IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

           HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE (PROF) ELIZABETH A. OJI

DATE: WEDNESDAY 14TH OCTOBER 2026             SUIT NO: NICN/LA/90/2026

BETWEEN

1.       COMR. OLUGBENGA ADENAIYA

2.     COMR. EBUN OLURANTI

3.      COMR. ESAN GBENGA

4.     COMR. AKEEM IBRAHIM SOLADOYE

5.     COMR. ADESINA RONKE MARY                           CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS

6.     COMR. AKPAN SUNDAY SAMPSON

7.     COMR. YINUSA SAFIRIYU ABIODUN 

8.     AND

1.       COMR. DR. YUSUF ADEMOLA RAZAQ

2.     COMR. AKINYERA OLUWASANMI

9.     COMR. RAJI ISMAIL                                       DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

3.      COMR. ADEBAYO MOJISOLA

4.     COMR. NGOZI AMAECHI ROMANUS

5.     COMR. EGBE CHARLES

6.     SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

7.     UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS                        

 

RULING

Introduction

1.   This ruling concerns the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st to 7th Defendants/Applicants, praying this Court for:

1.       An order dismissing and/or striking out the suit of the Claimants/Respondents for being premature, incompetent, lacking jurisdiction, and constituting an abuse of court process.

Alternatively

2.     An order converting the Claimants'/Respondents' Originating Summons to a Complaint and directing that the matter be set down for hearing under the general cause list.

2.   The objection is brought on the grounds that:

(a)             The action by the Claimants is premature for failure to comply with a condition precedent, same having been filed by the Claimants without complying with the Provisions of Article 19 (ix) (at page 57) of the SSANU Constitution and Order of Procedure, 5^th Edition, 2022 which is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Honourable Court.

 

(b)            The Claimants have failed and refused to comply with a Constitutional condition which requires them to exhaust all internal dispute settlement mechanisms before instituting this action in court.

 

(c)             The suit by the Claimants is brought in gross abuse of the process of court same having been brought with intent to frustrate due execution of a judgment of the Honourable Court which the Claimants have failed and or refused to comply with.

 

(d)            The Claimants have refused to comply with the judgment of the Court against them.

 

(e)             The facts upon which the determination of the suit is premised are highly contentions and conflicting and will require a full trial to fully and effectively determine the issues between the parties.

 

(f)              An Originating Summons is not the appropriate originating process for commencing this action which facts will be highly contentions.

 

(g)             The Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Claimants’ action as same is premature and improperly commenced with an improper originating process.

 

3.   The objection is supported by an affidavit of Dr. Yusuf Ademola Razaq and a written address. The Claimants/Respondents filed a Counter-Affidavit deposed to by Comr. Adenaiya Olugbenga and a written address in opposition. 

4.  The Applicants' case, put shortly, is that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the Claimants did not comply with a condition precedent created by Article 19(ix) of the SSANU Constitution, which mandates exhaustion of internal dispute resolution mechanisms at branch, zonal, and NAC/NEC levels before any member or branch approaches the court.  They also argue that the suit was improperly commenced by Originating Summons, because the facts are hotly disputed, including allegations of coercion, blackmail, manipulation, irregular resignation, and disputes surrounding bye-elections. They say those matters can only be effectively resolved by pleadings and oral evidence, not affidavit evidence.

4.  The Claimants respond that they did, in fact, exhaust internal mechanisms by taking the matter to Congress and to the zonal structure, and that the suit principally concerns the interpretation of Article 8(vii)(a) and (d) of the SSANU Constitution regarding the tenure of elected officers, making Originating Summons an appropriate mode of commencement.

Issues for Determination

5.  The Applicants formulated one issue; “whether the Applicants have by Affidavit placed before this Honourable Court sufficient and material facts entitling them to the reliefs sought.”  The Claimants raised one issue likewise; “whether by the Affidavit evidence and the annexed exhibits, this Honourable Court can assume jurisdiction to entertain this suit?” In my view, the following issues arise for determination:

 

1.       Whether the Claimants/Respondents complied with the condition precedent in Article 19(ix) of the SSANU Constitution before instituting this action.

2.     Whether, having regard to the nature of the disputes disclosed in the affidavit evidence, the suit was properly commenced by Originating Summons.

3.      Depending on the answers above, whether this suit ought to be struck out, dismissed, or converted to a Complaint.

Issue One

6.  Whether the Claimants/Respondents complied with the condition precedent in Article 19(ix) of the SSANU Constitution before instituting this action.  The law is settled that where a statute, constitution, contract, or other binding instrument prescribes a step to be taken before recourse may be had to court, compliance with that step is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR-24023 (SC); Adesola v. Abidoye [1999] 1 NWLR (Pt. 637) 28; Akintemi v. Onwumechili (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 68; T. O. Owoseni v. Joshua Ibiowotisi Faloye (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 719.  Article 19(ix) of the SSANU Constitution, as reproduced in the Applicants' written address, provides that no union member, branch or zone shall take the union to court without first exhausting the internal mechanisms for dispute resolution at:

• branch level;
• zonal level; and
• NAC/NEC level.

The Applicants say the Claimants never complied with this provision. They rely particularly on paragraph 13 of the supporting affidavit and the exhibits marked AR2, AR3 and AR4, especially the statement allegedly made by the 7th Claimant in Exhibit AR3 to the effect that he dissociated himself from the suit and that no internal mechanism had been pursued.

7.   The Claimants, however, have squarely joined issue on this. In paragraphs 6(a) to (c), 7 and 8 of their Counter-Affidavit, they deposed that:

• the matter was raised before the Congress of the 7th Defendant at the branch level;
• a resolution was passed by Congress rejecting the acts complained of and expressing confidence in the Claimants' executive committee;
• the matter was escalated to the office of the National Vice President (West);
• terms of settlement dated 20 August 2025 were presented in the course of attempted amicable resolution;
• and all internal mechanisms were exhausted to no avail.

These assertions are backed by Exhibits SSANU 1, 2, 3 and 4 annexed to the Counter-Affidavit.

8.   At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not required to decide which side is telling the fuller truth of the underlying political struggle within the union. The point for present purposes is whether, from the materials before the Court, there is some credible basis to say that the Claimants attempted internal resolution before coming to court.  I find that there is.  The Claimants have shown, at least prima facie, that they invoked intra-union mechanisms by taking the matter to Congress, obtaining branch resolutions, and escalating the issue to higher union organs. Whether those steps amount to full compliance with every layer contemplated by Article 19(ix) may itself require fuller factual ventilation. This is especially so because the Claimants further contend that the very persons they accuse of usurping their offices had effectively taken control of the internal machinery, thereby compromising its impartiality.  In the circumstances, I am unable to hold, at this preliminary stage, that there was such clear and total non-compliance with Article 19(ix) as to rob this Court of jurisdiction outright. The objection on prematurity therefore does not succeed as a jurisdictional knockout point.  Issue One is resolved against the Applicants.

9.  Issue Two - Whether, having regard to the nature of the disputes disclosed in the affidavit evidence, the suit was properly commenced by Originating Summons.  The law is settled that Originating Summons is appropriate where the dispute turns principally on the construction or interpretation of a constitution, statute, agreement, or similar instrument, and where the material facts are either not in dispute or are unlikely to be seriously contentious. See Order 3 Rule 3 of the NICN Rules 2017; Famfa Oil Ltd v. A.G. Federation (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 453; Eze v. Unijos (2017) LPELR-42345 (SC); Pam v. Mohammed (2008) 5-6 SC (Pt. I) 83.  The Claimants argue that this suit is essentially about the interpretation of Article 8(vii)(a) and (d) of the SSANU Constitution relating to tenure of office. If that were all, commencement by Originating Summons would likely be unobjectionable.  But that is not all.

10.  From both the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the affidavits filed in this objection, it is evident that the dispute goes far beyond dry constitutional interpretation. The parties are in sharp conflict on material facts, including:

• whether the Claimants were coerced or manipulated into resigning;
• whether resignations were voluntary or obtained under duress;
• whether the bye-election was validly convened and conducted;
• whether the Claimants had the consent of all named claimants to institute the action;
• whether some of the Claimants disowned the suit;
• whether the internal dispute resolution mechanisms were actually pursued and exhausted;
• whether the suit is linked to attempts to frustrate execution of an earlier judgment.

These are not minor discrepancies. They are substantial disputes of fact requiring testing by pleadings, oral evidence, and cross-examination.  This Court should not determine hotly disputed questions of intra-union facts, alleged coercion, electoral validity, and dissociation from suit merely on affidavit exchanges.  I therefore agree with the Applicants that the mode of commencement by Originating Summons is inappropriate.  Issue Two is resolved in favour of the Applicants, but only to the extent that the matter was initiated by the wrong procedure.

11.  Issue Three - Whether this suit ought to be struck out, dismissed, or converted to a Complaint.   The Applicants seek, primarily, striking out or dismissal; alternatively, conversion to Complaint. Having held that the objection based on non-fulfilment of condition precedent does not succeed, but that the action was improperly commenced by Originating Summons because of substantial conflicts in the affidavit evidence, the justice of the case is better served by converting the matter to a Complaint rather than striking it out. The Applicants themselves sought that alternative relief.  Accordingly, the alternative prayer succeeds.

Accordingly, the prayer seeking to dismiss and/or strike out the suit for being premature, incompetent, lacking jurisdiction and constituting an abuse of process is refused.  It is hereby ordered that the Originating Summons filed by the Claimants/Respondents be and is hereby converted to a Complaint.  The Claimants shall file and serve their Complaint, Statement of Facts, Witness Statements on Oath, and frontloaded documents within 14 days of this ruling.  The Defendants shall file their respective defence processes within 14 days of service.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

…………………………………….

Hon. Justice (Prof) Elizabeth A. Oji