The Nigeria Union Of Teachers Taraba State & Ors V. Rev. Sarduana Habu & Ors (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

The Respondents were the applicants at the Taraba State High Court, suing for themselves and on behalf of the Academic Staff of Secondary Schools in Taraba State. The Respondents initiated this action at the trial High Court against the Appellants for the enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Sections 34, 35 and 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (the 1999 Constitution) and Articles 2, 5, 6, 10 & 11 of the African Charter on Human Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10 LFN 1990. The substance of their suit, brought under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, is that, having withdrawn their membership of and resigned from the Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT) (the 1st Appellant); their employers, the Taraba State Teaching Service Board [2nd Appellant], was obligated to respect their decision and stop deducting “check off dues and Teachers Welfare Premium” from their salaries and paying over the same to NUT. They insist that such monies cannot be forcefully deducted from their salaries and paid to a

1

rival union on their behalf. The Respondents maintain that they have migrated from NUT to another Union called the Conference of Secondary School Tutors (COSST).

The trial High Court (Agya, J.) in its ruling delivered on 4th November, 2003, upon the preliminary objection of the 1st and 6th Respondents in the application, struck out the suit on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter. On appeal by the Respondents herein, the applicants, the Court of Appeal (the Lower Court), upon allowing the appeal, set aside the decision of the trial Court. It further ordered that the suit be heard de novo. This further appeal is at the instance of the aggrieved Appellants, who were the respondents at both the trial Court and the Lower Court. The original Notice of Appeal has seven (7) grounds of appeal. The Amended Notice of Appeal also has seven (7) grounds of appeal from which the Appellants have formulated the following three (3) issues for the determination of this appeal. That is –

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the Taraba State High Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to entertain the

2

Respondent’s Claim under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 [from Grounds 5 and 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal].

2. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal that there was proof of service on the 1st and 6th Appellants but they absented themselves in Court following which the Court invoked the provision of Order 6 Rule 9(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002 thereby hearing the appeal before it without the 1st and 6th Appellants, does not constitute a breach of the 1st and 6th Appellants’ rights to fair hearing [From Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Amended Notice of Appeal].
3. Whether the Suit No.TRSJ/41M/2003 between Rev. SARDUANA HABU & 3 ORS V. NIGERIA UNION OF TEACHERS & 6 ORS. and resultant appeal at the Court of Appeal was properly constituted with regards to the legal personality of the 6th and 7th Appellants [from Ground 7 of the Amended Notice of Appeal].

On 2nd January, 2018, the Respondents herein filed Notice of Preliminary Objection wherein it is contended that “the original Notice of Appeal filed by the 1st and 6th Appellants – dated 7/3/2005 and filed on 8/3/2005 is incompetent and incurably

3

defective”.

The Notice of Preliminary Objection was on 8th January, 2015 deemed filed and served. The Preliminary Objection is premised on five (5) grounds, namely:

AND TAKE NOTICE that the grounds upon which this objection are brought are as follows:

1. The Original Notice of Appeal filed by the 1st and 6th Appellants is fundamentally defective, and same cannot be cured by an amendment.
2. Grounds 4 and 6 of the Original Notice of Appeal filed by the 1st and 6th Appellants are complaints which do not border on the personal grievances of the said Appellants but on the other set of Appellants (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Appellants) who have no Appeal before this Honourable Court, their notice of Appeal having been withdrawn and struck out.
3. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the 1st and 6th Appellants’ Original Notice of Appeal are complaints against obiter dicta, rather than the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Lower Court.
4. Ground 5 of the 1st and 6th Appellants original Notice of appeal is a ground of mixed law and fact and same was filed without first obtaining the leave of the Lower Court or this Court.
5. Particulars (i),

4

(iv) and (vi) of ground 3 and particulars (i), (iv) and (vi) of ground of the 1st and 6th Appellants’ original Notice of Appeal are argumentative and prolix.