The crisis brewing in the Petroleum Tanker Drivers Union (PTDU) was further stoked on Wednesday, when the National Industrial Court struck out the preliminary objection filed by John Amajuoyi, George Udofia, chima Chijioke and three others against the suit seeking to restrain them from parading themselves as executive members of the Rivers and Bayelsa chapter of the union.
The court claimed that based on evidences before it presently, as relates to the relief sought by claimants/applicants, it is premature to make a pronouncement on whether a cause of action exists in the case or not.
Seven indigenes of Rivers and Bayelsa States — John Gberesuu, Chief Lawrence Enoch, Williams Asuru, Festus Legbara, Ogbonna Worenwu, Comrade Tobin Utuka and Comrade Chief Miktom — have, on behalf of the caretaker committee of PTDU in the two states, instituted the suit against the defendants comprising non-indigenes who have not been vested with any authority to act as executives of the union. The claimants, therefore, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from parading themselves as executives of the union.
In the suit instituted at Nchia Judicial Division in Rivers State, counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court; and the court in Nchia, in a considered ruling, transferred the case to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.
The applicants had asked the court for order “dismissing the suit for not disclosing reasonable cause of action and for such further orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
Counsel to the applicants formulated a lone issue for consideration, to wit: “whether the claim of the claimants discloses a reasonable cause of action, the defendants not being members of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers Union of Rivers and Bayelsa. Chapters?”
Counsel to the applicants, C. N. Oyiboku submitted that before a litigant can seriously think of initiating proceedings in court, a cause of action must have accrued and this is an indispensable prerequisite, that a suit is aimed at vindication of some legal rights. He contended that the factual situation on which the claimant relies to support his claim must be recognised by the law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed against the defendant.
He argued that in the instant case, the applicants are not in the same union with the claimants, and cannot respond to the claim of the claimants because the internal activities or manner of appointing executives in the two unions are different.
He further submitted that the applicants are elected executives of the PTD brand of NUPENG and that the relief sought can only be enforceable against members of the claimants union. He urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Claimants counsel, Chief Karina Tuyan (SAN) submitted that the substantive prayer of the defendants/applicants is for an order dismissing the suit for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action. He noted that the applicants' motion is accompanied by a 20-paragraph affidavit and a written address buttressing the argument that the suit discloses no reasonable cause of action.
The senior counsel said that the court had been called upon to examine the content of the affidavit in support and the document exhibited in deciding whether the suit discloses reasonable cause of action. He argued that in deciding whether a suit discloses a reasonable cause of action, the court must confine itself to only the statement of claim and not facts deposed to in an affidavit or document attached as exhibits.
In her ruling, Justice M.N.Esowe noted the claims of the claimants/respondents as follows: a declaration that the claimants having been duly nominated and constituted as indigenous members of the Caretaker Committee of the Petroleum Tanker Drivers Union (PTDU) of Rivers and Bayelsa States branch and are the only persons recognised as having the authority to head and control the affairs of the union pending when democratically elected officers of the union will emerge.
A declaration that the defendants are not executives of the PTDU of Rivers and Bayelsa States and have not been vested with any authority to act as executives of the union hence the continuous parading themselves as the executives of the union is unlawful and illegal.
And third, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, privies and so on, from further parading themselves as executives of PTDU of Rivers and Bayelsa States.
Stating that the prayers are very explicit, Justice Esowe said that the matter had only come up once for hearing when the applicant moved a motion for dismissal of the matter for non disclosure of cause of action.
“Suffice it to say that from evidence before me presently, it is premature to pronounce on whether 'cause action' exists in this case or not,” she said.
“The court cannot study the defence of the defendants/applicants to appreciate their application at this point.”
 |
|
