IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA (VIRTUAL)

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN ---- PRESIDING JUDGE

DATE: FRIDAY 6TH MARCH, 2026           SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/14/2025

BETWEEN:

REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF NIGERIAN 

WELDERS ASSOCIATION                                --------- CLAIMANT

 

1. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS

2. MINISTER OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

3. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF NATIONAL UNION OF   DEFENDANTS

    NIGERIA WELDERS (NUNIWE)

 

JUDGMENT

  1. The Claimant commenced this suit by way of Originating Summons dated and filed on the 17th day of June, 2025, and submitted these four (4) questions for the determination of the court:

 

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to notify the claimant accordingly, that her application for registration as a trade union is defective so as to enable the claimant to amend the application to the satisfaction of the Trade Unions Registrar or make a fresh application in place, thereof, has satisfies(sic) the requirement of sections 3(1)(5)(6) and 5(1)(2)(5A & B) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T4, 2004 as amended.

 

  1. Whether if the answer to the above in (sic) on the affirmative, the 1st Defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to send a notice forthwith to the claimant in a prescribed form stating the grounds of refusal and specifying the date from which the time for appealing against the refusal is to run and publish a notice to the like effect in the Federal Gazette contravenes section 5 (5A) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T4, 2004 as amended, thereto.

 

  1. Whether the registration of the 3rd defendant is not tantamount to an unlawful and improper duplication of effort of the claimant in as much as the claimant has started the process of registration as a union on the 18th day of May, 2023; while, the 3rd defendant started sometime in December, 2024.

 

  1. Whether the 1st defendant’s act of registering the 3rd defendant despite the objections and protest by the claimant against the said registration, has a chilling effect on section 5(2) and (3) of the Trade Union Act as the action contravene same and therefore inconsistent, thereto.

 

  1. The Claimant therefore claims the following reliefs against the Defendants: 

 

  1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to notify the claimant accordingly, that her application for registration as a trade union is defective so as to enable the claimant to amend the application to the satisfaction of the Trade Unions Registrar or make a fresh application in place, thereof, is unlawful.

 

  1. A declaration that the 1st defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to notify the claimant forthwith in the prescribed form stating the grounds of refusal and specifying the date from which the time for appealing the refusal is to run and to publish a notice to the like effect in a Federal Gazette is unlawful.

 

  1. A declaration that the registration of the 3rd defendant is inimical to the claimant that sent objection to the 1st defendant which is a permissible restriction within the contemplation of section 5(2) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 as amended.

 

  1. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s act of registering the 3rd defendant despite the objections and protest by the claimant against the said registration is in contravention of section 5(2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T4 as amended.

 

  1. An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st defendant to register the claimant as a trade in as much as the claimant has fulfilled the registration procedure to be registered as a trade union.

 

  1. An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st and 2nd defendant(sic) to withdraw the certificate issued on the 28th day of May, 2025 to the 3rd defendant as a trade union in Nigeria.

 

  1. An order of injunction restraining the 3rd defendant either by itself, servants, agents, and/or privies or any other person(s) howsoever designated from conducting and parading as a trade union.

 

  1. And for such further or other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to make in the circumstance of this case.

 

The grounds upon which the Originating Summons is predicated are as follows:

 

  1. The position of section 5(1) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 as amended is clear and unambiguous that where an application for the registration of a trade union is received by the Registrar (1st Defendant) and if the application appears to the Registrar to be defective in any respect, he shall notify the applicant accordingly.
  2. The 1st Defendant refused, failed and/or neglected to comply with provision of section 5(5A) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 as amended by not sending a notice in a prescribed form stating the grounds of refusing the claimant’s application.
  3. If the above is in affirmative, the said notice shall specify the date from which time for appealing against the refusal is to run, and shall publish a notice to the like effect in the Federal Gazette so as to enable the claimant to appeal to the 2nd defendant.
  4. The refusal to register the claimant as a trade union in Nigeria was not in line with section 5(1), (2) and (5A) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 as amended.
  5. The registration of the 3rd Defendant was not back up by section 5(2) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 as amended.

 

  1. In support of the Originating Summons is an affidavit of 19 paragraphs deposed to by Mathew Alore (the Bayelsa State Chairman of the Claimant), as well as annexed documents marked exhibits NWA 1 – NWA 11.

 

  1. In compliance with the Rules of this Court, the Claimant filed along with the Originating Summons a Written Address wherein the claimant adopted and argued the questions for determination as the Issues for determination in the suit.

 

  1. In arguing the four (4) Issues together, learned counsel submitted that, section 5 of the Trade Unions Act stipulates the procedure for registration of trade unions in Nigeria. The Claimant applied to be registered as a trade union on the 18th of May, 2023, and fulfilled the prescribed process within the ambit of the law. The Claimant then waited patiently for the 1st defendant cause a notice of the application to be published in the Federal Gazette for any public objection or to notify the claimant that her application is defective. That the inability to notify the claimant the reason not to be registered as a trade union did not afford the claimant the opportunity to appeal to the 2nd defendant. That despite the letter of the claimant’s Solicitors dated 18th October, 2024, the 1st defendant still refused, neglected and/or failed to register the claimant as a trade union, but went ahead and registered the 3rd defendant in December, 2024 despite written objections by the claimant in their letters of 6th December, 2024, 28th January, 2025, 18th February, 2025 and 10th March, 2025.

 

  1.  That the general purpose of interpretation is to discover the intention of the law maker, and where the ordinary meaning of the words used is clear and unambiguous, effect must be given to the words and no resort can be made to extrinsic aid. That since the words used in section 5 of the Trade Unions Act are clear and unambiguous, they ought to be given ordinary meaning. See A.G. Abia State V. A.G. Federation (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 275) 414 at 4509, A.G. Ondo State V. A.G. Ekiti State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 79) 1431 at 1463, Okotie-Eboh V. Manager (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 242 at 280-281, Olanrewaju V. The Gov. of Oyo State (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 335 at 362 paras. A-E, Egbe V. Yusuf (1992) NWLR (Pt. 245) 1 at 12 para A and Awolowo V. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 73. That in construing a statute, the court should opt for the interpretation that will make for the smooth working of the system which the statute has put in place, relying on the cases of Tukur V. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 579, A.G. Ondo State V. A.G. Ekiti State (supra) and Rabiu V. The State (1980) 12 NSCC 301.

 

  1.  That where a statute provides a mode of doing a thing, only that mode or method must be adopted and no other, relying on the case of Marwa V. Nyako (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 622) 1621 at 1715 para. B. That the context of section 5(1)(2) and (5A) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap T14 as amended is that if an applicant applies to be registered as a trade union, the Registrar shall notify the applicant if the application is defective, cause a notice of the application to be published in the Federal Gazette, stating the objections to the registration of the trade union in question and forthwith stating the grounds of refusal and specifying the date from which the time for appealing against the refusal is to run and to publish a notice to the like effect in the Federal Gazette so as to afford the applicant the opportunity to appeal to the Minister against the refusal. The 1st defendant acted ultra vires by not registering the claimant as a trade union but went ahead to register the 3rd defendant that has the same jurisdictional scope and objectives. That the use of the word “shall” in section 5(1),(2) and (5A) of the Trade Unions Act makes it mandatory and not intended to be merely directory, relying on the case of Ezeadukwu V. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 644. The Court was urged to resolve the questions and issues in favour of the claimant and grant all the reliefs in the suit.

 

  1.  In opposition to the Originating Summons, the 3rd Defendant filed a Counter Affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Dada Salmon Olabode (the National Deputy President) on the 14th of October, 2025. Annexed to the Counter Affidavit are six (6) documents marked exhibits W1 – W6. In compliance with the Rules of this Honourable Court, learned Counsel also filed a written address wherein this lone Issue is identified for the court’s determination: Whether this suit as presently constituted is unmeritorious hence liable to be dismissed.

 

  1.  It was submitted on the sole Issue that, the claimant was incorporated under Part C of CAMA on the 28th of December, 1985 (exhibit W1), and all the three (3) registered trustees in exhibit W1 are now deceased. That by exhibit W2 the deceased registered trustees are yet to be substituted or replaced. That Mr. Mathew Alore who filed the instant suit is bereft of the standing to initiate the suit because the deceased registered trustees could not have given their consent and authority to Mr. Mathew Alore to depose to the affidavit in support of the suit. That Mr. Mathew Alore who filed the suit in the name of the Registered Trustees of the claimant needs to credibly demonstrate his claim to be entitled to the standing to maintain the suit. See Ezenwosu V. Ngonadi (1988) LPELR-1207(SC) page 25, paras. B – C) and Akpan and Ors V. Umoren and Ors (2012) LPELR-7909(CA), Pages 24-25, paras. C-E.

 

  1. According to the 3rd defendant, from exhibit W4 the claimant’s application to be registered as a trade union was declined because at the time there was a registered trade union organizing welders in Nigeria (Steel Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria). That when the claimant’s second application to be registered as a trade union was submitted, there was also a trade union in existence (Nigeria Welders and Fitters Union) which had not been dissolved. That the claimant is inviting the 1st defendant to act contrary to sections 3(2) and 5(4) of the Trade Unions Act which forbid the registration of a trade union where an existing trade union is sufficiently representative of the interest of the class of persons whose interest the union is intended to represent. That the claimant’s subsequent application for registration as a trade union is illegal and the 1st defendant is entitled to discountenance same. That by section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act, the 1st defendant is empowered to re-group an existing union which was done through the registration of the 3rd defendant. It was upon the application of the promoters of the 3rd defendant that the 1st defendant re-grouped the 3rd defendant by separating the Fitters from Welders so that the 3rd defendant would strictly be for Welders only.

 

  1. According to learned Counsel, the registration of the 3rd defendant is in line with the law as the 1st defendant caused a notice of the application to be published in the Federal Gazette vide exhibit W5. That since by section 7 of the Trade Unions Act the cancellation (withdrawal) of certificate of a trade union can only be grounded on either fraud or mistake, the absence of fraud or mistake is conclusive proof that the requirements of the Act for registration of the 3rd defendant had been complied with. That the suit lacks merit and should be dismissed with substantial costs in favour of the 3rd defendant.

 

  1. Upon receipt of the 3rd defendant’s processes, the claimant filed a 28 paragraphed Further and Better Affidavit deposed to by Mr. Mathew Alore on the 3rd day of November, 2025. Annexed to the Further and Better Affidavit are exhibits NWA 12 – NWA 15. Learned Counsel also filed a Reply on Points of Law on the same 3rd of November, 2025.

 

  1. It was submitted in the written reply address that, in law he who asserts must prove, relying on section 131 of the Evidence Act and the case of Mrs. Rosemary Onwusor V. Yahi Maina and Ors (2021) LPELR(CA)-11919. That exhibit W3 does not disclose that the Registered Trustees of the Nigeria Welders Association are deceased because there is no death certificate from the National Population Commission (NPC), affidavit of death or an obituary poster/funeral programme before the Court. See section 17 of the Births, Death etc (Compulsory Registration) Act. That exhibit W3 is an unauthenticated electronic document which is generally inadmissible in court because it fails to meet the requirements of section 84 (4) of the Evidence Act with respect to a certificate of authentication.

 

  1. That there was no time in the year 2012 the claimant applied to the 1st defendant to be registered as a trade union because as at the time the claimant submitted exhibit W4 to the Registrar of Trade Unions to be registered as a trade union, there was no trade union with the jurisdictional scope in existence. That the Steel Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria never existed and the Nigeria Welders and Fitters Union (NIWELFU) was proscribed by the Abuja Judicial Division of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NICN/YEN/73/2016 between Nigeria Welders and Fitters Union and Registered Trustees of Iron and Steel Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ISSAN Rivers State Chapel) and 14 Ors. That the contention of the 3rd defendant is therefore false and misleading, relying on the case of Durowaiye V. UBN Plc (2014) LPELR-24309(CA), page 22 para. D.

 

  1. That exhibit W4 is a public document and is not certified to be admissible, relying on the case of Ezechukwu V. Onwuka (2016) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1506) 529 at 562. The Court was urged to enter judgment in favour of the claimant, and grant all the reliefs in the suit.

 

  1. It is apposite to note that the 1st and 2nd Defendants did not file any process in opposition to the suit.

 

COURT’S DECISION:

 

  1.  Having considered the processes filed by the parties, this court shall determine this suit on the basis of the four (4) questions and Issues identified and argued by the Claimant’s Counsel, which are:

 

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to notify the claimant accordingly, that her application for registration as a trade union is defective so as to enable the claimant to amend the application to the satisfaction of the Trade Unions, Registrar or make a fresh application in place, thereof, has satisfies the requirement of sections 3(1)(5)(6) and 5(1)(2)(5A & B) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T4, 2004 as amended.

 

  1. Whether if the answer to the above in (sic) on the affirmative, the 1st Defendant failure, refusal and/or neglect to send a notice forthwith to the claimant in a prescribed form stating the grounds of refusal and specifying the date from which the time for appealing against the refusal is to run and publish a notice to the like effect in the Federal Gazette contravenes section 5 (5A) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T4, 2004 as amended, thereto.

 

  1. Whether the registration of the 3rd defendant is not tantamount to an unlawful and improper duplication of effort of the claimant in as much as the claimant has started the process of registration as a union on the 18th day of May, 2023; while, the 3rd defendant started sometime in December, 2024.

 

  1. Whether the 1st defendant’s act of registering the 3rd defendant despite the objections and protest by the claimant against the said registration, has a chilling effect on section 5(2) and (3) of the Trade Union Act as the action contravene same and therefore inconsistent, thereto.

 

  1. Before I consider the merit of the suit, it is apposite to first determine the 3rd Defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction filed on the 14th day of October, 2025, urging the Court for an order dismissing this suit in limine for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit as presently constituted. The rationale for this position is that jurisdiction being a threshold issue must be determined first before considering the merit of the suit as any proceeding conducted in the absence of the requisite jurisdiction amounts to an exercise in futility. See J. A. Adekoye & Ors. V. Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company Ltd & Ors. (2009) LPELR-106(SC), Mrs. Chime Ogbeyialu Ayodele V. Mr. Sule Isaac Ayodele (2020) LPELR-51180(CA) and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Nigeria Limited & 3 Others V. Federal Inland Revenue Services & 1 Other (2021) 17 NWLR (Part 1806) 545 at 575-575 paragraphs G-D, where the apex Court held thus on the significance of the issue of jurisdiction to trial proceeding: “The issue of jurisdiction, being radical in nature, is at the very foundation of adjudication. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings at the trial court or even in the Supreme Court for the first time without leave. All an appellant needs to do is to raise the issue of jurisdiction in his brief so as to give the respondent an opportunity to respond. The reason is because a trial conducted without jurisdiction is a waste of time; the whole proceedings no matter how well conducted and decided would ultimately be nullified and discarded. In the instant case, the issue sought to be raised as fresh issue being one of jurisdiction, it could not be defeated by the rules of the Supreme Court. It had to be considered irrespective of the delay in filing the appeal. [Opobiyi v. Muniru (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 387; NNPC v. Orhiowusele (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1371) 211 referred to.” 

 

  1. The grounds for the Notice of Preliminary Objection are as follows:

 

  1. The Claimant (Nigerian Welders Association) was incorporated under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) on 28-12-1985.
  2. That Samuel Joseph, Sunday O. Aigbomia and Ibrahim Audu who were the Registered Trustees of the Claimant when it was incorporated, are deceased.
  3. That this suit was filed without replacing/substituting the deceased Registered Trustees of the Claimant.
  4. That the Claimant as presently constituted lacks the juristic capacity/personality to initiate and maintain this suit against the Defendants.
  5. This suit is incompetent and an abuse of Court process.
  6. The Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit filed by deceased persons.

 

  1. In support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection is an affidavit of 15 paragraphs deposed to by Comrade Azibalua Amangala (the Bayelsa State Chairman of the 3rd Defendant) to which are annexed exhibits N1 – N4.

 

  1.  In the Written Address filed in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the 3rd Defendant identified this single Issue for the Court’s determination:

 

 Whether the Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this suit having been filed by Registered Trustees of the Claimant who are all deceased.

 

  1. It was submitted on lone Issue that, the claimant was incorporated under Part C of CAMA on the 28th day of December, 1985 with Samuel Joseph, Sunday O. Aigbomia and Ibrahim Audu who are all now deceased as the Registered Trustees. That since their demise, new registered trustees have not been appointed to replace/substitute them till date. That when attempts were made in the past to replace the late trustees, the CAC mandated them to settle the outstanding annual returns before it could entertain any application to replace/substitute the deceased registered trustees, but they could not make the payment hence the application did not see the light of the day. See exhibits N3 and N4.

 

  1. It was further argued that, Mr. Mathew Alore’s claim that he had the authority and consent of the Claimant to depose to the affidavit in support of the suit is therefore false because when the suit was filed there was no living or legal person to have given such authority and consent. That he failed to demonstrate how he obtained the authority and consent in line with the evidential requirement of prove as alleged by him. See Mainstreet Bank V. Maiwada (2017) LPELR-42656(CA) at pages 34 – 35, paras B-D and Sadiq and Ors V. Fasheun and Ors (2016) LPELR-41473(CA). That the onus is on Mr. Mathew Alore to prove his claim that the registered trustees are alive and how they gave him their authority and consent to institute the suit, relying on the case of Akpan and Ors V. Umoren and Ors (2012) LPELR-7909(CA) at pages 24 – 25, paras C-E.

 

  1. That the suit was filed through misrepresentation and concealment of material facts to deceive the Honourable Court, and is therefore incompetent and an abuse of court process. The Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as filed by deceased persons. See Kalshingi V. Masoro and Ors (2015) LPELR-41654(CA) at pages 7 – 9, paras. D – C, Okon V. Aji (2017) LPELR-43464(CA), Eyesan V. Sanusi (1984) 4 S.C. 116 at 137, SPDC and Anor V. Pessu (2014) LPELR-23325(CA), Nzom and Anor V. Jinadu (1987) LPELR-2143(SC) and Ezenwosu V. Ngonadi (1988) LPELR-1207(SC).

 

  1. That having not substituted the dead registered trustees with living ones, the claimant as presently constituted lacks the juristic capacity/personality to initiate and maintain this suit as one cannot built something on nothing and expect it to stand, relying on the cases of Macfoy V. UAC Ltd (1961) 3 All ER 1169 at 1172 and Navy Captain Olufemi Pearse (Rtd) V. Jinadu and Anor (2017) LPELR-50512(CA). The Court was urged to grant the Notice of Preliminary Objection and dismiss the suit in its entirety with substantial costs in favour of the 3rd Defendant.
  2. In opposition to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Claimant filed a 12 paragraphed Counter Affidavit deposed to by Mathew Alore on the 3rd of November, 2025 to which are annexed exhibits A – D. In the written address filed in support of the Counter Affidavit, the Claimant adopted the lone Issue crafted and argued by the 3rd defendant.

 

  1. It was submitted that all the welders in Nigeria came together in 1985 and formed the Nigerian Welders Association for the protection of their interests in line with the provisions of section 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and section 673 (1)(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. That even though the Nigerian Welders Association is a registered trustee, it is however administered by people who have been elected by established procedures of the body. That the trustees are acting in the interest of the association, relying on the case of Nwosu V. Okeke (2002) FWLR (Pt. 05) 366. That Mr. Mathew Alore who is the Bayelsa State Chairman and a principal member of the Nigeria Welders Association (NWA) has the authority of the claimant and other executive/principal members of the claimant to depose to all the affidavits filed in this suit as the claimant is a legal personality that can sue and be sued. See Gani Fawehinmi V. Nigerian Bar Association (No.2) (1989)(SC) 72111.

 

  1. That by exhibit N3 of the 3rd defendant, the claimant is a juristic person having been incorporated at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) in 1985, relying on the case of Apostolic Church, Ilesha V. A.G. (Midwest) (1972) 4 SC 150. That the burden of proof is on the 3rd defendant who asserts that the registered trustees of the claimant are all deceased but the 3rd defendant has failed to establish the allegation. See section 131(1)(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Kwasalba (Nig) Ltd V. Okonkwo (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 407 at 417 and Nsefik V. Muna (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 502 at 516, paras. F – G. That the 3rd defendant failed to produce a death certificate from the National Population Commission (NPC) which is the primary legal document of proving death in Nigeria under section 17 of the Births, Death etc (Compulsory Registration) Act and also the Evidence Act, or affidavit of death, obituary or poster/funeral programme.

 

  1. It was further posited that, exhibit N4 is an unauthenticated electronic document which is generally inadmissible in court without a certificate of authentication pursuant to section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. That the Notice of Preliminary Objection is the same as the contentions in the 3rd Defendant’s Counter Affidavit to the Originating Summons contrary to the law that it is in the interest of public policy that there should be an end to litigation, relying on the case of Ekong and Anor V. Udo and Ors (2003) FWLR (Pt. 139) 1576 at 1599.

 

  1. The Court was urged to dismiss the Notice of Preliminary Objection for being an abuse of Court process as the 3rd defendant has not used the judicial process bona fide and properly, relying on the cases of Ikine V. Edierede (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 445, Nweke V. Udobi (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 450 and Ntuks V. Nigerian Ports Authority (2007) 5-6 SC 1 at 26 – 27.

 

  1. The 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed a 6 paragraphed Further and Better Affidavit deposed to by Comrade Azibalua Amangala (the Bayelsa State Chairman of the 3rd defendant) together with a Reply on Points of Law on the 17th of November, 2025. The learned counsel to the 3rd defendant identified this sole Issue for determination: Whether by virtue of Mr. Mathew Alore’s Counter Affidavit dated 3rd of November, 2026(sic), he proved his claim that the Registered Trustees of Nigeria Welders’ Association are the claimant in this suit and he had the consent and authority of the said Registered Trustees to depose to the affidavit in support of this suit.

 

  1. It was submitted that from the processes in this suit Mr. Mathew Alore is not the claimant, and he is therefore saddled with the legal responsibility to prove that the registered trustees of the claimant are still alive and how he got their consent and authority to institute the suit.

 

  1. That since the suit was commenced by Originating Summons and to be determined on affidavit evidence, there is no need to produce certificate of authentication as required under section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. That a document attached to or exhibited with an affidavit forms part of the evidence adduced by the deponent and is therefore properly before the court without the formality of certification, relying on the cases of Aondoakaa V. Obot and Anor (2021) LPELR-56605(SC) at pages 35 – 37, paras. C-A, Ilorin East Local Government V. Alasinrin and Anor (2012) LPELR-8400(CA) and B.A.T. (Nig.) Ltd V. International Tobacco Co. Plc (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1339) 493 at 520-521, paras D-A.

 

  1. That only the Registered Trustees of the Claimant have the locus/juristic personality to initiate and prosecute this suit in their names, and not the Claimant who is not one of the registered trustees of the claimant. The Court was urged to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction with substantial costs in favour of the 3rd Defendant.

 

  1. It is pertinent to note that, the claimant filed a Further Counter Affidavit of 5 paragraphs deposed to by Mathew Alore together with a Reply Address on the 21st day of November, 2025. It was further submitted by the Claimant that a bare denial as done by the 3rd defendant/applicant is not enough because they are supposed to provide particulars and grounds of the fact challenged, relying on the case of Cotia V. Sanusi Brothers (2000) 6 SCNJ 453 at 455. That paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s Further and Better Affidavit are legal arguments and conclusions contrary to section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, and the court was urged to strike out the said offending paragraphs. See Enwo-Igariwey and Anor V. Anozie and Ors (2018) LPELR-45766(CA) and A.G. Adamawa V. A.G. Federation (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 581 at 676.

 

  1. That the onus of proof is on the 3rd defendant who asserts, and he must prove the allegations with credible evidence, relying on section 131 of the Evidence Act and the case of Womiloju V. Anibire (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 545. That the 3rd defendant who asserts that the registered trustees of the claimant are deceased has failed to prove same through the production of death certificate from the National Population Commission (NPC) or a medical certificate pursuant to section 17 of the Births, Death e.t.c (Compulsory Registration) Act. That the claimant who is aggrieved has the right to seek legal redress, and the claimant (not Mathew Alore) has the legal capacity or locus standi to bring the suit.

 

  1. That as a general rule, only persons who are natural (human beings) or artificial (persons created by law) not subject to any legal disability can sue or be sued, relying on the case of Obasanjo V. Buhari (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 580) 510 at 577. The Court was urged to discountenance the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s submissions and dismiss the Notice of Preliminary Objection.

 

  1. The 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents did not file any process in respect of the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant.

 

  1. The fulcrum of the 3rd defendant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection is that since the Registered Trustees of Nigerian Welders Association was registered under the erstwhile Part C of CAMA (now Part F of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020), and all the registered trustees are now late and have not been replaced, the deponent to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons Mr. Mathew Alore does not have the locus standing to institute the instant suit as the late trustees could not have given him the consent and authority to institute the suit on behalf of the Claimant.

 

  1. I have seen from exhibit N3 attached to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection that the Registered Trustees of the Nigerian Welders Association (the claimant) was incorporated under the then Land (Perpetual Succession) Act, Cap. 98 on the 28th day of December, 1985 with Samuel Joseph, Sunday O. Aigbomia and Ibrahim Audu as the appointed trustees. There is therefore no doubt that the Claimant as presently constituted is a corporate body imbued with the powers to sue and be sued in its corporate name as such trustees. Section 823(2) of the Companied and Allied Matters Act 2020 states that, “upon being so registered by the Commission, the trustees shall become a corporate body in accordance with the provisions of section 830 of this Part.” Section 830 of CAMA 2020 on the other hand provides as follows:

“830(1) From the date of registration, the trustees shall become a body corporate by the name described in the certificate, and shall have –

  1. Perpetual succession;
  2. A common seal if they so wish;
  3. Power to sue and be sued in its corporate name as such trustees;
  4. Subject to section 836 of this Part, power to hold and acquire, and transfer, assign or dispose of any property, or interests therein belonging to, or held for the benefit of such association, in such manner and subject to such restrictions and provisions as the trustees might without incorporation, hold or acquire, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of the same for the purposes of such community, body or association of persons.

(2) The Certificate of incorporation shall vest in the body corporate all property and interests of whatever nature or tenure belonging to or held by any person in trust for such community, body or association of persons.

(3) A certificate of incorporation when granted shall be prima facie evidence that all the preliminary requisitions herein contained and required in respect of such incorporation have been complied with, and the date of incorporation mentioned in such certificate shall be deemed to be the date on which incorporation has taken place.”

 

  1. I have held in this decision that the Claimant as presently constituted is a body corporate and has the powers to sue and be sued in its corporate name. The issue of the legal status or capacity of the claimant is therefore never in doubt going by the certificate of incorporation annexed to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection. See the case of Yesufu Oyedoke and Others V. Registered Trustees of Christ Apostolic Church (2000) LPELR-6943(CA) at pages 25 – 30, paras. F-B and Rev. Monday Michael Idiong and Others V. The Incorporated Trustees of the Divine Assemblies of Christ Church of Nigeria (2021) LPELR-54311(CA) at pages 24 – 26, paras F – A, where the Court of Appeal held as follows with respect to the legal or juristic personality of a corporate body:

 

“In deciding issue no. 4, learned counsel for the Appellants seems to be mixing up the facts of the number of trustees physically on ground to manage the affairs of the company and the legal status invested on the Respondent by its corporate personality to possess perpetual succession irrespective of the number(s) of trustees physically available to manage the affairs of the company.

By the provisions of Sections 596 and 602 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, it is evident that the Act recognized the possibility or existence of a sole trustee in the event of demise or incapacitation of other trustees. This shows that the trustees have a separate personal legal entity from the corporate body and the administration of the affairs of the body is not dependent on the personal status of the trustees but on the separate and distinct life of the incorporated body.

Thus, where one trustee survives the other appointed with him, he remains the sole trustee that is the sole corporate. The legal personality of the association or body lies in him, he becomes the sole determinant on all issues for which the Law reserves a decision or action for the trustee. See Chief James Egbuson & Ors v. Joseph Ikechukwu (1977) All NLR 194, 203; Okatta v. Registered Trustees of the Onitsha Sports Club.”

 

  1. On the 3rd defendant’s allegation that all the trustees of the claimant are deceased hence they could not have given the claimant consent or authority to institute the instant suit, the onus of proof is no doubt on the 3rd defendant who alleges to establish the allegation with credible and verifiable evidence as required under sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act.

 

  1. I have however seen in this suit that apart from the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Preliminary Objection which in any case have been denied by the Claimant, there is nothing before the Court to substantiate the allegation that the said trustees Joseph Samuel, Aigbomia O. Sunday and Ibrahim Audu are late or deceased. Exhibit N4 does not show that the trustees are deceased, and there is no indication as to when and where they died. There is no certificate of death or any document showing the death of the said registered trustees before the Court. The law is that the best way of establishing or proving death in criminal cases (which I find relevant to this civil suit) is either a medical certificate of death showing that the deceased is dead and the cause of death or the viva voce evidence of the medical doctor who performed an autopsy on the body of the deceased to testify that the deceased had died. See Kofoworola Saheed V. The People of Lagos State (2018) LPELR-46675(CA). See also sections 17 and 19 of the Births, Deaths, ETC (Compulsory Registration) Act.

 

  1. The deponent to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons Mathew Alore describes himself at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit as the Bayelsa State Chairman of the Claimant and by virtue of his position he is very conversant with the facts of the case, and that he knows the claimant as the umbrella body of the welders in Nigeria. That he has the authority and consent of the Claimant and other principal/executive members of the Claimant to depose to the affidavit. The 3rd Defendant needs more than mere averments in an affidavit to disprove these assertions by the deponent to the affidavit. The lone Issue in the Notice of Preliminary Objection is therefore resolved against the 3rd Defendant/Applicant. The Notice of Preliminary Objection fails and same is hereby dismissed. The Court hereby assumes jurisdiction in the matter, and shall now proceed to determine the substantive Originating Summons.

 

  1. The crux of the claimant’s case is the alleged failure of the 1st Defendant to comply with the requirements of sections 3 and 5 of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 relating to the claimant’s application for registration as a trade union, and the subsequent registration of the 3rd defendant as a trade union. It may therefore be apposite to reproduce the said statutory provisions which are germane to the determination of the issues in this suit.

 

“3. Application for registration of trade union

  1. An application for the registration of a trade union shall be made to the Registrar in the prescribed form and shall be signed-
    1. In the case of a trade union of workers, by at least fifty members of the union; and
    2. In the case of a trade union of employers, by at least two members of the union.
  2. No combination of workers or employers shall be registered as a trade union save with the approval of the Minister on his being satisfied that it is expedient to register the union either by regrouping existing trade unions, registering a new trade union or otherwise howsoever, but no trade union shall be registered to represent workers or employers in a place where there already exists a trade union.
  3. No staff recognized as a projection of management within the management structure of any organization shall be a member of or hold office in a trade union (whether or not the members of that trade union are workers of a rank junior, equal or higher than his own) if such membership or of the holding of such office in the trade union will lead to a conflict of his loyalties to either the union or to the management.
  4. For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, a person may be recognized as a projection of management within a management structure if his status, authority, powers, duties and accountability which are reflected in his conditions of service are such as normally inhere in a person exercising executive authority (whether or not delegated) within the organization concerned.
  5. Every application made pursuant to subsection (1) above shall state the name under which it is proposed that the trade union to which it relates shall be registered and the address of the office which, if the union is registered, is to be the registered office.
  6. Every such application shall be accompanied by two copies of the rules of the union, and by a list showing-
    1. The name, address, age and occupation of each of the persons by whom the application is signed; and
    2. The official title, name, address, age, and occupation of each official of the union.
  7. Procedure on receipt of application for registration.
  8. Where an application for the registration of a trade union is received by the Registrar, the following provisions of this section shall apply:

Provided that if the application appears to the Registrar to be defective in any respect, he shall notify the applicant accordingly and shall take no further action in relation thereto until the application has been amended to his satisfaction or a fresh application is made in place thereof.

  1. The Registrar shall cause a notice of the application to be published in the Federal Gazette, stating that objections to the registration of the trade union in question may be submitted to him in writing during the period of three months beginning with the date of the Gazette in which the notice is published.
  2. Within three months after the end of the said period of three months the Registrar shall consider any objections submitted to him during that period and, if satisfied-
    1. That no proper objection has been raised;
    2. That none of the purposes of the trade union is unlawful; and
    3. That the requirements of this Act and of the Regulations with respect to the registration of trade unions have been complied with,

Shall, subject to subsection (2) of this section, and to section 6 of this Act, register the trade union and its rules.

  1. The Registrar shall not register the trade union if it appears to him that any existing trade union is sufficiently representative of the interests of the class of persons whose interest the union is intended to represent.
  2. If the Registrar refuses to register the union-
    1. He shall forthwith send to the applicants a notice in the prescribed form to that effect, stating the grounds of refusal and specifying the date from which the time for appealing against the refusal is to run, and shall publish a notice to the like effect in the Federal Gazette; and
    2. Any official or member of the union may, within the period of thirty days beginning with the date so specified, appeal to the Minister against the refusal.
  3. The Registrar on registering a trade union shall issue a certificate of registration which, unless it is proved that the registration of the union has been cancelled, shall (except in any proceedings for the cancellation of the registration of the union on the ground that its registration was obtained by fraud or as the result of a mistake) be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act and Regulations with respect to the registration of trade unions have been complied, and that the trade union is authorised to be registered and is a trade union for the purposes of this Act.
  4. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the Registrar, shall on the coming into effect of this section of this Act, register the trade unions specified in Part A and Part C of the Third Schedule to this Act; and on such registration the said trade unions shall have all the powers and duties of a trade union registered under this Act.”

 

  1. The Claimant had applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions (the 1st Defendant) to be registered as a trade union on the 18th of May, 2023 and waited for the notice of the application to be published in the Federal Gazette for any objections from the public or for the 1st Defendant to notify the claimant of any defect in the application so as to enable the claimant appeal to the Hon. Minister of Labour and Employment (the 2nd Defendant in this suit). The application and all the supporting documents are exhibits NWA 1, NWA2 and NWA 3 annexed to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.

 

  1. When the claimant did not receive any notice from the 1st claimant, they wrote through their Solicitors to the 2nd Defendant letter dated 18th of October, 2024 (exhibit NWA 4), but despite the letter the 1st Defendant refused and neglected to register the claimant but went ahead and registered the 3rd Defendant as a trade union on the 28th of May, 2025 whose jurisdictional scope is the same as that of the claimant as can be gleaned from exhibits NWA 5 and NWA 6 annexed to the affidavit in support of the originating summons. The registration of the 3rd defendant was done on the 28th of May, 2025 vide the letter of registration (exhibit NWA 7) despite the claimant’s protests and objections to the registration of the 3rd defendant vide exhibits NWA 8, NWA 9, NWA 10 and NWA 11.

 

  1. It is obvious that both the promoters of the claimant and the 3rd Defendant once belonged to the Nigerian Welders Association before the registration of the 3rd defendant as a trade union as can be gleaned from exhibit W1 annexed to the 3rd defendant’s counter affidavit in opposition to the Originating Summons where the deponent to the counter affidavit (Comrade Dada Salmon Olabode) was elected as the National President of the Association on the 4th day of December, 2021. From exhibit W4 it is obvious that efforts were made to register the Association as a trade union on the 3rd of May, 2012 but the application was declined by the Registrar of Trade Unions vide exhibit W4 dated 23rd of May, 2012, on the ground that there was in existence the Steel Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria. I must say that there is another certificate of return attached to the claimant’s Further and Better Affidavit as exhibit NWA 12 which indicates that the person elected as the National President of the Association on the 4th of June, 2021 was Comrade Godfrey Etim.

 

  1. The question before this Honourable Court is whether the 1st defendant acted rightly and within the law in registering the 3rd defendant as a trade union despite the application and protests/objections of the claimant to the registration of the 3rd defendant.

 

  1. I have seen in this suit that contrary to the Claimant’s contention that an application was not submitted to the registrar of trade unions for registration in 2012, the 3rd defendant’s exhibit W4 annexed to the 3rd defendant’s Counter Affidavit shows that the 1st defendant declined the registration of the claimant on the ground that the class of persons the claimant intended to organize was already covered by an existing union (Steel Engineering Workers Union of Nigeria).

 

  1. I have seen that the claimant’s counsel did not rely on any case law authority where the said sections 3 and 5 of the Trade Unions Act submitted for interpretation have been decided upon, apart from the general arguments that since the provisions are clear and unambiguous they should be given their ordinary grammatical meanings, particularly that the word “shall” used in the provisions does not give room for any discretion on the part of the registrar of trade unions. In the case of The Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria and Others V. Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria (2008) 2 NWLR (Part 1072) 575, also reported as (2008) LPELR-3196(SC), the Supreme Court made it clear that the by sections 3(1) and 5(2) of the Trade Unions Act, the registration of a trade union is not automatic but at the discretion of the Registrar of Trade Unions after he must have made his investigations and becomes satisfied, and that the decision to register or not to register a trade union inheres in the Registrar of Trade Unions and not the Minister of Labour and Productivity. See also the case of Erasmus Osawe and Others V. Registrar of Trade Unions (1985) LPELR-2792(SC).

 

  1. I have seen in this suit that contrary to the contention of the Claimant that no publication was made in the Federal Gazette, exhibit W6 annexed to the 3rd Defendant’s Counter Affidavit is the official Gazette dated 31st October, 2024 Vol. III No. 186 which is a publication of the application of the National Union of Nigeria Welders for any objection to the registration of the said body as a trade union. Section 5(6) of the Trade Unions Act presupposes that a certificate of registration of a trade union issued by the Registrar is conclusive evidence that the requirements of the Act and Regulations with respect to the registration of trade unions have been complied with. The only ground for any application for the cancellation of such registration of the trade union is either that the registration was obtained by fraud or as a result of a mistake. To succeed in this suit for an order of court withdrawing the certificate issued to the 3rd defendant on the 28th of May, 2025, the claimant must establish that the registration of the 3rd defendant was obtained through either fraud or as a result of mistake, which the Claimant has failed to show in this suit. I therefore hold that having published the application of the 3rd defendant for registration as a trade union in the Federal Gazette before registering the 3rd defendant, I cannot see any vitiating feature in the 3rd defendant’s registration to warrant the cancellation or withdrawal of the certificate issued to the 3rd defendant by the 1st defendant. 

 

  1. I have also seen that the claimant’s principal claims or reliefs before the court are declaratory in nature. The burden is therefore on the claimant to produce credible evidence without relying on the evidence of the defendants. The law is that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission or default of pleadings by the defendant. In the case of Alhaji Shehu Yusuf V. Bem Tilley Gyado and Others (2023) LPELR-60678(CA), the Court of Appeal per Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso, J.C.A. held thus on proof of a declaratory relief at pages 16-17, paras. C-D of the report, “The main claim being a declaratory relief, the 1st Respondent was bound to prove his case on the balance of probability and by preponderance of evidence. He has to do this by cogent, credible and plausible evidence and must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the adversary. See A.G. River State VS. A.G. Bayelsa (2013) 3 NWLR (PT. 1340) 123 (SC), NWOKIDU VS. OKANU (2010) 3 NWLR (PT. 1181) 362, DANTATA VS. MOHAMMED (2000) 7 NWLR (PT. 664) 176. In the case of DA’APE & ANOR VS. MUSA & ORS. (2019) LPELR-48846 (CA) P. 18 PARAS A, this Court per Abiriyi JCA held as follows: “The Appellants sought before the Tribunal declaratory reliefs. Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the party seeking it is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. The person seeking the declaratory relief must plead and prove the claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the Plaintiff’s claim. See Anyanru vs. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64-65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693, Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184 CA and Mbodan vs. Dabai (2019) LPELR-46739 CA.”  See also the cases of Mr. Ebong John Ebong V. Mr. Okon Warrie Ebong (2022) LPELR-56506(CA) and Davien Aondongu V. Chief Atim Maiber and Another (2022) LPELR-57882(CA).

 

  1. In the final result, I hold that the claimant has failed to prove the case before the Court. All the four questions which are the Issues for determination in this suit are resolved against the Claimant. The suit lacks merit and is hereby dismissed for want of proof. Judgment is entered accordingly. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

K. O. Ogbonna for the Claimant.

Eremasi Alpheaus for the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

Joseph Opute with Anthony Ndeze for the 3rd Defendant.