BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

                                                MOTION NO. NICN/LA/99m/2025

                                                     MOTION NO. NICN/LA/14m/2026

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE (DR.) 1. J. ESSIEN

 DATE: 5th August 2026

 

BETWEEN      

1. Tricycle Owners Association of Nigeria (TOAN)

2. Comrade (Chief) Francis Adetunji Oyeniyi

     (Chairman, TOAN, Lagos Chapter                      Judg. Creditors/Resp                                    

3. Comrade Olatunji Okunola (State Secretary, TOAN, Lagos State Chapter)                                   

    

 

AND

1. Lagos State Government

2. Hon. Commissioner for Transport, Lagos State            
3. Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State              Judg. Debtors

 

                         

 

4. Incorporated Trustees of Tricycle Owners and Operators
    Association of Nigeria (TOOAN)

5. The Registered Trustees of Tricycle Owners and Drivers      

    Association of Lagos State (TODAL)                    Judg. Debtors/Resp.

                              

6. National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW)

7. Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria     

   (RTEAN)  

 

AND

 

The Officers of The 6th Judgment Debtor/Parties Cite for Contempt /Respondents

 

1.     Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle

 (Lagos State Chairman)                                1st and 2nd Parties Cited.

2.      Comrade Usman O. Teslim

 (Lagos  State Secretary)         

 

The Officers of The 7th Judgment Debtor/Parties Cited for  Contempt /Respondents

 

1.Comrade Ajala Samsudeen

   (Lagos State Chapter Chairman)

2. Alhaji Sulaimon Ajisakin                                       1st and 2nd parties Cited

    (Deputy Admin)

 

 

RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

AND THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

This Court delivered judgment in Suit No NICN/ LA/308/2021 on the 11/12/2025. In the judgment this court made certain orders against the 6th and 7th judgment debtors. The officers of the 6th and 7th judgment debtors ignored the order and directive contained in the judgment of this court. The judgment creditor commenced contempt proceedings against the officers of the 6th and 7th judgment debtors, which culminated in the filing of the motion for committal dated and filed on the 6/7/2026. The 6th Judgment debtor filed a counter affidavit for itself and for the officers of the 6th judgment debtor/cited parties against the motion for committal on the 14/7/2026. Notwithstanding the process filed un-behalf of the officers of the 6th  judgment debtors, The first set of parties cited i.e. the officers of the 6th Judgment debtors (Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle and Comrade Usman O. Teslim) filed a Preliminary Objection (PO) dated and filed on the 24/7/2026 against the hearing of the committal proceedings through another counsel. The 7th judgment debtor and their officers did not file any response to the motion for committal. On the 28/7/2026, the court took argument on the PO as well as the motion for committal. It would have been tidy if the PO was raised as a response to the motion for committal. This court would consider both the processes together in as much as the PO is challenging the hearing of the motion for committal. Furthermore 2 processes were filed un-behalf of the officer of the 6th judgment debtor/parties cited. At the hearing of the applications the counsel for the 6th Judgment debtor was in court but refused to adopt his counter affidavit. The process was not also withdrawn. This court would deem the counter affidavit as duly adopted for the purpose of determining the motion for committal.

 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION.

The Preliminary Objection of the officers of the 6th judgment debtor/ cited parties (Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle and Comrade Usman O. Teslim) is dated and filed on the 24/7/2026. In this objection the applicants pray the court to decline jurisdiction to entertain the instant contempt proceedings, strike out and/or dismiss the Judgment Creditors/Respondents Form 86 and Motion for Contempt Proceedings (Form 87), for the failure to effect service of the said Forms 86 and 87 on  the  Parties  Cited  for  Contempt/Applicants  (Alh.  Mustapha  Adio Adekunle and Comrade Usman O.Teslim).

 

The grounds of the objection is that by the combined effect of Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; Order IX Rule 13 and Order IX Rule 5 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules, Order 63 Rule 1 & 2 of the Rules of this Honourable Court, the requisite Forms 86 and Form 87 must be served on the Parties Cited for Contempt/Applicants personally. That the failure of the Judgment Creditors/Respondent to serve the Form 86 and motion for contempt proceedings (Form 87) on the Parties Cited for Contempt/Applicants, this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction  to  hear  and  entertain  the  instant  contempt proceedings. The application is supported by an 8 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Damilare Folurusho who described himself as the litigation officer in the firm of Kunle Adegoke & Co. The deponent of the affidavit in paragraph 4 states:

During a review of the instant suit at the office of Kunle Adegoke &Co. on the 23rd day of July 2026 at 4:00 pm, Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle, the 1st Party Cited for Contempt/Applicant (the Lagos State Chairman of the 6th  Judgment Debtor/Alleged Contemnor), informed me, and I verily believe him as follows that:

(a)             On the 23rd day of July 2026 at about 3:00 pm, he was informed by one Alhaji  Prince  Idowu Onikoyi  Johnson  of the  instant pending committal proceedings wherein he is named as a party cited for contempt;

(b)            He was also informed by the said Alhaji Prince Onikoyi Johnson that the instant suit came up on the 23rd day of July 2026 before Court;

(c)             He was never served with any Form 86 or Form 87 in the instant suit and had no prior knowledge whatsoever of the committal proceedings;

(d)            Prior to instructing the law office of Kunle Adegoke & Co, to represent him in the instant Committal Proceedings, he has never instructed or retained any law firm  to represent his interest in the instant proceedings, of which he had no prior knowledge; and

In paragraph 5 (a) (b) (c) and (d) the deponent repeated the above position with respect to the 2nd cited parties Comrade Usman O. Teslim.

From the above it is clear that the litigation officer deposed to the above fact based on information given to him not by counsel in the office of Kunle Adegoke & Co but by the 1st and 2nd parties cited. The source of his information becomes very questionable. Clients who seek the serviced of layers do not give their briefing to litigation clerks and litigation officers. Rather the briefs are to be taken by counsel in the firm. A litigation officer can only depose to facts relayed to him by counsel handling the matter who got briefing from the client. It becomes very doubtful if indeed the parties cited ever gave the information which formed the basis of the deposition to the deponent of this affidavit. A litigation clerk or litigation officer in a law firm can only depose to affidavit based on information given to him by counsel handling the matter who obtained the briefing from the litigant. See the case of  Iwuozor & Ors V. C.O.P, Kebbi State & Ors   (Pp. 21-22 paras. D). In other words it is only Mr Babatunde Lawal counsel for the cited parties that can donate the information which the deponent can use in deposing to this affidavit where the parties cited are not the one directly deposing to the affidavit after-all in paragraph 4(d) and 5(d) the parties cited state that it was the law firm of Kunle Adegoke that was briefed to represent them in this committal proceedings and not the litigation officer Damilare Folurusho who described himself as the litigation officer in the firm of Kunle Adegoke & Co. It becomes very doubtful whether the information stated by the deponent is true. To the extent that it was given by the 1st and 2nd parties cited is false and the weight to be attached to the affidavit is completely diminished.

 

  In the PO, The applicant counsel in his written argument has argued that personal  service  of  Forms  86  and  87  in  committal proceedings is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. That Non-service of the said forms robs Your Lordship of jurisdiction to entertain  same. Counsel relied on the case of Estate of Late Chief H.I.S. Idisi V. Ecodril (Nig.) Ltd. (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt.  1527) 355 at 376, paras.  D-H . Counsel relied on Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order IX Rule 13(1 and 2) of Judgment Enforcement Rules. Counsel argued that Order IX Rule 5 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules requires service to be personal service. Counsel also relied Order 63 Rule 2(2) of the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017. To argue that service of 86 and 87 must be personally served on the parties cited. Counsel relied on the case of Ulunmwangho V. Okojie [1989] NWLR (Pt. 122) 471at 487:

 

EFCC, Chairman V, Onwu (2016) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 74 at 85,

 

In response to the position canvassed by counsel to the parties cited, the counsel to the Judgment Creditors who was granted leave to respond orally. In his oral submission invited the attention of the court to the counter affidavit filed by the law firm of Muiz Banire & Associates, for 6th Judgment debtor and for the 1st and 2nd cited parties who are officers of the 6th  Judgment debtors. Counsel stated that the Law Firm had also written to the judgment creditor counsel stating that they are aware of the contempt proceedings. In Exhibit N4 and N5 attached to their counter affidavit. Counsel posits that the affidavit that the applicants to this PO were not served is misleading and fraudulent Counsel relied on the case of Nwosu V. Ude [1990] 1NWLR (Pt. 1021)

 

Counsel further argued that assuming but not conceding that form 86 and 87  was not served on the applicants, the law is that a party not served with a process has the right to apply to set aside the service or waive his right and submit to the jurisdiction of the court consequent upon the alleged defect in the service complained of. See Julius Berger Nig PLC V. API Ltd. [2022]11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) at 201. That having filed a counter affidavit and submitting to the jurisdiction of the court they applicants cannot complain. Counsel urged the court discountenance the complaint against service and dismiss the NPO.

 

I have carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the affidavit and exhibits attached to the NPO as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 6th Judgment Debtor. Let me start by stating that the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017 contain ample and detailed provision regarding contempt  proceedings. This rules regulate processes commenced in this court including contempt proceedings. This rule is binding on this court and compliance with the rules is mandatory. The applicant has relied of Order IX Rule 13 of Judgment Enforcement Rules which require Form 48 which is the same as Form 86 under the NICN Rules to be served  on the judgment debtor in like manner as a judgment summons. Order IX Rule 5 of the Judgment enforcement Rules provides:

A judgment  summons  shall  be  served personally  in accordance with the rules for personal service on an ordinary summon issued from the Court from which judgment summons is issued. (underlining mine)  

A combine reading of the above rules implies that service of committal processes are to be done in accordance with the rules of this court regarding personal service.  The question therefore is how is personal service carried out with respect to ordinary summons issued by this court. This must lead us to Order 7 Rule H(ii) which provides:

(ii) if the person is a trade union or employers’ organization, by serving a copy of the document on a responsible person, or officer or employee of the union or employers’ organization who at the time of such service is apparently in charge of the main office of the trade union or association or employers’ organization or the union’s or employers’ organization’s office within the Judicial Division in which the dispute first arose, at that office of the union or employers’ organization or, if there is no person willing to accept service, by affixing a copy of the document or process to the main door of that office.

From the above quoted rules the service on the respondent by serving any officer of the Union or affixing it on the office of the Union is deemed to be proper service which dispenses with the need of  personal service. I recall that by a motion on notice filed before this court, the Judgment Creditor/Respondent to this PO, was granted leave to serve the Judgment debtors/ parties cited by substituted means by pasting the contempt processes at the office of the judgment debtors within jurisdiction by the order of this court made on the 6/7/2026 which proof of service is in the court file. The proofs of service are also attached as Exhibit 2 and 3 to the Affidavit in support of the motion for committal filed on the 6/7/2026. To say that form 86 was not served on the parties cited and also that no application to dispense with personal service has been made pursuant to Order 63 Rule 2 (2) and as argued by the applicant in paragraph 3.19 of their written address does not reflect the records of this court. The authorities cited by the applicant counsel in Attorney General of  Edo State V. Churchgate Industries Ltd (2016) LPELR-41421 (CA), and the other decision also cited in the address on this issue does not apply to the circumstances of this case because leave to dispense with personal service had been obtained by the judgment creditor/respondent.  Furthermore, It is on record that the applicant to this PO has not challenged the service of the processes nor has he applied to set aside the service.

It is also apt to note that the firm of M. A. Banire & Associates, counsel to the 6th Judgment debtor and the officers of the 6th  judgment debtor i.e. parties cited in their counter affidavit filed on the 14/7/2026 admitted representing the parties cited. In paragraph one of the affidavit they deposed thus;

I am a litigation officer in the law firm of M. A. Banire & Associates, the Counsel to the Alleged Contemnors/6th  Judgment Debtor (National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) and its Officers cited for contempt, namely Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle (Lagos State Chairman) and Comrade Usman O. Teslim (Lagos State Secretary), by virtue of which position I am conversant with the facts herein deposed.

 

 In Exhibit N4 attached to the affidavit the counsel wrote in paragraph 2 thus:

Our client (NURTW) became aware of the service of Form 86 (Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Order of Court) in the above-captioned matter which was served.

The above clearly show that the applicants to this PO were duly served and are fully aware of the contempt proceedings and they responded to the process by filing a counter affidavit to the motion for committal. They cannot now deny the service of the process on them after they have taken steps by filing a counter affidavit. The subsequent denial in paragraph 4d and 5d of the affidavit in support of this PO, that they never engaged the law firm of M. A. Banire & Associates to file the counter affidavit is an after thought which this court will ignore. The applicants cannot blow hot and cold . They cannot be allowed to mislead this court. The reason for this denial is founded on the tactics deployed by the 2 set of counsel representing the applicants They sought to split representation and try to frustrate the proceedings which is highly condemnable. It is also the finding of this court that the denial of service of Form 86 and 87 contained in paragraph 4(c) and 5(c) of the counter affidavit being a statement made by a party who could not have been the one briefed to file the PO is not a statement of truth so long as it is not in accordance with the records of this court. Let me also note  that by Order 63 Rule 2(2) of the rules of this court, ‘the motion on notice and grounds shall be served personally on the person or on counsel to the person or on any principal officer of the  body sought to be committed but the Court may dispense with personal service if the justice of the case so demands.’ (Underlining for emphasis) This order also dispenses with the requirement of personal service and brings service of the motion for committal to be in line with Order 7 Rule H (ii) of the rules of thus court. The purpose of service of a court process has been elucidated in the case of Vitachem Nig. Ltd. V. DSM Sinochem Pharmaceutical Ltd [2026] LPELR-83052 by the Supreme Court in the following words

 

Where a party who is entitled to be served a court process appears in court There is a rebuttable presumption that the appearance is in response to service of the process. It then beholves the party appearing to rebut that presumption…Secondly the essence of service of a process on a party is to notify the party of the pendency of the proceedings concerning the process served. However, where the party to be served has become aware of the pendency of the proceedings and has even filed a process in reaction thereto, the need for the court to look out for proof of service becomes superfluous. To insist on formal proof of service in such circumstances would be to elevate technicality over substantial justice.

 

To argue that the applicant to this PO i.e. the parties cited who have appeared in this proceeding by 2 different sets of counsels and filed process in defense of the committal proceedings were not served with the process is to elevate technicality above substantive justice. The fact that they appeared by counsel show that they have notice of the process served on them if not how did the counsel come to be representing them in court. It would have been a different thing if the applicants never showed up in court and no counsel represented them and no process was filed on their behalf. It is the finding of this court that the judgment debtor/ parties cited were duly served with the processes in the committal proceedings. The Jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the motion on notice for committal has been properly activated. For The reasons stated in this ruling the preliminary Objection fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties cited Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle and Comrade Usman O. Teslim shall jointly pay a cost of N2,000,000 to the Judgment creditors.

 

RULING ON THE MOTION FOR COMMITTAL.

The Judgment creditor motion on notice for committal is dated the 3/7/2026 and filed on the 6/7/2026. In the motion, the applicants seek the following reliefs from the court.

 

1.       AN ORDER FOR COMMITTAL of the Officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor/Respondents/Parties Cited for contempt, namely: Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle (Lagos State Chairman) and Comrade Usman, O. Teslim (Lagos State Secretary)

2.     AN ORDER FOR COMMITTAL of the Officers of the 7th Judgement Debtor/Respondents/Parties Cited for contempt, namely: Comrade Ajala Samsudeen, (Lagos State Chapter Chairman) and Alh. Sulaimon Ajisakin (Deputy Admin).

For having disobeyed the Judgment of this Honourable Court delivered by His Lordship, Hon, Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien on 11/12/2025 which, among others, ordered as follows:

 

          A DECLARATION that, by Sections 27(1), 29(1) & (2),
         30(1),34(1); Item No. 16, Part B and Item No. 29, Part C of the 
         Third to the Trade Union Act (TUA) Cap T15 LFN 2004 non
          trade union bodies in the persons of the 4th and 5th Defendants,
          cannot affiliate to the 6th and 7th Defendants, which are
          recognized trade unions. (Relief No. 2, as contained on page 27
          of the judgement)

 

A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 4th and 5th Defendants from unlawfully competing with the 1st Claimant in its lawful commercial tricycle operations and organization of tricycle operators in Lagos State, following the directives of 2nd Defendant in the letter dated 12/4/2021 (Relief No. 7 as contained on page 28 of the Judgment).

 

AN ORDER setting aside Article 3(9) in the Constitution of the 6th Defendant, which includes tricycle operators in the jurisdictional scope of the 6th Defendant, contrary to the Certificate of Registration of the 1st Claimant as well as Item 16, Part B, under the Third Schedule to the Trade Unions Act, which excludes transportation undertaken by self-employed persons from the jurisdictional scope of the 6th Defendant. (Relief No. 9 as contained on page 28 of the Judgment),

 

3.      AND FOR SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER Order as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

 

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE COURT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMITTAL SHOULD NOT BE MADE.

 

At the hearing of the motion, the Judgment Creditor counsel R. Akinrede Esq. applied to amend the 1st prayer on the motion paper to remove the word ‘prison’ and to withdraw prayer no 2 on the motion paper. The application was granted as prayed.

 

The grounds of the application are as stated in the motion paper are that despite the 3 declaratory order, directive and injunction stated in the judgment of this court delivered on the 11/12/2025 and reproduced above, the 4th to 7th judgment debtors/ parties cited/ respondents listed above have continued to disobey the Judgment, as follows:

 

a.     leadership, Trustees, Officers, Zonal Chairmen and/or agents of the 4th and 5th Judgment Debtor/Parties Cited for Contempt/Respondents, have continued to disobey the Judgment by continuing to organize Tricycle operators in Lagos State under the 6th and 7th Judgement Debtors.

b.     The officers of the 4th and 6th Judgement Debtors have been issuing development levy tickets, security levy tickets, daily tickets and stickers being sold to tricycle operators.

c.      The officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor have been issuing tickets being sold to tricycle operators.

d.     The officers of the  Judgement Debtor have been issuing stickers with pictures of tricycles being sold to tricycle operators.

e.     Officers of the 5th & 7th Judgement Debtors have been issuing weekly development tickets, security tickets and stickers being sold to tricycle operators.

The applicant states that the continued disobedience of the Judgment of this Honourable Court by the leadership and/or Officers of the 4th - 7th judgment Debtors/Parties Cited for Contempt/Respondents had compelled the Judgment Creditors to cause the Registrar of this Honourable Court to issue Form 86 (i.e. Notice of Consequences for Disobedience to Order of Court) on 11/6/2026. The said Form 86 was served. along with the Judgment dated 11/12/2025 on the above listed officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor/parties cited for contempt on 1516/2026. and on the above listed officers of the 7th Judgement Debtor/parties cited for contempt on 11/6/2026. That despite of the service of Form 86, along with the Judgment of this court, Judgement  Debtors/Parties  Cited  for Contempt/Respondents, have continued to disobey the Judgment of this Court.

 

Th application is supported by a 17 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Secretary of the 1st Judgment Creditor/Applicant, Lagos State Chapter and the 3rd Judgement Creditor/Applicant in this application. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibits 1 to 7 which are (a) the judgment of this court delivered on the 11/12/2025, (b) The proof of service of form 86 on the judgment debtors/ parties cited, (c) The daily revenue tickets, development levy, weekly development tickets respectively. They are continually issued in violation of the order of this court.

In support of this application the counsel to the Judgment Creditors/Applicants filed a written address.

 

In response to this motion, the 6th Judgment debtor and officers of the 6th Judgment debtors/ Parties Cited filed a counter affidavit on the 14/7/2026. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibit N1 is a copy of the motion for leave to appeal. Exhibit N2 is a copy of the motion for stay of execution. Exhibit N3 is a copy of the proof of service on the Judgment creditors/Respondents. Exhibit N4 is a copy of the letter addressed to the Judgment Creditors/Applicant. Also in support of the counter affidavit, the 6th Respondent counsel filed a written address.

The other Judgment debtors and parties cited did not file any response to the motion for committal.

Open the receipt of the 6th respondent processes the Judgment creditor/ applicant filed a further and better affidavit on the 20/7/2026 along with a written address.

 

 Let me start by noting that this motion for committal targets the 6th Judgment debtor and the parties cited. The judgment creditor counsel had withdrawn the committal proceedings against the 7th judgment debtor/ parties cited for reasons best known to counsel. However, if I find that my orders have also been disobeyed by the other defendants I shall not hesitate to invoke the inherent powers of this court to commit any party who persist in the disobedience.

I have carefully read the grounds upon which this application is predicated as well as the affidavits in support of same and the written address of counsel on behalf of the parties. I would not repeat the argument put forward by the parties in their written address, but would summarise the argument along the issues for determination.

 

From the circumstance of this application this court is of the opinion that the issue that donate itself for determination to wit:

 

Whether the judgment creditor has satisfied the condition for the initiation of committal proceedings against the 6th Judgment creditor/Parties Cited and whether the processes filed in the Court of Appeal can prevent this court from enforcing the judgment of this court by committal of the 6th Judgment/Debtor/Parties Cited for contempt.

 

Let me start by noting that he 6th Judgment debtor (Herein after called the respondent) was the 6th defendant in Suit No NICN/308/2021 which judgment was delivered by this court on the 11/12/2005. Despite the service of the originating process on this party and several hearing notice on the 6th Judgment Debtor, the party chose not to file any defence of participate in the proceedings leading to the judgment of this court. This is the party that is seeking to appeal against the decision of this court and also seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of this court. This court cannot understand what this party would be taking to the Court of Appeal.

 

The Judgment Creditor/ Applicant position as revealed in their process is that the 6th Judgment debtor/parties Cited after the judgment which made specific Declarations, Orders and Injunctive reliefs reproduced above against the respondent. Specifically the applicant complains

 

a.     leadership, Trustees, Officers, Zonal Chairmen and/or agents of the 4th and 5th Judgment Debtor/Parties Cited for Contempt/Respondents, have continued to disobey the Judgment by continuing to organize Tricycle operators in Lagos State under the 6th and 7th Judgement Debtors.

 

 

b.     4th and 6th Judgement Debtors have been issuing development levy tickets, security levy tickets, daily tickets and stickers being sold to tricycle operators.

c.      The officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor have been issuing tickets being sold to tricycle operators.

d.     4th and 6th Judgement Debtors have been issuing development levy tickets, security levy tickets, daily tickets and stickers being sold to tricycle operators.

e.     The officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor have been issuing tickets being sold to tricycle operators.

The applicants invoke Order 63 Rule 1(1) (2) (b) to commit the respondent for contempt.  The applicant in paragraph 5(a - e ) has specifically detailed the nature and content of the disobedience of the Order of this court. The applicant has issued and served Form 86 and served it on the respondent. I have found in my earlier ruling that service was properly effected in accordance with the rules of this court  on the respondent. In the counter affidavit of the 6th Judgment Debtor/ Parties Cited they did not deny any of the allegation of the disobedience of the order of this court detailed in paragraph 8 of the applicant affidavit in support of this motion for committal. They are deemed to have admitted the content of the allegations contained therein.  The trite position of the law is that facts in affidavit evidence that are not disputed or denied are deemed admitted The Court of Appeal reiterated this in the case of Usman V. Baba (2004) LPELR-5834(CA)  (Pp. 29-30 paras. C-C)

 

"The position of law is that where facts deposed to an affidavit or facts that can be deduced from exhibits attached to an affidavit are left unchallenged and they are not self-contradictory a court of law is entitled to believe same to be true and undisputed.

The respondent is deemed to have admitted those facts as representing the true and correct position of the matter…’

 Per Jega, J.C.A (Pp. 29-30 paras. C-C)   

 

Further to the above the applicant’s Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 i.e the daily tickets, development levy and security levy show that despite the restraining order contained in the judgment of this court the 4th to 7th Judgment debtors/Parties Cited has continued to disobey the judgment of this court. The tickets are issue in the names of (1) TOOAN OF NURTW (Tricycle Owners & Operators Association of Nigeria) (2) TOOAN OF NURTW ‘development levy’ (3) TOOAN OF NURTW (Security Ticket) (3) TOAN OF NURTW (daily Ticket) (4)TOOAN OF NURTW (Sticker 2026) (5) NURTW Motorcycle/Tricycle Receipt) (6) TODAL AN AFFILIATE OF RTEAN (Development Levy). (7) TODAL OF RTEAN (Official Revenue Receipt) .

The dates on the tickets, levies and stickers show that they were all issued in June 2026. This was the very act which this court in its judgment of 11/12/2025 in relief No 2, 7, and 9 prohibited and restrained the judgment debtors from carrying out. The above evidence show that the 4th 5th 7th and 6th judgment debtors/ Parties cited has continued to disobey the orders of this court. The settled position of the law is as stated in in the case of Nigerian Army & Ors. V. Gloria Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 235)345 at 358 the court held.  ‘An order of the court must be obeyed even if such an order is perverse until such a time that the order is set aside by a competent court’

See also Lijadu V. Lijadu  [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 627 at 642 Per Tobi, J.C.A. It is the finding of this court that the respondent is under a duty to respect, obey and comply with the judgment of this court. It is the finding of this court that the 6th Judgment debtor/Parties cited and the other judgment debtors are in disobedience of the order of this court.

 

The 6th Judgment debtor/ Parties cited in their written address has argued that this court has become functus officio, that this court cannot hear this application for contempt on the grounds that the 6th Judgment Debtor/ parties cited have filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of this court sought to be enforced by this committal proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the respondent states that they have filed an Appeal No CA/LAG/PRE/ROA/CV/595M1/2026 pursuant to Section  243(2) and (3) of Constitution. That they have also filed a motion on notice for stay of execution of the said judgment on the 2nd day of June 2026. That the two processes has been served on the judgment creditor applicant. Furthermore, they state that they have notified the judgment creditor and the sheriff of this court about the pending application. That notwithstanding these applications, the judgment creditor went ahead to commence the contempt proceedings against the respondent by issuing and serving Form 86 on the respondent. He posits that the issuance of Form 86 and this motion for committal is an abuse of court process. He alleged that the 6th Judgment Debtor/Respondent has not disobeyed any other of Court which judgment is being lawfully challenged and contested through the pending appellate processes.

 

In their counsel address they argue that because of the appeal this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this matter. Counsel argues that the combined effect of the application for leave to appeal filed pursuant to 243(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution and Order 1 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules makes an application for leave to appeal qualify as an appeal. Therefore, there is a pending appeal which robs this court of the jurisdiction to hear this motion for committal. Let me state that the number CA/LAG/PRE/ROA/CV/595M1/2026 is not an appeal number. This is preliminary motion number. This number cannot be evidence of the pendency of an appeal. The argument canvassed by the respondent above is misconceived and is bourn out of the improper understanding of the nature of appeals from the decision of the National Industrial Court.

While Section 243 (3) of the 1999 Constitution as altered  provides,

          Appeal shall only lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court
          to the Court of Appeal as may be Prescribed by an Act of the National
          Assembly;

Provided that where an Act or Law prescribes that an appeal shall lie
          from the decision of the National Industrial Court to the Court of Appeal
          such appeal shall ‘be with the leave of the Court of Appeal

And Order 1 Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal provides”: ‘Appeal means the filing of Notice of Appeal, and includes an application for leave to appeal’

 

These 2 provisions cannot be read in isolation of Order 6 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules which provides:

Any application to the Court for leave to appeal (other than an application made after the expiration of the time for appealing) shall be by notice of motion, which shall be served on the party or parties affected’.

 

Further to this

Order 6 Rule 5 provides:

Where leave to appeal is granted by the Court or by the lower court, the Appellant shall file a Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by the /Court of Appeal Act.

The community reading of the above provisions of the constitution and  especially Order 6 Rule 2 and 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules show that where leave to appeal is required, no party shall file a Notice of Appeal without first applying and obtaining and order granting leave to Appeal by the Court of Appeal.    

 

I have examined the annexures to the counter Affidavit, The Respondent has mischievously tried to suppress the real effect of the process filed at the Court of Appeal. The respondent Exhibit N1 is a motion on notice filed at the Court of Appeal. The 1st prayer on the motion paper seeks an order extending time within which the Applicant is to seek leave to appeal the Judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division delivered on the 11th day of December 2025, in Suit No. NICN/LA/308/2021. Attached to the affidavit in support is a ‘Proposed Notice of Appeal’.    

From these processes, it is clear that the respondent who did not participate in the trial before this court but suddenly wakes up from his slumber to appeal has already lost his right of appeal. The application is only seeking the indulgence of the Court of Appeal for extension of time to seek leave to appeal after the loss of the right to appeal. How this kind of application can constitute an appeal only exist in the mind of the respondent counsel. In the case of Abed Oguchi Anyadike  V. The Clerk of the National Assembly & Anor SUIT NO NICN/ABJ/437/2024 unreported decision of this court delivered on the 25/2/2026, My learned brother Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe, confronted with similar situation, stated the position more lucidly in the following words:

What the applicant has exhibited to the motion as Exhibit NASS 1 is a motion it filed in the Court of Appeal seeking extension of time to seek leave to appeal and leave to appeal the judgment of the Court. It is disclosed in the affidavit in support of the motion that the said motion filed in the Court of Appeal is still pending. The implication is that the motion has not been heard or granted. It also confirms that  leave of the Court of Appeal has not been granted to the applicant to appeal the judgment of this Court. The result is that the applicant does have a valid appeal pending in the Court of Appeal. In my view, the said motion pending in the Court of Appeal cannot prevent the judgment creditor from taking steps to enforce the judgment.           

 

Furthermore, a ‘Proposed Notice of Appeal’ which is yet to be filed because no leave of the court of Appeal has been obtained pursuant to  Section 243 (3) of the 1999 Constitution and Order 6 Rule 2 and 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules cannot be evidence of the pendency of an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The motion for stay of execution allegedly filed before the court of appeal is predicated on a non -existent appeal. It amounts to putting something on nothing. It cannot therefore stand. See Mcfoy V. UAC [1962] AC 152.

This practice is enforced by the decision in the case of Ehighibe V. Ehighibe (2016) LPELR-40047(CA)  (Pp. 19-20 paras. E) where the Court of Appeal held inter-alia:

It has to be emphasized that Applicant cannot apply for stay of execution of a judgment, in the absence of a pending competent appeal against the said judgment. And where he is seeking extension of time to appeal against a judgment, it is poor judgment, or an act of indiscretion, to include application for stay of execution of the judgment in the same motion seeking leave or extension of time to appeal. The two in my opinion, cannot properly co-exist. The law is trite, that application for stay of execution cannot lie, where there is no competent, pending appeal against the judgment.

 

See the case of Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd Vs U.W.C. Inc. (2000)13 NWLR (pt. 684); Govt. of Gongola State Vs Turkur (1989)9 SC 105;   Per MBABA ,J.C.A in

Also, The law is even trite that the filing of a motion for stay cannot operate as a stay of execution. In the case of Yaji  & Ors V. Wombo [2021] LPELR-54859 (CA)  (Pp. 16-17 paras. E) the court stated the position thus:

 

It seems to me and I so hold that the filing or pendency of an application to stay execution does not in law translate to a stay of execution of the judgment sought to be stayed. The notion of the appellants that the pendency of motion no. MHC/5047M/2016 was enough for the lower Court to withhold the grant of a Writ of Possession, to say the least is jaundiced and thwarted. An application for stay can only operate and bring about the stay, only when it has been granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Withholding the grant of a Writ of Possession at the mere sight of an application to stay execution, tantamount to denying a successful litigant of the fruit of his judgment, and thus injustice to him."  Per Jombo-Ofo, J.C.A

 

The rule also requires the respondent to bring the application for stay before this court before filing at the Court of Appel in the event of its being refused. The respondent did not do this before running to the Court of Appeal. The post judgment jurisdiction of this court can only be affected if an appeal against the decision of this court has entered. This is why Order 64 Rule 13(2) list the condition for stay of execution of Judgment to include amongst other, the exhibition of the leave to appeal obtained from the Court of Appeal, evidence that appeal has entered in line with the appropriate rule of the Court of Appeal. An appeal is deemed entered by the practice of the Court of Appeal when the records of appeal has been transmitted and an appeal number given. Until the appeal is entered the court of appeal has no control over suit between the parties. In the case of  Bara & Ors V. SPDC (Nig) Ltd   (Pp. 19-20 paras. E) the court of Appeal emphasized this position I the following words:

 

In the case of Mohammed v. Husseini [1998] 14 NWLR (Pt. 584) 108 at 139, the Court took the position that there is a distinction between the period when an appeal is deemed brought, that is, when the notice of appeal is filed, and before the record of appeal is forwarded to the Court of Appeal and the time after the record of appeal is received in the Court of Appeal, that is when the appeal is entered. Until the appeal is entered in the Court of Appeal, that Court has no control over the proceedings as between the parties.

 

See Ogunremi V. Dada (1962) 2 SCNLR 417 and

Ezomo V. A.G., Bendel State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 36) 448.  Per Adegbehingbe ,J.C.A

 

    

Fron the adumbrated position of the law, it is the finding of this court that there is no competent appeal filed before the Court of Appeal. What is before the Court of Appeal is only an application seeking the indulgence of the Court of Appeal to extend time for the 6th judgment debtor/ parties cited  to appeal after they have lost their right to appeal. The motion for stay of execution attached to the 6th judgment debtor/parties cited is not predicated on a competent appeal. It is an incompetent process. Therefore, the post judgment jurisdiction of this court is intact and has not in any-way been affected by the process filed at the Court of Appeal because no Appeal has entered.

 

Furthermore, in response of the motion for committal, the 6th Judgment debtor/ parties cited in their written address has argued that

the respondent cannot be compelled to obey the order of court which is lawfully being challenged by the application for extension of time to appeal and the motion for stay of execution. They argue that the effect of the motion for stay is that the execution of the judgment of the court is automatically stayed. Counsel cited Vaswani V.  Savalakh [1972]  12 S.C.(Reprint Ed.) 50 at 57,lines 23-33. Counsel further argues that where a party is challenging the validity of the order of court the common law rule against hearing a party in disobedience does not apply. That the alleged contemnors cannot be said to be in disobedience of the order of court having lawfully challenging  and contesting the judgment of this court having taken the necessary steps available to them in law. Counsel relied on the case of Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd. V. Assan [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt. 412) 129 at 150, paras. C-E, where the Supreme Court held that

 

Chief F.R.A. Williams, S.A.N. referred the court to the cases of Huong & Ors V. Bello & Or. ‘supra’ and Rastico Nigerio Ltd. V. Societe General Surveillance S.A. ‘supra’. These are Court of Appeal decisions and were in mv view rightly decided. What the court below was saying in both cases was that where a person is appealing against a matter in which he had suffered a defeat and asked for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal, he would not be liable in contempt merely because he had not obeyed the order which he is appealing against or which he wants stayed pending the Appeal.

Counsel also cited INEC V. Oguebego [2018] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1620) 88 at 10 101, para D, where the Supreme Court per Nweze JSC (of blessed memory) held thus;

It is now tolerably settled that where a defendant, in a cause, challenges the validity of an order directed against him, either by way of an appeal or other application, he cannot be proceeded against for contempt of that order unless and until the issue of its legality is settled one way or the other,

Let me note here that the position of the law as adumbrated in the above cited cases is correct and represents the law. However this decision should not be taken to mean that where there is an attempt to appeal like in the present case where as I have already decided with the aid of decided authorities that no competent appeal has been entered,  see Bara & Ors V. SPDC (Nig) Ltd ‘supra’, that the motion on notice filed which exhibit a proposed Notice of Appeal is not predicated on a competent appeal, see Ehighibe V. Ehighibe ‘supra’  and also that the filing of a motion for stay of execution cannot operate as a stay of execution for which I relied on the case of Yaji & Ors V. Wombo ‘supra’ the argument of the respondent counsel is of no authoritative persuasion as far as this matter is concerned. The argument is self-defeating for failing to take into account the proper practice as regards appeals to the court of appeal under the circumstances of this case which I have already highlighted in this ruling.

 

The Respondent also argued that the motion for committal offends Order 63 Rule 6 for failure to obtain leave to proceed against the parties cited as officers of the 6th Judgment debtors.

 

Order 63 Rule 6 provides:

Where the contemnor is not a natural person, the Court or the applicant shall seek leave of the Court to proceed against any of the principal officers of the contemnor, or against the Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director, the Company Secretary or any other responsible and highly placed officer of the contemnor.

 

The essence of that rule is to lift the veil of incorporation to discover those behind the corporate entity. This rule applies to companies and not to trade unions because of the use of phrases that only apply to incorporated companies. Words like Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director, the Company Secretary  are not words associated with trade unions and can therefore not apply to the practice of trade union. The rule is that express mention of these words excludes all others. Mazeli V. Mazeli [2012] LPELR-19945 (CA)  (Pp. 19 paras. F-F) "In law, the express mention of some things is an express exclusion of the things not mentioned." 

Trade unions do not operate like a company. The leadership of the trade union are always known so the need to lift the vail become unnecessary. Order 63 Rule 6 relied upon by the respondent in asking the court to dismiss this motion does not apply to the situation or the case being discussed. The argument is hereby discountenanced.

 

I have already found in this ruling that the 6th Judgment debtor/party cited is in disobedience of the order of this court In the case of Nimasa & Anor V. Hensmor Nig. Ltd (2012) LPELR-7931(CA)  (Pp. 15 paras. A)

The court held that

 

A party who does not obey or is in disobedience of a Court order cannot be entitled to or be granted the indulgence of the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of a Court of law. So long as, a party is in disobedience or contempt of the lawful authority, power and orders of a competent Court of law, he cannot be allowed any relief sought in equity. He that comes to equity must come with clean hand; that is to say, he who seeks equity must do equity. I remember the apex Court of the land (Supreme Court of Nigeria) deprecating such earring and aberrant party or litigant in the case of the Governor of Lagos State Vs. Ojukwu 1986 1 NWLR; that the Court cannot exercise an equitable jurisdiction in aid of a person guilty of disobedience to its orders, as such a litigant by even approaching the Court is merely one that is out to taunt the Court. Why should I lend my judicious helping hand to a taunting, disobedient and disentitled person, or litigant? To do so, will be in violent collision course with the trite position of the law that law and equity shall be administered concurrently; and in their state of fusion since the advent of the Judicature Act of 1875, "Equity," shall always prevail in the event of conflict.  Per Danjuma, J.C.A  (Pp. 15 paras. A)

Every litigant has a duty to obey lawful orders of the court until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of WAEC V. Henry (2015) LPELR-40995(CA)  (Pp. 8-9 paras. B-B) The Court of Appeal emphasized this duty in the following words:

There is no doubt, that there is an unquestionable obligation placed on every person against or in respect of whom an order of Court is made, to obey such order unless and until it is discharged or set aside. So long as such order subsists, whether seen as irregular or void, it must still be obeyed and given due reverence. This is moreso, given that our system of administration of justice cannot be sustained, without the willingness of parties to a dispute to abide by the findings and orders of a competent Court until set aside or reversed on appeal.

On the strength of the above cited authorities, the argument of the respondents counsel is discountenanced.

 

The Judgment  Creditor/ Applicants in this motion seeks an order AN ORDER FOR COMMITTAL of the Officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor/Respondents/Parties Cited for contempt, namely: Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle (Lagos State Chairman) and Comrade Usman, O. Teslim (Lagos State Secretary). Having found that the judgment debtors are in disobedience of the judgment of this court delivered on the 11/12/2005, this court finds that the judgment creditor is entitle to the relief sought in this motion reproduced above. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:

 

(1)              AN ORDER FOR COMMITTAL of the officers of the 6th Judgement Debtor/Respondents/Parties Cited for contempt, namely: Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle (Lagos State Chairman) and Comrade Usman, O. Teslim (Lagos State Secretary) is hereby made.

(2)             Pursuant to Order 64 Rule 4 sub Rule 2 of the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules it is further ordered that a committal summons is hereby issued on the parties cited i.e. Alh. Mustapha Adio Adekunle (Lagos State Chairman) and Comrade Usman, O. Teslim (Lagos State Secretary) of the NURTW Lagos branch ,

(3)             The parties cited and mentioned above are to appear before this court on the 15th Day of October 2026. to show cause why they should not be committed to prison for the act of disobedience of the judgment order of this court delivered on the 11/12/2025 in Suit No NICN/308/2021.

(4)            The parties to which this order is directed are not to take this order lightly.

(5)             The 6th Judgment Debtor shall pay a cost of N3,000,000 to the judgment creditor.

(6)            This matter is further adjourned to the 15th day of October 2026 for parties cited to appear and show cause.

 

Ruling is hereby entered.

                                                  

 

___________________________________________

HON. JUSTICE (Dr.) ISAAC J. ESSIEN.

(PRESIDING JUDGE)

REPRESENTATION

R. Akinrede Esq. with A. Dada Esq. for Judgment Creditor/Applicant

O. Olatunbusun Esq. with A. Isiaka Esq. for the 6th Judgment Debtor/ Parties
     cited