. Counsel submitted that the employment of judicial process is an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of administration of justice to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, citing Saraki v. Kotoye (1992)11-12 SCNJ 26. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the suit is an abuse of court process, find in favour of the Defendants/Applicants and dismiss same accordingly, citing Arubo v. Aiyeteru (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 126 at 142. Claimants/Respondents filed a 17-paragraph Counter Affidavit in opposition and a written address. Counsel relied on the averments in the Counter Affidavit. Counsel also adopted his written address as his argument in opposition to the preliminary objection filed. In his written address learned Counsel set the following 3 issues for determination: 1. Whether by virtue of Rules 5 (ii) and (viii) of the 1st Defendant's/Applicant's 2005 Constitution, the Claimants/Respondents suit is premature. 2. Whether the depositions in paragraphs 5-30 of the affidavit in support of the Defendants/Applicants notice of preliminary objection and the arguments in support of Issue 3 in the Written Address thereof are issues for preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this honourable court to entertain the suit. 3. If the answers to Issues 1 and 2 above are in the negative, whether the preliminary objection of the Defendants/Applicants is not liable to be dismissed. On issue 1, Counsel referred to Rule 5 (viii) of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant which provides that a member shall have the right to initiate action at its own expense in connection with any breach of the provisions of the Constitution and argued that there was a breach of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant and hence this action. It was the argument of learned counsel that if it was the intention of the 1st Defendant/Applicant's Constitution to require exhaustion of all available domestic remedies before resorting to court, the Constitution would have so provided. Counsel referred to Iweanya & 3 Ors. v. Nwachukwu & 5 Ors. (2013)37 NLLR (Pt. 1113) 230 where the Court in construing Rule 5 (viii) of the 2003 Constitution of the Association of National Union of Pensioners which is in pari materia with the 2005 Constitution of the 1st Defendant/Applicant held that ''... A person cannot be hamstrung from approaching the courts in order to ventilate his grievances as access to court is a constitutionally guaranteed right''. Counsel urged the court to follow the case cited and resolve this issue in favour of the Claimants/Respondents. On issue 2, Counsel submitted that issues of preliminary objections by their very nature are issues which will terminate the suit if properly raised. According to Counsel issues which appropriately should be issues of defence ought not to be raised by way of preliminary objection. Counsel submitted further that the issues raised by Defendants/Applicants in paragraphs 5-30 of the Affidavit in support of the notice of preliminary objection, the Exhibits attached and the arguments in the accompanying written address are issues of defence and not issues of preliminary objection. Counsel urged the court to answer the issue 2 in the negative. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that if the answers of the Court to issues 1 and 2 above are in the negative, then consequentially, this issue must be answered in the affirmative. Counsel therefore urged the Court to dismiss the Defendants/Applicants notice of preliminary objection for constituting an abuse of court process with substantial cost. Learned Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants filed a Reply on Points of Law. It was dated 10th April 2014. In it learned Counsel conceded to the constitutional right of the Claimants/Respondents to access the Court but stated that that right could not be exercised unless and until the domestic remedies provided in the Constitution of the 1st Defendant have been exhausted. Secondly, Counsel submitted that for the Counsel to Claimants/Respondents to urge the Court to follow the case of Iweanya v. Nwachukwu decided by the Enugu Division of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria amounts to urging the Court not to follow the established principle of stare decisis, citing Suleman & Anor. v. COP (2008)5 SCM 200 at 222 per Niki Tobi JSC and section 287 (1), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. Thirdly, Counsel submitted that even though the Court, in the main, considers the Statement of Claim in deciding to grant or not to grant a preliminary objection, facts relating to a case are not precluded from being stated in the Affidavit in support of the preliminary objection provided the object is to convince the Court to uphold the objection. Counsel cited A.G. Federation v. ANPP & Ors. (2003)12 SCM 1 at 11-12 where the Supreme Court held that ' 'if a preliminary objection leaves the exclusive domain of law and flirts with the facts of the case, then the burden rests on the applicant to justify the objection by adducing facts in an affidavit''. Finally, learned Counsel reiterated the decision of the Supreme Court in University of Ilorin v. Oluwadare (supra) quoting Tobi JSC on page 781 that where a litigant ''rushes to Court without first exhausting ALL the remedies for redress available to him within the domestic forum, as was the case of Akinyemi v. Onwumechili (supra) he would be held to have 'jumped the gun' and the matter would be declared bad for incompetence''. Counsel therefore urged the Court to uphold the Defendants/Applicants preliminary objection as prayed. On 13/5/14, learned Counsel to the Defendants/Applicants filed List of Additional Authorities. It was dated 12/5/14 and contained three judicial authorities of trial Courts. I have read all the processes filed for and against this preliminary objection. I have also listened to the oral submissions of learned Counsel on either side regarding same. Having done so, l note that there is a consensus among Counsel on both sides that there are indeed internal or domestic remedies provided by the Constitution of the 1st Defendant/Applicant for the purpose of resolving any disputes that may arise in the management of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. While the Defendants/Applicants contended that those internal remedies must first be exhausted before a resort to judicial intervention, Claimants/Respondents on the other hand argued that they were not under any obligation to exhaust those remedies since the Constitution of the 1st Defendant did not make such provision and in any event that their constitutional right of access to court could not be abridged not even by the Constitution of the 1st Defendant. Cognizance of the foregoing, l set down a lone issue for the determination of this case to be: 'Whether the Claimants/Respondents are bound to exhaust available internal remedies provided under the Constitution of the 1st Defendant before seeking judicial intervention as they have done in this case'. The Constitution and Code of Practice of the 1st Defendant/Applicant 1st Edition of 2005 is the document binding all members of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. That document, among other things, provides for almost all foreseeable situations regarding administration of the Association including matters of discipline of members and officers alike. Rule 9 of the Constitution deals with National Executive Council of the Association. While Rule 9(i) empowers the National Executive Council to administer the Association in between National Delegates Conference in accordance with the Constitution; Rule 9(ii) expressly declares that the National Executive Council shall be the supreme authority in the conduct of the Association's business during periods in between National Delegates Conferences. Rule 16 of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant/Applicant deals with Officer and Staff of the Association. Rule 16(xiv) relates to discipline of National Officer. It provides that: ''The National Executive Council shall have the power to remove any National Officer for any offence that is against the Rules of the Association subject to the right of appeal to the National Delegates Conference''. The power of the National Executive Council to discipline any erring National Officer is constitutionally guaranteed and recognised. But that is not without providing a window for the aggrieved National Officer who is disciplined to seek remedy. Such an Officer may appeal to the National Delegate Conference. Let me state here that situations will normally arise where an Officer of an Association as the 1st Defendant/Applicant will have to be disciplined by the appropriate body or authority within the Association. Controversies and disputes arising from such act are undoubtedly domestic in nature. It is in order to resolve such domestic issues internally rather than external that internal remedies are provided for aggrieved parties or members to explore. The three Claimants/Respondents in this case are National Trustees of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants are President-General and General Secretary respectively of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. I have examined the 17 claims of the Claimants/Respondents in this case and l find and hold that those are internal issues arising from the administration of the 1st Defendant/Respondent for which there are internal remedies for the purpose of resolving same. Now, not having sought or exhausted available internal remedies before filing this action what is the effect? Can this Court shut out the Claimants/Respondents and deny them hearing simply because they did not seek internal remedies to solve internal controversies? Right of access to court is a constitutional right. See Section 6(6), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. It cannot be abridged by or under whatever form or guise. See Global Excellence Communications Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Donald Duke (2007)LPELR-1323 (SC),(2007)16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 22. However, where as in the instant case, the Constitution of the 1st Defendant provides for internal remedies for the purpose of resolving internal disputes a request to exhaust such remedies or mechanism is not intended to abridge or restrict exercise of the right of access to court. It simply means a condition precedent that must be fulfilled to the exercise of that right. In L. O. Owoseni v. Joshua Ibiowotisi Faloye & Anor. (2005)14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719 at page 33 the apex Court of the land held that where an aggrieved party has not resorted to the remedies statutorily available to him on the infringement of his alleged right by the prescribed authority, such a party has therefore not exhausted the remedies available to him and has in consequence not satisfied the preconditions for access to Court. The law is trite and has been so decided in a number of cases by the apex court of the land that where remedies exist in the domestic forum to address domestic controversies such remedies must first be exhausted before the intervention of the court is sought. Failure to do so makes a case filed to be premature. See University of Ilorin v. Oluwadare (2006)14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 751 and Akintemi v. Pro. C. A. Onwumechili & Ors. (1985) All NLR 94. Claimants/Respondents in this case were entitled to file an appeal against the decision of the National Executive Council to the National Delegates Conference. That, they did not do. Exercise of their right of appeal to the National Delegates Conference is a condition precedent to vesting the Court with jurisdiction to hear their case. Not having done so, their cause of action is not ripe for adjudication and hence this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear same. See Bamisile v. Osasyi (2007)9 NWLR (Pt. 1042) 225. In the course of his submissions, learned Counsel for the Claimants/Respondents urged the Court to follow the decision of this Court in Comrade Denis O. Iweanya & Ors. v. Edwin U. Nwachukwu & 5 Ors (2013)37 NLLR (Pt. 113) 230 where the Court held that - ''... even if the Claimants had no right to come to Court without exhausting the internal dispute resolution mechanism, such a provision was contained in the 2008 Constitution while the election in question being sought to be upheld was conducted in 2007 under the 2003 Constitution of the Union''. I need not dissipate energy in drawing attention to the fact the present case and the case cited are certainly not the same. Secondly, even if they are the same, this Court is not bound to follow that decision being a decision emanating from a Division of the same Court. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, to do so will amount to a violation of the principle of stare decisis and a disrespect to appellate Courts. This Court as a trial Court is bound by decisions of appellate Courts. Decisions of appellate Courts, especially the Supreme Court of Nigeria, are like orders of Court to trial Courts. They must be obeyed by the latter. I know of no alternative. This is aptly expressed in the doctrine of stare decisis. The spirit of stare decisis is part of the legacy of the British to the judicial system of this country. It has become entrenched and sustained over the years. The spirit makes for certainty in the law. The Bar, the Bench and indeed the society at large are the beneficiaries of the stare decisis as a doctrine. To therefore directly or indirectly urge a trial Court not to be stare decisis compliant tantamount to urging a trial Judge to commit judicial misconduct the consequences of which may be very devastating. This Court will not do that. It is also not professional for a Counsel to so urge a trial Court. In some jurisdictions such amounts to professional misconduct on the part of Counsel. Do l need say more on this? Finally and for the avoidance of doubt the preliminary objection brought by Defendants/Applicants succeeds. Claimants/Respondents' case is therefore dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge