IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AKURE
BEFOR E HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D DAMULAK
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
SUIT NO: NICN/AK/14/2022
BETWEEN
1. NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW)
2. MR. OLUWATOYIN OLAOYE ………………….. APPLICANTS
3. MR. ABDULSALAM NASIRU
AND
1. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR. ONDO STATE
2. MR.JACOB ADEBO(AKA IDAJO)
(For himself and on behalf of other members
Of the motor park management committee) …………RESPONDENTS
REPRESENTATION:
Akinyemi Omoware Esq. with him Olajumoke Ogunleye Esq. for the Claimants
F. S. Akinibosun (DCL MOJ Ondo State) for 1st the Respondent
C. Gilbert-Ojo for the 2nd Respondent.
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. This case borders on an allegation of interference and undue intrusion by the Executive Governor of Ondo State (1st respondent) into the affairs of a Trade Union, (1st claimant). The claimants instituted this suit by way of an originating summons filed on 6/4/2022 seeking for the determination of 9 questions and the grant of 11 reliefs as follows;
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether by virtue of the provision of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; Articles 3 & 5(1) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the 1st Applicant is not a Union duly recognized by Law and whose activities is regulated by its Constitution?
2. Whether by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap, T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the provisions of Articles 5(1), 42(3)(iii) & (4)(iii)(vii) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the Applicants are not private workers engaged in transportation of passenger whose membership and election is governed by their Constitution and devoid of undue interference of the 1st Respondent?
3. Whether by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the provisions of Articles 5(1), 42(4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the 1st Applicant and its members are not entitled to peacefully conduct election to fill the vacant Ondo State Executive Council?
4. Whether by virtue of the pendency of Suit No. NICN/AK/03/22: NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (ONDO STATE) & 2 ORS V. PROF. TAJUDEEN IBIKUNLE BARUWA, the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent (who are parties in the said suit) and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee is not subjudice, contemptuous and an affront to judicial process?
5. Whether by virtue of pendency of Suit No: NICN/AK/03/22: NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (ONDO STATE) & 2 ORS V. PROF. TAJUDEEN IBIKUNLE BARUWA and the provisions of Articless 5(1), 42(4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and other members of the Park Management Committee is not an intrusion into and a violation of the Constitution of the 1st Applicant?
6. Whether the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee is not an interference and undue intrusion into the affairs of the 1st Applicant?
7. Whether the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee will not interfere with peaceful conduct of the election and affairs of the 1st Applicant in Ondo State?
8. Whether by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the provisions of Articles 3, 42(3)(iii); (4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and others into the Park Management Committee violate the provisions of 1st Applicant Constitution and therefore liable to be set aside?
9. Whether by virtue of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, ‘Motor Park Management Committee’ of Park Management Committee’ is a recognized Trade Union that can lawfully carry out the functions of the Applicants?
RELIEFS SOUGHT
1. A Declaration that by virtue of the provision of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; Article 3 of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018),the 1st Applicant is a Union duly recognized by law and whose activities is regulated by its Constitution.
2. A Declaration that by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the provisions of Articles 3, 42(3)(iii); (4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the Applicants are private workers engaged in transportation of passenger whose membership and election is governed by their Constitution and devoid of undue interference of the 1st Respondent.
3. A Declaration that by virtue of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the provisions of Articles 3, 42(3)(iii); (4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the 1st Applicant and its members are entitled to peacefully conduct of election to fill the vacant Ondo State Executive Council.
4. A Declaration that by virtue of the pendency of Suit No: NICN/AK/03/22: NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (ONDO STATE) & 2 ORS V. PROF. TAJUDEEN IBIKUNLE BARUWA, the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent (who are parties in the said suit) and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee is subjudice, contemptuous and an affront to judicial process.
5. A Declaration that by virtue of the pendency of Suit No: NICN/AK/03/22: NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (ONDO STATE) & 2 ORS V. PROF. TAJUDEEN IBIKUNLE BARUWA and the provisions of Article 42(4)(iii)(vii) & 46(12) of the National Union of Road Transport Workers Constitution, (Amended 2018), the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and other members of the Park Management Committee is an intrusion into and a violation of the Constitution of the 1st Applicant.
6. A Declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee is an interference and undue intrusion into the affairs of the 1st Applicant.
7. A Declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent in appointing the 2nd Respondent and other members into a committee called Park Management Committee will interfere with peacefully conduct of election and the affairs of the 1st Applicant members in Ondo State.
8. A Declaration that by virtue of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, ‘Motor Park Management Committee or ‘Park Management Committee’ is not a recognized Trade Union that can lawfully function in the area of jurisdiction of the Applicants.
9. An Orders of the Honourable Court nullify the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and other members of the Park Management Committee.
ALTERNATIVELY
An Order of the Honourable Court restricting the activities of the 2nd Respondent and his Park Management Committee to the management of government owned parks.
10. An Order of the Honourable Court restraining 1st Respondent from further interference with the conduct and affairs of the Applicants and members in their various private own parks in Ondo State.
11. An Order of the Honourable Court restraining the 2nd Respondent and members of the Park Management Committee from interfering with the peacefully conduct of the affairs of the 1st Applicant and its members in Ondo State.
2. The 1st respondent filed it’s counter affidavit on 26/5/2022 in response to which the claimants filed a further and better affidavit on 31/5/2022. The 2nd respondent filed his counter affidavit on 28/4/2022 in response to which the claimants filed a further and better affidavit on 25/5/2022. The summons was argued on 2/6/2022, the first day it came up for hearing, a feat for which all counsels in this case have hereby earned the commendation of this court.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
3. In a 28 paragraph affidavit in support of the originating summons deposed to by the 3rd claimant, it is the case of the claimants that 1st applicant is a Trade Union. That due to the leadership style of the 2nd Respondent while in office which was characterized with violence, upon the completion of his term he had been attempting to force himself, without election, on members of the 1st Applicant. That the 2nd Respondent, knowing that he has no popularity to participate and win election sought the assistance of the 1st Respondent to appoint/impose him as against the democratic provisions of the 1st Applicant Constitution.
4. That consequent upon the refusal of the respondent to allow for peaceful conduct of Applicants election to elect the Ondo State executive members, a suit with suit No: NICN/AK/03/22 NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (ONDO STATE) & 2 ORS. V. PROF TAJUDEEN IBIKUNLE BARUWA & 1 ORS was filed and served on the parties.
5. That while the suit was still pending, the 1st Respondent, without reasonable cause on 1/04/2022 in a press release, suspended the activities of the 1st Applicant and appointed 2nd Respondent as Chairman, Park Management Committee to take over the duties of the Applicants in public parks in Ondo State. The press release is annexed and marked as Exhibit 4.
6. That by the decision of the Respondents, the 2nd Respondent’s park Management Committee is to take over all parks operated by the Applicant’s members in Ondo State. That the decision of the 1st Respondent which appointed 2nd Respondent as Chairman of Park Management Committee is in conflict with the constitutional duties and affairs of the Applicants where the 2nd Respondent and members of the committee equally belong.
7. That the Applicants have their privately owned parks in Ondo state different from the government/public parks. Applicants’ owned private parks in Akure include: Benin Garage, Ado Garage, Ondo Garage, Sunshine Park, etc. which were bought/leased by/to the 1st Applicant by the owner of the lands. However, government owned public parks are Ilesa Garage and Parilove Garage, Oke IJebu.
8. That on Monday, 4/4/2022 after the constitution of the Park Management Committee by the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent with members of the committee and hoodlums bombarded private parks owned and operated by Applicants where they were carrying out their legitimate activities, machete and wounded about six members of 1st Applicant in their attempt to forcefully take over Applicants· park on the guise that 1st Respondent has directed them to take over all parks in Ondo State.
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
9. Learned claimant counsel, Akinyemi Omoware esq., having formulated 9 questions for determination, now abandons those questions and formulated three issues for determination as follows;
1. Whether considering the relevant provisions of 1st Applicant’s Constitution, Applicants are not entitled to conduct election to fill vacant positions of the Ondo State Executive Council?
2. Whether by the combined provisions of the Trade Unions Act and Applicants’ Constitution, 1st Applicant is not a Union of private individuals whose activities devoid of 1st Respondent’s interference?
3. Whether considering the provisions of Applicants’ Constitution, the appointment of 2nd Respondent’s Park Management Committee by 1st Respondent is known to Trade Unions Act or Applicants’ Constitution?
10. On his reformulated issue 1, counsel submitted that by the provisions of Article 42(4)(iii) & (vii) of the Applicant Constitution which provides that ‘all officers of the Union shall be elected by the duly authorized body allowed by this Constitution” and “All elected officers of the Union shall serve for a period of four (4) years and shall be eligible for re-election”. The Applicants are entitled to conduct election to fill vacant positions of the Ondo State Executive Council.
11. Placing reliance upon the above sited relevant provisions of Applicants Constitution, he urged the Court to hold that applicants are entitled to conduct election to fill vacant positions of the Ondo State Executive Council.
12. On his reformulated issue 2, counsel submitted that that by the combined provisions of paragraph 7 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 15 of the 1st schedule, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part A), paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, 1st Applicant is a Union whose members are private individuals whose activities is to render transportation service to the general public. Specifically, paragraph 16 of the 3rd schedule (Part B) of the Trade Unions Act provides for area of jurisdiction of the 1st Applicant, it was enacted thus: “All workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road, excluding the transportation undertaken by self employed persons”.
13. On his reformulated issue 3, counsel submitted that there is no provision in either the Trade Unions Act or the Applicants· (Exhibit 1) which allows for or accommodates any committee known as Park Management Committee. In the same force, there is no such provision which allows 1st respondent to constitute committee for 1st Applicant. That the affairs and conduct of 1st Applicant shall be guided and directed by its Constitution. The appointment of 2nd Respondent as the Chairman of the Park Management Committee having been shown to be alien to the Trade Unions Act and 1st Applicant Constitution, the same would therefore be nullified or set aside.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
14. In a 21 paragraph counter affidavit by the 1st respondent, the gravamen of the counter affidavit is that there was power tussle between the 2nd respondent and one Mr. Gbenga who was desperate to take over the position of the 2nd respondent as Chairman of the 1st claimant which has brought about prolonged dispute within the 1st claimant that is now threatening the peace of the State. That the 1st Respondent suspended the activities of the 1st Applicant to prevent breakdown of law and order and put in place the Park Management Committee under the leadership of the 2nd respondent to oversee the parks pending when the 1st Applicant resolve their lingering crisis that is threatening the peace of the entire State.
15. That the Park Management Committee since its inauguration has restored peace into all the parks deened of rancor and acrimony that pervaded all the parks across the 18 Local Government Areas of the State before its setting up.
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
16. Learned F.S. Akinibosun Esq. of counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that cursory reading of the facts deposed to in the Counter Affidavit will reveal that the setting up of the Park management Committee was not intended to take over the activities of the 1st Applicant but rather a device to ensure that there is no breakdown of law and order in the State arising from the lingering power tussle among the members of the 1st Applicant which is threatening the peace of the parks across the 18 Local Government Areas of Ondo State.
17. That the 1st Respondent made it clear vide the counter affidavit that there was no intention to take over the activities of the 1st Applicant but that the setting up of the park management committee was a child of necessity to prevent breakdown of law and order pending when the crisis rocking the 1st applicant that is threatening the peace of the Sate.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
18. In a 16 paragraph counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent deposed that, all the motor parks in Ondo State are owned by the different Local Governments in the State. That the 1st respondent has already suspended the activities of the 1st applicant in Ondo State ever since, even before the institution of Suit NICN/AK/03/2022. This fact was earlier deposed to by the 3rd Applicant in statement on oath in the said Suit N/CN/AK/03/2022. The 1st respondent suspended the activities of the 1st applicant because some of its members were always resorting to self-help that does lead to tension in the state. This tendency is well captured in paragraph 7 of the letter dated 4th April 2022 written by the Applicants’ lawyer to the Acting Governor of Ondo State.
19. That the Park Management Committee which I am a member created by executive order of the 1st Respondent is to manage and ensure peace in the motor parks in Ondo State which already are owned by the Local governments in the State. The park management Committee was not set by the 1st Respondent to unionize the professional drivers in Ondo State but to manage the motor parks in Ondo State.
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPORT OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
20. Learned Gilbert-Ojo Charles Esq. of counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court is copiously and unambiguously provided for in section 254C(1) and (2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which counsel quoted.
21. That Section 254C(l)(a) of the Constitution, quoted above, is to the effect that the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to, or connected with employment. Even where such matters are not employment per se, as long as the claims or issues for determination are related to or connected with any labour, employment including heath, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith”, then the National Industrial Court shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over those matters.
22, However where the issue of ownership of land like in the instant suit the dispute as to the ownership of motor parks at Benin garage, Ado garage, Ondo garage, Sunshine park as alleged and deposed to by the 3d applicant, consequently the jurisdiction of this honourable court will not cover such issue i.e proof of title to land.
22. The 1st respondent never gave the Park Management Committee responsibility of unionizing professional drivers in Ondo State, the committee has also not done such. The 1st respondent and the Park Management Committee have never in anyway trampled on the constitution of the 1st applicant. The only responsibility given by the 1st respondent to the Park Management Committee is to manage all motor parks in Ondo state in order to secure orderliness and peace in Ondo State.
23. None of the averment of the applicants has shown that the Park Management Committee took over an item in the duties of the applicants listed in their constitution. So therefore the function of the Park Management Committee is entirely different from that of the applicants as it is not an association or union like that of the applicants.
FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVITS OF THE APPLICANTS
24. The applicants filed further and better affidavits to the two counter affidavits but they merely denied the contents of the counter affidavits and restated their affidavit. There is nothing further or better in the said further and better affidavits. This is not the purpose of a reply. A reply is a reply to new issues or points of law raised in a counter affidavit. A reply cannot be used to repeat, repair or emphasize the original pleadings or depositions or to merely deny a defence. See OLUBODUN V. LAWAL (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1115) 1 S.C where the apex court held;
''The reply is the plaintiffs answer to the defence. Where the plaintiff merely wishes to deny the allegations in the defence, no reply is needed and none should be served, for if no reply is served there is an implied joinder of issue on the defence. If however the plaintiff wishes to raise specifically any matter in answer such matters or facts must be specifically pleaded and a reply is thus required.''
COURT’S DECISION
25. The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant objected to the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that there is the issue of ownership of land in the instant suit and this court has no jurisdiction on matters of title to land. This legal position is true. What is not true is that there is no dispute over land title in this case as there is no prayer for a declaration of ownership of any park.
26. I am not unmindful of prayer 9 and its alternative which is as follows;
9. An Order of the Honourable Court nullifying the appointment of the 2nd Respondent and other members of the Park Management Committee.
ALTERNATIVELY
An Order of the Honourable Court restricting the activities of the 2nd Respondent and his Park Management Committee to the management of government owned parks.
27. Looking at the above relief, particularly the alternative relief, it does not seek declaration of title to any particular park said to belong to the applicants. There is just a mere deposition that some particular parks are privately owned by the applicants but there was not even an allegation that the management committee entered any of those named motor parks allegedly privately owned by the 1st claimant.
28. The present case being an allegation of undue interference in Trade Union activities, it is a civil matter relating to, connected with and incidental to, the activities of a Trade Union. I hold that the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case. See
|
MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LIMITED v. CHIMEZIE SUNDAY AHAIWE |
||
|
(2019) LPELR-47057(CA) where the court held; |
||
"Now, what does the law say about the Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court at the time relevant (when the suit was filed)? Section 254 (c) (1) of the Constitution provides as follows:- "254C - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 251, 257 and 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters.
(a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, Industrial relations and matters arising from work place, the conditions of service, including health safety, welfare of labour employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith;
(iii) dispute relating or connected with personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof.
(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlements of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, Judicial officer or any civil of public servant in any part of Nigeria and matters incidental thereto".
From the plenitude of the powers of the National Industrial Court as can be seen from the relevant applicable portions of the Constitution reproduced supra, it is obvious and crystal clear that the National Industrial Court had the jurisdiction, indeed exclusive one to adjudicate the Respondent/Claimant's action at the trial Court.
Indeed the Constitutional endowment of power bestowed lavishly upon it, for good reasons makes it ex abundanti cautela, that notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 257 and 272 of the Constitution, it shall exercise the powers enumerated therein the Constitution. It should be noted that the Sections 251, 257 and 272 relate to the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the State High Courts respectively. This, therefore, means that the National Industrial Court has the exclusive jurisdiction over those genre or species of matters notwithstanding the parties involved as donated to the Federal High Court or the other high Courts of the Federal Capital Territory of State High Court.
29. The jurisdiction of this court, as contained in Section 254C(l)(a) of the Constitution, is to the effect that the National Industrial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to, or connected with employment. Even where such matters are not employment per se, as long as the claims or issues for determination are matters related to, incidental to or connected with any labour, employment, Trade Unions, Industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, condition of service including heath, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker, then the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over those matters.
30. Being that ownership of land or a claim of title to land is not the case of the claimants herein, this objection amounts to the 2nd defendant creating a different and alluring case for the applicants for the purpose of defeating same. The objection fails and is dismissed.
31. On the merit of the case, the allegation in paragraph 17 is that the 1st Respondent, without reasonable cause, on 1/04/2022 in a press release, suspended the activities of the 1st applicant and appointed 2nd Respondent as Chairman, Park Management Committee to take over the duties of the Applicants in Public Parks in Ondo State as per exhibit 4. Paragraph 21 of the affidavit extends the operations of the motor park management committee to all parks operated by first applicant’s members in Ondo State.
32. I have considered all the depositions of all parties as well as the documents attached as exhibits and I am satisfied that there was crises in the 1st applicant that warranted the intervention of the 1st respondent. There is no material deposition in the affidavit as to why the 1st applicant is unable to conduct its elections except for the fact of internal crisis. The action of the 1st respondent is the right thing in the right direction as motor parks are public places relating to movement of goods and persons and a disruption of peace in those places will be a disruption of the state economy and possible loss of lives of citizens which the 1st respondent has a constitutional duty to protect. The intervention of the 1st respondent is not without reasonable cause.
33. I have taken a closer look at exhibit 4 (the press release) attached to the originating summons, it reads as follows;
Consequent upon protracted crisis in the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) operating in the Public Motor Parks in Ondo State, the government has intervened by Setting up MOTOR PARK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE to manage and administer all the Public Motor Parks in the State.
The Government noted the unfortunate unending crisis and litigation involving the Union in Court which has adversely affected activities in the Public motor parks in the state.
The Government therefore has decided to take over all the Public Motor Parks in the state and set-up a Committee to administer same.
The Union’s activities in Public Parks in the State is accordingly suspended.
(underlining supplied for emphasis)
34. From the content of the above press release, the activities of the 1st applicant was suspended only in the public motor parks in the state. The motor park management committee was set up only in respect of public motor parks in the state. The contention that the operation of the motor park management committee set up by the 1st respondent was to extend to all parks operated by first applicant’s members in Ondo state does not flow from the above content of the press release.
35. Paragraph 23 which alleges that the management committee bombarded privately owned motor parks did not even mention any of those privately owned motor parks mentioned in paragraph 21. Here again it is a failed allegation as it fails the test of standard of proof.
36. Another interesting but unfortunate factor in this case, even from the questions for determination and the reliefs sought, is that it leaves one with the impression that the 1st respondent is a member of the 1st applicant and that the 1st respondent has set up a care taker committee for the 1st applicant. This is unfortunate as none is the case herein.
37. Another interesting feature is the impression that the management of public motor parks is the sole right of the 1st applicant. There is no legal support for this position that is argued based on an assumed existence of such exclusive right. Even the constitution of the claimants cannot legally confer such exclusive rights on the claimants. Neither the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor the Labour Act confers any such right, let alone an exclusive one, on the NURTW to manage public motor parks in Nigeria.
38. The suspension of the activities of the 1st applicant in Public Motor Parks, rightly in my view, is not being challenged. It has not been shown how the appointment of the motor park management committee by the 1st respondent interferes with the functions of the 1st applicant or how the suspension of the activities of the 1st applicant in public motor parks will stop the 1st applicant from conducting its elections or engaging in commercial transportation business. It is the Union activities that are suspended in public motor parks in the state, not the business of the members of the Union, neither are the activities of the Union suspended in private motor parks in the state.
39. On the whole, the case of the claimants is devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed.
40. This is the judgment of the court and it is entered accordingly.
…… ………….……………………………..
HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK
PRESIDING JUDGE
