IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE UYO JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT UYO BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA DATE: 19th October, 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/UY/12/2026 BETWEEN: 1. NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW) 2. COMRADE UWEM JAMES 3. GODWIN OKON EDEM Claimants 4. MATTHEW ASUQUO 5. UBONG EKPENE 6. JEREMIAH AUGUSTINE AND: 1. HON. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AKWA IBOM STATE 2. GOVERNMENT OF AKWA IBOM STATE Defendants 3. ATTORNEY-GENERAL/COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, AKWA IBOM STATE 4. MR. ARMSTRONG MONDAY REPRESENTATIONS: Chief Martins Ekung with I. D. Effiong for the Claimants Mfon Obong Udi-Inyang (Asst. Director, Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice) with O. Anana (CSC) and Victoria Inyang (SSC) for the 1st to 3rd Defendants JUDGMENT The Claimants instituted this suit by way of Originating summons filed on 23/3/2026 seeking for the determination of the following questions:- “1. Whether by virtue of the provision of Sections 17 (a) (b) and 18 (i) of the TRADE UNIONS ACT, CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2005 as amended, the 1st Claimant is empowered to collect Check-off Dues from her members who are Road Transport workers through the issuance of daily tickets in Akwa Ibom State. 2. Whether, by virtue of the provision of section 16 PART B of the THIRD SCHEDULE OF TRADE UNIONS ACT, CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2005 as amended, the 1st Claimant is empowered or has Jurisdictional rights to organise all workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road (except petroleum and those undertaken by self-employed persons) for orderliness and welfare of the commercial transport sub-sector operators in Akwa Ibom State. 3. WHETHER, by virtue of the Jurisdictional Scope or power granted to the 1st Claimant in Section 16 of PART B of the THIRD SCHEDULE OF TRADE UNIONS ACT, CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2005 as amended, the 1st Claimant has power to set up enforcement committee to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 17 (a) (b) and 18 (i) of the TRADE UNIONS ACT, CAP T14 2005. 4. WHETHER by virtue of the provisions of sections 17 (a) (b), 18 (i) and Section 16 of PART B of the THIRD SCHEDULE of the Trade Unions Act, CAP T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2005, the 1st and 2nd Defendants have statutory powers to introduce Unified Government Approved Union Check-Off Dues after issuing public notice purportedly dissolving “all Task Forces and Enforcement Committees set up by different Unions in the transport sub-sector" particularly the 1st Claimant Union as captured in the 1st Defendant public notice dated 12th February, 2026 and signed by one Akpan, John John, Head, Transport Planning and coordination for the 1st Defendant with Reference No. MOT/D/19/5.5/VOL.III/485. 5. WHETHER by virtue of the provisions of Sections 17 (a) (b) and 18 (i) of the Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of the Federation 2005, the Defendants have power to issue "UNIFIED GOVERNMENT APPROVED UNION CHECK-OFF DUES" as daily tickets for the purpose of collecting money from members of the 1st Claimant and the Commercial Transport sub-sector in Akwa Ibom State.” UPON the determination of the above questions by the Court, the Claimants pray for the following reliefs: “1. A DECLARATION that it is the Claimants or their Agents that are empowered by law to collect Check-off Dues through issuance of daily tickets to her members who are workers engaged in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State and not the Defendants or their Agents. 2. A DECLARATION that the 1st Claimant through other Claimants have lawful power to constitute Enforcement Committees for the purpose of enforcing compliance and to organise and control her members who are workers engaged in Transportation of passengers and goods by road for orderliness and their welfare needs in Akwa Ibom State. 3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants not being members or officers of the 1st Claimant have no locus standi to issue Public Notice purporting to dissolve Enforcement Committees set up by the Claimants for the purpose of collecting check-off dues from their members who are Road Transport workers in Akwa Ibom State. 4. A DECLARATION that the act of the Defendants issuing Public Notice purporting to dissolve the Enforcement Committee set up by the Claimants and setting up their own through the 3rd Defendant for the purpose of collecting money as check-off dues through daily ticketing is a clear contravention of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. 5. A DECLARATION that it is unlawful for the Defendants, to usurp statutory responsibilities of the 1st Claimant by issuing Unified daily tickets parallel to the ones issued by the 1st Claimant to collect money from her members in Akwa Ibom State. 6. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay to the 1st Claimant the total sum of FIFTY-THREE MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY THOUSAND NAIRA (?53,760,000.00) ONLY, being the money realized from tickets sold to 3000 Mini Bus drivers, 6000 keke tricycle, 2000 tricycle mini trucks and 100 Heavy Truck Drivers for 24 days from 12/2/2026, when Public Notice was issued, to 14/3/2026. 7. AN ORDER of this Court restraining the Defendants or their agents from further interfering in the affairs of the Claimants particularly on areas of enforcement, organising and collection of Check-off Dues through daily ticketing as they lack jurisdictional rights to do so. 8. AN ORDER of Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents and privies from enforcing the purported Public Notice issued by the 1st Defendant to dissolve the Enforcement Committee on Check-off Dues as constituted by members of the 1st Claimant. 9. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court restraining the Defendants from effecting the planned compulsory biometric registration and update for all commercial tricycle and mini buses in the state and electronic payment of Check-off Dues daily ticketing on the Road Transport Workers. 10. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay the 1st Claimant the total sum of ?2,240,000.00 (TWO MILLION, TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUNAND NAIRA ONLY) daily, being accruable revenue for 1st Defendant from 16th of March, 2026 until the Defendants withdraw from selling check-off dues tickets in Akwa Ibom State. 11. AN ORDER Directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of TWO MILLION NAIRA (?2,000,000.00) ONLY as cost for instituting this suit. 12. AND FOR SUCH ORDER or further Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this suit.” Claimants filed a 31 paragraph affidavit in support of the originating summons deposed to by the 3rd Claimant, who is the current Chairman, Uyo Local Branch of NURTW. It was averred that the 1st Claimant is a statutorily registered Road Transport Workers Union where all the Claimants are members and hold various Offices of authority in Akwa Ibom State. The 3rd Claimant also averred that he is also the Akwa Ibom State Chairman Enforcement Committee on check-off dues for the 1st Claimant. That the 2nd Claimant is the National Officer representing Akwa Ibom State at the National Secretariat of NURTW, Abuja. That the 5th Claimant is the Chairman, Uyo Township Service Local Branch of the 1st Claimant. That the 6th Claimant on record is the Secretary, Heavy & Light Trucks, Truck Cycles, Tri-cycles and Motor Cycles Unit of the 1st Claimant in Akwa Ibom State. It was further averred that the 3rd Defendant is the Agent appointed by the 1st Defendant to collect check-off dues through issuance of "Unified Government Approved Union check-off Dues" from members of the 1st Claimant in Akwa Ibom State. That the 1st Claimant, as a registered Trade Union has daily tickets of various values for the purpose of, and as a mode of collecting Check-off Dues for her organization. That the Tickets as usually printed by the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company (NSPMC) and issued uniformly across all states of Nigeria including Akwa Ibom State have been attached as EXHIBIT-A. Claimants stated that to ensure orderliness and compliance by their members and workers, the 1st Claimant set up Enforcement Committee headed by the 2nd Claimant and notice to that effect dated 16/1/2026 was served on the 1st Defendant. (EXHIBIT -B). That surprisingly to the Claimants, after serving the 1st Defendant with Notice of Inauguration of NURTW Enforcement Committee for Check-off Dues, the 1st Defendant issued Public Notice dated 12th February, 2026 with Reference No. MOT/D/19/5.5/VOL.III/485 signed by one Akpan, John John, Head, Transport Planning and Coordination, where he purportedly dissolved all Task Forces and Enforcement Committees set up by different Unions including that of the 1st Claimant in the transport sub-sector. That the 1st Defendant issued a "Unified Government Approved Union Check-off Dues/tickets" and other Unified Tickets of various values with inscription ARISE AKWA IBOM STATE and imposed same on members of the 1st Claimant to buy as check-off dues. That since the Defendants issued and imposed Unified Government Approved Tickets on the Claimants' members on 12th February, 2026 till date, the Claimants have not been able to sell their own already existing Tickets in order to collect their Check-off Dues from their members. That daily income from sales of ticket as hijacked by the 1st Defendant is estimated thus: 100 Heavy Duty Vehicles at N400.00 per ticket is N90,000.00 per day. That estimated daily income from the sale of Tickets to 2000 Truck Cycle at ?200.00 is ?400,000.00 per day. That estimated daily income from the sale of tickets to 6,000 Tri-Cycles at ?200.00 is ?1,200,000.00 per day. That estimated daily income from the sale of tickets to 3,000 Mini-bus Drivers at ?200.00 is ?600,000.00 per day. That the total estimated daily income hitherto accruable to the 1st Claimant from 4 sub-sectors of the Claimants membership in Akwa Ibom State is ?2,240,000.00 per day. That when the ?2,240,000.00 daily Income is multiplied by 24 days of the 1st Defendant's usurpation of the 1st Claimant's right to collect Check-off dues, a total sum of ?53,760,000.00 is the amount of money accruable to the 1st Claimant as check-off dues which the Defendants have unlawfully collected as check-off dues without any remittances to the 1st Claimant. That from the body language of the 1st Defendant in particular, the Defendants are not ready to withdraw their agents from further usurping the powers of the 1st Claimant granted by law. That as at the time of filing this Suit, the Defendants have even gone further to announce compulsory biometric registration and update for all commercial tricycle and mini buses in the State with effect from 16th March, 2026 with the intention of effecting electronic payment of the Check-off Dues through daily ticketing and directly into Akwa Ibom State Government Account to the deprivation of the 1st Claimant who is Statutorily empowered to collect Check-off Dues from workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road. That all efforts made by the leadership of NURTW in the State and the National Secretariat of the Union to cause the 1st Defendant to rescind or see reasons to reverse it's arbitrary action proved abortive. That the continuous usurpation of the power of the 1st Claimant to collect check-off dues from her members by the Defendants and their Agents has deprived the 1st Claimant her right to perform her statutory responsibilities. That from all indications, the act of the Defendants as complained of in this suit, has seriously encroached upon the statutory right and obligations of the 1st Claimant. Counsel for the Claimants filed a written address to accompany the Originating Summons and formulated four issues for determination to wit; “1. WHETHER by virtue of the provisions of Sections 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and Section 16 of part B of Third Schedule of Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Nigeria 2005, the 1st Claimant is empowered by Law to issue and circulate, daily Tickets as Check-off Dues to all members and workers engaged in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State. 2. WHETHER by the combined provisions of Sections 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and section 16 of part B of Third Schedule of Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Nigeria 2005, the 1st Claimant possesses requisite authority to set up Enforcement/Monitoring Committee for the purpose of ensuring member's compliance to the payment of Check-off Dues. 3. WHETHER the 1st and 2nd Defendants not being members or officers of any Trade Unions in Nigeria possess the requisite authority to issue daily ticket on workers engaged in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State for the purpose of collecting Check-off Dues. 4. WHETHER the 1st and 2nd Defendants not being members or officers of Trade Unions or NURTW possess the requisite authority to dissolve Enforcement committee set up by the Claimants for the purpose of enforcing workers compliance to regular payment of Check-off Dues”. Issue No 1 Counsel contends that the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative. That it is the 1st Claimant that is statutorily empowered to issue daily tickets to her members for the purpose of collecting her daily check-off dues for her activities. That it is a well-established fact that the 1st Claimant is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2005. Counsel further contends that by the provisions of Section 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and Section 16 of part B of Third Schedule to Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2005, with the title; DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES OF UNION MEMBERS; it is provided that "Upon the Registration and recognition of any of the Trade Unions specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, the employer shall: “a. Make deduction from the wages of every worker who is a member of any of the Trade Unions for the purpose of paying contributions to the Trade Unions so registered; and' b. Remit such deduction to the registered office of the Trade Union within reasonable period or such period as may be prescribed from time to time by the Registrar of Trade Unions.” That from the statement of the Law above, it is apparent that, it is only a Registered Trade Union in Nigeria that is enjoined by law to make deductions from its members' wages as contributions and not Government of any State or officials of a state Government. Counsel cited the case of UBA Vs. LAWAL & ANOR (2021) LPELR56286 (CA), where it was held that, where a statute provides a way by which a thing has to be done, it is only that procedure provided by that Law or statute that should be followed. It was submitted that, it is well founded that it is only a Registered Trade Union that has the right to collect money from workers/members of NURTW as Check-off Dues and not the 1st and 2nd Defendants who are not officials or members of the 1st Claimant. Counsel submits that the intention of the Legislators in enacting this Law is clear and unambiguous and therefore the Court is enjoined to give ordinary interpretation of the provisions of Section 17 (a) (b)of the Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2005. Issue No 2 Counsel submits that by the combined provisions of Sections 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and Section 16 of part B of Third Schedule of Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2005, the 1st Claimant possesses requisite authority to set up enforcement/monitoring committee for the purpose of ensuring members compliance to the payment of Check-off Dues. That it is the submission of the Claimants that by the provisions of the Law above, the 1st Claimant and indeed other Claimants have statutory authority to constitute or set up Task Force or Enforcement Committee as shown in EXHIBIT - B in order to enforce compliance on her members on their duties to the 1st Claimant. Counsel posits that as the statute grants the 1st Claimant authority to making deduction from the wages of every worker who is a member of the Union, it is consequential that the 1st Claimant possesses requisite authority to ensure compliance to that effect. Therefore, according to the Claimants Issue No 2 deserves an affirmative answer from the Court in favour of the Claimants. Issue No 3 Counsel states that by virtue of Sections 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and Section 16 of part B of Third Schedule of Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2005, the 1st and 2nd Defendants not being members and officials of Trade Union lack the Legal capacity to issue any daily tickets in whatever name called, and impose same on workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State as Check-off Dues. Counsel submits that Section 17 (a) (b) states clearly that it is the Registered Trade Unions that are authorized under that section to collect Check-off Dues through daily ticketing from the workers in the Transportation Sector. There is no provision for Government intervention on behalf of the Union as noticed in the action of the 1st and 2nd Defendants issuing Unified Government Approved Union Check-off Dues currently imposed on members and workers under the 1st Claimant. That it is a settled principle of Law that action taken by a public office holder without the backing of the Requisite Law tantamounts to a nullity and of no consequence. That there is no any legislation or enactment by the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly in support of the Defendants' action. Counsel maintains that Sections 17 (a) (b) and 18 (i) of the Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Nigeria 2005, do not make provision for Government or its Agents' intervention on the collection of Check-off Dues for registered Trade Unions in Nigeria. That the action of the Defendants issuing Exhibit-D and imposing same on members of the 1st Claimant is unlawful and therefore issue No. 3 deserves to be answered in the negative and against the Defendants. Issue No 4 Counsel submits that 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants lack the requisite authority to dissolve a properly constituted and inaugurated Enforcement Committee set up by the 1st Claimant, in the manner complained of in this case. That Sections 17 (a) (b) and 18 (I) of the Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 2005 strictly provide that it is only the Registered Trade Union that is empowered to collect Check-off Dues from her members. Counsel adds that by the provisions of Sections 17 (a) (b); 18 (i) and Section 16 of part B of Third Schedule to Trade Unions Act CAP T14, Laws of Federation of Nigeria 2005, the Jurisdictional Scope of the 1st Claimant covers "all workers engaged in Transportation of passengers and goods by road" in Nigeria. That in order to ensure compliance with the provisions in sections 17 (a) (b) and 18 (I) of the Trade Unions Act, Enforcement Committee or Task Force becomes a necessary and mandatory tool always adopted by the Claimants to ensure compliance. It is counsel's submission that there is no provision in the Trade Unions Act, CAP T14, 2005 or any other extant Law that gives the Defendants authority to dissolve the Claimants' Enforcement Committee and to further issue Unified Government Approved Unions Tickets for the purpose of collecting Check-off Dues in the manner complained of in this suit. Counsel reiterates that the Defendants have no statutory powers to dissolve Enforcement Committee set up by the Claimants for the purpose of Enforcing collection of their Check-off Dues and then issue their Unified Government Approved Unions Tickets and have same imposed on the Claimants' members. The action of the Defendants as complained of in this suit is nothing less than abuse of Executive Powers and a usurpation of the Claimants' statutory area of Jurisdiction and therefore the Court is invited to stop the Defendants from further usurpation of the Claimants' authority. Counsel urged the Court to grant all the reliefs, declarations, orders and injunction sought. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS In opposition to the Originating Summons, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a 16 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Mrs Affiong Abang, a Litigation Officer in the Ministry of Transport, Akwa Ibom State, where it was averred that the 1st Defendant has never appointed the 3rd Defendant as an agent to collect check-off dues from members of the 1st Claimant. Neither have the 3rd Defendant at any time collected check-off dues from members of the 1st Claimant on behalf of the 1st Defendant. That the 1st Claimant is only entitled to collect check off dues through the issuance of daily tickets from her members who are Road Transport Workers in their various Parks. That in response to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Claimants' Affidavit, the 1st Defendant issued a public notice dissolving all so called Enforcement Committees operating without the approval and supervision of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. That the averment in paragraph 16 of the Claimants' Affidavit does not reflect the true position, that in line with statutory responsibility, the 1st Defendant in Administration and Regulation of Commercial Transportation in Akwa Ibom State introduced the Unified Government Approved Tickets which is not parallel to the daily check off dues ticket of the 1st Claimant and not forcefully implemented as alleged by the Claimants. That the unified tickets introduced by the Government formed part of the Government's transport administration and were not introduced for the purpose of replacing the 1st Claimant's check-off dues That at no time did the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants prevent the 1st Claimant from selling their daily tickets to its members. That the Defendants deny that they have usurped any powers of the Claimants. That the biometric registration and update exercise for all commercial tricycle and mini-buses in the state was introduced to establish an accurate database of commercial transport operators and facilitate payments due to Government through the treasury single account where applicable. Counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a written address to accompany the counter affidavit and submitted two issues for determination to wit; “1. Whether the introduction of the Unified Government Approved Ticket and biometric registration by the Defendants constitutes an unlawful usurpation of or interference with the Claimants' collection of check-off dues. 2. Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs and Orders sought in this suit.” On Issue one, counsel urged the Court to answer same in the negative, and submits that Questions 4 and 5 of the Originating Summons rest on the false premise that the Unified Government Approved Ticket is a parallel "Union Check-Off Dues" instrument. That Paragraphs 7 and 11 of Counter-Affidavit flatly deny this, clarifying that the ticket is an administrative transport fee for state development, not a union due. Counsel argues that the 1st Claimant remains completely entitled, unhindered, and free to collect its daily check-off dues from its members within their various designated Parks. That the state's right to levy commercial operations using public infrastructure is anchored on Section 4(7) and Part II (Item 7), Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly to legislate on the collection of internal fees and taxes. Counsel further submits that no Association or Union can take away the powers of the State to legislate on any aspect of the state transportation. This power to make regulations on road transport issues is derived from the Akwa Ibom State Road Traffic Laws Cap 115, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 specifically Section 46(2) (y). Counsel also argues that trade union operations within a state are subject to the regulatory control of the state government. That the state's introduction of an administrative ticket and a biometric registration system under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution is for database accuracy and does not conflict with the Trade Unions Act, as both systems exist independently. Counsel continues that the Claimants have not demonstrated any nexus between the biometric registration exercise and the alleged deprivation of their statutory functions as a trade union. That biometric registration exercise undertaken for administrative and regulatory purposes does not, without more, amount to the collection of trade union dues. That the Court should be slow to infer illegality where the evidence does not support such inference. Furthermore, that the Unified Government Approved Ticket formed part of Government's transport administration and revenue management framework and was introduced as an administrative measure relating to commercial transportation within Akwa Ibom State. Counsel adds that the burden of proving facts asserted rests upon the party asserting them. Counsel relied on Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Counsel further argues that the Government introduced administrative measures aimed at regulating commercial transportation, including biometric registration of transport operators and a unified transport ticketing framework and those administrative measures, without credible evidence linking them to the collection of trade union check-off dues, cannot amount to unlawful interference with the internal affairs of the 1st Claimant. That the Public Notice complained of was directed at enforcement committees operating without the approval of the 1st Defendant. Counsel submits that the maintenance of law, order, and traffic enforcement on public highways is the exclusive preserve of statutory law enforcement agencies and relevant state ministries. Counsel contends that the Claimants have failed to establish any factual basis upon which this Court can hold that the Defendants usurped the statutory functions of the 1st Claimant. Counsel urged this Court to resolve Issue One in favour of the Defendants. Issue Two Counsel submits that a Claimant seeking declaratory reliefs must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Defence. Citing Onyewudi Vs. Olagbami (2018) 14NWLR Pt. 1639 297. That the declaratory reliefs sought by the Claimants are founded entirely on the allegation that, the Defendants collected check-off dues belonging to the Union. However, beyond bare assertions, the Claimants produced no evidence establishing that allegation. Counsel continues that a Claimant who seeks declaratory reliefs is to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities to be entitled to same. As such, declaratory reliefs cannot be granted in the absence of credible defence or on admission of defence but on satisfactory and credible evidence by the Claimant. Counsel cited the case of Ofongo Vs. APC (2022) 4 NWLR (PT. 1821) 543 @ 574-574. Ani Vs. Effiok (2023) 8 NWLR (PT. 1887)463. In conclusion, counsel urged the Court to resolve all the questions against the Claimants, refuse all the reliefs sought, and dismiss the Claimants' case in its entirety. CLAIMANT'S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW In his response on points of law, Claimants' counsel argues that Section 4 (Item 7) of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution does not empower the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly to enact a law requiring the 1st – 3rd Defendants, or any other government agency, to collect check-off dues from the 1st Claimant’s members. According to counsel, that constitutional provision only concerns the imposition of tax on capital gains, income or profits, or on persons other than companies, and subsection (b) merely allows the State Government to collect the taxes listed in Item 7(a). Therefore, counsel contends that the Defendants’ reliance on that provision is misplaced and should be rejected. Counsel further states that there is no provision such as Section 46(2) Y in the Akwa Ibom State Road Traffic Laws, CAP 115, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2022 which the Defendants allegedly invoked to justify their action. Hence, counsel submits that the argument based on that law cannot be sustained. Counsel also notes that the Defendants rely on Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution to justify the Akwa Ibom State Government’s introduction of “Administrative Tickets and Biometric Registration System.” Counsel contends, however, that the Defendants have no legislative support for their action, as the laws relied upon are either inapplicable or nonexistent in relation to the facts and issues in the suit. Finally, counsel urges the Court to discountenance the Defendants’ defence and to grant all the reliefs sought in the interest of justice and equity. DECISION OF THE COURT I have carefully studied the entire processes filed by the parties, the questions raised and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Being an action initiated by way of originating summons, I intend to adopt the issues for determination as early submitted by the Claimants. The Claimants have sought for interpretation of certain provisions of the Trade Unions Act to determine whether the actions of the 1st – 4th Defendants and the steps taken by them infringed their rights as a Union registered under the law. Let me quickly note that the 4th Defendant was never represented in the instant proceedings nor did he file any process in response to the case of the Claimants. That being the case, the case of the Claimants against the 4th Defendant appears unchallenged, and the 4th Defendant is deemed to have admitted the case of the Claimants. See owners of M/V Gongola Hope Vs. Smurfit cases Nigeria Limited (2007) LPELR-2849(SC). Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & 4 Ors. Vs. Medical & Health Workers Union of Nigeria & Anor. (2008) LPLER – 3196 (SC). The Claimants’ case primarily concerns the interpretation of statutory provisions. Therefore, they only need to establish minimal facts to show a cause of action for the court to hear the suit. Fortunately, some relevant facts in the instant case are undisputed. The 1st – 3rd Defendants admitted that the 1st Claimant is entitled to collect check-off dues by issuing daily tickets to her members, who are road transport workers in various parks. They also admitted that they issued a public notice dissolving all so-called enforcement committees, introduced the Unified Government Approved tickets, and introduced a biometric registration and update exercise for all commercial tricycles and mini-buses in the state. Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that, the dispute on the facts of this case is very minimal, but what matters most is strictly that of construction of the relevant statutory provisions. It is important to note that one of the cardinal rules of statutory interpretation is that a Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to create it. Where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Court should apply their natural meaning that is, their plain, grammatical, and ordinary meaning. The Court must not go beyond the language used and adopt an interpretation merely because it seems convenient to the Court, to the parties generally, or to one of the parties. See DAPIALONG & ORS Vs. DARIYE & ANOR. (2007) ALL FWLR (PT.373) 81, FAWEHINMI Vs. IGP (2002) FWLR (PT. 108) 1355, GAFAR Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE (2007) ALL FWLR (PT. 360) 1415. It is also a well-established principle of interpretation that, when courts interpret a statute or constitution, they must read the related provisions together in order to ascertain their meaning. A court should not interpret related provisions in isolation and thereby defeat the true meaning and effect of particular provisions. See AMAECHI Vs. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227. In interpreting a statute or constitution, provisions should not be construed in isolation; rather, they should be read in the context of the statute or constitution as a whole. The entire statute must be considered in determining the meaning and effect of the words being interpreted. However, where the words are plain and unambiguous, no interpretation is required, and the words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. In statutory interpretation, Courts are enjoined to adopt a global or “broad interpretation.” See BUHARI Vs. OBASANJO (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1 and ADESANYA Vs. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR (1981) 5 SC 112. It is the contention of the Claimants that the 1st and 2nd Defendants not being members and officials of trade unions lack the capacity to issue any daily tickets as Unified Government Approved Union Check-off Dues and impose same on workers engaged in transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State as check-off dues. “By Section 1 of the Trade Unions Act, "trade union" means any combination of workers or employers whether temporary or permanent, the purpose of which is to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers....” Meanwhile Section 2 (1) of the Act provides in mandatory terms that trade union shall not perform any act in furtherance of the purposes for which it has been formed unless it has been registered under this Act. Section 4 of the Act also provides thus; "Every trade union must have registered rules, which must contain provisions with respect to the various matters mentioned in the First Schedule of this Act." Similarly, Section 17(a) & (b) and Section 18 (1) & (2) of TUA state that: “17. Deductions from wages of members. Upon the registration and recognition of any trade unions specified on the third schedule to this Act, the employer shall: (a) Make deductions from the wages of every worker who is a member of any of the trade unions for the purpose of paying contributions to the trade union so registered; and (b) Remit such deductions to the registered office of the trade union within a reasonable period or such period as may be prescribed from time to time by the Registrar” “18. Payment of trade union dues to the Federation of trade unions. (1) Trade Unions shall pay to the appropriate registered federation of Trade Unions out of the contribution received from their members, such sum as may, from time to time, be specified in the constitution of the registered federation of the trade unions concerned. (2) Any trade union which fails to pay the sum referred to in Sub Section (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and liable on conviction to a fine of two times the said sum”. The language of Section 2 (1) is plain and admits of no ambiguity. The Supreme Court in Kassim Vs. Sadiku & Ors (2021) LPELR-55334 (SC) and Nwankwo Vs. Yar’Adua (2010) LPELR-2109 (SC) reiterated that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning. Applying that canon, it is evident that registration is a condition precedent to the lawful performance of trade union functions. In Nigeria Nurses Association Vs. AGF(1981) LPELR-2027(SC), it was held that a registered trade union is a legal person and the birth and death of legal persons are determined not by nature but by the law. They came into existence at the will of the law, and they endure during its pleasure. Per ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JSC (Pp- 24 - 24, D - E). The Claimants have evidently in their affidavit exhibited copies of tickets allegedly issued by the Defendants. However, the 1st - 3rd Defendants averred that in line with statutory responsibility, the 1st Defendant in administration and regulation of commercial transportation in Akwa Ibom State introduced the Unified Government Approved Tickets, which is an administrative transport fee for state development, not a union due. And that it is not parallel to the daily check off dues Ticket of the 1st Claimant and not forcefully implemented as alleged by the Claimants. To me, the act of introduction of Unified Government Approved Tickets said to be undertaken by the Defendants in furtherance of regulating commercial transportation within the state, appear to fall within the statutory contemplation of trade union activities. By virtue of Section 2 (1) of the Trade Unions Act, such acts cannot lawfully be undertaken by a body not registered as a trade union. The issue is whether such an act by the state government can usurp statutory trade union functions in a sector for which a registered trade union exists and has defined jurisdiction. The Trade Unions Act was enacted precisely to prevent chaotic multiplicity and conflict in industrial relations. The Claimants contended that the Defendants in their reaction to the Notice of inauguration of NURTW Enforcement Committee for check off dues, issued Public Notice on 12th February, 2026 and signed by one Akpan John John, dissolving all the Task Forces and Enforcement Committees set up by the different unions including the 1st Claimant in the Transport sub-sector without any reason or justification. However, the 1st - 3rd Defendants on the other hand argued that the Public Notice complained of was directed at enforcement committees operating without the approval of the 1st Defendant. The said Public Notice (Exhibit C) reads thus: “All Task Forces and Enforcement Committees set up by different Unions in the transport sub-sector are hereby dissolved”. As can be seen from the above, the Public Notice (Exhibit C) issued by the 2nd Defendant clearly referred to Unions in the transport sub-sector. However, it can be observed that by virtue of Sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 53 of the Trade Union Act, the power to register and sanction any of the activities of the 1st Claimant is vested in the Federal Minister of Labour through the exercise of the powers and office of the Registrar of Trade Unions and not the State Government. See Eragmus Osawe & 4 Ors Vs. Registrar Trade Unions (1983) LPELR – 2792 (SC). It is the contention of the 1st - 3rd Defendants that the maintenance of law, order, and traffic enforcement on public highways is the exclusive preserve of statutory law enforcement agencies and relevant state ministries. I have again looked at all the processes of the parties before me and all the documents attached thereto but there is nothing to suggest that there was any breakdown of law and order in the state caused by any of the Trade unions to entitle the Defendants to interfere in the activities of the Claimants. It is clear that the 1st Claimant herein is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is not a body under the state government that can be dissolved at the pleasure of the government. Therefore, the action of the the Akwa Ibom State government dissolving the Task Forces and Enforcement Committees set up by different unions, under the guise of maintaining law and order, amounts to infringement of the right of the Claimants and usurpationon of the powers of the federal government by the 1st Defendant. See Sections 6 and 7 of the TUA. Granted, the Governor is the Chief Security Officer of his State, however, this does not give the Defendants the power to meddle in the internal affairs of a union or organisation well registered and recognised by the law. Rather, if there is any reported case of mayhem or breach of public peace by members of the unions, which there is apparently none before me, the 1st – 3rd Defendants can step in by arresting and prosecuting any suspected individuals causing the mayhem and not dissolving the Task Forces of the unions. Therefore, the 1st to 3rd Defendants' interference with the activities of the Claimants is unlawful, null, void and in contravention of the law. Even if there was a law in Akwa Ibom State empowering the 1st Defendant to dissolve the task forces and enforcement committees of the 1st Claimant, it will still not fly in the face of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which is the ground norm and the provisions of the TUA. See Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot allow the 1st Defendant to dissolve the task forces of the 1st Claimant as doing so amounts to acting outside its powers and breaching the rights of the 1st Claimant to manage its internal affairs as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the TUA. The 1st - 3rd Defendants have tried to justify the state’s introduction of those tickets and a biometric registration system as being for database accuracy and does not conflict with the Trade unions Act as both systems exist independently. But to me, the 1st Defendant has no power to introduce any ticket of a trade union or incorporate a body of people for any of the purposes covered by the TUA. This is purely wrong. The 1st Defendant cannot, without legal backing, in the trumped up name of brokering peace in the transport sector, commit a brazen violation of law, which shows a total disdain for the right and authority of federal institutions, contrary to the direct provisions of Section 5(3)(a) of the 1999 Constitution forbidding the exercise of state government’s powers in a manner that would impede or prejudice the lawful exercise of powers of the federation. In Eze Vs. Udeh (2017) LPELR-42716(CA), it was held that nowhere in the Trade Unions Act is it stated that the check-off dues are collected or paid to or subject to taxation by the Federal Government. The check-off dues paid by trade unions is certainly not a Source of revenue for the Federal Government and does not fall within the items listed in Section 251 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. Claimants' counsel has in his written address referred to Article 3 of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation to which Nigeria is a signatory which provides thus: “(a) Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. (b) The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.” As good as this law appears to be, however Section 7 of the NIC Act says that the Court shall have due regard to good or International best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or International best practice shall be a question of fact. This means that the fact that Nigeria has ratified the above ILO convention has to be averred and proved in the Claimants' affidavit in support of their originating summons, but not in their written address. I am not unmindful of Section 245C(2) of the 1999 Constitution which gives this Court the jurisdiction and power, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Constitution, to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to Labour, employment, workplace, industrial relation or matters connected therewith. For what it is, I find on the totality of the Evidence before me and the law applicable, that the Defendants not being a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act, cannot lawfully perform acts in furtherance of trade union purposes within Akwa Ibom State. Any forceful issuance of tickets or interference with the Claimants' statutory jurisdiction constitutes an unlawful encroachment. For reliefs 6 and 10, it is settled law that monetary claim is a claim for special damages in which the law requires the Claimant to specially plead, particularise and strictly prove same. To succeed in a claim for special damages the law requires the claimants in this suit to plead the special damages and give necessary particulars and adduce credible evidence in support. It is the responsibility of the Claimants to give sufficient particulars of their claim for special damages for purpose of enabling the court to calculate. See Benin Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 521) 388; Unipetrol (Nig.) Plc V. Bukar (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 472; U.B.N. Plc Vs. Sparkling Breweries Ltd. (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 505) 344; Yahaya Vs. Oparinde (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 126. The requirement of the law is that special damages must not only be specially pleaded with relevant particulars but must also be strictly proved with credible evidence. Without such proof no special damages can be awarded. In other words, any evidence no matter how unchallenged or uncontradicted which falls short of what is required to prove special damages must be rejected. Now, it is the law that special damages are such that the law will not presume to flow or infer from the nature of the act or breach of duty complained of by the Claimant as a matter of course. They are exceptional in their character and connote special items of loss which the claimant alleges are the result of the Defendants’ act of breach of duty complained of, the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same. The rule with regard to the award of special damages is that the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove strictly that he did suffer such special damages claimed. Thus, where damages are claimed in an action, there must be evidence in proof of such damages, whether special or general, to entitle the claimant to the award being claimed. This means the Claimants must satisfy the Court as to how the sum claimed as special damages was quantified. Special damages are awarded for actual or exact losses suffered. Thus, courts are on no account allowed to make their own assessment or speculate on special damages; assessment would only be correct and valid if it is arrived at strictly based on the evidence accepted by Court as establishing the amount to be awarded. See Odulaja Vs. Haddad (1973)11 SC P. 1, Union Bank of Nig PLC Vs. Chimaeze (2014) 4SC (Pt. III) P. 110, Yalaju Amaye Vs. AREC (1990) 6 SC P. 157, SPDC Nig. Ltd Vs. Tiebo & Ors (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) p. 657. The Claimants have claimed for the sum of ?53,760,000 being the money realised from tickets sold to 3,000 mini bus drivers, 6,000 keke tricycles, 2,000 tricycle mini trucks and 100 heavy truck drivers for 24 days from 12/2/2026, when Public Notice was issued to 14th March, 2026 and N2,240,000.00 as accruable revenue for the 1st Defendant from 16th March, 26 until the Defendants withdraw from selling check-off dues tickets in Akwa Ibom State. The evidence of the Claimants in proof of the above claim for special damages, are Exhibits A, C, D and E. I have looked at these exhibits but it is not proved by any document how the 1st claimant's members have actually paid the amount mentioned to the Defendants, it is not also shown by the Claimants the number of their registered members who have been paying their dues to the Claimants which is equivalent to what the Defendants have actually collected in the days mentioned. I am therefore of the view that the quantum of proof given in evidence by the claimants is not a sufficient proof of the special damages claimed. Reliefs 6 and 10 are accordingly refused. Having reached these conclusions, the court must now consider which reliefs can be granted based on the questions it has answered in the claimants’ favour and against the Defendants. Reliefs are the natural consequences of succeeding on some or all of the issues in a case. Accordingly, Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are granted as logical corollaries of answering Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the Claimants and against the Defendants. Reliefs 6 and 10 are refused for the reasons already stated. The Claimants are nevertheless clearly entitled to damages under Section 254C-(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 14 and 19(d) of NICA, which permit an award of damages or compensation where there is a breach. The conduct of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this case amounts to a flagrant violation of the 1st Claimant’s rights and a veiled attempt to intimidate and completely eliminate independent unionism. Where the government is responsible for breaching rights and depriving workers of labour and union rights, it must be prepared to pay damages to alleviate the hurt feelings of union members. Where there is proof of a breach of positive statutory or constitutional requirements, courts have readily awarded exemplary or aggravated damages, and such damages need not be specifically proved - see AICE Investment Company Limited & Anor. Vs. Fidelity Bank Plc (2015) LPELR-25753 (CA). Similarly, Costs ordinarily follow the event unless there is a feature in the case that would deprive the successful party of costs, and no such feature exists here - see Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anor Vs. Glosun Investment Limited (2017) LPELR-42337 (CA). I am therefore of the view that the Claimants ought to be awarded costs against the Defendants and I so order. For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared and ordered as follows:- “1 A DECLARATION that it is the Claimants or their Agents that are empowered by law to collect Check-off Dues through issuance of daily tickets to their members who are workers engaged in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in Akwa Ibom State and not the Defendants or their Agents. 2. A DECLARATION that the 1st Claimant through other Claimants have lawful power to constitute Enforcement Committees for the purpose of enforcing compliance and to organize and control her members who are workers engaged in Transportation of passengers and goods by road for orderliness and their welfare needs in Akwa Ibom State. 3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants not being members or officers of the 1st Claimant have no locus standi to issue Public Notice purporting to dissolve Enforcement Committees set up by the Claimants for the purpose of collecting check-off dues from their members who are Road Transport workers in Akwa Ibom State. 4. A DECLARATION that the act of the Defendants issuing Public Notice purporting to dissolve the Enforcement Committee set up by the Claimants and setting up their own through any other person for the purpose of collecting money as check-off dues through daily ticketing is a clear contravention of the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. 5. A DECLARATION that it is unlawful for the Defendants, to usurp statutory responsibilities of the 1st Claimant by issuing Unified daily tickets parallel to the ones issued by the 1st Claimant to collect money from her members in Akwa Ibom State. 6. AN ORDER of this Court restraining the Defendants or their agents from further interfering in the affairs of the Claimants particularly on areas of enforcement, organizing and collection of Check-off Dues through daily ticketing as they lack jurisdictional rights to do so. 7. AN ORDER of Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents and privies from enforcing the purported Public Notice issued by the 1st Defendant to dissolve the Enforcement Committee on Check-off Dues as constituted by members of the 1st Claimant. 8. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court restraining the Defendants from effecting the planned compulsory biometric registration and update for all commercial tricycle and mini buses in the state and electronic payment of Check-off Dues daily ticketing on the Road Transport Workers. 9. The sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) shall be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, being damages for undue interference and inhibition of the operations of the Claimants and the infringement of their statutorily guaranteed rights. 10. Cost of ?1,000,000.00 is also ordered to be paid to the Claimants by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. 11. The judgment sum shall attract 10% simple interest per annum until it is fully liquidated.” Judgment is entered accordingly. .............................................................. HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA (PRESIDING JUDGE)