BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 24th February 2026                              SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/289M/2025

 

Between:             

1.                 Road Transport Employers’ Association of Nigeria

2.                 Alhaji Mustaphar Jibrin (Vice President NW)

3.                 Comrade Abullahi Bello Muhammed (Vice President NE)

4.                 Hon. Adamu Z. Jalaluddeen (1st Nat. Asst Sec.)

5.                 Alhaji Kabiru Mohammed Mogaji (Asst. Nat. Sec)

6.                 Alhaji Dikko Mani (Nat. Auditor)

7.                 Alhaji Isami A. Isah (Dep. Nat. Ch. Whip)

8.                 Comrade Mohammed Abubakar (Asst. Nat. Sec. NW)

9.                 Mr. Bolanle Adeniyi (Nat. Ex. Office)

10.           Elder Imoh Jonah (Plateau Chairman)

11.           Mallam Aliyu Akaaba (Kogi Chairman)

12.           Ibrahim Isa Bashir (Plateau Treasurer)

13.           Alhaji Iliya Kada (Katsina Chairman)

14.           Alhaji Garba Shabiu (Yobe Chairman)                                      

15.           Alhaji Salisu Garba (Taraba Chairman)                                    

16.           Alhaji Akibo Titilayo (Act. Ogun Chairman)                                       

17.           Pastor Sunday Erahahon (Edo Chairman)                                            Claimants/

18.           Alhaji Adamu M. Bulama (Borno Sec)                                                     Applicants/

19.           Alhaji Ahmed Mohammed Tata (Bauchi)                                              Respondents

20.           Alhaji Yayaha Abdullahi (Kano Dep. Chairman)

21.           Alhaji Musa Gidado (Gombe Sec)

22.           Alhaji Mamuda Mohammed (Gombe Dep. Chairman)

23.           Hon. Ishaku Yusuf (Yobe Fin. Sec)

24.           Mallam Isa Musa (Bauchi Sec)

25.           Mallam Abubakar Balarabe (Kano Sec)

26.           Alhaji Rasak Durojaiye (Dep. Nat. Fin Sec)

27.           Alhaji Kabiru Mahuta (Katsina Dep.Chairman)

28.           Alh. Shuaibu Hamza (Kaduna Fin Sec)               

29.           Comrade Akingbade Tiwalade (Assit Nat. Sec)

30.           Alhaji Rilwan Lamidi (Ex. Officio)                              

31.           Chief Segun Johnson (Ex-Officio)                               

32.           Alhaji Jimoh Ogunrambi (Ex-Officio)                                                     

33.           Alh. Sani Alhassan (Katsina Sec)                                             

34.           Comrade Chidoziri Agustine Oluigbo (Imo Chairman)                 

35.           Alh. Bunu Mustapha (Plateau Sec)                                                       

 

And

 

1.                 Mr Eriyo Osakpamwan                                                                            Defendants/

2.                 Yusuf Ibrahim Adeniyi                                                                             Respondents/       

3.                 High Chief (Alhaji) Shehu Musa Isiwele                              Applicants             

 

Representation:

Adedayo Adedeji SAN, with him, Zanti Tamar Kolais, Shuaib Muhammed, C. E. Onwere and Abdulrasheed Shomope for the Claimants/Judgment Debtors/Applicants.

E. O. Afolabi SAN, with him, Sophia Toyin Arowosegbe and Phyllis Jesudamilola Ajobere for the 1st & 2nd Defendants/Applicants

 

    RULING

These are contempt proceedings brought by the applicants against the 1st and 2nd respondents. The applicants were the claimants in suit NICN/ABJ/278/2019 while the respondents were the defendants. Judgment in the suit was delivered on 13th October 2020. The 1st defendant in the suit, now 1st respondent/judgment debtor in these proceedings, appealed against the judgment of this court to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/467/2021. In the judgment delivered in the said appeal on 29th July 2025, the Court of Appeal unanimously struck out the appeal for the reason that the appeal had become academic, and the court of appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

 

On 2nd September 2025, form 48 was issued by this Court at the instance of the applicants/judgment creditors for service on the 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors. Upon the application of the applicants/judgment creditors for substituted service on the 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors and upon reading the affidavit of service of the bailiff, I made an order on 30th September 2025 granting leave to the applicants/judgment creditors to serve form 48 and other processes filed in the contempt proceedings on the 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors by publishing the processes in the Punch Newspaper and Daily Trust Newspaper. The 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors were subsequently served form 48 on 2nd October 2025 vide publications in the Punch Newspaper and Daily Trust Newspaper. On 15th September 2025, form 49 was issued at the instance of the applicants/judgment creditors and it was served on the 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors on 7th October 2025 vide publications in the Punch Newspaper and Daily Trust Newspaper. On 8th October 2025, the applicants/judgment creditors filed a motion wherein they sought an order committing the 1st and 2nd respondents/judgment debtors to Kuje Correctional Centre for being in contempt of both the judgment of this Court delivered on the 13th of October 2020 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29th July 2025.

 

1ST RESPONDENT’S NPO

On 13th October 2025, the 1st respondent/judgment debtor filed a notice of preliminary objection wherein he prayed for the following reliefs:

1.     A declaration that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Osakpamwan V. RTEAN & Ors (2025) LPELR-81731 delivered on 29th July 2025, which held that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the 1st to 35th Respondents' action (same having not first gone through the process of conciliation and arbitration), is binding on this Court.

2.     An order striking out the Notice of Consequence of Disobedience of Order of Court filed by the Judgment Creditors on 2nd September 2025, or any subsequent process filed by them, on the ground that this Court lacked jurisdiction ab initio to entertain the suit upon which the Judgment Creditors are alleging contempt.

 

The 1st respondent/judgment debtor’s NPO and applicants/judgment creditors’ motion for committal were heard together on 2nd December 2025. Both applications are for Ruling today.  I will however consider and determine the NPO first.

 

The grounds upon which the 1st respondent/judgment debtor based his objection are as follows:

1.    The Court of Appeal in Osakpawan v. RTEAN & Ors (2025) LPELR-81731 delivered on 29th July 2025 declared that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit leading to the judgment of 13th October 2020.

2.    By the provisions of Section 243(4) of the 1999 Constitution, the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals from the National Industrial Court in its civil jurisdiction is final.

3.    By virtue of Section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution, the decision of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced by all authorities and persons, and by all Courts subordinate to it.

4.    The order which this Court made on 13th October 2020 and which the Judgment Creditors allege has been disobeyed has already been nullified by the Court of Appeal.

5.    The alleged contempt proceeding is founded on a nullity, there being no valid or subsisting order which the Applicant can be held to have disobeyed.

 

In the written address in support of the NPO, learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent/judgment debtor, E.O. Afolabi SAN, submitted that the decision of this court delivered on 13th October 2020 has been declared to be made without jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal in OSAKPAMWAN V. RTEAN & ORS (2025) LPELR-81731. It was submitted further that the said the decision of the Court of Appeal is final, binding and not appealable to any other court. This Court, being subordinate to the Court of Appeal, is bound to enforce the decision of the Court of Appeal by virtue of Section 287(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

 

In response to the NPO, the applicants/judgment creditors filed a reply on points of law on 14th October 2025. The following two issues were submitted for determination in the NPO by the applicants/judgment creditors:

1.       Whether the Court of Appeal, having held that the substantive appeal had become academic, could validly proceed to make further pronouncements on the merits or jurisdiction of this Court; and if so, whether such pronouncements form part of the binding ratio decidendi of the judgment?

2.       Whether the alleged obiter dictum of the Court of Appeal can, in law, divest this Court of its jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings predicated on a valid and subsisting judgment of this Court?

 

On issue one, learned counsel for the applicants/judgment creditors, Abdulrasheed Shomope Esq., argued that once a court declares that a matter before it is academic, it loses competence to pronounce on the merits of the case and whatever the court subsequently says in relation to the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the lower court becomes an obiter dictum. Thus, the moment the Court of Appeal found that the appeal before it was academic, the only lawful course open to it was to strike out or dismiss the appeal and make no further pronouncement touching on the merits or jurisdiction of the trial court. Accordingly, having admitted that there was no live issue for adjudication in the appeal, the part of the decision of the Court of Appeal suggesting that this Court lacked jurisdiction, was an obiter dictum and without any binding force.

 

On issue two, it was submitted that contempt proceedings are founded on the existence of a valid and subsisting judgment or order of court. Until a judgment is set aside by a competent appellate court, it remains binding and enforceable. Since the judgment of this Court has not been vacated, reviewed, or nullified by the Court of Appeal, it remains valid and subsisting. A decision given obiter cannot defeat contempt proceedings neither can a reason not forming part of the decision in a judgment be a ground to challenge its validity as held in Dongtoe V. Civil Service Commission, Plateau State (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. 717) 132 AT 162. The Applicants cannot therefore, invoke an obiter dictum to suspend or invalidate the enforcement of this Court's binding orders. The contempt proceedings before this Court is properly constituted and lawfully maintainable against parties who have chosen to disobey the subsisting judgment of this Court.

 

DECISION ON THE NPO

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/467/2021 between Mr. Eriyo Osakpamwan V. RTEAN & 34 others delivered on 29th July 2025 is Exhibit RTEAN 3 of the applicants/judgment creditors’ motion for committal. I have read the judgment. The unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, being the position of all three members of the panel, is that the appeal had become academic and the Court of Appeal accordingly lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. As a result, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeal. I have also read the part of the judgment where the Hon. Justice A.B. Mohammed JCA, who delivered the lead judgment, proceeded to consider the merits of the appeal and came to the conclusion that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the dispute in the suit did not first go through the process of conciliation and arbitration in the first instance before this court assumed jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Notwithstanding the conclusion on the merits of the appeal, his Lordship concluded his judgment in these words:

            “But as stated while resolving and upholding the 1st to 31st Respondents’ preliminary objection, the live issue in this appeal has been spent making the appeal merely academic and divesting this Court of jurisdiction to entertain same. In consequence, this appeal is struck out for being academic and for want of jurisdiction to entertain same”.

 

All the other Justices concurred with this conclusion and struck out the appeal for the reason that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which had become academic. The effect of the striking out of the appeal is that the judgment of this Court delivered on 13th October 2020 in suit NICN/ABJ/278/2019 was not set aside, nullified or varied in any way by the Court of Appeal. The judgment and the orders made therein therefore subsist and remain valid and binding on the parties thereto.

 

I agree with the counsel for the applicants/judgment creditors that the decision of the Court of appeal on the main appeal, upon which the 1st respondent/judgment debtor based his grounds of objection, was made obiter, as that was not the main decision of the Court of Appeal in the appeal. Having unanimously resolved that the appeal was academic and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain same, anything said thereafter in respect of the substantive appeal was by the way and does not constitute the decision of the Court of Appeal. The implication of the striking out of the appeal is that no decision was made in the substantive appeal. Accordingly, the view of Hon. Justice A.B. Mohammed JCA on the main appeal was not the decision or ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeal in the appeal. Thus, the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal relied upon by the 1st respondent/judgment debtor in his NPO is not a binding decision on this Court neither does it have the effect of preventing this court from exercising jurisdiction to entertain these contempt proceedings.

 

The result of the foregoing is that I find no merit in the NPO. It is dismissed. 

 

THE APPLICANTS/JUDGMENT CREDITORS MOTION FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT.

In the motion filed by the applicants/judgment creditors on 8th October 2025, they sought an order committing the 1st and 2nd Respondents/judgment debtors to Kuje Correctional Centre for being in contempt of both the judgment of this Court delivered on the 13th of October 2020 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29th July 2025. The facts of the application are contained in the affidavit in support deposed to by Alhaji (Dr) Musa Mohammed, the Executive National President of the 1st applicant/judgment creditor. He said after the judgment of this court on the 13th October 2020, the 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/467/2021 but the appeal was struck out in the judgment delivered on the 29th July 2025. The Court of Appeal did not set aside the judgment of this Court delivered on 13th October 2020 neither did it declare the 1st Respondent as the National President of the 1st applicant. Meanwhile the leadership tenure of 2018 - 2023 which was the subject matter that led to the institution of the suit has elapsed by effluxion of time and tenure of new executives had commenced. The deponent further explained that after the expiration of the 2018- 2023 tenure of the executives of the 1st applicant, another election was conducted on 11th April 2023 where the deponent said he emerged as the Executive National President of the 1st applicant and he is currently serving a term of 5 years from April 2023 to April 2028.

 

He averred further that despite the subsisting judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeal, the 1st respondent has been parading himself as the National President of the 1st applicant while the 2nd respondent has been working in cohort with the 1st respondent to parade themselves as the National President and General Secretary of the 1st applicant. A letter dated the 11th August 2025, which is Exhibit RTEAN 5, was signed by the 1st and 2nd respondents as National President and National Secretary issued on behalf of the 1st applicant inviting members to the National Executive Council Meeting (NEC) to be held on 27th and 28th August 2025. The 1st respondent has consistently granted interviews and presented himself to members of the public and media houses as the National President of the 1st applicant despite his awareness of the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal. On 7th August 2025, the 1st Respondent, through the Law Office of Olayiwola Afolabi (SAN) & Co, wrote to the Honourable Minister of Labour and Employment, claiming to be the National President of the 1st applicant having been elected in August 2018 and that his tenure was to run for 5 years. The letter is Exhibit RTEAN 7. In a publication in the Nation Newspaper of 29th September 2025 and an advert in AIT on 2nd October 2025, the 1st and 2nd respondents, purportedly acting as the National President and National Secretary of the 1st applicant, issued a press release on behalf of the 1st applicant endorsing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for a second term in office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Copies of the publications are Exhibits RTEAN 9 and RTEAN 10. By parading themselves as the National President and National Executive Secretary of RTEAN, the 1st and 2nd Respondents are in contempt of the subsisting judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court was urged to cause a committal order to be made against the 1st and 2nd respondents for acting contrary to the subsisting judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeal.

 

The 1st and 2nd respondents did not file a counter affidavit to the motion nor did they respond to the motion in any other way. Notwithstanding the default of the 1st and 2nd respondent, it is trite that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and the complainant/applicant is required to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. See IGBONEKWU vs. ERONINI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 409) 521 at 532; GREMA vs. JANYUM (2001) FWLR (Pt. 54) 256 at 269. Therefore, the burden of proving the relief sought by the applicants rests on the applicants and to be entitled to the grant of the relief, the applicants must be seen to have proved the allegation of contempt made against the 1st and 2nd respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

 

DECISION ON THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

In these contempt proceedings, the applicants have alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondents are in disobedience of the subsisting judgment of this Court delivered on 13th October 2020 in suit NICN/ABJ/278/2019. For that reason, they have asked the Court to commit the 1st and 2nd respondents to a Correctional Centre for contempt.

 

The issue to be determined in this application is whether the 1st and 2nd respondents have been shown to have disobeyed the orders of this Court made in the judgment delivered on 13th October 2020 in suit NICN/ABJ/278/2019 as to make them liable to be committed to a Correctional Center for contempt? To determine this issue, I have perused the facts contained in the affidavit in support of the motion. I have also read through the judgment of this Court which the 1st and 2nd respondents have been alleged to have violated.

 

The dispute which was the cause of action in suit NICN/ABJ/278/2019 was the diferring claims to the office of the National President of the 1st applicant by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent and Alhaji Musa Mohammed. Upon resolving the issues in the suit, this Court made these orders in the judgment delivered on 13th October 2020:

1.  It is declared that by virtue of Articles 4A(i), (ii) and [iii)(c) of the 1st claimant’s amended constitution 2013, the 3rd defendant is not a member of the 1st claimant having been dismissed vide a Resolution passed by the 1st claimant at its Emergency General Meeting held on the 3rd September, 2018.

2.  It is declared that ascension by the 1st defendant to the office of the National President of the 1st claimant was in clear violation of Articles 6A2(n) of the 1st claimant’s amended constitution and it is illegal, null and void.

3.  It is also declared that the replacement of the 3rd defendant with Alh. Musa Mohammed following a Resolution that effect at the Emergency Meeting of the National Executive Council of the 1st claimant held on the 19th September 2018 is valid, legal and constitutional.

4.  It is declared that all the actions and decisions taken by the 1st defendant as National President on behalf of the 1st claimant are illegal, null, void and of no effect. An order is made consequently, nullifying all such actions and decisions taken by the 1st defendant acting as the National President of the 1st claimant.

5.  An order of injunction is made restraining the 1st and 3rd defendants from holding themselves out as the National President of the 1st claimant. The 1st defendant is further ordered to immediately vacate the 1st claimant’s Abuja Office situate at No. 4B, Arusa Crescent, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja and surrender all the 1st claimant’s properties in his possession to the National Secretary General of the 1st claimant, who is the 2nd defendant.

6. It is ordered that Alh. Musa Mohammed as President of the 1st Claimant shall have unfettered access to the 1st Claimant’s office situate at No. 4B, Arusha Crescent, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja.

 

The orders made in the judgment include nullifying the 1st respondent’s ascension to the office of the National President of the 1st applicant and restraining him from holding himself out as the National President of the 1st applicant. The applicants’ assertion in this application is that the 1st respondent has continued to hold himself out and parade himself as the National President of the 1st applicant, with the collaboration of the 2nd respondent, despite the clear orders of this court. The allegations of the applicants against the 1st and 2nd respondents is that on 7th August 2025, the 1st Respondent, through the Law Office of Olayiwola Afolabi (SAN) & Co, wrote to the Honourable Minister of Labour and Employment, claiming to be the National President of the 1st applicant having been elected in August 2018 and that his tenure was to run for 5 years while on 11th August 2025, the 1st and 2nd respondents signed a letter as National President and National Secretary of the 1st applicant inviting members of the NEC to a meeting be held on 27th and 28th August 2025. In a publication in the Nation Newspaper of 29th September 2025 and an advert in AIT on 2nd October 2025, the 1st and 2nd respondents claimed to be the National President and National Secretary of the 1st applicant.

 

The evidence of these instances where the 1st respondent had paraded himself as the National President of the 1st applicant are Exhibits RTEAN 5, RTEAN 7, RTEAN 8, RTEAN 9 and RTEAN 10. I have examined these Exhibits, all of which came into existence after the judgments of this Court and that of the Court of Appeal. In the Exhibits, I find clear evidence of the 1st respondent holding himself out still as the National President of the 1st applicant. The 2nd respondent is aware of the judgment of this court but he nonetheless co-signed Exhibit RTEAN 5 on 11th August 2025 with the 1st respondent in which the 1st respondent held himself out as National President of the 1st applicant. The 2nd respondent also jointly signed the publication in the Nation Newspaper of 29th September 2025 where the 1st respondent said he is the National President of the 1st applicant.

 

I have observed earlier that the respondents did not file a counter affidavit to controvert the facts in the affidavit in support of the motion seeking their committal for contempt. Other than the NPO filed by the 1st respondent, the 1st and 2nd respondent did not file any process or present any defence to the Court to show cause why an order of committal should not be made against them. The implication is that the respondents admit the allegations of the applicants and confirm that they were the ones who made Exhibits RTEAN 5, RTEAN 7, RTEAN 8, RTEAN 9 and RTEAN 10. There is therefore no dispute that the 1st respondent, after the judgment of this court on 13th October 2020 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 29th July 2025, continued to hold himself out as the National President of the 1st applicant, with the active support of the 2nd respondent, despite the order of this court restraining the 1st respondent from holding himself out as the National President of the 1st applicant.

 

From the facts of this application, I am satisfied that the applicants have proved that the 1st and 2nd respondents have disobeyed the orders of this court given in the judgment of 13th October 2020.

 

It is the law that orders made by the Courts are meant to be obeyed. Thus, persons against whom an order of court is made have the plain and unqualified duty to obey the order as long as it subsists. It does not matter that such an order is believed to be irregular or even void. See ONUAGBU vs. ONUAGBU (2001) FWLR (Pt. 75) 604 at 616. The consequence of failure to comply with the orders of a Court is that the disobedient party is liable to be punished for the disobedience. Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act provide as follows:

            “If any person refuses or neglects to comply with an order made against him, other than for payment of money, the court, instead of dealing with him as a judgment debtor guilty of the misconduct defined in paragraph (f) of section 66 of this Act, may order that he be committed to prison and detained in custody until he has obeyed the order in all things that are to be immediately performed and given such security as the court thinks fit to obey the other parts of the order, if any, at the future times thereby appointed, or in case of his no longer having the power to obey the order then until he has been imprisoned for such time or until he has paid such fine as the court directs”.

 

See also Section 10 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which empowers the Court as follows:

            “The Court shall have the power to enforce its judgment and accordingly may commit for contempt any person or a representative of a trade union, or employers’ organisation who commits an act or omission which in the opinion of the court constitutes a contempt of the Court.”

 

The above provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the NIC Act have given power to this Court to enforce its orders and punish any person who disobeys the order of the Court. In ABBASS vs. SOLOMON (2001) FWLR (Pt. 67) 847 at 863/864, it was held that:

“Where any person refuses or neglects to comply with an order made against him by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court has power under section 72 Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act to order that he be committed to prison and detained in custody until he purges his contempt”.

 

Accordingly, I find the 1st and 2nd respondent guilty of disobedience of the orders of this court given in the judgment of 13th October 2020 and hereby commit them for contempt. Bench Warrant is issued against the 1st and 2nd respondents. They are to be committed to Kuje Correctional Centre and detained in custody until such a time that they undertake, through duly sworn affidavits, to comply with the orders of this Court.

 

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge