IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

            IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

      HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE R. B. HAASTRUP

 

15^TH APRIL 2026                                                         SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/169/2025

BETWEEN:                                                   

1.     ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS

OF NIGERIA

2.     COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU

3.     COMRADE HASSAN ABBA                                          …..…………………CLAIMANTS

4.     COMRADE MAIGARI RAHAB AYUBA

5.     COMRADE CECILIA NKEIRUKA ANEKE

6.     COMRADE JONATHAN OGBENI ALIGBE               

AND                                                                                  

1.     SHEHU MOHAMMED

2.     JOSHUA APEBO

3.     THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

4.     THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION     …………… DEFENDANTS

5.     THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

6.     THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (Struck out by

order of Court on 4^th December 2025)

                                         

LEGAL REPRESENTATION:                                                                            

U. O. Sule (SAN) with D. G. Okolo Esq, Babatunde Adewusi Esq, Nwabueze Obasi-Obi Esq, Kalat N. Jatau Esq., T. V. Olorundare Esq. S. A. Haruna Esq, N. D. Longji Esq. J. U. Odenigbo, A. G. Okereafor, U. J. Barambu, S.A. Wakili and N. B. Talson Esq. for the Claimants.

A. O. Odum SAN with A. O. Igeh Esq., F. D. Okeoga and Terhemba Gbashima Esq. for 1^st and 2^nd Defendants

N. Ierkwagh for 3^rd Defendant

M. Abubakar Esq. with Abimbola N. Akinfesi for the 4^th Defendant, and holding the brief of Enoch Simon Esq, for 5^th Defendant.

 

 JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1] This suit was commenced at the instance of the Claimants by an Originating Summons dated 16^th June 2025 but filed 17^th June 2025, with six questions submitted for the determination of this Court as follows:

       I.            Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the subsequent election conducted on the 10^th August 2024 by the 2^nd Claimant as the National President of the 1^st Claimant in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

 

    II.            Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the Defendants can be allowed to set up a parallel faction or leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), or be allowed to profit in any manner whatsoever after failing/refusing/neglecting to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS wherein this honourable Court resolved the leadership crisis in the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and amongst others declared/reinstated the 2^nd Claimant as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria?

 III.            Whether given the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to and obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the provisions of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the Defendants either by themselves, assigns, privies, agents, assigns (sic) or howsoever described can appoint, elect, recognize or impose Shehu Mohammed and Joshua Apebo or any other person as National President and Secretary General of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), respectively.

 

  IV.            Whether the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) empowered the 2^nd Defendant, Joshua Apebo (a paid staff/employee of the ASCSN) or anyone to highjack the organs and structure of the 1^st Claimant, direct the affairs, conduct elections or to single-handedly requisition any meeting of the Central Working Committee (CWC), National Executive Council (NEC), the National Delegates Conference save as provided under the Rules 4 (viii), 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the ASCSN.

 

     V.            Whether in view of Rule 14 (a) (i) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the 2^nd Claimant being the incumbent National President of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria as confirmed by the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) was qualified to conduct election and indeed validly re-elected on the 10^th of August 2024 for a second term of four years after his first term.

 

  VI.            Whether in view of the 2^nd Claimant’s re-election as National President of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) on the 10^th of August 2024 for a second term of four (4) years, the 2^nd Claimant is not entitled to be recognized by all authorities including the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and be allowed to manage and administer the finances, affairs and assets of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) without any interference from the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants or their privies within the duration specified in the judgment of the Honourable Court delivered on the 9^th of July 2024 and the four years duration of the re-election in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN)?

[2] Flowing from the above, Claimants herein sought for thirteen (13) reliefs from this Court as follows;

a)    A Declaration of this Honourable Court that by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the subsequent election conducted on the 10^th August 2024 by the 2^nd Claimant as the National President of the 1^st Claimant in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) is wrongful and a violation of the Constitutional (sic) of the Association.

 

b)    A Declaration of this Honourable Court that by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution Federal Republic of Nigeria, (As Amended), and the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) which resolved the leadership crisis of the 1^st Claimant, and the re-election of the 2^nd Claimant for a second term of four years as the National President of the 1^st Claimant; neither the 1st and 2^nd Defendants  nor anyone is entitled to hijack, set-up a parallel organ or structure/faction, seek recognition or be accorded any form of recognition as the leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) other than the 2^nd Claimant.

 

c)     A Declaration of the Honourable Court that consequent upon the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to and obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the provisions of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the Defendants either by themselves, assigns, privies, agents or howsoever described cannot validly appoint, elect, recognize or impose Shehu Mohammed and Joshua Apebo or any other person as National President and Secretary General respectively of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

d)    A Declaration of this Honourable Court that in view of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and Rule 14 (a) (i) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the 2^nd Claimant as the incumbent National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria was qualified to conduct election and indeed validly re-elected on 10^th August 2024 for a second term of four years after his first term.

 

e)    A Declaration of this Honourable Court that in view of the 2^nd Claimant’s re-election as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria on the 10  August 2024 for a second term of four (4) years, the 2^nd Claimant is entitled to be recognized by all authorities including the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and be allowed to manage and administer the finances, affairs and assets of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) without any interference from the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants or their privies within the duration specified in the judgment of the Honourable Court delivered on the 9^th of July 2024 and the four years duration of the re-election in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

f)      An Order of this Court nullifying the purported National Delegate Conference requisitioned and held by Joshua Apebo (2^nd Defendant) or anyone else on the 12^th of August 2024 in defiance of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and without authorization of the 1^st and 2^nd Claimants, in contravention of Rule 14 (a) (ii) amongst other provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

g)    An Order of this Honorable Court setting aside all letters and correspondences issued by the 3^rd Defendant to the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants, particularly dated 20^th September 2024 and 4^th November 2024 purporting to recognize the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as the National President and Secretary-General of the 1^st Claimant without regards to the strict provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), Trade Dispute Act, Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria and the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

 

h)    An Order of this Honourable Court granting mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to forthwith recognize the 2^nd Claimant with all rights and privileges which amongst others include access to the national secretariat, accumulated and future checkoff dues of the 1^st Claimant as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

i)      An Order of this Honourable Court granting perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants (more particularly the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants) or their servants, privies, assigns or howsoever described from setting-up, seeking recognition and being accorded any form of recognition as a purportedly formed faction or leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

j)      An Order of this Honourable Court that the second term of four years of the Claimant for which he was re-elected shall continue to run in exclusion of the duration of this suit before this Honourable Court.

 

k)    An Order of this Honourable Court granting the sum of N200, 000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million) Naira only as general damages in favour of the Claimants against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (only) for the psychological trauma, pain, agony and embarrassment caused the Claimants by frustrating, harassing, intimidating and instigating the 3^rd to 6^th Defendants failure to recognize and give effect to the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

 

l)      The sum of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million) Naira only as exemplary and aggravated damages against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for the disdain, contempt and willful disobedience and instigating the refusal of the 3^rd to 6^th Defendants failure to recognize and give effect to the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

 

m)  And for such other Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case as though same was specifically sought.

[3] In support of the Originating Summons is an Affidavit of seventy-two (72) paragraphs deposed to by the 2^nd Claimant on 17^th June 2025 and annexed thereto are exhibits ASCSN 1, ASCSN 2, 2a, ASCSN3-10, ASCSN11 & 11a, ASCSN12 &12a, ASCSN 13-26, ASCSN 26a & b, ASCSN 27-33.  In compliance with the Rules of this Court, a Written Address was filed on behalf of the Claimants with the counsel raising nine (9) issues for determination thus;

a)    Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) is a breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and contemptuous?

 

b)    Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the Defendants can be allowed to set up a parallel faction or leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), or be allowed to profit in any manner whatsoever after failing to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. wherein this honourable Court resolved the leadership crisis in the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and amongst others declared/reinstated the 2^nd Claimant as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria?

 

c)     Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the 2^nd Claimant adjudged as the duly elected and authentic National President in the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA), is the only one constitutionally empowered to continue to preside over all meetings of the 1^st Claimant; whether Special or Emergency Delegates Conference, National Executive Council (NEC) and the Central Working Committee (CWC) as well as to conduct the business(es) and election of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN)?

 

d)    Whether given the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to and obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and given the provisions of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the Defendants either by themselves, assigns, privies, agents or howsoever described can appoint, elect, recognize or impose Shehu Mohammed and Joshua Apebo or any other person as National President and Secretary General respectively of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN)?

 

e)     Whether the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) empowered Joshua Apebo (a paid employee of the ASCSN) or anyone to highjack the organs and structure of the 1^st Claimant or to single-handedly requisition any meeting of the Central Working Committee (CWC), National Executive Council (NEC), the National Delegates Conference or, empowered him while under suspension or not, to purportedly preside over meetings of a factional organ of the 1^st Claimant as well as direct the affairs of the 1^st Claimant including conducting any purported election of the 1^st Claimant while the 2^nd Claimant remained the substantive National President of the 1^st Claimant in view of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and given the provisions of Rules 4 (viii), 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN)?

 

f)      Whether in view of Rule 14 (a) (i) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the 2^nd Claimant as the incumbent National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria as confirmed by the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) was eligible and indeed validly re-elected on the 10^th of August 2024 for a second term of four years after his first term.

 

g)    Whether in view of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) reinstating the 2^nd Claimant as National President, the 2^nd Claimant ought not to have been allowed to complete his first four years term as National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) without interference and be entitled to manage and administer all the finances and affairs of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

h)    Whether in view of the Claimant’s re-election as President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) on the 10^th August 2024 for a second term of four (4) years, the 2^nd Claimant is not entitled to be recognized by all authorities in 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and be allowed to administer all affairs including finances of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) without any interference and in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN)?

 

i)      Whether the Claimants having established their case are entitled to all the reliefs sought in this case?

