BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

DATE: 21ST JULY, 2026.                                              

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/43/2025

BETWEEN

NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF 

EDUCATION AND ASSOCIATED 

INSTITUTIONS (NASU)  -------------------------------------------------- CLAIMANT           

AND

1. GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE POLYTECHNIC,

    IBADAN.

 

2. DR. LASISI TAIWO ABIDEEN 

    ACTING RECTOR OF THE POLYTECHNIC,                -- DEFENDANTS

     IBADAN.                                                                                               

 

3. MR. OGUNJIMI JOSEPH ADEWUMI

    ACTING REGISTRAR OF THE POLYTECHNIC,

     IBADAN.

 

REPRESENTATION

- G.F. Kolawole for the Claimant.

- O.J. Olaleye for the Defendants.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.         The Claimant filed this suit on 4th day of July, 2025 via an originating summons. The Claimant submitted three questions for determination, to wit:

  1. Whether by the content of the Defendants’ letter dated the 8th day of May, 2025 with Reference No: ADM/SSE.04/III/295 titled “DISSOLUTION OF BRANCH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NASU, THE POLYTECHNIC, IBADAN” signed by Gboyega Odejobi, (P) for Acting Registrar at the instance of the Management of the Defendant does not amount to undue interference and meddling in the internal affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants establishment and contrary to the spirit of and intendment of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and against International Best Labour Practice as provided under Article 4 and 11 of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization. 
  2. Whether by constituting an investigation panel through an internal memorandum issued from the office of the Acting Registrar dated 20th day of June, 2025 and signed by Gboyega Odejobi (P) with 3 terms of reference does not amount to undue interference and meddling in the internal affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants establishment and contrary to the clear provision of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and against International Best Labour Practice as enshrine under Article 4 and 11 of the Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization. 
  3. Whether the panel constituted by the Defendants institution is unlawful, wrongful, illegal and ultra vires the offices of all the Defendants and a contravention of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization and thereby contrary to the International Best Labour Practice. 

2.         The Claimant then prayed for the following reliefs:

  1. A DECLARATION that by the combined provisions of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4 and 11 of Convention No. 87 both the Defendants’ letter dated the 8th May, 2025 and an Internal Memorandum dated 20th June, 2025 by which the Defendants constituted an investigation panel with five terms of reference amount to the Defendants continuous interference and meddling in the affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants Institution are both unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires the office of the Defendants since both are contrary to the clear provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and International Best Labour Practice. 
  2. A DECLARATION that the panel constituted by the Internal Memorandum with the five terms of reference by the Defendants is unlawful, wrongful, illegal, void and ultra vires the offices of the Defendants and a contravention of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 of the International Best Labour Practice. 
  3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants from further interfering or further meddling in the affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendant’s establishment. 
  4. AN ORDER restraining the panel set up by the Defendants from sitting by the Defendants or write any of the Claimant’s members from appearing before it and if the panel sitting, the Defendants should suspend further sitting and set aside all the panel proceedings and set aside any recommendation that may be made in its report that might have been submitted to the Defendants. 
  5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants or privies from intimidating, harassing, sacking or victimizing the members of the Claimant in the Defendant’s establishment on the grounds of their participation in Union activities. 
  6. AND FOR SUCH ORDER OR FURTHER ORDERS OR RELIEFS just and fair as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances. 

3.         In support of the originating summons is an Affidavit of 17 paragraphs deposed to by one Amalu E.O., a Senior Assistant General Secretary (Poly) of the National Headquarters of Non-Academic Staff Union of Education and Associated Institutions. Attached to the Affidavit are annexures marked as Exhibits A to H11 respectively. Equally filed in support of the originating summons is a written address dated 4th day of July, 2025.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

4.         In the said written address, learned Counsel to the Claimant formulated three issues for determination which are as follows:

  1. Whether by the content of the Defendants letter dated the 8th day of May 2025 with Reference No: ADM/SSE.04/III/295 titled “DISSOLUTION OF BRANCH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NASU, THE POLYTECHNIC, IBADAN” signed by Gboyega Odejobi, (P) for Acting Registrar at the instance of the Management of the Defendant does not amount to undue interference and meddling in the internal affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants establishment and contrary to the spirit of and intendment of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and against International Best Labour Practice as provided under Article 4 and 11 of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization. 
  2. Whether by constituting an investigation panel through an internal memorandum issued from the office of the Acting Registrar dated 20th day of June, 2025 and signed by Gboyega Odejobi (P) with 3 terms of reference does not amount to undue interference and meddling in the internal affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants establishment and contrary to the clear provision of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and against International Best Labour Practice as enshrine under Article 4 and 11 of the Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization. 
  3. Whether the panel constituted by the Defendants institution is unlawful, wrongful, illegal and ultra vires the offices of all the Defendants and a contravention of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organization and thereby contrary to the International Best Labour Practice. 

5.         Learned Counsel argued the three issues together and submitted that every person has the right to freedom of Association, to belong or not to belong to any group for the furtherance of their interest as long as such does not offend any Law.

            Reference was made to Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 2 of the International Labour Organization Fundamental Conversion Part I.

6.         In another submission, Counsel stated that the light to trade unionism is a fundamental right of workers entrenched in the Constitution. The right is so important that employers are enjoined not to interfere with its exercise in any way. He contended further that an employer cannot compel workers to join a particular Union, form a Union for the workers, or determine how a Union is run or administered. It is a fundamental nature of the workers right. He cited the cases of PANYA ANIGBORO v. SEA TRUCKS NIGERIA LTD (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 299) 35 at 62; SSS & ANOR v. NUT (2018) LPELR pages 28-29, para. D.

7.         Arguing further, Counsel referred the Court to Article 2 & 4 of the ILO Conversion and submitted that the interference and meddling with the internal affairs of the Claimant Union by the Defendants is illegal, a gross violation of their fundamental right.

8.         Contending further, Counsel stated that the 2nd Defendant being an employee of the Oyo State Government who directs the affairs of the Polytechnic, Ibadan, he cannot, and is not empowered by any Law to state who can lead or not lead the Claimant Union as that would amount to interfering and meddling in the affairs of the Union. By issuing Exhibits A and C, the 2nd Defendant has meddled and interfered in the internal affairs of the Claimant. Reliance was placed on the cases of NIGERIA SUGAR COMPANY LTD v. NATIONAL FOOD, BEVERAGES & TOBACCO EMPLOYEES DJNIC 23 at 25, para. 1; NASU v. FUNNAB (Unreported NIC) Suit No. NIC/LA/15/2011.

9.         Moreso, Counsel stated that it is the Claimant’s contention that all of the acts and actions of the 2nd Defendant offend Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 2 and 4 of the International Labour Organization Conventions. In this respect, Counsel cited the cases of AKPENE v. BARCLAYS BANK OF NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (1977) LPELR, pg. 14, paras. C-E; NZOM & ANOR v. JINADU (1987) LPELR pages 44-45, paras. E-A.

10.       Finally, Counsel submitted that both Exhibit A and C offends Section 40, 12(1)(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and Article 2 and 4 of the International Labour Conventions. It is also illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Defendants office and urged this Honourable Court to so hold. 

11.       In opposition to the originating summons, the Defendants filed Counter Affidavit of 21 paragraphs deposed to by one Mr. Oyedokun Ogunmole, a Chief Executive Officer at Registry Department of the Polytechnic, Ibadan. Filed in support of the Counter Affidavit is a written address dated 16th day of January, 2026.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

12.       In the said written address, learned Counsel to the Defendants formulated a lone issue for determination which is whether the Claimant is entitled to its claims being granted by the Honourable Court.

13.       Arguing the lone issue, Defendants’ Counsel conceded to the submission of Counsel to the Claimant that every person has the right to freedom of association, to belong or not to belong to any group for the furtherance of their interest, with the caveat; as long as such does not offend any law.

14.       Counsel referred the Honourable Court to the Counter Affidavit and stated that the dissolution of the executive of the Claimant was instigated from the National Headquarters of the Claimant and not by the Defendants and that the activities of the Claimant led to lingering crisis on campus. That the Defendants have no hand in any of the allegations and claims of the Claimant. 

15.       Learned Counsel further argued that it was only when the Defendants realized that there was a crisis in the management and executive body of the Claimant in the Polytechnic, Ibadan that the Defendants set up an ad-hoc committee which was constituted to look into the possible cause of the crisis within the Claimant in the Polytechnic, Ibadan.

That members of the Claimant in the institution are first staff members of the Polytechnic Ibadan before being members of the Union and as is usually the case, the management set up an investigation panel/committee to fulfill equity and natural justice.

16.       Consequently, Counsel submitted that the actions of the Defendants are consistent with their objective of managing the lingering crisis that the dissolution of the executive of the Claimant instigated from the National Headquarters of the Claimant foisted on the institution. The Claimant is a body corporate and its activities have nothing to do with the Defendants. 

17.       The learned Counsel contended that the Defendants have no hand in any of the allegations and claims of the Claimant and even the committee that was set up by the Defendants was set up to resolve the issues as pertaining to the members of staff of the Polytechnic, Ibadan and cannot in any way be interpreted to mean interference in the activities of the Claimant. 

            That the Claimant’s claims are misconceived and the action of the Defendants was to ensure peace and avoid breakdown of law and order in the institution.

18.       Submitting further, Counsel stated that the Defendants are in no way preventing the Claimant from carrying out its operations or preventing the members of the Claimant from their rights to associate or against International Best Labour Practice or contrary to Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or any other law. 

That the cases of AKPENE v. BARCLAYS BANK (supra); MACFOY v. UNITED AFRICAN COMPANY LTD (supra) AKPENE v. BARCLAYS BANK OF NIGERIA LTD & ANOR (supra) and NZOM & ANOR v. JINADU (supra) cited by the Claimant are not relevant to this case. 

19.       In his final submission, Counsel stated that the Claimant is a National body and has no relationship with the Defendants which makes this suit incompetent as it is presently constituted.

20.       To this end, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the suit of the Claimant.

21.       On the other hand, the Claimant filed a Further and Better Affidavit in opposition to the 1st to 3rd Defendants’ Counter Affidavit to the originating summons. Filed in support of the Further and Better Affidavit is Claimant’s additional written address dated the 28th day of January, 2026. In the said additional address, Counsel argued and urged this Honourable Court to discountenance all the averments contained in the 1st to 3rd Defendants’ Counter Affidavit as same lacks merit and enter judgment in favour of the Claimant according to all reliefs sought from this Honorable Court.

22.       Similarly, the Defendants equally filed Further Counter Affidavit and a written address in support dated the 10th day of March, 2026, wherein Counsel urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the suit of the Claimant.

COURT’S DECISION

23.       I have taken my time and studied the originating summons commencing this suit, the reliefs sought, the supporting Affidavit, the Exhibits attached therewith, the written address, the Further and Better Affidavit as well as the additional written address. I have equally gone through the Counter Affidavit in opposition to the originating summons and the written address in support of same and also the Further Counter Affidavit together with the written address. Having painstakingly done all these, it is my considered opinion that in answering the three questions posed by the Claimant via this originating summons, the issue for determination can be narrowed to whether from the Affidavit and documentary evidence before this Honourable Court, the Claimant has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought.

24.       Before I channel my energy towards answering the questions posed, let me observe that the Defendants filed another process titled Further Counter Affidavit together with written address in support of the Further Counter Affidavit. By the Rules of this Honourable Court, where a Respondent served with a motion on notice, in this instance case, an originating summons and he intends to oppose same, he shall file a Counter Affidavit and a written address within time specified. Also, where a Counter Affidavit together with a written address is served on the Claimant/Applicant, the Claimant/Applicant may file a Further and Better Affidavit to deal with new issues arising from the Respondent’s Counter Affidavit and a written Reply on Points of law within the time specified. That ends filing of processes. The Rules of this Honourable Court did not contemplate the Defendant filing a Further Counter Affidavit and a written address in support because there must be an end to filing processes. See Order 17 Rule 1(10) and (11) of the Rules of this Honourable Court, Civil Procedure Rules, 2017.

25.       Consequently, this process of the Defendant dated and filed on 10th day of March, 2026 is unknown to both the Rules of this Honourable Court and the law. To that extend therefore, the said process titled Further Counter Affidavit together with written address in support of Further Counter Affidavit is hereby discountenanced and expunged from the record of this Honourable Court in the interest of justice.

26.       Having cleared this, I will now turn to the issue for determination but before then, it is the Claimant’s case as can be seen from the affidavit evidence before the court briefly that the Claimant is a Registered Trade Union listed as No. 27 in Part A and B of the Third Schedule to Trade Unions Act Cap. T14 LFN 2004 and conferred with the jurisdictional scope of Unionizing All Non-Academic Staff of Educational and Associated Institutions including the Teaching Hospital in Nigeria. That the Claimant at all material time has been operating a Branch Union in the Polytechnic, Ibadan and the Claimant’s relationship with the Defendants’ establishment was very cordial and peaceful until 8th day of May, 2025, when the Claimant received an official letter signed on behalf of the 3rd Defendant by Gboyega Odejobi conveying the Management feeling on the dissolution of the Union Branch Executive Committee of the Institution. That by a letter dated the 22nd May, 2025, the National Headquarters promptly make a response and further appeal to the Management not to meddle in the affairs of the Union and to allow NASU members in the Institution to decide on the leadership of the Union in the Polytechnic.

That despite the appeal of the Claimant to allow the Union members to elect their leaders, the Defendants by an Internal Memorandum issued on 20th June, 2025 constituted an investigation panel to among other things, holistically examine the problems confronting NASU in the Institution and to identify members who played key role in the crisis. That prior to the dissolution of the former Executive Committee of the Claimant, a lot of agitations, petitions and a pass of vote of no confident was passed by members of the Union against the dissolved Executive Committee and various documents were submitted to the Claimant. That several efforts were made by the Claimant to reconcile the members differences under the dissolved Executive Committee but to no avail. The Claimant eventually dissolved the Committee. That the Claimant by its letter dated 3rd day of June, 2025 formally wrote to inform the office of the 2nd Defendant of its intention to conduct a bye-election in the Polytechnic, Ibadan and at the same time issued circular letter to that effect to all NASU members in the Institution. That due to the body language of the Defendants, the Claimant further postponed the bye-election and the same was communicated to the 2nd Defendant and to all NASU members in the Polytechnic, Ibadan. That the Claimant being adversely affected by the decisions and actions of the Defendants herein above stated has now applied to this Honourable Court for the determination of those questions posed by the Claimant.

27.       Before proceeding further, it is necessary to note that parties did not dispute the fact that the Claimant is a Registered Trade Union listed as No. 27 in the Third Schedule Part A & B of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and that the Defendants have constituted an investigation panel to among other things, holistically examine the problems confronting NASU in the institution and to identify members who played key role in the crisis.

28.       However, what is in dispute is that the Claimant alleged that the Defendants have interfered and meddled in their internal affairs by setting up investigation committee, the Defendants on the other hand averred that the committee was set up in a bid to resolve the matter within the institution as the activities of the Claimant led to a lingering crisis on campus and the Defendants are not in any way interfering in the internal affairs of the Claimant.

29.       Having pointed out these, I will now answer the three questions posed by the Claimant via this originating summons together because they are intertwined and to properly do that, I will reproduce hereunder the content of the letters which the Claimant attached to the supporting Affidavit as Exhibits A and C respectively.

            Exhibit A reads inter alia thus:

“RE: DISSOLUTION OF THE BRANCH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NASU, THE POLYTECHNIC, IBADAN

I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 17th March, 2025 with Ref. No.: NASU/POLY/215/VOL.XVI/92 which dissolved the Executive Committee of NASU of The Polytechnic, Ibadan. 

The Management had investigated your directive and noted that the dissolution was based on an erroneous impression made about membership. The Polytechnic indeed find out that, after the Congress of February 13th, 2025 which NASU Headquarters attended, some members decided to write Letter of Appreciation to the Headquarters and implored members to write their names and signatures which would be attached to the Letter of Appreciation. The signatures and names were therefore used otherwise to misinform not only NASU Headquarters but also the Institution’s Ag. Bursar that the members on the list withdrew their membership of NASU. This was made available to your office upon which you acted without appropriate investigation. 

In view of the above, it is difficult to accept that Polytechnic, Ibadan NASU Branch Executives was dissolved as contained in NASU/POLY/215/VOL.XVI/92 since the directive was dubiously derived. The Management is indeed conducting further investigation to bring those involved to book based on the Institution’s Regulation.

I am to advise the Union in general to investigate issues thoroughly, henceforth.”

            Exhibit C reads inter alia thus:

“NON-ACADEMIC STAFF UNION IMBROGLIO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE

The Management noted that Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU) Executives of this been resolved by the State Headquarters and that this decision has instigated members.

The Management therefore constituted an investigation panel to look into the crisis.

Members of the Committee are as follows:

  1. Dr. Kola Lawal                       -           ASUP Chairman
  2. Dr. O. O. Oyewo                   -     HOD Public Admin. Dept.
  3. Mr. M. O. Adewoyin -           Deputy Registrar, SSE
  4. Mr. A. Abegunde       -           SSANIP Chairman
  5. Mr. M. O. Tiamiyu    -           Head, CPE
  6. Mr. A. A. Adepoju     -           Deputy Registrar, ASE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

(i) To holistically examine the problems confronting NASU in the Institution.

(ii) To find out immediate and remote causes of dissolution of The Polytechnic, Ibadan NASU Executives.

(iii) To identify members who played key roles in the crisis.

(iv) To identify any other germane issues.

(v) To recommend appropriate solutions.

The Committee was directed to attach importance to this assignment and to submit its report to the Ag. Rector not later than two (2) weeks from the date of this memo”

            From the unambiguous content of Exhibits A and C reproduced above, the question that comes to mind is whether the Defendants have interfered and meddled in the internal affairs of the Claimant. I should get an answer as I proceed.

30.       It should be noted that Section 40 of the 1999 constitution as amended provides that “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 Rights (ACHR) which Nigeria has domesticated provides that “Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.” Nigeria has also ratified the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention 1984 (No. 87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949 (No. 98). By virtue of the provisions of Section 254C (2) of the 1999 constitution as amended, this Court is empowered to apply International Conventions Nigeria has ratified relating to labour. The Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining is one of the four core conventions/core labour standards adopted by the ILO on 18 June 1998 in the Philadelphia declaration on Fundamental Principles and Right at work. Therefore the combined effect of Section 40, 1999 Constitution, Article 10 ACHR and ILO Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 is that the Claimant’s members have an unfettered constitutional right recognized and guaranteed locally and internationally to form or belong to a trade union and participate in trade union activities without fear of intimidation. It is a fundamental right entrenched in the Constitution which the Defendants’ have no right to toy with. In this respect, I refer to the case of A.G. ONDO STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 6 SC (pt. 1) 1 at 27. To that extend, I therefore hold that by their actions as envisaged in Exhibits A and C referred above, the Defendants have breached the provisions of section 40 of the 1999 constitution. By so doing the Defendants’ have infringed on the fundamental rights of the Claimant and its members.

31.       Let me re-echo it here that it is not open to the Defendants to arrogate to themselves the right to investigate trade union activities under the guise of fulfilling equity and natural justice. The provision of Section 7(1) (a)-(F) of the Trade Union Act (Supra) 14, only empowers the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel the Registration of a Trade Union under the conditions stated therein. Also, the Minister in Section 7(9) may due to overriding public interest, revoke the Certificate of Registration of any Trade Union specified in Part A only of the Third Schedule. This provision does not empower even the Registrar or the Minister to investigate any Trade Union activities, let only the Defendants.

32.       Furthermore, the Defendants even constituted an investigation panel to look into the crisis pursuant to the dissolution of Executive of the Claimant with a terms of reference as contained in Exhibit C. The Defendants deposed in their Counter Affidavit particularly at paragraph 7 thus:

“That in a bid to resolve the matter within the institution, an ad-hoc committee was constituted to look into and investigate the matter, but the committee is yet to conclude its report.”

33.       To this end, I ask myself what is the interest of the Defendants in the internal affairs of the Claimant when the law is clear on the procedure opened to the aggrieved members of the Claimant to follow in addressing or resolving their crisis.

In fact, the Claimant’s members from the content of Exhibits D to H were already making efforts to resolve their internal crisis until the Defendants interfered and meddled into it. If I must add, no any complain was made to the Defendants by any member of the dissolved Executives of the Claimant. The Defendants are crying more than the bereaved, to say the least. This is a clear case of undue interference and meddling in the internal affairs of the Claimant by the Defendants which the law frowns at.

34.       Consequently, the Claimant stated in the Further and Better Affidavit particularly at paragraph 4 thus:

“That the constitution of an ad-hoc committee by the Defendants establishment amounts to undue interference meddling into the internal affairs of the Claimant’s Union.”

35.       Before I drop my pen, let me say that the right to Trade Unionism is a fundamental right of workers. The right is so important that employers are enjoined not to interfere with its exercise in any way. I refer to the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of NASU v. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE ABEOKUTA (unreported) Suit No. NIC/LA/15/2011 delivered on February, 21, 2012 where my learned brother, Hon. Justice B.B. Kanyip clearly stated the position of law at page 10 as follows:- 

“A fortiori, I must state that no employer is permitted to interfere, no matter how minutely it may be, in the internal running and management of a trade union. That is the exclusive preserve of members of the trade union itself. This statement of principle accords with Section 40 of the 1999 constitution, as amended, and the International Labour Organization (ILO)jurisprudent regarding the freedom of association and protection of the Right to Organize Convention 1948 (No. 87), which establishes the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations “ to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes” (Article 3) and recognize the aims of such organizations as “furthering and defending the interest of workers and employers” (Article 10). This freedom entails a number of principles, which have been laid down over time which (according to the trio of B. Gernigon, A. Odero and H. Guido ‘Freedom of Association’ in international labour standards: A Global Approach, 75th anniversary of the committee of expert on the Application of Convention and Recommendations, First Edition 2002 at (pp. 27 – 40) include the following: right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing; right to establish organizations without previous authorization; right of workers and employers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing; free functioning of organizations in terms of right to draw up their constitutions and rules; right to elect representatives in full freedom; right of trade unions to organize their administration; right of organizations to organize their activities in full freedom and to formulate their programmes; right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to establish federations and confederations and to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers; right against dissolution and suspension of organizations except through judicial procedure; protection against acts of anti – union discrimination; and adequate protection against acts of interference”.

36.       In the light of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in answering the three questions posed by the Claimant via this Originating Summons in the affirmative, and I so do. To that extend and having answered the three questions in the affirmative, it is my considered opinion that the Claimant has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought. As such, I resolve the issue for determination in favour of the Claimant, against the Defendants and hold very strongly that the case of the Claimant succeeds in whole. 

On that note, I hereby declare and order as follows:

  1. That by the combined provisions of Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4 and 11 of Convention No. 87 both the Defendants’ letter dated the 8th May, 2025 and an Internal Memorandum dated 20th June, 2025 by which the Defendants constituted an investigation panel with five terms of reference amount to the Defendants continuous interference and meddling in the affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendants Institution are both unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires the office of the Defendants since both are contrary to the clear provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and International Best Labour Practice. 
  2. That the panel constituted by the Internal Memorandum with the five terms of reference by the Defendants is unlawful, wrongful, illegal, void and ultra vires the offices of the Defendants and a contravention of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 of the International Best Labour Practice. 
  3. The Defendants are hereby restrained from further interfering or further meddling in the affairs and activities of the Claimant in the Defendant’s establishment. 
  4. The panel set up by the Defendants is hereby restrained from sitting or write any of the Claimant’s members from appearing before it and if the panel sitting, the Defendants should suspend further sitting and set aside all the panel proceedings and set aside any recommendation that may be made in its report that might have been submitted to the Defendants. 
  5. The Defendants, their agents, servants or privies are hereby restrained from intimidating, harassing, sacking or victimizing the members of the Claimant in the Defendant’s establishment on the grounds of their participation in Union activities.

37.       I make no order as to cost.

38.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

_____________________________

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

Presiding Judge.