IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: DECEMBER  5, 2025             

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/19/2016
 

BETWEEN

  1. Comrade Believe Alakri      
  2. Comrade Eveso Moses
  3. Comrade Joseph Olu                            
    (For themselves and on behalf of National 

Union of Road Transport Workers, Heavy 

Truck Branch, Isoko South

Local Government Area, Delta State)                                    - Claimants

 

AND

  1. Chief Odomero Igbine                  
  2. Comrade Peter Osihro
  3. Oke Igbugbu
  4. Sunday Aboki
  5. Frank Agbaragu
  6. Innocent Obonyano
  7. Kali Odu
  8. Daniel Odugo
  9. Pius Obewor
  10. Ogaga Osayerie                                                                         -        Defendants

 

REPRESENTATION

P.M. Emuk, Esq., holding the brief of Chief S.O. Oboro for the Claimants.

M.E. Ode, Esq., for the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. This suit was commenced by the Claimants for themselves and on behalf of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State, against the Defendants, by way of a Complaint, wherein they seek the following reliefs:
    1. A Declaration that under the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, 2003 (as amended), the Defendants are not entitled to issue and collect revenue from members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State.
    2. A Declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to interfere with the activities of the Claimants in any manner whatsoever in the administration of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State.
    3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and/or privies from parading themselves as executive members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State.
    4. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents, servants and/or privies from interfering with the duties and functions of the Claimants in any manner whatsoever as the executive members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State.
    5. Cost of this suit.

 

THE CLAIMANTS’ CASE

  1. The case of the Claimants, as gleaned from their Statement of Claim, is that the 1st Claimant is the Chairman of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State; the 2nd Claimant is the Secretary, while the 3rd Claimant serves as the Assistant Secretary of the said Branch (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”). The Claimants averred that the Defendants are not members of the said Union. Specifically, the 1st Defendant, though not a member, falsely claims and parades himself as a member of the Claimants’ Branch of the Union. The 2nd Defendant was formerly a member of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, while the 9th Defendant was a member of the Taxi Branch of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, Isoko South, Oleh. It is the Claimants’ case that the 2nd and 9th Defendants have been engaging in anti–trade union activities contrary to the provisions of the Trade Union Act. The Claimants stated that the National Union of Road Transport Workers is an affiliate of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), a duly registered Trade Union, and that the Trade Union Act forbids any form of anti–trade union conduct. According to the Claimants, for any person to qualify as a member of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), such a person must be a registered member of the Union and a driver duly registered with the Branch or Unit of the Union. They contended that the Defendants do not meet this requirement and are therefore not members of the Union. They rely on the biometric data dated 6th December, 2011, which captures the membership list of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh. The Claimants further averred that the 2nd Defendant is the Chairman of the Union of Tipper and Quarry Employers of Nigeria (UTQEN), Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State, while the 9th Defendant is both the 2nd Vice Chairman of the said UTQEN and the current Chairman of the Taxi Branch of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, Oleh. The Claimants maintain that it amounts to anti–trade union activity for the 2nd and 9th Defendants to belong simultaneously to two separate trade unions. It is also the Claimants’ case that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Defendants have never been members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh. They stated that the 2nd and 9th Defendants, alongside others, were inaugurated as executive members of UTQEN by one Comrade Chukwudumebi Elueka through a letter dated 1st September, 2014, addressed to the then Caretaker Chairman of Isoko South Local Government Council, Oleh. The Claimants averred that contrary to the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (2003 as amended), one Comrade Chief Ifeanyi Obi purportedly appointed the 1st and 9th Defendants and others as Caretaker Committee members of the Claimants’ Branch. The Claimants maintain that their tenure of office remains valid and subsisting, and that the said appointments were made in total disregard of the Union’s Constitution. The said Constitution is filed along with this process. It is the further contention of the Claimants that following the above irregularities, the Defendants began to interfere with the functions of the Claimants by illegally collecting Union check–off dues accruable to the Claimants’ Branch. The Defendants, through their agents and privies, also allegedly assaulted the Claimants and destroyed the 1st Claimant’s two tipper trucks with Registration Nos. XA 377 LEH and XL 240 AGL. Photographs of the damaged vehicles are filed along with the processes.

 

  1. The Claimants further alleged that the Defendants and their agents have continuously used the Police to molest and harass the Claimants and members of their Union. Despite several demands made to the Defendants to desist from their acts of interference, they have persisted in their unlawful activities, thereby prompting this action.

 

 

 

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE

  1. The 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Defendants filed a Joint Statement of Defence wherein they denied each and every material allegation of fact contained in the Claimants’ Statement of Claim, save as were expressly admitted. They admitted paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim and put the Claimants to the strictest proof of all other averments. It is the case of the said Defendants that they are bona fide members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW), and that the Claimants have ceased to be the executives of the Isoko South Local Government Area Heavy Truck Branch of the NURTW since 17th December 2015. Consequently, they contend that the Claimants have no authority or mandate of the Branch to institute this action. The Defendants averred that at all material times, they have been actively engaged in road transportation or related services within Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State. They maintained that the 1st Defendant is the Chairman of the Isoko South Heavy Truck Branch of the NURTW, while the 2nd Defendant serves as the Vice Chairman, and the 9th Defendant as the Chairman of the Isoko South Small Cars/Taxi Branch of the NURTW. They denied being members or officers of the Union of Tipper and Quarry Employers of Nigeria (UTQEN). The Defendants further stated that the Biometric Data Membership List of the Branch dated 6th December, 2011, relied upon by the Claimants, is obsolete, worthless, and does not reflect the present membership composition of the Isoko South Heavy Truck Branch. They also denied the authenticity of the letter dated 1st September 2014 addressed to the Transition Committee Chairman of Isoko South Local Government Area, titled “Inauguration Letter,” describing it as false and spurious. According to the Defendants, the NURTW operates a structured quadrennial system of leadership transition whereby the National Delegates Conference, State Delegates Conference, and Branch Delegates Conference are held every four years. At each of these levels, the existing executives are dissolved and elections conducted to produce new officers. They likened the process to the dissolution of a State House of Assembly at the end of its four-year term, asserting that there is no guarantee of tenure for any executive member beyond the quadrennial cycle. They stated that the National Delegates Conference of the NURTW was held on 18th August 2015, followed by the State Delegates Conference on 27th October 2015. Thereafter, the State Executive commenced the dissolution of branch executives and the conduct of branch delegate conferences across the state. Pursuant to that process, on 17th December 2015, the Isoko South Heavy Truck Branch, Oleh, was dissolved and a Caretaker Committee was constituted to administer the affairs of the Branch pending the conduct of new elections. The Defendants maintained that the dissolution and constitution of the Caretaker Committee were duly communicated to the Claimants and other stakeholders, including the Chairman of Isoko South Local Government Council, the Area Commander of Delta Central Police Command, the Divisional Police Officer, Oleh, and the Department of State Services. They contended that the Claimants did not appeal the decision of the Delta State Council of the NURTW dated 16th March 2016 to any superior organ of the Union as required by the NURTW Constitution. The Defendants further averred that the 1st Claimant, being the former Chairman of the Branch, refused to hand over the Union’s property in his possession and, together with his associates, engaged in acts capable of causing a breach of peace within the Union and the Local Government Area. The matter, they said, was reported to the Police for investigation. It is also their case that the 1st Claimant, without exhausting the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the NURTW Constitution, instituted Suit No. HCO/M/1/2016 – Comr. Believe Alakri v. Chief Ifeanyi Obi & 7 Ors. before the High Court of Delta State, challenging the dissolution of the Branch Executive and the appointment of the Caretaker Committee. The said suit was dismissed by the Court in a judgment delivered on 9th January 2017, a copy of which is pleaded. The Defendants denied any involvement in the alleged destruction of the 1st Claimant’s vehicles with Registration Nos. XA 377 LEH and XL 240 AGL, asserting that the incident was perpetrated by agents of the Isoko South Local Government Council Chairman after the 1st Claimant’s drivers refused to purchase Council tickets. They maintained that at the time of the incident, the 1st, 2nd, and 9th Defendants were in Asaba consulting with their legal practitioners. The Defendants further contended that the 1st Claimant had made several false and unsubstantiated petitions against them to various levels of the Police hierarchy in Nigeria and had since become a fugitive from the law. They alleged that he also attempted to use the Chairman of Isoko South Local Government Council to frustrate the duly constituted leadership of the NURTW Isoko South Heavy Truck Branch, Oleh. Finally, the Defendants stated that elections have since been conducted into the offices of the NURTW Isoko South Heavy Truck Branch, producing, among others, the 1st and 2nd Defendants as the Branch Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively. They therefore contended that the Claimants have no reasonable cause of action against them and that this suit is incompetent, frivolous, vexatious, and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.

 

 

THE CLAIMANTS’ REPLY TO THE JOINT STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

  1. In response to the joint statement of defence of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Defendants, the Claimants joined issues with the said Defendants except where specific admissions were made. The Claimants denied substantially all the averments contained in the defence and put the Defendants to the strictest proof thereof. The Claimants maintained that the Defendants are not members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) but impostors who have unlawfully interfered with the constitutional responsibilities of the Claimants in the administration of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Isoko South Local Government Area, Oleh, Delta State. They asserted that they are the authentic branch executive members of the said union, having been duly elected and sworn into office on the 21st day of October, 2014, for a single term of four years. The Claimants further averred that their election and swearing-in were predicated upon the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Enugu, delivered by Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki-Osaghae in Suit No. NICN/EN/99/2012, a certified true copy of which they pleaded and relied upon. The Claimants stated that the State Chairman of the Delta State Council of the NURTW, after partially obeying the said judgment by conducting the election as ordered, wrongfully issued a suspension on the 1st Claimant without justification. Upon protest, the suspension was withdrawn. Dissatisfied with the continued interference of the State Chairman, the Claimants’ branch instituted Suit No. NICN/AWK/33/2015 against Comrade Chief Ifeanyi Obi, the said State Chairman, which is still pending before this Court. Rather than respond to that case, the State Chairman, in connivance with the National Executive of the Union, caused a letter dated 10th March 2016 to be issued by the General Secretary, directing the State Secretary to suspend the 1st Claimant for refusing to withdraw the pending court action. Consequently, by a letter dated 16th March 2016, the State Secretary, Comrade Adeyemi Raymond, purported to suspend the 1st Claimant, attaching thereto the said letter from the General Secretary. The Claimants alleged that the Defendants, who are not members of the NURTW (Heavy Truck Branch), were drafted to usurp the legitimate functions of the Claimants and to give effect to the hidden agenda of the State Chairman to truncate their court-ordered tenure. The Defendants, from the 21st day of December 2015, allegedly began to issue and collect union tickets and to parade themselves as executive members of the Claimants’ branch. It was further averred that by a letter dated 21st December 2015, the Claimants’ branch was unlawfully dissolved and a caretaker committee, headed by the 1st Defendant, was imposed to frustrate the peaceful administration of the branch. The Claimants contended that their tenure, which commenced on 21st October 2014 for a period of four years, was still subsisting when the Defendants interfered with their functions through acts of force and intimidation. The Claimants therefore maintained that the Defendants’ interference with their duties and collection of union revenue was unconstitutional and unlawful. They insisted that their offices were not due for election at the time of the interference and urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought in their statement of facts.

 

DEFENDANTS’ FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

  1. In their final written address, learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Defendants formulated a sole issue for determination, to wit:

“Whether this suit is competent and maintainable.”

 

  1. Counsel submitted that from the pleadings of the Claimants, their main grievance is that the 1st and 9th Defendants, among others, were appointed as members of a Caretaker Committee of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, Isoko South Local Government Area, while the Claimants’ tenure as executive members of the Branch was still subsisting. Having been so appointed by Comrade Chief Ifeanyi Obi, the State Chairman of the NURTW, Delta State Council, the Defendants allegedly began to interfere with the functions of the Claimants by collecting the Union’s check-up fees.

 

  1. Learned counsel contended that, on the Claimants’ own showing, their tenure commenced on 21st October 2014 and was for a single term of four years, which expired on 21st October 2018. This being 2022, three years after the expiration of that tenure, counsel argued that the Claimants no longer have any legal right as executive members of the Branch to protect, and that the suit has therefore become spent, academic, and futile. Reliance was placed on the cases of Salik v. Idris (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 790) 1307; APGA v. Al-Makura (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 826) 471; Akpabot v. PHCN Plc (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 762) 1627; and FRN v. Dairo (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 776) 486, among others, for the proposition that courts are enjoined not to dissipate judicial energy on academic or hypothetical questions which serve no practical purpose.

 

  1. It was further submitted that the Claimants have no subsisting legal right to protect, and therefore cannot be entitled to declaratory or injunctive reliefs. Counsel cited Green v. Green (2001) FWLR (Pt. 76) 795 and the text “Injunctions and Enforcement of Orders” by Afe Babalola, SAN, to emphasize that injunctions protect only existing legal rights. Counsel also raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly Comrade Chief Ifeanyi Obi, Comrade Raymond Adeyemi, the Delta State Council of the NURTW, and the National Executive Council of the NURTW, whose actions the Claimants heavily complained about. He submitted that failure to join these persons and bodies amounts to a violation of their right to fair hearing and renders the suit incompetent. Reliance was placed on Akiboye v. Adeko and CBN v. Interstella Communications Ltd (2018) All FWLR (Pt. 930) 442.

 

  1. On the issue of evidence, learned counsel argued that Exhibit CW2/1 — the Biometric Data of 6th December 2011 — was inadmissible and worthless, being unsigned and uncertified by its maker. He contended that an unsigned document has no probative value, relying on Omega Bank (Nig.) Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 249) 1964, Garuba v. Kwara Investment Co. Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 252) 469, and Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1893. He urged the Court to expunge or discountenance the said document in writing its judgment.

 

  1. Counsel further contended that the suit is caught by issue estoppel, as the matters of dissolution of the Branch Executive and the appointment of a Caretaker Committee had been determined by the High Court of Delta State in Suit No. HCO/M/1/2016 — Comrade Believe Alakri v. Chief Ifeanyi Obi & Ors — wherein the Claimant, who is also the 1st Claimant in the present suit, sought a declaration nullifying the same dissolution letter of 21st December 2015. He submitted that the Claimants are estopped from relitigating an issue already determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, citing APC v. PDP (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 791) 1493 and Oyo State Paper Mills Ltd v. Nibel Co. Nig. Ltd (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 873) 1683.

 

  1. It was also the submission of learned counsel that the Claimants failed to exhaust domestic remedies provided under Articles 42(8)(i) and 44(4) of the Constitution of the NURTW (amended in 2003), which require aggrieved members to refer disputes to the Union’s internal organs and exhaust their rights of appeal to the National Delegates’ Conference before approaching the court. He argued that failure to comply with this mandatory condition precedent renders the action premature and robs the Court of jurisdiction. Counsel cited Ologolo v. Uche (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 581) 1679, Tanko v. UBA Plc (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 556) 408, and the celebrated case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.

 

  1. On the burden of proof, counsel submitted that the law places the onus on the Claimants to establish their claims with credible evidence. It was contended that the Claimants failed woefully to discharge this burden, while the Defendants, through DW1, adduced unchallenged and credible evidence corroborated by documentary exhibits. He argued that where evidence is not challenged under cross-examination, it is deemed admitted. Reliance was placed on Gaji v. Paye (2003) FWLR (Pt. 163) 1 and Oforlette v. State (2000) FWLR (Pt. 12) 2081. Finally, learned counsel argued that the authorities cited by the Claimants’ counsel were inapplicable to the facts of this case and urged the Court to so hold. He submitted that the Claimants have failed to prove any cognisable cause of action against the Defendants and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit as being incompetent, academic, and devoid of merit, with punitive costs.

 

CLAIMANTS’ FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

  1. Learned counsel for the Claimants filed their final written address wherein a single issue was formulated for determination, to wit:

“Whether or not the Claimants, by the evidence adduced on record, are entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendants in this suit.”

 

  1. Counsel submitted that the Claimants are indeed entitled to the reliefs sought, having successfully discharged the evidential burden placed upon them by law. He argued that the standard of proof in civil proceedings is based on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities, relying on the decisions in Emeka v. Chuba Ikpeazu & Ors (2017) LPELR-41920 (SC), Interdrill (Nig.) Ltd v. UBA Plc (2017) LPELR-41907 (SC), Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) LPELR-3501 (SC), and Owie v. Ighiwi (2005) LPELR-2845 (SC). 

 

  1. Learned counsel argued that where a claimant’s evidence is uncontroverted or unchallenged, the Court is entitled to act upon it, provided it is credible and supports the reliefs sought. He referred to Larmie v. Data Processing Maintenance & Services Ltd (2005) LPELR-1756 (SC), where Tobi, JSC, stated that where evidence is unchallenged, minimal proof would suffice. Counsel also cited Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation & Anor (1991) LPELR-692 (SC) and Plateau State Health Services Management Board v. Goshwe (2012) LPELR-9830 (SC), submitting that the Claimants’ evidence having not been effectively contradicted, the burden of proof was duly discharged.

 

  1. It was his submission that the Claimants called two witnesses—CW1 and CW2 (the 1st Claimant)—whose testimonies were credible, consistent, and supported by documentary exhibits. The Defendants, though represented by counsel, failed to adduce any cogent evidence to dislodge or outweigh the Claimants’ evidence. Learned counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the Claimants had established their case as required by law. He cited Newbreed Organisation Ltd v. Erhomosele (2006) LPELR-1984 (SC), where it was held that a plaintiff who adduces credible evidence unrebutted by the defendant is entitled to judgment.

 

  1. Counsel further submitted that by Exhibit CW2/5, which was the judgment of this Court in Suit No. NICN/EN/99/2012, the Claimants were validly elected and sworn in as the executive officers of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, Isoko South Local Government Area, Delta State. The said election, he argued, was regulated by Exhibit CW2/3, being the Constitution of the Union.

 

  1. He referred to Exhibit CW2/1 — the biometric data list of members of the Claimants’ Branch — and pointed out that the names of the Defendants were not contained therein, save for the 2nd and 9th Defendants who, according to Exhibit CW2/2, had since defected to another transport body, thereby ceasing to be members of the Claimants’ Union in accordance with Article 5 of Exhibit CW2/3. Counsel maintained that the Defendants were not members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, but impostors unlawfully interfering with the Claimants’ constitutional functions.

 

  1. It was further contended that the purported dissolution of the Claimants’ Branch by Exhibit CW2/7, as well as the suspension contained in Exhibit CW2/6, were illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of Exhibit CW2/3 and the judgment of this Court in Exhibit CW2/5. Learned counsel urged the Court to so hold, and to restrain the Defendants from further interference with the lawful functions of the Claimants as elected officers of their Branch.

 

  1. He also referred to Exhibits CW2/4(a) and (b)—photographs of damaged tipper trucks—submitted as evidence of violent interference by the Defendants with the Claimants’ official duties.

 

  1. On the question of jurisdiction and exhaustion of domestic remedies, counsel submitted that Articles 42(8)(i) and 44(4) of the NURTW Constitution (Exhibit CW2/3) were inapplicable to the present case. He argued that the Claimants’ complaint was not one arising from an internal dispute among members of the Union but against outsiders who are not members of the Union at all. He maintained that the requirement to first approach internal organs of the Union does not apply where the Defendants are strangers to the Union, and thus cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction.

 

  1. Counsel also clarified that the present case was not one seeking extension or protection of the Claimants’ tenure in office, but rather one challenging the Defendants’ unlawful interference with the Claimants’ functions. He argued that the suit was not academic or spent, as the interference complained of was continuous and ongoing, creating a live dispute for adjudication.

 

  1. Learned counsel further submitted that the 1st Defendant, who testified as DW1, admitted under cross-examination that he had neither read nor seen the Constitution of the Union, thereby reinforcing the Claimants’ assertion that the Defendants were mere impostors and non-members.

 

  1. Finally, counsel urged the Court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Claimants, hold that they have established their claims on the balance of probabilities, and grant all the reliefs sought. He prayed the Court to enter judgment for the Claimants accordingly.

 

COURT’S   DECISION

  1. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, and the final written addresses of their learned counsel. From the totality of the case presented, the questions that calls for determination is as follows:
    1. Whether, upon the provisions of the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers and the Trade Unions Act, the dissolution of the Claimants’ Executive Committee and the subsequent interference by the Defendants in the affairs of the Union were valid and lawful. 
    2. Whether, upon the evidence adduced, the Claimants have established their entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit.

 

  1. ISSUE ONE: In arguing for the Claimants, learned counsel submitted that the purported dissolution of the Claimants’ Executive was done without recourse to the National Executive Council of the Union and was therefore unconstitutional, null, and void. Counsel referred to Article 7 of the Constitution of the NURTW (Exhibit CW2/3) which vests the power to dissolve a Branch Executive exclusively in the National Executive Council after due inquiry and for cause. It was contended that the Delta State Council, being a subordinate organ of the Union, lacked the competence to unilaterally dissolve the Claimants’ Executive. Counsel further submitted that the action of the Defendants amounted to a violation of Section 23 of the Trade Unions Act which guarantees the autonomy of trade unions in managing their affairs according to their constitutions.

 

  1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Defendants maintained that the State Council acted within its powers, arguing that the dissolution was necessary to maintain order and discipline within the Branch. It was contended that the Claimants had lost the confidence of the members and that the State Council, being the supervisory organ over branches, was entitled to take corrective steps. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimants, having been dissolved, were no longer officers of the Union and thus lacked the locus to institute the present action.

 

  1. The question, therefore, is whether the Delta State Council had the constitutional or legal authority to dissolve the Claimants’ Executive Committee in the manner it did.

 

  1. The evidence before the Court is largely documentary and uncontroverted on material points. The Claimants tendered the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Exhibit CW2/3), the Biometric Data Membership List of the Heavy Truck Branch, Isoko South Oleh (Exhibit CW2/1), the letters of dissolution and correspondence issued by the State Council (Exhibits CW2/6 and CW2/7), and the Certified True Copy of the judgment in Comrade Believe Alakri & Ors v. Chief Ifeanyi Obi & Ors (NICN/EN/99/2012) (Exhibit CW2/5). The evidence of CW1 and CW2 was consistent that their election in 2014 was conducted pursuant to the resolution of the earlier dispute in the said suit, and that their tenure, fixed at four years, was terminated prematurely in December 2015 without any disciplinary proceedings or approval of the National Executive Council. CW2, Comrade Believe Alakri, testified that the purported dissolution affected only the Isoko South Branch and that no other Branch in Delta State was similarly dissolved, a fact which the Defendants did not contradict.

 

  1. During cross-examination, CW2 also confirmed that the Union’s Constitution provides for internal dispute resolution and that only the National Executive Council can direct the conduct of elections or dissolution of Branch Executives. He maintained that the State Council could only supervise elections at the Branch level but not unilaterally dissolve an existing Executive without recourse to the National body. His evidence remained firm and unshaken under cross-examination.

 

  1. The Defendants, on their part, called one witness, Chief Odomero Igbire (DW1), who claimed to be a member of the NURTW. He tendered a driver’s licence, vehicle particulars, and a copy of an enrollment of judgment (Exhibits DW1–DW3). However, none of these documents addressed the core issue of whether the dissolution was lawfully authorized. In fact, under cross-examination, DW1 admitted that not all truck owners are members of the Heavy Truck Branch and that he did not personally participate in any meeting where the dissolution decision was made. He also conceded that he had not read the Union’s Constitution in full. These admissions considerably weakened the probative value of his testimony.

 

  1. The Court has compared the oral and documentary evidence of both sides. It is well settled that documentary evidence is the best form of evidence where available, as it serves as a hanger on which to assess oral testimony. See Skye Bank Plc v. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt.1198) 179; Aromolaran v. Kupoluyi (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt.325) 221. In this case, the documents tendered by the Claimants — particularly Exhibits CW2/3, CW2/6, and CW2/7 — are authentic and emanate from proper custody. They directly support the Claimants’ case that the dissolution was unilaterally carried out by the State Council without the requisite authorization from the National Executive Council.

 

  1. The law is also clear that the constitution of a trade union regulates its internal affairs and binds all its members. See; Oshiomhole v. FGN (2004) 3 NLLR (Pt.8) 229. Any act done in contravention of that constitution is null and void. Article 7 of Exhibit CW2/3 expressly provides that only the National Executive Council may dissolve a Branch Executive for misconduct, non-performance, or where necessary to protect the interest of the Union. The State Council, being subordinate to the National Executive, cannot arrogate to itself powers not conferred by the Constitution.

 

  1. The Defendants, in their oral and documentary evidence, made no serious effort to demonstrate that their takeover of the Claimants’ functions was authorized by any valid resolution or directive from the National Executive Council of the NURTW. Their witness, DW1, admitted under cross-examination that he had not read the Union Constitution and was unaware of any ratification of the dissolution by the National body. The Defendants’ evidence, therefore, fails to rebut the presumption of unlawfulness surrounding their conduct. Section 136 of the Evidence Act, 2011, provides that where a fact is especially within the knowledge of a party, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. The Defendants, being the parties asserting the lawfulness of the dissolution and subsequent takeover, bore the burden of establishing same but failed to do so. The principle is elementary that he who asserts must prove. See Sections 131–133 of the Evidence Act, 2011.  N.B.A. v. Koku (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 431; Obayan v. Unilorin (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 947) 123; Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290. Consequently, their evidence collapses under the weight of its own insufficiency and I so hold.

 

  1. The Court therefore finds and holds that the Delta State Council acted ultra vires its powers in dissolving the Claimants’ Executive. The action was in flagrant violation of the Union’s Constitution and the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, particularly Sections 23 and 24. Section 23(1) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, guarantees the autonomy of trade unions in managing their internal affairs in accordance with their constitutions, and by implication protects the tenure and duties of duly elected officers. Furthermore, Section 24 of the same Act prohibits acts calculated to disrupt lawful trade union activities. The constitutional underpinning of this Court’s authority to enforce these provisions is found in Section 254C(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which vests exclusive jurisdiction in this Court to determine civil causes and matters relating to or connected with the operation of trade unions and disputes arising from the application of their constitutions. It follows, therefore, that this Court not only possesses the jurisdiction but also the duty to safeguard the internal democracy of trade unions and ensure adherence to their constitutions.

 

  1. Accordingly, the Court holds that the dissolution of the Claimants’ Executive Committee of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, Isoko South Local Government Area, Delta State, was unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void. The Claimants, having been validly elected, remain entitled to occupy their respective offices until the expiration of their lawful tenure. The Defendants, their agents or privies are hereby restrained from further interference with the Claimants’ discharge of their duties as officers of the said Branch. Issue one is thus resolved in favour of the claimants.

 

  1. ISSUE TWO:  WHETHER, UPON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED, THE CLAIMANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THIS SUIT.

 

  1. Having found under Issue One that the dissolution of the Claimants’ Executive Committee was unconstitutional and void, the next logical question is whether the Claimants, upon the totality of the evidence adduced before this Court, have established their entitlement to the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought. The law is well settled that a declaratory relief is not granted as a matter of course but on the strength of credible and cogent evidence led by the party seeking it. See Dumez Nigeria Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 361, where the Supreme Court held that a declaratory relief is only granted when the claimant proves his case by credible evidence, even if the defendant offers no defence. Thus, the Claimants must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the Defendants’ defence, although any such weakness may lend support to their claim.

 

  1. The evidence before this Court is that following the unlawful dissolution of the Claimants’ Executive Committee by the Delta State Council of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, the Defendants, acting in concert, took over the administrative and financial operations of the Branch, including the issuance and collection of union tickets, which are the legitimate sources of the Branch’s internal revenue. The Claimants, through CW2, testified that the Defendants forcibly assumed control of the Branch office and continued to collect levies from members under the guise of a caretaker committee, thereby depriving the elected officers of their lawful functions and emoluments. This assertion was corroborated by CW1, who confirmed that since December 2015, the Defendants had been operating in defiance of the subsisting Branch leadership.

 

  1. In further support of their claim, the Claimants tendered Exhibits CW2/4A and CW2/4B, photographic evidence showing damage to vehicles allegedly belonging to the 1st Claimant, said to have been caused during the violent takeover of the Branch office. The Defendants did not file any counter-photographic evidence or tender any report to contradict this piece of evidence. It is trite law that documentary evidence, once tendered and unchallenged, speaks for itself. See Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.76) 263; Ukeje v. Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt.1418) 384. The absence of rebuttal to the photographic and oral testimony of the Claimants leads to the inference that the Defendants indeed interfered with the lawful functions of the Claimants as elected officers of the Union.

 

  1. Thus, on the balance of probabilities, as required in civil proceedings, the Claimants have discharged the evidential burden placed upon them by Sections 131–133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Their evidence, both oral and documentary, has been consistent, credible, and uncontroverted on material points. The Defendants, by contrast, have not produced any document or testimony showing that the purported dissolution or their subsequent interference was sanctioned by the proper organ of the Union. It is, therefore, clear that their actions amount to usurpation of lawful authority and a violation of the Claimants’ rights as elected officers, and any interference by the Defendants in the affairs of the Claimants’ branch, including the collection of revenues and the performance of administrative duties, amounts to a continuing trespass upon the Claimants’ lawful mandate.

 

  1. The law is also settled that where an act is declared void for being ultra vires or unconstitutional, every subsequent act flowing therefrom is likewise void and of no legal effect. See Macfoy v. United Africa Company Ltd. (1962) AC 152; Nigerian Army v. Samuel (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt.1375) 374. Thus, the dissolution having been declared unlawful under Issue One, all subsequent acts of the Defendants in relation to the administration, revenue collection, and control of the NURTW Heavy Truck Branch, Oleh, are equally unlawful and null and I so hold.

 

  1. On the strength of the above findings, this Court holds that the Claimants have successfully proved their entitlement to the reliefs sought. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in their favour as follows:
    1. It is hereby declared that under the Constitution of the National Union of Road Transport Workers, 2003 (as amended), the Defendants are not entitled to issue or collect revenue from members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, in Isoko South Local Government Area of Delta State.
    2.  It is hereby declared that the Defendants are not entitled to interfere with the activities or administration of the Claimants in any manner whatsoever as Executive Members of the said Union Branch.
    3. It is hereby ordered that the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or privies, are perpetually restrained from parading themselves as executive members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh, Isoko South Local Government Area, Delta State.
    4. It is further ordered that the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or privies, are perpetually restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the functions, duties, and operations of the Claimants as duly elected executive members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck Branch), Oleh.
    5. In furtherance of this judgment, and to give effect to the autonomy of the Claimants’ branch, the Defendants are directed to cease forthwith all activities relating to revenue collection or ticketing within the jurisdiction of the Claimants’ branch.
    6. The Defendants shall pay to the Claimants the cost of this action assessed at ?500 000.00   (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.

 

  1. Judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the Claimants.

 

Hon. Justice J. I. Targema, PhD