Sunday E, Umoren V. Asuquo E, Akpan & Ors
(2008)LCN/2749(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 28th day of April, 2008
CA/C/19/2001
RATIO
DEFINATION OF INTRA OR INTER TRADE DISPUTE
“In the case of Muyiwa Daniel & Ors vs. Mrs. Olutunde Fadugba (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 582) 482 at 496, the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division) per Opene JCA in similar circumstances as the present held as follows: “I will proceed to examine the term “intra or inter trade dispute” and also refer to a similar phrase or words in an earlier statute that may throw light on the meaning of the phrase under construction. The 20th century Chamber Dictionary 1983 Edition defined “intra” as “within” while “dispute is defined as: “to make a subject of argument, to contend for, to oppose by argument, to call in question, to argue, to debate.” This clearly shows that intra union dispute is an argument or dispute within the union.” PER M. A. OWOADE J.C.A.
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 1A OF THE TRADE ACT (DECREE N0.47 OF 1992):
“Section 1A of the Trade Dispute Act as amended by Decree No. 47 of 1992, no person shall (subject to Section 20(3) of the Act). Commence an action, the subject matter of a trade dispute or any inter or intra union dispute in a court of law and accordingly any action which prior to the commencement of the Section is pending in any court shall abate and be null and void. See Tidex Nigeria Limited vs. National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers. Warri Branch (supra) at page 277. Udoh vs. Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board (supra) at page 148.” PER M. A. OWOADE J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF COURT: WHETHER A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION CAN DETERMINE THE RIGHTS BETWEEN PARTIES
“If a court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, then it has no jurisdiction to determine or pronounce on the rights between the parties. See Gombe vs. P. W. (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) page 402; Akinbinu vs. Oseni (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) pg. 97 and Adesokun vs. Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 346) at 540.” PER M. A. OWOADE J.C.A.
JUSTICES
VICTOR AIMEPOMO O. OMAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JEAN OMOKRI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
Sunday E, Umoren – Appellant(s)
AND
Asuquo E, Akpan & Ors – Respondent(s)
M. A. OWOADE J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of Honourable Justice Edemekong I. Edemekong sitting at the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Uyo delivered on 4th November, 1997.
On 21st July, 1997, the Respondents as Plaintiffs before the lower court filed an originating summons which asked for the determination of sundry questions on the provisions of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1996 and prayed inter alia for “a declaration that the election of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants as the President, Vice President, Publicity Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the 5th Defendant at the just concluded delegates conference is illegal, unlawful and contrary to the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1996 and accordingly null and void.
On 4th August, 1997, the learned Counsel to the Defendants now Appellants filed a motion on Notice for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction in that the Plaintiffs have instituted the action in violation of the Provisions of Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996.
On 4/11/1997, the learned trial Judge delivered a Ruling in which he overruled the Defendants/Appellants motion for objection.
Dissatisfied with the said Ruling the learned Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing 3 Grounds of Appeal on 11/11/1997.
The Appellant’s brief of argument in this case, dated 5/4/2001 was filed on the same day. The Respondents brief dated 21.6.2007 was also filed on the same date.
The sole issue formulated for determination by the Appellant is:
“Whether the learned Judge was right to overrule the Appellant objection and assume jurisdiction to try the substantive suit notwithstanding the fact that the subject matter is an intra Union dispute?”
The learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand formulated two (2) issues for determination.
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1996 did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the matter.
2. Whether the Trial Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 of 1992 was capable of ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in the circumstances of this case.
I will adopt the sole issue formulated by the Appellants in the determination of this appeal as it conveniently encompassed the issues formulated by the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted reiterating the facts that both parties ( except the 5th Appellant) are members of one trade union namely: The Nigeria Union of Local Government Employee (NULGE), the 5th Appellant herein. And that the originating process in the suit has clearly shown that the cause of action is an intra union dispute of which the jurisdiction of lower court is excluded by Section 2 of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree NO.4 7 of 1992.
Learned Counsel to the Appellants furthered that the learned trial Judge simply assumed jurisdiction in the case, because he did not direct himself properly as to the provisions of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 of 1992.
In support of his submissions, Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the cases of Udoh & Ors vs. Orthopeadic Hospital Management Board & Anor (1993) NWLR (Pt. 304) 138, Daniel v. Fadugba (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 582) 482 and Tidex Nigeria Ltd. v. Nupeng (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 573) 263. He urged the court to allow the appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand made his submissions in two parts. First, he addressed the question of bringing the Defendant/Appellant’s jurisdiction objection under a wrong law that is the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1996. A point, which had already been mentioned and conceded in the Appellants brief of argument being of no consequence to this appeal.
The second aspect of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is that the wordings of Section 1A of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 of 1992 dos not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the matter. According to this view, the wordings of the Decree relate to “trade dispute or any inter or intra Union dispute and accordingly, the conduct of election of the competence of a member of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees to stand election cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a trade dispute or inter or intra union dispute.
My Lords, it is clear that the determination of this appeal rests on two related questions. The first is whether the claims before the lower court were on intra union dispute. And the second is whether the High Court can entertain such.
In answering the first question, reference must be made to the claims in the originating process before the lower court. The Plaintiffs/Respondents process contains three (3) prayers for declaratory reliefs and seeks three (3) questions for determination by the court.
The claims are reproduced thus:
1. A Declaration that the election of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants as the President, Vice President, Publicity Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the 5th Defendant at the just concluded delegates conference is illegal, unlawful and contrary to the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996 and accordingly null and void.
2. A Declaration that the participation of Friday Udo Tom, Cecilia Ekandem and Grace Imoh as delegates at the just concluded delegates conference of the 5th Defendant is illegal, unlawful and contrary to the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996 and accordingly null and void.
3. A declaration that the Delegates Conference Election of the 5th Defendant held on the 3rd July, 1997 is illegal, unlawful, contrary to the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No. 4 of 1996 and accordingly null and void.
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the participation of Friday Udo Tom, Cecilia Ekandem and Grace Imoh among others, who are members of National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwives at the delegates conference of the 5th Defendant does not violate the provisions of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996.
2. Whether the 3rd Defendant being a member of National Association of Nigeria Nurses and Midwives was eligible to participate and contest election under the 5th Defendant contrary to the provisions of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996.
3. Whether the participation of the 3rd Defendant herein and the persons named in question 1 above is not capable of vitiating the conduct of the said election held on the 3rd July, 1997, same being inconsistent with the provisions of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No.4 of 1996.
In answering the first question, it is clear from the above that the dispute before the lower court was indeed an intra Union dispute, the subject matter being an argument as to the proper conduct of elections within the Union.
In the case of Muyiwa Daniel & Ors vs. Mrs. Olutunde Fadugba (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 582) 482 at 496, the Court of Appeal (Lagos Division) per Opene JCA in similar circumstances as the present held as follows:
“I will proceed to examine the term “intra or inter trade dispute” and also refer to a similar phrase or words in an earlier statute that may throw light on the meaning of the phrase under construction.
The 20th century Chamber Dictionary 1983 Edition defined “intra” as “within” while “dispute is defined as:
“to make a subject of argument, to contend for, to oppose by argument, to call in question, to argue, to debate.”
This clearly shows that intra union dispute is an argument or dispute within the union. A perusal at the Respondent’s claim shows that it is contesting or questioning the validity of the Union election by a member of the Union and this is no doubt an intra union dispute or dispute within the Union.”
Second, by virtue of Section 1A of the Trade Dispute Act as amended by Decree No. 47 of 1992, no person shall (subject to Section 20(3) of the Act). Commence an action, the subject matter of a trade dispute or any inter or intra union dispute in a court of law and accordingly any action which prior to the commencement of the Section is pending in any court shall abate and be null and void. See Tidex Nigeria Limited vs. National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers. Warri Branch (supra) at page 277. Udoh vs. Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board (supra) at page 148.
It goes without saying that the matter of jurisdiction is radical and indeed crucial to any adjudication. The lower court in this case was in error to overrule the preliminary objection of the Defendants/Appellants and assume jurisdiction to hear the substantive suit.
The only issue in this appeal is resolved in favour of the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Suit No. HU/209/97 is hereby struck out. There shall be no order as to costs.
JEAN OMOKRI, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Owoade, JCA, and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I just wish to chip in this little bit of mine.
The claims of the respondent, who was the plaintiff at the court below, has been elaborately set out in the lead judgment, so I need not replicate them. Having carefully perused and reflected on the claims, particularly the 3 questions for determination formulated and presented by the respondent at the court below, it is my considered view that the central issue is an intra union dispute. The respondent was contesting the validity of the union’s election by a member of the union. The fact of the instant case on appeal is in pari materia with the case of Daniel vs. Fatugba (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt. 582) 482. In that case, the 1st respondent filed an action against 2nd respondent and appellants in the High Court of Lagos State challenging inter alia the election of the 2nd respondent into the office of the Chairman of the Lagos State Council of Nigeria Union of Journalist.
On service of the writ of summons, the appellant raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter on the ground that it was an intra union dispute which by virtue of section 2 of the Trade Disputes (Amendment) Decree No. 47 can only be entertained by the National Industrial Court. The trial court struck out the preliminary objection on the ground that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. In setting aside the Ruling of the trial court on appeal this court held the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear any case relating to intra union dispute. It is therefore very clear that a claim of the respondent at the court below is an intra union dispute.
By virtue of the provisions of 1A of the Trade Dispute Act as amended by Decree No. 47 of 1992, the High Court of a state has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear or determine any inter or intra union dispute. Only the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over such matters. See Ekong v. Oside (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 120; N. U. R. T. W. vs. Ogbodo (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 537) page 189 at 193. The trial Judge misconstrued the provision of the law when he proceeded to entertain the suit and give the Ruling, which is now the subject matter of this appeal. The court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to grant any order based on or arising from it. It follows from the above that the court below erred when it overruled the If a court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, then it has no jurisdiction to determine or pronounce on the rights between the parties. See Gombe vs. P. W. (Nig.) Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) page 402; Akinbinu vs. Oseni (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) pg. 97 and Adesokun vs. Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 346) at 540.preliminary objection raised by the appellants and assumed jurisdiction to hear the substantive suit. When a court purports to exercise a jurisdiction which, it does not have, the proceedings before it and its judgment will amount to a nullity. See Salati v. Shehu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) pg. 198 and Sode vs. A-G, Federation (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 246) 568.
It is for these reasons and the fuller reasons in the lead judgment that I too allow the appeal and abide by the consequential orders.
VICTOR AIMEPOMO .O. OMAGE, J.C.A.: In this appeal it seems to me that the main issue perhaps the sole issue to be determined is as contained in this brief of the appellant filed on 21/6/07, it states “whether the learned judge was right to overrule this objection and assume jurisdiction to try the substantive suit, not withstanding the fact that the subject matter is an intra dispute.
The two issues formulated by the Respondents herein stated are variation of the only theme in the theme of the appeal for the purpose of elucidation they are
“(1) Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the Trade Union amendment Decree No. 4 of 1996 did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the matter.
(2) Whether the Trade Dispute Amendment Decree No. 47 of 1992 was capable of ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in the circumstance of this case”.
What is the circumstance of this case, it is as recorded in the lead judgment which succinctly states that the Respondent as plaintiff asked the High Court sitting in Akwa Ibom State by originating summons to determine whether the provision of the Trade Union (Amendment) Decree NO.4 of 1996 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court, when the issue of the election of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th defendants as his President, Vice President, Publicity Secretary and Treasurer of the Trade Union is to be considered. The 1-4 Defendant have claimed to be legitimately appointed to the above to the position stated and deposed that the said High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such claims from the Respondent who was the Plaintiff in the court below. The trial court Edemokong 1 Edemokong overruled the objection of the now appellant who have now come to the court to challenge the ruling of the trial judge.
I have written above the issue to be determined in this appeal, it is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to determine any matter relating to the Trade Union dispute.
The Trade Union Amendment Act Cap 432 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria subscribes inter alia. The provision of the Trade Union Amendment Decree NO.4 of 1996 which excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in a matter which is intra trade dispute. This is to be distinguished from Inter Trade dispute. In Muyiwa Daniel & Ors v. Mrs. Olutunde Fadugba (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.582) at 496, Opene JCA as he then was gave out the Aid of the Chambers 20th Century dictionary, (1983 Edition) the definition of intra trade dispute, as a dispute arising from an argument solely within the members of the Trade Union.
In the case of Reg. Trustees of Con. Sec Sch & 3 Ors. v. Commissioner of Education Kogi State & 4 Ors., a judgment of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal delivered by Omage JCA on 26th October 2005, the issue determined was whether a dispute inter the Ministry of Education is excluded from the jurisdiction of the High Court, on a Trade dispute. A consideration of the definition of trade dispute Act in Part V describes the trade dispute as one between any of the named parties in the relevant section. Consequently any party not named in the said section cannot be said to be in dispute with the Union intra se. In the instant appeal the dispute is between a member of the Union and some members of the trade Union in this case, the Respondents and the appellants. This is a dispute intra se or whether the party. Consequently as the claim before the court is to be determined solely on the basis of the plaintiffs claim, see Akinfolarin v. Oluwale (1994) 4 SCNJ 30, Abu v. Odugbo (2006) 7 SCNJ 167.
The trial court was in error to have overruled the objection of the appellant. The appeal succeeds, and it is allowed. I am in agreement therefore with the decision of Owoade, JCA that the appeal should be allowed, and agree that there shall be no order for costs.
Appearances
C. B. EbuFor Appellant
AND
Goddy A. Umoh Esq.For Respondent
