IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

 

DATE: 4 MAY 2022                                                                       SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/235/2018

 

BETWEEN

1.      National Association of Scrap & Waste Dealers Employers of Nigeria

2.      Comrade John Obeh                                                                                        -           Claimants

 

AND

1.      Uko Iwaudofia

2.      Nzeribe Bloke

3.      Registrar of Trade Unions                                                                               -       Respondents

 

REPRESENTATION

Ifeanyi Edemba, for the claimants.

Ede S. Ede, for the 1st and 2nd defendants.

No legal representation for the 3rd defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The instant suit, as is Suit No. NICN/ABJ/236/2018, is principally about who are the validly elected officers of the National Association of Scrap & Waste Dealers Employers of Nigeria (NASWDEN), the 1st claimant in the instant suit. While the 2nd claimant in this suit argues that the 1st and 2nd respondents are not the National Officers of the 1st claimant, the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are part of the claimants in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/236/2018, are saying that they are the valid National Officers of NASWDEN. The claimants thus filed this suit on 13 September 2018 vide a complaint.

 

2. By their Further Amended Statement of Facts filed on 28 January 2020, the claimants are praying for the following reliefs:

(a)  A DECLARATION that the National Officers produced by the 1st claimant’s National Delegates Conference of 31st August 2018 held at Roop Hotels Limited, Kubwa, Abuja are the authentic National Officers of the 1st claimant for the period commencing from 1st September 2018 to 31st August 2022.

(b) A DECLARATION that the removal of the 1st respondent as the General Secretary of the 1st Claimant is lawful.

(c)  AN ORDER restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from parading themselves as the National Officers of the 1st claimant.

(d) AN INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd respondent from recognizing the 1st and 2nd respondents or any other person claiming through them as a National Officer of the 1st claimant.

(e)  EXAMPLARY (sic) DAMAGES against the 1st and 2nd respondents in the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000) only.

(f)   Cost of this action.

 

3. The respondents had no competent defence processes in reaction to the amended originating processes of the claimants. The 1st and 2nd respondents had filed their defence processes but without regularising them. The motion for regularisation was not moved even when trial commenced. At the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents, the claimants were even foreclosed from calling two witnesses whose depositions were not before the Court. And the case was set for the defence to open its case. As there was no valid defence processes, the claimants moved the Court vide a motion on notice of 7 July 2021 to foreclose the 1st and 2nd respondents and order the filing of written addresses. This request was granted by this Court.

 

4. In proof of their case, the claimants had called the following witnesses: John Paul Omeonu, a scrap dealer and the General Secretary of the 1st claimant, as CW1; Comrade John Egaji Obeh, a businessman trading in scrap metal, as CW2; Femi Omisakin, a businessman in scrap metals, as CW3; Okoh Benedict Alih, rejected by the Court as CW4 given the disparity in names as spelt by the witness relative to what is in the deposition (“Ben Ali Ako”); and Auwal Ahmed, a Legal Practitioner, as CW5. These witnesses tendered Exhibits C1 to C12; and were cross-examined by the1st and 2nd respondents’ counsel.

 

5. Given that the 1st and 2nd respondents had no competent defence processes before the Court, they rested their case on that of the claimants.

 

6. At the close of trials, parties filed their respective final written addresses. The claimants filed theirs on 6 December 2021, while the 1st and 2nd respondents filed theirs on 15 February 2022. The claimants’ reply on points of law was filed on 7 March 2022.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

7. To the claimants, their trade union conducts election every four (4) years to elect National Officers. The very first election took place in 2014. With the 2018 election in view, on 24 and 25 May 2018 the National Executive Committee (NEC) and Central Working Committee (CWC) of the union met in Abuja to constitute committees for the election. The election was to be conducted at the National Delegates Conference. Minus the Registrar of Trade unions, all the parties were present (referring to Exhibit C1). Two committees were raised at the meetings, the Electoral Committee and the Conference Organizing Committee. Three union members indicated interest to contest for the office of National President, namely: the 2nd claimant (Comrade John Obeh), Alhaji Lukman Onifade and the 2nd respondent (Mr Nzeribe Iloke).

 

8. Alhaji Lukman Onifade and the 2nd respondent (Mr Nzeribe Iloke) contrary to the code of conduct and guidelines for the election deployed anti-union and undemocratic tactics, culminating in their arrest and overnight detention of the 2nd claimant, Comrade John Obeh, a day to the date fixed for the election. He was however released by intervention of the Court. Mr Nzeribe Iloke and Uko Iwaudofia (1st respondent) decided to hold a parallel conference and had themselves declared winners at their conference. The regular conference, however, held as planned at Roop Hotels, Kubwa. It produced the 2nd claimant (Comrade John Obeh) and others as National Officers. Alhaji Lukman Onifade eventually joined the administration of Comrade John Obeh.

 

THE CASE OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS

9. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, the facts of this case arose from the election into various offices of the 1st claimant wherein the 2nd respondent was elected the National President of the National Association of the Scrap & Waste Employers of Nigeria and the 1st respondent appointed the General Secretary of the union via National Association of Scrap & Waste Employers of Nigeria. That during the National Delegates Conference that took place on the 31st day of August 2018, prior to the conference day when delegates have arrived from all parts of Nigeria, the Chairman of the Electoral Committee immediately without any notice or due consultation with the candidates for the election changed the venue of the election to Roop Hotels, Kubwa instead of Grand Valley Hotels which the union paid for. It was at this juncture that the 1st and 2nd respondents as well as other candidates like Lukeman Onifade who also contested for the office of the President alongside the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent defeated him at the polls. Consequently, other candidates for the elections decided that election must hold at Grand Valley Hotel, which was the agreed place. That at the end of this dispute, two elections were held, via the one held at the Grand Valley Hotels, Kubwa with the 2nd respondent emerging as the President beating his closest rival, Chief Lukeman Onifade, who later withdrew his own suit, and a parallel election held at the Roop Hotels by the 2nd claimant, which gave rise to this present suit while the election of Grand Valley Hotels gave rise to Suit No: NICN/ABJ/236/2018.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANTS

10. The claimants submitted a sole issues for determination i.e. “Whether the claimants have proven their case on the balance of probabilities”. To the claimants, it is settled that civil cases are determined on the balance of probabilities, which in itself connotes the preponderance of evidence, referring to section 133 of the Evidence Act 2011. That the trial court places the evidence adduced before it by the parties in the imaginary scale to see which side of the scale is heavier, citing Husseini v. Mohammed [2015] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100 SC at 128, Alechenu v. University of Jos [2015] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 334 at 370, Odofin v. Mogaji [1978] 4 SC 91 and Omorhirhi v. Enatevwere [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 746.

 

11. The claimants went on that in proof of these claims, four (4) witnesses testified for the claimant. The first witness was Mr John Paul Omeonu. He recognized and adopted his deposition on oath as his evidence in examination in chief. He was cross-examined by counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents. that his cross-examination did not elicit any contradiction with his evidence in chief. Rather, it reinforced and reestablished the case of the claimants.

 

12. The next witness was the 2nd claimant himself. He recognized and adopted his deposition on oath filed in this case as his evidence in examination in chief. Through him were tendered Exhibits C1, C2, C3 and C4. He adopted the exhibits as additional evidence. Exhibit C1 is Minutes of CWC meeting of 24/05/18; Minutes of NEC meeting of 25/05/18 and the Attendance sheets of both meetings showing that the 1st and 2nd respondents were present at that meeting. The 1st respondent actually signed the minutes. Exhibit C2 is Notice of Termination of Appointment and Expulsion of Uko Iwaudofia; Notice of National Delegates Conference served on 3rd respondent; Response to 3rd respondent’s Letter of Invitation, and Letter of Introduction of New National Executives of the 1st claimant to 3rd respondent. Exhibit C3 is signed undertaking by Uko Iwaudofia to provide money to the Conference Planning Committee which undertaking he breached. Exhibit C4 is the Letters of Invitation by which the Police invited the 2nd claimant and his supporters at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents, culminating in his eventual detention overnight at the eve of the election. That the cross-examination of the witness did not elicit any contradiction with his evidence in chief. Rather, it reinforced and reestablished the case of the claimants.

 

13. The claimants’ 3rd witness was Omisakin Femi. He recognized and adopted his deposition on oath as his evidence in examination in chief. Through him were tendered Exhibits C5, C6 and C7. He adopted the exhibits as additional evidence. Exhibit C5 is the mobile phone screenshot of this Court's bailiff on handcuffs as posted by Uko Iwaudofia. Exhibit C6 is WhatsApp printout of same Uko Iwaudofia celebrating that illegal arrest and detention of said bailiff of this Court. Exhibit C7 is the mandatory certificate of compliance with section 84 of Evidence Act 2011. That the witness’ cross-examination did not also elicit any contradiction with his deposition on oath. Rather, it also reinforced and reestablished the case of the claimants.

 

14. The last witness to testify for the claimants was Auwal Ahmed. He recognized and adopted his deposition on oath as his evidence in examination in chief. Through him were tendered Exhibits C8, C9, C10, C11 and C12. He adopted the exhibits as additional evidence. Exhibit C8 is Conference Planning Committee letter complaining of non-release of money for conference planning expenditure. Exhibits C9 and C10 are receipts from Nina Hotel on the conference planning expenditure. Exhibit C11 is a demand letter from Giftmat (conference food vendor) for balance of feeding costs and Exhibit C12 is the List of Winners of the election conducted at the National Delegates Conference. That the witness’ cross-examination did not also elicit any contradiction with his deposition on oath. Rather, it reinforced and reestablished the case of the claimants.

 

15. To the claimants, as has been highlighted earlier through Husseini v. Mohammed (supra), civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities by placing the parties’ cases on the imaginary scale of justice, citing Whyte v. Jack [1996] 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 407 at 441. That applying this to the instant case, the evidence of the claimants’ 4 witnesses shall be placed on the claimants' side of the imaginary scale, Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11 and C12 shall further be placed on the claimants’ side of the imaginary scale. On the respondents’ side of the imaginary scale nothing shall be placed. The respondents neither filed any pleadings nor led evidence.

 

16. Furthermore, that the law is settled that issues are joined between parties through their pleadings, citing Nwadiogbu v. Nnadozie [2001] 12 NWLR (Pt. 727) 315 SC at 329, Akaose & ors v. Nwosu & ors [1997] I NWLR (Pt. 482) 478 and Lewis & Peat (NRI) Ltd v. Akhimien [1976] 7 SC 757. That where issues are not joined, only minimal proof is necessary to sustain the claim, citing Akaose v. Nwosu [1997] 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 478 at 493 and Faseun v. Pharco (Nig.) Ltd [1965] 2 All NLR 216 at 220.

 

17. It is the submission of the claimants that even without any exhibit tendered, the depositions on oath of the claimants’ witnesses adopted by them in court on oath are enough to sustain the claimants’ case. That when the exhibits tendered are added, the preponderance of the scale towards the claimants’ case becomes unassailably weighty. In this case, therefore, where the respondents did not join issues or lead any evidence, the evidence of the claimants’ four (4) witnesses who also tendered Exhibits C1 to C12 can only preponderate successfully to the claimants’ side of the scale. That the case of the claimants can only, therefore, succeed in its simplicity, urging the Court to so hold. Also, that the malfeasances and dishonour heaped upon this Court by the 1st and 2nd respondents in unlawfully arresting and detaining a bailiff of this Court on official business ought not to be unanswered, urging the Court to answer the sole issue positively.

 

18. In conclusion, the claimants urged the Court to enter judgment for the claimants in accordance with their claims.

 

THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS

19. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, given that they were foreclosed by the Court from entering their defence, they will be relying on the case of the claimants. They accordingly started with their analysis of the claimants’ evidence. To them, one comrade John Paul Omeonu (CW1) testified in chief and claimed that he is the Secretary General of the 1st claimant and the 2nd claimant appointed him in 2018. He claimed further that he was a member of the National Delegates Conference Planning Committee. He also stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents denied them of funds despite inviting them to home (sic — come?) to Abuja which they did but were disappointed. He concluded by stating the names of those who were allegedly returned elected through the purported National Delegates Conference held at the Roop Hotels, Kubwa. His testimonies are contained in both his written statement on oath and also in examination in chief.

 

20. However, that under cross-examination CW1 claimed that he was not aware that there was another Delegates’ Conference that took place at the Grand Valley Hotels, Kubwa which led to the emergence of the 2nd respondent as the new President of the National Association of Scraps and Waste Employers of Nigeria. That CW1 failed to tell the Court the number of delegates that participate in the said Delegates’ Conference and the election “par says”. He failed to tell the Court, both in his statement on oath and examination in chief, the number of delegates per state. He could not also state how much each of the candidates for the election paid and annexing evidence of payment of such candidate for the position the candidate allegedly contested. He could not state the number of valid votes and invalid votes from the total number of the votes cast.

 

21. The 1st and 2nd respondents went on that CW2, Comrade John Egaji Obeh, testified in chief on and basically adopted his written statement on oath as his testimony in chief after introducing himself in his testimony in chief. He stated that he is the President of the National Association of Scraps and Waste Employers of Nigeria. He stated among other things that he sought for re-election into the office of the President of the union and paid non-refundable deposit of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira). He contended that the 2nd respondent did not pay his own non-refundable deposit of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) into the account where the electoral committee would have access and particularly denied the said electoral committee access to fund thereby making them to go into borrowing in other to fund the election. That this statement is the same with that of CW1, CW2, CW3 and CW5.

 

22. However, that under cross-examination CW2, who is the 2nd claimant, could not show evidence that he actually paid the non-refundable deposit of N1,000,000.00 as allegedly stated before the Court for the election like other candidates such as Lukeman Onifade, who later withdrew his suit and the 2nd respondent who actually won the election. That CW2 could not show any bank statement either by mobile transfer or fund transfer in the banking hall or even through POS. That CW2 admitted that “there was election for the original venue stated for the election before he changed the venue barely a day to the election at Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa to Roop Hotels Kubwa”.

 

23. The 1st and 2nd respondents continued that CW2 admitted being the President of the union since 2002 even before obtaining certificate of registration from the Registrar of Trade Unions in 2005. CW2 admitted that his tenure elapsed on the 29 August 2018 prior to the conduct of the National Delegates Conference, he the Constitution of the union (National Association of Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria) that it is the Secretary who stands in the gap to preside over the affairs of the union ensure that the new Executives of the union.

 

24. Additionally, that CW2 became mute when it was put to him that the conference of 25/5/2018 was where parties agreed that Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa was the place for the Delegates Conference and Election and the account number where the non refundable fee of One Million Naira would be paid into by all the presidential hopefuls but, CW2 influenced the committee to change that venue to favour him but 1st and 2nd respondent as well as comrade Lukeman Onifade frowns at the development as key actors in the Elections and insisted that it must be Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa or no other place.

 

25. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, Femi “Onishaki” as CW3 adopted his statement on oath and tendered Exhibits C5, C6 and C7. That under cross-examination, CW3 admitted that Comrade John Egaji Obeh, the 2nd claimant, is sit tight president. He alleged that he joined the union that 2nd claimant and CW2 was already the President of the union as the 2nd claimant now addresses the union as his union [my union).

 

26. The 1st and 2nd respondents proceeded to assert that CW3 could not show how the 1st and 2nd respondents denied the union fund for the planning of the national delegates conference. That CW3 admitted that he paid the sum of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) before he was made the national organizing secretary of the union. And that CW3 contradicted himself when he said that he joined the union in 2007 and that the 2nd claimant was already the President by then but in his written statement on oath he said that the 2nd claimant was elected in 2014 among other court addictions.

 

27. The last witness of the claimants is referred to as PW4 by the 1st and 2nd respondents. The said witness is actually CW5 on record. I indicated earlier that CW4 was rejected by the Court due to discrepancies in name. I will accordingly use CW5 instead of PW4 throughout this judgment.

 

28. CW5 is Comrade Auwal Ahmed. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, he adopted his written statement on oath and tendered some exhibits including the document containing the purported list of the alleged elected officers, which was neither signed nor dated as well as Exhibit C12, which has sharp contradictions in the signatures of the witnesses. That under cross-examination, CW4 “admitted that he is a lawyer that is buying scraps that construction of Nigeria is not against it”.

 

29. That CW4 when asked how long he has been a member of the union and he said that it is over ten years and it is still the 2nd claimant who has been the President of the union, he made contradiction as to the amount spent during their alleged parallel delegates conference at Roop Hotels, Kubwa. That he admitted that he did not resign his position before recontesting. That he could not lead evidence to the fact that the 2nd claimant did not pay for the form to stand the election. That he admitted that 2nd respondent paid the non-refundable fee of N1,000.000.00 to contest the election into the union account.

 

30. The counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents conceded the review of evidence elicited under cross-examination by stating that CW4 admitted that there was an account name belonging to the union that answer electoral committee’s account for the union's election even till now; that CW4 could not establish how the 1st and 2nd respondents withheld the union’s money or fund; and that CW4 could not establish that 1st and 2nd respondents were financial secretary and treasurer of the union respectively.

 

31. The 1st and 2nd respondents then submitted the following issues for determination:

(1) Whether the none (sic) payment of the none (sic) refundable fee of One Million Naira which represent both the expression of interest form and nomination form for the office of the National President of the National Association of the Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria by 2nd claimant is not fatal to his case.

(2) Whether the claimant can put something on nothing and expect it to stand.

(3) Whether the non resignation of the 2nd claimant as the condition prevalent guideline for all the candidates for the election who is occupying an elective position is not fatal to the case of the claimants.

(4) Whether the 2nd respondent who paid for the expression of interest form and nomination form at the tune of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) stood the election at the actual venue being Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa vice president south east and had a credible election shall not be declared the winner of the August 31st, 2018 election of the National Association of Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria.

 

32. On issue (1), the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the non-payment of non-refundable fee of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) which represents both the expression of interest form and nomination form for the office of the National President of the union by the 2nd claimant is, in all forms, very fatal to his case. That the leadership of the NASWDEN held a meeting sometime in May 2018 wherein delusions with respect to the union’s forthcoming election in August 2018 were taken. My Lord, the leadership of the union decided in the said meeting among other things.

 

33. It is submission of the 1st and 2nd respondents that non-payment of the non refundable fee of One Million Naira into the account of the union for which represented the expression of intervents from and also the nomination form for the aspirant(s) for the office of the National President of the National Association of Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria being fundamental in qualifying a candidate to stand for the election of 31 August 2018 is not only fatal to the case of the 2nd claimant. That the law is that where there is a procedure for doing a thing like in the instant case, none of the parties shall back out from following that procedure unless there is a manifest irregularities, citing Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 2) [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 523 SC.

 

34. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, the four witnesses that testified in favour of the claimants pointed to the fact that the 2nd claimant paid the sum of One Million Naira to the prescribed account belonging to the union where the planning committee of the National Delegates’ conference and the Electoral Board would have access to and that the 2nd respondent as a presidential candidate alongside one Comrade Lukeman Onifade, who later withdrew from the suit, paid their own non-refundable fees of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) to an account where the National Delegates’ Conference Planning Committee would not have access to but still the union’s account. But under cross-examination, CW2 being the 2nd claimant failed to show that he actually paid the said amount which would have formed the condition precedent for the contest of the NASWDEN’s presidential election. That this is a grave fraud to have purportedly contested for the election without having first of all purchased nomination form to stand the such election like in the instant case. That fraud is a cankerworm and indeed an insidious disease that is incurable, citing Ntuks v. Nigerian Ports Authority [2007] AII FWLR (Pt.387) 839.

 

35. That it is a height of deceit for the 2nd claimant to manipulate the system to the extent of not paying for the form to contest an election, yet one Uchechukwu Ogbu with Mathias Ameh would comfortably hold a kangaroo gathering at the Roop Hotels Kubwa just to destabilize the union by usurping on the “Mandating” freely given to the 2nd respondent to lead the union as her National President for the period of four years. That this attitude is an absolute discretion like corruption which marks the beginning of the end of liberty, relying on Abubakar v. Chucks [2008] All FWLR (Pt. 408) 238.

 

36. The 1st and 2nd respondents submitted further that due to the unique nature of the electoral proceedings, it is not like ordinary civil case that an irregularity can be cured as any form of irregularity in the electoral activities such as not complying with the guideline for the conduct of the election like in the instant case is usually an incurable defect that can destroy the case of the claimants, urging the Court to so hold; and relying on Okereke v. Yar’Adua [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt. 110) 95, Oyekan v. Akinjide [1965] NMLR 381, Obih v. Mbakwe [1986] 1 SCNLR 192 and Gebi v. Dahiru [2012] 1 NNLR (Pt. 1282) 56 — it is certain if the citation of this last case is correct.

 

37. The 1st and 2nd respondents went on that it is quite unfortunate that the 2nd claimant has seen the union as his private enterprise via the founder and the General overseer of the National Association of Scraps and Waste Employers of Nigeria as his own hence at all times, he would usually say “My Union” and he has influenced the electoral committee and the National Delegates’ Conference Committee to collect money from other candidates vying for the National Presidents’ position to pay One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) while he will not pay himself, thinking that it would be a business as usual. That there is an adage that says that “Every day is for the thief and on (sic) day is for the owner of the house”. That the claimants, particularly the 2nd claimant, has perpetuated so many evil in the union such as humiliating and degrading the members but none of them has mouth to talk until this non-payment of this One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) which the 2nd claimant and his-cohorts are trying to sweep under the carpet.

 

38. Finally, the 1st and 2nd respondents urged the Court that non-payment of the One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) to the Electoral Board is a fundamental breach of the Electoral guideline and, therefore, fatal to the case of the claimants.

 

39. For issue (2), the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the claimants cannot put something on nothing. That it goes with the Latin maxim “lexis non cogito ad-impossiblia” (which means that the law cannot command the doing of that which is an impossible act. That is to say that the 2nd claimant having failed to pay for the nomination form and expression of interest form did not even qualify to contest for the election as the Electoral Committee or Conference Planning Committee ought not to have given him form in the first place but they allowed themselves to be used to perform the evil. That the truth is that no one will eat his cake and have. That the 2nd claimant cannot be asked to be declared the President of NASWDEN by this Court when he did not stand the election because this Court cannot be lured into giving effect to the 2nd claimant’s criminal activities. That there is no leg within which the claimants would use to stand to claim that he actually contested the election of the 31st day of August 2018 because saying that amounts to jumping the gun. That the 2nd claimant does not have the right to claim that he has stood for an election which he has not shown that he purchased form to contest the election, relying on Macfoy v. UAC [1961] 3 All ER 1169 at 1172 and Owners M/W Baco Liner 3 v. Adeniji [1993] 2 NWLR (Pt. 274) 203.

 

40. It is the further submission of the 1st and 2nd respondents that all the exhibits including the video record and documents annexed by the claimants in order to proof their case cannot fly because what would have made them valid is not established. That the video tape and exhibits are papers emanating from the 2nd claimant and one Uche Chukwu Luke Ogbu whose business is to manipulate the association to favour the 2nd claimant and himself so that the 2nd claimant would retain him as the task force chairman for the collection of revenue in the South-South and South-East of Nigeria.

 

41. Finally on this issue, the 1st and 2nd respondents made heavy weather in submitting that the claimants did not stand any election as they are alleging but that it  is only the election of the 2nd respondent that was validly conducted as the suit asking the Court to declare the 1st and 2nd respondents as National President and General Secretary of the union is still pending before this court in “Suit No. NICN/236/2018”, urging the Court to so hold.

 

42. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, issue (3) borders on the resignation of any candidate holding elective position to resign from such position before either re-contesting for the similar position or any other position. To them, during the meeting of July 2018 at Abuja parties agreed that everyone holding elective position must resign the position before contesting another position. That one Comrade Lukeman Onifade tendered his resignation letter as the then Chairman of Ogun State, while the 2nd respondent resigned as the National Vice Chairman representing South-East and both positions were elective positions but the 2nd claimant failed to resign, thereby disqualifying him from standing the election which he claimed to have contested. That failure to resign as contained in the electoral guideline is a breach of the prescribed standard and conditions guiding the conduct of the election and, therefore, fatal to his case, citing  Abubakar v. Nasamu (No. 2) (supra). That what is good for the goods (sic) is good for the gander and that in every election including the currently disputed one, candidates for any position are being treated equally and fairly so as to engender equality by those concerned. That the failure of the 2nd claimant to resign before the election as contained in the guideline robs the claimant the opportunity to stand the election, urging the Court to so hold.

 

43. Regarding issue (4), the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the sign of victory and evidence therein is in favour of the 2nd respondent for his substantial compliance with the electoral guideline governing the August 2018 union’s election of the National Association of the Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria. That the 2nd claimant disqualified himself from the contest due to his flagrant abuse of the process and the only person remaining in the contest is the 2nd respondent who stood his ground to correct the numerous errors committed by the 2nd claimant during his presidency until the said election was conducted is the rightful winner having scored the highest number of the votes cast. Furthermore, that the situation here is likened to the All progressives Congress breach of the electoral guidelines in the conduct of their primaries during a build up to 2019 General Election Zamfara State and the court found for the Peoples Democratic Party and all the votes scored by the APC candidate was given to the PDP including the PDP’s Senatorial candidates and House of Representatives candidates as well as the House of Assembly candidates were all returned elected and were sworn in immediately. That the 2nd respondent denied himself every good thing in other to follow the electoral guideline and the constitution of the union in order to stand the election till the end to see victory.

 

44. To the 1st and 2nd respondents, the 2nd respondent is entitled to be declared the winner of the election as his mandate was stolen by the 2nd claimant who in cause of the election became a political pharisee who does not want to enter into the Kingdom of God and does not want to leave the gate for others to enter into the Kingdom of God and still block the entrance from others. That the 2nd claimant failed to pay for the form to contest the election and could not allow the 2nd respondent who paid and contested the election to enjoy the fruit of his labour, urging the Court to hold that the presidential mandate of the 2nd respondent was stolen, while urging the court to restore the stolen mandate of the respondents and declare him the National President of the National Association of Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria.

 

45. In conclusion, the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that it is evident that although they did not open their case in this matter, it is now crystal clear that all that the claimants have done is just a pure fraud to perpetuate the 2nd claimant into power as the life President of the National Association of Scrap and Waste Employers of Nigeria through a wrong procedure or by violating the electoral rules and guidelines; that is why the 2nd claimant does not have certificate of return as a winner of an election for the Court to see.

 

THE CLAIMANTS’ REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

46. In replying on points of law, the claimants submitted that from pages 3 to 7 of their Final written address, the 1st and 2nd defendants claimed to have elicited evidence favourable to their case in cross-examination of the claimants’ witnesses. To the claimants, assuming but not conceding that such evidence was elicited, it does not in any way assist the case of the 1st and 2nd defendants in this case. This is because it is settled law that facts grounding such favourable evidence must have been pleaded by the party cross-examining before the party can rely on same, citing Makon Engr. & Tech. Services Ltd v. Nwokedinkor [2020] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1716) 165 at 187, Akomolaf v. Guardian Press Ltd [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 338 at 351, Gaji v. Paye [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 and Eze v. Okoloagu & ors [2009] LPELR-3922; [2010] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1180) 183. That the so called evidence elicited during cross-examination from the respondent as CW1 is of no use to the appellants having not pleaded those facts.

 

47. The claimants went on that the 1st and 2nd defendants’ issues (1) and (2) of their written address is based on the One Million Naira non-refundable deposit for expression of interest which the 1st and 2nd defendants claim that the 2nd claimant did not pay. To the claimants, the payment of this money was never put in issue by the 1st and 2nd defendants. That in each of their statement of facts (filed on l3/9/l8 and 17/5/2019), and further amended statement of facts (filed on 28/l/20), the claimants consistently pleaded in paragraph 11 thus:

The 2nd claimant indicated interest to contest for re-election and paid the non-refundable deposit of One Million Naira (N1,000,000) into the account nominated by the Electoral Committee guidelines.

That this averment of the claimants was never countered by any pleadings of the 1st and 2nd defendants, and thus was never put in issue. That a fact is put in issue when one party asserts the positive of the fact in pleadings, and the other party denies or controverts it in pleadings, citing Olale v. Ekwelendu [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 326 at 360 and J. E. Ehimare & anor. v. Okaka Emhonyon [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 177 at 183.

 

48. That the 1st and 2nd defendants were given three (3) opportunities to properly put the fact of the 2nd claimant’s payment of the money in issue. They refused to do so; only to make it an issue in final written address. That this is but a further attempt to overreach the claimants. That the 1st and 2nd defendants refused to properly come forward and put the fact in issue because they know very well that the claimants would have provided proof of the 2nd claimant’s payment of the money, urging the Court to draw the inference. That courts of law are empowered to draw inferences from facts before them, citing Savanna Bank of Nigeria Plc v. CBN [2009] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 237 at 295, Akpan v. Bob [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421 at 502 and Adedayo v. PDP [2013] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1 at 57.

 

49. The claimants continued that even at this stage, they are willing to provide proof of payment of that money. That a statement of the 2nd claimant’s account from where it was paid or the union's account where it was properly paid into is all that the claimants need to prove payment. That if the question was properly put in issue, the claimants would have provided proof via a reply pleadings and list of additional documents. That the law is settled that every defence or reply to a pleading must plead specifically any matter which makes the claim or defence in the other party’s pleading not maintainable. That a party who intends to destroy or counter the opposite party’s case must specifically challenge it and plead the matter he relies on for such purpose, citing Nwoke v. Okere [1994] 5 NWLR (Pt. 343) 160 at 170, which held that in respect of facts which are not in issue, the question of proof does not arise. The claimants then urged the Court to entirely disregard issues (1) and (2) of the 1st and 2nd defendants’ final written address.

 

50. To the claimants, the 1st and 2nd defendants’ issues (3) and (4) are tainted with the same malaise of being based on facts which had not been pleaded and put in issue. That in Ogu v. M.T. & M.C.S. Ltd [2011] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1249) 345 at 383, it was succinctly stated that it is a known cardinal principle of pleadings that before an issue of fact can be said to have been joined by the parties in their pleadings, there must be proper and specific traverse of the facts contained in the pleadings. Where a positive and specific allegation or statement of fact was made by a party in his pleadings, there must be express and specific traverse of such allegation of statement of fact for an issue to be properly joined by the parties on such fact. So if a defendant wishes to join issues with a plaintiff on any statement of fact in the statement of claim, he must state specifically the facts of the denial in the statement of defence otherwise there would be no proper traverse which gives rise to an issue joined in the pleadings. The claimants then urged the Court to discountenance these issues and the arguments of the 1st and 2nd defendants as they have no legs on which to stand.

 

51. In conclusion, the claimants urged the Court to note that the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a statement of defence in this case out of time but refused to regularize or even serve it on the claimants, thinking to spring a surprise on the claimants and steal the case. That it was after the claimants closed their case that the 1st to 2nd defendants sought to open their defence through the concealed pleadings. That the Court rightly refused. That the Supreme Court (per Nnaemeka Agu, JSC) could have been talking about this case when it pronounced in Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt.70) 325 at 342 thus:

Finally, I would wish to underscore the fact that the adversary system of administration of justice which we operate has no room for any sneak game of hide and seek. It does not permit a defendant to conceal vital evidence in his case from his adversary and his witnesses until they have testified and closed their case.

The claimants accordingly urged the Court in the circumstances to enter final judgment for them in accordance with their claims.

 

COURT’S DECISION

52. I carefully considered the processes before the Court. The issue before the Court is: as between the 2nd claimant, on the one hand, and the 1st and 2nd respondents, on the other hand, who represents the valid National Officers of the 1st claimant union? Both the 2nd claimant and the 2nd respondent indicated interest in contesting for the position of National President of the 1st claimant union. And so from relief (a), the claimants argue that the National Officers produced by the 1st claimant’s National Delegates Conference of 31 August 2018 held at Roop Hotels Limited, Kubwa, Abuja are the authentic National Officers of the 1st claimant for the period commencing from 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2022. Relief (b) simply argues that the removal of the 1st respondent as the General Secretary of the 1st claimant is lawful. By law, a claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47 where the Supreme Court held thus:

A claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed. The duty of a Plaintiff therefore is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. He may, at the end of the day obtain all the reliefs claimed or less. He never gets more. Nor does he obtain reliefs not claimed. A court is therefore bound to grant only the reliefs claimed. It cannot grant reliefs not claimed.

 

53. The claimants are thus expected to prove their case. However, before looking at whether the claimants have proved their case, I need to take a closer look at the submissions of the 1st and 2nd respondents. In considering the merit of the claimants’ case, the 1st and 2nd respondents made it clear that they are resting their case on the case of the claimants. This being so, they took time to analyse the evidence elicited by the claimants. This they did at pages 3 to 6 of their final written address. Unfortunately, in this analysis would be found blatant falsehoods, untruths and half-truths.

 

54. For instance, at page 4 of their final written address, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted thus:

P. W. 1 failed to tell the court the number of delegates that participate (sic) in the said delegates’ conference and the election par says (sic). He failed to tell the court both in his statement on Oath and examination in chief the number of delegates per state. He could not also state how much each of the candidate (sic) for the election paid and annexing evidence of payment of such candidate for the position the candidate allegedly contested. He could not state the number of valid votes and invalid votes from the total number of the votes cast.

There is nothing in the records in terms of the cess-examination of CW1 that any of these was an issue. Where counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents got this from, I do not know.

 

55. Another example of an untruth is at page 5 of their final written address, where the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted thus:

PW2 admitted being the president of the union since 2002 even before obtaining certificate of registration from the Registrar of Trade Unions in 2005.

There is no evidence in the record of the Court that CW2 admitted to being President of the union since 2002. The evidence on record runs thus:

Yes, I am one of the founders of the 1st claimant union.

Yes, as a founder, I have been leading the association since 2005.

I do not know where the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents got his 2002 from.

 

56. And when in same page 5 of their final written address the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted thus, “PW2 admitted that his tenure elapsed on the 29th August 2018, prior to the conduct of the National Delegates Conference, he the Constitution of the union (National Association of Scrap and waste Employers of Nigeria) that it is the Secretary who stands in the gap to preside over the affairs of the Union ensure that the new Executives of the Union”, I do not know what sense they are making in this analysis of the evidence of CW2 elicited under cross-examination. Whatever point the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents seeks to make here is lost in the incoherent language deployed by counsel.

 

57. Furthermore, at same page 5 of the final written address, the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted thus:

PW2 became mute when it was put to him that the conference of 25/5/2018 was where parties agreed that Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa was the place for the Delegates Conference and Election and the account number where the non refundable fee of One Million Naira would be paid into by all the presidential hopefuls but, PW2 influenced the committee to change that venue to favour him but 1st and 2nd respondent (sic) as well as comrade Lukeman Onifade frowns (sic) at the development as key actors in the Elections and insisted that it must be Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa or no other place.

 

58. Once again, everything about this submission has no bearing whatsoever with the evidence on record. There is nothing in the record that shows that CW2 kept mute “when it was put to him that the conference of 25/5/2018 was where parties agreed that Grand Valley Hotels Kubwa was the place for the Delegates Conference and Election…” In fact, a reading of the whole submission will show a level of incoherence. I really do not know what point the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents is seeking to make in the said submission. The reference to “the account number where the non refundable fee of One Million Naira would be paid into by all the presidential hopefuls…” in the submission has no bearing whatsoever to the evidence on record.

 

59. The submission at page 5 of the final written address of the 1st and 2nd respondents that under cross-examination, “PW3 admitted that Comrade John Egaji Obeh the 2nd claimant is sit tight president” is once again one that is not in the record of the Court. The evidence on record runs thus: “Yes, as at 2007, CW2 was already President of the Union”. No where did CW3 say that Comrade John Egaji Obeh (the 2nd claimant) is a sit tight President. If counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents is drawing an inference from the evidence or intuiting, then he must state so. Otherwise, he cannot give evidence. His duty is to supply law, not evidence. See Boniface Anyika & Co. Lagos Nig Ltd v.Uzor [2006] LPELR-790(SC).

 

60. Also a fabrication of counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents is the assertion, still at page 5 of their final written address, that “…the 2nd claimant now addresses the union as his union (my union)”. There is no evidence whatsoever under cross-examination from CW3 to this effect. It is disheartening and indeed professional misconduct for a counsel such as the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents, Mr Ede S. Ede, to choose to mislead the Court by fabricating his own evidence and imputing same to a witness as one validly given in court. This is most deprecating. What has legal practice turned to? The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) must up their game and live up to its responsibility.

 

61. Further fabrications as to evidence elicited under cross-examination by counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents at page 5 of their written address are these submissions:

PW3 could not show how the 1st and 2nd respondents denied the union. Fund for the planning of the national delegates conference.

 

PW3 admitted that he paid the sum of #50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) before he was made the national organizing secretary of the union.

There is nothing on record suggestive of these in terms of the evidence of CW3 elicited under cross-examination.

 

62. When the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted at pages 5 to 6 of their final written address that “PW3 contradicted himself when he said that he joined the union in 2007 and that the 2nd claimant was already the president by then but in his written statement on Oath he said that 2nd claimant was elected in 2014 among other court addictions”, I do not know what they mean by “court addictions”.

 

63. At page 6 of their final written address, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents asserted thus regarding the evidence elicited under cross-examination of CW5:

He admitted that he did not resign his position before recontesting. He could not led (sic) evidence to the fact that 2nd claimant did not pay for the form to stand the election.

The evidence before the Court is thus: “No, I have not held any position in the 1st claimant union”. Since this is the evidence elicited under cross-examination, where did Mr Ede S. Ede get “He admitted that he did not resign his position before recontesting” from? CW5 never said he contested for any office. His evidence under cross-examination is that he never held any position in the 1st claimant union. So, where is the issue of resigning and re-contesting coming from?

 

64. When also counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents at page 6 of final written address stated that “PW4 admitted that he is a lawyer that is buying scraps that construction of Nigeria is not against it”, I do not know what the word “construction” is doing in that submission.

 

65. Still a fabrication of counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents is the statement at page 6 of the final written address that CW5 “admitted that 2nd respondent paid the none refundable fee of #1,000.000.00 to contest the election into the union account”. No where in the record was this piece of evidence elicited under cross-examination. Also not part of the evidence elicited under cross-examination of CW5 is the assertion at same page 6 that:

PW4 admitted that there was an account name belonging to the union that answer electoral committee’s account for the union’s election even till now.

 

PW4 could not establish how the 1st and 2nd respondents withheld the union’s money or fund.

 

PW4 could not establish that 1st and 2nd respondents were financial secretary and treasurer of the union respectively.

 

66. I must stress here that when preparing for final written addresses, what is expected of counsel is that they will apply for and get copies of the trial record of the court to see what exact evidence was elicited under cross-examination. This is what counsel would use to argue their respective cases. Not so with counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents. He chose instead to fabricate his own evidence and use same to argue his case. As can thus be seen, the review by counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents of the evidence elicited under cross-examination is bullshit — more of his imagination than anything else. Unfortunately, this fabricated evidence served as the basis upon which counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents framed his issues for determination. For instance, in addressing issue (1), counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents at page 9 of the final written address submitted thus: “… it is quite unfortunate that the 2nd claimant has seen the Union as his private Enterprise via the founder and the General overseer of the National Association of Scraps and waste Employers of Nigeria as his own hence at all times, he would usually say “My Union”…” As I pointed out earlier, there is no evidence before the Court that the 2nd claimant referred to the 1st claimant union as “my union”, or seen it as his private enterprise. This is purely the imagination of counsel.

 

67. The submission of the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents at page 9 of the final written address about the 2nd claimant perpetuating so many evil in the union such as humiliating and degrading the members none of whom has the mouth to talk until the non-payment of One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00), which the 2nd claimant and his-cohorts are trying to sweep under the carpet, is evidence by counsel, which evidence was not elicited by any witness. I indicated earlier that the job of counsel is to supply law, not evidence. See Boniface Anyika & Co. Lagos Nig Ltd v.Uzor (supra).

 

68. The talk of “the 2nd claimant’s criminal activities” at page 10 of the final written address of the 1st and 2nd respondents is another of those pieces of evidence that counsel has fabricated. There is nothing of such in evidence before the Court. In any event, what the criminal activities of the 2nd claimant are, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents did not disclose to the Court. What I see here is Mr Ede S. Ede abusing his position as counsel knowing that he enjoys immunity from action for all he does as a barrister. Otherwise, how else can one explain him imputing criminal activities to the 2nd claimant when nothing of such is in evidence before the Court? I am sure if Mr Ede knew that his barbs can earned him a lawsuit, he will not be this flippant and insulting. It is high time the immunity of counsel as barrister was reconsidered in this country. I say no more.

 

69. The talk of Uche Chukwu Luke Ogbu’s business being to manipulate the association to favour the 2nd claimant and himself so that the 2nd claimant would retain him as the task force chairman for the collection of revenue in the South-South and South-East of Nigeria at page 10 of the final written address of the 1st and 2nd respondents is yet again another fabrication of counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents — a product of counsel’s imagination. Nothing of such is in evidence before the Court.

 

70. At page 11 of the final written address, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that during the meeting of July 2018 at Abuja parties agreed that everyone holding elective position must resign the position before contesting another position; and one Comrade Lukeman Onifade tendered his resignation letter as the then chairman of Ogun State, while the 2nd respondent resigned as the National Vice Chairman representing South-East and both positions were elective positions but the 2nd claimant failed to resign, thereby disqualifying him from standing the election which he claimed to have contested. Once again, this is evidence given by counsel himself. It was not elicited under cross-examination and so is not before the Court.

 

71. All this aside, I need to add that in his discussion of the issues framed for determination, counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents used words that make his submissions difficult to understand. For instance, in the last paragraph of page 7 of the final written address, counsel stated that: “…the leadership of the NASWDEN held a meeting sometime in May 2018 wherein delusions with respect to the union’s forthcoming election in August 2018 were taken”. What does counsel’s reference to “delusions” stand for here? Equally out of place is counsel’s use of the phrase, “expression of intervents from” in the first paragraph of page 8 of the final written address.

 

72. I now turn to the merit of the claimants’ claims. In arguing their case, the claimants’ submission is that because the defendants did not enter any defence and issues were joined between the parties, they must be held to have proved their case; and that the minimal rule which requires minimal proof operates to sustain a claim only where issues were not joined. But of the claimants’ claims are two declaratory reliefs — reliefs (a) and (b). And declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course. The law is that a claimant seeking for declaratory reliefs must prove his case on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the defence of the defendant. See Okereke v. Umahi & ors [2016] LPELR-40035(SC), Nyesom v. Peterside & ors [2016] LPELR-40036(SC) and Mrs Catherine Udeogu & 11 ors v. Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/326/2017, the judgment of which was delivered on 16 February 2018. Dmez Nig Ltd v. Nwakhaba & 3 ors [2008] 2 SC (Pt. III) 142 at 152 paras 10 to 25, relying on Bello v. Eweka [1981] 1 SC 101 and Motunwase v. Sorungbe [1988] 12 SC 1, throws more light in insisting that the claimant praying for a declaratory relief proves his case on his own evidence and not the evidence of the defendant. See also Mr Thaddeus Obidike & ors v. Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/632/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 4 December 2018. The question then is whether the evidence of the claimants sufficiently proves their case as to warrant this Court granting them the reliefs they seek.

 

73. The claimants relied on Exhibit C12 in proof of their case. Exhibit C12 is titled, “The List of Winners at the National Delegate Election of National Association for Scrap and Waste Dealers Employers of Nigeria (NASWDEN), Held at Roops Hotel, Kubwa, Abuja, Nigeria on 31st August, 2018”. It has the name of “Com. John Egaji Obeh”, the 2nd claimant, as winner of the position of President with 116 votes. It is supposedly signed by 6 members of the Electoral Committee. The problem with this exhibit is that when on 13 September 2018, the claimants filed this case, of the documents they frontloaded was a photocopy of this said Exhibit C12. It can be found at page 90 of the case file. Exhibit C12 as tendered during trial has the signatures of the 6 members of the Electoral Committee in blue ink, making it an original copy. However, A careful comparison of these signatures in blue ink with those of the copy at page 90 of the case file will show a marked difference suggesting that the copy at page 90 of the case file was actually not copied from Exhibit C12 tendered during trial. Exhibit C12 tendered during the trial must have been signed in blue ink after the copy at page 90 of the case file must have been frontloaded. This naturally makes Exhibit C12 suspect. And so I cannot place much weight, cogency or probative value on it. I so hold.

 

74. Secondly, by reliefs (a), (b) and (c), the claimants want this Court to declare that the National Delegates’ Conference of 31 August 2018 held at Roop Hotels Limited, Kubwa, Abuja was valid and the officers elected there the authentic National Officers of the 1st claimant for the period commencing from 1 September 2018 to 31 August 2022; they want the Court to declare that the removal of the 1st respondent as the General Secretary of the 1st claimant is lawful; and they want an order restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from parading themselves as the National Officers of the 1st claimant. In paragraph 5 of the claimants’ further amended statement of facts, the claimants pleaded thus:

The 2nd claimant was first elected as national President of the 1st Claimant in August 2014. By the Constitution of the 1st claimant union, election for national officers is conducted every four years. The relevant portions of the constitution of the 1st claimant are hereby pleaded.

 

75. The problem is that the said union constitution is not in evidence in this case. So, how can this Court determine if the Delegates Conference of 31 August 2018 at Roop Hotels, Kubwa Abuja is valid as to produce valid National Officers, or to restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from parading themselves as the National Officers of the 1st claimant? How is the Court to determine whether the 1st respondent was validly removed as General Secretary of the 1st claimant without reference to the union constitution? Once these declarations and order cannot be made, since the union constitution that should ground them is not before the Court, how can the claimants be said to have proved their case? Exhibit C1 consisting of Minutes of CWC meeting of 24/05/18, Minutes of NEC meeting of 25/05/18, and the Attendance sheets of both meetings is not and cannot be the union constitution. The requirements needed to hold a Delegates’ Conference, the qualifications needed to stand for elective office in the union, the constitution of the Conference Planning Committee and Electoral Committee, are all a function of the union constitution.

 

76. In paragraph 28 of the further amended statement of facts, the claimants pleaded that “the elections were duly conducted by open ballot in accordance with the Union’s constitution”. This constitution is not before the Court. How then can the Court ascertain that the elections were actually conducted by open ballot in accordance with the union’s constitution?

 

77. In paragraph 11 of the further amended statement of facts, the claimants pleaded that the 2nd claimant indicated interest to contest for re-election and paid the non-refundable deposit of N1 Million into the account nominated by the Electoral Committee. When accosted by the 1st and 2nd respondents that there is no evidence before the Court of the payment of the said N1 Million, the answer of the claimants is that the respondents joined no issue with them on this; for if issues were joined vide a statement of defence, the claimants would have supplied the needed evidence of payment. I indicated earlier that in seeking declaratory reliefs as in relief (a), the claimants must prove their case on the strength of their evidence, not the weakness of the defence. Evidence of payment of N1 Million into an account cannot be by uncorroborated ipse dixit as the claimants seem to think. Documentary evidence of such payment is the best evidence, which in the instant case is lacking. So there is no evidence before the Court that the 2nd claimant paid the said N1 Million as to make him qualified to stand election. I so hold.

 

78. The story of the claimants vide the written statements on oath of their witnesses that elections held, from which election the 2nd claimant emerged as National President of the 1st claimant union is not sufficient to validate the 2nd claimant as validly elected National President of the 1st claimant union once the governing constitution of the 1st claimant union was not place before the Court. This being so, I cannot hold that the claimants have proved their case to the satisfaction of the Court as to be granted the reliefs they pray for. The claimants’ case accordingly fails and so is hereby dismissed.

 

79. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.

 

 

 

……………………………………

Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD