CORAM

---

HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

---

PARTIES

---

1.   Umar Anas Ibrahim

2.  Muhammed Mujib Rahman

3.   Abdulmalik Suleman Dili

4.  Usani Elizabeth Uguru

5.  Usaku Nathan Musa

6.  Musa Shamsudeen

7.  Mohammed Alhassan

8.  Moses Okon Effiong

9.  Idris Aliyu Bori

10. Foloki Francis Maaebi

11. Chinedu Isiuku

12. Philip Idongesit Nyong

13. Aminu Umar Abdulrahman

14. Abdulaziz Umar Dembo

15. Abubakar Abdullahi Isa

(Suing for themselves and as concerned members of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) NMDPRA Branch)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. Petroleum & Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN)

2. Comrade Festus Osifo (The National President, PENGASSAN)

3. Comrade Lumumba Ighotemu Okugbawa (The General Secretary, PENGASSAN)

4.  Comrade Tony Izogba

5. Comrade Gbolahan Akinyo

6. Comrade Okechukwu Nwankwo

7.  Comrade Abba Safana

8.  Comrade Polycard Ihejirika (Caretaker Committee, NMDPRA Branch)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

TRADE UNION LAW, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS, FAIR HEARING, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, CARETAKER COMMITTEE, DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY, DECLARATORY RELIEFS, EVIDENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The fifteen Claimants are Senior Staff members of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and members of the NMDPRA Branch of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), the 1st Defendant. The Defendants include PENGASSAN itself, its National President (2nd Defendant), General Secretary (3rd Defendant), and the four members of the Caretaker Committee (CTC) constituted for the NMDPRA Branch (4th to 8th Defendants).

The NMDPRA was established by the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, which merged the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), and Petroleum Equalization Fund Management Board (PEF). Staff of these defunct agencies were transferred to the NMDPRA, which became a Branch of PENGASSAN. On 10th January 2022, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of PENGASSAN constituted a CTC to run the NMDPRA Branch for three months while elections were organized. Elections were eventually conducted in May 2022 and a Branch Executive Committee (BECOM) was elected. The tenure of this BECOM was to expire on 27th May 2025 under Rule 20.1 of the PENGASSAN Constitution 2022.

Upon the expiration of the BECOM’s tenure in May 2025, rather than conducting elections to elect a new BECOM as mandated by the PENGASSAN Constitution, the CWC constituted a new CTC comprising the 4th to 8th Defendants on 27th June 2025. The Claimants challenged this constitution of the CTC, contending that neither of the two constitutionally recognized circumstances for constituting a CTC — a branch merger under Rule 4.4(b) or a disciplinary dissolution of BECOM under Rule 31.4 — had occurred. The tenure of the CTC was stated as three months from 27th June 2025, expiring on 27th September 2025.

The CTC, immediately upon inauguration, issued queries to the Claimants and constituted a Branch Ethics, Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (EGDC) on 9th July 2025. The Claimants challenged the constitution of the EGDC as violating Rule 32.7 of the PENGASSAN Constitution, which mandated that the EGDC at branch level shall comprise two elected BECOM members and three other members nominated by the BECOM, chaired by the elected Branch Industrial Relations Officer (IRO). The Claimants declined to appear before the EGDC, challenging its legality. Despite this, the EGDC submitted its report to the CWC, which on 18th August 2025 suspended the Claimants for terms ranging from five to ten years. The suspensions were effected by the CWC without ratification by the National Executive Council (NEC) as mandatorily required by Rule 10.7 of the PENGASSAN Constitution. The Claimants appealed individually on 25th August 2025 but received no response.

When the matter was filed in October 2025, the CTC was still in place despite the expiration of its three-month tenure, and no elections had been conducted.

The Court identified five issues for determination and resolved them as follows: the constitution of the CTC was upheld on the doctrine of necessity given the leadership vacuum; the continued existence of the CTC beyond three months without elections was held unlawful and the CTC was dissolved; the EGDC was found to have been unconstitutionally composed as its members were not elected BECOM members; the suspension of the Claimants was declared null and void both for the invalid EGDC process and for lack of NEC ratification; and the Claimants failed to prove the specific allegations of financial mismanagement.

 

---

HELD

---

The suit substantially succeeded. On Issue 1, the Court held that although none of the specific constitutional circumstances in Rules 4.4(b) and 31.4 for constituting a CTC existed in June 2025, the constitution of the CTC was nevertheless valid on the doctrine of necessity, as the expiration of the BECOM’s tenure without elections created a leadership vacuum analogous to the dissolution situation in Rule 31.4, and the CWC’s powers under Rules 10.2 and 10.10 required it to ensure effective administration of the Association.

On Issue 2, the Court held that the CTC could only exist for three months within which elections must be conducted; there was no constitutional provision permitting extension of the CTC’s tenure without elections; the refusal to conduct elections within the three-month period was unlawful and unconstitutional; and the CTC, having exceeded its lifespan, was dissolved.

On Issue 3, the Court held that Rule 32.7 of the PENGASSAN Constitution expressly mandated that the EGDC at branch level be composed of elected BECOM members and members nominated by BECOM; the CTC, not being an elected BECOM, could not transform itself into elected BECOM for the purpose of composing the EGDC or nominating its members; the EGDC was therefore unconstitutionally composed; and all actions of the EGDC in the disciplinary proceedings against the Claimants were null and void.

On Issue 4, the Court held that the suspension flowed from an invalid EGDC and therefore the Claimants were never given fair hearing by a competent EGDC; additionally, the CWC suspended the Claimants without NEC ratification as mandatorily required by Rule 10.7; both defects independently rendered the suspension unlawful, null and void.

On Issue 5, the Court held that while the Constitution imposes mandatory financial obligations on the CWC and NEC, the Claimants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that these obligations had been breached; mere allegations without proof constituted speculation and could not ground the declaratory relief sought.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Caretaker Committee constituted by the CWC of PENGASSAN for the NMDPRA Branch on 27th June 2025 was validly constituted in the circumstances?

2. Whether the CTC could lawfully exist for more than three months without the branch election being conducted?

3. Whether the EGDC established by the CTC for the NMDPRA Branch was properly constituted and could validly exercise disciplinary powers over the Claimants?

4. Whether the suspension of the Claimants from membership of PENGASSAN by the CWC on 18th August 2025 was proper and valid?

5. Whether the CWC and the NEC were shown to have failed in their mandatory constitutional obligation to ensure proper accounting records, audits, and disbursement of the Association’s funds to the Branches and Chapters?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY — APPLICABLE TO AVERT LEADERSHIP VACUUM IN TRADE UNION BRANCH — JUSTIFIES CONSTITUTION OF CARETAKER COMMITTEE WHERE TENURE OF BECOM HAS EXPIRED AND ELECTIONS CANNOT BE IMMEDIATELY CONDUCTED

---

The fact that the CTC was not constituted under any of the circumstances provided in Rules 4.4(b) and 31.4 of the 1st defendant’s constitution cannot be used to fault the constitution of the CTC. In my view, the constitution of the CTC is valid, lawful or constitutional. I therefore agree with the defendants that the constitution of the CTC by the CWC was occasioned by the doctrine of necessity to avert a leadership vacuum in the branch arising from the inability to conduct the branch election. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

CARETAKER COMMITTEE — CAN ONLY EXIST FOR THREE MONTHS — NO PROVISION IN CONSTITUTION FOR EXTENSION OF TENURE WITHOUT CONDUCTING ELECTIONS — CONTINUED EXISTENCE BEYOND THREE MONTHS UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

---

By the provisions of the 1st defendant’s Constitution permitting the constitution of a CTC, the CTC can only exist for 3 months within which period the Constitution mandates that election must be conducted. The refusal of the defendants to conduct the branch election within the 3 months tenure of the CTC is unlawful and unconstitutional. I also hold that the continued existence of the CTC beyond 3 months, without elections being conducted, is unlawful and unconstitutional. On this ground, the CTC, having exceeded its life span is hereby dissolved. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

ETHICS, GRIEVANCE AND DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE — COMPOSITION GOVERNED BY MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS — MUST COMPRISE ELECTED BECOM MEMBERS AND MEMBERS NOMINATED BY BECOM — USE OF WORD SHALL RENDERS PROVISION MANDATORY

---

By Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the EGDC is composed of only elected BECOM members and other members whom the BECOM nominated. The elected Branch IRO is the constitutional Chairman of the EGDC. The provisions of Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution are mandatory by the use of the word ‘shall’. There was no elected BECOM at the time the EGDC was constituted in July 2025. It is clear that the EGDC constituted by the CTC was not composed as provided in Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

CARETAKER COMMITTEE CANNOT TRANSFORM ITSELF INTO ELECTED BECOM — HAS NO POWER TO COMPOSE EGDC OR NOMINATE ITS MEMBERS UNDER CONSTITUTION — ACTIONS OF IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED EGDC NULL AND VOID

---

Although the CTC, in running the branch exercises the powers of the BECOM, it cannot however transform itself to elected BECOM so as to compose the EGDC or nominate members of the EGDC under Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution. In other words, the CTC, not being elected BECOM, cannot compose the EGDC nor can it nominate other members of the EGDC. The implication is that the EGDC was constituted in violation of the provisions of the 1st defendant’s Constitution. An EGDC not constituted in accordance with the provisions of the 1st defendant’s constitution cannot validly and lawfully exercise disciplinary action against members of the 1st defendant. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER WITHOUT HEARING BEFORE COMPETENT EGDC — DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING — DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE NOT FOLLOWED — SUSPENSION NULL AND VOID

---

The fact that the EGDC has been found in this judgment to be unlawful and void implies that there was no competent EGDC composed as provided in Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution which heard the case against the claimants or made any recommendation against the claimants before they were suspended. The claimants were therefore not given fair hearing by a competent EGDC before they were suspended. The further implication is that the disciplinary procedure in the 1st defendant’s Constitution was not followed before the claimants were suspended by the CWC. Therefore, the suspension of the claimants is unlawful, null and void. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

