Adams Oshiomhole & Anor. V. Federal Government Of Nigeria & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

The plaintiff commenced this action by a writ of summons on 6th February, 2003 claiming the following reliefs:-

(i)A declaration that the notice of intention to resume strike action dated 7th January, 2004 issued by the defendants to the plaintiffs in opposition to the plaintiffs’ policy of a charge of N1.50k per litre in Price Modulation of Petroleum Motor Spirit and Automotive Gas Oil is not in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute as provided for under the Trade Dispute Act Cap 432 LFN 1990 and is contrary to Section 222 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and therefore irregular, invalid, illegal, unlawful, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(ii) A declaration that the defendants are not entitled to embark on any strike action pursuant to Annexure 1 and/or in respect of any matter not ambit of the provisions of the Trade Dispute Act Cap 432, LFN, 1990

(iii) A declaration that the 1st defendant cannot as a trade unionist and officers of the 2nd defendant, or howsoever acting under the banner or aegis of the 2nd defendant induce any worker or employee in Nigeria to embark on any strike action to protest the plaintiff’s Price Modulation Policy of N1.50k on every litre of PMS/AGO or any matter not being within the preview and ambit of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 432 LFN 1990.

(iv) A declaration that the defendants’ notice of intention to resume strike action dated 7th January, 2004, Annexure 1, issued in opposition to the plaintiff’s policy of a charge of N1.50k price modulation on every litre of Petroleum Motor Spirit and Automotive Gas Oil amounts to the tort of unlawful inducement of breach of their number workers various and individual contracts of employment with their various employers including the plaintiffs and that the said Annexure 1 is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

(v) An order setting aside the said notice of intention to resume strike action dated 7th January 2004 issued by the defendants and served on the plaintiffs as being irregular, illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

(vi) An order of injunction directed against the defendants jointly and severally by themselves or through servants, agents, official, privies, successors-in-title or otherwise however from embarking on any strike action in protest against the N1.50k per litre Price Modulation Policy of the plaintiff on Petroleum Motor Spirit (PMS) and the Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) or any other policy of the plaintiff’s not being within the preview of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 437 LFN 1990.

The writ of summons was supported by a 21-paragraph statement of claim and one annexure. The defendants filed a 42-paragraph statement of defence and counter-claim. The plaintiff further filed a 19-paragraph reply to the statement of defence and counter-claim.

The defendants in their counter-claim sought the following reliefs.

(i) A declaration that the executive decision of the plaintiffs to impose a tax of N1.50k per litre of Petroleum Motor Spirit and Automotive Gas Oil on or about Sunday the 1st of 2004 is illegal and unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect.

(ii) A declaration that the plaintiffs are not competent to increase the price of petroleum product without a law validly passed by the National Assembly.

(iii) AN order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs whether by themselves, their agents, privies and servants from preventing the defendants from protesting against policies considered inimical to their interests.

The plaintiffs filed a defence to the counter-claim in which the plaintiffs contended that the defendants as a trade union have no locus standi to challenge on the platform of a trade union the political and economic decisions of the plaintiff, and that there was no need for an Act of the National Assembly before the adjustment of prices of petroleum products.