Amalgamated Union Of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical And Recreational Services Employees (aupctre) v Corporate Affairs Commission (cac) & the Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission

• Judge: Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip
• Judgment Date: 07 October 2021
• Respondent: Corporate Affairs Commission (cac) & the Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission
• Appellant: Amalgamated Union Of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical And Recreational Services Employees (aupctre)
• Docket Number: NICN/ABJ/62/2021
• Court: National Industrial Court (Nigeria)

INTRODUCTION

1. The claimant took out this action against the defendants on 1 March 2021 vide an originating summons. The claimant is praying the Court for the determination of the following questions:
(1) Whether having regard to section 8(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2019 which vests the 1st defendant with powers to register, regulate and supervise the formation of, incorporation, management, striking off and winding up of companies, the 1st defendant exceeded its powers when it proceeded to purportedly dissolve, regulate, supervise, inquire into, probe and interfere with the existence, running and investment activities of the claimant.
(2) Whether having regard to section 6(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which vests judicial powers on the courts prescribed in section 6(5) of the Constitution, and section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on fair hearing, the defendants can arbitrarily make any determination or reach any conclusion to dissolve the claimant, or in any other way whatsoever interfere with the existence, the running and lawful activities of the claimant, a registered trade union with perpetual succession and seal to sue and be sued in its name, contrary to the 2013 constitution of the claimant, and the Conditions of Service of Corporate Affairs Commission (2011).
(3) Whether the defendants’ circular dated 11th January, 2021 purportedly issued pursuant to court judgments in Suit Nos. NICN/ABJ/125/2019 and NICN/ABJ/103/2019 dated 17th December, 2019 and 20th May, 2020 between SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES (SSASCGOC) vs. AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE (AUPCTRE) was issued in good faith, and has any binding legal effect on the claimant against whom no positive order of court was made in terms of the far reaching decisions made against the claimant and its members as contained in the circular.
(4) Whether having regard to section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the defendants can unilaterally purport to inquire into, audit or probe the finances of the claimant and conclude that fraud had been committed by the claimant or its members, contrary to the constitutional rights to fair hearing and the presumption of innocence, and the separate legal entity of the claimant.
(5) Whether having regard to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 2014 and Rules 5(B) and (c) and Rule 19 of the claimant’s constitution, the defendants acted within the limits of their statutory powers as an employer of labour when they arrogated to themselves the power of dissolving, regulating and or directing or controlling the labour union affairs of the claimant in total disregard of the powers of the National Headquarters of the claimant, and the other internal governing organs of the claimant.
(6) Whether having regard to the claimant’s constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to form, organize and coordinate the trade union activities of its members, the defendants acted beyond their powers to have initiated disciplinary measures tending to suspend and or dismiss members of the claimant based purely on the internal labour union affairs and activities of the claimant, and contrary to Article 4.04 - 4.09 of the Conditions of Service of Corporate Affairs Commission, June 2011.
(7) Whether it does not amount to oppression, harassment, intimidation, suppression and usurpation of powers for the defendants to purportedly dissolve claimant’s trade union activities, issue queries to the members of the claimant and directing them to vacate their offices, based on issues which have no bearing on their conditions of service and the core mandate of the defendants.

2. Upon the determination of the questions posed above, the claimant is praying the Court for the following reliefs:
(1) A declaration that, having regard to section 8(1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2019 which vests the defendants with powers to register, regulate and supervise the formation of, incorporation, management, striking off and winding up of companies, the 1st defendant exceeded its powers when it proceeded to purportedly dissolve, regulate, supervise, inquire into, probe, interfere with or undermine the existence, running and investment activities of the claimant.
(2) A declaration that, having regard to section 6(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which vests judicial powers on the courts prescribed in section 6(5) of the Constitution, and section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), on fair hearing, the defendants cannot arbitrarily make any determination or reach any conclusion to dissolve the claimant, or in any other way whatsoever pass judgment on, or interfere with the existence, running, and lawful activities of the claimant, a registered trade union with perpetual succession and seal to sue and be sued in its name contrary to the 2013 constitution of the claimant, and the Condition of Service of Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
(3) A declaration that the defendants’ circular dated 11th January, 2021 purportedly issued pursuant to court judgments in Suit Nos. NICN/ABJ/125/2019 and NICN/ABJ/103/2019 Dated 17th December, 2019 and 20th May, 2020 between SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES (SSASCGOC) vs. AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLTC CORPORATIONS CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE (AUPCTRE) was issued in bad faith, and has no binding legal effect on the claimant against whom no positive, direct or restraining orders of court was made in terms of the far reaching decisions made against the claimant and its members as contained in the circular.
(4) A declaration that having regard to section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) the defendants cannot unilaterally purport to inquire into, audit or probe the finances of the claimant and conclude that fraud had been committed by the claimant or its members, contrary to their constitutional right to fair hearing and the presumption of innocence, and the separate legal entity of the claimant.
(5) A declaration that having regard to the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 2014 and Rules 5(B) & (c), and 19 of the claimant’s constitution, the defendants acted beyond the limits of their statutory powers as an employer of labour when they arrogated to themselves the power of dissolving, regulating and or directing or controlling the labour union affairs of the claimant in total disregard of the powers of the National Headquarters of the claimant and the other internal governing organs of the claimant.
(6) A declaration that it amounts to intimidation, harassment, oppression and usurpation of powers for the defendants to purportedly dissolve claimant’s trade union activities, issue queries to the members of the claimant and directing them to vacate their offices, based on issues which have no bearing on their conditions of service and the core statutory mandate of the defendants.
(7) A declaration that the decisions made or conclusions reached against the claimant in the circular of 11th January, 2021 are arbitrary, unwarranted, oppressive and violates the claimant’s right to fair hearing and freedom to freely associate and organize as a trade union.
(8) A declaration that by virtue of section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) the defendants have no power to carry out any action and or directives contained in the circular dated 11th January, 2021 without affording the claimant the right to fair hearing.
(9) A declaration that the judgments of this Honourable Court in Suit Nos NICN/ABJ/125/2019 and NICN/ABJ/103/2019 dated 17th December, 2019 and 20th May, 2020 between SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF STATUTORY CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANIES (SSASCGOC) v. AMALGAMATED UNION OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS CIVIL SERVICE TECHNICAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE (AUPCTRE) were misconstrued and misapplied by the defendants to oppress and victimize the claimant and its members over extraneous matters which are not related to the defendants’ Conditions of Service (2011).
(10) A declaration that the defendants cannot validly and lawfully exercise any power over issues bothering on the activities of the claimant as a trade union governed and regulated by its own internal governing organs.
(11) An order of this Honourable court setting aside the purported directives contained in the circular dated 11th January, 2020 for violating the claimant’s right to fair hearing and presumption of innocence.
(12) An order of this Honourable Court nullifying and quashing the circular dated 11th January, 2021 and the 3 Queries dated 11th January, 2020 but served on the claimant’s members on 11th January, 2021, as arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional.
(13) The sum of N100,000,000,00 (one Hundred Million Naira) only as general damages against the defendants jointly and severally for breach of fundamental right to fair hearing, malicious disruption, usurpation and interference with the activities of the claimant and its members.
(14) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies, servants or whomsoever from usurping, disrupting, interfering with, or threatening to suspend, interfere in the activities of the claimant contrary to the provisions of the constitution, and the Conditions of Service of the 1st defendant, 2011 and the constitution of the claimant, April, 2015.

3. In reaction to the originating summons, the defendants first filed a preliminary objection, and then their counter-affidavit together with a written address to the originating summons.

THE DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

The Submissions of the Defendants in Support of the Preliminary Objection
4. The...