Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria & 2 ORS -VS- NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS [NURTW] & ORS

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2019 SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/182/2016

BETWEEN:

ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS’

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (RTEAN)

COMRADE DIEPREYE OROKUMO ……………. CLAIMANTS

(Chairman, Keke/Okada Unit of RTEAN,

Amassoma Chapter, Bayelsa State Council)

COMRADE EBI SIMON

(Vice-Chairman, Keke/Okada Unit of RTEAN,

Amassoma Chapter, Bayelsa State Council)

(The Claimants suing for themselves and

on behalf of members of Keke/Okada Unit

of RTEAN, Amassoma Chapter, Bayelsa State Council)

AND

NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT

WORKERS [NURTW]

MR.BOB ERE
MR.SOLOMON EBIKAKE ……………… DEFENDANTS
MR.KUROAKEGHA CHRISTAIAN

(The 2^nd – 3^rd Defendants sued in their personal

capacities and on behalf of members of Keke/Okada

Unit of NURTW, Amassoma Chapter, Bayelsa State Council)

REPRESENTATION

Mr. Isaac Alaware Esq for the claimants.

Defendants not represented.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION AND CLAIMS

This action was first commenced by way of an Originating Summons dated the 11th day of October, 2016 and filed on the same day. The Originating Summons was supported by a 21 paragraphs Affidavit sworn to by one Comrade Diepreye Orkunmo. Attached to the Affidavit was 6 exhibits marked as Exhibits AA1 to AA6. Also attached to the Originating Summons is a Written Address. The Defendants through their counsel Olu Ojujoh put up Appearance via a Memorandum of Appearance dated the 10th day of November, 2016.

Upon a Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendants’ counsel challenging the procedure adopted by the Claimants in initiating this action, which was upheld by this Court, this Honourable Court, in line with the Rules of Court, ordered Parties to file and exchange pleadings.

The claimants filed Statement of Facts dated the 6th of July, 2018 praying the Court for the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the Defendants have no right, via hooliganism, harassment, intimidation or any other unlawful means to prevent the Claimants unionizing and admitting into their membership willing okada owners and self-employed okada riders in Amassaoma Town in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

A DECLARATION that the scope of jurisdiction of the Defendants does not extend to okada owners and self-employed okada riders in Amassoma Town, in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

A DECLARATION that the Claimants are entitled to operate, unionize and admit into their membership willing okada owners and self-employed okada riders in Amassoma Town, in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants jointly and severally, by themselves, their privies and agents from harassing/intimidating the Claimants and/or interfering with the Claimants’ rights to operate, unionize and admit into their membership willing okada owners and self-employed okada riders in Amassoma Town, in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

The Defendants jointly filed a Statement of Defence/Counter Claim dated 9^th of November, 2018; seeking the following reliefs:

A DECLARATION that the Claimants have no right to operate in the Okada section in Amassoma Town as agreed by the Claimants and the Defendants as the decision made by the Council of Chief is binding on the parties.

AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION RESTRAINING the Claimants jointly and severally, by themselves, their privies and agents from parading themselves as being self-employed Okada Riders in Amassoma Town in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

CLAIMANT’S CASE IN BRIEF

The brief fact of the case as contained in the Claimant’s Statement of Fact is that the 1^st Claimant is a duly registered trade union in Nigeria, registered under the Trade Unions [Amendment] Decree, 1978 now the Trade Union Act, CAP T14 LFN, 2004, and listed as item 29 under Part C of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act, CAP T14 LFN, 2004

The Claimants avers that its membership is made up of all road transport employers in other words, all owners of trucks, vehicles, kekes, okadas, etc.; who have in their employment persons engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road and also includes all self-employed persons [i.e. owners doing the driving or riding themselves]. The Claimants further avers that the membership of the 1^st Defendant is limited to workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, excluding the transportation of petroleum by road and transportation undertaken by self-employed person. They further stated the jurisdiction of the NURTW does extend to road transport employers in Nigeria and self-employed persons engaged in the transportation of passengers and goods by road. The Claimants also avers that as it is the usual tradition that they have the blessings of the then Acting Paramount Ruler – the – Amananaowei of Amassoma Town, to operate and that the membership of keke/okada unit of RTEAN is open to all keke and okada employers including self-employed keke and okada riders.

The Claimants further stated that following the blessing from the Paramount Ruler of Amassoma town they opened their office in Amassoma Town, on the 5^th day of October, 2015 and kick started operations of which several okada/keke riders and owners visited their office for admittance into keke\okada unit of RTEAN but to the dismay of the Claimants, the 2^nd – 4^th Defendants and their gang members on the same day visited their office carted away scores of various documents, signboard belonging to them, and thereafter threatened the lives of Claimants on the ground that they should not operate in Amassoma town. This formed the bases of this action. The claimants also tendered 13 exhibits through the 2^nd claimant (exhibits CW RTEAN 001 – 013). The claimants also filed a reply to the defendants’ Statement of Defence, defence to the Counter Claim and further Written Statement on Oath.

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The defendants filed an eighteen paragraphs Statement on Defence and a Counter Claim on the 9^th November, 2018.

It is the case of the defendants that while its true that an authority letter was issued to the 1^st claimant, but that the 2^nd and 3^rd claimants are no longer members of the 1^st claimant’s union. That there is a letter dated 5^th January, 2018 introducing the new executives of the 1^st claimant union. And that the 2^nd claimant is not the chairman of KEKE/OKADA unit of the 1^st claimant but rather he is only the chairman of a motor park established by the leaders of Amassoma town for use by taxi and buses operators.

It is also the case of the defendants that it is the practice of the people of Amassoma town that unions that intend to operate in Amassoma town must obtain approval from the paramount ruler and members of the Amassoma council of chiefs. That it was the Council of Chiefs that gave the 1^st defendant the sole power to operate motor cycles as commercial transport in Amassoma town.

Parties closed their respective cases, and this court ordered parties to file their written addresses.

SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

Learned Counsel to the Claimants raised two issues for determination, to wit:

Whether from the evidence before this Honourable Court, it is the Amassoma Council of Chiefs and not the Defendants that prevented the Claimants’ union from operating in Amassoma, necessitating this suit.

Whether the Claimants can operate the Okada Unit which the Defendants are already into without the consent of the Amassoma Council of Chiefs and whether the Claimants have established their case and entitled to the reliefs sought.

On issue one, Learned Counsel to the Claimants contend that the Defendants are indeed responsible for preventing the Claimants from operating within the Amasssoma Town and not the Council of Chiefs. He called on the Court to critically evaluate the evidence before it, particularly the Exhibits DW NURTW 005 and CW RTEAN 007, which are recommendations reached by the Council of Chiefs in their various attempts at brokering peace between the Parties.

Counsel further contended that the Petition to the Police (Exhibit CW RTEAN 004) written on behalf of the Claimants against the Defendants was a clearer indication that the Council of Chief never prevented them from operating as the Defendants were the people who prevented them and that Exhibit CW RTEAN 008 is the charge sheet for the criminal matter instituted against the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants. Learned Counsel states that the Council of Chiefs were peacemakers/arbiter and not a protagonist as suggested by the Defendants. He further urged the Court to look at all the documentary evidence before it in coming to its decision on the issue. Counsel respectfully called on the Court to find merit in the Claimants’ argument.

On his issue two, counsel contends that the Claimants can still operate an okada unit notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants already operate a similar unit. He maintains that the existence of the Defendants’ operation does not shut out other unions from operating similar units provided that the category of membership differs. Counsel noted three categories of persons who are eligible to become its members, stating that the set of person so noted are outside the scope of jurisdiction of eligible members into the Defendants’ union.

According to Learned Counsel, although the Council of Chiefs acted as peacemakers, the practice of obtaining its approval before operating in Amassoma Town is inconsistent with section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, which concretizes the right of the Claimants to unionize willing eligible members into their fold.

He finally urged the Court to discountenance the counterclaim raised by the Defendants/Counter Claimants and resolve the issues in their favour.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANTS

In his written argument, Learned Counsel to the defendant on behalf of the Defendants formulated one (1) issue for determination.

Whether the Claimants can interfere into the Okada session which the Defendant has sole-control over, without the consent of the people of Amassoma Town and the Council of Chiefs of Amassoma Town in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State

Counsel summits that it is mandatory for any union desirous of operating transportation business in Amassoma Town to seek and obtain the consent or approval of the Council of Chiefs and Paramount Ruler of Amassoma Town. Counsel states that both Parties are in agreement, from their evidence, of the existence of this practice and as such there was no need to call further evidence in proof of that fact. Learned Counsel contends that having not obtained the said approval from the Council of Chiefs of the Amassoma Town, the Claimants cannot begin operating an Okada section in the Town. He maintains that it is not the Defendants that are preventing the Claimants from operating in the town but that it is the Council of Chiefs that is preventing the Claimants because the Council do not want two unions to operate in the same sector.

According to him, the Defendants were sued in error and the allegation of harassment and theft against them were false. Counsel further argued that Exhibit CW RTEAN 007 was obtained by fraud especially as the Defendants were not part of the alleged settlement. To him, the acts done by the acting Paramount Ruler who presided over the alleged settlement dated 23^rd May, 2016 has been declared null and void by a competent court of law. He urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimants and grant cost to the Defendants.

COURT’S DECISION

Upon careful perusal of the pleadings of Parties and having listened to the evidence of the witnesses in this matter, this Court has distilled a sole issue for determination, which in my opinion it encompasses the entire issues raised by the Parties hereto. The question is:

Whether the Claimants have shown reasonable cause of action to entitle them to the reliefs sought before this court

The crux of the Claimants’ case revolves around the allegation of obstruction of the 1^st Claimant’s union activities by the Defendants within the Amassoma Town of Southern Ijaw LGA of Bayelsa State. This allegation was however denied by the Defendants, who from their evidence stated that the Claimants were instead being prevented by the Paramount Ruler and Council of Chiefs of Amassoma Town from unionizing motorcyclists/tricycle owners who were already members of the 1^st Defendant’s (NURTW) union.

It is necessary to first evaluate some of the exhibits tendered and admitted in this Court. The evaluation of appropriate and material evidence and attribution of probative value to such evidence, both oral and documentary, are within the exclusive preserve of this Court, having had the opportunity and privilege to hear the witnesses and assess their demeanour. It must be noted, very importantly that in undertaking the evaluation of evidence, a Court is not to simply review or restate the evidence but is expected to critically analyze it in the light of the facts in issue, what is relevant, admissible and what weight to be attached. In other words, evaluation of evidence is much more critical, crucial and tasking than mere review of evidence. The cases of OJOKOLO v ALAMU (1998) 9 NWLR (PT.565) PG.225; AREGBESOLA v OLAGUNSOYE (2011) 9 NWLR (PT.1253) PG.458 are of the moment.

The Defendants tendered EXHIBITS DW NURTW 002 and DW NURTW 003 to show that the Claimants are not the proper representatives or executives of the 1^st Claimant and that the Amassoma Council of Chiefs has rejected the unionization being carried out by the Claimants. These documents are dated 5^th January and 13^th February, 2018 respectively. Suffice it to state here that this action was originally commenced on the 11^th of October, 2016 by way of Originating Summons, it was upon a preliminary objection raised by the Defendants’ counsel on the mode of commencement of the action, which was upheld by this Court that prompted this Court to order Parties to file and exchange the necessary pleadings. A matter which is transferred in such manner does not lose its birth; the Originating Summons is automatically treated as the Writ of Summons. The fact that the form of commencement of an action is wrong does not make the action incompetent. It does not matter whether the action was begun by writ of summons or by originating summons. What is of most importance is the question of justice of the case. PDP v ABUBAKAR (NO.2) (2007) 3 NWLR (PT.1022) PG 515 AT 544-545; ATAGO v NWUCHIE & ORS (2013) 3 NWLR (PT.1341) PG.337. Consequently, evidence and documents to be relied upon from the pleadings must not materially deviate from the documents or exhibits attached to the Affidavit and Counter Affidavit on the original originating process.

It follows therefore that EXHIBITS DW NURTW 002 and 003 amounts to documents prepared during the pendency of the suit and as such, this Court cannot rely on them. The law is trite that evidence procured during the pendency or on anticipation of a case is not admissible in law. See ANYANWU v UZOWUAKA (2009) 13 NWLR (PT.1159) PG 445 AT 476; ABDULLAHI V HASHIDU (1999) 4 NWLR (PT.600) PG.638 AT 645. The inadmissibility of documents or evidence manufactured during the pendency of a suit by a party interested is largely a matter of public policy that makes it unconscionable for a party interested in the outcome of the pending litigation to overreach his adversary. Those documents hereby expunged from the records of this Court. I so hold.

On their part, the Claimants tendered EXHIBITS CW RTEAN 004 and CW RTEAN 012, as proof of their case that prior to the institution of this action, they had written a petition to the Commissioner of Police against the 2^nd – 4^th Defendants and that the Police has commenced criminal action against the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants on their said allegations. Firstly, on EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 004 (Petition to the Commissioner of Police, Bayelsa State Command), the position of the law has been long settled that the contents of a document can be proved by primary or secondary evidence. (SECTION 85, EVIDENCE ACT, 2011). Primary evidence always will take precedence over secondary evidence hence contents of a document must first be proved by primary evidence pursuant to SECTION 88 of the EVIDENCE ACT. Secondary evidence will only be resorted to as per the provisions of SECTION 89 of the same statute. Where the document in issue is a public document, as in the present circumstance, the only admissible secondary evidence aside from the original or primary evidence, is the Certified True Copy of that document. See DENSY IND. NIG. LIMITED v UGOKWE (1999) 2 NWLR (PT.591) PG.392; OWUPE v BEN OSARIBI (2009) LPELR-3054 (CA)

The said EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 004, being a public document by virtue of SECTION 102 of the EVIDENCE ACT, ought to naturally abide by the provisions of SECTION 104 of the same ACT, by being certified by the appropriate authority. An uncertified photocopy of a public document is not admissible evidence to prove any fact, in this case, proof that the Defendants forcefully entered and removed the 1^st Claimant’s union documents; in the absence of certification by the Police. Had an acknowledgement copy of the document been tendered, this Court would have treated it as a counterpart copy, which is admissible. That is not the case here; hence the document is hereby expunged. Even though the EXHIBIT DW NURTW 002 has been expunged from the records, it would not have survived this onslaught as it suffers from the same defect because it ought to have been certified in accordance with SECTION 104 of the EVIDENCE ACT, being a copy of a public document.

EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 012, on the other hand, seeks to prove that the Defendants were the ones that invaded the office of the Claimants. That is well taken only to the extent that a charge was indeed brought against the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants; it is not sufficient proof that the Defendants were the persons who invaded the Claimants’ office. Under our criminal jurisprudence and guided by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), an accused person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, this can only be conclusive upon the conviction of the accused person by a competent court of law. In the instant case, the Defendants are alleged to have committed the act and as such this Court cannot rule on their guilt using the said documents especially as the Defendants have traversed the claim and joined issues with the Claimants thereof. It suffices to note that a criminal case has been instituted against the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, giving the Claimants the opportunity to prove the guilt of the said Defendants.

The criminal action was only filed sometime in February, 2018, and it does not serve as a judgment of court convicting the accused persons therein, thus, the document cannot stand as evidence to convince this court that the Defendants were indeed the persons obstructing the Claimants from unionizing members. It is merely an allegation.

Lastly, on the EXHIBITS DW NURTW 005 and CW RTEAN 007 (the Resolutions reached by the Council of Chiefs led by Chief Nengi S. Sogo) dated 16^th October, 2015 and 23^rd May, 2016 respectively; the learned counsel to the Defendants contended in his final argument that the acts done by the Acting Paramount Ruler who presided over the alleged settlement dated 23^rd day of May, 2016 was declared null and void by EXHIBIT DW NURTW 001 (judgment of the High Court of Bayelsa State in Suit No.: AHC/6/2015 delivered on the 31^st day of January, 2018).

This Court agrees with the submission of Learned Counsel that having been declared unlawful by the said judgment, all the acts/actions of the Caretaker Committee of Amassoma Community is automatically nullified. In the eyes of the law, nullity denotes “nothing; no proceeding; an act or proceeding in a case which the opposite party may treat as though it had not taken place; or which has absolutely no legal force or effect. MAMMAN v HAJO (2016) 8 NWLR (PT.1575) PG.411, LASISI v STATE (2013) 12 NWLR (PT.1367) PG.133 AT 146

The dire consequence of a nullity is far-fetching. If a proceeding is smeared with nullity, it is void and taken as if it was never given or made. Such a proceeding, according to the law, bestows no enforceable right on its beneficiary party who possesses it nor does it impose any obligations on its victim party. OYENEYIN v AKINKUGBE (2010) 4 NWLR (PT.1184) PG.265

Even so, though this Court respects the Hallowed Institution of Traditional Councils, yet this Court would not be bound by the resolution of the Council of Chiefs, whether or not it was properly constituted. Their resolutions can only be persuasive to say the least, being institutions of peace, with no binding effect whatsoever on the powers of this Court to interpret the law.

It is manifest however that the actions taken by the Caretaker Committee was done with the honest but mistaken belief that they were acting in their proper capacity as Caretaker Committee of the Council of Chiefs, although this was done during the pendency of a suit against their existence before the High Court of Bayelsa State, which eventually culminated to EXHIBIT DW NURTW 001 (Judgment of High Court, Bayelsa State) that nullified their constitution.

To this end, EXHIBITS DW NURTW 005 and CW RTEAN 007 will be acted upon by this Court only to the extent that its contents reveal that there is indeed the existence of a dispute between the Parties herein regarding their operations within the Amassoma Community of Southern Ijaw, Bayelsa State. It thus shows that there is a cause of action against the Defendants. But does this amount to granting the Claimants the exact reliefs sought from this Court as per their originating process?

This Court is not convinced to readily answer that question in the affirmative without further considerations of the evidence before it. The EXHIBITS DW NURTW 005 and CW RTEAN 007 do not show that the Defendants were the persons responsible for the obstruction of the Claimants’ operations.

Although the documents relied upon by the Claimants to prove that the Defendants were responsible for the obstructions against their activities have been expunged from the records of this Court, there is still the admission by the Defendants on oath of the existence of an obstruction against the Claimants’ operation, though not perpetuated by them but by the Paramount Ruler and Council of Chiefs of Amassoma Town.

Unfortunately, DW1 who identified himself as the Secretary to the Council of Chiefs of Amassoma Town, did not state if he gave his testimony in his individual capacity or as the representative of the Council with the authority to speak on their behalf. In fact, he did not show any authority to so speak for the Council of Chiefs, to deny or admit of the allegation shifted to the Council by the Defendants as the people responsible for the travails of the Claimants. DW1’s evidence to that effect was that the Claimants had only been prevented from operating in the community since 2012 and that the only reason for preventing the Claimants from unionizing members in 2012, was to forestall crisis within the community. This is wrong.

To begin with, it is strange to imagine that the leaders of a community would determine the presence or otherwise of a legitimate trade union within their community. I do not want to believe that the Council of Chiefs did actually take that step. The purpose of the setting up of a trade union at any material time is to carter for the legitimate welfare of its members.

The evidence before this Court reveals clearly that the 1^st Claimant is a trade union properly registered under the relevant laws to operate legally in any area within Nigeria. By Article 6 sub D of the RTEAN Constitution (As Amended), 2013 (EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 003), the 1^st Claimant is entitled to exist as a unit chapel which is convenient for effective administrative co-ordination of the affairs/activities of the Association in each State. At all times material to this suit, the 2^nd and 3^rd Claimants have always stated that they are the executives of the Keke/Okada Chapel of the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (RTEAN), not the State or National body. The argument by the Defendants that the Claimants are no longer members of the 1^st Defendant does not hold water.

Article 4 of the same EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 003 specifies who is eligible to become members of the 1^st Claimant. It states to the effect that membership is opened to all Road Transport Employers in Nigeria. The emphasis is on the word “employers”.

An employer is defined “as one who engages the services of another; one for whom employees work for and who pays their wages or salaries. A person who is contractually bound to a worker – the employee – to give that worker money as a salary or wages, in exchange for ongoing work and for which the employer directs the work and exercises fundamental control over the work”.

On the other hand, the term “worker” is used to describe any individual who undertakes to do or perform personally any work or service for another party, whether under a contract of employment or any other contract. It does not matter if the contract is express or implied, verbal or in writing, provided the individual undertakes to perform the work or services personally, for an end-user who is not a client or customer. This normally excludes those who are self-employed. See SECTION 230(3) EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT (UK), 1996

With the above definitions, I am of the opinion that the extent of the scope and operations of the Parties herein are clearly defined and different. While the Claimants operate to protect the rights and interests of the Road Transport Employers, the scope of the Defendants’ operation relates to the Road Transport Workers. Although the 1^st Defendant is specific on its scope as it serves as an umbrella body for drivers operating motorbikes, taxi cabs, tricycles, buses (both intra and inter-state services), trailers and lorries that engage in the conveyance of passengers and goods.

It is instructive to state here that the trade unions and their jurisdictional scopes are captured in the Third Schedule, Part A & B of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act 2005. And by the provision of section 12 (4) of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act provides for the registration of a worker who is eligible to join a particular Trade Union without discrimination and that the willingness to join should be without any force or coercion whatsoever. The key phrase therein is “eligibility for membership,” which is what the act through the provision of Paragraph 8, First Schedule of the Trade Union (Amendment) Act demands of trade unions to include in their rules to help ascertain those who are eligible to be members of the particular trade union.

That said, pursuant to Section 34 (3) of the Trade Union Act (Part B Third Schedule), the jurisdictional scope of the 1^st defendant includes 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. It follows therefore, that the category of Okada operators covered by the 1^st defendant is limited only to Okada riders who work for the Okada owners. Therefore, the jurisdictional scope of the 1^st defendant clearly excludes and does not extends to persons engaged in transportation of petroleum by road and self-employed persons engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road.

As signified by its name, the 1^st claimant is a trade union with jurisdictional scope of combination of all road transport employers in Nigeria. In other words, all owners of trucks, vehicles, okadas etc who have in their employ persons engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road. And this includes all self-employed persons (ie. Owners doing the driving or riding themselves). See Section 1 of the Trade Unions Act. Therefore, the 1^st claimant can legally operate the Okada unit of employers and self employed persons who engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road. I so hold.

Both unions, which are properly registered, have the right to operate within any jurisdiction without obstruction. Entry into any of the unions is voluntary and as such any person whether an employer or a worker, as the case may be, may choose to belong to any or even both of the unions as he or she so pleases; provided he or she is responsive to the payment of the required dues as prescribed by the unions. This should be done without any rancor or disturbance from any person or persons whatsoever. No union properly so created under the relevant laws can stop the operations or activities of another union properly so created. The Parties herein must exist side by side.

The practice of seeking the approval of the Paramount Ruler of Amassoma Town before a trade union can operate within a community is unlawful. The recognition of a trade union is the exclusive preserve of the law and its operations is guided by the Nigeria Labour Congress and the Trade Union Congress. A Paramount Ruler or Council of Chiefs cannot dictate which union should or should not operate within a community. The members of a trade union may opt to pay homage to a Traditional Ruler upon the formation of the union in such area but that does not give the Traditional Ruler the powers to ascertain the union that stays or leave. The fact that a union must get express approval from the Council of Chiefs before operating within the community is a clear obstruction of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association as stipulated under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution.

Where the members of a union becomes restive or engages in illegal activities that are likely to breach the peace in the community, the Nigeria Police, which is the authority saddled with the powers to maintain the peace and protect the lives and properties of the citizens of Nigeria, should be immediately called upon to take up their responsibility and any person or persons found wanting should immediately be made to face the wrath of the law in appropriate measures. EXHIBIT CW RTEAN 006 (Police Invitation) is a clear step by the Police in the exercise of its responsibility.

The consequent effect of all that has been posited above is that the Claimants have the right to operate in the Amassoma Communities, to freely unionize persons who are eligible and willingly to be so unionized. Hence, the first counter claim of the Defendants naturally falls like a pack of cards. The Claimants have a right to operate in the okada section of Amassoma Town and this Court is not bound by the resolutions of the Caretaker committee of Amassoma Town, neither can the resolution be used to deprive the Claimants from operating thereon. On the second counter claim, the Defendants do not have the locus standi to seek for the Order so prayed. Whether or not the Claimants are the true representatives of the RTEAN, is for the National or State Chapter of RTEAN or its members to say, as they are the appropriate authority to sue the 2^nd and 3^rd Claimants for impersonation or for carrying out illegal activities, and not the Defendants. The Defendants’ Counter Claim is hereby dismissed.

Despite having shown a cause of action, the Claimants have failed to sufficiently prove that the Defendants are indeed the persons responsible for obstructing their activities and operations. However, there is sufficient evidence before this Court that the Parties are at loggerhead as to the unions’ operations within Amassoma Town. This Court is a Court of justice and equity, and equity should not be allowed to suffer a wrong without a remedy; interpreted in the ancient tongue of the law as ubi jus, ibi remedium.

For clarity and avoidance of doubt, I hold as follows:

I declare that the Claimants have the right to unionize any employer of a Tricycle (keke)/Motorcycle (okada) rider or self-employed rider, who is willing to be so unionized within Amassoma Town in Southern Ijaw LGA, Bayelsa State; without any form of harassment, intimidation, obstruction or prevention from any individual, group of individuals or union.

I declare that both unions have the rights to unionize any willing person or persons who are eligible, into their membership roll.

I declare the mandatory practice of obtaining the consent and approval of the Paramount Ruler/Council of Chiefs of Amassoma Town before a union can operate in Amassoma Town, amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right to freely assemble or join an association enshrined in Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended); thus it is unlawful, null and void.

I hereby issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally, by themselves, their privies and agents from harassing/intimidating the claimants and or interfering with the claimants’ right to operate, unionize and admit into their membership willing self-employed okada owners and self-employed Okada riders in Amassoma Town in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.

I so hold.

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

Judgment is hereby entered accordingly.

__________________________________________

HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

PRESIDING JUDGE