- R.T.E.A.N. vs. N.U.R.T.W
- ₦ 200
R.T.E.A.N. vs. N.U.R.T.W
ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF
NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS
CHIEF ADEWOLE OJO
THE GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE
THE SPEAKER, EKITI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, EKITI STATE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EKITI STATE
COURT OF APPEAL
( BENIN DIVISION )
MUHAMMAD S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JCA ( Presided )
PARTICK IBE AMAIZU JCA ( Read the Lead Judgment )
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JCA
FRIDAY, 7TH MAY, 2004
FAIR HEARING - Order of court - Person
directly affected by - Right of to be heard before the order is given
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Order of court -
Person directly affected by - Right of to be heard before the order is given
JURISDICTION - Trade dispute - Action on -
Commencement of in a court of law - Impropriety of
TRADE DISPUTE - Action on - Commencement of
in a court of law Impropriety of
DISPUTE - Definition of
AND PHRASES - â€˜Trade disputeâ€™ - Definition of
Whether the lower court has the jurisdiction to try the
matter which is in the main a trade dispute between the National Union of Road
Transport Workers and Road Transport Employers Union.
Whether the lower court is right in holding that the
Road Transport Employers Association was only inserted for the sake of court
without jurisdictional scope.
The 1st and 2nd
respondents herein commenced a suit by originating summons at the Akure
Judicial Division of the Federal High Court against the 3rd and 4th
respondents. By a motion on notice the appellants sought for an order of the
lower court to be joined as parties in the suit. They were consequently joined
as 5th and 6th defendants.
summons was later amended. In the amended originating summons, the 1st and 2nd
respondents sought for determination of the following question.
Whether by Decree No. 4 of 1996,
Trade Union (Amendment) Decree 1996 the plaintiffs are the rightful parties to
engage in the transportation of passengers and goods by road at the motor-parks
in the various towns and villages in Ekiti State of Nigeria.
If the answer
to the question is in the affirmative, then the plaintiffsâ€™ claim:
Declaration that the members of the 1st plaintiff union
including the other plaintiff are the rightful persons authorized by law to
engage in the transportation of passengers and goods by road in various motor
parks in Ekiti State.
Perpetual injunction restraining any other union,
associations and/or groups of persons not authorized by law to engage in the
transportation of passengers and goods by road from operating, interfering, and
or disturbing the plaintiffs and/other agents, servants or members at the
various motor parks in Ekiti State, where they are lawfully engaged.
Perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and
the Ekiti State House of Assembly under his authority
from entertaining, considering
or making any resolution tantamount to amending Decree No. 4 of 1996 by
allowing or permitting a
non-authorized union, association or group (s) of persons to operate at the
motor-parks in the State to engage in the transportation of passengers and
goods by road in various motor-parks in Ekiti State.
An order directing the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants to
enforce Decree No. 4 of 1996 by seeing to the exit of non-authorized unions and
non-registered or nonrecognized unauthorized union or associations from various
motor-parks in Ekiti State.
The lower court
heard arguments on the amended originating summons.
In a reserved judgment,
the lower court answered the question posed for determination in the
originating summons in favour of the respondents.
Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to
the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, the issue of the jurisdiction or
otherwise of the lower court to entertain the 1st and 2nd respondentsâ€™ suit was
raised and considered by the court.