Coduc Nigeria Limited v Registered Trustees Of National Union Of Civilengineering Construction, Furniture & Wood Workersimo/abia Council Anor
| Judge | Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 2016 |
| Respondent | Registered Trustees Of National Union Of Civilengineering Construction, Furniture & Wood Workersimo/abia Council Anor |
| Appellant | Coduc Nigeria Limited |
| Docket Number | NICN/OW/56/2014 |
| Counsel | <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">O. |
| Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
This action was commenced way of
complaint dated and filed on the 9th day of June 2014wherein the
Claimant claimed against the Defendants as follows:
1. A declaration
that by the provisions of the Trade Union Act, the Defendants cannot compel the
employees of the Claimants to join or become members of its union.
2. A declaration that the Defendants cannot set out a
date, organize an election or force the Claimant’s employees to join their
union without recourse to the contract between the Claimant and its employees.
3. An order of injunction restraining the Defendants
from organizing or fixing a date to purport to conduct an election compelling
the employees of the Claimant to elect executives for the Defendant’s union.
4. An order of injunction restraining the Defendants
from conducting an election or purporting to elect officers of its union among
the Claimant’s employees on 12th
June 2014 or any date whatsoever.
5. An order of perpetual injunction prohibiting the
Defendants from interfering with the lawful business of the Claimant.
On the 27th day of August
2014, the defendants/applicants filed a Preliminary Objection, pursuant to Section 6(6)(b)of the 1999 Constitution,
Order 9 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, and under the
inherent powers of the court, urging
the court to strike out the entire suit together with the claimant’s pending motion
on notice for lack of competent jurisdiction to entertain it; otherwise dismiss
it for being an abuse of the process of court. The grounds for the objection are as follows:
1. The suit is not properly constituted as to parties
as the 1st defendant as currently constituted is not known to law.
2. The 2nd defendant is not a necessary or
proper party but has been misjoined.
3. The suit does not disclose any justiciable dispute
between the claimant and the defendants within Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.
4.
The process is a wrong process served
on the defendants and is incompetent.
In support of the preliminary objection is a 13-paragraph affidavit deposed
to by Benjamin U. Ogewubu, a Lawyer in the defendants/applicants
counsel’s Law Office.
In the supporting written address, counsel identified four issues for determination
as follows:
1. Whether the claimant's originating process is not a
wrong process, as such not properly before the Court to activate the
jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Whether the defendants are properly before the Court
and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Court can make a binding
order on the defendants.
3. Whether in any event, the 2nd defendant
is a necessary party and has not been wrongly joined in the suit.
4. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the court
ought not to set aside the service of the originating process on the defendants
and strike out the suit as
incompetent.
In his argument, all the issues were lumped together.
It is counsel’s opinion that the originating process before the Court, together
with all other processes, is a false or wrong process which cannot activate the
jurisdiction of the Court. This is owing to the fact that the originating
process must name proper parties and disclose a justiciable dispute between the
parties to be worthy of Court's attention. It is counsel’s submission that the
1st defendant is not a body known to law and the 2nd defendant has no relationship or
connection with the said 1st defendant. Counsel cited the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE AIRLINE OPERATORS OF
where the Supreme Court held that an action cannot be
maintained against a defendant who, as sued is not a legal person or a juristic
or legal personality. It is the defendants counsel’s argument that the 1st
defendant is a creation of the Trade Unions Act which has named it NATIONAL UNION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION,
in the name of REGISTERED
TRUSTEES OF NATIONAL UNION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, FURNUTURE AND WOOD WORKERS.
More so, counsel submitted that the two defendants as constituted in the
suit have not had any dealing or relationship with the claimant as has caused
any dispute within Section 6 (6) (b) of the Constitution for the court to assume
jurisdiction and make a binding order. Counsel argued that in the circumstance,
the defendants cannot be proper parties to the suit; particularly as no
justiciable dispute can be said to exist or disclosed between parties who have
not been in any dealing or relationship.
Specifically on issue four, counsel submitted that flowing from the
foregoing, where an originating process is a false or wrong process served on
wrong persons, there is no remedy other than to hold that the process is
invalid and that it should be set aside. See KIDA vs. OGUNMOLA [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 327) 402 at 412. Accordingly, counsel urged the Court to set aside
the service of the originating process together with all other processes
including the interim order of injunction and strike out the suit as
i...
To continue reading
Request your trial