Claimants’ Case

[4] The Claimants’ case is that the 1^st Claimant is a registered trade union having membership of senior civil servants from grade level 7 and above in the federal and state public service of Nigeria, while 2^nd Claimant was its duly elected National President for a first tenure effective from 29^th July 2020. However, that due to some fabricated allegation of child trafficking instigated by the former Secretary-General of 1^st Claimant (Alade Bashir Lawal and others), 2^nd Claimant was arrested and prosecuted by NAPTIP before the FCT High Court which eventually found him innocent and acquitted him.

That because he was wrongfully removed from the leadership of 1^st Claimant by the former General Secretary and his cohorts which include 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, he challenged their actions before the National Industrial Court in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 and got judgment on 9^th July 2024 which reinstated him as the National President of 1^st Claimant, even though most of the years of his tenure had elapsed.

In addition to the above, that notwithstanding having knowledge of the outcome of the judgment in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 and his several correspondences, the Defendants failed to accord him the necessary recognition or comply with the orders of the Court. Rather, confusion set in as caused by 1^st and 2^nd Defendants who were misrepresenting themselves as National President and Secretary General of 1^st Claimant.

[5]  That the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1^st Claimant held a meeting on 26^th July 2024 where it was agreed that 2^nd Claimant should lead the Association to the next National Delegates Conference (NDC) in line with Rule 14 of their Constitution and a long standing custom/tradition, with a view to conducting elections to bring in new executives, which eventually held on 10^th August 2024 at Yana Apartments Abuja and where the 2^nd Claimant was re-elected as National President of 1^st Claimant.

However, that notwithstanding 2^nd Claimant’s re-election and notice to the 3^rd-5^th Defendants, they refused to accord him the necessary support; on the other hand, that without any legal basis the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants claimed to have been elected as National President and Secretary General of the 1^st Claimant on 12^th August 2024 at Lagos, thus misrepresenting themselves further as leaders in the 1^st Claimant. It is upon these facts that the Claimants have now instituted this action.

Legal Submissions by Claimants’ Counsel

Joint Submission on Issues 1-6

[6] Submitting on their issues 1-6 together, Claimants’ counsel drew the attention of the Court to exhibit ASCSN1 (i.e. Constitution of the 1^st Claimant) and particularly Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the contents of which he reproduced as forming the basis ‘of the strength of their case before the Court.

However, the said written address was incomplete as it stopped at page 38. During oral submissions before the Court, the lead counsel U. O. Sule SAN posited that Claimants suit seeks the interpretation of the Association’s constitution making specific reference to paragraphs 49 and 50 of their Affidavit in support as regards who manages its affairs; exhibit ASCSCN 3(Judgment of 9^th July 2024), Exhibit ASCSN 4 (Circular Notice of 10^th July 2024) which in their opinion triggered the commencement of crisis, Exhibits ASCSN 19 and 20 among others while urging the Court to grant their reliefs by holding that the 2^nd Claimant and his team are the authentic and legally elected executive members of 1^st Claimant.

1^st and 2^nd Defendants Counter-Affidavit and Written Address

[7] After receiving service of Claimants’ processes, 1^st and 2^nd Defendants filed their Memorandum of Appearance on 4^th July 2025 and a Counter Affidavit of eighty-one paragraphs deposed to on same 4^th July 2025 by one Comrade Ameh Sylvester Abah, a civil servant and the Unit Chairman of the Office of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation. Fortifying depositions in the Counter Affidavit are exhibits A1-A7, B-D, E & F and finally 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Written Address dated 3^rd July 2025.

1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Case

[8] The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ case differs from that of the Claimants in this wise; that the 2^nd Claimant’s tenure elapsed on 29^th July 2024 in line with the judgment of the National Industrial Court delivered on 9^th July 2024 and because 2^nd Claimant as well as the tenure of the CWC had ended, the Secretary-General dutifully gave notice to the relevant authorities and members of the Association for a National Delegates Conference (NDC), which held at Lagos on 12^th August 2024 and saw the election of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as National President and Secretary-General of 1^st Claimant, which had in attendance the representative of the 3^rd Defendant (Registrar of trade union) and that they had further communicated the outcome of same to 4^th and 5^th Defendants.

They claimed that no valid election was called and held by the 2^nd Claimant in view of the fact that his tenure had elapsed on 29^th July 2024, thus he lacked the power to conduct any election and could not have been re-elected as claimed.

1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counsel Legal Submissions

[9] Flowing from the Written Address filed on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, the learned counsel adopted the six issues for determination raised by the Claimants in their Originating Summons and further distilled a preliminary issue for determination thus;

“Whether the Claimants’ suit is not premature, incompetent and this Honourable Court is not robbed of the jurisdiction to entertain same.”

The counsel to 1^st and 2^nd Defendants adopted submissions made in support of their Notice of Preliminary Objection filed alongside their Counter Affidavit in urging the Court to resolve the above issue in their favour by holding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this suit.

[10] Further to the above, counsel argued jointly the six issues raised by Claimants’ counsel in their Originating Summons pointing out first, that Claimants’ counsel abandoned the 6 issues raised in their Originating Summons by reformulating another 9 issues in their written address which he postulated was wrong, adding that the purpose of formulating questions for determination in an Originating Summons is to direct the Court as a compass on the scope of dispute before it, and he relied on the authority of BESONG V. OCHINKE & ORS. (2022) LPELR-59622(SC) (PP.30-31, PARA. F). Consequently, he urged the Court to discountenance issues 3 and 4 as contained in the written address of the Claimants for having no root in the original six issues in the Originating Summons.

[11] Responding to the merits of Claimants’ case, 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel standing on the pedestal of the decision in AIYEOLA V. PEDRO (2014) LPELR-22915 (SC), submitted that a party who seeks judgment in his favour is required by law to produce credible evidence in support of his pleadings, else the pleadings will be deemed abandoned. The foregoing he submitted also aligns with the provisions of section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (As Amended) and the ageless legal principle of law that he who asserts a fact must prove same as decided in AG. ANAMBRA V. AG FEDERATION (2005) 9 NWLR (PT.931) 572 @ 633-634, PARAS. H-A.

Applying the above legal requirements to the case of the Claimants, Counsel here stated that it becomes imperative to evaluate the facts contained in the affidavit in support of their case alongside the reliefs sought from the Court vis-à-vis the position of the law.

Counsel noted that all parties are in agreement that the first tenure of the 2^nd Claimant expired on 29^th July 2024, thus that the bone of contention is whether after the expiration of his first tenure, the 2^nd Claimant actually presented himself for re-election and was re-elected in line with the Constitution of the 1^st Claimant; or, put differently, between the 2^nd Claimant and 1^st Defendant, who is the current National President of the 1^st Claimant duly elected in line with its Constitution? Counsel here challenged the case of the Claimants on the basis that they failed to demonstrate how 2^nd Claimant was re-elected in line with the Constitution of 1^st Claimant.

[12] Further to the above is the submission that a Plaintiff succeeds on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of a Defendant’s case: a Plaintiff is by law saddled with the burden of proving his claims even in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Defendant. This position he stated does not change even where there are competing claims or the relief sought is a declaratory one. Counsel cited in support of his position the cases of ABALAKA V. AKINSETE & ORS. (2023) LPELR-60349 (SC) (PP.18, PARAS. A); TANKO V. ECHENDU (2010) LPELR-3135 (SC) (PP. 18, PARA. A) and MOHAMMED V. WAMAKO & ORS. (2017) LPELR-42667 (SC) (PP.26, PARAS. A).

From the foregoing, 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel reiterated that the Claimants are not only seeking declaratory reliefs from the Court, but that there are competing claims of title as to the authentic president of the 1^st Claimant, thus the need for Claimants to prove their claims via credible evidence. That from a perusal of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, Claimants only attached a copy of the judgment in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 which expressly stated 2^nd Claimant’s tenure was to elapse on 29^th July 2024 and then they reproduced some portions of 1^st Claimant’s Constitution without demonstrating through cogent and credible evidence how 2^nd Claimant was re-elected after his tenure elapsed on 29^th July 2024 vis-à-vis compliance with the Constitution of 1^st Claimant.

[13] Relying on the foregoing submission and their Counter affidavit to the Originating Summons, counsel concluded that Claimants have woefully failed to prove their case and thus not entitled to any reliefs sought from the Court and that the suit is a mere academic exercise which is liable to be dismissed, urging the Court to so hold. 

3^rd Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit and Written Address

[14] With regard to the 3^rd Defendant, One Mr. Folanipe Amos O., Director of Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations (TUSIR) deposed to a Counter-Affidavit of Seventy-Five paragraphs on 23^rd September 2025, with a letter dated 2^nd February 2025 written by the 3^rd Defendant and addressed to the 4^th Defendant annexed as exhibit M2 as well as a written address.

The 3^rd Defendant’s counsel having identified the six issues raised by Claimants in their Originating Summons proceeded to distill a single preliminary issue thus;

“Whether or not this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter as currently constituted same being incompetent”.

3^rd Defendant’s Case

[15] the 3^rd Defendant’s case primarily aligned with that of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in addition to its asserting that its representative (Registrar of Trade Unions) attended and witnessed the election of 12^th August 2024 held in Lagos which produced the 1^st Defendant as National President, which subsequently gave birth to the letters written to 4^th Defendant to recognize him and his elected executives as the authentic leadership of 1^st Claimant.

 

3^rd Defendant’s counsel Legal Submissions

[16] It was submitted on behalf of the 3^rd Defendant that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter for the fact that this suit was commenced without first complying with the condition precedent provided under Part 1 of the Trade Disputes Act, which requires that trade disputes must have been presented to the Registrar of Trade Unions and then when there is a failure to resolve the dispute,  this Court can assume jurisdiction in an appellate form and not under its original jurisdiction. He cited in support the case of MR. ERIYO OSAKPAWAN V. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (CA/ABJ/CV/467/2021), delivered on 27^th July 2025.

[17] Emphasizing on the importance of jurisdiction as the live wire of any action and the spinal cord of a Court of law, 3^rd Defendant counsel relied on the authority of TRANSOCEAN SHIPPING VENTURES PRIVARTE LTD. V. MT. SEA STERLING (2018) LPELR-45108(CA) (PP.16, PARAS. A) to drive home the point that were such jurisdiction is lacking, the Court is expected to relieve itself from hearing the matter. In this wise, that the Claimants having not submitted this matter first for arbitration and conciliation, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over same.

[18] Furthermore, that because the 2^nd Claimant is no longer the president of the 1^st Claimant by reason of his tenure expiring on 29^th July 2024, this suit is a mere academic exercise.

[19] Also, that facts in this case are contentious and hostile: hence, the proper mode of commencement of this suit ought to be by Writ of Summons to give room for calling of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses as he cited the case of FASHEUN MOTORS LTDV. UBA LTD (2000) 1 NWLR (PT.640) 193 in support thereof. While noting further that where a suit is commenced with the wrong originating process, it robs the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as held in STANDARD CLEANING SERVICE CO. V. THE COUNCIL OF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIV. ILE-IFE (2011) LPELR (SIC) (PP.20-21, PARAS. F-D). On the whole, counsel urged the Court to dismiss this suit for the aforesaid reasons.

[20] Responding to the submissions made by the Claimants’ counsel on the six issues raised in the Originating Summons, 3^rd Defendant counsel in like manner as the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants made his submission in reaction jointly and basically reproduced the submissions of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel as can be seen in its paragraphs 7.0-8.1. The Court hereby takes cognizance of same as representing 3^rd Defendant’s submissions.

4^th Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit and Written Address

[21] The 4^th Defendant just as other Defendants filed a Counter-Affidavit of Fifteen paragraphs on 26^th September 2025, deposed to by one Ambali Ademola a litigation Clerk in the Legal Department of the 4^th Defendant with three similar annexures which are identified at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit as exhibits 2 and 3 (even though they are replica of the same document) alongside a written address also.

From the said Written Address, counsel here formulated three issues as follows:

       i.            Whether this action is liable to be dismissed and/or struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

    ii.            Whether or not the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is duly activated to entertain this matter arising from the failure of the parties to undergo the process of conciliation or arbitration and arbitral tribunal etc, contrary to section 7 (3) and (4) of the National Industrial (sic) Act, 2006?

  iii.            Whether the Claimant has disclosed any cause of action against the 4^th Defendant to be entitled to the reliefs sought?

4^th Defendant’s Case

[22] On behalf of the 4^th Defendant, their case is hinged on the fact that arising from the expiration of 2^nd Claimant’s tenure on 29^th July 2024 sequel to the Judgment of 9^th July 2024 and the subsequent elections that followed, it sought for clarification from 3^rd Defendant as to the authentic executives/leadership of 1^st Claimant so as to enable it determine whom to release the Association’s funds to and this gave rise to exhibit 2 sent by the 3^rd Defendant.

4^th Defendant’s Counsel Legal Submissions

[23] I should point out that during the proceedings of 16^th January 2026 when parties adopted their processes, counsel to the 4^th Defendant applied to withdraw its issues 1 and 2 contained in his written Address as bordering on the jurisdiction of this Court and same was granted; hence, only submissions on his issue 3 will be given consideration.

[24] 4^th Defendant’s counsel submission on issue 3 revolves on the non-disclosure of cause of action by the Claimants. He pointed out that where no cause of action is disclosed against a Defendant (in this instant, the 4^th Defendant), the action must be terminated against him citing in support the cases of LADOKE V. OLABAYO (1994) (sic)NWLR (PT.365) 734 @ 734 (sic), PARAS. D-E and OGBIMI V. OLOLO (1993) 7NWLR (PT.304) 125 @ 135, PARA. F.

[25] Counsel here sought to define the phrase ‘a cause of action’, as the bundle of aggregate of facts which the law will recognize as giving a plaintiff a substantive right to make a claim for a relief or remedy. It was pointed out that the 2^nd-6^th Claimants are no longer the current executives of the 1^st Claimant, counsel argued that a new set of executives have been sworn in and now recognized by the 3^rd-5^th Defendants.

Additionally, counsel reiterated the point that since the 4^th Defendant is not indebted to the 2^nd-6^th Claimants herein, then there is no cause of action against it and that this Court can proceed with the determination of this suit without the presence of 4^th Defendant as a party to the suit, relying on the case of JEMIDE V. NWANNE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 430) 752 @ 764, PARAS. G-H, and finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit or in the alternative strike out the name of the 4^th Defendant as a party to this suit.

5^th Defendant’s Written Address on Points of Law

[26] The 5^th Defendant did not file any Counter-Affidavit but a Written Reply on Points of Law was filed on 16^th July 2025, which did not raise any issue for determination but the counsel Enoch Simon, submitted that 5^th Defendant was appearing before the Court more particularly as the Chief Law Officer of the Federal Government of Nigeria sequel to section 150 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) and that its response will also be as an amicus curae to the Court since it has such constitutional role among others to assist the Court in interpretation of the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

[27] On the merits of the case, counsel to the 5^th Defendant posited that the case of the Claimants border on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), the provisions of the Constitution of the 1^st Claimant (ASCSN) in view of the judgment of this Court and the need for them to be bound by the Court’s decision. Thus, he was emphatic on the status of the 5^th Defendant as an interested party and being the defender and protector of the Constitution pursuant to section 150 of the CFRN which he submitted was reiterated in the cases of A.G. FEDERATION V. ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR (PT.851) 182; ELELU-HABEEB & ANOR V. A.G. FEDERATION & 2 ORS. (2012) 2SC (PT.1) 145 @ 161.

[28] It was submitted that in the face of the fact that exhibit ASCSN 3 (judgment of the Court) has not been appealed against, then it suffices that it is still valid, subsisting and binding on all parties; hence by extension, this Court is bound to also apply same. He relied on the authorities of ROSSEK & ORS V. A.C.B. LTD & ORS. (1993) 8 NWLR (PT.312) @ 471-472 and FUNMILAYO & ORS. V. FOLORUNSHO & ANOR (2014) LPELR-22541 (CA).

Flowing from the above, counsel urged the Court to hold that judgments of a competent Court of law must be obeyed at all times.

Claimants’ Further Affidavit and Reply on Points of Law in Response to 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counter Affidavit and Written Address

[29] In reaction to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ processes, Claimants through the 2^nd Claimant deposed to a Further Affidavit of seventy-three paragraphs on 25^th September 2025 with some documents annexed as exhibits A-G and in compliance with the Rules of Court, a Reply on Points of Law was filed alongside.

[30] On the competence of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counter Affidavit, Claimants’ counsel submitted that their Originating Summons was served on the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on 18^th June 2025 and by Order 15 Rule 5 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 (NICN Rules), their counter affidavit was supposed to be filed within 14 days (i.e. by 2^nd July 2025). Yet, same was filed on 4^th July 2025), which was out of time and without the leave of Court. Hence, that the said processes are incompetent and the Court should not countenance same.

Counsel here also challenged the depositions made by the deponent on the basis that he is not a party to the suit and giving evidence on behalf of natural persons. More so, that he did not show how he got information from the said defendants as per section 115 Evidence Act.

[31] Reacting to the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Court, counsel to the Claimants adopted their submissions of 22^nd July 2025 in opposition to 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ NPO of 4^th July 2025 in urging the Court to dismiss same. They added that sections 7 (1) (c) (i), (iv) & (v) of the NIC Act 2006 as well as sections 10, 16 and 19 all give authority to this Court to entertain matters such as the present one before it. In the same vein, relying on the cases of BOARD OF MGT, OF FMC MAKURDI V. KWEMBE (2015) LPELR-40486 (CA) (PP.16-17, PARAS. C) and MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS. V. MAFARA (2024) LPELR-62557 (CA) (PP.19-23, PARAS. D), counsel fortified his arguments as to the jurisdictional authority of this Court by reason of section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended) to the effect that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant suit. Further reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA), specifically at pages 10-13, 15-18 which according to counsel, resolved a similar issue against the Defendants and urged the Court to so hold.

[32] Reacting to arguments against the merits of the case, counsel contended that it has submitted 8 questions for determination and not 6 as stated by the Defendants.  Also, that the instant suit is not one commenced by a Notice of Appeal, even though the Court has the discretion of formulating issues that are suitable to it for determination.

Furthermore, that contrary to 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel position, the issues in the written address have their roots in the questions for determination which are all linked to the cause of action in the suit. That issue three is connected to questions 5 and 6 in the Originating Summons as it borders on the finding of this Court in its earlier judgment and the subsequent acts undertaken by the 2^nd Claimant as National President for which the said 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are equally making contentions thereon.

The above submissions were also made with reference to issue 4 which Claimants’ counsel argued are tied to questions 2, 3 and 4 in the Originating Summons.

[33] Again, that even though Claimants are not contending the position of the law at paragraphs 6.3-6.5 of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Written Address, the arguments at paragraph 6.7 of the said Written Address as to the rightful National President of 1^st Claimant is misconceived because the Claimants have shown by exhibits and relevant provisions of 1^st Claimant’s Constitution of his right to continue to be in office as National President.

Counsel noted that in civil proceedings, the burden of proof is not static but shifts especially in a situation where the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have also made competing claims by parading themselves as National President and Secretary General of 1^st Claimant. He cited the case of ITAUMA V. AKPE-IME (2000) LPELR-1557 (SC) (P.10, PARAS. D-E) to substantiate his position.

[34] Finally, regarding the import of this suit vis-à-vis the judgment in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022, counsel noted that the orders made therein were declaratory in nature and as such cannot be executed, however that any infringement on the rights declared therein give rise to fresh proceedings for enforcement. Reliance was placed on IRAGBIJI & ANOR V. OYEWINLE & 2 ORS. (2013) 13 NWLR (PT.1372) 566 @ 580, PARA. D.

The Court was then urged to grant the reliefs sought by Claimants.

Claimants’ Further Affidavit and Reply on Points of Law in Response to 3^rd Defendant’s Counter Affidavit and Written Address

[35] In response to the 3^rd Defendant’s processes, Claimants yet again through the same 2^nd Claimant deposed to a Further Affidavit of eighty-eight paragraphs on 13^th January 2026 with some documents annexed as exhibits A-G and in compliance with the Rules of Court, a written address was filed alongside.

Regarding the competence of 3^rd Defendant’s Counter Affidavit, Claimants’ counsel noted that depositions in paragraphs 6, 7, 21-24, 26-42, 45, 46, 48-51, 54-59 and 61-63 are not within the purview of Mr. Falonipe O. Amos’ knowledge and that neither did he state the source of his information nor his belief in them as required by section 115 (3) & (4) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (As Amended), but that it was only in paragraph 25 he made such reference. Counsel relied on the authority of SILAS V. INEC (2024) 12NWLR (PT.1953) 571 @ 599-600, PARAS. B-C.

[36] Reacting to issue of jurisdiction counsel replicated his submissions on the same point as contained in his response to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ submissions thereon.

[37] Regarding the contention of the 3^rd Defendant that this suit ought to be commenced by Writ of Summons and not Originating Summons because the facts between the parties are hostile, Claimants’ counsel submitted that the Court can look at the facts of a case side by side the documents presented for interpretation and still give a judgment without calling for oral evidence as sought in the instant case. That the filing of a counter affidavit does not necessarily mean the facts in issue are hostile. Counsel cited in support the cases of OKEZIE V. CBN (2020) 15 NWLR (PT.1747) 181 @ 206 PARAS. B-F; 208 PARAS. A-B and GLOBAL FLEET OIL & OIL & GAS (NIG) LTD. V. OROK (2021) 1 NWLR (PT.1758) 451 @ 475, PARAS. B-D, G-H.

That assuming without conceding that this suit ought to be commenced by Writ of Summons, the proper order for the Court to make is to direct parties to file pleadings and not striking out as argued. He relied on the case of ANYADIEGWU & ANOR V. ALAEBO & ORS. (2021) LPELR-56182 (CA) (PP.14-15, PARAS. B-B).

[38] Regarding the merits of the case, Claimants’ counsel also rehashed his submissions on the same point as contained in his response to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ submissions thereon, specifically, on the disparity between questions for determination in the Originating Summons and issues in the Written Address, as well as the prove of Claimants’ case.

Finally, Claimants’ counsel urged the Court to resolve the issues raised in favour of the Claimants and against the 3^rd Defendant who in his opinion has no identifiable interest to protect.

Claimants’ Counsel Response to 4^th Defendant’s Counter Affidavit and Written Address

[39] Reacting to the 4^th Defendant’s processes, the same 2^nd Claimant deposed to a Further Affidavit of thirty-five paragraphs on 13^th January 2026 alongside a written address. Counsel here also replicated his submission on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court and urged the Court to discountenance same.

[40] With reference to the arguments canvassed on 4^th Defendant’s issue three over non-disclosure of a reasonable cause of action, it was posited that the request by Claimants for release of check-off dues from the 4^th Defendant after re-election which was ignored up to the commencement of this action makes the 4^th Defendant a necessary and proper party.

In referring to the case of BRITTANIA-U (NIG) LTD V. CHEVRON (NIG) LTD. (2025) 3 NWLR (PT.1979) 197 @ 258 PARAS. D-H, a definition of what constitutes ‘a cause of action’ was proffered as a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain a remedy from another. Also, that in order to ascertain if a cause of action exists, all the Court needs to consider is the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and pleadings; in this case, the Originating Summons and Affidavit in support, citing AJUWON V. GOV. OYO STATE (2021) 16 NWLR (PT.1803) 485 @ 540, PARAS. A-H; 541, PARAS. C-D. He thus made reference to paragraphs 11, 39, 46, 55, 57, 62, 64 and 66 of Claimants’ affidavit in support of Originating Summons as disclosing a reasonable cause of action against the 4^th Defendant. Equally, that asides the Claimants, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have also written to the 4^th Defendant requesting for release of check-off dues to them via exhibit ASCSN 27, which it said it would not release until all pending suits are concluded, but that it acted contrary to that position; making it imperative to have them as a party to this suit and be bound by the outcome of the decision of the Court. Counsel sought refuge in the case of MATINO (NIG) LTD. V. VIEWPOINT (NIG) LTD & ORS. (2021) LPELR-56262(CA) (PP.57, PARAS. A) and urged the Court to resolve the issue in their favour.

[41] Addressing submissions made at paragraph 7.3 of 4^th Defendant’s written address, Claimants’ counsel submitted that this case is not for execution of judgment but for interpretation of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended), Constitution of the 1^st Claimant in the light of the decision of the NIC in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022, the assumption of office by 2^nd Claimant, his re-election for a 2^nd term as president and entitlement to the control and management of the check-off dues of the 1^st Claimant. He concluded by urging the Court to grant their reliefs.

Decision

[42] This judgment is hinged on the case of the Claimants, more particularly the 2^nd Claimant who claims to be the National President of 1^st Claimant (ASCSN) by placing reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) which reinstated him as National President of 1^st Claimant and that he led the Association to and conducted another election on 10^th August 2024 sequel to a meeting held on 26^th July 2024 which extended his tenure and that of the Central Working Committee (CWC) for the said purpose of bringing in a new set of national executives. That consequent on the foregoing, he was re-elected for another four years’ term as National President of the 1^st Claimant. His grouse however, is that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have been parading themselves as National President and Secretary-General of the ASCSN, a factional leadership group who claimed to have conducted a parallel election on 12^th August 2024 without any legal basis.

The 3^rd–5^th Defendants have been joined in the matter among other reasons, for failing to give recognition to the 2^nd Claimant as National President of the 1^st Claimant.

[43] I have carefully considered the processes filed by counsel to the various parties vis-à-vis exhibits attached and listened to their oral submissions on the different issues raised in this action. I am of the view that it is pertinent to first of all deal with some preliminary issues which have come to my notice before delving into the merits of the case as the circumstance may permit. Also, that in the course of resolving the issues in this matter, no reference shall be made to the erstwhile 6^th Defendant (i.e. Inspector General of Police) as his name was struck out from being a party in the Court’s ruling of 4^th December 2025.

Resolution of Preliminary Issues

Jurisdiction of the Court

[44] A common denominator running through the issues raised by the Defendants with the exception of 5^th Defendant, is the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this suit for the reason that the subject matter ought to have been first referred to the Industrial Arbitration Panel or even gone through Arbitration and Conciliation before coming to the NIC in an appellate capacity.

[45] It should be pointed out as I had done earlier that the 4^th Defendant counsel during proceedings of 16^th January 2026, when parties adopted their processes to the substantive suit applied to withdraw his issues 1 and 2 challenging the jurisdiction of this Court which was granted. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants adopted their written addresses with the said objections still pending before the Court and to which the Claimants reacted to in their Further Affidavit and written Addresses filed 25^th September 2025 and 13^th January 2026 respectively noting particularly at paragraph 2.8 of their written address in response to 3^rd Defendant’s Written Address that this Court had earlier determined the issue.

[46] The law is trite that where an issue has been heard and determined on the merits by a Court of competent jurisdiction, parties are precluded from relitigating that issue before the same Court and as between the same parties. This is known as issue estoppel and by extension the Court itself is admonished to desist from rehearing such an issue as though sitting on Appeal over same. See the cases of AJIBODE V. GBADAMOSI [2021] 7 NWLR (PT. 1776) 475 @ 509, PARAS C-D and OBINECHE V. AKUSOBI [2010] 12 NWLR (PT. 1208) 383.

I took the pains of going over the record of proceedings in this suit and with specific reference to the date of 4^th December 2025, when the Court delivered a Ruling on the same issue challenging its jurisdiction on same grounds as filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and erstwhile 6^th Defendant (i.e. Inspector General of Police), and consequently dismissed the said objections for lacking in merit. That being the case, this Court cannot again determine the said objections as there is a subsisting ruling on the said issue which has already been laid to rest since 4^th December 2025, because that will amount to the Court sitting on appeal over its decision. See the case of KOLO V. NPF & ORS. (2018) LPELR-43635(CA). Hence, the said preliminary issue on jurisdiction of the Court as contained at paragraphs 5.0-5.2 of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Written Address on the one hand and paragraphs 4.0-4.2, 5.0-5.2 (a), and then 6.0-6.6 of the 3^rd Defendant on the other hand are all hereby discountenanced. I so hold.

[47] There still however is a portion of the 3^rd Defendant’s objection which is not cut off by my holding supra and needs to be resolved. This borders on the Claimants’ case being academic and the matter commenced wrongly vide Originating Summons while containing hostile facts. See paragraphs 5.2 (b & c) and 6.7-6.10 of 3^rd Defendant’s Written Address.

The Suit is an Academic Exercise

[48] With reference to the contention that 2^nd Claimant is not the authentic President of the 1^st Claimant and as such this suit is academic, I waste no time in stating that such kind of contention is not one which can be determined at a preliminary stage of trial because the issue as to the rightful National president of the 1^st Claimant forms a major fulcrum in the questions for determination and reliefs sought from the Court and which remain live issues for determination on the merits. I so hold. See ELIGWE V. OKPOKIRI (2015) 2 NWLR (PT. 1443)348 @ 372-373 and IJAODOLA V. UNILORIN GOVERNING COUNCIL (2018) 14 NWLR (PT.1638) 32 @ 45, PARA. C. where the Apex Court held thus;

“A suit becomes academic when the questions placed before the Court for determination are no longer live issues in the subject matter of the suit, because it is spent and the successful party cannot obtain any right or benefit. Courts deal with live issues, which will have bearing in one way or the other on any of the parties or all the parties.”

Wrong mode of Commencing Suit by Originating Summons

[49] Regarding the submissions that this suit contains hostile facts and as such ought not to have been commenced via Originating Summons, Claimants’ counsel in response posited that the filing of a Counter-Affidavit to an Originating Summons does not necessarily imply facts are in dispute. More so, that where there are documents sufficient to determine the action, then there will be no need to call oral evidence. On the other hand, that should the Court find that the action was wrongly commenced via Originating Summons, the proper order to make is directing the parties to file pleadings and not striking out the suit.

[50] Order 3 Rule 3 of the NICN Rules provides for commencing an action by way of Originating Summons where the issues to be resolved is premised on the interpretation of any constitution, enactment or agreement relating to any other instrument relating to employment, labour and industrial relations in respect of which this Court has jurisdiction as provided in section 254 (C) of the 1999 Constitution (As Amended).

A perusal of the questions submitted for determination of this suit reveal the Claimants are seeking interpretation of certain Rules of 1^st Claimant’s Constitution as well as the judgment in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 as applicable to the acts undertaken by the parties herein and as it relates to the reliefs sought. Also, there abound documents as evidence of assertions of facts which to my mind is sufficient to enable the Court reach a decision on the questions posed before it. That being the case, I find no merit in the contention of 3^rd Defendant counsel that this matter was wrongly commenced by Originating summons and same is refused. I so hold.

No Cause of Action Against 4^th Defendant

[51] Another preliminary issue raised is that there is no cause of action disclosed against the 4^th Defendant by the Claimants, in that nothing has been placed before the Court to show 4^th Defendant is indebted to the Claimants in anyway. Contrary to the foregoing, Claimants counsel argued that 4^th Defendant is a necessary and proper party in this suit for the fact that the issues of payment of check-off dues of the 1^st Claimant is within its control and that after having knowledge of the decision of 9^th July 2024, the 4^th Defendant failed to release the check-off dues to them and has further stated that between the Claimants and 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, it will not release any check-off dues until all pending matters as to the authentic leadership of the 1^st Claimant is resolved.

[52] A reasonable cause of action has been interpreted by our Courts to mean a combination of facts and circumstances giving rise to the right to file a claim in Court for a remedy. See OKAFOR V. BENDE DIVISIONAL UNION, JOS BRANCH (2017) 5 NWLR (PT. 1559) 385 @ 417, PARA. E-G and MULIMA V. USMAN (2014) 16 NWLR (PT.1432) 160 @ 198, PARA. F-H. Furthermore, to determine whether a Claimant has established or disclosed cause of action, the Court will make recourse to the Writ of Summons and statement of claim (in this case the Originating Summons and Affidavit in support). See OKAFOR V. BENDE DIVISIONAL UNION, JOS BRANCH (SUPRA).

[53] Having considered the Originating Summons and Affidavit in support of this case, it is my observation that questions 3 and 6 have bearing on the actions of the 4^th Defendant; so also, reliefs 3, 5, 7 and 8 among others. Paragraphs 24, 25, 39, 46, 47, 62, 64, 66 among others of the Affidavit in support disclose facts of actions taken or refused to be taken by the 4^th Defendant sequel to the issue of 2^nd Claimant’s leadership and thus creating some semblance of responsibility by the 4^th Defendant to the Claimants herein in the event this case is resolved in his favour.

I should as a matter of fact note in addition to the submissions made by Claimants’ counsel that the 4^th Defendant (i.e. Accountant General of the Federation) even though he is not a party to the tussle for power or leadership in this suit, but that his consequential role in releasing of funds for the running of 1^st Claimant Association makes him a proper party in this suit as one who though not interested in the plaintiff’s claims, is made a party for some good reason. See APUGO V. UGOJI (2022) 16 NWLR (PT. 1857) 669 @ 693, PARA. F.

Proliferation of Issues for Determination in Claimants’ Written Address from Questions for Determination in Originating Summons

[54] The 1^st -3^rd Defendants all queried Claimants’ counsel approach of raising 9 issues for determination in his written address, as against the 6 questions for determination submitted in Claimants Originating Summons and urged the Court to discountenance all issues not rooted in the questions submitted, particularly issues 3 and 4 so raised. Claimants’ counsel opposed the said contention, noting that even this Court can distill its own questions for determination aside the ones submitted by the Claimants.

In the case of OKEZIE V. CBN (2020) 15 NWLR (PT.1747) 181 @ 200, PARAS. A & G, the Supreme Court held as follows;

“However, a party who does not desire to raise questions in his Originating Summons can avail himself of the use of special Form 4, as it is not necessary to raise questions in the Originating Summons.”

“Justice clearly does not reside in the Form of the processes of the Court. Where there are sufficient provisions in the Rules of the Court to sustain an action, the rules of natural justice demand that parties should be heard with a view of resolving their dispute once and for all.” 

While I am not oblivious of the decision in the case of BESONG V. OCHINKE & ORS. (SUPRA) referred to by the 1^st-3^rd Defendants, my take from the above is that even though Claimants have distilled more issues by reason of its written address, what should be of paramount importance is that they are rooted in the Claimants’ case and Defendants, as opposing parties had the opportunity of responding to same: the latter part I am aware is not even the issue here.

[55] Upon further scrutiny, it is my observation that the said issues 3 and 4 being challenged by the 1^st-3^rd Defendants actually are either a rehashed or rephrased version of questions 3, 4 and 5 in the Originating Summons. This is in addition to the fact that Order 3 Rule 17 (1) (c) of the NICN Rules referring to what must accompany an Originating Summons stipulated thus;

“a Written Address containing the issues to be determined and succinct argument of the issues”.

The concomitant effect of what I am saying is that the contention raised here is to my mind one holding unto technicalities than substance and I therefore find no merit in same. I so hold. The issue is resolved in favour of the Claimants.

Challenge as to Competence of Processes filed Out of Time by both Claimants and the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants

[56] The Claimants’ counsel had at paragraph 2.1 of his Reply on Points of Law filed on 25^th September 2025 to 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counter Affidavit and written Address challenged the competence of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counter-Affidavit and Written Address to the Originating Summon on the basis that it was filed out of time contrary to Order 15 Rule 5 of the NICN Rules. He noted that while the Originating Summons was served on them on 18^th June 2024, their Counter-Affidavit and Written Address were filed on 4^th July 2025 instead of 2^nd July 2025 and without leave of Court. No submissions were made to counter these assertions by 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel. Conversely, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel during the proceedings of 16^th January 2026 orally raised an objection also to the competence of Claimants’ further affidavit of 25^th September 2025 for being out of time. The Claimants’ counsel also did not make any submission in response to the issue.

[57] What is the position of our law concerning processes filed out of time and without leave of Court to regularize same? Going by the provisions of Order 57 Rule 5 of the NICN Rules and specifically its proviso, it stipulates that where any process is accepted for filing by default on the part of the officer of the Court in the Registry for which appropriate fees or penalty ought to have been paid and is not paid, such process shall be incompetent and not be allowed to be used for the purpose for which it is intended, until the appropriate fees is paid.

[58] I have carefully gone over the processes in question filed by each of the parties in contention and taken note of the proofs of service in respect thereto. It is crystal clear that the Originating Summons herein was served on 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on 18^th June 2025, while the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court provide that they were to file their process in opposition within 14 days as stipulated therein which was to be at the most on 2^nd July 2025. The implication is that the said processes filed on 4^th July 2025 and without the leave of Court are incompetent.

[59] Regarding the further affidavit and Reply on points of Law of the Claimants, it is apparent that 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Counter-Affidavit and written Address were also served on the same 4^th July 2025 when the processes were filed; going by Order 15 Rule 6 of the same NICN Rules, Claimants had 7 days within which to file their Reply on Points of Law. This they also did not comply with, having filed same on 25^th September 2025. However, I should point out that going by the chronology of filing processes in a suit, since the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ processes which came after the Originating Summons was not filed within time; and as it stands it is incompetent (having not yet been regularized), Claimants’ further affidavit and reply on points of Law will also be incompetent, having built same on an incompetent process.

[60] Notwithstanding my synopsis above, I have by reason of my presiding over this case observed the sensitivity of the issues therein in addition to the fact that the 1^st Claimant is an umbrella Association of senior civil servants both at the states and Federal level of governments with a large membership of about six Hundred Thousand. Now, Order 5 Rules 1 & 6 (3) and Order 57 Rule 4 (1 & 2) of the NICN Rules provides thus;

Order 5 Rule 1 “Failure to comply with any of these Rules may be treated as an irregularity and the Court may give any direction as it thinks fit.”

6 (3) “In any proceedings before it, the Court shall apply fair and flexible procedure and shall not allow mere technicalities to becloud doing justice to the parties based on the law, equity and fairness while also considering the facts of any matter before it.”

While Order 57 Rule 4 (2) of the NICN Rules provides;

“Subject to the provisions of any Act or law to the contrary, the Court may suo motu or on application and on good cause shown, extend or abridge any period prescribed by these rules”

This Court in view of the need to determine this matter on the merits has deemed it appropriate to invoke its powers under the said Order 5 Rules 1 & 6 (3) and Order 57 Rule 4 (1 & 2) of the NICN Rules to depart from the Rules of this Court and suo motu extend the period prescribed by these Rules for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to regularize their Counter-Affidavit and written address filed on 4^th July 2025. Equally, Claimants’ Further Affidavit and Reply on points of Law filed 25^th September 2025 is also deemed properly filed and served. I so hold.

The overall implication of what I am saying is that in the interest of justice and pursuant to the same provisions of these Rules, the objection of Claimants on the one hand and that of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are hereby discountenanced.

Non-Compliance with section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (As Amended)

[61] Claimants’ counsel in reaction to 1^st- 3^rd Defendants’ processes challenged the depositions of the deponents with reference to some specific paragraphs that the deponents did not state the source of their information nor how they came about the information being deposed to. I have scrutinized the Counter-Affidavits of both 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as well as the 3^rd Defendant. It is my observation that Comrade Ameh Sylvester Abah-deponent for 1^st and 2^nd Defendants has clearly stated at paragraphs 1 and 2 of his deposition that he is the Unit Chairman of the Head of Civil Service of the Federation by reason of which he is conversant with the facts deposed and has the authority of 1^st Defendant to make such depositions. This is in addition to the glaring fact that matters deposed therein are based on documentary evidence, thus I do not see how such has incapacitated him or breached the provisions of section 115 of the Evidence Act, I so hold.

[62] In the same vein, on behalf of the 3^rd Defendant, the deponent has stated at paragraph 1 that he was the Registrar of Trade Union under the Ministry of Labour when the core issues in the suit began and thus conversant with the facts deposed therein. This also is in addition to the documentary evidences attached in support of such assertions and Claimants’ depositions that the said deponent regularly fraternized with the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants beyond his official capacity by taking sides with them. See paragraphs 8-13 of Claimants’ Further Affidavit filed on 13^th January 2026 against 3^rd Defendant and exhibits C and D attached thereto.

In all, the said issue is resolved against the Claimants and this Court shall countenance the said paragraphs of the Counter affidavits in question. I so hold.

Resolution of Substantive Suit

Issues Distilled by the Court

[63] Having rummaged the length and breadth of this case and taken note of the critical areas in dispute, I am of the view that the issues relevant to the determination of this case are as follows:

a.     Whether the 2^nd Claimant had the legal vires to conduct any election after the date of 29^th July 2024 which was to be his last date as President of the ASCSN?

b.     Whether there is any Custom or tradition of the 1^st Claimant to avail the 2^nd Claimant stay in office beyond 29^th July 2025 and subsequently conduct elections for a new set of National Executives of the 1^st Claimant?

c.      Whether the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ election as National President and Secretary General of 1^st Claimant on 12^th August 2024 was valid?

d.     Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought?

In the course of summarizing the processes of parties with regards to this judgment, I observed that Claimants either by carelessness or inadvertence filed an incomplete Written Address in support of the Originating Summons as same practically stopped at the reproduction of Rule 10 (ii) of 1^st Claimant’s Constitution under the heading of Legal Arguments. Be that as it may, this Court will consider whatever evidence has been presented by reason of their affidavit in support and exhibits attached thereto.  

Moving on from that, I proceed to the meat of this case;

Resolution of Issues a, b and c Jointly

[64] The position of the law has always been sacrosanct that the burden of proving a fact lies on a party who will fail if no evidence is adduced by either of the parties in a suit as decided in the case of NITEL LTD V. OKEKE (2017) 9 NWLR (PT.1571) 439 @ 462, PARA. G-H and which judicial authority derived strength from sections 131-133 of the Evidence Act 2011 (As Amended). In the instant case, it is easy to say this burden lies on the Claimants who have come seeking certain reliefs from this Court.

[65] Having considered the gamut of the case of the parties vide the processes filed before me and pieces of evidence attached, certain facts are clear and not in dispute to wit:

a.      That the 2^nd Claimant was elected for a term of four years as the National President of 1^st Claimant from 29^th July 2020 and which was to elapse on 29^th July 2024.

b.     That sometime in 2021, due to some internal wrangling and a case of child trafficking against 2^nd Claimant, he was suspended as the National President and eventually expelled.

c.      That 2^nd Claimant’s expulsion also affected his co-elected executives.

d.     Following the scenario at paragraph c above, Claimant instituted an action in this Court in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022, with judgment delivered on 9^th July 2024, setting aside his expulsion and reinstating him as National President. See exhibit ASCSN 3.

e.      A Notice of Appeal was filed against the said judgment vide Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/780/2024 on 11^th July 2024 and later withdrawn by a Notice of withdrawal filed on 22^nd January 2025. See also exhibits ASCSN 8 and 9.

However, what is in dispute between the parties is whether 2^nd Claimant could conduct any election after the 29^th July 2024, when his tenure as National President had elapsed. This in itself is the crux of issue one.

[66] The 2^nd Claimant in a bid to prove his authority first of all referred to the Constitution of 1^st Claimant (i.e. exhibit ASCSN 1) and specifically Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i) & (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i-iii) as the basis for 2^nd Claimant’s authority.

The said Rule 5 of exhibit ASCSN 1 vest supreme authority of the Association in the National/Special Delegates Conference (hereinafter referred to as NDC or SDC as the circumstances may demand). Rule 10 focuses on the Agenda of the NDC, while Rule 11 relates to the Special/Emergency Delegates Conference. Rule 12 establishes the National Executive Council (NEC), its membership, duties and powers; just as Rule 13 talks about the Central Working Committee (CWC) and Rule 14 focused on the Principal National Officers and their duties which include the National President, Four Vice Presidents, National Treasurer, National Internal Auditor, the Trustee and Secretary General.

[67] It is on record that 2^nd Claimant through his affidavit in support of the Originating Summons stated that after getting judgment in SUIT NICN/ABJ/214/2022 on 9^th July 2024, he notified 3^rd-5^th Defendants of same while requesting for their recognition and cooperation to run the Association as contained in paragraphs 38-40 and exhibits ASCSN 10, 11, 11a and 12. Furthermore, that by exhibit ASCSN 19, the CWC of 1^st Claimant on 26^th July 2024 held an emergency virtual (zoom) meeting, extending the tenure of the CWC and 2^nd Claimant as National President to allow him lead the NDC for the purpose of electing new CWC members among others and which should be done within three months. The foregoing as asserted, resulted in the Emergency meeting of the NEC and Emergency 5^th Quadrennial NDC both held on 10^th August 2024 which saw the re-election of the 2^nd Claimant as National President, election of new CWC, suspension of Joshua Apebo (2^nd Defendant) and appointment of one Comrade Gamaliel Chinyere Acho as Secretary General amongst other things. (See paragraphs 49-51 of the affidavit in support and exhibits ASCSN 19, 20 & 21.

Claimants through the 2^nd Claimant also asserted the existence of a custom/tradition of the Association which permits an existing CWC to still act even after its tenure had expired to remain in office until the next NDC where they will be dissolved by the NDC and a new CWC elected (See paragraphs 49 of the Affidavit in support and 24 of 2^nd Claimant’s Further Affidavit of 25^th September 2025).

It is on the basis of the above that Claimants notified the 3^rd-5^th Defendants vide exhibits ASCSN 22-25 all dated 12^th August 2024, of their election as members of the CWC of 1^st Claimant and seeking to be so recognized.

[68] In opposition to the above, 1^st and 2^nd Defendants noted that the tenure of the 2^nd Claimant as National president having expired on 29^th July 2024 by reason of the judgment in exhibit ASCSN 3, he lacked the power to lead the 1^st Claimant for any NDC and any purported election that took place. Their counsel, Odum SAN in his oral submissions also denied the application of any custom or tradition in the Association that allows the National president or CWC whose tenure has expired to stay beyond its time which he submitted is contrary to their Constitution which is binding on all members. That assuming there was any such custom or tradition, it does not meet up with the requirement of customs under sections 17, 18, 19 and 73 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (As Amended). Thus, that the actions of 2^nd Claimant done after 29^th July 2024 as National President of 1^st Claimant cannot be valid.

In like manner, 1^st and 2^nd Defendants sought to disprove the validity of the Claimants’ Emergency 5^th Quadrennial Delegates Conference of 10^th August 2024, by stating in their Counter affidavit that such never took place as persons whose names were said to be in attendance denied same and even wrote disclaimers as per paragraphs 52- 54, 64-68 of their Counter Affidavit of 4^th July 2024. (See documents annexed to exhibit F).

[69] Rather, that the 1^st Defendant was duly elected and appointed as National President of 1^st Claimant on 12^th August 2024 at its 5^th Quadrennial Delegates Conference which took place at Airport Hotel, Lagos which drew delegates from all over the federation, officers of the Trade Union Congress and Registrar of Trade Union representing the Minister of Labour and the resultant recognition given him and his new executives as captured in exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8 (sic).

[70] At the expense of sounding repetitive, I have noted from the positions held by the parties and as captured by the judgment in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 of 9^th July 2024 that 2^nd Claimant’s tenure as National President of 1^st Claimant was to elapse on 29^th July 2024, barely 3weeks after the judgment was delivered. Also, that 2^nd Claimant indeed notified 3^rd-5^th Defendants of the outcome of the judgment as seen in exhibits ASCSN 10, 11 and 12.

What I need to resolve first, is whether the 2^nd Claimant had any authority to extend his tenure and that of the CWC as it sought to do by reason of its Constitution. A cursory look at Rule 5 of exhibit ASCSN 1 as I earlier noted is that it established the NDC as the supreme authority of the Association, Rule 10 (i) provides thus;

“The Secretary-General shall in consultation with the National President prepare the agenda of the National Delegates Conference.”

Rule 11 (ii) states;

“The Secretary-General, in consultation with the President, shall recommend to the National Executive Council, if the need arises, to convene a Special or Emergency Delegates Conference.”

Rule 12 (i) and (ii) also provides;

(i)              “There shall be a National Executive Council (NEC) of the Association, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’

(ii)           The Council shall consist of the following;

(a)                                                                                                                                                                                                          The National President

(b)                                                                                                                                                                                                          Four Vice Presidents

(c) The Treasurer

(d)                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Internal Auditor

(e)                                                                                                                                                                                                           The Trustee

(f)  The Secretary-General

(g)                                                                                                                                                                                                          …………………..

(h)                                                                                                                                                                                                          …………………”

Rule 13 (ix) stipulates thus;

“….. The Secretary-General may however summon a meeting of the Central Working Committee after due consultation with the National President as and when necessary.”

Meanwhile, Rule 14 (i) (a) (i) and (ii) provide that;

(a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (i) The National President shall be elected by secret ballot at the National Delegates Conference of the Association and shall serve for four years. He shall be eligible to re-election for another term of four years only.

(ii) He shall preside at all National and Special Emergency Delegates Conferences, meetings of the National Executive Council and the Central Working Committee and shall be responsible for the proper conduct of business at all such meetings. He shall have a casting vote in case of a tie”.

From the above quoted provisions of the 1^st Claimant’s Constitution which form a bulk of the provisions Claimants are seeking interpretation of, there is nowhere any issue of extension is mentioned and neither have I in rummaging through the entire provisions of the said Constitution seen any.

 

[71] Be that as it may, I have also observed that a recurring decimal in the provisions referred to is that the National President always has presiding powers over the association at any meeting. Be it, NDC or Emergency NDC, NEC, CWC etc. also, that such meetings are to be called or summoned by the Secretary-General ‘in consultation’ with the National President. The point should be emphasized here that the duty of calling for meetings in the 1^st Claimant generally lies with the Secretary General especially at the National level.

 

[72] In the present case, 2^nd Claimant had alluded to presiding over an Emergency CWC on 26^th July 2024 via Zoom. It is however glaring that such meeting was not called or summoned by the secretary General as facts show that he was not in the same camp of leadership with 2^nd Claimant. Hence, will the failure of the secretary General calling for such meeting in the face of the judgment in exhibit ASCSN3 and his powers in 1^st Claimant’s Constitution (Exhibit ASCSCN 1) be sufficient to render same invalid?  The answer is an emphatic no!

 

This is because there is evidence before me showing 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were very much in the know of the outcome of the judgment of 9^th July 2024, as 2^nd Defendant issued a circular dated 10^th July 2024 (exhibit ASCSN 4) to all CWC members, Branch/Chapter Executive Committees, Unit Executive Committees (states and Abuja) and all state secretaries to ignore any invitation for meetings; and another letter titled ‘General Information’, dated 11^th July 2024 and signed by one Igbokwe Chukwuma Igbokwe for Secretary-General vide exhibit ASCSN 5 which reads;

 

“I am directed to inform you to ignore calls or invitations from some persons to join WhatsApp group for a meeting in the name of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

You are advised to exit such group if you are included.

Any meeting that is not called or approved by the National Secretariate is illegal”.

[73] Also, reading the clear wordings of exhibit ASCSN 5 meant simply that the 2^nd Defendant herein in cohort with those who had been at the helm of affairs of 1^st Claimant for about 3 years or more when 2^nd Claimant was pursuing different legal tussles in Court did not give regard to the judgment in exhibit ASCSN 3 nullifying the acts of the Association and the officers who undertook same and reinstating the 2^nd Claimant as National President. This Court will not ask the Claimant of the impossible by insisting he waited for 2^nd Defendant to be the one to call for meeting. Thus, I find that 2^nd Claimant had the powers to summon and preside over the meeting of 26^th July 2024 by reason of the judgment in exhibit ASCSN 3 as his tenure at the time was still subsisting, I so hold. 

 

The foregoing by extension also portrays that 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and their progenitors (i.e. Alade Bashir Lawal- the former Secretary General with Tony Etim Okon- as acting President) had some form of influence over the members of 1^st Claimant as to their free will of participating in such meetings. Without completely ignoring the assertion of disclaimers written by some members of the CWC as evidenced in the annexures to exhibit F of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants Counter Affidavit, it behooves to say that the said 9 written disclaimers cannot on their own nullify the entirety of the attendance of 61 persons in exhibit ASCSN 20 and 116 persons in exhibit ASCSN 21, I so hold.

 

Flowing from my reasoning in the preceding paragraphs, what I am saying is that there were sufficient prevailing circumstances that warranted the 2^nd Claimant to have extended his tenure as well as that of the CWC of 1^st Claimant to enable them lead the Association to another NDC and conduct elections to bring in new executives. Hence, the Daily Trust Newspaper publication of 31^st July 2024 (exhibit ASCSN 13) claiming the tenure of the CWC of which the National President is member had expired on 29^th July 2024 was a nullity, while Claimants’ exhibit ASCSN 14 disproving it is valid. I so hold.

 

[74] Additionally, I am not unmindful of 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ counsel submission against the said Zoom meeting and his reliance on section 162 of the Evidence Act 2011 which borders on presumption as to statements in deeds, contracts or statutory documents 20 years old or more as being regular, but it needs to be noted here that such provision has no bearing with the issues at hand. I so hold.

 

[75] Furthermore, if the 2^nd Claimant could not by reason of 1^st Claimant’s Constitution extend his tenure and other co-elected executives beyond 29^th July 2024, I shall be considering the claim of the usage of customs and traditions of the Association which the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have denied exists nor meets the requirement of the Evidence Act.

 

What does the Evidence Act say about customs? Section 16 and 18 of the Act stipulates thus;

“16. (1) A custom may be adopted as part of the law governing a particular set of admissible circumstances if it can be judicially noticed or can be proved to exist by evidence.

(2) The burden of proving a custom shall lie upon the person alleging its existence.

 

18. (1) Where a custom cannot be established as one judicially noticed. it shall be proved as a fact.

(2) Where the existence or the nature of a custom applicable to a given case is in issue, there may be given in evidence the opinions of persons who would be likely to know of its existence in accordance with section 73.”

 

I also took the liberty of reproducing the contents of section 73 (1) of the Evidence Act which states thus;

 

73 (1) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right. The opinions as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed are admissible.

(2) The expression "general custom or right" includes customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons”.

 

Facts relevant to the prove of existence of the custom of an existing CWC conducting elections to bring in a new set of executives obviously rests on the Claimants who are asserting same by reason of section 17 (2) quoted above.

 

[76] Paragraph 49 of Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and 24 of 2^nd Claimant’s Further Affidavit of 25^th September 2025 reveal thus;

 

Paragraph 49 “That the CWC of the 1^st Claimant held a meeting on 26^th July 2024 in line with the Constitution of the 1^st Claimant and established decades old tradition of the Association and other labour union tradition in Nigeria for an existing CWC, even if its nominal tenure elapses, to remain in office until the next National Delegates Conference(NDC) whereat the Central Working Committee was formally dissolved by the National Delegates Conference and a new Central Working Committee is elected and sworn in”.

 

Paragraph 24 “That contrary to paragraph 19 of the Counter Affidavit, the tradition of the 1^st Claimant can be traced for instance to 1994 when Chief Igeh was the National President of the 1^st Claimant, he conducted the election that brought Mr. Thomas Esesoobo as National President; Thomas Esesoobo as National President conducted the election that brought in Mr. Sunday Job as National president; while Mr. Sunday Job as National president conducted the election in 2003 that brought in Mr. Olaitan as National president; Mr. Olaitan as National president conducted the election in 2012 that brought in Mr. Kaigama as National president; and then Mr. Kaigama in 2020 as National president conducted the election that brought in the 2^nd Claimant, Comrade Innocent Bola Audu as National president and in 2024, Comrade Innocent Bola-Audu conducted an election that re-elected him as national president”.

 

Flowing from the excerpts above, it is clear that beyond Claimants’ asserting the existence of such a custom, that from 1994 till 2020 when 2^nd Claimant came into power as National President, it was the outgoing CWC led by the National President that always led and conducted such elections. That being the case, I am more than persuaded that there exists such a custom and Claimants acted in line with such vis-à-vis his powers in 1^st Claimant’s Constitution. I so hold.

 

[77] I should still drum the point that assuming without holding that there was no such custom of the 1^st Claimant to extend the tenure of an existing CWC with a view to enabling them conduct elections to bring in a new exco, in the face of supervening circumstances as the one which the 2^nd Claimant faced (i.e. getting judgment less than 3 weeks to the end of his tenure among others), the doctrine of necessity or implied mandate which permits the taking of an action or decision which though not provided for in a law, but that it has become necessary to prevent more harm or a situation of chaos, will apply. The Courts will always give consideration to the application of the doctrine where it finds that the action taken became the only necessary thing to do and that there was no other alternative; it is a doctrine which creeps in to help salvage a situation which if left on its own will result in havoc or calamity.  This common law doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of NYESOM V. PETERSIDE (2016) 1 NWLR (PT.1492) 71 @ 124, PARA. D and DINGYADI V. INEC (NO.1) (2010) 18 NWLR (PT.1224) 1 @ 76, PARA. H. I so hold.

 

[78] The farther consequent implication is that the call for the emergency NEC and Emergency 5^th Quadrennial NDC of 10^th August 2024 by 2^nd Claimant and the business that took place there, more particularly elections were so validly held even if the Registrar of Trade Union who was invited on 7^th August vide exhibit ASCSN 22 refused to attend nor representatives of the Trade Union Congress as their presence was not a requirement of any law or the Association’s Constitution in giving it validity. I so hold.

 

It is expedient also for me to state that because this Court has upheld the Emergency meeting of the CWC of 1^st Claimant held on 26^th July 2024 and the subsequent Emergency meetings of 10^th August 2024 which brought in the new exco headed by 2^nd Claimant as valid, the far-reaching implications is that the 5^th Quadrennial NDC convened by 2^nd Defendant as Secretary General among the other unnamed factional leadership of 1^st Claimant stands to be and is held as illegal, null and void.

 

[79] At the risk of trying to reason with the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in particular, I should ask; under what authority did they conduct elections? If the Defendants who had claimed the tenure of the CWC had expired as at 29^th July 2024 and which has its key members being same with the National Officers and the NEC, when and who did they reconstitute to be the CWC and who led the Association to the said NDC held in Lagos? No specific fact was led to establish who led the association nor any document to that effect and yet the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants want this Court to rely on its purported election which for one took place subsequent to that of the Claimants and without any lawful authority. I definitely refrain from such, as it would mean any member of the Association from any branch will rise up one day in the face of supervening circumstances and claim to have the right to lead the Association for a NDC and by extension conduct elections. Will this not only open the floodgates of confusion and chaos? The obvious answer is in the affirmative!

 

[80] The point has already been made and I reiterate that while Claimants’ actions were valid and supported by law, the Defendants (especially 1^st and 2^nd) actions were unlawful for falling short of the law and which invariably misled the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants in their consequent actions taken or sought to be taken in this case which are also unlawful as something cannot be placed on nothing and expected to stand. I so hold. See the case of TAIWO & ANOR V. ADUGBOLE & ANOR (2003) LPELR-(P.18, PARAS. C-D).

 

Resolution of Issue d

[81] The Claimants sought for thirteen reliefs from the Court which are hinged on the success of issues a, b and c distilled by the Court. Having determined earlier that the said issues were all resolved in favour of the Claimants, it is without any shred of doubt that Claimants reliefs succeed.

 

[82] In addition, 2^nd Claimant had sought specifically in relief 10 for an order that his 2^nd term of four years should run in exclusion of the duration of this suit; there are decisions of our Courts wherein it has been held that for the purpose of computation of time, time spent in litigation should not be taken into consideration especially in cases of person elected into office to steer the affairs of such office. See the case of SIFAX (NIG) LTD. V. MIGFO (NIG) LTD (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1623) 138 @ 182-183, PARAS. G-B; 185, PARA. E.

 

It is on record that the 2^nd Claimant was re-elected as National President of 1^st Claimant on 10^th August 2024 and his 2^nd term of 4years was to run till 10^th August 2028; the instant suit was filed on 17^th June 2025 and counting from then to date being 15^th April 2026, is a span of 9 months 29 days leaving out 2 days to make it 10 months.  The import is that the period of 9 months and 29 days spent pursuing this matter and for which Claimants were incapacitated from managing the affairs of the 1^st Claimant in terms of control, collection of check off dues to managing the Association, having access to the secretariat which had been under restriction by the police amongst others, shall be added to the date of 10^th August 2028 when his tenure would ordinarily have elapsed. Thus, I find that in line with the decision referred to supra, Claimants’ relief 10 also succeeds and the 2^nd term shall now run till 15^th June 2029. I so hold.

 

[83] Regarding the claim for general damages in the sum of N200 Million Naira, it is trite law that general damages assuage a loss which flows naturally from the act of the Defendant and does not need to be specifically pleaded, but is usually awarded by the presiding Judge after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case. See the cases of MAKINDE & ORS V. REG. TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATION (2020) LPELR – 52549 (CA). PP. 31 – 32, PARA-B – B and ISMAIL V. GARBA (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1750) 302 @ 321 - 322 PARAS. H – A. Also, general damages are a class of damages granted at the discretion of the Court which is meant to assuage a Claimant for losses that flowed naturally from the acts of the Defendant as held in ASHAMA V. ALAGO (2021) ALL FWLR (PT.1099) 638. Having considered the antecedents of this case from 2021 which later resulted in the decision of 9^th July 2024 and the subsequent acts of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, I am convinced that there are facts which support the grant of general damages against them. It is in view of this that I award the sum of N10, 000, 000.00 (Ten Million Naira) each, totaling N20, 000, 000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as general damages in favour of the Claimants.

[84] As to the claim for exemplary and aggravated damages, the law recognizes such a claim as punitive damages granted in the face of a vindictive conduct or where it is established that the conduct of the Defendant deserves punishment. For example, where the conduct is wanton, discloses fraud, malice, cruelty, insolence etc. Also, that exemplary damages vary to some extent from aggravated damages in that the motives and conduct of the Defendant aggravating the injury to the Plaintiff would be taken into consideration in the assessment of compensatory damages. See the case of MEKWUNYE V. EMIRATES AIRLINES (2019) 9 NWLR (PT.1677) 191 @ 225, PARAS. D-E, where the Supreme Court adopted the reasoning above as decided in ODIBA V. AZEGE (1998) LPELR-2215 (SC) PG. 25; (1998) 9 NWLR (PT.566) 370.

[85] The record before me shows that the initial allegations against 2^nd Claimant in 2021 for child trafficking resulting in his suspension and expulsion from the 1^st Claimant was not established at the High Court of the FCT before Hon. Justice O. C. Agbaza, as he was discharged and acquitted via exhibit B on 18^th April 2023. Also, at paragraph 49 of page 47 of the judgement in SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/214/2022 (i.e. exhibit ASCSN 3) her lordship Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) in her decision berated Defendants therein for not restoring 2^nd Claimant to his position then as National president in the face of his innocence from the criminal trial for child trafficking, and that they unlawfully held unto the reins of power for which she granted his relief of reinstatement.

[86] Furthermore, it is still in defiance of the subsisting judgment above that the Defendants herein on 10^th and 11^th July 2024 vide exhibits ASCSN 4 and 5 warned their members of being part of any meeting called by Claimants as well as issuing the public notice of 31^st July 2024 asserting that the tenure of 1^st Claimant’s CWC had elapsed. These actions and the subsequent ones which included eventually presenting  a factional leadership to and misleading the 3^rd-5^th Defendants all point to the fact that 1^st and 2^nd Defendants particularly towing in the footsteps of their progenitors, had consistently conducted themselves in contempt of subsisting orders of court and in a manner  that drive home the point that they were bent on doing everything to ensure 2^nd Claimant in particular never actually took charge of 1^st Claimant nor executed his functions as its National President.

The implication of the above crystalizes to prove that their conducts were tainted with malice, contempt, insolence and wanton disregard for the rule of law and deserving of punishment. Consequently, I award the sum of N50, 000,000.00 (Fifty Million) Naira only as exemplary and aggravated damages against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants and in favour of the Claimants.

[87] On the whole, the case of the Claimants succeeds and it is hereby ordered as follows;

a)    A Declaration is made by this Honourable Court that by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to, as well as obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the subsequent election conducted on the 10^th August 2024 by the 2^nd Claimant as the National President of the 1^st Claimant in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), is wrongful and a violation of the Constitution of the Association.

 

b)    A Declaration is made that by the provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) more particularly the combined reading of Rules 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution Federal Republic of Nigeria, (As Amended), and the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) which resolved the leadership crisis of the 1^st Claimant, and the re-election of the 2^nd Claimant for a second term of four years as the National President of the 1^st Claimant; neither the 1st and 2^nd Defendants  nor anyone is entitled to hijack, set-up a parallel organ or structure/faction, seek recognition or be accorded any form of recognition as the leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) other than the 2^nd Claimant.

 

c)     A Declaration is made that consequent upon the failure of the Defendants to recognize, give effect to and obey the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9 July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and the provisions of Rules 5, 10, 11, 12 (i), (ii), 13 (ix), 14 (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the Defendants either by themselves, assigns, privies, agents or howsoever described cannot validly appoint, elect, recognize or impose Shehu Mohammed and Joshua Apebo or any other person as National President and Secretary General respectively of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

d)    A Declaration is made that in view of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and Rule 14 (a) (i) of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), the 2^nd Claimant as the incumbent National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria was qualified to conduct election and indeed validly re-elected on 10^th August 2024 for a second term of four years after his first term.

 

e)    A Declaration of this Honourable Court that in view of the 2^nd Claimant’s re-election as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria on the 10^th  August 2024 for a second term of four (4) years, the 2^nd Claimant is entitled to be recognized by all authorities including the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) and be allowed to manage and administer the finances, affairs and assets of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) without any interference from the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants or their privies within the duration specified in the judgment of the Honourable Court delivered on the 9^th of July 2024 and the four years duration of the re-election in line with the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

f)      An Order of this Court is made nullifying the purported National Delegate Conference requisitioned and held by Joshua Apebo (2^nd Defendant) or anyone else on the 12^th of August 2024 in defiance of the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA) and without authorization of the 1^st and 2^nd Claimants, in contravention of Rule 14 (a) (ii) amongst other provisions of the Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

g)    It is the Order of this Honorable Court that all letters and correspondences issued by the 3^rd Defendant to the 4^th and 5^th Defendants are hereby set aside, particularly the ones dated 20^th September 2024 and 4^th November 2024 purporting to recognize the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants as the National President and Secretary-General of the 1^st Claimant without regards to the strict provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), Trade Dispute Act, Constitution of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria and the judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

 

h)    An Order of mandatory injunction is made directing the Defendants to forthwith recognize the 2^nd Claimant with all rights and privileges which amongst others include access to the national secretariat, accumulated and future checkoff dues of the 1^st Claimant as the National President of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN).

 

i)      An Order of perpetual injunction is made restraining the Defendants (more particularly the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants) or their servants, privies, assigns or howsoever described form setting-up, seeking recognition and being accorded any form of recognition as a purportedly formed faction or leadership of the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) for the duration of his 2^nd term as National President of 1^st Claimant.

 

j)      It is the order of this Court that the second term of four years of the Claimant for which he was re-elected shall continue to run in exclusion of the duration of this suit before this Honourable Court which shall now elapse on 15^th June 2029.

 

k)    An Order of this Honourable Court is made  granting the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million) Naira each against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (only), totaling the sum of N20, 000, 000.00 (Twenty Million) Naira only as general damages in favour of the Claimants for the psychological trauma, pain, agony and embarrassment caused the Claimants for frustration, harassment, intimidation and instigating the 3^rd-5^th Defendants failure to recognize and give effect to the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

 

l)      The sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million) Naira only is awarded as exemplary and aggravated damages against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants for their acts of disdain, contempt and willful disobedience, and instigating the refusal of the 3^rd to 5^th Defendants failure to recognize and give effect to the unchallenged judgment of this Honourable Court in SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/214/2022 between COMRADE INNOCENT BOLA-AUDU VS. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS OF NIGERIA (ASCSN) & 2 ORS. delivered on 9^th July 2024 by his lordship, Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewunmi (now JCA).

Judgement is hereby entered.

 

                                     ____________________

                                         Justice R. B. Haastrup            

                                                                           JUDGE