NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW) V RIVERS DRIVERS TRANSPORT & ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN — JUDGE

DATE: 19^TH APRIL, 2018

SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/448/2016

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD

TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW)

COMRADE MONDAY ELEAZAR

(Vice Chairman National Union of Road

Transport Workers Union, Rivers State Council)

COMRADE CHUKS BOMS

(Secretary National Union of Road Transport

Workers Union, Rivers State Council)

(The 2^nd and 3^rd Claimants institute this case on behalf

of themselves and all the members of National Union of

Road Transport Workers, Rivers State Council)

CLAIMANTS

AND

RIVERS DRIVERS TRANSPORT

CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED

MR. BINOYE SUNDAY
KEKE DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
OBUAH EBENEZER

(The Defendants are sued as representing

themselves and all class of persons that carry

on business of commercial transportation of

passengers and goods in Rivers State with vehicles

such as Taxis, Buses and Tricycles who may be

registered under the Companies and Allied Matters

Act 1990 or any other law, but not affiliated to any

trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act

Cap T14 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004)

DEFENDANTS

REPRESENTATION:

Martin O. Nwabali for the Claimants

O. Ebulu for the 1^stand 2^ndDefendants

No representation for the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants

JUDGMENT

By an Originating Summons dated and filed on 20^th December, 2016, the Claimants initiated this suit against the defendants and submitted the following questions for the determination of the court:

Whether Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited and all the other class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent are entitled to function as trade unions within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act to the extent of regulating the terms and conditions of workers engaged in commercial transportation with buses and taxies in Rivers State.

Whether (1) Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited and all the class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent in this case may, without being registered as trade unions under the Trade Unions Act, lawfully issue tickets and or emblem/stickers to, and generally register and organize workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, especially commercial tricycle operators, in Rivers State, with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of work.

Whether the existence and operation of the NURTW in organizing, and representing workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road, with taxis, buses and tricycles, in Rivers State, and generally regulating the terms and conditions of their work, does not preclude (1) Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, (2) Keke Drivers Association and all the class of persons and bodies they are sued to represent in this case, from being registered as a trade union to represent workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, especially commercial tricycle operators, in Rivers State.

They therefore claimed the following reliefs:

A declaration that (1) Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, (2) Keke Drivers Association and all other class of persons who engage in transportation of goods and passengers with any type of vehicle such as cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State without being registered as a trade union, under the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 LFN, 2004 (“Trade Unions Act”), lack the power to do so without membership of a trade union.

A declaration that (1) Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, (2) Keke Drivers Association and all other bodies engaged in the business of transportation of passengers and goods in Rivers State not being registered trade unions under the Trade Unions Act, are not entitled to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road with taxis, buses and tricycles, especially commercial vehicle operators in Rivers State or at all.

iii. A declaration that the 1^st Claimant is the Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, with jurisdiction to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road in Nigeria, including Rivers State (excluding the transportation of Petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self-employed persons); and

An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants herein and all the class of persons and bodies they represent, their servants, agents and privies from doing any act or continuing in furtherance of any act, including issuing of tickets and or emblems/stickers to, and registration and organization of commercial taxis, buses and tricycles and all types of vehicle operators in Rivers State or at all, with a view to regulate their terms and conditions of work.

In support of the Originating Summons is an affidavit of 17 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Chuks Boms (the 3^rd Claimant herein) on the 20^th of December, 2016. Annexed to the Affidavit is one document marked as exhibit ‘A’ which is the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (the 1^st Claimant herein).

In compliance with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 17(1) of the Rules of this Court 2017, the Claimants filed along with the Originating Summons a Written Address dated 16^th December, 2016 and filed on 20^th December, 2016, wherein the following four (4) issues were distilled for the determination of this court:

Whether Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, and all the other class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent are entitled to function as Trade Unions within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act to the extent of regulating the terms and conditions of workers engaged in commercial transportation with buses and taxis and tricycles in Rivers State.

Whether Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, and all the class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent in this case may, without being registered as Trade Unions under the Trade Unions Act, lawfully issue tickets and or emblems/stickers to, and generally register and organize workers engaged in commercial tricycle operators, in Rivers State, with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of work.

Whether the existence and operation of the NURTW in organizing and representing workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road, with taxis, buses and tricycles, in Rivers State, and generally regulating the terms and conditions of their work, does not preclude (1) Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, (2) Keke Drivers Association and all the Class of persons and bodies they are sued to represent in this case, from being registered as a Trade Union(s) to represent workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road using cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State.

Whether the Claimants are in the circumstance entitled to the reliefs they claim.

Upon service of the Originating processes on the Defendants, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants filed a Memorandum of Appearance dated and filed on 20^th March, 2017. In opposition to the Originating Summons, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants filed a 10 paragraphs Counter-Affidavit deposed to by Mr. Binoye Sunday (the 2^nd Defendant herein) on 20^th March, 2017. The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants also filed a Written Address dated and filed on 20^th March, 2017. These processes filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were deemed properly filed and served by order of court on 16^th November, 2017.

It is pertinent to state that despite the service of the Originating Processes on the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants and the opportunities granted by this court, the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants neither entered appearance in this suit nor filed any process in opposition to the Claimants’ Originating Summons.

CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS.

As earlier stated in this judgment, the Claimants formulated four (4) issues for the determination of this court.

On the first issue formulated for determination, to wit, whether Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, and all the other class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent are entitled to function as Trade Unions within the meaning of the Trade Unions Act to the extent of regulating the terms and conditions of workers engaged in commercial transportation with buses, taxis and tricycles in Rivers State, it was submitted that the 1^st Claimant is a registered Trade Union under Article 16 Part A to the Third Schedule of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004, whose membership are “all workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, excluding the transportation of petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self employed persons.”

Learned counsel for the claimants reproduced the provisions of section 1 of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004, and argued that any association of employees or employers which aims “to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers” may qualify as a trade union. That such association by law cannot function as a trade union until it is duly registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions in line with the provisions of section 2 of the Act. That the import of the said section 2(1) of the Act is that any association of workers or employers that has not fulfilled the legal requirement of registration under the Act cannot operate and or function as a trade union in Nigeria unless such an unregistered body is taking steps necessary for its registration.

That the defendants who have been performing core trade union activities including issuing yearly stickers which entitle those who have the stickers to operate commercial transport with buses, taxis and tricycles for the relevant year are thereby regulating the number of cars, buses and tricycles operating in each year thereby affecting the size of the market available to each car, bus and tricycle operator within the year.

It was finally submitted relying on the Supreme Court case of Shettima V. Gonni (2012) All FWLR (Part 609) page 1007 at 1050 that, since the provisions of section 2(1) of the Trade Unions Act are explicit and unambiguous, they should be given their ordinary meaning; and the court should therefore resolve this issue in favour of the Claimants.

On issue two (2) which is whether Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, and all the class of persons and bodies it is sued to represent in this case may, without being registered as Trade Unions under the Trade Unions Act, lawfully issue tickets and or emblems/stickers to, and generally register and organize workers engaged in commercial tricycle operations, in Rivers State, with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of work, it was submitted by the Claimants’ counsel that, since the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants are not registered under the Trade Unions Act, they cannot lawfully issue tickets and or emblems/stickers to, and generally register and organize workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by roads with vehicles such as cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State, with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of work.

That since by section 1(1) of the Act the primary purpose of forming a trade union is the regulation of the terms and conditions of work of its members, and section 2(1) prohibits an unregistered trade union from performing any act in furtherance of its purpose unless such an act is necessary for the purpose of getting the union registered, a community reading of the two sections of the Act will show that unless an association is a registered trade union, it cannot engage in any activity having the effect of regulating the terms and conditions of employment of workers and or organize/represent workers in the performance of such activity. On this point the court was referred to its decision in the unreported case of Hon. Attorney-General of Enugu State V. National Association of Government General Medical and Dental Practitioners (NAGGMDP) & Anor (2014) 47 NLLR (Pt. 153) 427 where it was held that, “Once workers are not registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, they cannot enjoy the benefits enjoyed by trade unions. It is in this sense that section 2 of the Trade Unions Act bars anybody not registered as a trade union from doing those things that only trade unions can do…..”

It was finally submitted on this issue that, since the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants and all other bodies like them are not registered under the Trade Unions Act, they cannot lawfully issue tickets and or emblems/stickers to, and generally register and organize workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road using cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State with a view to regulating their terms and conditions of work. The court was therefore urged to resolve this issue against the Defendants.

The Claimants’ issue three (3) is whether the existence and operation of the 1^st Claimant (NURTW) in organizing and representing workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road, with taxis, buses and tricycles, in Rivers State, and generally regulating the terms and conditions of their work, does not preclude the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants (Rivers Drivers Transport Co-operative Union Limited, and Keke Drivers Association and all the Class of persons and bodies they are sued to represent in this case), from being registered as a Trade Union(s) to represent workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road using cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State.

