IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AKURE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AKURE

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D. DAMULAK

DATED THIS 9TH   DAY OF MARCH, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/AK/05/2025

BETWEEN:

NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF

EDUCATIONAL AND ASSOCIATED

INSTITUTIONS (NASU)                                                               ..... .............      CLAIMANT

                        AND

1.     GOVERNING COUNCIL OF FEDERAL

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE

2.     THE VICE CHANCELLOR, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY

OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE

3.     MR OLADPO PETER OSADUGBA,       ............................DEFENDANTS

THE BURSAR, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY

OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE

4.     COMRADE  AKOSILE OSANYINBI

5.     COMRADE  FAYIWOLE MATHEW

(For themselves and on behalf of the

 National Association of non-Teaching

 Staff of Nigerian Universities)

REPRESENTATION

B.A Ogunleye for the claimant

O. D. Olawale with O. V. Adegbulugbe for the 1st -3rd defendants

O.O Ayenakin with D. Fola-Adebayo and

 R.O Bolajoko for the 4th and 5th defendants.

 

JUDGMENT

INTRDUCTION

1.     The claimant took out an originating summons against the 1st -3d defendants on 6/2/2025 and by a motion of 28/4/2025, the 4th and 5th defendants sought to be joined and were joined.

2.     The originating summons was accordingly amended on 15/5/2025.

3.     The claimant sought for the determination of four questions and the grant of 12 reliefs numbered as A-L.

4.     The questions for determination are as follows;

 

1.     Whether with the combined provisions of Section 5(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 and Section 17(a) & (b) of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 (as amended), the defendants can collectively migrate the claimant membership in their establishment together with their monthly Check-off dues to an unregistered and unrecognized Association by claiming same to be a subscription or dues in pursuit of registration process for such an Association.

2.     Whether the content of (Exhibit A) being the letter issued by the 2nd defendant dated 7th September, 2023 is in tandem or consonance with judgment delivered on 30th May, 2023 by Honourable Justice B.B. Kanyip in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/250/2022 between Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational & Associated Institutions (NASU) vs. Comrade Niyi Akinnibi (attached and marked Exhibit B) wherein the Check-off dues of the claimant members were migrated collectively and paid the same to an unregistered and unrecognized Association under the disguised of subscription or dues for the purpose of registration of such an Association.

3.     Whether under Section 3(2) of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T14, LFN 2004, an Association not duly registered and recognized can perform the functions of a trade union and be entitled to Check-off dues which are a hall mark of a Trade Union.

4.     Whether the defendants are not bound by clear provision of Section 25 of the Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 (as amended) to keep recognizing and continue with the recognition of the claimant as registered Trade Unions specified in conferred with the jurisdiction scope of unionizing all eligible staff of Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational & Associated Institutions (NASU) establishment of the defendants.

5. The reliefs sought are as follows;

a.   A declaration that by the provisions of Section 5(3) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act, Cap. L1, LFN 2004, the purported collective migration of the claimant membership along with their monthly Check-off dues to an unregistered and unrecognized Association whether by way of subscription or dues in pursuit of registration process is unlawful, wrongful, illegal, null, void and ultra vires the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.

b.   A declaration that the content of Exhibit ‘A’ is not in tandem or consonance with the judgment of Honourable Justice B.B. Kanyip in Suit No: NICN/ABJ/250/2022 and thereby set aside the migration of the claimant membership with the payment of their Check-off dues as subscription or dues for the purpose of registration for a new Association as a trade union.

c.   A declaration that an unregistered and unrecognized Association under the Trade Unions Act cannot perform the functions of a Trade Union and not entitled to a Check-off dues of the claimant in the establishment of the defendants since the issue of Check-off dues is a hall mark of a Trade Union and same cannot be used as a subscription or dues for purpose of registration.

d.  A declaration that by the combined effect of Section 5(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Act, Cap L1, LFN 2004 and Section 17(a) and (b) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14, LFN 2004 (as amended), the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants’ decision to collectively migrate the claimant members in their establishment along with their monthly Check-off dues to an unregistered and unrecognized Association under the pretext of payment of subscription or dues for registration of an Association under the Trade Unions Act is illegal, unlawful, wrongful, ultra vires the defendants and of no effect whatsoever.

e.   An Order of this Honourable Court nullifying and setting aside the content of Exhibit ‘B’ as the content ultra vires the office of the 2nd defendant since the issue of subscription or dues is within the purview of the promoter of the idea seeking for registration under the Trade Union Act.

f.    An Order of this Honourable Court quashing the illegal migration of the claimant members together with their Check-off dues been paid to an Association yet to be recognized and registered under the Trade Union Act.

g.   An Order of this Honourable Court compelling and directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to recognize and continue recognizing the claimant Union as a registered Trade Union with the jurisdictional scope of unionizing all its eligible Non-Academic Staff with the exclusion of all other registered and recognized Unions.

h.  An Order of this Honourable Court compelling or directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants to resume and continue with the deduction of Check-off dues from salary of all eligible members of the claimant in its employment and remit same to the claimant’s account with the Zenith Bank with Account No: 1312426920 within 7 days from the grant of this Order.

i.    An Order of this Hononourable Court compelling and directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants, its agents, privies, representatives however called from migrating, recognizing, relating or engaging with an unregistered and unrecognized Association as a Trade Union apart from the claimant Union to unionize all Non-Academic Staff members in their establishment.

j.    An Order of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd defendant from  victimizing the loyal members of the claimant in its employment in whatever way howsoever, as a result of their stand not to join or engages themselves in the activities of an unregistered and unrecognized Association

k.   An Order of this Honourable Court compelling or directing the 3rd defendant to refund to the claimant all money due to the claimant as a result of deducted Check-off dues from all eligible members of the claimant in the University that was wrongfully paid to the unregistered and unrecognized Association as a subscription or dues in furtherance of its registration by 3rd defendant within 7 days from the day of judgment in this case.

5.     The 1st -3rd defendants filed a counter affidavit on 23/5/2025 while the 4th and 5th defendants filed counter affidavit on 17/6/2025.The claimant filed a further and better affidavit on 16/6/2025.

 

 

CLAIMANTS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMONS

6.     In a 31 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Comrade Adesida Adefolarin, he deposed that the claimant is a registered Trade Union listed as No. 27 in Part A and B of the Third Schedule to Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 and conferred with the jurisdictional scope of Unionizing all Non-Academic Staff of Educational and Associated Institutions including the Teaching Hospital in Nigeria.

7.     That the claimant at all material time has been operating a Branch Union in the Federal University of Technology, Akure and the claimants’ relationship with the 1st – 3rd defendants establishment has always been a cordial one until the expulsion of Comrade Aladerotohun and dissolution of its Executive Committee wherein the 4th defendant happened to be the Branch Secretary and the 5th an Ex-officio.

8.     That the expulsion and dissolution of the Executive Committee brought about two separate litigations namely:- Suit No: NICN/AK/44/2019 and. NICN/AK/52/2019 which were all struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

9.     That despite the Court Judgment the 1st – 3rd defendants kept aiding the dissolved Executive Committee members of NASU FUTA Branch to remain in office remitting the claimant’s Check-off dues to the NASU Account being operated by the expelled Chairman and 4th defendants and thereby denying the claimant its statutory dues till date.

10.                        That the Court of Appeal by its ruling delivered on 22nd day of January, 2024 in Appeal No. CA/AK/83M/2021 in respect of SUIT NO: NICN/AK/52/2019 involving the 4th and 5th defendants was struck out for want of prosecution. A copy of the said ruling is hereby attached and marked Exhibit ‘E’.

11.                        That despite the said ruling which relates to the dissolution of the 4th and 5th defendants Executive Committee of the FUTA NASU Branch, the 1st – 3rd defendants kept recognizing the expelled Chairman along with the 4th and 5th defendants as officers of NASU FUTA Branch and keep remitting the check-off dues of all eligible members of the claimant in the University for their sole benefits.

12.                        That to my best of knowledge, none of the eligible members of the claimant have opted out of the Union individually as stipulated under the Trade Union Act except its Chairman who was expelled by the Union on 7th day of November, 2019.

13.                        That the 1st – 3rd defendants kept supporting and encouraged the 4th and 5th defendants to remain in the helm of affairs of the claimant Union despite the dissolution of their Executive Committee and even beyond their four years tenure that commences in October 2019 and to expired by September, 2023.

14.                        That after the claimant agitations, the 2nd defendant went ahead to issue a letter dated 7th September, 2023 in favour of the 4th and 5th defendants unrecognized and unregistered Association to keep ripping-off the Check-off dues of the claimant under the disguised of subscription or dues for the pursuit of registration of the 4th and 5th defendants’ Association.

15.                        That the 2nd defendant claimed to have issued Exhibit ‘F’ based on the judgment of Honourable Justice B.B. Kanyip on 30th May, 2023 in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/250/2022.

16.                        That the 3rd defendant in carrying out the content of Exhibit ‘F’ went ahead to collectively migrate almost all the eligible members of the claimant by paying their monthly Check-off dues to the following account details:-

Account Name: NANT UNION FUTA CHAPTER

Account No:  2307179069

Bank:  UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA (UBA)

17.                         That the claimant’s correct Bank Account details are as follows:

Account Name: Non-Academic Staff Union of

Educational & Associated Institutions (NASU)

Account No:    1312426920

 Bank:                  Zenith Bank

18.                         That shown to me are some of the pay-slip of NASU members that were unlawfully migrated collectively and have their check-off dues made payable to the unrecognized and unregistered Association. Attached nine pay slip of the claimant’s members marked as Exhibit ‘H1 – H9’

 

19.                         That it is the duty of an individual member of a Trade Union that can opt-out from a Union and so collective or mass movement is not allowed.

20.                         That it is not the duty of an employer to assist to collect subscription or dues from members of its staff for the registration of an Association under the Trade Union Act.

21.                         That the 3rd defendant commenced the payment of the Check-of dues of the claimant to an unregistered and unrecognized Association under the Trade Union Act from the month of November, 2024 and preparing to pay that of April, 2025 to the same unregistered and unrecognized Association.

 COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF 1ST -3RD DEFENDANTS

22.                        In a 30 paragraph counter affidavit, one Fagbemi Olufisayo deposed for the 1st -3rd defendants as follows;

23.                        That the said members of the 4th and 5th defendants are free under the law regulating the institution to form and belong to Trade Unions of their choice.

24.                        That whenever so requested, the 1st – 3rd defendants are under the legal obligation to pay check off dues of its staff to any union they subscribed to.

25.                        That the claimant failed to serve a pre-action notice on the defendant before instituting this action as required by law. That the failure to issue a pre-action notice has deprived this Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

26.                        That the letter of the 2nd defendant with Reference VC.NANTS/423 complained of by the claimant was issued on 7th September, 2023. That the claimant filed this suit on 6th February, 2025.That I know as a fact that the period between the issuance of the Exhibit FUTA 1 and filing of this suit is in excess of 3 months. That the claimant suit is statute-barred, having been filed outside the limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act. That I know that a suit filed outside the limitation period is legally incompetent and liable to be struck out.

27.                        That I know as a fact that the claimant’s suit was commenced by Originating Summons instead of Complaint, as there are issues of facts to be decided in this case. That the nature of the claimant’s claims involves highly contentious issues of fact, requiring pleadings, oral evidence, and cross-examination, which makes the use of an Originating Summons inappropriate. That the failure of the claimant to commence this suit by Complaint has deprived the defendant of the opportunity to properly traverse and defend the claims made against it.

28.                        That one of the issues of facts to be decided is whether or not the National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) is a duly registered and recognized Association. That another issue of fact to be decided in this suit is whether or not staff and or employees of the defendants whose check off dues were allegedly migrated to NANTS wrote to seek for such migration.

29.                        That facts as to whether members of the claimant were indeed affected by the alleged migration of check-off dues, and if yes, how many of them must also be determined in this suit. That all these issues of fact cannot be effectively and conclusively determined by affidavit evidence, hence need to commence this suit by way of Complaint as envisaged by the Rules of this Honourable Court.

30.                        That registration or otherwise of National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) is a non- issue as its members have notified the University body of existence of the union. That the rights and obligations of National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) are constitutional and no one can force them to remain under the umbrella of the claimant.

31.                        That I know as fact that three (3) names were listed in the Originating Summons as Counsels for the claimant, to wit Benjamin A. Ogunleye Esq., J.N. Ikezu Esq., and Joseph Arinju Esq. That I know as a fact that the claimant’s counsel failed to indicate or tick the name of the particular counsel that signed the originating summons. That the defendants shall at or before trial raise preliminary objection in urging this Honourable Court to strike out or dismiss the suit as presently constituted.

32.                        In his written address, the learned counsel for the 1st -3rd defendants submitted 4 issues for the determination of the preliminary objection  as follows:-

1.     Whether the failure of the claimant/respondent to issue a pre-action notice renders the suit incompetent and liable to be struck out.

2.     Whether the suit is statute-barred, having been filed outside the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, and whether this affects the jurisdiction of the Court.

3.     Whether the suit was wrongly commenced by Originating Summons instead of by Complaint, considering that it involves contentious issues of fact.

4.     Whether failure to mark or tick the name of the particular counsel who signed the summons creates uncertainly and renders the entire process defective.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 4TH AND 5TH DEFENDANTS

33.   One Comrade Akosile Osanyinbi deposed to a 39 paragraph counter affidavit for the 4th and 5th defendants

34.   That in view of the ongoing registration process which is incomplete Comrade Fayiwole Mathew and I who are principal officers of the trade union at the FUTA Branch of the Union have been mandated to defend this suit in representative capacity.

35.   In other to promote the interest of Nigerian Universities’ workers who are non-teaching staff and whose welfare were not properly protected and were mortgaged with impunity; the National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) was formed and proposed for registration as a trade union to the Federal Ministry of Labour.

36.   In order to complete the process of registration and keep the organization going; the said trade union invited more members from Nigerian Universities and requested such members to pay check-off dues for the completion of the registration of the trade union as well as to keep it going.

37.   Several non-teaching staff of Federal University of Technology, Akure began to apply as members of the association and a branch was established in FUTA with these applicants admitted; among which I and the 2nd defendant in the second set of defendants are one.

38.   The principal officers of NANTS wrote to the 2nd defendant requesting for recognition and the notification of their interest in collecting dues from their members with a copy of the judgment which permitted the association to so do consequent upon which the 2nd defendant replied by a letter of 7th September, 2023 approving the request.

39.   That contrary to paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of Originating Summon, the action of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in permitting NANTS to collect dues for its registration is a step in the right direction and it is informed by the outcome of the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Abuja Judicial Division in Non- Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institution (NASU) with Suit No: NICN/ABJ/250/2022 between the claimant in this suit and NANTS wherein NANTS was recognized. The judgment is attached as Exhibit NANTS 3.

40.   That in response to paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of originating summon, the 3rd defendant acted lawfully when he paid the monthly check-off dues of the members of NANTS into the designated account because they are already members of NANTS and they are not complaining.

41.   Contrary to paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summon, there was no unlawful migration of NASU members to NANTS. As a matter of facts, all members of NANTS, FUTA Branch willfully joined the union (NANTS) and are participating in the union’s activities financially.

42.   Further to the above paragraph, the people whose check-off dues were paid into NANTS’ designated account are bonafide members of NANTS who not only indicated their interest as members but also did financially. The attached pay slips owners are members of NANTS who have no issue with their check-off dues being paid to NANTS and they are not complaining.

43.   The said members who joined NANTS also signed the necessary forms that they have relinquished their memberships of NASU. Some of the forms are exhibited as Exhibits NANTS 6(1 – 50)

44.        In response to paragraph 16 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon, the fact that a union like NANTS is under registration process does not make it illegal to collect dues for registration.

45.   The issues in this suit are the same with the one in Suit No: NICN/AK/24/2024 between Comrade Akosile Osanyinbi Zachariah & anor v. Comrade Adesida Adefolarin.

46.   The 4th and 5th defendants formulate the following issues for determination; to wit:

i.          Whether this suit is competent.

ii.       Whether by the provisions of Section 5(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Act and Section 17(a) and (b) of the Trade Union Act, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants can migrate the claimant’s members to an unrecognized and unregistered Association of 4th and 5th defendants and by paying the claimant’s statutory check-off dues to an unknown Association as a Trade Union.

47.                        Counsel submitted that this suit is incompetent and this Court does not have the jurisdictional competence to entertain this matter, but counsel made reference to Suit No: NICN/ABJ/250/2022 rather than NICN/AK/24/2024 referred to in the counter affidavit.

48.                        The claimant deposed to an 8 paragraph further and better affidavit.

 

COURT’S DECISION

49.                        The 4th and 5th defendants deposed in paragraph 37 of their counter affidavit that the issues in this suit are the same with the one in Suit No: NICN/AK/24/2024 between Comrade Akosile Osanyinbi Zachariah & anor v. Comrade Adesida Adefolarin and the learned counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants issue one is whether this suit is competent.

 

50.                         However, in the course of writing the judgment, the court discovered that the written address on the said issue one was hinged on NICN/ABJ/250/2022,a judgment of my lord B.BKanyip PNIC, as counsel submitted that this suit is incompetent and this Court does not have the jurisdictional competence to entertain this matter, making reference to Suit No: NICN/ABJ/250/2022 rather than NICN/AK/24/2024 referred to in the counter affidavit.

51.                         It was as result of this that the court, after the adoption of the final written address, called on the parties on 30/1/2026 and asked parties to address the court on the question, whether or not this suit is res judicata in view of COMRADE AKOSILE OSANYINBI ZACHARIAH &1 OR V COMRADE ADESIDA ADEFOLARIN & 6 ORS, Suit NO: NICN/AK/24/2024 (unreported) a judgment of this court delivered on 10/7/2025.All parties filed their addresses on the issue and adopted same on 26/2/2026.

 

52.                        In view of the parties before the court, the depositions and the issues or the Res of this suit, it is pertinent to first decide whether or not this suit is res judicata in view of COMRADE AKOSILE OSANYINBI ZACHARIAH &1 OR V COMRADE ADESIDA ADEFOLARIN & 6 ORS, Suit NO: NICN/AK/24/2024 (unreported) a judgment of this court delivered on 10/7/2025

 

53.                        Learned counsel on behalf of the 1st to 3rd defendants in his address identified the preconditions for the success of a plea of res judicata which are;

1.The parties in both suit being the same;

2.The subject matter in both suit being the same and;

3.The finality and subsistence of the earlier decision.

53. He argued that all these preconditions are present in both suit Numbers NICN/AK/24/2024 and the present suit being NICN/AK/05/2025. He posited that this suit is caught up by the doctrine of res judicata which in turn deprives this Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this case.

 

54.                        Learned claimant’s counsel, on his own part, in his address, submitted that for res judicata to apply, there must be;

1.     identity of parties (or privies),

2.     identity of subject matter;

3.     identity of issues and;

4.     finality of a decision on the merits by the Court.

 

55.                        He submitted that the doctrine does not apply to the present suit even though the issues and facts in the previous suit may be similar, because the parties in the present suit are not the same as the parties in the previous Suit Number NICN/AK/24/2024. He submitted also that while in the present suit, injunctive reliefs in addition to declaratory reliefs were sought, in the previous suit number NICN/AK/24/2024 only declaratory reliefs and restraining order were sought. He submitted conclusively that the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the present suit.

 

56.                        Counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants filed his written address on the issue formulated by the court on 25/2/2026. He submitted that the matter is res judicata. Counsel identified the same elements of res judicata and cited DUOLA V COKER (1901) 5 SC.197.

 

57.                        Counsel submitted that all the parties are either the same or privies in both suits. That the subject matter and issues in both suits are the remittance of check off dues of NASU members to NANTS and whether NANTS as an unregistered Association can be a beneficiary of such deductions.

 

58.                        Counsel also submitted that the judgment of this court in NICN /AK/24/2024 is a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction which has not been set aside.

 

59.                        All counsels are ad idem as to the ingredients of res judicata. The claimant counsel argues that the issues in the previous case and this one are similar but the parties are not the same but counsel did not care to consider whether or not they are privies.

 

60.                        Claimant counsel also submitted that while in the present suit, injunctive reliefs in addition to declaratory reliefs were sought, in the previous suit number NICN/AK/24/2024, only declaratory reliefs and restraining orders were sought.

 

61.                        With the greatest respect to counsel, it appears to me that injunctive orders are the same thing as restraining orders. In any event, the ingredients of res judicata, as rightly agreed by counsels, do not include the reliefs or prayers sought but it is the issues for determination that is relevant.

 

62.                        More so, the court has held in BI COURTNEY LTD V ASSO SAVINGS AND LOAN PLC (2023)17 NWLR (PT.1912)P.1 at 31-32 as follows;

For the purpose of res judicata, issues in matters are taken to be the same even though the wordings of the reliefs are different, provided that the substance and end result are substantially the same.

 

63.                        As to parties and privies; in COMRADE AKOSILE OSANYINBI ZACHARIAH &1 OR Vs COMRADE ADESIDA ADEFOLARIN & 6 ORS, Suit NO: NICN/AK/24/2024 (unreported) a judgment of this court delivered on 10/7/2025, the 4th and 5th defendants herein were the claimants and they sued for themselves and on behalf of NANTS, the capacity in which they are defending this present suit.

 

64.                        Similarly, Comrade Akosile Osanyinbi, who is the deponent for the 4th and 5th defendants herein, was the deponent for the claimants in NICN/AK/24/2024. The unchanged identity of the claimants in the previous suit and the 4th and 5th defendants in this case is by that fact further made apparent.

 

 

65.                        The 1st -6th defendants in Suit NO: NICN/AK/24/2024 were said to be caretaker committee of NASU in FUTA, thus they were the representatives of the claimant herein, they are therefore privies of the present claimant.

66.                        One comrade Adesida Adefolarin, who was the 1st defendant and deposed to the counter affidavit for the 1st -6th defendants in NICN/AK/24/2024, is the same deponent for the claimants in this suit. The privity of the 1st -6th defendants in the previous case and the claimants in this case is by that fact further made apparent. See ADALMA TANKERS BUNKERING SERVICES V CBN (2022) 11 NWLR (PT.1842) P.4045 at 449 where the Supreme Court held;

For the purpose of the application of the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicata, parties are defined not only in terms of those on record but also as including privies to the parties on record, those who may be interested in the outcome of the case and those who ought to have been made parties to the action but were not joined.

 

67.                        The seventh defendant in NICN/AK/24/2024,who did not defend the suit, was FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,AKURE (FUTA) while the 1st -3rd defendants herein are the Governing council, the Vice Chancellor and the Bursar of FUTA, they are privies of FUTA  in NICN/AK/24/2024, if one cannot say they are the same with FUTA. Particularly, given the facts of these cases, the effect of any order of court made on FUTA in the earlier suit is binding on the 1st –3rd  defendants  in this suit. Their privity is not arguable in this case. See  NWAZOTA V. NWOKEKE (2010) LPELR-5101(CA) where the court held;

"According to Black's Law Dictionary a "privy" in a suit or in the context of litigation means - "Someone who controls a law suit though not a party in it, someone whose interests are represented by a party in the law suit, and a successor in interest to anyone having a derivative claim." A person also qualifies as a Privy when he is a privy in Estate which includes "a guarantor and guarantee" or "lessor and lessee" which can also extend to the term "Donor and Donee" of a legal interest in land."

See also ADALMA TANKERS BUNKERING SERVICES V CBN (2022) 11 NWLR (PT.1842) P.4045 at 449

68.                        On the similarities or sameness of issues; in NICN/AK/24/2024, question 1 and reliefs A and D,  were as follows;

1.     Whether, in light of the judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/250/2022, the remittance of union dues by the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA) (the 7the Defendant) into the designated account of the National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) is valid,

 

 RELIEFS SOUGHT

a.      A DECLARATION that the remittance of union dues by the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA) into the designated account of National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) is valid, proper and in compliance with the judgment of this Honourable Court.

d.     AN ORDER directing the Federal University of Technology, Akure, to continue remitting union dues to National Association of Non-Teaching Staff of Nigerian Universities (NANTS) designated accounts in accordance with the NICN judgment.

 

69.                        In this suit, the four questions raised for determination can comfortably be summarized as the above question in NICN/AK/24/2024 especially given the depositions which reveal that FUTA is deducting check-off dues and paying same to NANTS based on the Judgment of this court in NICN/ABJ/50/2022 which NANTS says it is a correct interpretation and application of the judgment in NICN/ABJ/50/2022 while NASU says it is a wrong interpretation and application of the judgment in NICN/ABJ/50/2022.

 

70.                        This suit and NICN/AK/24/2024 are suits by the same parties and their privies and the issue or res is the same check-off dues deducted by FUTA and paid to NANTS, the contention being as to who should rightly be paid the said check-off dues as between NANTS and NASU.

 

71.                        The evidence relied upon in suit NO. NICN/AK/24/2024 and the present suit are the same in all material facts and essence. That is a strong mark of res judicata. See IHENACHO V EGBULA (2021) 14 NWLR (PT.1795) P.174 at 201 where the Apex court held as follows;

The test whether a previous case and the present case are the same would be whether it is the same piece of evidence that would be required to resolve the issue in controversy in both cases.

 

72.                        Both the Res and issue in this suit has already been adjudicated upon between the present parties and their privies in NICN/AK/24/2024. The present suit is therefore nothing but a re-litigation. To my mind, the matter is Res Judicata.

73.                        In CARAWAY VENTURES INTEGRATED NIG. LTD V. JAKANA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58219 (CA) The court held that;

 

"The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental doctrine of all Courts that there must be an end to litigation. By res judicata, it means "a thing adjudicated". In other words, it means "an issue that has been definitely settled by judicial decision". The three essential elements of the doctrine therefore are: (1) An earlier decision on the issue; (2) A final Judgment on the merits; and (3) The involvement of the same parties or parties in privy with the original parties. See Adeyemi-Bero V LSDPC (2012) LPELR-20615(SC) 77, C-D, per Ariwoola, JSC, Coker V Sanyaolu (1976) LPELR-877(SC).

 It ought to be borne in mind that the doctrine of res judicata serves the important purpose of putting an end to litigation by preventing parties from going through the agony of litigation twice on the same subject matter. What this means is that where a competent Court has determined a matter and entered final Judgment thereon, neither of the parties to the proceedings may re-litigate that issue by formulating a fresh claim since the matter is res judicata.

 

74.                        The effect, in law, where a matter is res judicata, is an order striking out the suit. See DONALD V. SALEH (2015) 2 NWLR (PT. 1444) 529 Pp. 576-577, paras. G-B where the court held;

The proper order a court should make when a suit is an abuse of court process is an order of dismissal. On the other hand, the proper order a court should make where a suit is barred by res judicata is an order striking out the suit. In this case, the appellants’ suit is an abuse of court process and effected by res judicata. Indeed, the latter reinforced the former. In the circumstance, the proper order of court is an order of dismissal.

 

75.                        I find and hold that this suit is res judicata in view of the judgment of this court in Suit NO: NICN/AK/24/2024 (unreported) a judgment of this court delivered on 10/7/2025 and this suit is hereby struck out.

76.                        There shall be neither need to consider the preliminary objections of the 1st -3rd defendants nor the merits of the case for a suit held to be res judicata.

 

77.                        This is the judgment of the court and it is entered accordingly.

 

..............................................................................

HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.D.DAMULAK

PRESIDING JUDGE