The Hon. Attorney-general Of Enugu State v Judiciary Staff Union Of Nigeria (jusun) Anor
| Judge | Hon. Justice Auwal Ibrahim |
| Judgment Date | 23 September 2016 |
| Respondent | Judiciary Staff Union Of Nigeria (jusun) Anor |
| Appellant | The Hon. Attorney-general Of Enugu State |
| Docket Number | NIC/EN/09/2010 |
| Counsel | <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: |
| Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
By
an amended Statement of Facts dated the 12th day of August 2010, the
Claimant in this suit claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:
1.
A
declaration that the 1stDefendant as a Trade Union within the
meaning of Section 1(1) of the Trade
Unions Act Cap T14, LFN 2004, as amended by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act
No. 17 of 2005, and the 2nd and 3rdDefendants as
Chairman and Secretary of the Enugu State Branch of the 1stDefendant
(JUSUN Enugu Branch) respectively and all other functionaries of JUSUN Enugu
Branch or persons presently acting or who may subsequently act, as such at any
time material to this Complaint jointly and severally cannot lawfully give
instruction or issue any directives or pass or implement any resolution, or
effect any measures or otherwise take any steps of any kind to cause, or
instigate, or to compel, encourage or persuade in any other manner, all or any
members of JUSUN Enugu Branch, or any other staff of the State Judiciary to embark
on any strike/industrial action unless and until after they have first pursued fulfilled,
exhausted and otherwise ensured strict compliance with and faithful adherence
to all the mandatory procedures/conditions precedent prescribed by all diverse
legislation currently in force regulating the calling and settlement of
industrial and or labour dispute in Nigeria or as may be otherwise directed by
a specific order of Court.
2.
A
declaration that all communiqués hitherto or which may purport to be subsequently
issued, by the Defendants or by anybody acting for or on behalf of them, or
acting in furtherance of interests, which has the effect of giving, or issuing
directives or passing or implementing resolutions, or effecting any measures or
otherwise taking any steps of any kind to cause, or instigate, or to compel,
encourage, or persuade in any other manner, all or any members of JUSUN Enugu Branch, or any other staff of
the State Judiciary, to embark on strike/Industrial Action from Monday, 16th
August, 2010 or as from any other date, without, first pursuing, fulfilling,
exhausting and otherwise ensuring strict compliance with and faithful adherence
to all the mandatory procedures/conditions prescribed by all diverse
legislations currently in force regulating the calling and settlement of
industrial or labour disputes in Nigeria, or obtaining a specific and prior
order of Court to that effect are unlawful.
3 A declaration that the 2nd
and 3rdDefendants and all those they represent in this action,
jointly and severally, being people engaged in the provisions of essential
service within the meaning of Section
48(1) of the Trade DisputesAct, Cap. T8, L.F.N. 2004, are prohibited from
taking part in any strike or engaging in any conduct in contemplation or furtherance
of any
strike, with consequential effect of
withholding or withdrawing themselves from the performance of their usual
duties as workers in the Judiciary of Enugu State, or in any other institution
within the public service of Enugu State by virtue of the provisions of Section 31(6)(a) of the Trade Unions Act,
Cap. T14, L.F.N. 2004 as amended by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act N. 17 of
2005.
4(A) An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the 2nd and 3rdDefendants
and all those they represent in this action, jointly and severally, from taking
part in any strike or engaging in any conduct in contemplation or furtherance
of any strike with the consequential effect of withholding or withdrawing
themselves from the performance of their usual daily job and duties as workers
in the Judiciary of Enugu State, or in any other institution within the public
service of Enugu State by virtue of the provisions of Section 31(6)(a) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, L.F.N. 2004 as
amended by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 2005.
B(i) An order of perpetual injunction restraining
the 1st Defendant as a Trade
Union within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14,
L.F.N. 2004, and the 2nd and 3rdDefendants as members of
the 1st Respondent and as chairman and secretary of Enugu State
Branch of the 1stDefendant (“JUSUN Enugu Branch”) respectively and
also restraining all other functionaries of JUSUN Enugu Branch or persons presently
acting, or who may subsequently act, as such at any time material to this
complaint, jointly and severally, from giving further instructions, or issuing
any further directives, or passing or implementing any further resolutions, or
from effecting any measure or otherwise from taking any steps or further steps,
of any kind to cause, or instigate or to compel, encourage or persuade in any
other manner, all or any members of JUSUN Enugu branch or any other staff of
the State Judiciary, to carry out the threat of proceeding with and embarking
upon strike/Industrial Action from Monday 16th August, 2010, or as
from any other date, unless and until after they have first pursued, fulfilled,
exhausted and otherwise ensured strict compliance with and faithful adherence
prescribed by all diverse legislation currently in force regulating the calling
and settlement of Industrial and or labour disputes in Nigeria or as may be
otherwise directed by a specific order of court.
(ii) An order of perpetual injunction
restraining the 2nd and 3rdDefendants and all those they
represent in this action, jointly and severally, from acting upon or acting in
compliance with in obedience to, any instructions directives, or resolution,
given, issued, passed or taken by the 1st respondent or the 2ndand
3rd respondents or any other person, for any purpose or prospective
Industrial Action with consequential
effect of withholding or withdrawing themselves from the performance of their
usual daily job and duties and also restraining them from carrying out the
threat of proceeding with and embarking upon Industrial Action from Monday 16
August 2010, or as from any other date, unless and until after they have first
pursued, fulfilled exhausted and otherwise ensured strict compliance with
and faithful adherence to all the mandatory procedures/conditions precedent by
all diverse legislations currently in force regulating the calling and or
settlement of Industrial and or labour disputes in Nigeria, or as may be otherwise
directed by a specific order of court.
(5) Such further or other order(s) as to the
court may deem fit in the circumstances.
The
Complaint was duly served upon the Defendants. In reaction to the complaint and
the accompanying processes, the 1st defendant filed a statement of
defence dated 16th September, 2010 and filed on the 17th
September, 2010. The 2nd and 3rd defendants filed jointly
an amended statement of defence dated 17th February, 2015 and filed
on the 18th “February, 2015. However, the 1st defendant
never showed up to defend the suit but the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants diddefendit and also counter-claimed against the Claimant.
At
the trial, the Claimant presented one witness, CW1, who testified and was cross
examined by both counsel for the defendants. Thereafter, the 2nd and
3rd Defendants called their witness, DW1 who adopted his written
Statement on oath and was cross examined by the learned Claimant’s counsel.
In
terms of documentary evidence, the following were tendered by the Claimant and admitted
by the Court:
(i)
A
letter dated 5th July, 2010 addressed to the Claimant forwarding the
Communique issued at the Congress of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria,
Enugu State Branch admitted as Exhibit
A.
(ii) A document dated 5th July, 2010
titled“Communiqué issued at the end of an emergency congress meeting of the
Enugu State Branch of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) held at
Enugu on the 5th day of July, 2010”, admitted as Exhibit A1.
(iii) A forwarding letter dated 22nd
July, 2010 addressed to the Claimant and a letter titled “Communiqué reached at
the end of the meeting between the National Executive Committee of JUSUN and
the South East Zonal Caucus of JUSUN at Enugu this Saturday, the 17th
day of July, 2010”, admitted as ExhibitsB
and B1.
(vi) An undated letter tilted “RE: Need for your
urgent Intervention” admitted as Exhibit
C.
The 2nd and 3rd
Defendants through DWI tendered the following documents which were admitted in
evidence:
(i) Report of the final committee on
Harmonization of salaries of staff of the Judiciary in Nigeria dated 11th
March, 2009 and admitted as Exhibit D1.
(ii) Report of the final committee on
Harmonization of the three earlier reports on the demands of the Judiciary
Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) DATED 19th February, 2009 admitted as
Exhibit D2.
(iii) Forwarding of Report of the Special
Committee on Harmonization of the demands of the Judiciary Staff Union of
Nigeria (JUSUN) DATED 20TH DAY of February, 2009 admitted as Exhibit D3.
The
Learned Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants raised the
issue of the incompetence of the Pleading of the Claimant. He stated that the
Supreme Court in the case of General Sani Abatcha & 3 Ors vs Chief Gani
Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) p. 228 at 276 held thatwhilst
it is a principal rule of pleading that a party must plead material facts only
and not law, every party is permitted by his pleading to raise a point of law.
It is thus not only unnecessary but contrary to the rule of pleading to plead
law, statute or sections thereof before reliance can be placed on them. If a
party’s case depends on a statute, all he needs do is fully to plead material
facts necessary to bring his case within that statute. See Anyawu v
Mbara (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 242) 386 referred to at p. 306 paras A-B.
That
in the instant case a great deal of the averment in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of
the amended statement of facts establishing cause of action consist of legal
conclusions and not facts and to that extent the averments are in violation of
the rules of pleadings. That Claims 1, 3, 4 and B(i) are all in violation of
the rules of pleading. These paragraphs, counsel submitted, ought to be struck
out and so he urged the court to strike out the said paragraphs 14, 15 and 16
of the amended statement of facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial