CORAM
Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi – Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph Eyo Ekanem – Justice of the Court of Appeal
Olasumbo Olanrewaju Goodluck – Justice of the Court of Appeal
PARTIES
1. BARRISTER COMRADE KINSGLSEY OLEMEFORO (Former Chairman, MHWMPCS LTD)
2. COMMRADE JUSTINE ONYIA
(Former Chairman, Board of Director MHWMPCS LTD)
3. COMMRADE FABIAN ENEJE
(Former Secretary, MHWMPCS LTD) 4. COMMRADE MAUREEN EZEANI
(Former Treasurer, MHWMPCS LTD)
5. MR. ENYI UCHE
(Former Member, Board of Director MHWMPCS LTD)
APPELLANTS
1. COMMRADE NNAJI ELVIS O.
2. COMMRADE CHUKWUEMEKA EZE
3. COMMRADE ENGR. CHINWETALU NDUBUISI
4. COMMRADE MRS. NWUDU CHINYERE
5. COMMRADE NNADI ANAYO
6. CP RADE AJUZIE IFEANYI
7. COMMRADE IJEGALU SUNDAY
8. COMMADE NWANKWO IKECHUKWU
9. COMMRADE MRS. UGWUEZE UZOAMAKA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRADE UNIONS, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, BINDING COURT ORDERS, STAY OF EXECUTION, RES JUDICATA, PARTIES TO LITIGATION, APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The case concerns a leadership dispute in the Medical and Health Workers Multipurpose Co-operative Society Limited (MHWMPCS Ltd) at the University Teaching Hospital, Ituku/Ozalla, Enugu. The Appellants were the former executive committee members of the co-operative society, while the Respondents are the current executive committee members.
According to Section 13 of the MHWMPCS Bye-law and Regulation 17(1) of the Co-operative Societies Regulations made pursuant to Section 56 of the Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act, executive members are required to hold a general meeting at least once every three months, and where they fail to retire or hold an election four months after the meeting is due, a special general meeting may be convened by at least twenty members.
The Appellants failed to hold the required meetings, which led the society members to convene a special general meeting on September 5, 2019, where the Appellants’ executive committee was dissolved, and an electoral committee was appointed on September 10, 2019. At another general meeting, the Respondents were unanimously elected as the new executive committee.
When the Appellants refused to hand over the relevant materials of the cooperative society, the Respondents filed an originating summons at the Enugu State High Court (Suit No. E/806/2019), seeking declarations that they were the legitimate executive committee and orders compelling the Appellants to hand over the society’s assets and records.
The Appellants filed a counter summons, arguing that there was a pending appeal in another case (Suit No. E/402M/2015) between the Appellants and the Director of Co-operative Society and Attorney General of Enugu State, which concerned the power of the Enugu State Director of Co-operative Society to convene special general meetings.
Justice V.C. Ajogwu of the Enugu State High Court delivered judgment on September 23, 2021, in favor of the Respondents. The Appellants, aggrieved by this decision, filed a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2021, based on three grounds, seeking to have the lower court’s judgment set aside.
HELD
1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court.
2. On the first issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that the High Court of Enugu State had jurisdiction to determine the dispute, which centered around the interests of members of a cooperative society, not a trade union dispute. The Court found that the National Industrial Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under Section 254C(1) of the Constitution does not extend to cooperative society matters.
3. On the second issue regarding the alleged preservative order, the Court held that the parties and subject matter in the earlier suit (E/402M/2015) were different from the current suit. The preservative order in the earlier suit was made against third parties (the Director of Co-operative Societies and the Attorney General of Enugu State) who were not parties to the current suit. Therefore, the order did not bind the Respondents, who were not parties to the earlier litigation.
4. The Court awarded costs of ₦200,000 against the Appellants.
ISSUES
1. Whether the court below had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as constituted.?
2. Whether the court below was right to void the offices of the Appellants when there was allegedly a subsisting preservative order of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction preserving the Appellants’ positions pending an appeal.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT OVER COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DISPUTES:
“Given the foregoing state of the law, I have examined the affidavit in support of the originating summons and the reliefs sought in Suit No. E/806/2019 and I am not left in doubt that the Respondents claim revolves around the interest of members of a cooperative society. There is nothing in the Respondents claim that suggests an industrial or trade union dispute nor does it relate to workers conditions of service hence it does not invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of Section 254(c) (a) – (m) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
EXCLUSION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES FROM NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT JURISDICTION:
“I am persuaded by the submission of the Respondents’ counsel that upon a perusal of Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution, the Nigerian Co-operative Act is not included in the list of Act/Laws that vest the National Industrial Court with exclusive jurisdiction as provided under Section 254(c) (a) to (m) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the third Alteration) Act 2011 No. 3.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
APPLICATION OF EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS PRINCIPLE:
“I also find forceful the submission of the Respondents’ Counsel that the latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius which literally means the express mention of one thing excludes the other. This is one of the time honoured principle in general statutory interpretation… In other words, the express mention of one thing in any statutory provision automatically excludes any other, which otherwise, would have applied by implication with regard to the same issue.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
STATE REGULATION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES:
“In so far as Co-operative Societies are regulated by the various houses of Assembly, it stands to reason that they are only governed by State Laws, in the instant case, the Co-operative Societies Law, Cap 28 Volume 11 Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004 is applicable to the subject matter of this action whilst trade unions are registered under the Ministry of Labour and productivity, the decision making body for the Co-operative Society is vested and supervised by the Ministry of Human Capital Development and Poverty Reduction.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
EFFECT OF COURT ORDERS ON NON-PARTIES:
“Having thoroughly perused the processes filed in both suits E/402/M/2015 and suit E/806/2019, I am not left in doubt that the parties in both suits are different and the subject matter of the suits are completely different. The order of stay of execution of the judgment in suit E/402/2015 was made against the Director of Co-operatives Societies and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice Enugu State who are not parties in this suit.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
BINDING EFFECT OF COURT ORDERS LIMITED TO PARTIES:
“I find forceful the submission of counsel for the Respondents that before a party can be bound by an order of Court, he must be seen to have been a party in respect of the case.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
JURISDICTION AS A THRESHOLD ISSUE:
“Jurisdiction is indeed a threshold issue that goes to the competence of a Court to entertain a matter. It is settled law that where a Court lacks jurisdiction, the entire proceedings, no matter how well conducted, amount to a nullity.” – Per RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA
DELIBERATE LEGISLATIVE EXCLUSION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES:
“The Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act is not one of the enumerated statutes under Section 254C, and its omission suggests a deliberate legislative intention to exclude it from the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.” – Per RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA
NON-PARTY NOT BOUND BY COURT ORDERS:
“It is trite that a person who is not a party to a suit cannot be bound by orders made therein. See Hart v. Ezekiel–Hart (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.63) 105. The trial Court, therefore acted within its powers when it proceeded to adjudicate the matter before it without being fettered by the preservative order in the separate and unrelated suit.” – Per RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA
DETERMINING JURISDICTION IN ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEEDINGS:
“It is trite, that in determining the subject matter of a case, recourse must be had to the pleading or claims of the plaintiff where the suit is commenced by a writ of summons, while the affidavit in support will be examined to determine jurisdiction if the suit is commenced by an originating summons.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
DISTINCTION BETWEEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND TRADE UNIONS:
“In so far as Co-operative Societies are regulated by the various houses of Assembly, it stands to reason that they are only governed by State Laws… whilst trade unions are registered under the Ministry of Labour and productivity, the decision making body for the Co-operative Society is vested and supervised by the Ministry of Human Capital Development and Poverty Reduction.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS:
“Having thoroughly perused the processes filed in both suits E/402/M/2015 and suit E/806/2019, I am not left in doubt that the parties in both suits are different and the subject matter of the suits are completely different.” – Per OLASUMBO OLANREWAJU GOODLUCK, JCA
INTERNAL GOVERNANCE DISPUTES IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES:
“A careful examination of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and the reliefs sought in suit E/806/2019 reveals that the dispute revolves around the internal governance of a co-operative society – not a trade union dispute nor a matter arising from labour or industrial relations.” – Per RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) – Section 254C
2. Nigerian Co-operative Societies Act, Chapter N98, Volume 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 – Section 56
3. Co-operative Societies Regulations – Regulation 17(1)
4. Co-operative Societies Law, Cap 28, Volume 11, Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004
5. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2011 No. 3
OTHER CITATIONS
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
COUNSEL
1. G. Tagbo Ike, Esq.For Appellant(s)
2. Chief C.P. Agu, Esq.For Respondent(s)