M.O. Akinade V. Non-academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institution & Ors (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OKUNOLA, J.C.A. 

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Oyo State High Court holden at Ibadan delivered by Lekan Lajide J. on 29/6/93, in which the defendants/respondents objection in limine challenging the jurisdictional competence of the High Court to hear and determine the plaintiffs/appellant’s action was upheld.

The facts of this case briefly put were as follows:

Sometime in April, 1978. the plaintiff/appellant was appointed the Deputy General Secretary of 1st defendant. He served in various capacities and rose to the post of Director of Labour Trade Union Affairs in 1988 which post he held until he was retired on 16/11/92 by the 1st defendant/respondent. The plaintiff on 19/12/92, sued the defendants before the Ibadan High Court claiming that the termination was in breach of the contract of his employment. The plaintiff filed his statement of claim. The defendant on the other hand did not file a statement of defence but rather on 30/12/92, brought an application as a preliminary objection to the plaintiff’s motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed on 21/12/92, on ground of law to the jurisdiction of the Oyo State High Court. The preliminary objection sought for the following two reliefs:

(1) That the case or the plaintiff be struck out as the Oyo Stale High Court lacks jurisdiction.

(2) That the action he struck out as State High Courts do not have jurisdiction over intra union disputes or trade disputes by virtue of Decree No. 47 of 1992.

The preliminary objection was predicated on the following two grounds:

(1) That the issues as raised by the plaintiff constitute trade dispute in so far as they relate to employment and non-employment of the plaintiff/appellant, the plaintiff/appellant being an employee of 1st defendant/respondent who now stands in the position of an employer.

(2) The issue of malice and bias raised against the 2nd to 17th defendants/respondents as members of the Finance and General Purposes Committee on 14/11/92. were matters and/or dispute arising from the organisation and running of the 1st defendant/respondent a trade union as laid down in the union’s constitution.

Both counsel to the parties presented their arguments on the application. In the end, on 19/6/93 after reviewing the arguments as presented by learned counsel to both parties, the learned trial Judge upheld the defendants’ objection in limine challenging the jurisdictional competence of the High Court to hear and determine the plaintiffs action. The action, according to the learned trial Judge, is by virtue of Decree 47 of 1992, a trade dispute between an employed (the plaintiff) and the employer (1st defendant) upon which the court jurisdiction had been ousted. The action was accordingly struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the plaintiff/appellant hereinafter referred to as the appellant has appealed to this honourable court first on a six grounds of appeal dated 5/8/93 which he proposed to seek leave or court to substitute with another set of six grounds contained in his amended plaintiff/appellant’s brief filed on 13/10/98. However at the hearing of the appeal on 14/10/98 learned counsel to the appellant Chid Richard Akinjide SAN applied to withdraw the appellant’s brief filed on 20/1/95. The application was accordingly granted. The learned SAN thereafter adopted and relied on the amended appellant’s brief filed herein on 13/10/95. Learned SAN declined to seek for leave as indicated on page 10 paragraph 4.1 of the said amended appellant’s brief to abandon grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the original notice of appeal dated 5/8/93 and informed the court that he was leaving the grounds as they are. However, from the six subsisting grounds of appeal the learned SAN in the said amended appellant’s brief filed on 13/10/95 formulated the following four issues for determination in this appeal viz.:

6.1 Whether the defendants, without filing any statement of defence is entitled to raise by way of an application under Order 24 rules 3 and 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, a preliminary objection to the jurisdictional competence of the court particularly since Order 24 rule I has abolished demurrer and substituted therefore Order 24 rule 2 under which a preliminary point of law can be raised after both statement of claim and statement of defence have been filed without any need to reviving the extinct plea of demurrer which has been buried.

6.2 Whether the matter in issue between the parties as disclosed by the statement of claim is a “trade dispute” within the definition of “trade dispute” as stated in s. 47(i) of Trade Disputes Act or is it a contract of employment asserting contractual right by the plaintiff (employee) against the defendants (employers).

6.3 Whether if the facts as disclosed in the statement of claim were taken as proved or admitted by the defence for the purpose of the application, the defence, nevertheless was entitled to succeed on the two grounds canvassed in their application for preliminary objection.