Nigeria Union of Teachers & Ors V. Conference of Secondary School Tutors (Csst) & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Justice, Agbor Judicial Division presided over by Ohwo, J. The ruling was delivered on 30th September 2002.

In an originating summons issued on the 27th day of June, 2002 against the appellants and the 5th and 6th Respondents, as defendants, the 1st – 4th Respondents, as plaintiffs, sought the determination of the following questions:

“A. Whether the 1st Plaintiff, having been duly registered by Corporate Affairs Commission, Abuja, under part C of companies and Allied matters Act, 1990 has no right to exist.

B. Whether the 2nd – 4th Plaintiffs and all members of the 1st Plaintiff have no right to resign as members of the 1st defendant and be members of the 1st Plaintiff for the protection of their interest having regard to the provision of section 40 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”

It was a representative action with the Plaintiffs suing for themselves and on behalf of members COSST, (the 1st Plaintiff) Delta State chapter and the 1st to 4th defendants sued as Trustees and representatives of Delta State Wing of N.D.T.

In addition to the determination of the two question reproduced above the plaintiffs claimed against the defendants the following reliefs:

“1. Declaration that 1st Plaintiff has right to exist, having been duly incorporated by Corporate Affairs Commission Abuja.

2. Declaration that the 2nd – 4th Plaintiffs and all members of 1st Plaintiff are at liberty to be such members of the 1st plaintiff for the protection of their interest.
3. Declaration that the 2nd-4th plaintiffs and all members of 1st plaintiff are not bound and cannot be forced to remain or be members of 1st defendant until retirement from service or death.
4. Declaration that the continued deductions and collection of check off dues from the salaries/earnings of the 2nd – 4th plaintiffs and all members of 1st plaintiff as tutors in the employment of Delta State Government by the defendants is unlawful and unjustifiable since the 2nd – 4th plaintiffs and all members of 1st plaintiff are no longer members of 1st defendant.
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves agents privies servants or whomsoever from deducting or causing to be deducted and/or collecting check-off dues or any sum whatsoever from the salaries/earnings of the 2nd – 4th plaintiffs and all members of 1st plaintiff as tutors or employees with Delta State Government.
6. An order directing the 1st-4th defendants to pay to the plaintiffs all money collected as check-off dues from the salaries/earnings of the 2nd – 4th plaintiffs and all members of 1st plaintiff with effect from the date of filing this suit to the date of Judgment.”

There is a 20-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 2nd plaintiff with the consent and authority of the other plaintiffs on record and those they represent in support of the originating summons. Exhibited to the affidavit are, inter alia, resignation letters of the plaintiffs on record and those they represent as members of the 1st defendant. The resignation letters also demand that no further deduction be made from the salaries/earnings of those concerned by the 1st defendant. A letter reference No. A 159/Vol.V/26 (certified true copy) of 20/6/88 from Teaching Service Board, Benin City, Bendel State addressed to 11 people who are probably tutors in Amedokhian Secondary School Warri through the principal of the said School referred to “withdrawal from the NUT” and informed those it was addressed to “that motion has been taken to stop deduction from your monthly salary with effect from July 1988”

In reaction to the originating summons the 1st – 4th defendants brought a motion on notice pursuant to Order 2 Rule 1(2) High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988, Bendel State as applicable to Delta State, section 6, (6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;

Section 74(1) (m) of the Evidence Act asking the Lower Court to strike out the originating summons on the following grounds:

“1. The Originating Summons is not properly before the court.

2. This Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit which raises a Trade Union Dispute vis-a-vis Trade Dispute Act 1990, Trade Dispute (Amendment) Act No.47 1992 and Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree NO.1 1999.
3. The 1st plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this action.” The motion was dated, and filed on, 10/6/02 and supported by a four paragraph affidavit sworn to by Dr. C.Y.O. Adei, counsel for the 1st – 4th defendants.

The 2nd plaintiff swore, with the consent and authority of the other plaintiffs, to a 9-paragraph counter-affidavit opposing the motion.

In a rather length ruling on the motion, an interlocutory matter, the court below, dismissing the application, held that “The end result is that this application is grossly misconceived and unmeritorious (sic). The application is accordingly hereby dismissed.” In addition, the lower court granted leave to “the plaintiffs/respondent to amend the name of the 1st plaintiff in the manner applied for by counsel on their behalf and the plaintiffs are given 14 days to amend and file their originating summons reflecting the amendment and serve same on all the defendants… ” The 1st – 4th defendants were dissatisfied with the said ruling and said so by appealing to the court on two grounds here under reproduced: