Motorcycle Transport Union Of Nigeria (M.T.U.N.) & Ors. V. Delta State Motorcyclist Association (D.S.M.A.) & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, (Ph.D), J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellants (as Plaintiffs in the court below) instituted the action leading to this appeal by an originating summons in the High Court of Delta State sitting in Asaba. The Appellants challenged the operation and activities of the 1st Respondent (1st Defendant in the court below) in rendering services in the nature of transportation of goods and or persons by road by means of motorcycles, and or serving as an umbrella body or association for all workers or persons engaging in the transportation of persons and goods by road despite not being a registered trade union.

By a Writ of Summons dated 13th April, 2005, the Appellants claim against the Respondents as follows:

“(1) A declaration that the 1st Defendant not being a registered Trade Union, is not entitled to render essential services in the nature of transportation of goods and persons.

(2) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and privies from, in any manner whatsoever, engaging in the business of transportation of goods and persons by road.”

They went on to formulate three questions for the determination of the lower court.

“(A) Whether, on a proper interpretation of the Provisions of S. 9(i) (b) (iii) of Trade Disputes (Essential Services Act Cap 433 Laws of Nigeria 1990, the 1st Defendant can render essential services in the nature of transportation of persons and goods by road.

(B) Are” the Defendants, on a proper interpretation of the provisions of 5. 2(i) Trade Unions Act Cap 437 Laws of Nigeria 1990 (as amended) and 5.44 Trade Unions Act Cap 437 Laws of Nigeria 1990 (as amended) not guilty of an offence under” the Act?

(C) Whether the fact of Incorporation per se, entitles the 1st Respondent to engage in the rendition” of essential services as provided under S -11 (i) of the 1999 Constitution.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by way of affidavit and counter affidavit.

On the 4th of August, 2005, the court in a considered Judgment dismissed the action of the Appellants.

Dissatisfied with the said Judgment the Appellants have appealed to this court on three Grounds set out in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal dated 4/12/05 which without their particulars read:

(A) ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the 1st Defendant being an association of self employed persons who are engaged in the business of transportation does not come under the Jurisdictional scope of N.U.R.T.W. under the Trade Unions Law and came to a wrong decision which occasioned a miscarriage of Justice.