On this issue, it was submitted by the Claimants’ counsel that, the existence and operation of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) in organizing and representing workers engaged in commercial transportation of passengers and goods by road using cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State and generally regulating the terms and conditions of their work, precludes the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants and all other bodies they are sued to represent from performing as trade union(s) such as to represent workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road using cars, buses and tricycles in Rivers State, or such as to regulate the terms and conditions of their operation.

Learned counsel cited and relied on section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act in arguing that, where there is in existence a trade union which sufficiently represents the interests of workers or employers of an unregistered trade union, the unregistered trade union will not be recognized since the registered trade union has covered the field. The purpose of this provision is to prevent unnecessary duplicity of trade unions and promote industrial harmony. The court was referred to the case of Osawe V. Registrar of Trade Unions (1985) 1 NWLR (Part 4) 955, where the Supreme Court held that the essence of section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act was to promote public order and to check the chaotic proliferation of trade unions which was the practice before the Act was promulgated. The court was invited to note the scope of the 1^st Claimant’s jurisdiction as delineated by the Act as the regulation of the terms and conditions of work of “all workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road excluding the transportation of petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self employed persons” and also Article 3(9) of the 1^st Claimant’s Constitution which spells out its objectives as, “to organize all professional commercial operators, ie taxi, township/inter-state bus service, trailer and lorry operators in the Local Government owned motor parks who convey passengers, goods and foodstuffs and workers in motor transport corporation, motorcycle (okada), and tricycle operators throughout the Federation of Nigeria and including Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory.”

That since the Claimants have sufficiently covered the interests of the workers which the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants and all other bodies they are sued to represent purports to unionise, they cannot be recognized and or operate as a trade union in Nigeria or any part thereof, and the court is urged to resolve issue three (3) against the Defendants.

On Issue four (4) i.e whether the Claimants are in the circumstance entitled to the reliefs they claim, learned counsel reproduced the reliefs in the Originating Summons and submitted that the Claimants’ claims are for declaratory and injunctive reliefs and that this court is empowered under sections 14, 16 and 19 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 to grant same. See also GOLDMARK Nig. Ltd. V. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 3 KLR (Part 309) 1251 at 1288, paras. D – F.

It was further submitted that, by section 2(3) of the Trade Unions Act, it is a crime for anybody to contravene the provisions of section 2 of the Act and that this court does not only have the duty to punish crimes but also to prevent the commission of crimes. That the 2^nd and 4^th Defendants are allegedly parties to the crime because section 2(3)(b) of the Act makes every member of such trade union that took part in the activity amounting to the crime guilty of same. That in restraining the Defendants in terms of the injunctive relief sought by the Claimants, the court is proactively enforcing the provisions of section 2 of the Act.

The claimants finally submitted that, they are entitled to all the reliefs sought from the court and the court is therefore urged to give judgment in favour of the Claimants as per the reliefs claimed.

1^ST AND 2^ND DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants submitted two (2) issues for the determination of this court, and these are:

Whether having regards to the facts of this case, the 1^st claimant and the 1^st Defendant are distinct bodies and as such independent of each other?

If the answer to issue one is in the positive, whether the 1^st claimant has the right to unionize and or compel the members of the 1^st defendant to become members of the 1^st claimant?

On issue one (1) learned counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants submitted that the 1^st claimant and the 1^st defendant are distinct bodies independent of each other. That while the 1^st claimant is a trade union, the 1^st defendant is a co-operative body comprising of self-employed commercial vehicle drivers in Rivers State who have constituted themselves into a group for the purpose of promoting, projecting and protecting their interests and rights.

Learned counsel referred the court to section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and submitted that the members of the 1^st defendant are only exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association which cannot be curtailed as the Constitution is the supreme law of the Country. See Hope Democratic Party V. Obi (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 612) 1620 at 1625 ratio 4; Udenwa V. Uzodinma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 674) 1.

That in this case, both members of the 1^st defendant and the 1^st claimant in this suit have only exercised their constitutional right under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to belong to two distinct bodies which are independent of each other. The court is therefore urged to resolve this issue in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.

On issue two (2), it was submitted that the Trade Unions Act is a law meant for the establishment of trade unions and not an Act to compel every individual or body to be a member of a trade union as that will be an affront to the provisions of section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which gives every individual the right to voluntarily decide either to form or belong to an association, political party or trade union. That since the constitutional provision is sacrosanct and supreme, any other provision in any statute that is inconsistent with same is unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. See section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). See also the case of Okulate V. Awosanya (2000) FWLR (Pt. 25) 1666; Okeke V. Securities and Exchange Commission (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 687) 731.

That the claimants are only trying to enforce a non-existing right with the wrong notion that they have the right to unionize the members of the 1^st defendant and to forcefully register them as members of the 1^st Claimant. That granting the claimants the reliefs being sought from the court will amount to enthroning injustice and also allowing a litigant to disobey the laws of the land which a court of law should not do. See Longe V. F.B.N. 42 NSCQR 652.

The court was therefore urged to resolve this issue in favour of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and dismiss this suit for being frivolous and lacking in merit.

Like I stated earlier in this judgment, the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants did not file any process and never put up any appearance in the matter despite several opportunities afforded them to do so.

COURT’S DECISION

Having carefully considered the processes, arguments and submissions of counsel in this matter, the issue for determination in this suit to my mind is whether the Claimants have established any case against the Defendants to be entitled to the reliefs being sought from the court.

While the Claimants have argued that since the 1^st Claimant is a registered Trade Union in the Transport sector whose jurisdictional scope covers the activities of the Defendants who are not registered Trade Unions and should therefore be restrained by the court from functioning as trade unions, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on the other hand argued that the 1^st Defendant is not a registered trade union but a co-operative society formed by its members in exercise of their right to freedom of association as enshrined in section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

It is crystal clear that parties in this suit are in agreement as to the status of the 1^st Claimant being a registered trade union and the 1^st Defendant being an association that is not registered as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14 LFN 2004.

The question calling for the determination of the court therefore is whether the registration of the 1^st Claimant as a trade union in the transport sector precludes the defendants who are not registered trade unions from operating or functioning in the said transport sector of the economy particularly in Rivers State.

A starting point is to take a look at the provisions of section 2 (1) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 which restricts an unregistered trade union from functioning as one. The said section 2 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:

“2(1) A trade union shall not perform any act in furtherance of the purposes for which it has been formed unless it has been registered under this Act: provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a trade union from taking any steps (including the collection of subscriptions or dues) which may be necessary for the purpose of getting the union registered.”

While I agree with the learned Claimants’ counsel on the submission that an unregistered association cannot function as a trade union unless it has fulfilled the statutory requirement of registration under the Trade Unions Act, the question in this suit is whether the defendants are performing any act or function that can only be performed by a registered trade union. Put in another way, whether the defendants have put themselves out by claiming to be trade unions with a view to engaging in trade union activities.

I have thoroughly gone through the Affidavit in support of the Claimants’ Originating Summons and could not find any fact to show that the Defendants are engaging in trade union activities. Even on the allegation that the Defendants register drivers as members of their associations and issue tickets, emblems/stickers for fees, the said tickets, emblems/stickers were not exhibited to enable the court ascertain the authority under which the defendants issue such tickets to their members for fees.

I have equally looked at the cases of Osawe V. Registrar of Trade Unions (supra) and AG Enugu State V. NAGGMDP & Anor. being relied upon by the Claimants in this case, and I am of the considered opinion that the cases are of no moment to this case because their facts are different from the facts of this case.

In the case of Erasmus Osawe & Ors. V. Registrar of Trade Unions, there was an application to the Registrar of Trade Unions for the registration of a proposed trade union known as ‘The Nigerian United Teaching Services Workers Union’ also known as ‘Nigerian Administrative Staff Union of Primary and Post-Primary Schools’ whose members had resolved to break away from the existing trade union known as ‘Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU)’. The application was considered and rejected by the Registrar of trade unions on the ground that the existing trade union (NASU) adequately catered for the interests of the class of persons in the proposed trade union. It was based on the refusal to register the proposed trade union that the matter went to court and travelled all the way to the apex court and the apex court agreed with the decision of the Registrar of trade unions to decline the registration of the proposed trade union on the ground that the existing trade union in the sector (NASU) had adequately taken care of the interests of the members of the proposed trade union.

Again, in the case of AG Enugu State V. National Association of Government General Medical and Dental Practitioners (NAGGMDP) & 1 Anor (2014) 47 NLLR (Pt. 153) 427, the issue that arose for the court’s consideration was whether the 1^st Defendant not being a registered trade union and whose members engage in essential services can go on strike. The Defendants had issued notice of strike to the Enugu State Government thereby necessitating the State Attorney General to approach the court for a restraining order against the Defendants. After a painstaking consideration of the case, this court coram Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, Hon Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae and Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim rightly held thus at page 468 paragraphs B – F:

“It is not in doubt that the defendants are not a trade union. It is equally not in doubt that they are engaged in services for, or in connection with, hospitals and the treatment of the sick as per paragraph 2(d) of the First Schedule to the Trade Disputes Act – the defendants having admitted this fact in paragraphs 2 and 3 of their statement of defence. The argument of the defendants that the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act must be read as separate from those from the Trade Unions Act cannot be tenable because the Trade Unions Act defines the term essential services by reference to the Trade Disputes Act. Equally not tenable is the argument of the defendants that because they are not a trade union, they are not bound by the Trade Unions Act. This is because the provisions of the Trade Unions Act are meant to regulate the activities of not only bodies registered as trade unions but those who are not so registered but are keen on doing things that only registered trade unions can do such as the defendants. So when the defendants acknowledged in paragraph 10 of their statement of defence that the 2^nd defendant vide a letter of 2^nd December, 2010 gave 21 days’ notice of strike to the claimant, it is an admission of the fact of doing a thing that only registered trade unions are permitted to do. Not only is this unlawful, it is criminal.”

I have taken the pains to reproduce at length the decision of this court to show that while in the case of AG Enugu State V. NAGGMDP, the unregistered trade union engaged in trade union activities by declaring a strike action, in the instant case it has not been shown the trade union activities being embarked upon by the defendants. The defendants in this suit have neither applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions for registration as a trade union nor performed any function or activity that can only be performed by a registered trade union.

The submissions of the Claimants that the registration of the 1^st Claimant as a trade union in the transport sector precludes the existence of any other organization in the sector because the 1^st Claimant has covered the field in the transport sector is to my mind not correct. Apart from the 1^st Claimant listed as number 16 of Part B of the Trade Unions Act with its jurisdictional scope as “all workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, excluding the transportation of petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self employed persons” Part C of the Act lists at number 29 Road Transport Employers’ Association as another trade union in the same transport sector. It is pertinent to note that the existence of the two unions (NURTW and RTEAN) in the transport sector has been affirmed by this court in the case of Road Transport Employers’ Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) Osogbo, Osun State V. National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), Osun State (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt. 58) 93.

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have argued that the 1^st Defendant is not a registered trade union but a co-operative society registered as such in exercise of their constitutional right of freedom of association, and that being self-employed persons they cannot be compelled to unionise under the 1^st Claimant because they fall under the exception to the jurisdictional scope of the 1^st Claimant.

Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) guarantees every person the right to associate and form trade unions, associations or political parties. For the sake of clarity the said section 40 states:

“40 Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. Provided that the provisions of this section shall not derogate from the powers conferred by this Constitution on the Independent National Electoral Commission with respect to political parties to which that Commission does not accord recognition.”

It is therefore not in doubt that section 40 of the Constitution guarantees the defendants the freedom to associate for the purpose of protecting and projecting their interests, and since there is nothing before the court to warrant restriction of this constitutional right, this court is duty bound to uphold the constitutional provision and affirm same. See Muhammed Kawu Modi & 3 Ors. V. Abdullahi M. Yanko & 5 Ors. (2013) 37 NLLR (Pt. 112) 42 at 73 where this court per Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim rightly held that the constitutional right to assemble and form association of one’s choice does not constitute the said association into a trade union.

See Independent National Electoral Commission V. Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa (2003) LPELR – 1515(SC).

May I add that, one of the relevant features of a trade union is its purpose or objective which must be the regulation of the terms and conditions of employment of workers. This is what distinguishes a trade union from other associations such as co-operative societies, association of traders, students’ unions etc. It therefore goes to say that it is not every association that is a trade union. This seems to be the misconception of the Claimants in this suit. The case of the Claimants is akin to saying that because there are trade unions such as the Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of Nigeria registered by the Trade Unions Act in for example the Agricultural sector of the economy, nobody should engage in farming or any other agricultural activity without being a registered trade union or a member of a registered trade union. This to my mind is not the intention of the law makers in enacting the Trade Unions Act.

In the final analysis, I am of the view that based on the reasons advanced above and the authorities cited and relied upon, the defendants being self employed persons are excluded from being registered under the 1^st Claimant and they have the right to associate for the protection of their interests. The sole issue identified by this court for determination is therefore resolved against the Claimants.

It is therefore the decision of this court that while the Claimants’ relief 3 succeeds; reliefs 1, 2 and 4 all fail and are hereby refused.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimants’ case succeeds in part with regard to relief 3 to the effect that the 1^st Claimant is the trade union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, with jurisdiction to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road in Nigeria, including Rivers State (excluding the transportation of petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self-employed persons.

Reliefs 1, 2 and 4 are refused.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

I make no order as to costs.

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Judge