National Union Of Road Transport Workers & Anor Vs Road Transport Employers Association Of Nigeria & Ors (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

J. A. FABIYI, JSC

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division (the court below for short) which found in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action and struck out the claim before the trial Federal High Court, Akure (the trial court for short).

The 1st and 2nd appellants herein, as plaintiffs at the trial court, filed their originating summons on 23rd August, 1999 by which they prayed for the determination of the question-

‘Whether by Decree No 4 of 1996 Trade Union (Amendment) Decree 1996 the plaintiffs are the rightful parties to engage in the transportation of passengers and goods by road at the motor-parks in the various towns and villages in Ekiti State of Nigeria.’

If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, then the plaintiffs claim:-

‘1. Declaration that the members of the 1st plaintiff Union including the other plaintiff are the rightful persons by law to engage in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in various motor- parks in Ekiti State.

2. Perpetual injunction restraining any other Unions, Association and / or groups of persons not authorised by law to engage in transportation of passenger and goods by road from operating, interfering and / or disturbing the plaintiffs and /or their agents, servants or members at the various motor parks in Ekiti State, where they are lawfully engaged.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and the Ekiti State House of Assembly under his authority from entertaining, considering or making any resolution tantamount to amending Decree 4 of 1996 by allowing or permitting a non-authorised Union, Association or group(s) of persons to operate at the motor-parks in the State to engage in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in various motor-parks in Ekiti State.

.An order directing the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants to enforce Decree 4 of 1996 by seeing to the EXIT of NON-AUTHORISED UNIONS and non-registered or non-recognized

Union or Associations from various motor parks in Ekiti State.’

The 1st and 2nd respondents herein were not made parties by the plaintiffs at the trial court. They applied to be joined thereat as defendants. On 23rd November, 1999 they were found to be necessary parties so that all issues in dispute as placed before the court could be properly pronounced upon and to obviate being accused of standing by. The 1st respondent was a party who should have been joined by the plaintiffs in the first instance. It was a party whose presence before the court as a defendant was apt to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the matter. It was not right for the plaintiffs to keep it out of the game and attempt to steal the show behind the back of a deserving defendant. After all, any judgment made with an order against a necessary and desirable party behind its back will be to no avail. It cannot be allowed to stand. See: Chief Abusi David Green v. Dr. E. T. Dublin Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 480; Uku v. Okumagba (1974) 1 ALL NLR 475. In short, the learned trial judge acted in the right direction on this point.

A preliminary objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the matter. This, he overruled on 12th October, 2000. Thereafter, the trial judge heard arguments on the originating summons. In his reserved judgment handed out on 26th September, 2000, he held as follows:-

‘But by Decree No 1 of 1999 Trade Union (Amendment) Decree No 1 of 1999 the Third Schedule of the Principal Act (Trade Unions Act Cap. 437) was amended by the addition of Part C which contains the Senior Staff Employers Association. In this new Part C the 5th defendant was recognised. It is important to note that although the name of the 5th defendant was recognized it has not been given any specific area or jurisdictional operation. Section 6 of Decree No 4 of 1996 has not been repealed so also Part B of the Third Schedule which contains the Trade Unions and their jurisdictional scope. It is therefore my view that the 5th defendants name has only been inserted for the sake of it. If the legislature intended to give it any jurisdictional scope having provided by the relevant enactment (sic). I will answer the question posed for determination in this originating summons in favour of the plaintiff.’

The 1st and 2nd respondents herein, felt unhappy with the above stance of the trial judge and appealed to the court below where issue of jurisdiction of the trial court was again raised along with other issues. The court below, in its own judgment handed out on 7th May, 2004 decided to only treat the issue of jurisdiction. It held as follows:-

‘The name of the Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (1st appellant) is listed as No 29 under the Third Schedule Part C thereof. It is therefore a trade union. Being a trade Union, the dispute between it and the 1st respondent cannot be heard by the lower court.’

On point of jurisdiction, the court below allowed the appeal and declared the trial as null and void. The appellants herein have decided to appeal to this court.