Download PDF
JUDGMENT. This suit was commenced via Originating Summons dated and filed on 21st day of August 2017, Wherein the claimants ae seeking for determination of the two questions as follows:- 1. Whether the purported emergency meeting of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientist of Federal Medical Centre Keffi Chapter convened by the Nasarawa State branch Leadership of the Association on 4th August, 2017, where claimants were purportedly impeached, 3rd to 7th defendants appointed as caretaker committee members to pilot the affairs of the chapter is not wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. Whether the purported impeachment and/or removal of the 1st and 3rd claimants and the appointments of the 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee members of the Keffi chapter is not wrongful, unconstitutional, and of no effect. In anticipation of favourable determination of the questions posed, the claimants’ claims sought the reliefs stated below:- 1. A declaration that under and by virtue of the constitution of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria the claimants are still the dully elected leaders of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi Nasarawa State Chapter. 2. A declaration that under and by virtue of the constitution of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria the emergency meeting of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi Chapter, convened by the Nasarawa State branch leadership on 4th August 2017 and chaired by Kyari Caleb Luka is wrongful, unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore a nullity. 3. A declaration that under and by virtue of the constitution of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria the purported impeachment of the claimants, as chairman, the secretary and the Assistant secretary of the Association, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi Nasarawa State chapter emergency meeting convened by the leadership of the Nasarawa State branch of the association is wrongful, unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore a nullity. 4. A declaration that under and by virtue of the constitution of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria the Nasarawa State branch chairman leadership of the Association cannot convene an emergency meeting or any other meeting whatsoever for the Federal Medical Centre Keffi, chapter of the Association. 5. A declaration that under and by virtue of the constitution of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria the purported appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee members of the Federal Medical Centre keffi chapter of the Association in the so called emergency meeting convened by the Nasarawa state branch leadership on 4th August 2017, is wrongful, unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore a nullity. 6. A mandatory order of court setting aside the so called emergency meeting of the Federal Medical Centre chapter meeting convened by the Nasarawa State Branch of the association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria on the 4th August 2017. 7. A mandatory order of court setting aside the purported impeachment of the claimants and the purported appointments of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria Federal Medical Centre, Keffi Chapter pursuant to the constitution of the Association. 8. A mandatory order of court recognizing the claimants as the dully elected and secretary of the Association of medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria if the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter pursuant to the constitution of the Association. 9. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, privies, agents, and/or collaborators from howsoever parading themselves as the caretaker committee members and or leaders of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of the Association of Medical Laboratory scientists of Nigeria. 10. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, privies, agents, and or collaboration from howsoever dealing or further dealing with and or properties of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter. 11. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, privies agents, and or collaborators from howsoever conducting elections into the executive officers of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter. 12. Any further order or other orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case. The originating summons was supported by a 25 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by the 1st claimant. Wherein it was averred that the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria is a non-governmental, non-religious, non-partisan and not for profit civic professional organisation. The association operates at national, state branch and chapters levels. The association is governed by its amended constitution of 30/5/2008. Attached and marked as exhibit A. By the constitution officers of the association are elected at various levels of either national, state branches or at chapter levels. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants are members of the Federal Medical Centre chapter of the association. While the defendants, save the 2nd defendants are all members of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the current state chairman and General Secretary of the Nasarawa state branch of the Association. At an election conducted in November 2015, the 1st claimant was elected as the chairman of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of the association for a period of 3 years. A copy of the certificate of return is attached and marked as exhibit 2. That since his election as chairman, the 1st claimant has been piloting the affairs of the chapter and convening meeting of the chapter the last of which was convened on 27/7/17. However, on 4/8/17, the 1st and 2nd defendants who are the chairman and secretary of the Nasarawa State branch of the association without the knowledge and approval of the 1st claimant purportedly convened a meeting of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of the association, barely a week after the chapter’s meeting of 27/7/17. At the purported meeting of 4/8/17 convened by the 1st and 2nd defendants, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants were purportedly impeached by way of members passing a vote of no confidence on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants and the other executive members having tendered resignation letters resolution. By the constitution of the association, it is only the chairman of a chapter that can summons meeting with the secretary issuing notice to that effect. The purported meeting of 4/8/17, was not summoned by the chairman neither was the notice of meeting issued by the secretary, the 2nd claimant. By the constitution of the association meeting can only be held at interval of two months as against one week. It is only decision taken at a validly convened meeting of the association that is binding on members of the association. In line with the rules of this court the originating summons was accompanied by a written address. Joseph Ochuko Tobi, Esq; counsel for the claimants, in his oral submissions before the court relied on all the depositions contained in the affidavit in support and adopted the written address filed along with the originating summons as his argument. In arguing the first question for determination, counsel referred to exhibit 1, the constitution of the association and submitted that by the provisions of section 1(2) of the Association’s constitution any regulation or resolution made by any person, group of persons or authority within the association that is inconsistent shall to the extent of the inconsistency be null and void and of no effect. Counsel submitted that section 8 makes provision of organisational structure of the association and by subsection 4 the general administration and operation of branch and chapter levels shall be inconformity with the provisions of the association’s constitution. By section 26(1) (v) it is the chairman of the branch or chapter that is empowered to summoned meeting association at the branch or chapter levels. Counsel contended that in interpreting provisions of a statute or the constitution where the language used is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to the plain and ordinary meaning. On this contention counsel relied on the cases of NYAM V FRN (2010) (pt.1193) 344, ACTION CONGRESS V INEC (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt.1048) 220. Counsel also submitted that where the word ‘shall’ is used in a statute or constitution it ordinary meaning is mandatory and not permissive. On this reliance was placed on the case of AGIP (NIG.) LTD V AGIP PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL (2010) 5 NWLR (PT.1187) 348. It is the submission of counsel that by the provision of section 26(1) (v) of the constitution of the association it is only the chairman of a chapter that cannot call meeting for the chapter and not chairman of a branch. It is argued that the meeting convened on 4/8/17 which was summoned by the 1st and 2nd defendant was not held in accordance with the provision of the constitution of the association. It is further argued that by the provisions of section 24 of the constitution of the association, a meeting of either chapter or branch is to be held at two months interval and the meeting of 4/8/17, was held barely one week after the meeting of the chapter summoned by the 1st claimant was held on 27/7/17, this means no meeting of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter could be held earlier than in September 2017. Counsel opined that the meeting of 4/8/17 was convened in violation of section 24(b) (3) and provision of section 26(1) (v) because it was not summoned by the 1st claimant. The meeting did not comply with condition precedent, therefore, any act subsequent cannot be valid. On this submission counsel relied on the case of SEAVIEW INVESTMENT LIMITED V MUNIS & ORS. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.195) 67. Counsel contended that the meeting of 4/8/17, having been held in violation of the provision of section 24 and 26 of the constitution of the association is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Counsel urged the court to in line with the provisions of section 1(2) of the association’s constitution declare the meeting of 4/8/17, null and void for having been convened in violation of the law. QUESTION TWO In arguing question two, counsel referred to sections 12(c) and (d) of the 4th claimant’s constitution which provides for tenure of 3 years for elected officers and the procedure for removal. An elected officer can be removed, if a motion for his removal is supported in writing by 20 members from at least two third of the state branches and passed by at least two third of members present in the annual general meeting. Or where the national executive council in a duly convened meeting shall have the power to suspend for a specified period any officer found wanting in the discharge of his duties or any AGM properly convened shall have the power to dissolve or pass a vote of no confidence’ on the national officer(s), provided a motion moved to this effect to elect a nation officer(s) or caretaker committee and thereafter, election must be conducted within six months. According to counsel by exhibit 2 certificate of return, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants were duly elected for a term of 3 years ending on 25/11/18. If the claimants are to be removed it has to be in line with the provisions of the constitution of the association 12(d), therefore, the purported removal of the claimants by exhibit 3, is improper having not been made in line with the constitution of the association. There was no AGM convened and the conveners of the emergency meeting were not authorised to do so. The impeachment cannot be achieved because due process was not followed. On this contention counsel relied on the case of AMAECHI V INEC (2008) 1 MJSC 1. It is argued that non-compliance with method of removal has rendered the removal null and void. In support of this argument reliance was placed on the case of ADEFULU V OKULAJA (1996) 9 NWLR (pt.475) 668. It is the submission of counsel that since the impeachment is null and void the appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants is equally null and void. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to hold that the decisions taken at the meeting of 4/8/17, impeaching claimants and appointing 3rd to 7th defendants are wrongful, unconstitutional null and void. Counsel urged the court to grant all the reliefs being sought. In reaction to the originating summons, the defendants filed an 18 paragraphs affidavit with 5 exhibits attached therein and marked as exhibits A - E. A written address was also filed a long with the counter affidavit. According to the affidavit evidence, vide exhibit A a vote of no confidence was passed on 1st claimant. Consequently, the state branch of 4th claimant convened a meeting on 4th August 2017, where the 1st claimant and his executive members were unanimously removed from their officers and a caretaker committee set up to pilot the affairs of the association for 6 months. This development led to writing of exhibit B by the 1st claimant. Vide exhibit C the secretary of the 4th claimant Nasarawa State branch intimated 2nd defendant about the development at the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter. The national president confirmed the legality of all decision taken at the meeting of 4/8/17, as contained in exhibit D. The 2nd claimant has vide exhibit E disassociated himself from this suit. The 3rd defendant was never a member of the executive of the 4th claimant. The defendants filed along with their counter affidavit a written address. The counsel for the defendants after relying on all the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address, the defendants raised objection to the competency of the claimants’ suit. The cause of action in this suit relates to a dispute within a chapter of the Federal Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria at the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi, Nasarawa State. The claimants purportedly brought the action in a representative capacity, for themselves and as representing Association of Medical Labouratory scientists of Nigeria, Federal Medical Centre, Keffi Chapter. The procedure for the settlement of the dispute of this nature is well spelt out in the constitution of the association of medical laboratory scientists of Nigeria (as amended on May 30, 2008), particularly section 12(d), 18, 19, 24(a) (3), 24(b), 27 and 37(a) thereof. According to counsel by this action, the claimants (1st claimant in the true sense) are challenging the decisions taken at the meeting of the association which held on 4th August 2017. It is submitted by counsel that on the 3rd of August, 2017, six (6) out of the eight (8) executive members of the association resigned in protest against the 1st claimant’s action in the management of its affairs. The 2nd claimant has since distanced himself from this suit, through a letter dated 7th September 2017. The 3rd claimant was not a member of the executive of the association at the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi and is therefore a stranger to this action. In response to a letter written by the 1st claimant dated 4th August 2017, the National president of the association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN), in his reply dated August 15, 2017, validated the decisions taken at the meeting of its chapter at Keffi, which was held on 4th August 2017. The above response was in line with the clear provision of section 37(a) of the association’s constitution. Counsel contended that having regard to the facts given above, the substratum of this action is no longer in existence and is therefore incompetent. In the written address counsel formulated sole issue for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether from the circumstances of this case and the evidence placed before the court, this suit is not incompetent and this Honourable court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it as presently constituted’’. K. O. Ijatuyi, Esq; counsel for the defendant in arguing the sole issue for determination submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to determine this suit as it is presently constituted. Counsel referred to PETRO JESICA ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR. V LEVENTIS TECHNICAL COMPANY LTD (1992) LPELR-2915, TUKUR V THE GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE & ORS. (1997) LPELR-3273 and submitted that jurisdiction is very important as a court can only assume jurisdiction when it is competent. Counsel contended that section 37(a) of the constitution of the 4th claimant has stated that where the constitution is silent or ambiguous on any subject matter the president’s in consultation with NEC members and Trustees interpretation or ruling shall be final. Counsel argued that in the instant case exhibit D which is a letter by the president in respect of the subject matter of this suit has sufficiently put the issues raised at rest in line with section 37(a) of the constitution of the association. It is further argued that any further ventilation of the issues that gave rise to this suit after the said exhibit D was issued by the national president will be an exercise in futility and unnecessary waste of the valuable time of the Honourable court. Counsel also argued that since the substratum of the action is already lost and the capacity in which it was brought is no longer tenable, it is only reasonable to terminate the entire proceedings at this stage. It is the argument of counsel that this suit was not in representative capacity as the requirement is that there must be a common interest, common grievance and relief claimed must be beneficial to all. On this contention counsel relied on IDISE V WILLIAMS IND. LTD (1995) 1 NWLR (pt.370) 145. Counsel submitted having regard to the affidavit evidence and exhibits attached therein the requirement for representative action has not been met, the suit cannot therefore be sustained. Counsel further relied on the case of RE: OTUEDON (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt.392) 655, ATANDA V OLARENWAJU (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.89) 394 and OKONJI V NJOKENMA (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 161. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out/dismiss this action in the interest of jurisdiction. The claimants filed a reply on points of law. Joseph Ochuko Tobi, Esq; counsel for the claimants referred to order 13 rule (1), (11) and 14(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure), Rules, 2017 and submitted that the rules of this court has enjoined filing of suit by claimants where there is same interest, may sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons and in this case the suit is for benefit of all the claimants. It is also argued that the 1st claimant and 2nd claimants as chairman and secretary of the 4th claimant are critical stakeholders who are entitled to challenge any infraction of the association’s constitution in their personal capacities and on behalf of the association. It is also argued that the 2nd claimant’s letter distancing himself from this suit cannot affect the suit or prevent claimants from continuing with the case and 3rd claimant as Assistant Secretary this is because mis-joinder cannot defeat a suit. Counsel contended joinder or non-joinder is only a procedural irregularity The claimants’ joinder or non-joinder does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. On this contention counsel relied on the case of ANYANWOKO V OKOYE (2010) 5 NWLR (pt.1188) 497. In the circumstance counsel urged the court to hold that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants being principal officers of the association have responsibility to defend the association‘s constitution. On this contention counsel cited the case of NYAME V FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344. It is also argued that the claimants have capacity to commence this suit for themselves and on behalf of the association. On section 37(a) of the constitution of the association, counsel submitted that in interpretation where language used is plain and unambiguous, effect would be given to its plain and ordinary meaning. NYAME V FRN (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt.1193) 344, was relied upon as authority for this contention.. It is the submission of counsel that in this case the issue raised is that of legality of the emergency meeting of Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of 4th claimant held on 4/8/17, wherein claimants were purportedly impeached. Counsel also submitted that provisions have been made in exhibit 2, the constitution of the association on how the meetings of the association can be convened, how impeachment and or removal of elected officers can be effected. On this submission counsel cited Sections 12, 24, and 26, of the constitution of the 4th claimant. Counsel further argued that the implication of these provisions is that the constitution is not silent and or unambiguous as to how to convene any meeting and the person to preside. The constitution is not also silent on how to remove or impeach elected officers of the association. It is the contention of counsel that since the complaint is on the legality of the emergency meeting of 4th August 2017, in which the claimants were purportedly removed from office the defendants cannot rely on section 37 of the constitution of 4th claimant to deny claimants access to this court for the interpretation of the provisions of the constitution and the legality and otherwise of their actions and inactions. Counsel argued that to interpret section 37 to deny claimants access to court will amount to usurping the judicial powers of the court as provided in section 6 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as amended). Counsel further argued that the court will not allow the provisions of an enactment or instrument to be read in such a way as to deny access to court by a citizen pursuant to section 6 of the constitution as amended. On this submission counsel relied on the case of FIDELITY BANK PLC V MONYE (2012) AFWLR (Pt.631) 1412. Counsel also argued that exhibit D attached to counter-affidavit is a letter from the national president of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientist of Nigeria, to the 1st claimant in his personal capacity. It is also not a ruling and or decision in consultation with NEC members and trustees on the interpretation of a salient or ambiguous subject matter of the association’s constitution. Counsel urged the court to deal with the merit of the case and give judgment in favour of the claimants. In the light of the foregoing, counsel urged the court to disregard the objection of the defendants. This is because the defendants have refused or neglected to join issues with the claimants with respect to the claims and did in fact admit claimants’ claims. Counsel contended that exhibit C is clear admission by the defendants of the wrongfulness of emergency meeting where claimants purportedly impeached and or removed from offices. Counsel contended by section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011, where facts pleaded by the claimant is admitted by the defendant; evidence on the admitted fact is irrelevant and unnecessary. Since there is no dispute on the facts the court would be entitled to give judgment on the admitted facts. On this contention reliance was placed on the case of BUNGE V GOVERNMENT OF RIVERS STATE (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.995) 573. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the objection and enter judgment in favour of the claimants as the defendants have admitted the claims of the claimants and this court has the requisite jurisdiction under section 7 of the National Industrial Court 2006 and section 254C of the Constitution to hear and determine the case. It is to be noted that upon receipt of the originating process commencing this suit, the defendants on 8/9/17, filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and followed it on 19/10/17, with a notice of preliminary objection wherein the defendants challenged the competency of this suit on same grounds with the grounds of objection raised by the defendants in their counter-affidavit to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. Same argument canvassed by the defendants on the objection as in the argument in opposition to the originating summons. The claimant in response to the notice of preliminary objection, filed a written address in opposition, wherein objection was raised to the competency of the Notice of preliminary objection on the ground that the notice of the preliminary objection is an abuse of court process. In arguing the objection, counsel referred to Order 30 Rule (2) (1) (18) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure), Rules, 2017 and submitted that the defendants ought to have filed their counter-affidavit and objection together and not separately on different days. Counsel contended that that the objection is an abuse of court for having been filed in defiance with the rules of court. The objection according to counsel was filed to delay the suit and annoy the claimants. This is because the notice of preliminary objection has not raised any jurisdictional issue. It is further argued that the objection not being issue of law cannot be determined without evidence as the issue of exhibit D and interpretation of the constitution of the 4th claimant cannot be determined without issues being joined. On this submission counsel relied on the case of ELEBANJO V DAWODU (2006) 15 NWLR (pt.1001) 76. A preliminary point ceases to be one strictly speaking, once the point could not be decided without evidence being led. In such a case, the point becomes a defence to the action. The case of SARAKI V KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156, was cited by counsel to derive the point that the concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise, as it involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. Counsel argued that one common feature of abuse is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with due administration of justice. Counsel argued that the notice of preliminary objection having been filed in defiance with the rules of court, with an intent to delay the fair trial of the action is an improper use of the judicial process. Counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel further urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection for being an abuse of court process and enter judgment in favour of the claimants, On 4/12/17, the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection was argued and the matter was adjourned to 6/2/18, for ruling. On 6/2/18, when the matter came up before the court for ruling, the court suo motu raised issue of jurisdiction in respect of section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). The court then directed counsel for both parties to file written addresses on the issue of jurisdiction raised by the court suo motu. On 18/5/18, when this matter came up before the Court, Joseph Tobi, Esq; appearing for the claimant adopted the written address of the claimants dated and filed on 17/4/18, as his argument. Counsel went on to submit that this Honourable Court has requisite jurisdiction pursuant to section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended and section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, to hear and determine this suit. In the written address counsel submitted single issue for determination, thus: ‘‘Whether under and by virtue of the clear provisions of section 254C of the 1999, constitution of Nigeria, as amended and section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, this court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit’’. In arguing the single issue for determination counsel submitted that to determine court’s jurisdiction it is the enabling law setting up the court that is relevant for consideration and claim of the claimant or the originating process commencing the suit. To buttress his submission counsel cited the case of UMARU V ALIYU (2011) NWLR (pt.1241) 600 and the case of OKOROCHA V UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2011) NWLR (Pt.1228) 34. It is the submission of counsel that the present suit relates and pertain to the interpretation of the constitution of Medical Laboratory Scientist of Nigeria, as it relates to the tenure and or removal of elected officers of the association. Counsel argued that section 254C (1) (j) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) clearly gives to this court jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any constitution of an association of employees or any association relating to employment. Counsel went on to argue that the association of Medical Laboratory Scientists to which the claimants are the elected leaders of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter is an association relating to everyone who is a medical laboratory scientist and the court that has jurisdiction to entertain such interpretation to the exclusion of any other court is this court, the National Industrial Court. The provision of the constitution and that of National Industrial Court Act, have given exclusive jurisdiction to this court and no other court can hear and determine this suit. Counsel urged the court to so hold. The defendants on their part filed their written address on jurisdiction on 15/5/18, T. U. Okafor, Esq; who appeared for the defendants on 18/5/18. Informed the court that they have filed their written address on 15/5/18, and applied to adopt it as the defendants’ argument on jurisdiction. Counsel urged this court to refuse invitation by the claimants to entertain this suit as this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Counsel cited two unreported cases but failed and neglected to submit certified true copies as required by the rules of this court. In the written address counsel submitted sole issue for determination, thus: ‘‘Whether or not this Honourable court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit as presently constituted’’. In arguing the issue for determination, counsel submitted that jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and the statement of claim. Where the grievance complained of by the plaintiff does not confer any jurisdiction on the court for lack of competence it will amount to waste of time for the court to procced with a matter in respect of which it lacks jurisdiction, since the proceedings, no matter how well conducted, will come to naught. On this contention counsel relied on SUN INSURANCE NIG. PLC V UMEZ ENGINEERING CONSRUCTION CO. LTD. (2015) 62 (PT.1) NSCQR 481, ODOM V PDP (2015) 61 (PT.2) NSCQR 984. Counsel further argued that court can only assume jurisdiction if it is competent. On this contention reliance was placed on TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE & ORS. (1997) LPELR-3273. The submission of counsel on the issue of jurisdiction was the same with what was canvassed in the argument in opposition to the originating summons which has been captured in the earlier part of this judgment. In the circumstance there is no need to repeat the submission of counsel in this part of the judgment. I only need to restate that the position of the defendants is that by section 37 (a) of the constitution of 4th claimant and exhibit D attached to the affidavit in support of preliminary objection and counter-affidavit to the affidavit in support of originating summons, which is a letter written by the national president of the 4th claimant to the 1st claimant, the letter sufficiently put the issue at rest in line with section 37(a) of the constitution of the 4th claimant. According to counsel for the claimant, with exhibit D it will be an exercise in futility and unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court to entertain this suit. In concluding his submission, counsel urged the court to uphold the objection of the defendants and decline to exercise jurisdiction in this suit and strike out/dismiss this suit in the interest of justice on the grounds that: 1. The cause of action in this suit relates to a dispute within a chapter of the association of Medical Laboratory Scientist at Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter, Nasarawa State. 2. The action was brought in representative capacity 3. The procedure for settlement of dispute of this nature is well spelt out in the constitution of the association of medical laboratory scientists of Nigeria, (as amended on May, 30, 2018), particularly section 12(d0 (i) 18, 19, 24,(a), 3, 27(a) thereof. COURT’S DECISION: I have carefully and painstakingly perused the originating summons commencing this suit, the notice of preliminary objection, the reply by the claimant, the written addresses filed by counsel for both sides on the issue of jurisdiction raised by the court suo motu and the addresses of counsel in support and in opposition to the various positions canvassed before the court regarding the originating summons commencing this suit. There is no doubt that the gist of the claimants’ grouse against the defendants that led to filing of this suit as can be gathered from the processes filed before the court, relate to the purported emergency meeting of the 4th claimant convened by the 1st and 2nd defendant, wherein decisions were taken removing or impeaching the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants from their respective elected offices of the 4th claimant, and the appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee members for a period of six months to oversee the affairs of the 4th claimant and conduct new election, which were considered to be wrongful, unconstitutional, illegal and null and void. The claimants have without mincing words submitted that the action of the 1st and 2nd defendants in convening an emergency meeting of 4th defendants was wrong, unconstitutional null and void and of no effect whatsoever and therefore incapable of removing or impeaching the claimants from their elective posts. They urged the court nullify the decision removing them from office and nullifying the appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker of the 4th claimants. The defendant have vehemently opposed the claims of the claimants by filing notice of preliminary objection as well as counter-affidavit in opposition to the originating summons. In his argument before the court counsel for the defendants posited that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit as the substratum of the action is no longer in existence and in line with section 37(a) of the constitution of the 4th claimant, the national president of the 4th claimant has vide exhibit ‘D’ validated the decisions taken at the meeting of 4/8/17, where the claimants were impeached as a result of vote of no confidence passed on them. I shall begin this judgment by resolving the issue of jurisdiction of the court to hear and entertain this suit. As rightly canvassed by both parties in their respective written addresses and oral argument, jurisdiction is threshold issue that has to be decided once raised before a court proceed with the hearing of the substantive suit. This is because when a court lacks jurisdiction any determination or conduct of proceeding no matter how well conducted will be an exercise in futility and amount to waste of valuable and precious time of the court and resources which can be channelled to more useful exercise. See UTIH V ONOYIVWE (1990) NWLR (Pt.166) It is well settled position of the law through a long line of decided cases that to determine whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the court is guided by the claims or reliefs sought by the claimant before the court. This is done by critically looking at the originating process commencing the suit. In the present case the originating summons and the affidavit in support. See ONUORAH V KRPC 2005 6 NWLR PT.921 393, TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE 1989 4 NWLR PT.117 517, NKUMA V ODI 2006 6 NWLR PT.977 587. In determining jurisdiction the claims or reliefs sought by the claimants are considered along with the provisions of the constitution or statute establishing the court. No court is allowed to derail or digress from the precinct of the four walls of the jurisdiction donated to it by the constitution or statute. This court will lack the jurisdiction or vires to entertain a matter, if such a matter did not fall within the jurisdiction as enumerated in section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) or under section 7 of the National Industrial Court of Act 2006. In the case at hand to determine whether this court has jurisdiction or not the relevant provisions of the law and the originating summons commencing this suit will be scrutinized. Before dealing with the issue of jurisdiction, I shall point out here that the defendant deliberately ignored the directive of the court on arguing issue of jurisdiction of the court based on section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Counsel in both the written address filed on jurisdiction raised by the court suo motu and in the address filed in support of the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the originating summons based his argument on the provisions of the constitution of the 4th clamant, which is not law and cannot in law confer jurisdiction on this court. It is to be noted that constitution of an association is a contractual agreement binding on members who chose to be members of the association. It is a document meant to regulate the relationship of the association and its members per se and it’s dealing with third parties. It is equally important to point out here that agreement of parties no matter how well articulated or couched cannot confer jurisdiction on a court of law where non-exists. Agreement of parties is not capable of transforming into a law capable of bequeathing a court with requisite jurisdiction to hear and entertain disputes between litigants. Courts being creatures of statute, derives their powers and jurisdiction from the constitution and the statute establishing them. GALADIMA V TAMBAI 2000 6 SC PT.1 196, 2000 11 NWLR PT.677 1, AFRICA NEWSPAPER OF NIGERIA V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1985 2 NWLR PT.6 137, OKOCHA SAMUEL OSI V ACCORD PARTY & ORS. 2016 LPELR-41388(SC) It is apposite at this juncture to examine the provisions of section 254C of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as well as the provisions of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the claimants as adumbrated in the originating summons and the affidavit in support. Section 254C 1, of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) provides, thus: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters- (a) Relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matter incidental thereto or connected therewith; (b) Relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Employees’ Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour, employment, industrial relations, workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws; (c) Relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lockout or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matter connected therewith or related thereto; (d) Relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employers association or any other matter which the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine; (e) Relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters connected therewith or arising therefrom; (f) Relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or international best practices in labour, employment and industrial relation matters; (g) Relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at the workplace; (h) Relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standard; (i) Connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto; (j) Relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any- (i) collective agreement; (ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade dispute or a trade union dispute; (iii) award or judgment of the court; (iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute; (v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded in a memorandum of settlement; (vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour, industrial relations or work place; (vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part thereof; (k) Relating to or connected with trade disputes arising from payment or nonpayment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker, political or public office holder, judicial officer or any civil or public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto; (l) Relating to- (i) appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or matters relating thereto or connected therewith; (ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial relations; and (iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly; (m) relating to or connected with the registration of collective agreements. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, the National Industrial Court shall have the jurisdiction and power to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith. (3) The National Industrial Court may establish an Alternative Dispute Resolutions Centre within the Court premises on matters on which jurisdictions are conferred on the Court by this Constitution or any other Act or Law: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude the National Industrial Court from entertaining and exercising appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over an arbitral tribunal or commission, administrative body, or board of inquiry in respect of any matter that the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain or any other matter as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly or any Law in force in any part of the Federation. (4) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction and powers to entertain any application for the enforcement of the award, decision, ruling or order made by any arbitral tribunal or commission, administrative body, or board of inquiry relating to, connected with, arising from or pertaining to any matter of which the National Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to entertain. (5) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in criminal causes and matters arising from any cause or matter of which jurisdiction is conferred on the National Industrial Court by this section or any Act of the National Assembly or by any other Law. (6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this constitution, appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court from matters in sub-section 5 of this section to the Court of Appeal. It is clear that the introductory words of the jurisdictional section which run thus “notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in the Constitution….the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court…” make it unambiguously clear that the Court is granted exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the subject matters over which it has jurisdiction. The word “notwithstanding” is a qualifying preposition which qualifies the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in the Constitution and subordinates them to the jurisdiction of NICN. And to “exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court” completes the intendment of the 1999 Constitution to grant the Court exclusive jurisdiction. The Black’s Law Dictionary has clarified the issue of exclusivity of the jurisdiction of a court by saying that exclusive Jurisdiction means, “A court’s power to adjudicate an action or class of action to the exclusion of other courts. Therefore, section 254C of the 1999, Constitution, as amended by the Third Alteration Act, conferred and vested exclusive jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court over all labour and employment matters. In construing the provisions of section 254C of the 1999, Constitution, the Court must consider both the subject matter and parties to the suit to determine where the jurisdiction lies as both must co-exist to confer jurisdiction: it is a well-entrenched principle of law that a court does not exercise partial jurisdiction. This much is ascertained when one pays attention with particular reference to the wording of the Constitution which used the word “any” which means all employment or labour and industrial relations matters without exception are covered. It is in view of the foregoing that the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit that will be viewed. The dispute between the parties in this suit is the legality or otherwise of the impeachment or removal of the claimants from their posts as executive officers of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of the 4th claimants and appointment of the 3rd to 7th defendants to serve as caretaker of the committee members for a period of six months to oversee the affairs of the Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter of the 4th claimants and conduct election into the executive posts of the 4th claimants Federal Medical Centre, Keffi chapter. This is the main dispute between the parties in this case. For the dispute to qualify to be within the ambit of jurisdiction of this court it must be shown that it is covered by any of the enumerated subjects of jurisdiction as encapsulated in the section 254C of the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended), reproduced above or is within the ambit of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. I have had a hard look at the provisions of section 254C, as well as the provisions of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, but I am unable to place or situate the current dispute submitted to this court as contained in the originating summons within any of the enumerated items of jurisdiction of the court as contained in those sections. The claimant place heavy reliance on section 254c (j) (vi) in contending that this court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and entertain this suit. The said section does not in any way capture the position being canvassed by the claimant. It is manifestly clear that the said sub-section deals with dispute relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of employers or any association relating to employment, labour, industrial relations or work place. A cursory look at the two questions posed by the claimants for determination by this court will show that question one is questioning the legality and constitutionality of the emergency meeting of 4/8/17 convened by the 1st and 2nd defendants where decision to impeach 1st 2nd and 3rd claimants was taken and caretaker committee set up. While the second question deals with the illegality and unconstitutionality of the impeachment or removal of the 1st 2nd and 3rd claimants from their posts and the appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee members of the 4th claimant. Reliefs 1-5 are seeking for declarations regarding the illegality and unconstitutionality of the 4/8/17 emergency meeting and impeachment or removal of the 1st 2nd and 3rd claimants from their respective posts and the appointment of 3rd to 7th defendants as caretaker committee members of 4th claimant. Reliefs 6 – 7 are seeking for mandatory orders setting aside emergency meeting of 4/8/17 and the decisions taken thereof. Reliefs 8 is for mandatory order recognizing 1st 2nd and 3rd claimants as duly elected chairman and secretary of 4th defendant. Reliefs 9 – 11 are seeking for perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from parading themselves as caretaker committee members or dealing with properties of the 4th claimant FMC Keffi chapter or conducting election into the executive officers of 4th claimant FMC Keffi chapter. It is patently clear from the question seeking for answers and the reliefs being sought by the claimants that the Claimants are seeking for interpretation and application of the certain provisions of the constitution of the 4th claimant dealing with conduct of meetings and impeachment of removal of elected officers of the 4th claimant FMC Keffi Chapter. For the claimant to succeed in making this court to venture into interpreting the provisions of the constitution of 4th claimant, the claimants must show that the constitution is that of a trade union or constitution of an association of employees relating to employment, labour, industrial relation or work place. The affidavit evidence only described 4th claimant as umbrella body of all medical laboratory scientists in Nigeria established in 1964, with its headquarters currently situated in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The affidavit further described 4th clamant as a non-governmental, non-religious, non-partisan and not for profit civic professional organization. See paragraphs 5 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. The 4th claimant is currently governed by exhibit 1 i.e amended constitution of May 30, 2008. From the content of exhibit 1, it is without any doubt that the 4th defendant is not a trade union therefore its constitution is not qualified to be one of the constitution this court can interpret as per section 254C and section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Likewise it is not that of association of employees in respect of labour, industrial relation or work place. The constitution is that of a professional body meant to regulate relationship of the members of the profession of Medical Laboratory scientists in Nigeria. In view my finding above it is my considered view that this suit did not come within the purview of the jurisdiction of this court as contained in section 254C of the 1999, constitution as amended and section 7 of National Industrial Court of Nigeria. What is clear from the originating process is that the dispute relates to the legality or otherwise of emergency meeting and removal or impeachment of elected officers of a professional association of medical laboratory scientists of Nigeria. Which is not an employment, labour, industrial relation or work place issue. Assuming without conceding the findings above are wrong and the reliefs falls within the purview of section 254C and 7 of NICA, 2006, by section 7(3) of NICA Act 2006, the matter being an intra-union dispute would have to go through the process of part 1 of the Trade Dispute Act, then if any of the parties is dissatisfied with the outcome can approach this court via appeal for redress. Alas this is not the situation in this case. It is my view that this a proper case for determination by the state High Court under its general jurisdiction. In the circumstance I declined jurisdiction to entertain this suit. But, in view of the provisions of section 24(2) of NICA Act 2006, I shall order transfer of the matter to Nasarawa State High Court for adjudication of the originating summons. This matter be and is hereby transferred to High Court of Nasarawa State. Sanusi Kado, Judge.