LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

Mallam.Saka Salman & 4 Ors -VS- Commissioner of Police, Kwara

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D DAMULAK

DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/43/2018

BETWEEN

  1. MALLAM SAKA SALMAN

Chairman, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

  1.  ABDULAZEEZ MUSA AGAKA

Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

  1. MALLAM SAHEED DEMOLA                  …………………….. CLAIMANTS

Treasurer, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

  1. MALLAM ISSA SAADU BANNI

Organising Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

  1. MALLAM SALIU AROMOKALA

Financial Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

(For themselves and on behalf of the Nigerian Association

of co-operative Transporters Ltd, Kwara State Branch)

AND

  1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
  2. ALHAJI JIMOH AYINDE ASINDE

(2nd vice chairman of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

  1. ALHAJI ISIAKA ALAO

(State Deputy Financial Secretary, of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

  1. ALHAJI RASAK AJALA

(State Publicity Secretary, of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

  1. ALHAJI SULEIMAN KAREEM

(Chairman of Taxi Emirate 3 Chapel, Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

  1. JIMOH AKANJI

(Chairman of Taxi Emirate 2 Chapel, Road Transport

Employer’s Association Kwara State Branch)              …………….. DEFENDANTS

Suing for themselves and on behalf of other members

of Road Transport Employer’s Association, Kwara State Branch.

  1. ALHAJI ALIYU ISSA ORE

(Chairman of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

  1. ALHAJI RASHEED YEMI ALIU

(Secretary of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

  1. ALHAJI RASQ BADMUS

(Financial Secretary of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

 

  1. ALHAJI ABDULLAHI KOLOBO

(National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) Taxi

Branch 3 Chairman, Kwara State)

 

REPRESENTATION:

A.T Olatunde with O.O. Adifarin for the claimants.

A.R. Aminu  for the 2nd -6th  respondents.

Adedayo Zulqurnain for the 7th -10th respondents.

 

JUDGMENT

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. This is a transferred case from the Federal High Court of Nigeria, sitting at Ilorin. This judgment borders on the right or otherwise of the claimants to exist and operate as Nigerian Association of Co-operative Transporters Limited Kwara State Chapter.By an amended originating summons filed on the 17thOctober, 2018, the Claimants claim against the defendants for the determination of two questions and the grant of seven reliefs as follows;
  3. An Order declaring the claimants’ Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited as a body corporate recognized under the extant laws of Nigeria with the legal capacity to exist and carry out taxi transport services in any part of Kwara State without any let or hindrance from any of the defendants, or any Police Officer(s) or any person whatsoever acting in connivance, collusion or in concert with the defendants.
  4. A Declaration that the purported attempt, desire by the 1st defendant herein, through her officers, privies or anybody or person(s) including the 2nd – 6th defendants as well as 7th – 10th defendants or any association claiming through or in connivance with the defendants, to disturb, proscribe, harass, intimidate, or threaten the claimants and their members from peacefully operating their business as commercial taxi operators throughout Kwara State is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the power of the defendant.
  5. A Declaration that the verbal/oral directive of the 1st defendant purporting to proscribe the claimants’ Association (at the instigation of the 2nd – 6th defendants and 7th – 10th defendants respectively) on the ground of the existence of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) or the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) does not and cannot be extended to the claimants and members of the Association who are self employed persons carrying on their business as Taxi Drivers with liberty to constitute themselves into an Association and/or a cooperative society without belonging to a Trade Union for the protection of their own interest whether in Kwara State or anywhere else within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
  6. An Order of perpetual injunction prohibiting or restraining the Commissioner of Police, Kwara State Command, any of her officers, or other security agencies however called or any person whatsoever from harassing, interfering, disturbing, molesting and proscribing the peaceful operation of the claimants legitimate taxi transport business or services in any part of Kwara State.
  7. An Order of injunction restraining the 2nd – 10th defendants, their agents, privies or officials or any person acting through them from disturbing the claimants in their individual business of Taxi Transport business as owners/drivers of their taxi cabs in Kwara State.
  8. Any order relief of reliefs the Honourable Court may found in favour of the claimants.
  9. Cost of this summons.
  10. All processes have been filed and exchanged but the first defendant did not defend the suit.
  11. FACTS OF THE CASE
  12. Some individual taxi drivers formed and registered the Nigeria Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited,(NACT) the claimants herein.The claimants registered their Kwara State Chapter as “ NACT-KWARA STATE CHAPTER TRANSPORTERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED”.

They elected officials of the Kwara State chapter and fixed a day for inauguration but the defendants were aggrieved and they used the 1st defendant to stop them and the first defendant has also proscribed their Association on the ground of the existence of other transport associations in Kwara State and that the claimants either join NURTW or RTEAN or otherwise face prosecution.

  1. CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

4.The claimants have filed two processes as follows;

  1. Amended originating summons dated 2/11/2018.
  2. Further and better affidavit in support of summons dated 2/11/2018.

In the 38 paragraph affidavit in support of the originating summons, the 2nd claimant deposed on behalf of all the claimants that all the claimants are members of Kwara State Chapter of the Nigeria Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited, which chapter of the association is registered with the Kwara State Ministry of Commerce and Cooperatives, and has a bye-law and certificate of registration. Members of the association are private Taxi owners who are also drivers. They elected officials and scheduled their inauguration for 13/12/2017 and invited various dignitaries and other associations including NURTW and RTEAN.

5.That a few hours before inauguration on 13/12//2017, officers of the 1st defendant ordered them to stop the programme immediately upon a petition allegedly written by executives of NURTW and RTEAN protesting that they do not have any right to carry out the inauguration in Kwara State and they do not have any right to operate as transporters in Kwara State.

  1. That the deputy Commissioner of Police (operation) gave as reason for the decision of the 1stdefendant in proscribing our Association being the existence of other transport associations in Kwara State and that we either join NURTW or RTEAN or otherwise we face prosecution.
  2. Deposing further in the further and better affidavit of 2/11/2018 in support of the originating summons, the 2ndclaimant deposed that none of the Claimants as member of Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited (NACT) are members of either the Road Transport Employers Association or that of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, Kwara State chapters. That there are so many private taxi and bus owners or drivers in Kwara State and all the states in Nigeria who are not members of the 2nd– 10th Defendants’ two associations.

8.Learned counsel for the claimants submitted two issues for determination. The issues, by way of summary, are as follows;

  1. Whether the claimants having registered their association are not entitled to operate as such.
  2. Whether the proscription of the claimants by the 1st defendant does not constitute an infraction on the Claimants members right to peaceful assembly or association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles l0 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

9.On issue one in his written address in support of the originating summons counsel submitted that the Claimants· association is a body corporate recognized under the extant laws of Nigeria with the legal capacity to carry out taxi transport services in any part of Kwara state, claimant submitted that the applicable laws that validate the legal capacity of the Claimants’ Association in this regard are;

  1. Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
  2. Articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act,
  3. The Third Schedule, part B, paragraph 16 of the Trade union Act Cap T14 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004.
  4. Section 6 of Nigerian Cooperative Societies Act Cap  N98 Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2004

10.That the Trade  unions Act Cap T14 LFN 2004 listed the restructured Trade Unions affiliated to the central organizations in 3rd schedule part B and C. Going by paragraph 16 of the Third Schedule, it can be expressly deduced that self-employed persons operating transport business are excluded from membership of the National Union of Road Transport Workers. The 1st defendant cannot therefore legally proscribe the Claimants’ association in Kwara State.

11.That the claimants’ cooperative society is duly registered with a certificate and it is legal and has not been proscribed by a Court of law. The presumption of regularity inures in its favour. Section 7 Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act Cap N98 LFN 2004. AGB0OLA & 8 ORS v. BURAIMOH OLISAH & 1 ORS unreported Appeal No. CA./B/118 /87 of 22 /2/ 1990 at page 11. See also the persuasive judgment of Osun State High Court delivered on 12/1/2017 in the unreported case with Suit No. HOS/M32/2016 –ABUBAKAR BASIRU GBODUPE & ANOR V  LEKAN SALAMI   & 5 ORS on the right of the  Claimants’ Association in Osun State to carry out transport business outside NURTW.

12.On his issue two, learned counsel submitted that the proscription of the claimants by the 1st defendant constitutes an infraction on the Claimants members right to peaceful assembly or association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles l0 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

13.That the provision of Section 40 of the Constitution is clear, direct and unambiguous. It is formulated and designed to confer on every person the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons. Consequently, any order or directives of the Defendant which is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), particularly Section 40 of the Constitution should be rendered by the Honourable Court null and void.

14.Learned counsel submitted further in his  written address accompanying the further and better affidavit in support of the originating summons that Paragraphs 15(a) –(j) of the 2-6th defendants deposed to by the 4th defendant are incompetent and should be struck out for being legal arguments and conclusions offending section 115(2)  of the evidence Act,2011.

  1. That exhibit 2 attached to the originating summons is the claimants’ bye-laws and does not need certification and claimants are not expected to exhibit the original copy to an affidavit. That the registration of the claimants association cannot be said to be illegal as the Trade Union Act itself preserved the right of self- employed transporters to carry on transportation business without being members of the 2nd-10thdefendants. That the inclusion of operation of motor parks and other provisions in the Bye – law which the 2nd – 6th defendants are harping upon to claim illegality of the Claimants’ association cannot be sufficient justification for the 1st defendant to purport to arrest the Claimants or their vehicles at the behest or instigation of the 2nd-10th defendants.
  2. CASE OF THE 2ND – 6TH RESPONDENTS.
  3. The 2nd -6th respondents filed a Counter affidavit on 24/10/2018. (pp 424 -440)

The 4th defendant deposed therein on behalf of the 2nd -6th defendants that the cause of action in this suit is whether the Claimants association can be operating transportation business in motor parks to carry passenger and goods by road or engage in taxi cab township service in Kwara State. That the Claimants are not members of Nigerian Association of cooperative Transporters Ltd (NACT). ) That some of the Claimants are members of 2nd- 6th defendants while others are members of 7th -10th Defendants. That there are no private taxi drivers in Kwara State or any state in Nigeria. All taxi drivers in Nigeria are either members of 2nd_ 6th defendants or 7th -10th defendants.

17.That Exhibit “Al” attached to the affidavit is not a licence or authority to the Claimants to be operating transportation business in motor parks or as a transport union engaged in taxi cab township service. That presently members of 2nd  _ 6th Defendants and 7th-10th  defendants are the only association and union operating in all motor parks in Kwara State to the exclusion of any other association or union and also engage in taxi cab township service. That members of the Claimants do not have any motor park in Kwara State where they operate.

  1. Paragraph 15 contains legal arguments of counsel as disclosed to the deponent. This paragraph is hereby struck out for offending section 115(2) of the evidence Act,2011.
  2. Submitting in his written address, learned counsel for the 2nd-6thdefendants argued that exhibit “A1’ attached to the supporting affidavit of the Claimants, being a public document is not admissible in this case because it is not certified in accordance with provisions of Evidence Act.

20.That the mere fact that the Claimants’ Nigerian Association of cooperative Transporters Limited is a body corporate is not enough to enable her members engage in the business of Transportation of passengers and goods by road as a Trade union without being registered as such.  There is nothing in the   Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act which empowers Co-operative Societies to be operating or carrying on the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in motor parks plying inter-State or intra- state routes or operating taxi cab township service.

21.From the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Bye-Laws of the Claimants’ Association it is clear beyond any doubt that they want to be functioning as a trade union. See section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants’ Bye-Laws. Which is contrary to the provision of section 3 (2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap.T.14 Laws of the federation of Nigeria. The bone of contention in this case is not whether the Claimants can form or belong to an association, but whether the association so formed and registered as Cooperative Society can translate to a trade union without being registered as such.

22.The case of JULIUS AGBOOLA & 8 ORS VS. BCRAIMOH OLISAH & , ORS  (SUPRA) referred to in the Claimants written address is not relevant in case as no person is questioning or has questioned the legality or otherwise of the Claimants’ association.

  1. CASE OF THE 7TH   – 10TH RESPONDENTS.

23.The 7th -10th respondents filed an 18 paragraph counter affidavit on 4/1/2019 deposed to by the 8th defendant. He deposed that they received invitation from the claimants to attend their inauguration and they protested to the State DSS, the police and the state on advice of their attorney challenging the legality of the claimants’ activities. That the Claimants Association is not a legal personality.

  1. That the Kwara State ministry of commerce & Co-operative do not have the power to issue certificate to any individual or association to carry out business of carrying passengers and goods in any part of Nigeria including Kwara State. That the bodies allowed to do this is the Corporate Affairs commission as well as the Registrar of Trade Union. That the Claimants· Association does not have the power to exist as an independent transporter rather as a body under either National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) or Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN)
  2. That EXHIBIT A2 (Bye Laws of Nigerian Association of Co-operative Transporters Limited) attached to the originating process of the Claimants is a usurpation of the statutory power of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) which we intend to challenge in this suit.
  3. Learned counsel for the 7th-10thdefendants submitted in his written address that there are substantial hostile facts in this suit and so same cannot be heard on an originating summons. That claimants exhibit A2 was signed by a public officer making same a public document requiring certification but same was not certified, contrary to section 102(a)(iii) of the evidence Act.

 

 

  1. FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW BY CLAIMANTS.
  2. The claimants filed a further and affidavit in response to 7th-10threspondents dated 12/4/2019.

Learned claimants counsel submitted that paragraphs 11-20 of the 7th -10th defendants counter affidavit offends section 115(2) of the evidence Act for being legal arguments and should be struck out.

  1. That the suit is asking for the interpretation of the Claimants’ constitutional right guaranteed under section 40 of the constitution of Nigeria, it is not a hostile proceeding and so it is properly brought by way of an originating summons. That in an originating summons proceedings that is based on affidavit evidence, documents relied upon as exhibits are photocopies. The Claimants are not expected to exhibit original copy of the Bye-law to the affidavit.
  2. That the grounds and the complaints of the Claimants as disclosed in the amended originating summons nothing precludes this Honourable court from granting the reliefs. The Trade Unions Act itself preserved the right or existence of self-employed transporters to carry on transport business without being members of the 7th– 10thDefendants.

 

  1. COUNTER CLAIM OF THE 2ND TO 6TH RESPONDENTS

30.The 2nd -6th respondents filed a Counter claim on 24/10/2018 and a further and better affidavit on 12/11/2018 for the determination of five questions and the grant of eight reliefs.

  1. The 4thcounter claimant deposed to a 10 paragraph affidavit, the contents of which are not different in material with the contents of the counter affidavit.
  2. Learned counsel for the 2nd-6thdefendants counter claimants submitted that section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants associations bye-Law circumvents the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, especially section 3 (2.) which forbids the registration of a trade union without the approval of the Minister as well as in a place where there already exist a trade union.
  3. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing in the Nigerian Co-operative Society Act which empowers Co-operative Societies to be operating or carrying on the business or transportation of passengers and goods by road in motor parks plying inter-State or intra-State routes. The idea of issuing tickets to drivers of commercial vehicles at motor parks is quiet alien to the objective or purpose of a Co-operative Society.
  4. We do not want to be understood as saying that only members of the Road Transport Employers Association and NURTW are the entities that can Carry on the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road, far from it, we concede that some private individuals and companies are also engaged in the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road but those individuals and companies have their own loading bays or garages outside and away from motor parks being controlled by members of R.T.E.A and NURTW. Furthermore, those individuals and companies do not issue tickets to drivers in the way the Claimants’ association wants to go about her own transportation business.
  5. That the establishment andcontrol of motor parks in Nigeria is within the exclusive Jurisdiction of Local Government Council as provided in the fourth schedule to the constitution, paragraph 1(e) of the fourth schedule to the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended)
  6. The Claimants associationattempt at operating in motor parks is an invitation to anarchy in the country as there is no motor park in any part of Nigeria where members of the Claimants’ association are operating or carrying on business of transportation of passengers and goods by road.
  7. CLAIMANTS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO COUNTER CLAIM
  8. The claimants filed a further and better affidavit in opposition to 2nd-6threspondents counter claim dated 2/11/2018.
  9. Learned counsel for the counter defendants submitted that relief 6 of the counter claim is seeking an order of Court to strike down some sections and paragraphs of the Bye – law of (NACT) but the counter- claimants failed /refused and neglected to attach the Bye – Law to the affidavit in support of the counter- claim. The counter- claimants have a duty and responsibility to attach a copy of the Bye – Law which they are seeking the declaratory, injunctive and other orders against.
  10. The affidavit in support of counter – claim, paragraph 6 (i)- (iv) offends the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 prevents inclusion of prayers, legal argument or conclusion in an affidavit.

40.The defendants to the counter – claim need not register as a trade union under the Trade Union Act before they can legally operate individually or get engaged individually, in the business of transportation as they fall within the ambit of “self – employed persons in the Third Schedule Part B of Cap, Tl 4.

  1. That by Section 2(b) of the Nigerian Cooperative Societies Act, CAP· N98 LFN 2004, a cooperative society may be registered under the Act if it is a limited liability society and has its objects, the promotion of the socio – economic interest of its members in accordance with the cooperative principles, and established for the purpose of facilitating the operation of those principles.
  2. That the various sections, clauses of the bye- Law set out in the address does not flout any portion of the Trade unions Act. There is no evidence that defendants to counter- claim have established motor parks in any part of Kwara State. Even in the Bye – law, there is only a proposal to apply for establishment of parks.
  3. COURT DECISION
  4. PRELIMINARYN OBJECTION.
  5. Whereas the 2ndto 6th defendants are counter claiming against the claimant seeking the striking down of some sections of the claimants bye-law, exhibit  A2, the 7th – 10th defendants are asking for exhibit A2 to be expunged even though their defence is based on a perceived violation of Trade Union Act by the provisions of the said Exhibit A2 and that exhibit A2 (Bye Laws of Nigerian Association of Co-operative Transporters Limited) attached to the originating process of the Claimants is a usurpation of the statutory power of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW).
  6. The fact that the claimants have a bye –law has not been denied. The fact that exhibit A2 is (Bye Laws of Nigerian Association of Co-operative Transporters Limited) is even admitted by all the defendants and it is the basis of a counter claim by the 2nd-6thdefendants. The genuineness of the document is not put in issue. The complaint about none certification is a mere technicality that does not hold water.
  7. Moreover, the said document, exhibit A2 is the claimant’s Bye-law, the claimant is expected to be in possession of its Bye-law. A copy of a document produced by the claimant and approved by a public officer, is not a public document when produced from claimants custody; it may become a public document when produced by a third party. The claimants Bye-laws attached as exhibit A2 to the claimants affidavit is not a public document within the purview of section 104 of the Evidence Act and so does not require certification.
  8. Even if the document was a public document, being not denied in any way, the interest of justice would be to admit it in line with section 12 (2) (b) of National Industrial Court Act,2006.
  9. Further still, even if the document were a public document, being that this is an originating summons, the document attached to an affidavit is already an exhibit on oath before the court and the question of its admissibility cannot arise. SeeJOSEPH HEMEN BOKO v. BENJAMIN B. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR-45890(CA).
  10. For all the reasons above given, the objection lacks merit and same is dismissed.
  11. MAIN CLAIM
  12. The 7th-10threspondents counsel has also formulated issues for determination in this case but this is an originating summons and so it is the claimant who donates issues for determination and the defendants are bound by it except where he has a counter claim as the 2nd -6th defendants herein .See
NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL & ORS v. HON JUSTICE JUBRIL BABAJIDE ALADEJANA & ORS (2014)LPELR CA.P30 Where the court held;

 

In originating summons proceedings, the issues to be addressed are those raised in the originating summons. It does not lie in the mouth of a respondent to formulate his own issues for determination. If a respondent alleges that he has any claim or is entitled to his own relief he may counter-claim. See AGHU v. CROSS RIVER STATE (2009) 3 NWLR (1129) 475, 507. Furthermore, issues in a case are circumscribed by the claims before the court as constituted by the prayers. All arguments and findings not related to the prayers are amiss. See SALAMI V. WEMA BANK (NIG) PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (1190) 341, 353-354.

  1. Accordingly the two issues for determination as formulated by the claimants are as below;
  2. Whether the claimants having registered their association are not entitled to operate as such.
  3. Whether the proscription of the claimants by the 1st defendant does not constitute an infraction on the Claimants members right to peaceful assembly or association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles l0 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
  4. In the course of this judgment it may be necessary to reproduce several portions of the depositions of parties and the submission of their counsels to properly appreciate the case of the respective parties.

ISSUE 1: Whether the claimants, having registered their association, are not entitled to operate as such.

  1. The main complaint of the claimants here is that they have legally registered their association with their bye-law and are entitled to operate as proposed. The defendants opposed and petitioned them. That the deputy Commissioner of Police (operation) gave as reason for the decision of the 1stdefendant in proscribing their association being the existence of other transport associations in Kwara State and that they either join NURTW or RTEAN or otherwise face prosecution.

We shall determine this issue by answering the questions raised by the submissions of the defendants in this respect.

  1. Whether all taxi drivers in Nigeria must be either members of 2nd_ 6th defendants or 7th -10th defendants.
  2. The 2nd– 6threspondents on their part contend that the cause of action in this suit is whether the Claimants association can be operating transportation business in motor parks to carry passenger and goods by road or engage in taxi cab township service in Kwara State. That there are no private taxi drivers in Kwara State or any state in Nigeria. All taxi drivers in Nigeria are either members of 2nd_ 6th defendants or 7th -10th defendants. That Exhibit “Al” attached to the affidavit is not a licence or authority to the Claimants to be operating transportation business in motor parks or as a transport union engaged in taxi cab township service. That presently members of 2nd  _ 6th Defendants and 7th-10th  defendants are the only association and union operating in all motor parks in Kwara State to the exclusion of any other association or union and also engaged in taxi cab township service. The 7th -10th respondents also made similar submissions.

54.To start with, the deposition and contention that “there are no private taxi drivers in Kwara State or any state in Nigeria”  is contrary to logic and does not lend itself to believe by this court.

  1. The 2nd-10thdefendants are a Trade Union. A Trade Union according to section 54(1) of the trade Union Act, 2004 is;

(1)  In this Act— “trade union” means any combination of workers or employers, whether temporary or permanent, the purpose of which is to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers, whether the combination in question would or would not, apart from this Act, be an unlawful combination by reason of any of its purposes being in restraint of trade, and whether its purposes do or do not include the provision of benefits for its members.

 

  1. Similarly, the same section 54(1) defines worker as;

 

(1)  In this Act—  worker” means any employee, that is to say any member of the public service of the Federation or a State or any individual (other than a member of any such public service) who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, expressed or implied, oral or in writing, and whether it is a contract personally to execute any work or labour or a contract of apprenticeship.

 

  1. The claimants are not shown to be a body of employers or workers but private owners of taxi and drivers who use their own cars for transportation as a means of living. They are not workers and cannot be members of the respondents as they are excluded even by definition of a trade union and by the provision of the trade union Act in the 3rdschedule Part B and section 16, which defines the scope of theNational Union of Road Transport Workers 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.
  2. The 2nd-6thdefendants (RTEA) is listed as No. 29 in part C of 3rd schedule to the Trade Union Act, but nowhere is its jurisdictional scope defined. By inference, its jurisdictional scope can only be at best the same as that of the 7th -10th defendants (NURTW), substituting the word “workers” with “employers”.
  3. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for the contention of the respondents. Every Nigerian has the right to acquire property (movable or immovable) including a car and has a right to use same for commercial purposes without joining any Trade Union or any Association as a prerequisite to run his business. Private taxi owners and drivers must not and cannot be members of NURTW or RTEAN. I so hold.

60.The claimants’ counsel also relied on a decision of the Osun State High Court holden at Oshogbo in suit No.HOS/M32/2016 between ABUBAKAR BASIRU GBODUPE&1OR V MR. LEKAAN SALAMI &5ORS delivered by Honourable Justice K. M. Akano on 12/1/2017.

  1. I have read the judgment of my lord Honourable Justice K. M. Akano of the Osun State High Court in suit No.HOS/M32/2016 between the Osun State chapters of the parties before this Court. Therein, my lord reasoned and concluded at page 5 of his judgment thus;

Exhibit H is the Bye Laws of Nigerian Association of Cooperatives. Exhibit H is very important here and by Paragraphs 4:10, 4:23 and 4:24 under it objects which reads….

The inference which I can draw from the above quoted portion of the Bye Law is that the applicants members can manage their own motor parks, carry passengers and goods, and can be proprietors of garages, taxi cabs, mini buses, motor cars as stated therein.

Flowing from the above therefore and with the right guaranteed by section 40 of the 1999 constitution, the applicants have the right to belong to any Association of their choice, in this case the right to belong to Nigerian Association of Cooperatives and to operate the commercial but(sic)transportation and establish motor parks and garages in line with the approval granted without any molestation. They cannot therefore be forced or coerced to be members of the respondents association.

  1. I am of the opinion that the reasoning and conclusion of my learned Brother Akano J. in the said judgment is not only faultless; it is compelling in logic and law. I am readily and comfortably persuaded by same. Substituting Exhibit H Paragraphs 4:10, 4:23 and 4:24 in that case with exhibit A2 section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 in the instant case, I also adopt the above reasoning and conclusion as mine in this case.

 

 

  1. Whether it is the Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act which empowers Co-operative Societies to do any particular form of business.
  2. Counsel to the 2nd -6th respondents also submitted that there is nothing in the   Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act which empowers Co-operative Societies to be operating or carrying on the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in motor parks plying inter-State or intra- state routes or operating taxi cab township service.
  3. Counsel has however failed to show the court where this business line is statutorily preserved for trade unions or the defendants either.

However, section 54 of the Nigerian Cooperative Societies Act 2004 defines a cooperative society as;

  1. “co-operative society”means a voluntary association of individuals, united by common bond, who have come together to pursue their economic goals for their own benefits;

 

Section 11 of the Act also provides as follows;

 

11.(2)  Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, a registered society shall make bye-laws in respect of the following matters, that is—

(a)        the name and registered address of the society;

(b)        the objects for which the society is established;

(c)        the area of its operation;

  1. A cooperative society is therefore made up of various individuals with a common bond, which in this case is the business of taxi drivers, who have come together for an economic goal in accordance with section 11(b) and (c). In otherwords, a cooperative society is not the business venture but is a society of individuals who already have common business ventures; taxi drivers in this case.
  2. I accordingly agree with the claimants thatthe claimants rights to operate as drivers of their respective taxi cabs is neither premised on the Bye-Law of the Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited nor donated by Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act, but is as a result of the right of self-employed persons to drive or operate their taxi or vehicles as allowed by the Laws of Nigeria.

 

  1. Whether section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants’ exhibit A2 has transformed the claimants into a Trade union..

67.The learned counsel to the 2nd -6th respondents submitted that from the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Bye-Laws of the Claimants’ Association it is clear beyond any doubt that they want to be functioning as a trade union. See section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants’ Bye-Laws. Which is contrary to the provision of section 3 (2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap.T.14 Laws of the federation of Nigeria.

  1. The bone of contention in this case is not whether the Claimants can form or belong to an association, but whether the association so formed and registered as Cooperative Society can translate to a trade union without being registered as such. The 7th-10threspondents also made similar submissions.
  2. The provisions of the said bye-law are as follows;

Section 4

  1. To apply or encourage its members to apply for power to manage or participate in the management of motor parks in its area of operation. Manage or participate in the management of such parks in all respects as it touches transportation, loading and oft-loading of vehicles and to regulate the conduct of members and all persons associated with road transport services and safeguard the persons and property of travellers.

………………………………………………………

  1. To collect dues and other charges from persons loading and off-loading in such motor parks being managed by the Association.
  2. To develop places, private or public for the purpose of being used as motor park in a manner authorized or may be authorized by the relevant authority or government.

Section 5 SOURCES 0F FUND

The Association shall raise funds from the following sources:

11 Proceeds from the sale of daily tickets.

  1. It is these provisions that the respondents claim it means the claimants want to be functioning as a Trade Union and is a usurpation of the functions of the respondents. For a start, the respondents have not shown by statutory provisions or decided authorities to the effect that the ownership, management of motor parks and operation of transportation by road, inter and intra state or township service taxi cab business is their exclusive rights.
  2. Moreover, the provision of section 3 (2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap.T.14 Laws of the federation of Nigeria or any other provision thereof are not applicable to the registration and operation or objectives of a cooperative society. See section 54(4) of the Nigerian Cooperative Societies Act 2004 which is as follows;

54(4)  The provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act and the Trade Unions Act shall not apply to a registered society.

 

  1. There is neither a deposition nor submission that the claimants are forcefullytrying to or have attempted to operate or take over any motor park hitherto owned or controlled by the defendants without permission from the relevant authorities. (there are actually the contrary depositions from both claimants and respondents). The respondents therefore have no legitimate complaint against the claimants.
  2. The intentions in the provisions of section 4 paragraphs 1,10, 13, 14, 23, 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants associations bye-Law are legitimate intentions. I accordingly hold that section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23 and 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the Claimants’ exhibit A2 has not transformed the claimants into a Trade union, they do not and cannot offend the provisions of the Trade Union Act, neither are those objectives the sole rights of the respondents.
  3. Whether it is the Nigerian Co-operative Society Act which empowers Co-operative Societies to be operating or carrying on any type of business.
  4. On the part of the 7thto 10threspondents, their defence is that the Kwara State ministry of commerce & Co-operative do not have the power to issue certificate to any individual or Association to carry out business of carrying passengers and goods in any part of Nigeria including Kwara State. That the bodies allowed to do this is the Corporate Affairs commission as well as the Registrar of Trade Union.
  5. The said certificate is exhibit A3 wherein the claimants registered their Kwara State Chapter as “ NACT-KWARA STATE CHAPTER TRANSPORTERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED”.

Section 1(2) of the Nigerian Cooperative Societies Act 2004 which makes provision for registration of cooperative societies at the state level provides as follows;

PART I

Registration of Co-operative Societies

1(2)  The Governor of a State may appoint a person to be the Director of Co-operatives in the State and may appoint persons to assist him, and shall by notice in the State Gazette, confer on any such person all or any of the powers of a Director under this Act.

73.Similarly, sections 2(1) and 3(10 of the Act provides as follows;

  1. Societies which may be registered

(1)  A society may be registered as a co-operative society under this Act if—

(a)        it is a limited liability society; and

(b)        has as its objects the promotion of the socio-economic interests of its members in accordance with co-operative principles, and established for the purpose of facilitating the operation of those principles.

  1. Conditions of registration

(1)  A primary society may be registered under this Act, if it consists of at least ten persons each of whom is qualified for membership under section 22 of this Act.

  1. This means that theKwara State ministry of commerce & Co-operative has the power to register and issue certificate to cooperative societies as the Kwara State chapter of the claimants herein.
  2. It is to be observed that the claimant herein is the National body of which NACT-KWARA STATE CHAPTER TRANSPORTERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED is but a State Chapter. It is also to be observed that the provisions of the Bye-laws that the defendants are complaining about is that of the National Body, not that of Kwara State chapter. TheKwara State ministry of commerce & Co-operative is not a party to this suit and the 2nd-10th respondents have not filed a counter claim to set aside the said certificate, exhibit A3. The essence of the argument of the 2nd -7th respondents is accordingly left to guess work which this court cannot indulge in.
  3. However, for whatever it is worth, it must be emphasized that it is not the certificate of the Federal or Kwara State ministry of commerce & Co-operative that enables the claimants, including their Kwara state chapter, to carry on the business of carrying passengers and goods in any part of Nigeria including Kwara State but the certificates were  issued to people already in that business to come together as a cooperative society.
  4. Accordingly, the certificates issued to the claimants as well as their Kwara State chapter were properly issued as authorized by law.

 

 

 

ISSUE2: Whether the proscription of the claimants by the 1st defendant does not constitute an infraction on the Claimants members right to peaceful assembly or association guaranteed under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Articles l0 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

 

  1. The first defendant was served with the processes of this court but chose not to defend the suit. The cause of action of the claimants against the 1stdefendant is that the deputy Commissioner of Police (operation) gave as reason for the decision of the 1stdefendant in proscribing their Association being the existence of other transport associations in Kwara State and that they either join NURTW or RTEAN or otherwise face prosecution.
  2. The allegation of fact against the 1stdefendant is accordingly accepted as proven and more so in light of the defence of the respondents which naturally renders the claimants’ averment very probable.
  3. Learned counsel did not make any reference to any provision of the Articles l0 and 11 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act in terms of what it says. However, section 40 of the constitution provides as follows;
  4. Right to peaceful assembly and association

 

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:

 

  1. I held above that the registration of the claimants and their bye-laws did not violate any law. The provisions of exhibit A2 has not transformed the claimants into a Trade Union and that the business of owning and managing motor parks and engaging in taxi business is not the exclusive right of the defendants, The implication of all these is that the proscription of the claimants by the 1stdefendant is unlawful and constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights.
  2. The 1strespondent is not a court of law to determine whether or not the claimants can exist or carry out any particular business in view of the existence of the 2ndto 10th respondents. I accordingly hold that the 1st defendant cannot lawfully proscribe the claimants and the act of the 1st defendant is hereby declared as unconstitutional, null and void.

The case of the claimants accordingly succeed and the reliefs of the claimants are all granted as prayed.

  1. COUNTER CLAIM

83.The 2nd -6th respondents filed a Counter claim on 24/10/2018 and a further and better affidavit on 12/11/2018 for the determination of five questions and the grant of eight reliefs.

84 Prayers 1,2,3 are an attack on the propriety of section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23, and 24 and section 5 paragraphs 11 of the Claimants association Bye-Laws . Prayers 4,5,6,7 and 8 are as follows;

  1. A declaration that members of the Claimants association cannot operate business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in any motor park in Nigeria for the purpose of plying inter-State or intra-State routes as such members.
  2. A declaration that members of the Claimants association cannot operate township taxi services in Nigeria as such members.
  3. An order to strike down the provisions of section 4 paragraphs 1,10.13, 14, 23, and 24 and section 5 paragraphs 11 of the Claimants association Bye-Laws for their being in conflict/inconsistent with the provisions of Trade Unions Act and not being consistent with the objective of a Co-operative Society.

4.An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants association, their servants, agents and privies from operating the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in any motor park in Kwara State.  

  1. An order of perpetual injunction restraining members of claimants association, their servants, agents and or privies from operating township taxi service in any part of Kwara State.
  2. The depositions of the 2ndto 6thdefendants counter claimants, the reliefs sought in the counter- claim as above reproduced and some portions of the issues and arguments canvassed by their counsel sure leaves one with the impression that they are saying the claimants cannot operate the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in kwara state plying inter-State or intra-State routes or even operate town service in kwara State but the submission of their counsel seems to contradict or complicate matters rather than  clear the air. This is what learned counsel for the 2nd -6th respondents counter claimants said;

86.We do not want to be understood as saying that only members of the Road Transport Employers Association and NURTW are the entities that can carry on the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road, far from it, we concede that some private individuals and companies are also engaged in the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road but those individuals and companies have their own loading bays or garages outside and away from motor parks being controlled by members of R.T.E.A and NURTW. Furthermore, those individuals and companies do not issue tickets to drivers in the way the Claimants’ association wants to go about her own transportation business. 

  1. The depositions of the defendants in the counter claim and the submission of their counsel has already been summarized above. They are the same in substance with the depositions and submission in defence of the originating summons. Accordingly, the findings and holdings in the case of the claimants above apply herein in all respects except for one more issue argued only in the counter claim which we shall turn to presently.

Whether the claimants have an exclusive right to operate in Motor Parks provided by Local Governments in Nigeria.

88.The counter claimants have however argued that the establishment and  control of motor parks in Nigeria is within the exclusive Jurisdiction of Local Government Councils as provided in paragraph 1(e) of the fourth schedule to the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended) and that the Claimants association’s   attempt at operating in motor parks is an invitation to anarchy in the country as there is no motor park in any part of Nigeria where members of the Claimants’ association are operating or carrying on business of transportation of passengers and goods by road.

  1. However, as earlier pointed out, there is neither a deposition nor submission that the claimants are trying to or have attempted to operate or take over any motor park hitherto owned or controlled by the defendants. (There are actually the contrary depositions from both claimants and respondents). The offence of the counter defendants before the counter claimants appears to be solely their intentions in the provisions of section 4 paragraphs 1, 10, 13, 14, 23, 24 and section 5 paragraph 11 of the counter defendants associations Bye-Law.
  2. The 2nd-6threspondents/ counter claimants seem to be here laying claim to an exclusive right to the use of any motor park established by the Local Government Councils in Nigeria. The respondents cannot claim such exclusive right to Government property as the Government is for the benefit of all Nigerian citizens.
  3. The counter/claimants are a Trade Union and the purpose of a Trade Union isto “regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers” according to section54(1) of the trade Union Act, 2004. That does not include exclusive right to the ownership and operation of any kind of business and control of Government owned properties or Motor Parks. The claim to an exclusive right to the use of any motor park established by the Local Government Councils in Nigeria is neither supported by the Trade Union Act nor any law disclosed by the counter/claimants.
  4. I hold that the claimants can as well seek and obtain permission from the appropriate authorities to operate in any government owned motor park as well as establish their own motor parks and collect levies as contemplated by section 4 paragraphs 10 and 13 and section 5 of exhibit A2 just as the counter/claimant.
  5. For this and the fuller reasons in the judgment in the main claim, the case of the counter claimants fail and same is hereby dismissed.
  6. ORDER OF COURT
  7. For the avoidance of doubt, the case of the counter claimants fail and is dismissed while the case of the claimants succeed and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows;
  8. It is hereby declared that the claimants, Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited, including the Kwara State chapter, has the right to carry out taxi transport services in any part of Kwara State without any let or hindrance from any of the defendants, or any Police Officer(s) or any person whosoever acting in connivance, collusion or in concert with the defendants.
  9. A Declaration that the purported attempt, desire by the 1st defendant herein, through her officers, privies or anybody or person(s) including the 2nd – 6th defendants as well as 7th – 10th defendants or any association claiming through or in connivance with the defendants, to disturb, proscribe, harass, intimidate, or threaten the claimants and their members from peacefully operating their business as commercial taxi operators throughout Kwara State is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the power of the defendants.
  10. A Declaration that the verbal/oral directive of the 1st defendant purporting to proscribe the claimants’ Association (at the instigation of the 2nd – 6th defendants and 7th – 10th defendants respectively) on the ground of the existence of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) or the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
  11. An Order of perpetual injunction is hereby made prohibiting and restraining the Commissioner of Police, Kwara State Command, any of his officers, or any person whosoever acting on his instruction from harassing, interfering, disturbing, molesting and proscribing the peaceful operation of the claimants legitimate taxi transport business or services in any part of Kwara State.
  12. An Order of injunction is hereby made restraining the 2nd – 10th defendants, their agents, privies or officials or any person acting through them from disturbing the claimants in their individual business of Taxi Transport business as owners/drivers of their taxi cabs in Kwara State.

I make no order as to cost

  1. This is the judgment of the court and it is entered accordingly.

 

……………………………………

HON, JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D DAMULAK

DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020                                                                                                                                                                                        SUIT NO: NICN/IB/43/2018

BETWEEN

1.MALLAM SAKA SALMAN

Chairman, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

  1. ABDULAZEEZ MUSA AGAKA

Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

3.MALLAM SAHEED DEMOLA                  …………………….. CLAIMANTS

Treasurer, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

4.MALLAM ISSA SAADU BANNI

Organising Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

5.MALLAM SALIU AROMOKALA

Financial Secretary, Nigerian Association of co-operative

Transporters Ltd (NACT)

(For themselves and on behalf of the Nigerian Association

of co-operative Transporters Ltd, Kwara State Branch)

AND

  1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
  2. ALHAJI JIMOH AYINDE ASINDE

(2nd vice chairman of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

3.ALHAJI ISIAKA ALAO

(State Deputy Financial Secretary, of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

4.ALHAJI RASAK AJALA

(State Publicity Secretary, of Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

5.ALHAJI SULEIMAN KAREEM

(Chairman of Taxi Emirate 3 Chapel, Road Transport Employer’s Association

Kwara State Branch)

 

6.JIMOH AKANJI

(Chairman of Taxi Emirate 2 Chapel, Road Transport

Employer’s Association Kwara State Branch)              …………….. DEFENDANTS

Suing for themselves and on behalf of other members

of Road Transport Employer’s Association, Kwara State Branch.

7.ALHAJI ALIYU ISSA ORE

(Chairman of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

8.ALHAJI RASHEED YEMI ALIU

(Secretary of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

9.ALHAJI RASQ BADMUS

(Financial Secretary of National Union of Road Transport Workers

Kwara State Council)

 

10.ALHAJI ABDULLAHI KOLOBO

(National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) Taxi

Branch 3 Chairman, Kwara State)

JUDGMENT ORDER

By an amended originating summons filed on the 17th October, 2018, the Claimants claim against the defendants for the determination of two questions and the grant of seven reliefs as follows;

  1. An Order declaring the claimants’ Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited as a body corporate recognized under the extant laws of Nigeria with the legal capacity to exist and carry out taxi transport services in any part of Kwara State without any let or hindrance from any of the defendants, or any Police Officer(s) or any person whatsoever acting in connivance, collusion or in concert with the defendants.
  2. A Declaration that the purported attempt, desire by the 1st defendant herein, through her officers, privies or anybody or person(s) including the 2nd – 6th defendants as well as 7th – 10th defendants or any association claiming through or in connivance with the defendants, to disturb, proscribe, harass, intimidate, or threaten the claimants and their members from peacefully operating their business as commercial taxi operators throughout Kwara State is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the power of the defendant.
  3. A Declaration that the verbal/oral directive of the 1st defendant purporting to proscribe the claimants’ Association (at the instigation of the 2nd – 6th defendants and 7th – 10th defendants respectively) on the ground of the existence of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) or the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) does not and cannot be extended to the claimants and members of the Association who are self employed persons carrying on their business as Taxi Drivers with liberty to constitute themselves into an Association and/or a cooperative society without belonging to a Trade Union for the protection of their own interest whether in Kwara State or anywhere else within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
  4. An Order of perpetual injunction prohibiting or restraining the Commissioner of Police, Kwara State Command, any of her officers, or other security agencies however called or any person whatsoever from harassing, interfering, disturbing, molesting and proscribing the peaceful operation of the claimants legitimate taxi transport business or services in any part of Kwara State.
  5. An Order of injunction restraining the 2nd – 10th defendants, their agents, privies or officials or any person acting through them from disturbing the claimants in their individual business of Taxi Transport business as owners/drivers of their taxi cabs in Kwara State.
  6. Any order relief of reliefs the Honourable Court may found in favour of the claimants.
  7. Cost of this summons.

And the 2nd -6th respondents filed a Counter claim on 24/10/2018 for the determination of five questions and the grant of eight reliefs as follows;

  1. A declaration that members of the Claimants association cannot operate business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in any motor park in Nigeria for the purpose of plying inter-State or intra-State routes as such members.
  2. A declaration that members of the Claimants association cannot operate township taxi services in Nigeria as such members.
  3. An order to strike down the provisions of section 4 paragraphs 1,10.13, 14, 23, and 24 and section 5 paragraphs 11 of the Claimants association Bye-Laws for their being in conflict/inconsistent with the provisions of Trade Unions Act and not being consistent with the objective of a Co-operative Society.

4.An order of perpetual injunction restraining the claimants association, their servants, agents and privies from operating the business of transportation of passengers and goods by road in any motor park in Kwara State. 

  1. An order of perpetual injunction restraining members of claimants association, their servants, agents and or privies from operating township taxi service in any part of Kwara State.

And after hearing A.T Olatunde with O.O. Adifarin for the claimants, A.R. Aminu  for the 2nd -6th  respondents and Adedayo Zulqurnain for the 7th -10th respondents , it is held that the case of the counter claimants fail and is dismissed while the case of the claimants succeed and it is hereby declared and ordered as follows;

COURT ORDER

  1. It is hereby declared that the claimants, Nigerian Association of Cooperative Transporters Limited, including the Kwara State chapter, has the right to carry out taxi transport services in any part of Kwara State without any let or hindrance from any of the defendants, or any Police Officer(s) or any person whosoever acting in connivance, collusion or in concert with the defendants.
  2. A Declaration that the purported attempt, desire by the 1st defendant herein, through her officers, privies or anybody or person(s) including the 2nd – 6th defendants as well as 7th – 10th defendants or any association claiming through or in connivance with the defendants, to disturb, proscribe, harass, intimidate, or threaten the claimants and their members from peacefully operating their business as commercial taxi operators throughout Kwara State is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the power of the defendants.
  3. A Declaration that the verbal/oral directive of the 1st defendant purporting to proscribe the claimants’ Association (at the instigation of the 2nd – 6th defendants and 7th – 10th defendants respectively) on the ground of the existence of National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) or the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN) is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
  4. An Order of perpetual injunction is hereby made prohibiting and restraining the Commissioner of Police, Kwara State Command, any of his officers, or any person whosoever acting on his instruction from harassing, interfering, disturbing, molesting and proscribing the peaceful operation of the claimants legitimate taxi transport business or services in any part of Kwara State.
  5. An Order of injunction is hereby made restraining the 2nd – 10th defendants, their agents, privies or officials or any person acting through them from disturbing the claimants in their individual business of Taxi Transport business as owners/drivers of their taxi cabs in Kwara State.

 

GIVEN UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND

OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE,  HON.  JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK THIS 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

 

 

………………………………….

HON. JUSTICE K. D. DAMULAK

JUDGE

 

admin

Website:

Related Story