O. Sodade & Ors V. E. O. Imagie & Ors (1989)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AWOGU, J.C.A.

This appeal deals with the problem of Trade Union officials who fight over positions rather than carry out the sacred trust placed upon them by the members of the Union. Such infighting creates the erroneous impression of the existence of a Union “cake” to be shared. The law reports of this country are now replete with disputes of this nature.

The facts of the present dispute arose in this manner. The Plaintiffs, now Respondents, were removed as officers of the 6th Defendant, namely, the National Union of Postal/Telecommunications Employees. In suit No.LD/1662/86 at the Lagos High Court, the Plaintiffs sued for:

1. A declaration that the purported suspension and or removal of the Plaintiffs by the Central Working Committee is unconstitutional, null and void.
2. A declaration that the decision of the Central Working Committee which sat on the 8th of October, 1986 in so far as it affects the Plaintiffs is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
3. An injunction restraining the 6th Defendants, their agents and allies from ratifying, removing, or suspending the Plaintiffs pending the determination of this suit.
4. An injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and allies from operating the A.C.B. accounts or other accounts of the 6th Defendant pending the determination of this suit.
5. That 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs be declared the rightful and legal National President, State Chairman, Kaduna and State Secretary, Kaduna respectively.
6. That only the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant are the only persons constitutionally authorised and legally competent to summon meetings for and on behalf of the 6th Defendants, its agents and allies.

This was followed by an application for interlocutory injunction, to wit.:

“(1) An order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and privies in this suit from holding the purported National Executive Council on December 4th and 5th, 1986 at 12 Gbaja Street, Surulere or at any other place pending the determination of this suit.

(2) That the National Union of Postal Telecommunications Employees Account Nos. 50771, 51125, 27941 of A.C.B., Ojuelegba Branch be frozen pending the determination of this issue, and all monies withdrawn for the ill-fated National Executive Council meeting be paid into Court also pending the determination of the suit.”

By the time the application was heard, the meeting of the National Executive Council had already taken place and certain monies withdrawn from the accounts used for the purpose. As a result, the first prayer above became state. This also affected some aspect of the second prayer. The learned Judge, after hearing both parties, did not freeze the accounts, as prayed, but ordered the Registrar of Trade Unions to appoint an Administrator to administer and operate these Accounts pending the determination of the suit. This order is the subject of the first complaint in this appeal. It appears that inspite of the above Order, the Respondents still operated Account No.50771 on the grounds that it was not included in the order, although this appears to be an error as Account No. 55771 was excluded from the order in error. As a result, a subsequent application was made, and granted by another Judge. This is the subject of the second complaint in the appeal. Against both orders, the Appellants filed the following grounds of appeal:

(1) Error in Law

The learned trial Judge erred in restraining the Defendants from operating the accounts of the 6th Defendant Union when:-

(i) The Plaintiffs had not shown that they had any right to the funds contained in the said accounts of the 6th Defendant Union;

(ii) The Plaintiffs had not shown that irreparable injury would result to them if the injunction sought were not granted;

(iii) The Plaintiffs were not entitled to the said injunction under section 16 of the Trade Unions Decree of 1973;

(iv) The learned trial Judge had himself held that the Plaintiffs were not covered by section 16 of the Trades Union Decree;

(v) The Plaintiffs had no general right to interfere with the operation of the accounts of the 6th Defendant Union or to prevent any of the named Defendants from performing their functions within the 6th Defendant in accordance with its Constitution;