Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 2nd December 2025             

SUIT NO: NICN/MN/53/2024

            

Between:

 

Motorcycle Operators Union of Nigeria (MOUN)                       -                          Claimant     

 

And

 

  1. Bida Local Government Council
  2. Amalgamated Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle                              Defendants

Owners, Repairs and Riders Association of Nigeria                          

 

Representation:

M. A. Liman for the Claimant

Mohammed Waziri Abdulkadir for the 1st Defendant

A. P. Bello for the 2nd Defendant

 

    JUDGMENT

In an originating summons filed on 8th November 2024, the claimant submitted these questions to this Court for determination:

1. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 1(1)(3) and Sections 40, 43 & 254C-(1)(a)(b)(d)&(g) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP. 10, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1999), Sections 1(1)&(2), Sections 2(1) &(2) of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14, the Claimant having been duly registered as a Trade Union by the Registrar of the Trade Unions under the Trade Unions Act, Cap T. 14 of 2004 can operate, carry out its lawful activities or business in 1st Defendant and in any State or Local Government in Nigeria without any hindrance.

2. Whether by the communal reading of the provisions of Sections 1(1)&(2), 2(1)&(2),45 and 46 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 and Sections 823 (1) & 825 (1)(b) of the Company and Allied Matter Act, Cap C20, LFN, 2020, can the 2nd Defendant that was registered under Part C (now Part F) of the said Company and Allied Matter Act, operate in any profitable venture or business, including registering or cause to be registered commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government or in any Local Government in Nigeria whatsoever and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the said commercial motorcycle riders.

 

The claimant sought the following claims upon the determination of the above questions:

1.    A declaration that, the Claimant having been duly registered as a Trade Union by the Registrar of the Trade Unions under the Trade Unions Act, Cap T.14 of 2004 has the competence to lawfully operate, carry out its activities or businesses in the 1st Defendant or any State or Local Government in Nigeria, without any hindrance by anybody or authority.

2.    A declaration that by the express provisions of Sections 1(1 )&(2), 2(1) &(2), 45 and 46 of the Trade Unions Act Cap T14 of the Trade Union Act and Sections 823 (1) & 825 (1)(b) of the Company and Allied Matter Act, Cap C.20, LFN, 2020 and the disclosed aims and objectives of the 2nd Defendant as contained in its Constitution, the 2nd Defendant cannot undertake or carry out trade union activities similar to that of the Claimant by registering or cause to be registered members and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards, and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st defendant.

3.    A declaration that the activities or conducts of 2nd Defendant by registering or cause to be registered commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the said commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendants, is illegal, ultra vires, and therefore null and void.

4.    An order directing the 1st Defendant not to disallow or inhabit the Claimant from carrying out its lawful activities or business as a registered Trade Union anywhere in Bida Local Government of Niger State.

5.    An order restraining the 2nd Defendant from carrying out any activities similar to that of the Claimant by way of registering or cause to be registered commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the said commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government of Niger State or any Local Government in the State.

6.    The sum of N10,000,000 against the Defendants as general damages.

 

The Originating Summons is supported with an affidavit and a written address. The affidavit was deposed to by Shafii Ladan Maishera, the Niger State Chairman of the Claimant, and thirteen documents, marked Exhibits B001 to B0013, were exhibited to the affidavit. In defence of the Originating Summons, the 1st defendant filed a counter affidavit and written address on 11th July 2025. The counter affidavit was deposed to by one Bala Shaba, the Chairman of the 1st defendant LG. The 2nd defendant filed its counter affidavit and written address on 2nd October 2025. The Counter affidavit of the 2nd defendant was deposed to by Comrade Suleiman Danjuma, the Niger State Chairman of the 2nd Defendant. Three documents, marked Exhibits ACOMORAN 1, ACOMORAN 2 and ACOMORAN 3, were exhibited to the counter affidavit. On 15th September 2025, the claimant filed two further affidavits and reply addresses in response to the respective counter affidavits of the defendants.

 

NPO OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT 

The 2nd defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO) on 2nd October 2025 where it sought an order striking out the claims against the 2nd defendant or dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The grounds of the NPO are that:

  1. The suit is incompetent against the 2nd defendant,
  2. There is no cause of action disclosed against the 2nd defendant,
  3. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

 

The NPO is supported with a written address wherein two issues were submitted for determination to wit:

  1. Whether this court is not competent to hear and determine this suit against the 2nd defendant.
  2. Whether this suit does not disclose any cause of action against the 2nd defendant.

On issue 1, it was argued that the 2nd defendant is an association registered under Part C [now Part F] of CAMA, as stated in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. The jurisdiction of this court in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution does not extend to suits against bodies incorporated under Part C of CAMA as held by the NICN in the judgment delivered on 11th May 2012 in Suit NIC/EN/36/2011 between REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MOTORCYCLES TRANSPORT UNION OF NIGERIA vs. COP BAYELSA. It was argued that this court cannot entertain this suit against the 2nd defendant.

 

On issue 2, it was submitted that an examination of the facts deposed in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons will reveal no wrong committed by the 2nd defendant to entitle the claimant to sue the 2nd defendant. It was argued that the claimant has no cause of action against the 2nd defendant in this suit.

 

The claimant filed a reply on points of law on 15th September 2025. Three issues were submitted for determination to wit:

  1. Whether the claimant’s suit is competent against the 2nd defendant.
  2. Whether the claimant’s suit discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant.
  3. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 

 

On issue 1, it was argued by the learned counsel for the claimant that the case of the claimant is that, even though the 2nd Defendant was registered under Part F of CAMA, it has unlawfully assumed and exercised the functions of a trade union by organizing motorcycle riders, issuing stickers, ID cards and collecting dues. By Sections 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the Trade Unions Act, only a duly registered trade union may lawfully organize workers in a specific sector. Since the Claimant is the recognized union for motorcycle operators in Nigeria, the 2nd Defendant cannot clothe itself with trade union powers through CAMA registration. It was concluded that the suit against the 2nd Defendant is competent.

 

On issue 2, it was submitted that in determining whether a cause of action is disclosed, the Court is to examine the originating processes. In this case, the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons disclosed that the 2nd defendant has usurped the functions of the claimant by issuing stickers, ID cards and compelling motorcycle riders in Bida LGA to register with them. The claimant has therefore disclosed a cause of action against the 2nd defendant.

 

On issue 3, it was submitted that by Section 254C(1) (a),(b),(j) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction over matters relating to labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations, and disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the Trade Unions Act. The question in this suit is whether the 2ndDefendant can usurp trade union functions reserved for the Claimant. This question falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Sections 823 and 825 of CAMA 2020 restrict incorporated trustees from assuming the functions of trade unions while the Court of Appeal in NURTW vs. RTEAN (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. I07) 170 confirmed that disputes between rival associations over trade union functions fall under the jurisdiction of the NICN. Learned counsel for the claimant concluded his submissions by urging this court to dismiss the NPO.

 

DECISION ON THE NPO

There are only two grounds to be considered in the 2nd defendants NPO and the grounds are whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the 2nd defendant, and whether the claimant disclosed any cause of action against the 2nd defendant.

 

On the first ground, it is the contention of the 2nd defendant that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit against the 2nd defendant because the 2nd defendant is an association registered under Part C [now Part F] of CAMA. It was contended that the jurisdiction of this court in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution does not extend to suits against bodies incorporated under Part C of CAMA. The jurisdiction of this court in section 254C of the 1999 Constitution includes matters connected with trade unions. See section 254C (1)(a) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution. Although the 2nd defendant is an association registered under Part C [now Part F] of CAMA, the facts in this case reveal that it operates as a trade union and that that is what caused the dispute in this suit. In my view, the case against the 2nd defendant is connected to trade union matter. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the 2nd defendant.

 

On the 2nd ground of the NPO, which is that the claimant did not disclose any cause of action against the 2nd defendant, I have perused the facts deposed in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and I find sufficient facts disclosing a cause of action against the 2nd defendant. These facts are contained in paragraphs 6, 8, 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons where the claimant averred that the 2nd defendant, which is not registered as a trade union, is carrying on the functions of the claimant union in Bida LGA and by so doing registers members of commercial motorcycle riders and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders in Bida LGA. In other words, the case of the claimant against the 2nd defendant is that the 2nd defendant has taken over its functions in Bida LGA. These facts disclose sufficient cause of action against the 2nd defendant for trial.

 

Having considered the two grounds of the NPO, I find that the NPO lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. I will now proceed to determine the Originating Summons.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

Comrade Shafii Ladan Maishera narrated in his affidavit that the Claimant is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act and issued a Certificate of Registration No. 0145 dated 8th September 2023 by the Registrar of Trade Union. The certificate is Exhibit B001. The aims, objectives and functions of the Claimant are as contained in its Constitution which was approved by the Registrar of the Trade Union. The constitution is Exhibit B004. The claimant is also an affiliate of the Nigeria Labour Congress with the approval marked Exhibit B002. On the other hand, the 2nd Defendant is an association registered under Part C (now Part F) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act and issued a Certificate No. 11758 dated 4th January, 1999 by the Registrar General of the Corporate Affairs Commission. The registration certificate of the 2nd defendant is Exhibit B003 while the instrument for the reconstitution of the Trustees of the 2nd defendant is Exhibit B005. The aims, objectives and functions of the 2nd Defendant are contained in its Constitution which is Exhibit B006.

 

The deponent averred further that the activities of the claimant is recognized and permitted in Nigeria and in Niger State. He referred to the documents marked Exhibit B007, B008, B009, B0010, B0011. After the registration and all necessary permits were obtained, the State Chairman of the Claimant went to the Chairman of the 1st Defendant to notify him of the Claimant's preparedness to commence operation in Bida Local Government. In the meeting, the Chairman of the 1st Defendant told the Claimant’s Chairman that he had no problem with the claimant operating in Bida and directed his Chief of Staff to lead the claimant’s delegation to the Area Commander, Nigeria Police Force Bida, so as to give them all necessary security protection and advice. At the Area Commander's office in Bida, the Area Commander said he would not yield to the request of the Claimant and that he was going to contact his officers in Minna and other necessary stakeholders in Bida. The Chairman of the 1st Defendant later informed the Chairman of the Claimant that Claimant will not be allowed to operate anywhere in Bida Local Government Area because the Bida Emirate Council had advise him not to allow the operation of the Claimant in the Local Government because the only body or association that is allowed to operate in the Local Government is the 2nd Defendant. 

 

The Claimant’s members in Bida Local Government Area were forced to purchase the registration stickers, ID cards and tickets of the 2nd Defendant which is not registered to carry out the functions of registration of members of commercial motorcycle riders and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the said commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant is a non-profit making association but now undertakes and carries out the Trade Union activities similar to that of the Claimant by registering members and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from all the commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant gave permission and protection to the 2nd Defendant but disallowed or refused the Claimant to exercise its right to lawfully operate or carry out its activities in the Local Government. 

 

In the written address in support of the Originating Summons, learned counsel for the claimant adopted the questions for determination in the Originating Summons as the issues to be determined in the suit. On issue 1, it was submitted that Section 254C-(1)(a), (b), (d) & (g) of the Constitution gave this Court wide powers to determine matters relating to or connecting to any labour, Trade Union or dispute over the interpretation and application of the provision of Chapter IV of the Constitution as it relates to unions or disputes relating to or connected with discrimination at work. The Claimant is a duly registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act. By virtue of section 40 of the Constitution and Article 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP. 10, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 1999), members, of the Claimant have unalienable right or freedom of association including Trade Union for protection of their interest.

 

Also, by section 42 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, every citizen of Nigeria is to be treated equally. No one is be made to suffer while other are enjoying and nobody is to enjoy when others are suffering. By the communal reading of section 40 of the Constitution and Article 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, the Claimant has the Constitutional backing to freedom of association and to be members of Trade Union for the protection of their sole interest. When the 1st Defendant refused to accept the claimant to operate in Bida LG, the 1st Defendant has no such power to refuse the Claimant's members the right to freedom of and belonging to a Trade Union, which in this case is the Claimant for the protection of their interest as commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government.

 

On issue 2, it was argued that by the combine reading of the provisions of Sections 1(1) & (2), 2(1) & (2), 45 and 46 of the Trade Unions Act and Sections 823 (1) & 825 (1)(6) of the Company and Allied Matter Act, 2020, the 2nd Defendant, a non-profit making association and cannot operate a profitable venture or business, by way of registering or cause to be registered commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the said commercial motorcycle riders. These actions are also contrary to the Aims and Objectives of the 2nd defendant as contained in its constitution. However, while the 1st Defendant refuses the Claimant, which is a registered Trade Union to operate, it allowed the 2nd Defendant to operate a profitable venture.

 

CASE OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT

Bala Shaba, the Chairman of the 1st defendant LG, who deposed to the counter affidavit said he is also the Chief Security Officer of the 1st Defendant vested with the responsibility to forestall breakdown of law and order in the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant has the Constitutional duty to regulate the operation of any association within its area for purposes of economic planning and security of its residents. The deponent said he has the oversight function to regulate and checkmate any Trade Union or Association operating within the 1st Defendant LG and that the 1st defendant operated within the bounds of the law setting out its powers and functions.

 

In the written address in support of the Counter affidavit, the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that the 1st Defendant is established by the 1999 Constitution which also provided for duties and functions of the 1st defendant in Section 7[3] and the 4th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. The 1999 Constitution vests the 1st Defendant with the responsibility of economic planning of the area under its control. Therefore, there is no dispute between parties as to the fact that the 1st Defendant was only carrying out its constitutional duties. The performance of a Constitutional duty cannot be said to cause dispute and Courts are known to be defender of the Constitution. In the absence of any dispute between the parties, the claim for damages will not stand a claim for damages could only arise if there is a breach of any legal duty to the claimant. Counsel added that there are procedures before an association can commence operation within the environs of the 1st Defendant and there is need for an integration of any association before the commencement of operation into the Society.

 

CASE OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT

Comrade Suleiman Danjuma, the Niger State Chairman of the 2nd defendant, who deposed to the counter affidavit said the 2nd defendant is a registered as a Trade Union, under the Trade Unions Act and issued a Certificate of Registration dated 16th April 2024. The Certificate is Exhibit ACOMORAN 01. Upon the issuance of the certificate, the 2nd defendant applied to be affiliated with the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria and it was approved in a letter dated 3rd October 2024. The letter is Exhibit ACOMORAN 02. The 2nd defendant also wrote to the Minister of Labour and Employment for clarification of its scope of jurisdiction and in his response dated 5th March 2025, the Minister of Labour and Employment clarified that the 2nd defendant’s jurisdictional scope covers Dealers and Commercial Tricycle, Motorcycle Owners, Repairers and Riders who are members before registration as a Trade Union. The letter is Exhibit ACOMORAN 03. The Claimant is not a registered member or an affiliate of the 2nd Defendant and it is not recognized to derive any rights, benefits, obligations and or privileges whatsoever from the 2nd Defendant. No one, including the claimant’s members, are intimidated by or forced to purchase registration stickers, ID cards and tickets of the 2nd defendant in Bida LGA. The 2nd defendant only deals with its members who are in Bida LGA. The 2nd defendant operates within the legal frame works that regulate its activities within the 1st defendant.

 

Two issues were argued in the written address in support of the counter affidavit of the 2nd defendant. In the first part of the arguments, learned counsel for the 2nd defendant referred to Exhibit ACOMORAN 01 and submitted that the 2nd defendant is a registered trade union and therefore has the rights to function as a Trade Union. Counsel submitted further that even if it can be assumed that the 2 defendant is an association registered under Part C (now Part F) of CAMA, the Trade Unions Act did not make any provision which disallowed an association registered under a different statute from being registered as a Trade Union. Accordingly, the 2nd defendant can operate and carry out its lawful activities in the 1st defendant.

 

The second leg of counsel’s arguments is that an association registered under part C of CAMA cannot be sued before the National Industrial Court. This argument is the same as one of grounds of objection already determined by this Court in the ruling on the 2nd defendants NPO. 

 

DECISION ON THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

The claimant submitted two questions for determination in the Originating Summons. The questions constitute the issues to be determined in this suit. I will therefore consider the questions one after the other. 

 

QUESTION 1:

In the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, it was averred that the claimant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Its certificate of registration, issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions on 8th September 2023, is Exhibit B001 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. I have also seen the exhibited copy of the constitution of the claimant. It is Exhibit B004. The defendants did not deny the fact that the claimant is a registered trade union. It is therefore not in dispute that the claimant is a registered trade union. Article 4 of the claimant’s constitution state that its membership covers “interested Nigerians of 18 years and above who operate a bike for commercial purposes”.

 

The dispute resulting to this matter is that after its registration, the claimant made efforts to get permission from the 1st defendant to operate in or carry out union activities in Bida LG but it was not granted the permission. Instead, its members in Bida LG were forced to purchase the registration stickers, ID cards and tickets of the 2nd Defendant which is not registered as a trade union nor entitled to carry out the functions of a trade union in relation to members of the claimant. While the claimant has not been able to operate or carry out union activities within the 1st defendant’s LG, the 1st Defendant gave permission and protection to the 2nd Defendant to operate within the LG. It is on the basis of these facts the claimant has asked this court, in question 1 of the Originating Summons, to construe some constitutional and statutory provisions for the purpose of determining whether the Claimant can operate or carry out its union activities in the 1st Defendant LG or in any part of Nigeria without any hindrance. 

 

The said provisions which the claimant sought to be construed are sections 1(1), (3), 40, 43 and 254C (1) (a), (b), (d), (g) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999; Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act; and Sections 1(1), (2), 2(1), (2) of the Trade Unions Act. 

 

The reference to Section 254C (1) (a), (b), (d), (g) of the CFRN 1999 has no relevance to issue the claimant wants this court to determine. These provisions contain some of the subject matter jurisdiction of this court and there is no question in the Originating Summons which will require this court to determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain or determine any of the subject matters in section 254C (1) (a), (b), (d) and (g) CFRN 1999.  Similarly, the provisions of sections 1(1) and (3) CFRN 1999 affirms the supremacy of the Constitution and the subjugation of all other laws to it. There is no part of the case of the claimant which will require this Court to determine whether the Constitution is binding on any authorities and persons or whether any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Again, Section 43 of the CFRN 1999 donates the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria to every citizen of Nigeria. The case of the claimant is not about being denied the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. 

 

The only section in the CFRN referred to by the claimant in question 1 of the Originating Summons which I find relevant in the determination of the question is section 40 of the CFRN. The section provides for the freedom of association. This is the same right contained in Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. 

 

Section 40 CFRN provides:

Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form   or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests

 

Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act provide as follows:

  1. Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.
  2. Subject to the obligation of solidarity provided for in Article 29, no one may be compelled to join an association.

 

Now, section 40 CFRN gave the right to every person to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interest. 

 

Upon carefully examining the facts deposed in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, I observe that the complaint of the claimant is not that its members have been denied the right to form or belong to the union. Its complaint is simply that it was not allowed to operate in the 1st defendant LGA while the 2nd defendant, who is not a trade union, is allowed to operate in the LGA and has been registering members of commercial motorcycle riders and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendant LGA. The claimant, which is an already registered trade union, is the one complaining in this suit of being disallowed from functioning as a trade union. The case is not about persons within the claimant’s membership coverage complaining of being disallowed from joining or belonging to the claimant or from being unionized by the claimant. 

 

I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant that by virtue of section 40 of the Constitution and Article 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, the members of the Claimant have unalienable right or freedom of association including joining trade union for the protection of their interest. This is no doubt the position of the law. It is however necessary to mention here that membership of trade union is voluntary. Thus, after registration of the trade union by the initial members, those who may later join the union have to voluntarily do so. At the point of being registered, the initial members of the union who registered the union are the known members of the union and until others, who fall within the jurisdictional area of the union, voluntarily join the union, the union cannot claim to have all the persons within its jurisdictional area as its members. The right in section 40 CFRN is infringed upon only when a person is prevented from forming or joining any association of his choice. It is that person who has been so denied the exercise of the right to associate, form or join any association of his choice that should complain of breach of his right to freedom of association. This is not the case here. The claimant is already registered as a union with members who voluntary associated to register it and in other LGs in Nigeria. The mere fact that it has been prevented from operating as a union in Bida by the 1st defendant is not a breach of the claimant’s right to freedom of association in section 40 CFRN 1999. 

 

In my view, the pertinent issue which should rather be considered in this matter is whether having been registered as a trade union, the claimant can be prevented from operating as a trade union in Bida LGA by the 1st defendant. 

 

The claimant’s allegation that it was prevented by the 1st defendant from operating in Bida LGA was not denied by the 1st defendant. It is therefore not in dispute that the claimant has been disallowed from operating as an independent trade union in Bida LG. I have examined the provisions of Section 7[3] and the 4th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant to submit that the 1st defendant was carrying out its constitutional duties when it disallowed the claimant from operating in Bida LGA. In my view, the LG’s function in section 7[3] of the CFRN 1999 on economic planning has no connection with whether to permit or not to permit a trade union to function within the LG.  Also, the function given to the LG in the 4th Schedule to the CFRN 1999 to collect revenue and to license bicycles and other mechanically propelled trucks does not include licensing trade unions or deciding which trade union to operate in the LG and which one to disallow from operating. The 1st defendant’s reliance on Section 7[3] and the 4th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution to disallow the claimant from exercising its trade union rights within Bida LGA is not justified. I have not been shown or referred to any other statute or instrument which permits the 1st defendant to prevent the claimant from operating as a trade union in Bida LG.

 

By section 2(1) of the Trade Unions Act (TUA), once a trade union is registered, it is entitled to operate in furtherance of the purposes for which it was formed. Thus, the claimant being an independently registered trade union is entitled to operate independently as a trade union anywhere in Nigeria, including Bida LG, in furtherance of the purpose for which it was registered. Consequently, question 1 of the Originating Summons is determined in the affirmative to the effect that the claimant is free to operate and carry out the purposes for which it was formed in the 1st Defendant LG.

 

QUESTION 2:

In Paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, it was averred that the 2nd Defendant is an association registered under Part C (now Part F) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act by the Corporate Affairs Commission. Exhibit B003 of the affidavit is the Certificate of registration of the 2nd defendant with Certificate No. 11758 dated 4th January 1999. In paragraph 8, it was deposed that the Trustees of the 2nd defendant were reconstituted in 2016 and the Instrument of approval issued by the CAC on 5th December 2016 is Exhibit B005 while the new constitution of the 2nd defendant is Exhibit B006. It was further averred that the 2nd defendant was not registered to carry out the functions of registration of commercial motorcycle riders and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendant LG but it now undertakes and carry out these activities in Bida LG as if it is a trade union. It is for these reasons the claimant wants this court to determine, in question 2 of the Originating Summons, whether the 2nd defendant, which is a registered Incorporated Trustees under Part C (now Part F) of the Company and Allied Matter Act, can register commercial motorcycle riders in Bida LG and collects dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders.

 

The case of the 2nd defendant in response is that it is a registered Trade Union and it produced its Certificate of Registration which is Exhibit ACOMORAN 01. It is dated 16th April 2024 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions. It was also stated in the counter affidavit of the 2nd defendant that it operates as a trade union in Bida LGA and only deals with its members who are in Bida LGA. 

 

I have observed that the name of the trade union contained in Exhibit ACOMORAN 01 is ALMALGAMATED COMMERCIAL TRICYCLE, MOTORCYCLE DEALERS AND REPAIRERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA [ACOMORAN]. The name of the 2nd defendant in this suit is AMALGAMATED COMMERCIAL TRICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE OWNERS, REPAIRS AND RIDERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA. I have seen the registration documents of the 2nd defendant, particularly Exhibits B005 and B006 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. These are the certificate of registration and the Constitution of Amalgamated Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners, Repairs and Riders Association of Nigeria. It is clear to me that the name of the 2nd defendant, as contained in Exhibits B005 and B006 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, is different from the name of the trade union contained in Exhibit ACOMORAN 01. While the Amalgamated Commercial Tricycle, Motorcycle Dealers and Repairers Association of Nigeria is a registered trade union under the TUA, the Amalgamated Commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle Owners, Repairs and Riders Association of Nigeria is a registered trustees under Part C [now Part F] of the CAMA. Accordingly, the body sued as the 2nd defendant in this suit is different from the trade union in Exhibit ACOMORAN 01. In addition, there is no evidence presented to the court to show that the name reflected in this suit as the 2nd defendant is registered as a trade union. It is also not shown to me that there was a conversion of the 2nd defendant from a Registered Trustee, at any time, to a trade union in the name contained in Exhibit ACOMORAN 01. In the absence of any such evidence of registration as a trade union placed before the court, I hold that the 2nd defendant is not a registered trade union within the meaning of the term under the Trade Unions Act. In view of Exhibits B005 and B006 of the claimant’s affidavit, the 2nd defendant is an association registered under Part F (previously Part C) of the Companies and Allied Matter Act 2020.

 

The quarrel of the claimant is that the 2nd defendant, not being a trade union, is carrying out the trade union activities similar to that of the claimant by registering commercial motorcycle riders and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from commercial motorcycle riders in the 1st Defendant’s LG. It was contended that by sections 823(1) and 825(1)(b) of the Company and Allied Matter Act, 2020 [CAMA], the 2nd Defendant, is a non-profit making association and cannot therefore operate a profitable venture or business by way of registering commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the commercial motorcycle riders. Also, the claimant contended that the aims and objectives of the 2nd defendant as contained in its constitution is not to regulate the operations and activities of commercial motorcycles anywhere in Nigeria. 

 

Section 823 [1] of CAMA 2020 provides: 

 “Where two or more trustees are appointed by any community of persons bound together by custom, religion, kinship or nationality or by anybody or association of persons established for any religious, educational, literary, scientific, social, development, cultural, sporting or charitable purpose, they may, if so authorised by the community, body or association (in this Act referred to as “the association”) apply to the Commission in the manner provided for registration under this Act as a corporate body”.

 

While section 825 (1)b) CAMA 2020 provides:

Application under section 823 shall be in the form prescribed     by the Commission and shall state the—

              a) ----------

              b) aims and objects of the association which shall be for the advancement of any religious, educational, literary, scientific, social, development, cultural, sporting or charitable purpose, and shall be lawful”.

 

I have examined the above provisions of CAMA relied on by the claimant to contend that the 2nd Defendant is a non-profit making association and cannot therefore operate a profitable venture or business by way of registering commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the commercial motorcycle riders. From my construction of the provisions, there is nothing in the above provisions that says an association so registered as a Trustee is non-profit making. Also, there is nothing in the provisions which precludes such an association from registering its members or from collecting dues from its members or from selling registration stickers, ID cards and tickets to its members to generate income. To show that an association registered as an Incorporated Trustee is not prevented from generating income, section 830[1] [d] CAMA 2020 provides that from the date of registration of the association as Incorporated Trustees, it shall have power to acquire any property or interests in property and to hold same for the benefit or for the purposes of the community, body or association of persons. And Section 838 [1] CAMA 2020 provides that the income and property of a body or association whose trustees are incorporated under the Act shall be applied solely toward the promotion of the objects of the body as set forth in its constitution.

 

By Section 825[2] CAMA 2020, the application for registration of the association shall be accompanied with two copies of its constitution and Section 827 provides for what information is to be contained in the constitution. Among the facts to be stated therein is that where subscriptions and other contributions are to be collected, the procedure for disbursement of the funds of the association, the keeping of accounts and the auditing of such accounts shall be stated in the constitution of the association, in addition to any other matter. By these provisions of CAMA, it is clear that the objects of the association are as provided in its constitution and whether the association is permitted to collect subscriptions and other contributions from its members is to be found in its constitution. 

 

The Constitution of the 2nd defendant is Exhibit B006 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. The aims and objectives of the 2nd defendant are contained in Article II of its constitution. One of its aims in paragraph (b) of the Article is to promote, protect and safeguard the interest and welfare of commercial Tricycle and Motorcycle owners, repairers and riders throughout Nigeria and to further the economic and social interest of members. As to who are the members of the 2nd defendant, Article III (i) provide thus: 

 “Membership of the Association is open to Nigerian citizen irrespective of sex, creed, religion, tribe or social status, provided the applicant for membership is able bodied, sane and of legal age and could show evidence of competent drivers license as either owner or rides motorcycles and tricycle for commercial transportation and repairs”.

 

Article III [3] further defined a member of the 2nd defendant as “Any person (i.e. Owner) who hires out his/her motorcycle or rider for the purpose of commercial transportation, and any person who repairs and sell parts of these Machines are all members of the Association”.

 

By the provisions of Article III [ii], [iii] and B[i], such members of the 2nd defendant are required to, upon being a member, pay a registration fee for the identity card; pay annual renewal fee and pay dues to the association. Article V [B] further provide that the income of the Association shall be derived from, among others, members registration fee, daily subscription/ticket, dues and other subscriptions, sales of publications, membership cards, grants, loans, levies, badges, fines, stickers and jackets. In view of these provisions of the 2nd defendant’s constitution, it is permitted to register its members, collect daily subscription/ticket fees and dues from them, including other payments for subscriptions, sales of publications, membership cards, levies, badges, fines, stickers and jackets. Although the 2nd defendant is not registered as a trade union, it was registered as an association having its own constitution, its aims and objectives, its membership base and what income to derive from its members. 

 

The constitution of the 2nd defendant, with which it was registered as an association with CAC pursuant to the provisions of CAMA, defined its membership to include owners, riders and repairers of motorcycles and tricycle for commercial transportation. Thus, when the claimant said the 2nd defendant was registering commercial motorcycle riders in Bida Local Government and collecting dues realized from the sale of registration stickers, ID cards and tickets from the commercial motorcycle riders, I find that the 2nd defendant was acting within the limits of its constitution. Therefore, I find no basis for the complaints of the claimant. In the result, question 2 of the Originating Summons is determined in the affirmative and against the claimant. 

 

I must re-emphasize the fact that membership of any trade union is voluntary. Section 40 CFRN 1999 gave every citizen of Nigeria the right to join or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association of his choice. The implication is that nobody can be forced to become a member of a particular trade union. Although a trade union is registered to cover persons of specific trade, profession or calling, it does not mean that everybody within that trade, profession or calling must be members of the trade union. It is only persons who voluntary agree to join or to belong to that trade union that the trade union can regulate their interest. I went down this lane as a caution to the claimant when it starts to operate in the 1st defendant LG. It cannot drag or force very person riding motorcycle, whether for private or commercial purpose, in Bida Local Government into its union, particularly those who are already members of the 2nd defendant. Anybody who rides motorcycle but does not voluntarily join the claimant union is clearly outside the control or interference of the claimant.

 

The result of the foregoing conclusions reached in questions 1 and 2 of the Originating Summons is that the claimant succeeds in relief 1 and 4 only. Reliefs 2, 3, 5 and 6 fail and they are hereby dismissed. The orders made in favour of the claimant are as follows:

  1. It is declared that the Claimant has the right to lawfully operate and carry out its activities or business in Bida Local Government Area.
  2. The 1st Defendant is ordered allow the Claimant carry out lawful activities or business as a registered trade union within Bida Local Government Area.

 

Parties shall bear their costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge