Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction & Questions for Determination 1. The Claimants by their Originating Summons dated and filed on 2/8/19 approached the Court for the determination of the following questions - 1. Whether or not by the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria the nature and operational area of jurisdiction of trade of the Respondent is usurping the Claimants' area of jurisdiction of trade. 2. Whether or not the Defendants can issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Defendants having regard to the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. 3. Whether or not the 2nd to 5th Defendants can exercise any authority on any worker engaged in extraction in any quarry or mining site in Oyo State having regard to the jurisdictional scope of the 1st Claimant as enshrined in Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. 4. Whether or not the 1st Defendant can act as a Trade Union without being registered as same by the Registrar of Trade Union or other relevant authority in accordance with the Trade Union Act. Reliefs Sought 2. Upon the determination of the questions set down above, the Claimants sought the following reliefs from the Court - 1. A Declaration that by virtue of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, the 1st Claimant is the recognised Trade Union for workers engaged n extraction of coal, metaliferous, grading and quarrying. 2. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their privies or any person acting for or on their behalf from operating or disturbing the operation of the 1st and 2nd Claimants in any quarry or extraction site in Oyo State. 3. Declaration that the 2nd to 5th Defendants cannot issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 4. An Order directing the 2nd to 5th Defendants who are members and executive of the 1st defendant not to issue tickets to members of the 1st & 2nd Claimants of whatever sum. 5. An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, and or agents from intimidating, harassing, interfering, or compelling members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants to join the 1st Defendant and/or forcefully issuing tickets to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 6. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their Agents, privies or anybody acting for or on their behalf from parading themselves as a trade union of workers engaged in extraction of mines and quarrying. 3. The Originating Summons was supported by a 32-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the 3rd Claimant and 2 exhibits marked Exh. A & Exh. B. While Exh. A shows copies of the ballot papers reflecting the names of 2nd to 4th Defendants as contestants conducted on 6/4/19, Exh. B is a copy of the peace accord signed by the parties to this suit. Counsel also filed a written address in support. Learned Counsel relied on all the averments in the affidavit in support, the accompanying exhibits and adopted the written address as his argument in support of the Originating Summons. 4. The brief facts upon which this Originating Summons is founded as contained in the Affidavit in Support deposed to by the 3rd Claimant are that 1st Claimant is a registered and recognised Trade Union in Nigeria and listed as No. 23 of the Third Schedule Part B of the Trade Union Act along her jurisdictional scope; that 2nd Claimant is the Oyo State Council/Chapter of the 1st Claimant; that 2nd-5th Defendants are members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants and participated in all processes leading to the emergence of the 3rd-11th Claimants as the Executive members of the 2nd Claimant; that 1st Defendant is an organisation formed by the 2nd to 5th Defendants to compete with 1st and 2nd Claimants in Oyo State after losing out in an election of the 1st and 2nd Claimants conducted on 6/4/19; that 2nd Defendant contested against the 3rd Claimant in the 2nd Claimant election conducted on 6/4/19 for the post of Chairmanship and lost to the 3rd Claimant in the said election; that the 3rd Defendant contested for the position of 2nd Vice-Chairmanship of the 2nd Claimant against the 5th Claimant in an election contested on 6/4/19 but lost; that 5th Defendant contested for the position of 1st Vice Chairmanship of the 2nd Claimant against 4th Claimant in an election conducted on 6/4/19; that 2nd-5th Defendants are members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants till date; that sometimes on 6/4/19 in an election into Executive offices of the 2nd Claimant held in which 3rd-11th Claimants emerged against the wish of the 2nd - 5th Defendants; that 3rd-11th Claimants and 2nd-5th Defendants undertook to abide by the outcome of the said election held on 6/4/19 in the interest of 1st Claimant; that sometimes on 22/7/19 the 2nd Claimant held a Unit's election at Eminent 1 Quarry along Lagos/Ibadan Expressway, Ekefa Village in which the 2nd Defendant fully participated and cast his vote for his preferred candidate at the Unit; that sometimes on 24/7/19 the 2nd-5th Defendants invaded Ratcon 2 Quarry at Ikeja Village along Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Ibadan telling the Claimant's members that 1st and 2nd Claimants had been proscribed by the government and that the 1st Defendant association has been registered by the government to take over the activities of the Claimant from all quarries in Oyo State; that government did not proscribe the Claimant; that the activities of the 1st-5th Defendants on 24/4/19 at Ratcon Quarry caused pandemonium and the Divisional Police Officer at the Tollgate Ibadan had to intervene and advised the Defendants to maintain status quo; that 2nd-5th Defendants on behalf of the 1st Defendant on 29/7/19 proceeded to another Unit of the Claimants at Platinum Quarry to cause further trouble; that the 1st and 2nd Claimants are recognised affiliated Trade Union of Nigeria Labour Congress; that 1st Defendant is not a recognised Trade Union in Nigeria; that the 1st Claimant is the recognised Trade Union for workers engaged in quarries and extraction site; that the registration of the 1st Defendant was processed by the 2nd-5th Defendants after losing out in the 2nd Claimant's election of 6/4/19; that 2nd-5th Defendants acting on behalf of the 1st Defendant are now harassing and intimidating members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants; that 1st to 5th Defendants attempted on several occasions to issue tickets in order to control the activities of workers engaged in extraction and quarry sites; that there is need for this Honourable Court to define the jurisdiction scope of the Claimant's Union; that the interpretation by this Honourable Court of the exact law relating to activities in extraction and quarries site will meet the justice of this suit and that it will be in the interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. 5. In his 4-page written address dated and filed on 2/8/19 learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination thus - Whether having regards to the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, the Defendants can unionize persons listed in this schedule. 6. Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that by the provision of Trade Union Act, Nigerian Union of Mine workers are the rightful union to unionize workers engaged in extraction of coal, metalliferous and non-metalliferous ores excluding petroleum but including prospecting and preparing sites for the extraction of these ores; that also included are all supplemental operations for dressing and beneficiating ores and other crude minerals, such as breaking, milling, grinding, pulverizing, washing, cleaning, grading, quarrying as an enterprise; that in interpreting statutes, Courts are urged to apply the ordinary meaning of words used in the statute; that Court cannot infer an intention which does not appear in the word of the enactment and neither are Courts allowed to read into an enactment words or sections which the legislature did not state as part of the statute citing INEC v. Asuquo (2018)7 SCM (Pt. 2) 63 at 83 & Ogbonna v. A.G, Imo State (1992)1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 647. 7. Learned Counsel further added that in the interpretation of statutes, the Court is concerned with the intendment of the statute; that a provision in an enactment must be examined as a whole with a view to determining the object it was intended to serve; that it should not be interpreted piecemeal as such piecemeal approach is bound to lead to absurd conclusion citing NURTW v. RTEAN (2012)10 NWLR (Pt. 1307) 170 & Elabanjo v. Dawodu (2006)15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought. 8. The Defendants filed a joint Counter Affidavit in opposition to the Originating Summons on 30/8/19. It was of 38 paragraphs and deposed to by the 5th Defendant. It has 2 accompanying exhibits marked as Exh. A & Exh. B. 9. The case of the Defendants as reflected in their counter affidavit to the Originating Summons is that that neither the 3rd-11th Claimants nor the 2nd-5th Defendants are engaged in activities relating to extraction of coal, ores or metaliferous metals in quarry sites; that 3rd-11th Claimants are neither engaged in activities related to quarrying nor are they under the payroll of the Quarry owners; that for a period of over 15 years, both the 3rd-11th Claimants and 2nd-5th Defendants were members of Quarry Marketers and Haulage Association which coordinated the activities of buyers and sellers of granites and safeguard the interest of owners of trucks used in transporting products from quarry sites; that the activities of the said Quarry Marketers and Haulage Association had no semblance with the work of those engaged in the extraction of coal, metaliferous and non-metaliferous ores and therefore did not qualify them to be mine workers; that sometimes in 2018, the 3rd-11th Claimants mooted the idea of the Association coming under the Union of Mine Workers so that they could enjoy certain benefits accruable to Mine Workers Union but the 2nd-5th Defendants and other members objected vigorously on ground that members of the Association are not Mine Workers not being Technicians, Engineers, Geologists or in any way involved in the extraction of coal or ores as stipulated under the law but the 3rd-11th Claimants were able to force their way through hence the merger of the Association with the 1st and 2nd Claimants. 10. The Defendants averred that all through the years the 3rd-11th Claimants and 3rd-5th Defendants operated under the Association, the affairs of the Association was dominated by the 3rd-11th Claimants who arrogated too much power to themselves, misappropriated funds and were not accountable to members at large; that it has always been the desire of the 2nd-5th Defendants and a large majority of the members to effect change in leadership but the 3rd-11th Claimants used their power of incumbency to silence opposition and manipulate elections whenever same was held; that the election of the 2nd Claimant conducted on 6/4/19 was fraught with so many irregularities as same set of people tend to perpetuate themselves in office as Exco members; that these developments compelled the 2nd-5th Defendants to re-evaluate their position in the 2nd Claimant and after a wide consultation with the majority of members, they decided to pull out since the 1st and 2nd Claimants' goals do not represent their yearnings and aspirations; that the 2nd-5th Defendants notified the Claimants in writing about their decision to withdraw their membership although Claimants declined to accept the notification letter; that the 2nd-5th Defendants in conjunction with over 50 other members subsequently promoted and registered the 1st Defendant under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act as an Association of Incorporated Trustees; that Claimants were fully notified of the registration and commencement of activities and that Claimants objected and insisted that its members must remain part of the 1st and 2nd Claimants and also demanded payment of dues from its members; that members of the 1st Defendant were constantly subjected to harassment and intimidation by the Claimants; that Claimant lodged complaints with the Police at Oluyole Local Government where the Divisional Police Officer in his wisdom tried to take side with the Claimants and both parties were advised to maintain peace; that on 26/7/19 Claimants and the Defendants were invited by the Iyaganku Area Commander who warned parties against breach of the peace; that Claimant subsequently filed this suit to restrain the activities of the 1st Defendant and its members; that 1st Defendant is not a Union but an Association; that its members are not Mine Workers but simply engaged in buying and selling of granites and other quarry products; that 1st Defendant only issues tickets to its members and did not extend its activities to the 1st and 2nd Claimants' members; that 1st Defendant is duly registered as an Association and has the constitutional right to coordinate the affairs of its members without outside interference by the Claimants and that there will be no dispute between the Claimants and the Defendants on membership affiliation at Quarry sites provided each member is allowed to chose freely where he or she belongs. 11. Learned Counsel relied on all the averments in the Counter Affidavit and the exhibits tendered. Counsel also adopted his written address as his argument in opposition to the Originating Summons. In his written address, learned Counsel had set down the following issues for the just determination of this case thus - 1. Whether the crisis between the Claimants and the Defendants constitutes a trade dispute or intra-union dispute. 2. Whether the business activities and scope of work of the 3rd to 11th Claimants at all Quarry sites in Oyo State qualifies or entitles them to be Mine workers. 3. Whether the Claimants can compel the Defendants to join or remain within their fold against their own wish. 4. Whether the Defendants' right to peaceful assembly and association guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution can be jettisoned for the Claimants' self interest and personal aggrandizement. 12. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the dispute between the parties is neither a trade dispute nor an intra-union dispute; that by Section 497(1) of the Trade Dispute Act, 1990, a trade dispute is any dispute employers and workers or between workers and workers which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment and physical conditions of work of any person while an intra-union dispute is a dispute between members of a trade union citing HABU v. NUT, Taraba State (2005)All FWLR 2062 & NUT v. Conference of Secondary School Tutors Nigeria (COSST) (2006)All FWLR 656 at 674 and that both the Claimants and the Defendants in this case do not belong to the same Union. According to learned Counsel, although the Claimants suit as constituted is not founded on trade dispute or intra-union dispute, there is the need for a judicial determination or interpretation of the Third Schedule Part B, No. 23 of the Trade Union Act; that the schedule of activities of the 3rd to 11th Claimants does not entitle them to be mine workers since all they is buying and selling; that quarry as an enterprise refers to the enterprise of extracting stone or other materials from a quarry and does not include the buying and selling of stones and that by specifically listing the categories of work or duties that qualify a worker to be a Mine worker, it means that any activity being carried out at a quarry site not listed in the Act is outside the work or duty of a mine worker and that the 3rd to 11 Claimants are not Mine workers. Counsel referred to Opia v. INEC (2014)7 NWLR (Pt. 1407) 431 at 464. 13. Respecting the 3rd issue set down for determination, learned Counsel submitted that assuming without conceding that the 3rd to 11th Claimants are valid members of the Union, the Claimants cannot compel the 2nd to 5th Defendants and all other members of the 1st Defendants to join or remain within the fold of the 1st and 2nd Claimants; that there is no dispute or controversy as to the Defendants' repudiation of their membership of the 1st and 2nd Claimants; that if Claimants are allowed to continue to collect dues from the members of the 1st Defendant, it would be a monumental injustice and an infraction of the Defendants' right to peaceful assembly and association since members of the 1st Defendant have willingly withdrawn and renounced their membership of the 1st and 2nd Claimants and that as an association duly registered as an Incorporated Trustees under the law, the 1st Defendant has a right to exist and coordinate the affairs of its members without any interference by the Claimants or any one operating as a Union citing The Registered Trustees of Conference of Secondary School Tutors v. Commissioner of Education, Kogi State (2006)All FWLR (Pt. 299) 1549 at 1559, Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT) & Ors. v. Conference of Secondary School Tutors, Nigeria (COSST) & Ors. (2006)All FWLR (Pt. 295) 656 at 677 & The Registered Trustees of Association of Tippers & Quarry Owners of Nigeria v. Yusuf & Ors. (2011) LPELR-5024. 14. Learned Counsel added that the Defendants' right to peaceful assembly and association cannot be jeopardised on account of the Claimants' self interest and quest to boost its revenue citing Section 40, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended; that the right to freely associate is unfettered except with regards to political parties not recognised by INEC and that it is therefore the inalienable right of the 2nd to the 5th Defendants and all other persons of like minds seeking to come under the 1st Defendant to do so without any fear of molestation, harassment, intimidation and attacks from any quarter citing Adewole v. Jakande (1981)1 NCLR 218 & Okafor & Ors. v. Ntoka & Ors. (2017) LPELR-4279 (CA). Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the entire case of the Claimants for lacking in merit. Decision 15. I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side in this Originating Summons. I also reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits attached to the processes. In addition, I listened attentively to the oral submissions of both learned Counsel respecting this case. Having done all this, I have come to narrow the sole issue for determination here to be - Whether the Applicant is entitled to the prayers sought or any of them. 16. The Claimants herein have approached this Court in this suit via Originating Summons. Originating Summons by its very nature is a procedure meant to make for simple hearing and disposition of matters. It is not a procedure available to all manner of suits. It is only available to a litigant or party laying claim to an interest under a written instrument such as a Will, a Deed or any such instrument whereby he will apply for the determination of any question for the construction of any question arising under the instrument for the declaration of his interest. See Oloyede v. Oloyede (2014) LPELR-24384 (CA). Sanusi JSC noted in Alfa v. Attai & Ors. (2017) LPELR (SC) that from numerous decided cases, where the question in controversy in the case before a trial Court for determination, originating summons procedure can be adopted for the trial Court to simply determine questions of construction once it would not call for settlement of pleadings. See National Bank of Nigeria v. Alakija & Anor (1978) 9 - 10 SC (Reprint) 42 or (1978) 2 LRN 78 & Agbakoba v. INEC & Ors (2008). The Originating Summons procedure is also used generally in matters that are non contentious or the facts are not in dispute. See also Bernard Amasike v. The Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commissions & Anor. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211) 337 Saide v. Abdullahi (1989) NWLR (Pt. 116) 387 or (1989) LPELR 3017 (SC). 17. The Claimants in this suit sought the interpretation of Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria set down four questions for the determination of this Court. The first of the four questions is Whether or not by the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria the nature and operational area of jurisdiction of trade of the Respondent is usurping the Claimants' area of jurisdiction of trade. 1st Claimant is a registered trade union and listed as number 23 under the Trade Unions Act. Its area of jurisdiction as contained in Part B of that Act is - ''Workers engaged in extraction of coal, metalliferous and non-metalliferous ores excluding petroleum but including prospecting and preparing sites for the extraction of these ores. Also included are all supplemental operations for dressing and beneficiating ores and other crude minerals, such as breaking, milling, grinding pulverizing, washing, cleaning, grading, quarrying as an enterprise. Salt mining, Chemical and fertilizer mining enterprises are also included''. 18. The Trade Unions Act by its Long Title is an Act to make provisions with respect to the formation, registration , and organization of trade unions, and the Federation of Trade Unions. Thus, the Act regulates the existence and operations of trade unions in Nigeria. The Act also states unequivocally the areas of influence, operations or jurisdiction of the different registered trade unions. The rationale for this is to avoid any conflict in the exercise of influence by these trade unions. Another rationale is also to ensure that bodies or individuals not registered as Trade Unions are not allowed to venture into the areas of operations of registered trade unions or carry out any activities statutorily conferred on registered trade unions. The area of operations of the 1st Claimant is well set out and conferred by the statute. It has statutory flavor. Not even a registered trade union will be allowed to encroach into the jurisdiction statutorily conferred on the 1st Claimant. I read the averments of the Defendants to the effect inter alia that 3rd to 11th Claimants were neither engaged in activities related to quarrying nor are they under the payroll of the Quarry owners and that the activities of the said Quarry Marketers Haulage Association had no semblance with the work of those engaged in the extraction of coal, metalliferous and non ores and therefore did not qualify them to be mine workers. 19. I find nothing useful in the averments to change the spirit and necessary intendments of the statute which has set the area of jurisdiction of a registered trade union under it. I should state that it would appear that those covered by the area of jurisdiction of the 1st Claimant are not exhaustive. For in bringing to the fore the said areas of jurisdiction of the 1st Claimant, the word included was used twice. That is to say that indeed the list of those workers who fall under the area of jurisdiction of Nigeria Union of Mine Workers is not closed. In the absence of any other registered Trade Union allowed by whatever name to exercise any jurisdiction over any Mine worker or group of Mine workers in Nigeria, 1st Claimant remained the legal umbrella body to unionise workers in the Mining industry by whatever name they are called and irrespective of the nature of their activities as Mine workers. 20. If the Legislature had intended anything contrary to this position, it would have said so in clear and unambiguous terms. 1st Defendant is a registered Association. It is not a registered Trade Union. Indeed it is on record that before July 2019 when 1st Defendant was registered, 2nd to 5th Defendants and other members of the 1st Defendants were/are active members of the 2nd Claimant. In paragraph 15 of their Counter Affidavit of 30/8/19, the 2nd to 5th Defendants averred that they notified the Claimants in writing about their decision to withdraw their membership although the Claimants declined to accept the notification letter. There is no evidence of the alleged withdrawal of membership before me. The law is trite that he who asserts must prove the assertion. The Defendants could have at least produced in evidence a copy of the said letter of notification of withdrawal of membership. The consequence of this for all intents and purposes is that 2nd to 5th Defendants remain members of the 2nd Claimant. Let me equally bring to the fore the fact that issuance of tickets to members by the Defendants would seem to be the major cause of this suit. That activity, that is, issuance of tickets to members is another way of collecting check off dues from members. Collection of check off dues is the sole preserve of a registered trade union. See S. 17, Trade Unions Act. See the position adopted by Arowosegbe J of this Court in Dr. Awkadigwe Fredrick Ikenna v. Dr. Olusegun Olaopa & Ors. Unreported Suit No. NICN/EN/26/2019 Judgment of which was delivered on 27/2/2020. 21. The consequence of all this that 2nd to 5th Defendants as well as alleged members of the 1st Defendant remain bona fide members of the 2nd Claimant there being no evidence of withdrawal of their membership before me. To therefore allow the Defendants to carry on as proposed constitutes an infringement and encroachment on the areas of jurisdiction of the Claimants. Having so found and held, it is apparent from the depositions by the parties that there exists between them an intra union dispute which calls for resolution. The outcome of the election held on 6/4/19 and the reaction of the 2nd to the 5th Defendants are sufficient testimonies to the existence of intra union dispute. Resolution of that dispute is not the alleged opting out of the 2nd Claimant nor is it in the registration of the 1st Defendant. I answer the first question in the affirmative. I hold that by the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria the nature and operational area of jurisdiction of trade of the Respondent is usurping the Claimants' area of jurisdiction of trade. 22. Before I draw curtain on the answer to the first question set down for determination to which of course an answer has been given, I am constrained to address one or two issues raised by the learned Counsel to the Defendants/Respondents in his written address. Counsel had submitted that the 1st Defendant as an Association duly registered as an Incorporated Trustees under the law has a right to exist and coordinate the affairs of its members without interference by the Claimants or any one operating as a Union. Counsel then cited The Registered Trustees of Conference of Secondary School Tutors v. Commissioner of Education, Kogi State & 4 Ors (2006)All FWLR (Pt. 299)1549 at 1559, Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT) & Ors. v. Conference of Secondary School Tutors, Nigeria (COSST) & Ors (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 295) 657 at 677 and The Registered Trustees of Association of Tippers & Quarry Owners of Nigeria v. Yusuf & Ors (2011)LPELR-5024 (CA) as authorities for the proposition. Those judicial authorities were and are still good for the principles of law they established. No doubt about that. However, those judicial authorities did not decide that an Association is by mere registration clothed with the garment of a registered Trade Union and neither did they decide that by registration an Association can encroach on the areas of jurisdiction statutorily conferred on a Union so recognised by the Trade Union Act as in the instant case. If the Defendant is desirous to operate as a trade union, its best option is to apply to and be registered as one by the Registrar of Trade Unions. 23. Indeed in the case of The Registered Trustees of Association of Tippers & Quarry Owners of Nigeria v. Yusuf & Ors (2011)LPELR-5024 (CA) cited by the learned Counsel to Defendants/Respondents, Adumein JCA of that Court having quoted Section 591 (1) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act which provides that the aims and objective of an association to be registered under Part C "must be for the advancement of any religious, educational, literary, scientific, social, development, cultural, sporting or charitable purpose and must be lawful'' held that from their pleadings' the activities of the appellants, which culminated in their dispute with the respondents, are not for the advancement of any religious, educational, literary, scientific, social, development, cultural, sporting or charitable purpose. In much the same vein the activities of the Defendants/Respondents in this case as revealed from their counter affidavit and exhibits tendered are not within the provisions of the statute under which their association was registered. 24. Considering the answer proffered to the first question set for determination, I answer the 2nd question in the negative. I hold that the Defendants cannot issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Defendants having regard to the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. I answer the 3rd question in negative. I hold that the 2nd to 5th Defendants cannot exercise any authority on any worker engaged in extraction in any quarry or mining site in Oyo State having regard to the jurisdictional scope of the 1st Claimant as enshrined in Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. With respect to the 4th question, the fact remains that the 1st Defendant is not a trade union. It cannot claim to be one since it is apparent that it is not registered as one. Not being one therefore, it cannot act as or pretend to be a trade union. Should it be desirous of being a trade union, the option available to it is to apply, pursuant to Section 3 of the Trade Unions Act, to the Registrar of Trade Unions for registration as one. I thus answer the 4th question in the negative. I hold that the 1st Defendant cannot act as a Trade Union without being registered as same by the Registrar of Trade Unions or other relevant authority in accordance with the Trade Union Act. 25. In the light of the foregoing, I declare that by virtue of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, the 1st Claimant is the recognised Trade Union for workers engaged n extraction of coal, metalliferous, grading and quarrying. Secondly, I declare that the 2nd to 5th Defendants cannot issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 26. Thirdly, Claimants sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their privies or any person acting for or on their behalf from operating or disturbing the operation of the 1st and 2nd Claimants in any quarry or extraction sites in Oyo State. In Udo v. Anyankana (2016) LEPLR (CA) the Court of Appeal citing Goldmark Nigeria Limited & Ors. v. Ibafon Company Limited (2012)49 NSCQR 1763 pointed out that the grant of the relief of perpetual injunction is a consequential order which should naturally flow from the declaratory order sought and granted by Court. The essence of granting a perpetual injunction on a final determination of the rights of the parties is to prevent permanently the infringement of those rights and to obviate the necessity of bringing multiplicity of suits in respect of every repeated infringement. The rights of the Claimants as enshrined in the Trade Unions Act have been brought to the fore and firmly established. That done, the need to protect same in order to prevent permanently the infringement of those rights become imperative. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to the grant of an order of perpetual injunction as sought. An order of perpetual injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants, their privies or any person acting for or on their behalf from operating in or disturbing the operation of the 1st and 2nd Claimants in any quarry or extraction sites in Oyo State. 27. Fourthly, I order and direct the 2nd to 5th Defendants who are members and executive of the 1st Defendant not to issue tickets to members of the 1st & 2nd Claimants of whatever sum. 28. Claimant further sought an Order of injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, and or agents from intimidating, harassing, interfering, or compelling members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants to join the 1st Defendant and/or forcefully issuing tickets to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. In Onyesoh v. Nnebedun (1992) NWLR (Pt. 229)315, Karibi Whyte JSC of blessed memory stated the position simply that an injunction can only be granted to support a legal right. In other words, once a legal right is established and affirmed by the Court the grant of an injunction will follow for the protection of the established legal right. This Court has found that members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants operate under and within the jurisdiction conferred on them by the statute as a trade union and that the operation of the Defendants constitute an infringement on the areas statutorily allocated to the Claimants. A consequential order of injunction will necessarily follow for the protection of the rights of the Claimant. There is merit in this prayer. I grant same. Accordingly an Order of injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, and or agents from intimidating, harassing, interfering, or compelling members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants to join the 1st Defendant and/or forcefully issuing tickets to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 29. Finally, Claimants sought an Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants, their Agents, privies or anybody acting for or on their behalf from parading themselves as a trade union of workers engaged in extraction of mines and quarrying. The grant of the relief of perpetual injunction is a consequential order which should naturally flow from the declaratory order sought and granted by Court. The essence of granting a perpetual injunction on a final determination of the rights of the parties is to prevent permanently the infringement of those rights and to obviate the necessity of bringing multiplicity of suits in respect of every repeated infringement. With the grant of reliefs 1 to 5, the grant of this last relief becomes a matter of course. An Order of perpetual injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants, their Agents, privies or anybody acting for or on their behalf from parading themselves as a trade union of workers engaged in extraction of mines and quarrying. 30. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I answer the first question in the affirmative. I hold that by the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Unions Act, Cap. T 14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria the nature and operational area of jurisdiction of trade of the Respondent is usurping the Claimants' area of jurisdiction of trade. 2. I answer the 2nd question in the negative. I hold that the Defendants cannot issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Defendants having regard to the Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. 3. I answer the 3rd question in negative. I hold that the 2nd to 5th Defendants cannot exercise any authority on any worker engaged in extraction in any quarry or mining site in Oyo State having regard to the jurisdictional scope of the 1st Claimant as enshrined in Third Schedule Part B No. 23 of the Trade Union Act, Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. 4. I answer the 4th question in the negative. I hold that the 1st Defendant cannot act as a Trade Union without being registered as same by the Registrar of Trade Unions or other relevant authority in accordance with the Trade Unions Act. 5. I declare that by virtue of the Third Schedule to the Trade Union Act Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, the 1st Claimant is the recognised Trade Union for workers engaged n extraction of coal, metalliferous, grading and quarrying. 6. I declare that the 2nd to 5th Defendants cannot issue tickets of whatever sum to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 7. An order of perpetual injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants, their privies or any person acting for or on their behalf from operating in or disturbing the operation of the 1st and 2nd Claimants in any quarry or extraction sites in Oyo State. 8. I order and direct the 2nd to 5th Defendants who are members and executive of the 1st Defendant not to issue tickets to members of the 1st & 2nd Claimants of whatever sum. 9. An Order of injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants either by themselves, servants, and or agents from intimidating, harassing, interfering, or compelling members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants to join the 1st Defendant and/or forcefully issuing tickets to members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants as purported members of the 1st Defendant. 10. An Order of perpetual injunction is here issued restraining the Defendants, their Agents, privies or anybody acting for or on their behalf from parading themselves as a trade union of workers engaged in extraction of mines and quarrying. 31. The Defendants/Respondents shall pay to the Claimants the cost of this proceedings assessed at One Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=100,000.00) only. 32. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with immediately. 33. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge