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: MARCH 25, 2026                      SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/19/2021

 

BETWEEN

1.       Dr. Anthony E. Ezeh

2.       Comrade Eugene Nnamdi Nwoye

3.       Comrade Patrick A. Obanye                

4.       Comrade Mike Obi-Okoye                     

(Suing for themselves and as representing the Executive

Committee of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP),

Awka South Local Government Area Branch,

and other concerned members affected by

the actions complained of)                                           -           Claimants

 

AND

1.       Dr. Anthony Ugozor
(Acting Chairman, Nigeria Union of Pensioners,

Anambra State Council)

2.       Deacon Emmanuel Eboh
(Secretary, Nigeria Union of Pensioners,

Anambra State Council)

3.       Comrade Onwuka
(Assistant Secretary, Nigeria Union of Pensioners,

Anambra State Council)

(Sued for themselves and as representing

the State Executive Committee of the

Nigeria Union of Pensioners,

Anambra State Council)

4.       Comrade Ezechukwu Nwagwu
(Chairman)                                                                                 

5.       Comrade Stella Iloanya                                                         
(Secretary)

(Sued for themselves and as representing

he Caretaker Committee of the

Nigeria Union of Pensioners,

Awka South Local Government Area Branch)

6.       Ojinaka Uzoechina
(Sued for himself and as representative

of the Audit Panel)                                                           -        Defendants

 

REPRESENTATION

C.K. Ezeaku, Esq., with Uchenna Obieze, Esq., for Claimants.

J.I. Igu, Esq. with C.I. Nwihuru, Esq., for Defendants.

 

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.     Vide a complaint filed on the 30th day of June 2021, the Claimants instituted this action before the Court, accompanied by supporting processes including a Statement of Facts and an Affidavit in Verification. In their originating processes, the Claimants sought the following reliefs:

a)    An order of court directing the incumbent executive officers of the NUP Awka South branch to continue to function as the executive committee of the NUP Awka South branch until a new and credible election is conducted.

b)    An order of court mandating the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay up to date all the check-off dues due to the members of the NUP Awka South branch.

c)     An order of court declaring the continued existence of 1st and 2nd defendants in the office of NUP Anambra State Council as illegal and unconstitutional.

d)    An order of court mandating the 1st and 2nd defendants to refund the sum of Four million, six hundred and sixty-one thousand, nine hundred and fifty naira (?4,661,950) illegally deducted from the 38 months arrears of check-off amounting to Seventeen million, five hundred and eighty-three thousand (?17,583,000) due to Awka South NUP Chapter.

e)    An order of court declaring the actions and election guidelines for the botched NUP Awka South election 2021 and released by the 1st and 2nd defendants as illegal and unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the NUP.

f)      An order of court directing the Anambra State government through the head of Service who is in charge of labour matters, to appoint a Caretaker Committee to conduct a new election into the offices of the NUP Anambra State Council.

g)    A perpetual injunction the 1st and 2nd defendants to stop parading themselves as acting Chairman and Secretary of NUP Anambra State as they are not duly elected and appointed into these positions as constitution of NUP provides.

h)    A perpetual injunction restraining the purported Caretaker Committee and Audit panel from functioning as the Caretaker Committee or executives of the NUP Awka South branch.

i)      A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from further tempering with the accounts and properties of the NUP Anambra State Council.

j)      An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their cohorts from parading themselves in whatever guise as the Chairman and Secretary respectively of NUP Anambra State Council and Caretaker Committee and audit panel of the NUP Awka South branch as well.

k)    ?3,000,000 (Three Million naira) being general damages for frustration, intimidation and harassment meted on the claimants by the actions of the defendants and their cohorts.

 

2.     The defendants, in reaction to the suit filed their Statement of Defence on the 21st day of January 2021, accompanied by other processes. Thereafter, upon service of the Statement of Defence, the Claimants filed a Reply on the 7th day of June 2022. Upon the close of pleadings, the matter was set down for trial. At the trial, the Claimants, in support of their case, called three witnesses, namely: Benjamin Okonkwo (CW1), Comrade Mike Obi-Okoye (CW2), and Comrade Patrick A. Obanye (CW3). The following documents were tendered by the Claimants and admitted into evidence:

a)    The Constitution of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP) – Exhibit CW3/1.

b)    Page 9 of Fides Newspaper dated 24th February 2018 – Exhibit CW3/2 (noted objection).

c)     Alleged illegal election guidelines – Exhibit CW3/3.

d)    Petition to NUP Anambra State Council, copied to the National President of NUP – Exhibit CW3/4.

e)    Address of the NUP Chairman dated 15th March 2021 – Exhibit CW3/5.

f)      Letter of invitation to Comrade Patrick Obanye for the inauguration of the caretaker committee – Exhibit CW3/6.

 

3.     At the close of the Claimants’ case, the Defendants opened their defence and called one witness, the 1st Defendant on record, Dr. Anthony Ugozor (DW1). Through DW1, the Defendants tendered the following documents:

a.        Amended Statement of Claim – D1.

b.       Letter dated 12th September 2019 – Exhibit D2.

c.        Letter dated 22nd May 2020 – Exhibit D3.

d.       Letter dated 7th July 2020 – Exhibit D4.

e.        Photograph – Exhibit D5.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

4.     The case of the Claimants, as disclosed in their Statement of Facts, is that they and the Defendants are members of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), a registered trade union with its national secretariat at Monatan, Iwo Road, Oyo State and an alternative office along Nyanya/Gwandaa, Abuja–Keffi Road, Nasarawa State. The Claimants state that the 1st and 2nd Claimants applied to contest for the offices of Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of the NUP Awka South Local Government Area Branch but were disqualified by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 3rd Claimant, who was at the material time the Chairman of the Awka South Branch and seeking re-election for a second tenure, was likewise disqualified. The 4th Claimant, who intended to contest for the office of Secretary of the Branch, was also affected by the said disqualification. It is the Claimants’ case that the 1st Defendant has been parading himself as Acting Chairman of the NUP Anambra State Council, while the 2nd Defendant acts as Secretary. The 4th and 5th Defendants are said to be members of a Caretaker Committee constituted for the Awka South Branch, and the 6th Defendant heads an Audit Panel set up in respect of the said Branch. The Claimants plead the Constitution of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners and contend that under it, the office of the Chairman of a State Council is elective, while that of the Secretary is appointive subject to approval of the National Executive Council. They aver that the last election of the Anambra State Council was held in March 2013, at which one Comrade B.C. Maduka emerged as Chairman, while Comrade Richard Ndubude was appointed Secretary. According to the Claimants, following the death of the elected Chairman on 29th April 2016, no by-election was conducted to fill the vacancy. They allege that the 1st Defendant, who had earlier been co-opted into the Executive Committee, assumed leadership and has continued to act as Chairman without an election. They also state that following the death of the then Secretary on 1st April 2016, the 2nd Defendant assumed the position of Secretary and began to act in that capacity. The Claimants further aver that the tenure of any executive of the Union is four years. They state that the tenure of the Awka South Branch executive, which commenced in February 2017, was due to expire in 2021 and that elections were scheduled for 2nd March 2021. They contend that the 1st and 2nd Defendants issued guidelines for the election which were inconsistent with the Constitution of the Union. At the election venue, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants allegedly announced the disqualification of certain contestants, including the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Claimants. The reasons given for the disqualifications are stated to include town of origin, employment background, and unspecified allegations. The Claimants aver that following protests by members present at the venue, the election was aborted. They further state that shortly thereafter, a Caretaker Committee and Audit Panel were constituted for the Awka South Branch without proper notice to the Branch executive. On the issue of finances, the Claimants contend that check-off dues accruing to the Awka South Branch were withheld from April 2017 to May 2020. Although payments allegedly resumed after earlier litigation in Suit No. NICN/AWK/08/2017, the Claimants maintain that out of accumulated dues of ?17,583,737.84, the sum of ?4,661,950 was deducted, leaving a balance which they allege remains unpaid. They further state that check-off payments were again stopped from January 2021. The Claimants also aver that they wrote petitions to appropriate organs of the Union regarding these matters but received no effective response. It is on the basis of these facts that the Claimants instituted the present action.

 

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS

5.     The Defendants, in their Statement of Defence, raised preliminary objections to the competence of the suit. They contend that the action is improperly constituted and that the proper parties are not before the Court. According to them, the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP) is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued in its own name, and that there is no juristic entity known as the “Executive Committee of NUP Awka South Local Government Area and other concerned members.” They therefore assert that the Claimants lack the locus standi to institute this action in a representative capacity. The Defendants further contend that the suit is premature, as the Claimants failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism provided under Rule 25 of the Constitution and Code of Conduct of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners before approaching the Court. On the merits, the Defendants admit that the 1st and 2nd Claimants applied to contest the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman of NUP Awka South Branch but state that they were disqualified by the Electoral Committee in accordance with the Union’s guidelines. They deny that the 1st Defendant is illegally occupying office and maintain that he was confirmed by the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Union as Acting Chairman of the NUP Anambra State Council following the death of the former Chairman. They also assert that the 2nd Defendant was duly appointed Secretary in accordance with the Union’s Constitution. The Defendants state that the tenure of the Awka South Branch executive expired on 28th February 2021 and that the scheduled election of 2nd March 2021 was disrupted by the Claimants and their supporters. They deny issuing illegal election guidelines and maintain that the guidelines were valid and consistent with the Union’s Constitution. The Defendants further aver that the disqualification of the 1st and 2nd Claimants was due to zoning arrangements which did not allocate the positions they sought to their constituency, while the 3rd Claimant was disqualified on grounds of alleged embezzlement and fraudulent practices. They deny having any “anointed candidate” for the election and maintain that the election was called off due to tension and disruption allegedly caused by the Claimants. Following the disruption of the election and the expiration of the Branch executive’s tenure, the Defendants state that a Caretaker Committee was duly constituted pursuant to Rule 13(vii) of the Union’s Constitution to avoid a vacuum in leadership. An Audit Committee was also constituted in line with the provisions of the Constitution. With respect to the issue of check-off dues, the Defendants deny stopping or deducting any sums due to the Awka South Branch. They contend that the payment and administration of check-off dues are matters within the authority of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners at the national level. They further aver that in an earlier suit, NICN/AWK/08/2017, certain terms were agreed upon between the parties and the Union regarding deductions from check-off dues, and that deductions complained of were made pursuant to that agreement. The Defendants deny withholding any sum of ?4,661,950.00 or any other amount from the Awka South Branch and assert that check-off dues are being released appropriately. They also maintain that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were duly appointed Acting Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Anambra State Council by the National Executive Committee of the Union, and that their appointments were lawful and in accordance with the Constitution of the Union. Finally, the Defendants contend that the Claimants lack locus standi, that the action discloses no reasonable cause of action, and that the Claimants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

 

CLAIMANTS’ REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

6.     On the issue of proper parties and locus standi, the Claimants maintain that they are competent and proper parties before the Court, being members and current executive officers of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), Awka South Local Government Area Branch. They contend that the actions of the Defendants adversely affected them and other members of the Branch. While admitting that the Nigeria Union of Pensioners is a juristic person, they assert that its organs and officers can be sued, and that nothing in the Union’s Constitution bars members from seeking judicial redress against its officials or organs. The Claimants further maintain that the 3rd Claimant was duly elected Chairman of the Awka South Branch in 2017 and that his tenure was to lapse in 2021 upon the conduct of a fresh election. They contend that no valid election has been conducted to date, as the election scheduled for March 2021 was aborted due to alleged irregularities attributable to the Defendants. They deny the existence of a valid Electoral Committee and assert that the disqualification of certain contestants, including the 3rd Claimant, was unlawful and based on guidelines not recognised by the Constitution of the Union. The Claimants denied the existence of any zoning arrangement applicable to the Awka South Branch election and state that the Constitution of the Union does not provide for such. They further deny allegations of embezzlement or misconduct against the 3rd Claimant and assert that no formal complaint or indictment has been served on him. With respect to the Caretaker Committee and Audit Panel, the Claimants contend that both bodies were illegally constituted and are unknown to the Constitution of the Union. They maintain that there is no provision empowering the State Council to appoint a caretaker committee for the Branch under Rule 13(vii) of the Union’s Constitution. They further assert that the Constitution provides for an elected State Auditor and not an appointed audit committee. On the issue of the State Executive Council of NUP Anambra State, the Claimants contended that following the death of the former Chairman, no valid election was conducted to fill the vacancy, and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants unlawfully assumed office without recourse to the elective process prescribed by the Union’s Constitution. Regarding the exhaustion of internal remedies, the Claimants assert that they complied with the dispute resolution procedures under the Constitution and Code of Conduct of the Union prior to instituting this action. They also state that they wrote several complaint letters to the State Executive Committee and copied the National body of the Union. On the issue of check-off dues, the Claimants allege that the 1st and 2nd Defendants unlawfully stopped or withheld the payment of check-off dues due to the Awka South Branch. They deny that any lawful basis exists for such deductions and assert that any reductions made are extortionate and contrary to the agreement previously reached in Suit No. NICN/AWK/08/2017, which was allegedly withdrawn upon a gentleman’s agreement that entitlements would thereafter be paid. They further state that the parties and reliefs in that earlier suit differ from those in the present action. The Claimants maintain that no valid election has been conducted to replace the existing executive of the Awka South Branch and that their tenure subsists until a duly elected executive is sworn in. They deny the legality of the appointments of the Defendants and assert that the Defendants assumed office in violation of the Union’s Constitution. Finally, the Claimants reiterate that they possess the requisite locus standi and that their claims are aimed at protecting their rights and the interests of members of the Awka South Branch who have been adversely affected by the actions of the Defendants.

 

SUBMISISONS OF THE CLAIMANTS

7.     The claimants submitted the following issues for determination:

1.       Whether the institution of this suit in a representative capacity, and the non-joinder of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners as a party, is proper before this Honourable Court.

2.       Whether, from the pleadings and evidence adduced, the disqualification of the Claimants from contesting the election of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP) Awka Branch by the 1st and 2nd Defendants was lawful and constitutional under the Constitution of the NUP.

3.       Whether the appointment of the 1st and 2nd Defendants as Acting Chairman and Acting Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners Anambra State Council was lawful and in conformity with the Constitution of the NUP.

4.       Whether an uncertified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence under the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023).

5.       Whether the Claimants have discharged the evidential burden required to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

 

8.     On issue one, the Claimants submitted that the law on representative actions is settled. In IGHEDO v. P.H.C.N. PLC (2018) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1623) 51, the Supreme Court stated that for an action to lie in a representative capacity, the following conditions must be satisfied: There must be a common interest; There must be a common grievance; and The reliefs claimed must be beneficial to all. Similarly, ADEFULU v. OYESILE (1989) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 122) 377 held that where the interest and grievance are common, a representative action is appropriate provided the reliefs sought are beneficial to those represented. Further, in BAMISILE v. OSASUYI (2007) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1042) 225, the Court held that persons represented and those representing them must share the same interest or grievance for a representative action to be proper.

 

9.     The Claimants asserted that they, together with the Executive Committee of NUP Awka South L.G.A and other concerned members, have a common interest in the instant suit, as all were adversely affected by the unlawful actions of the State Executive Committee of NUP Anambra State Council. CW1 confirmed under cross-examination that a resolution was passed appointing the Claimants to represent the Executive Committee and members in this action. It is further submitted that the 3rd Claimant, being the duly elected Chairman of the NUP Awka South Branch, retains interest in returning for a second tenure, making all claims and reliefs germane to the protection of their political and organizational interests. (See Rule 5 (VIII) of the NUP Constitution).

 

10.            The Claimants contend that this suit challenges the conduct of the illegal officers of NUP, not the corporate existence of the union. Therefore, the non-joinder of the NUP does not divest this Honourable Court of jurisdiction nor does it occasion any miscarriage of justice. Authorities supporting this proposition include: Ibrahim v. Ojonye (2012) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1286) 108, Anyanwoko v. Okoye (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 497, Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342, Sapo v. Sunmonu (2010) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1205) 374, General Electric Co v. Akande (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 596.

 

11.            In any event, Order 13 Rule 11 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that misjoinder or non-joinder of parties shall not defeat a suit. The Claimants therefore urge this Court to resolve this issue in their favour.

 

12.            On issue 2, Lawfulness of Disqualification from NUP Awka Branch Election.

 

13.            The Claimants submit that sufficient evidence has been adduced to warrant the reliefs sought. That by virtue of Sections 131, 132, and 133(1) of the Evidence Act 2023 (as amended) and authorities including Asukpong v. Eduoika (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1493) 329, Bello v. Aruwa (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 454, Agoda v. Emanuotor (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 407, Oyinloye v. Esinkin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 540, a Claimant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. The principle was affirmed in Ndulue v. Orjiakor (2013) ALL NWLR (Pt. 673) 1804. The Claimants further submit that the Constitution of NUP (Exhibit CW3/1) guides the conduct of elections and internal governance. In contrast, Exhibit CW3/3, the so-called election guideline issued by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, was issued contrary to the constitution and is thus null and void.

 

14.            The disqualification of the Claimants was unlawful, arbitrary, and intended to make their preferred candidate unopposed. Rule 13 (VII)(B) and Rule VIII(a) of the NUP Constitution provide that disqualification and appointment of a caretaker committee are permissible only where there is embezzlement or acts that bring the union into disrepute. There was no such ground in this instance.

 

15.            DW1 admitted under cross-examination that the NUP Constitution binds all branches and any deviation is null. Authorities such as Adams v. Umar (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1133) 41 emphasise that transparency and strict adherence to election laws are necessary to maintain confidence and a level playing field.

 

16.            Moreover, the Claimants were not informed in advance of their disqualification, constituting a denial of fair hearing. Authorities establishing the constitutional right to fair hearing include: Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1; J.S.C., Cross River State v. Young (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 1 at 21–22; Babatunde v. State (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 134) 298 at 332; U.C.H.B.M v. Morakinyo (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1489). That CW1 testified to the effect that disqualification was communicated on the day of election, creating disadvantage. DW1 confirmed under cross-examination that written communication was not done. The Claimants submit that this non-publication demonstrates deliberate breach of fair hearing principles. The Claimants urge this Honourable Court to hold the disqualification and appointment of a caretaker committee unconstitutional, illegal, and contrary to NUP constitutional provisions.

 

17.            On issue 3, Lawfulness of Appointment of Acting Officers of NUP Anambra State Council.

 

18.            The Claimants submitted that the NUP Constitution governs internal administration, membership, elections, and appointments. Any action inconsistent with the constitution is ultra vires, null, and void (Adeyanju v. WAEC (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 785) 479). There is no provision in the NUP Constitution for Acting Chairman or Acting Secretary positions. Rule 11 (VI) provides that the Executive Committee consists of specific officers elected by majority vote in a secret ballot, and no other acting positions are sanctioned. It is a settled principle that where specific provisions are named in law or constitution, anything not provided is excluded (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).

 

19.            On issue 4, Admissibility of an Uncertified Copy of a Public Document.

 

20.            The Claimants submit that the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) provides clear guidelines on the admissibility of public documents. By virtue of Sections 84–87 of the Evidence Act 2011, the presumption is that a public document is genuine if properly certified. However, in the instant case, the documents tendered by the Claimants were either originals or properly certified copies (Exhibits CW3/1 and CW3/3). Any uncertified copy tendered was done so as secondary evidence in line with Section 157 of the Evidence Act, and it was only meant to corroborate oral testimony. It is respectfully submitted that the weight of the law supports the admission of secondary evidence where the original is unavailable, provided the evidence is relevant, and the reason for non-production is explained. Authorities supporting this submission include: Oladipo v. Adeyemi (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 764) 431, where the Court held that secondary evidence is admissible in civil proceedings where the original is unavailable or cannot be produced without undue inconvenience. Accordingly, the Claimants urge this Honourable Court to hold that all the documents tendered are admissible in evidence and should be accorded probative value in determining the merits of this suit.

 

21.            On issue 5, whether the Claimants have proved their case.

 

22.            The Claimants submitted that the burden of proof rests on them to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities (Asukpong v. Eduoika (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1493) 329; Ndulue v. Orjiakor (2013) ALL NWLR (Pt. 673) 1804). In the instant case, credible evidence has been adduced to satisfy this standard: The Claimants, through CW1, CW2, and CW3, tendered evidence showing the disqualification from contesting the election and appointment of a caretaker committee was unlawful, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the NUP Constitution. That DW1 and other defence witnesses admitted under cross-examination the existence of the NUP Constitution and its binding effect on all branches and officers, as well as procedural lapses in the conduct of the election and disqualification of the Claimants. That the Claimants provided documentary evidence (Exhibits CW3/1 and CW3/3) showing the illegality of the election guideline and the lack of compliance with constitutional provisions. Authorities such as Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 91, 93–96 provide that in a case where both parties adduce evidence, the Court weighs the evidence on both sides to determine which side preponderates. In this instance, the preponderance clearly favours the Claimants. The Claimants submitted that they have established that the actions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants were unlawful, unconstitutional, and a violation of their rights to fair hearing and proper participation in the election of the NUP Awka South Branch.

 

SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS

23.            The Defendants raised the following issues for determination as follows:

a.      Whether the Claimants have the locus standi and competent capacity to institute this suit in a representative capacity.

b.     Whether the Claimants’ action is premature and incompetent for failure to comply with the mandatory internal dispute-resolution mechanism in Rule 25 of the Constitution and Code of Conduct of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners.

c.      Whether the proper parties are before the Court, having regard to the juristic personality of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP).

d.     Whether, on the preponderance of credible evidence, the Defendants acted illegally, ultra vires, or in breach of the NUP Constitution with respect to: i. The appointment of Acting Chairman and Secretary of NUP Anambra State Council; ii. The disqualification of the Claimants from contesting the Awka South Branch election; iii. The constitution of a caretaker committee; iv. The stoppage or deduction of check-off dues.

e.      Whether the Claimants have proved any entitlement to the reliefs sought.

 

SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES

24.            The Defendants argued that the Claimants failed to produce evidence to substantiate their allegations, failed to demonstrate authority to sue in a representative capacity, and did not show any illegality or constitutional breach by the Defendants. Accordingly, they contend that the Claimants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The Defendants, in their written address and evidence, challenged the competence and maintainability of this suit on several fronts. They contended that the action of the Claimants is incompetent, that the Claimants lack locus standi, that the suit is premature for non-compliance with mandatory internal dispute-resolution procedures of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), and that the proper party, the NUP itself, is not before the Court. Furthermore, they submitted that all substantive allegations of illegality, financial misconduct, and ultra vires acts have been definitively contradicted by evidence.

25.            The Defendants asserted that the Claimants are not officers or members of the Executive Committee of the NUP Awka South Branch and, therefore, lack the capacity to sue in a representative capacity. They further contended that the Claimants were not authorized by the members of the Branch to institute the action and that the entity they purport to represent ceased to exist in 2021, making any purported mandate to represent the body non-existent. The Defendants relied on the authorities of Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil & Allied Products Ltd (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt 1066) 319 and Mafimisebi v. Ehwaa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt 1018) 385, which establish that a representative action without proper authority is incompetent.

 

26.            In relation to the internal dispute-resolution process, the Defendants submitted that the NUP Constitution, specifically Rule 25, prescribes mandatory steps that must be exhausted before a member may approach the Court. These steps include written complaints to the State Executive Committee (SEC), appeal to SEC, appeal to the National Administrative Committee (NAC), appeal to the National Executive Council (NEC), and only thereafter can litigation be commenced. The Defendants contended that the Claimants failed to comply with these steps, citing authorities including Amasike v. Registrar of CAC (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt 1211) 337 and Osiagwu v. Ezeobi (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt 1234) 393. They submitted that the failure to exhaust these internal remedies rendered the suit premature and incompetent.

 

27.            The Defendants also emphasized that the NUP, being a juristic person capable of suing and being sued, is the proper party to this action. They argued that the reliefs sought by the Claimants, including declarations affecting the constitution, election guidelines, appointments, and deductions of dues, directly affect the NUP as an organization, yet the Claimants failed to join it as a party. They cited the authorities of Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 480 and Peenok Investment Ltd v. Hotel Presidential (1982) 12 SC 1 to support the principle that failure to join the proper and necessary party renders a suit incompetent.

 

28.            On the substantive allegations, the Defendants submitted that all actions taken by them were lawful and in strict accordance with the NUP Constitution. They averred that the 1st Defendant was duly confirmed as Acting Chairman by the NEC, and the 2nd Defendant was properly appointed Secretary by the SEC and confirmed by the NEC. They maintained that these appointments were within the constitutional powers of the State Council and the NEC, the highest organ of the Union. The Defendants relied on the principles in Omoreogbe v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC 108 and Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt 1181) 362, which establish that unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence must be accepted by the Court, particularly where the adversary had the opportunity to cross-examine.

 

29.            Regarding the disqualification of the Claimants from contesting the Awka South Branch election, the Defendants submitted that the Electoral Committee acted within its powers under the Constitution. They contended that certain positions contested by the Claimants were not zoned to their constituencies, that the 3rd Claimant was disqualified for embezzlement and fraudulent acts, and that the electoral body has the express authority to screen and disqualify candidates. The Defendants further submitted that the tenure of the previous Executive Committee expired on 28 February 2021 and that, to avoid a vacuum in leadership, a Caretaker Committee was properly constituted on 15 March 2021 pursuant to constitutional powers.

 

30.            The Defendants also addressed the issue of check-off dues, asserting that the deductions were authorized by the National Secretariat, previously consented to by the Claimants in earlier proceedings (NICN/AWK/08/2017), and not unlawfully imposed by the Defendants. They submitted that the Claimants failed to produce any evidence to contradict these facts.

 

31.            The Defendants concluded by asserting that the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof, having produced no authorization to sue representatively, no evidence rebutting the allegations of disqualification, no evidence challenging the legality of the Defendants’ appointments, no letters of complaint to any NUP organ, and no proof of illegal deductions. The Defendants urged that the action be dismissed in its entirety as incompetent, premature, vexatious, and lacking in merit.

 

32.            The Defendants argued that the Claimants failed to produce evidence to substantiate their allegations, failed to demonstrate authority to sue in a representative capacity, and did not show any illegality or constitutional breach by the Defendants. Accordingly, they contend that the Claimants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The Defendants, in their written address and evidence, challenged the competence and maintainability of this suit on several fronts. They contended that the action of the Claimants is incompetent, that the Claimants lack locus standi, that the suit is premature for non-compliance with mandatory internal dispute-resolution procedures of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), and that the proper party, the NUP itself, is not before the Court. Furthermore, they submitted that all substantive allegations of illegality, financial misconduct, and ultra vires acts have been definitively contradicted by evidence.

 

33.            The Defendants asserted that the Claimants are not officers or members of the Executive Committee of the NUP Awka South Branch and, therefore, lack the capacity to sue in a representative capacity. They further contended that the Claimants were not authorized by the members of the Branch to institute the action and that the entity they purport to represent ceased to exist in 2021, making any purported mandate to represent the body non-existent. The Defendants relied on the authorities of Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil & Allied Products Ltd (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt 1066) 319 and Mafimisebi v. Ehwaa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt 1018) 385, which establish that a representative action without proper authority is incompetent.

 

34.            In relation to the internal dispute-resolution process, the Defendants submitted that the NUP Constitution, specifically Rule 25, prescribes mandatory steps that must be exhausted before a member may approach the Court. These steps include written complaints to the State Executive Committee (SEC), appeal to SEC, appeal to the National Administrative Committee (NAC), appeal to the National Executive Council (NEC), and only thereafter can litigation be commenced. The Defendants contended that the Claimants failed to comply with these steps, citing authorities including Amasike v. Registrar of CAC (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt 1211) 337 and Osiagwu v. Ezeobi (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt 1234) 393. They submitted that the failure to exhaust these internal remedies rendered the suit premature and incompetent.

 

35.            The Defendants also emphasized that the NUP, being a juristic person capable of suing and being sued, is the proper party to this action. They argued that the reliefs sought by the Claimants, including declarations affecting the constitution, election guidelines, appointments, and deductions of dues, directly affect the NUP as an organization, yet the Claimants failed to join it as a party. They cited the authorities of Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 61) 480 and Peenok Investment Ltd v. Hotel Presidential (1982) 12 SC 1 to support the principle that failure to join the proper and necessary party renders a suit incompetent.

 

36.            On the substantive allegations, the Defendants submitted that all actions taken by them were lawful and in strict accordance with the NUP Constitution. They averred that the 1st Defendant was duly confirmed as Acting Chairman by the NEC, and the 2nd Defendant was properly appointed Secretary by the SEC and confirmed by the NEC. They maintained that these appointments were within the constitutional powers of the State Council and the NEC, the highest organ of the Union. The Defendants relied on the principles in Omoreogbe v. Lawani (1980) 3-4 SC 108 and Nwokidu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt 1181) 362, which establish that unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence must be accepted by the Court, particularly where the adversary had the opportunity to cross-examine.

 

37.            Regarding the disqualification of the Claimants from contesting the Awka South Branch election, the Defendants submitted that the Electoral Committee acted within its powers under the Constitution. They contended that certain positions contested by the Claimants were not zoned to their constituencies, that the 3rd Claimant was disqualified for embezzlement and fraudulent acts, and that the electoral body has the express authority to screen and disqualify candidates. The Defendants further submitted that the tenure of the previous Executive Committee expired on 28 February 2021 and that, to avoid a vacuum in leadership, a Caretaker Committee was properly constituted on 15 March 2021 pursuant to constitutional powers. The Defendants also addressed the issue of check-off dues, asserting that the deductions were authorized by the National Secretariat, previously consented to by the Claimants in earlier proceedings (NICN/AWK/08/2017), and not unlawfully imposed by the Defendants. They submitted that the Claimants failed to produce any evidence to contradict these facts.

 

38.            The Defendants concluded by asserting that the Claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof, having produced no authorization to sue representatively, no evidence rebutting the allegations of disqualification, no evidence challenging the legality of the Defendants’ appointments, no letters of complaint to any NUP organ, and no proof of illegal deductions. The Defendants urged that the action be dismissed in its entirety as incompetent, premature, vexatious, and lacking in merit.

 

 

 

CLAIMANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

39.            On Locus Standi and Representative Capacity: The Defendants relied on Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil & Allied Products Ltd (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 319 and Mafimisebi v. Ehwa (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 385 to contend that a representative action is incompetent where there is no resolution, mandate, or formal authority authorizing the plaintiff to sue on behalf of others. They further argued that, since the Claimants did not produce any such documents, they lack the legal standing to activate the jurisdiction of this Court.

 

40.            In reply, the Claimants contend that this submission is not aligned with established Supreme Court authority on representative actions. The Supreme Court in S.P.D.C.N Ltd v. Oruambo (2023) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1866) 433 S.C laid down the conditions precedent for a proper representative action, namely:

a)    There must be numerous persons interested in the matter or on the side to be represented;

b)    All persons interested must have the same interest in the suit, i.e., their interest must be joint and several;

c)     All persons interested must have the same grievance; and

d)    The reliefs sought must be, by their nature, beneficial to all persons being represented.

 

41.            The Claimants assert that in the instant case, all these conditions are satisfied. Both the Claimants and the persons they represent share the same interest, the same grievance, and seek reliefs that are beneficial to all concerned. Accordingly, the action instituted by the Claimants is proper and competent as a representative suit.

 

42.            On Non-Joinder of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP); The Defendants further relied on Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 and Peenok Inv. Ltd v. Hotel Presidential (1982) 12 SC 1 to argue that the non-joinder of NUP renders the suit incompetent. The Claimants respond that this argument does not align with the rules of this Honourable Court. Specifically, Order 13 Rule 14(1) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides as follows:

"No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and a judge may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards to rights and interest of the parties actually before the court."

 

43.            The Court notes that the provisions of Order 13 Rule 14(1) are clear and unambiguous. The law permits the Court to adjudicate the rights and interests of the parties before it, notwithstanding the absence of certain parties who are not indispensable to the determination of the dispute. The Claimants submit that the Defendants’ reliance on the absence of a formal mandate and the non-joinder of the NUP is without merit. The Court is urged to discount these submissions and proceed to determine the claims on their merits, granting the reliefs sought by the Claimants.

 

DETERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

44.            Before embarking upon the substantive controversy between the parties, this Court must first determine whether it possesses the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The issue of jurisdiction was vigorously raised by the defendants in their final written address and was responded to by the claimants in their address and reply on points of law. It is settled law that jurisdiction is the threshold question in every adjudication. Where a Court lacks jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are a nullity no matter how well conducted. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, in which the Supreme Court laid down the classic conditions for competence of a Court. See also Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517 and Skye Bank v. Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt.1590) 24.

 

45.            The defendants’ challenge to jurisdiction is of threefold. First, that the claimants lack locus standi and did not properly institute the action in a representative capacity. Secondly, that the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, being a juristic person capable of suing and being sued, was not joined as a necessary party. Thirdly, that the claimants failed to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the NUP Constitution before approaching this Court.

 

46.            On the issue of locus standi and representative capacity, the defendants argue that no valid resolution authorising this action was tendered and that the claimants cannot sue on behalf of Awka South branch members. The claimants contend that the grievance affects all members of the branch and that the action is properly constituted.

 

47.            The law is settled that locus standi is determined from the statement of facts. Claimant must show sufficient interest in the subject matter and that his civil rights or obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112. In representative actions, the test is whether the persons represented have a common interest, common grievance and whether the reliefs sought will benefit all. See S.P.D.C.N. Ltd v. Oruambo (2023) 1 NWLR (Pt.1866) 433.

 

48.            From the pleadings before this Court, the claimants challenge their disqualification from branch elections, the legality of the Caretaker Committee imposed on the branch, the authority of the defendants to conduct elections, and alleged deductions from branch funds. These grievances are not personal to one individual; they concern the administration of the Awka South Branch. The reliefs sought, particularly the declaratory and injunctive reliefs, are framed to benefit the branch collectively. Although CW1 admitted under cross-examination that the minutes book containing the resolution authorising the suit was not tendered, failure to tender such minutes does not automatically extinguish locus standi where the pleadings disclose common interest and grievance. The objection therefore goes to weight, not competence. The Court is satisfied that the claimants have sufficient interest to activate the jurisdiction of this Court.

 

49.            On the issue of non-joinder of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners as a corporate entity, the defendants argued that since the Union is capable of suing and being sued, failure to join it is fatal. However, Order 13 Rule 14(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder of parties, and the Court may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Furthermore, the reliefs sought are principally against named officers alleged to have acted ultra vires the Constitution of the Union. Where principal officers are sued for acts allegedly done in violation of the Constitution of an Association, the absence of the Association itself is not necessarily fatal. The objection on this ground fails, and I so hold.

 

50.            The more substantial jurisdictional objection relates to failure to exhaust internal remedies. The defendants relied on Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the NUP Constitution which provide for internal mechanisms for dispute resolution and argued that the claimants approached the Court prematurely.

 

51.            The law is that where a Statute or Constitution provides a special procedure for redress of grievances, that procedure must ordinarily be followed before recourse to Court. See Eguamwense v. Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 1. However, the rule is not absolute. Where the internal remedy is shown to be ineffective, biased, or where the complaint challenges the authority of those who would constitute the appellate body, the Court will not shut its doors. See also Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission (1981) 1 SC 40.

 

52.            In the present case, the documentary evidence shows that petitions were written to the State Council and to the National Headquarters. Exhibit CW3/4 is a complaint written immediately after the aborted election. Exhibit CW3/10 evidences prior recourse to National Headquarters in earlier disputes. The defendants themselves tendered Exhibits DW1/3 to DW1/5 showing National intervention in disputes between the branch and State Council. The evidence therefore demonstrates that internal channels were invoked before litigation. Whether every channel of appeal was exhausted is less significant where the gravamen of the complaint is that the very State leadership accused of irregularities would preside over the internal process. In such circumstances, insisting on further internal recourse would amount to compelling the claimants to submit to a process they allege to be constitutionally defective.

 

53.            This Court derives its jurisdiction from Section 254C(1)(j) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the National Industrial Court in matters relating to trade unions and industrial relations. The Nigeria Union of Pensioners is a registered trade union. Disputes concerning election of officers, administration of branches, and control of union funds fall squarely within that constitutional grant.

 

54.            Having considered the objections raised, the pleadings, the exhibits tendered, and the submissions of counsel, this Court is satisfied that it has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.  I shall hence proceed with the substantive issues.

 

COURT’S DECISION

55.            It is trite law that a claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence, save where the weakness of the defence lends credence to the claimant’s case. In Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 S.C. 91, the Supreme Court restated the principle that a party seeking declaratory relief must establish his entitlement by credible evidence. Declaratory reliefs, in particular, are not granted merely on admission or default of defence, but require cogent and satisfactory proof.

 

56.            In the present suit, the claimants instituted this action seeking declaratory reliefs, namely:

Declarations that the continued occupation of office by the 1st and 2nd defendants as Chairman and Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), Anambra State Council, was unconstitutional and null and void;

Declarations that the disqualification of certain candidates during the March 2021 branch elections was unlawful;

Declarations that the constitution of a Caretaker Committee for Awka South Branch was illegal;

Orders restraining the defendants from parading themselves as officers of the Union or conducting elections without constitutional authority; and

Monetary reliefs relating to alleged wrongful deductions from the branch’s check-off dues, together with ancillary injunctive orders.

 

57.            In proof of their case, the claimants called three witnesses: Comrade Benjamin Okonkwo (CW1), Comrade Mike Obi-Okoye (CW2), and Comrade Patrick A. Obanye (CW3). Through these witnesses, the claimants tendered eleven exhibits, admitted and marked as Exhibits CW3/1 to CW3/11, comprising the Constitution of the Union, election guidelines, petitions, correspondence, nomination documents, and related materials.

 

58.            The defendants, in defence, called one witness, the 1st defendant, who testified as DW1, and tendered documentary exhibits admitted and marked as Exhibits DW1/1 to DW1/5, including correspondence from the National Headquarters, documents relating to prior litigation, reconciliation letters, and petitions.

 

59.            It is imperative to state that in resolving the issues submitted for determination, this Court shall confine itself to those issues which, in its considered view, will effectively determine all the controversies between the parties.  Having regard to the state of the pleadings and the evidence led at trial, the Court is satisfied that the issues hereunder formulated adequately encapsulate the core disputes between the parties and will, if resolved, determine this suit one way or the other.

1.       Whether the defendants validly held office as Chairman and Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Anambra State Council, in accordance with the Constitution of the Union.

2.       Whether the disqualification of candidates during the 2021 branch elections and the subsequent constitution of a Caretaker Committee for Awka South Branch were lawful and consistent with the provisions of the NUP Constitution and the applicable election guidelines.

3.       Whether, upon the totality of the pleadings and evidence adduced, the claimants have discharged the burden of proof required to entitle them to the declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs sought in this action.

 

60.            On issue 1, whether the defendants validly held office as chairman and Secretary of NUP Anambra State Council. The first issue for determination is whether the 1st and 2nd defendants validly held office as Chairman and Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP), Anambra State Council, in accordance with the provisions of the NUP Constitution.

 

61.            It is a settled principle that the validity of an officeholder’s tenure is to be determined strictly by reference to the governing constitution, rules, and procedures of the association or union in question. A person who continues to hold office beyond the expiration of his or her tenure, or whose appointment is irregular, acts ultra vires and without lawful authority. See Mogaji v. Odofin (supra).

 

62.            In the instant suit, the claimants allege that the 1st and 2nd defendants have held office in an unconstitutional manner for a period extending beyond their legitimate tenure, without compliance with the Union’s constitutional provisions. In support, the claimants called CW1, CW2, and CW3, all of whom consistently testified that:

The State Executive Committee of NUP Anambra State Council, purportedly headed by the defendants, had no lawful basis for its continued existence; The appointments of the defendants as Acting Chairman and Secretary did not follow due process, lacked National Executive Council approval, and were irregular; and prior to the purported tenure of the defendants, the authentic State Executive Committee had expired approximately three to four years earlier, thereby rendering any subsequent acts or elections conducted by the defendants potentially void.

 

63.            The documentary evidence tendered by the claimants, namely Exhibits CW3/3 (Election Guidelines), CW3/6 (Address of State Chairman at Caretaker Committee Inauguration), CW3/7 (Invitation to Witness Caretaker Committee Inauguration), and CW3/10 (Resolution of Conflicts Letter), corroborates the oral testimony. These documents show that: Elections for branch and State offices were governed by specific guidelines regarding tenure, eligibility, and procedures; The Caretaker Committee was instituted only after non-compliance by the previous executive officers and in the absence of valid elections; and the National and State leadership intervened to restore order and compliance with the Union Constitution, acknowledging prior irregularities.

 

64.            On the other hand, the defendants, through DW1, contended that their appointments as Acting Chairman and Secretary were necessitated by the deaths of previous officeholders and that the Constitution allows for ad hoc appointments in such circumstances. DW1 relied on Exhibits DW1/3 to DW1/5, which show prior disputes were resolved administratively, and that State and National authorities exercised supervisory functions over branch administration, elections, and financial matters.

 

65.            The Court has carefully examined both the oral and documentary evidence. It is apparent that while the defendants relied on post facto administrative arrangements and ad hoc interventions, such actions do not, in themselves, validate an indefinite occupation of office. The claimants provided credible evidence demonstrating that; the original tenure of the authentic State Executive Committee had expired; No constitutionally sanctioned elections were conducted to legitimize the continued occupancy of office by the defendants; and the defendants’ appointments were inconsistent with the procedural requirements and safeguards set out in the NUP Constitution, particularly regarding National Executive Council approval and notice to members.

 

66.            It is also significant that the claimants’ evidence shows the defendants acted in capacities that affected elections, financial management, and internal governance of the Union, thereby magnifying the relevance of their unlawful occupation of office. Accordingly, this Court finds that the 1st and 2nd defendants did not validly hold office as Chairman and Secretary of NUP Anambra State Council. Their continued exercise of authority was unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without lawful effect under the governing Constitution of the Union. Issue 1, is therefore resolved in favour of the claimants.

 

67.            Issue 2, is whether the disqualification of candidates and subsequent Constitution of a Caretaker Committee for Awka South Branch were lawful under The NUP Constitution. The second issue for determination concerns the lawfulness of the disqualification of certain candidates during the 2nd/3rd March 2021 Awka South Branch elections and the subsequent constitution of a Caretaker Committee. This issue is intrinsically linked to the validity of the defendants’ office, as their authority underpinned the administration of the election process.

 

68.            The claimants contended that they complied fully with the nomination and election procedures as prescribed in the NUP Constitution and the official Election Guidelines (Exhibit CW3/3); The defendants, or those acting under them, arbitrarily disqualified candidates, including CW3 and others, without lawful basis; No electoral committee was properly constituted for the 2nd/3rd March 2021 election, and the election was administered solely by the State Secretary, thereby breaching the procedural safeguards set out in the Constitution; The subsequent Caretaker Committee (Exhibits CW3/6 and CW3/7) was instituted after the aborted election, but its constitution was tainted by the irregularities preceding it, and therefore unlawful.

 

69.            CW1, CW2, and CW3 all testified in support of these assertions. Their evidence established that the nomination process, including submission of forms and invitations to witness the inauguration, was complied with (Exhibits CW3/7–CW3/9); Candidates were disqualified on procedural grounds that were not transparent and in some cases inconsistent with the Constitution (Exhibit CW3/4 and CW3/5); The election did not proceed as planned due to protests arising from perceived irregularities; and Attempts at internal resolution were made, including petitions to the State and National bodies, but these did not remedy the procedural defects before Court intervention.

 

70.            The defendants, through DW1, argued that the disqualifications were within the discretion of the Secretary and State leadership under the Constitution; that the Caretaker Committee was lawfully appointed to restore order following election disruptions and to ensure continuity of administration (Exhibits DW1/3–DW1/5); Prior disputes had been settled administratively, demonstrating the Union’s capacity to resolve internal conflicts without recourse to litigation.

 

71.            The Court has carefully considered the pleadings, oral testimonies, and documentary exhibits tendered by both parties. It is not disputed that the Constitution of NUP provides for properly constituted electoral committees for branch elections; transparent procedures for candidate eligibility and disqualification; and intervention by State and National leadership only as a corrective measure, subject to procedural fairness and notice.

 

72.            In the instant case, the evidence indicates, that the purported disqualifications were effected without due notice and in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines (Exhibit CW3/4 and CW3/5); no properly constituted electoral committee administered the 2nd/3rd March 2021 election; and the Caretaker Committee was constituted following an election that was itself procedurally flawed, rendering the Committee’s legality contingent on rectifying these flaws.

 

73.            While the defendants relied on administrative necessity and prior reconciliation efforts (Exhibits DW1/3–DW1/5), such post facto arrangements do not cure the procedural irregularities observed. A cornerstone of internal union governance is compliance with constitutionally prescribed processes, which must be observed to confer legality on any subsequent administrative action.

 

74.            In view of the above, I find that the disqualification of candidates during the 2nd/3rd March 2021 Awka South Branch election was unlawful, being inconsistent with the Constitution and the official Election Guidelines; The constitution of the Caretaker Committee, instituted on the back of a procedurally flawed election, was irregular and cannot be considered lawful. I so hold.

 

75.            Accordingly, issue 2 is also resolved in favour of the claimants.

 

76.            Issue 3, is whether the claimants have proved entitlement to the declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs sought. The third issue for determination concerns the extent to which the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought, having regard to the evidence adduced at trial and the findings already made on issues 1 and 2. The claimants seek the following reliefs:

Declaratory reliefs that the continued occupation of office by the 1st and 2nd defendants as Chairman and Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Pensioners, Anambra State Council, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void;

That the disqualification of candidates during the March 2021 Awka South branch elections was unlawful;

That the constitution of a Caretaker Committee for Awka South branch was illegal.

Injunctive reliefs, order restraining the defendants from parading themselves as officers of the Union; order restraining the defendants from conducting elections or exercising powers without constitutional authority.

Monetary reliefs; recovery of funds alleged to have been wrongly deducted from the branch’s check-off dues.

 

77.            It is trite that a claimant is entitled to succeed only on the strength of his own case, and not on the weakness of the defence, save where the weakness of the defence lends credence to the claimant’s case. (See Mogaji v. Odofin Supra). In this regard, declaratory and injunctive reliefs require cogent, credible, and satisfactory proof, not mere allegations.

 

78.            The Court has already found, under issues 1 and 2 that the defendants did not validly hold office in accordance with the NUP Constitution; and the disqualification of candidates during the 2021 branch elections and the subsequent constitution of the Caretaker Committee were unlawful.

 

79.            These findings directly support the claimants’ entitlement to declaratory reliefs. The evidence adduced—particularly the testimonies of CW1, CW2, and CW3, together with Exhibits CW3/3–CW3/11—demonstrates compliance by the claimants with the nomination and electoral procedures, arbitrary disqualification of candidates, the absence of a properly constituted electoral committee, and procedural irregularities leading to the constitution of the Caretaker Committee.

 

80.            The defendants’ evidence, while showing administrative actions and prior reconciliation efforts (Exhibits DW1/3–DW1/5), cannot validate offices or actions that are otherwise inconsistent with the constitutional provisions of the Union. Administrative expedience does not confer legality where procedural compliance is absent.

 

81.            On the question of injunctive relief, it is well?established that a Court may grant interim or perpetual injunctions to restrain acts that are unlawful or that threaten the exercise of constitutional or statutory rights. In AG, Oyo State v. AG, Federation (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 776) 542, the Supreme Court affirmed that injunctions are protective remedies, and their grant is particularly appropriate where the continuation of the complained?of conduct would infringe on established rights and render aggrieved persons without remedy.

 

82.            In the instant case, the defendants’ continued parading as officers and their attempted administration of elections without constitutional authority constitute acts that are injurious to the claimants’ rights as members of the Union. The Court is satisfied that restraining orders are necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further violation of the Union’s constitution.

 

83.            Regarding monetary reliefs, the claimants tendered evidence of wrongful deductions from branch check-off dues (Exhibit CW3/10), establishing a prima facie claim to recovery. While the exact computation of such sums may require accounting adjustments, the Court is persuaded that the claimants are entitled to restitution of funds improperly withheld.

 

84.            In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the claimants have discharged the burden of proof required to entitle them to the reliefs sought. The declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs are meritorious and consistent with the evidence.

 

85.            In consequence of the foregoing findings and having resolved the substantive issues in favour of the claimants, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1.       It is hereby ordered that the incumbent Executive Officers of the NUP Awka South Branch shall continue to function as the duly recognised Executive Committee of the Branch until a new and credible election is conducted in strict compliance with the provisions of the NUP Constitution and applicable election guidelines.

2.       It is hereby ordered that the 1st and 2nd defendants shall forthwith pay all outstanding check-off dues due to the members of the NUP Awka South Branch.

3.       A declaration is hereby made that the continued occupation of office by the 1st and 2nd defendants as Chairman and Secretary of the NUP Anambra State Council is illegal, unconstitutional, and of no legal effect.

4.       It is hereby ordered that the 1st and 2nd defendants shall refund to the Awka South NUP Branch the sum of Four Million, Six Hundred and Sixty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Naira (?4,661,950), representing monies illegally deducted from the 38 months arrears of check-off amounting to Seventeen Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Three Thousand Naira (?17,583,000).

5.       A declaration is hereby made that the actions and election guidelines issued by the 1st and 2nd defendants in respect of the aborted 2021 NUP Awka South Branch election are illegal, null, and void, and of no effect whatsoever.

6.       It is hereby ordered that the Anambra State Government, through the Head of Service responsible for labour matters, shall appoint a Caretaker Committee to oversee and conduct a fresh election into the offices of the NUP Anambra State Council in accordance with the Union’s Constitution and applicable election rules.

7.       It is hereby ordered, by way of perpetual injunction, that the 1st and 2nd defendants shall cease from parading themselves as Acting Chairman and Secretary of NUP Anambra State Council or exercising any powers, functions, or authorities of those offices, until they are duly elected or constitutionally appointed in accordance with the Union’s Constitution.

8.       It is hereby ordered that the 1st and 2nd defendants shall bear the costs of this suit.

 

86.            Judgement is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD.