LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

National Industrial Court

NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS -V- NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS & ORS

admin 0

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

ON TUESDAY 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE  SINMISOLA 0. ADENIYI

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/03/2017

BETWEEN:

 

  1. NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA CHAPTER
  2. MURTALA SANI – CHAIRMAN, NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA CHAPTER
  3. DANSABE MAMMAN – SECRETARY, NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA CHAPTER
  4. AISHA ALIYU ABBAS – TREASURER, NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA CHAPTER……………………………………………….CLAIMANTS

 

AND

 

  1. NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS
  2. THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONS
  3. MOHAMMED SANUSI GARBA
  4. EMMANUEL ADIKWU
  5. ALICE BITRUS (MRS.)
  6. GARBA IDRIS
  7. ILIYA SHEHU
  8. LAWAL MUSA BALLI
  9. TIJANI HALIRU
  10. YUSUF YAKUBU NADABO
  11. AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
  12. TUKUR JIBRIL (RTD)
  13. THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, AHMADU BELLO   UNIVERSITY, ZARIA…………………….…………DEFENDANTS

 

J U D G E M E N T

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants were the Chairman, Secretary and the Treasurer of the 1st Claimant prior to the dissolution of the Executive Committee by the 1st Defendant.

Upon the allegation by the 1st Defendant that check – off dues were not regularly remitted by the Claimants, the 1st Defendant dissolved the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant and appointed a Caretaker Committee to take over its administration. The Claimants alleged that the procedure provided in the Constitution of the 1st Defendant was not followed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the dissolution of the Executive Committee and in the appointment of the members of the Caretaker Committee.

  1. Being thereby aggrieved by the actions of the Defendants, the Claimants instituted the present action by Originating Summons filed in this Court on 02/02/2017, whereby they prayed the Court for the determination of the questions set out as follows:
  2. Whether by virtue of Rule 22 (5) (b) – (c) of Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions Constitution 2011, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are competent to dissolve the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant without granting the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant fair hearing as provided in Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)?
  3. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants are competent to replace the elected executive members of the 1st Claimant with a Caretaker Committee to manage the affairs of the 1st Claimant where the Chairman and Treasurer of the Caretaker Committee are not members neither are they financial members of the 1st Claimant?
  4. Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants have exhausted all the means of resolving issues as contained in the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions Constitution 2011 before dissolving the executive of the 1st Claimant preventing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants from performing the office to which they were duly elected?
  5. Whether the 12th and 13th Defendants can constitute jointly or severally constitute itself/themselves into a Court by ordering the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants to handover the affairs of the 1st Claimant to the 3rd to 10th Defendants without fair hearing?
  6. Upon the determination of the questions set out in the foregoing, the Claimants thereby claimed against the Defendants the reliefs set out as follows:
  7. That the 1st and 2nd Defendants have no power under the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions Constitution 2011 to dissolve the executive of the 1st Claimant and prevent its executives including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants from carrying out their functions as duly elected members without fair hearing.
  8. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the letter of dissolution of the duly elected executives of the 1st Claimant dated 5th October, 2016 issued by the 2nd Defendant against the executives of the 1st Claimant and 2nd, 3rd and 4th
  9. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the letter issued by the 1st Defendant dated 21st November, 2016 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the 11th Defendant appointing the Caretaker Committee.
  10. An Order of this Honourable Court restraining the 3rd to 10th Defendants from parading themselves jointly or severally as officers of the 1st Claimant or as members of the Caretaker Committee of the 1st
  11. An Order preventing the 11th and 12th Defendants from forcing the executives of the 1st Claimant including 2nd, 3rd and 4th(sic)
  12. An Order of this Honourable Court restraining the 3rd to 10th Defendants from operating any Bank Account of the 1st Claimant in any bank or from disposing off, receiving, negotiating or in any way dealing with any of the assets of the 1st Claimant as Caretaker Committee of the 1st
  13. The Defendants opposed the Summons by filing a Joint Counter – Affidavit on 15/06/2017, whereby they denied the entirety of the Claimants’ claims.

The Claimants thereafter filed a Reply on Points of Law in support of their claim on 13/11/2018.

  1. By my understanding of the totality of the case of the Claimants and the defence put forward by the Defendants in their Counter – Affidavit, it seems to me that the basic, essential and relevant facts, upon which the Claimants have predicated their claim, could be enumerated as follows:
  2. That the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants were elected into the offices of Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively on 28th May, 2015.
  3. That there was a resolution to renovate and furnish the Secretariat of the 1st Claimant.
  4. That due to the 1st Claimants’ obligation to the contractors, check – off dues of the 1st Claimant was not remitted regularly to the 1st Defendant.
  5. That payment/remittance of the check – off dues to the 1st Defendant by the executive is up to date.
  6. That the 1st Defendant by a letter dated 5th October, 2016 dissolved the executive of the 1st Claimant without fair hearing.
  7. That by a letter dated 13th October, 2016; the 1st Claimant appealed to the 1st Defendant stating the reason for its failure to remit the check – off dues and a payment of Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira (N360,000.00) was subsequently made to the 1st Defendant.
  8. That the 1st Defendant did not follow the procedure for dissolution of the 1st Claimant as stipulated in the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institution 2011.
  9. That the 1st Defendant wrote a letter dated 21st November, 2016 to the Vice Chancellor of the 11th Defendant introducing the 3rd – 10th Defendants as Caretaker Committee of the 1st Claimant.
  10. That the appointment of the Caretaker Committee generated problems amongst the members of the 1st Claimant because the appointment was made without the knowledge of the executive of the 1st Claimant; the executive of the 1st Claimant wrote a letter dated 13th December, 2016 to the Vice Chancellor of the 11th Defendant to intervene.
  11. That by the Constitution of the 1st Claimant, only financial members of the 1st Claimant can be appointed into its office; but that the 3rd and 5th Defendants who were appointed are not members and financial members of the 1st Claimant.
  12. That the 1st Claimant wrote a letter protesting to the Manager of its Bank, First Bank about persons parading themselves as officials of the 1st Claimant.
  13. That the 12th and 13th Defendants had issued a directive to the executive of the 1st Claimant to hand over to the Caretaker Committee on 3rd February, 2017.
  14. To further support their case, the Claimants annexed to their Affidavit, the following documents:
  15. The certificates issued to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants at the installation ceremony – Exhibits MS1, DM1 and AA1 respectively.
  16. Copies of First Bank tellers – Exhibits 2A, 2B and 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F and 2G respectively.

iii.     Letter dated 05/10/2016 dissolving the Committee – Exhibit 3.

  1. Letter of Appeal dated 13/10/2016 from the 1st Claimant to the 1st Defendant – Exhibit 4.
  2. A copy of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant – Exhibit 5.
  3. Letter of 1st Claimant to the 11th Defendant dated 13/12/2016 – Exhibit 6.

vii.    Letter of 1st Defendant to the 11th Defendant introducing members of the Caretaker ommittee – Exhibit 7.

viii.   Payslips of the 3rd and 5th Defendants – Exhibits 8 and 9 respectively.

  1. Letter of protest by the 1st Claimant to the Manager, First Bank dated 25/01/2017 – Exhibit 10.
  2. Letter of complaint of impersonation by the solicitor of the 1st Claimant to the Manager, First Bank dated 26/01/2017 – Exhibit 11.
  3. Upon a proper examination of the Counter – Affidavit of the Defendants, it seems to me that the areas of dispute of the Claimants’ claim are as follows:
  4. That protest letters were received against the 2nd Claimant and the letters were forwarded to him to respond to them; that the 2nd Claimant in his reply denied the allegations levelled against him.
  5. That in view of the petitions against the 2nd Claimant, the 1st Defendant’s Senior Deputy General Secretary in charge of Universities and the State Council delegations held a meeting, where it was agreed that the 2nd Claimant be allowed to remain in Office and that a Congress be held by the second week of April 2016.
  6. That the Claimants failed and/or neglected to hold the Congress in spite of the directive from the 1st Defendant and that after the 2nd Claimant failed to attend the emergency Congress held on 19/05/2016 on the instruction of the 1st Defendant, some members passed a vote of no confidence on the 2nd Claimant and a petition was also written to the 1st Defendant of their decision.
  7. That the petition was forwarded to the 2nd and 3rd Claimants for their comments and that the 2nd Claimant responded to the petition.
  8. That the 3rd Claimant and four (4) other members of 2nd Claimant’s executive wrote a petition admitting that the 1st Defendant’s union dues had been mortgaged for a loan and therefore called for the dissolution of the entire executive.
  9. That the executive of the 1st Claimant was accordingly dissolved on 05/10/2016.
  10. That it was verified from the 1st Claimant’s Bank account, that the Claimants withdrew money on a monthly basis from May 2016 to December 2016 as against their claim.
  11. That payment of part of the accumulated dues covering for the months of May – July 2016 was made after the dissolution and that despite the dissolution; the 2nd Claimant awarded contracts and gave letters of guarantee on behalf of the 1st Claimant.
  12. That the Defendants gave the 2nd Claimant opportunity to be heard for every petition levelled against him.
  13. To further support their defence, the Defendants in turn annexed documents to the Counter – Affidavit filed on their behalf, namely:
  14. Letters of protest dated 17/09/2015 and 21/09/ 2015 – Exhibits A1, A2 and A3 respectively.
  15. 2nd Claimant’s Reply to the letters of protest dated 20/10/2015 – Exhibit B.

iii.     Letter of the 1st Defendant scheduling a visit to the 1st Claimant and the Report of the delegates visit – Exhibit C and Exhibit D respectively.

  1. Letter of vote of no confidence and letter requesting for the Claimants’ response – Exhibits E1, E2 and E3 respectively.
  2. Letter requesting for the dissolution of the executive members of the 1st Claimant and the letter of dissolution – Exhibit F and Exhibit G respectively.
  3. Letter of the Claimants to the 1st Defendant and the Statement of Account – Exhibits H1 and Exhibit H2 respectively.

vii.    Bank tellers of payment of union dues – Exhibit J.

viii.   Letter appointing Caretaker Committee – Exhibit K.

  1. Letter of Guarantee of award of contract and the award of contract for supply of rice – Exhibits M1 and M2 respectively.
  2. In the address filed to support the Originating Summons, the Claimants’ learned counsel, F.B. Daniel, Esq., raised two issues for determination, namely:
  3. Whether by virtue of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions’ Constitution 2011, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are competent to dissolve the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant without granting the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant fair hearing as provided in Section 36 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
  4. Whether by virtue of the Constitution of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions 2011, the Caretaker Committee is properly constituted and competent to take over leadership of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants and the other members of the Executive of the 1st Claimant?

The Defendants’ learned counsel, Anugom Ifeanyi C. Esq., adopted the issues as distilled by the Claimants’.

  1. In determining the questions set down for determination by the Claimants in this suit, I should state that I have taken due cognizance and benefits of the totality of the written and oral arguments canvassed by learned counsel in support and to oppose the issues formulated and canvassed; and as I proceed with the judgment, I shall endeavour to make specific reference to their submissions as I deem needful.

ISSUE ONE:

  1. The Claimants’ learned counsel contends that neither the 1st nor the 2nd Defendants, nor any of the Defendants have or possess the right to dissolve the members of the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant without giving the Claimants fair hearing. Learned Claimants’ counsel further argued that the 2nd – 4th Claimants were not queried before the impromptu dissolution of the executive members of the 1st Claimant which was contrary to their fundamental rights. Learned Claimants’ counsel further contended that the alleged actions of the Defendants contravened the provisions of Rule 8 (11) and Rule 8 (16) of the (NASUEAI) Constitution 2011. He finally urged the Court to accord the rule of fair hearing, which, according to him, the Defendants had breached.

In support of his propositions learned counsel referred to the case of Menekeon Vs Tekar [2001] 9MJSC 114.

  1. In response, the Defendants, categorically denied these allegations in paragraphs 4, 14 and 15 of their Counter – Affidavit Learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the main plank of the Claimants’ case is that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not competent to dissolve the Executive Committee of the 1st Claimant as stipulated in Rule 22 (5) (b) – (c) of the NASUEAI Constitution 2011 without giving them fair hearing as provided in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. Contrary to the Claimants’ argument, learned Defendants’ counsel affirmed that the Defendants are competent to dissolve the executive members of the 1st Claimant. He further submitted that contrary to the duty imposed on the 2nd Claimant in Rule 11 (Vii) of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution to ensure that branch meetings are conducted, the 2nd Claimant failed and/or neglected to call for general meeting. The learned counsel further argued that based on the protest letters that were written to the 1st Defendant, delegates from the 1st Defendant visited the 1st Claimant and enquired into the allegations levelled against the 2nd Claimant. The learned Defendants’ counsel also contended that the 2nd Claimant violated the financial regulation as stated in Rule 21 (12) for failing to remit the union dues to the 1st Defendant for a period of seven months without justiciable reason and that the union dues were diverted without the approval of the 1st Defendant. He further argued that a vote of no confidence was passed against the 2nd Claimant because he failed to attend a crucial emergency meeting and that thereafter, he was removed and the Executive Committee was dissolved.

Citing the case of State Vs Ozuzu [2009] All FWLR (Pt 454) 1581, learned Defendants’ counsel submitted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants exercised due diligence in arriving at its decision and that the 2nd Claimant was giving the opportunity to defend all the allegations against him.

  1. Permit me at this juncture, to make a comment on the Reply on Points of Law filed by the Claimants. A reply on points of law is meant to be just what it is, a reply on points of law. It is not meant for the party replying on points of law to reargue its case or bring in points it forgot to advance when it filed its final written address. A reply on points of law is thus not meant to improve on the quality of a written address; it is not a repair kit to correct or put right an error or lacuna in the initial brief of argument. See Dr Augustine N. Mozie & ors Vs Chike Mbamalu [2006] 12 SCM (Pt I) 306; Ecobank (Nig) Ltd Vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd & Ors [2016] LPELR-40220, Musaconi Ltd Vs Aspinall [2013] LPELR-20745. Furthermore, it is settled law that address of counsel however brilliant, cannot take the place of evidence particularly where there is no evidence, as in the instant case, in support of the submission(s). See U.B.N Plc & Anor Vs. Ayodare & Sons [2007] 13 NWLR (Pt 1052) 567. Therefore, strictly speaking, only the cases of NEPA Vs Eze [2001] 3NWLR (Pt 701) 606; Victino Fixed Odds Ltd Vs Ojo [2010] 8 NWLR (Pt 1197); Otapo Vs Sunmonu [1987] 2NWLR (Pt 58) 587 cited therein validly qualify as a Reply on points of law.
  2. Now, the Claimants have approached this Honourable Court for the interpretation of Rule 22 (5) (b) and (c) which is in contention. The said Rules are hereby reproduced for ease of appreciation:

5 (b)

“A Branch Executive Committee may be dissolved in a general meeting of the members for persistent violation of the provisions of this Constitution and a Caretaker Committee shall be elected thereto to run the affairs of the branch until the next Quadrennial Delegates Conference.”

5(c)

“A Branch or State Executive Committee may be dissolved by the General Secretary on the order of the National Executive Council (NEC) for persistent violation of the contents of the Constitution, and a Caretaker Committee shall be selected by the General Secretary to run the affairs of the Branch or State Union, until the next Quadrennial Conference;

  1. One of the cardinal principles of the interpretation of rules and statutes is that particular provisions should not be considered in isolation, the statute must be considered as a whole in order to get the real meaning of the words used. See: Onjewu Vs K.S.M.C. & I. (2003) FWLR (181) 1590 @ 1621 – 1622 H -A; Ekpo Vs Calabar Local Government Council (1993) 3 NWLR (281) 324. Applying this principle to the instant case, Rule 5 is captioned “Dissolution of Organs”. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are the modes by which the Organs may be dissolved. Let me quickly state here by way of observation, that the rules for dissolution of organs as stated in the Union’s Constitution are disjunctive and not conjunctive. The Constitution provides for three modes of dissolution of the 1st Defendant’s Organ and any one of the modes is sufficient for each of the circumstance.

The mode applied in the instant case is Rule 22 (5) (c) for which the Claimants are challenging the competency of the dissolution by the 1st and 2nd Defendant on the ground that their right to fair hearing as enshrined under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) was breached.

  1. Now, it is trite that the doctrine of fair hearing in its Statutory and Constitutional sense is derived from the principle of Natural Justice under its twin pillars namely, audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. The principle of fair hearing is fundamental to the administration of justice and it is enshrined under Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), to conduct a hearing which is fair to both parties to an action and without bias or partiality in favour of or against either of them who will thereby be prejudiced. The question of breach or otherwise of fair hearing when contested as in the instant case, is regarded or treated as very fundamental. However, the question of fair hearing is not an abstract term available to a party at all times; it is just not an issue of dogma. Whether or not a party has been denied of his right to fair hearing is to be judged by the nature and circumstances surrounding a particular case. The crucial determinant is the necessity to afford the parties every opportunity to put their case before a decision is made. See Ilumuanya Vs State 2012 LPELR 7944; Okoreaffa Vs Agwu 2008 LPELR 4724
  2. I have proceeded to consider the totality of the depositions in the Affidavits filed in support and to oppose this case, I am of the view that the Defendants have not denied the Claimants of their right to fair hearing. Firstly, the 1st Defendant forwarded all the letters of protest, letter of vote of no confidence, Exhibit A2, Exhibit A3 and Exhibit E2 to the 2nd Claimant for his response. The 2nd Claimant’s replies are Exhibits B and E2. Secondly, the Defendants in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of their Counter – Affidavit deposed to facts that upon the complaints received against the 2nd Claimant, delegates of the 1st Defendant visited the 1st Claimant for an amicable settlement of all the allegations levelled against him. The report of the meeting of the delegates is Exhibit G attached to the Counter – Affidavit.
  3. It is indubitable that the principle of fair hearing is a double- edged sword and seeks to give equal protection to parties in any dispute and where a party was given ample opportunity to be heard, he cannot complain thereafter if he refused failed and/or neglected to exploit the opportunity so given him. See Per Niki Tobi, JSC, in the celebrated cases of Inakoju Vs Adeleke [2007] 1 CCLR (SC) 240 at 361 -362; Magaji Vs Nigerian Army [2008] 8 NWLR (Pt 1089) 338; Newswatch Communications Ltd Vs Atta [2006] 11 ALL NLR (Pt 1) 211 at 224. Furthermore, there is considerable sense as has been decided in the cases cited above, that it is the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case that determines whether a trial or proceeding had been fair, the determining factor is not whether injustice had been done because of lack of fair hearing but whether a party entitled to be heard before a decision is made that affects his right negatively; was afforded an opportunity to be so heard. See Buzu Vs Garabi [2000] 13NWLR (Pt 684) 228
  4. I see no reason to depart from the above. I hold the firm view that from facts and the circumstances of this case; the Claimants were giving fair hearing before the dissolution of the executive members by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Without any further ado therefore, I hereby resolve the first issue against the Claimants.

ISSUE TWO

  1. This issue deals with whether by virtue of the Constitution of NASUEAI, the Caretaker Committee is properly constituted to take over the leadership of the 1st Claimant.

It is the Claimants’ contention that the selection of the 3rd and 5th Defendants as members of the Caretaker Committee is contrary to the Constitution of the 1st Defendant. Referring to paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Claimants’ counsel argued that by the Constitution of the 1st Defendant, only financial members can hold office in the 1st Claimant or in the 1st Defendant.

To further support his proposition learned counsel referred to the case of Elufioye Vs Halilu [1993] 6 NWLR (Pt 301) 570. He also referred to the copies of the pay slips of the 3rd and 5th Defendants attached to the Affidavit in support as Exhibit 8 and 9 respectively. The grouse of the Claimants is that the 3rd and 5th Defendants are not financial members of the 1st Defendant and it is a violation of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution to appoint them as officers of the 1st Claimant.

  1. In denying these allegations, the Defendants deposed in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of their Counter – Affidavit as follows:

“7.    That despite the directive of the National Headquarters that a Congress meeting should be called in the second week of April, 2016 the Claimants failed and/or neglected to honour this term of peace accord. Some members after the 2nd Claimant failed or neglected to attend the Emergency congress called on the 19th of May 2016 on the instruction of the headquarters passed a vote of no confidence on the 2nd Claimant and subsequently wrote a petition dated 27th May, 2016 to inform the headquarters of their decision and their complaints against the 2nd Claimant.

“8.    That the 3rd Claimant along with four other members of the 2nd Claimant’s executive, wrote a petition dated 5th August, 2016 to the 3rd Defendant admitting that the Headquarters’ union dues had been mortgaged for loan. They therefore called for the dissolution of the entire executive.

“9.    That for persistent violation of the Constitution of the Union, especially for non-payment of the headquarters’ dues without genuine reason, the entire executive of the branch was dissolved on 5th October, 2016.

  1. So then, the question that arises for resolution here is whether with the acts of the 2nd Claimant for persistent violation of non-remittance of check – off dues and for failure to convene meetings of the 1st Claimant, the 1st and 2nd Defendants acted outside the tenor or confines of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant in the selection of members of the Caretaker Committee? It is noteworthy that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants admitted in Exhibit 4 attached to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that the Union dues were not regularly remitted. The law is well settled and as laid down in plethora of authorities that facts admitted need no proof and the Court is expected to act thereon.
  2. It is imperative to note that the Claimants did not state the Rule of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution alleged to have been violated by the Defendants in selecting members of the Caretaker Committee and particularly the 3rd and 5th Defendants. A Court of law cannot conjecture or speculate. It is dangerous to do so in the absence of evidence. See Olufeagba Vs Abdul Raheem [2010] ALL FWLR (Pt 12) 1033 at 1074.
  3. I had earlier reproduced Rule 22 (5) (c) of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution which is the relevant Rule for dissolution of its organs in the instant case. The letter of dissolution attached as Exhibit 3 to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons was issued by the General Secretary of the National Executive Council. The Rule further empowers the General Secretary to select a Caretaker Committee to run the affairs of the Branch until the next Quadrennial Delegates Conference.
  4. It is needless to restate the trite position of the law that if there is nothing to modify, nothing to alter and nothing to qualify the language which an instrument contains, it must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaning of the words and sentences. If the language used is free from ambiguity and so clear and explicit as to leave no doubt as to its meaning, the Court must construe the enactment or instrument according to its expressed intention. See Araka Vs Egbue [2003] 17 NWLR (Pt 848) 1; Crown Flour Mills Ltd Vs Olokun [2008] 4 NWLR (Pt 1077) 254. In the instant case, Rule 22 (5) (c) is clear and unambiguous and do not require any aid to interpret it.

I therefore disagree with Mr. Daniel’s contention that the Caretaker Committee was not properly constituted and competent to take over the 1st Claimant.

Accordingly, I hereby resolve the second issue in the negative, against the Claimants.

  1. I should further express the view that the Claimants having opted to commence this suit by Originating Summons, seemed to have restricted the quality of evidence that ordinarily could have availed them. As it is, only pleadings could have resolved these issues of facts; but no, lawyers want shortcuts, hence an Originating Summons. The point is that in Adegbuyi Vs APC & Ors [2014] LPELR-24214(SC), relying on National Bank of Nigeria Vs Alakija [1978] 9 – 10 SC 59, it was held thus:

“The principle has become trite that the Originating Summons procedure is not for causes in which facts remain hostile and in conflict. The procedure is ideal for the determination of short and straight forward questions of construction and interpretation of documents or statutes. It is never the applicable procedure in controversial cases where the facts on which the court is invited to construe or interpret the document or legislation in relation to remain violently in conflict.”

See also Famfa Oil Limited Vs AG of the Federation & Anor [2003] 9 – 10 SC 31; Njideka Ezeigwe Vs Chief Benson Chuks Nwawulu & Ors [2010] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1183) 159 SC.

In thus choosing to come by way of an Originating Summons as they did, the Claimants have delimited their case to just the questions they posed and the facts they present. The matter must thus be resolved within the limits of the Claimants’ Affidavit evidence since by law having to come by way of Originating Summons instead of a Complaint does not signify that the case is incompetent. As enjoined by NJC Vs Hon. Justice Jubril Babajide Aladejana [2014] LPELR-24134, therefore, the resolution of the instant case (since it is an originating proceedings) must be restricted to the issues raised in the Originating Summons.

  1. In the final analysis, I hereby resolve all the questions set down in the instant Originating Summons against the Claimants. My decision is therefore that the action lacked in merit and in substance. It shall be and is hereby accordingly dismissed.

I award a cost of N200,000.00 against the Claimants.

 

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Presiding Judge)

05/02/2019

Legal representation:

F.B. Daniel Esq. for Claimant

Anugom Ifeanyi C.Esq. for Defendant

admin

Website:

Related Story