CWC CANNOT DISCIPLINE MEMBER WITHOUT NEC RATIFICATION — RULE MAKING DISCIPLINARY POWER SUBJECT TO NEC RATIFICATION IS MANDATORY — FAILURE TO OBTAIN RATIFICATION RENDERS DISCIPLINARY DECISION NULL AND VOID

---

I have examined Rule 10.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution. It gave power of discipline of members of the 1st defendant at all levels to the CWC but made the exercise of the power ‘subject to ratification by the NEC.’ In other words, CWC cannot discipline any member of the 1st defendant, including suspension, without the ratification of that disciplinary action by the NEC. Any exercise of the disciplinary powers of the CWC without ratification by NEC will render the disciplinary decision of the CWC null and void. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

SUSPENSION NOT RATIFIED BY NEC — RENDERS SUSPENSION NULL AND VOID — ARGUMENT THAT NEC APPROVAL IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT CANNOT STAND WHERE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY REQUIRES IT

---

It is not in doubt that the suspension of the claimants from membership of the 1st defendant by the CWC on 18th August 2025 was not ratified by NEC of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the failure of the CWC to obtain NEC’s ratification of the suspension of the claimants renders the suspension null and void. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

DECLARATORY RELIEFS GRANTED ONLY ON PROOF — CLAIMANT REQUIRED TO PROVE WITH COGENT, CREDIBLE AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE — MERE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT — SPECULATION CANNOT GROUND DECLARATION

---

“It is the law that declaratory reliefs are granted only upon proof of the reliefs. In any suit or application where a party seeks a declaratory claim, such a party is required to prove the claim with cogent, credible and satisfactory evidence to be entitled to the grant of the claim. It is not enough for the claimants to merely allege that the defendants failed to discharge their financial constitutional responsibilities. The claimants must go further to satisfy the court of the basis for their assertion. – Per Anuwe, J

 

---

INTERPRETATION OF UNION CONSTITUTION — PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING EGDC AT BRANCH LEVEL — RULE 32.7 PRESCRIBES COMPOSITION NOT ESTABLISHMENT — CONSTITUTION ITSELF ESTABLISHES EGDC AND NOT THE EXECUTIVE ORGAN

---

Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution did not stipulate who can establish the EGDC. It is the constitution itself that has, in Rule 32.1, established the EGDC for each level. What Rule 32.7 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution contained is how the EGDC is composed in terms of its membership and not who has the powers to establish the EGDC for the branch. Thus, it is the 1st defendant’s Constitution that established the branch EGDC and not the CTC. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

PURPOSE OF CTC PROVISION IS TO APPOINT LEADERSHIP FOR BRANCH PENDING ELECTIONS — ANALOGY WITH DISSOLUTION SITUATION JUSTIFIES CONSTITUTION OF CTC WHERE TENURE EXPIRES WITHOUT ELECTIONS — SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF PROVISION GOVERNS

---

A careful examination of the provisions of Rules 4.4[b], 16.2 and 31.4 of the 1st defendant’s constitution reveals that the spirit or purpose behind the provision for constituting CTC for a branch is to appoint leadership for a branch which is yet to conduct election to elect BECOM. The function of the CTC is to administer the affairs of the branch for a limited period pending when election will be conducted to elect the BECOM. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF CWC AND NEC TO MAINTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS AND DISBURSE FUNDS — MANDATORY — CONCEDED BY DEFENDANTS — FAILURE TO DISCHARGE SAME AMOUNTS TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

---

I have read the provisions of Rules 9.5, 9.9, 13.6.1, 13.6.2, 13.6.4, 23.5, 23.5.1, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 34.10.1 and 34.10.2 of the Constitution of the 1st defendant. They made various provisions on the duties and functions of the CWC and NEC regarding the finances of the 1st defendant, including keeping proper accounting records, auditing of accounts and disbursement of the funds of the Association. These are the basic duties of the CWC and the NEC which the defendants are not disputing. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

EXPIRATION OF BECOM TENURE WITHOUT BRANCH DELEGATE CONFERENCE — RULE ON RETURNING OFFICER NOT APPLICABLE — RULE 11.4.3 RELATES ONLY TO DISSOLUTION OF BECOM AT BRANCH DELEGATE CONFERENCE

---

Rule 11.4.3, when read with Rules 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 relates to conduct of election upon dissolution of the BECOM at the Branch Delegate Conference. That is to say the requirement of the 1st defendant’s constitution for a returning officer to immediately proceed with the election process in Rule 11.4.3 relate to conduct of election upon the dissolution of the BECOM at the Branch Delegate Conference. The last BECOM of the NMDPRA Branch was not dissolved at the Branch Delegate Conference. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

PRIORITY OF CTC UPON CONSTITUTION IS TO ORGANIZE BRANCH ELECTIONS — NOT TO IMMEDIATELY DISCIPLINE MEMBERS — CTC THAT FOCUSES ON DISCIPLINE RATHER THAN ELECTIONS ACTS CONTRARY TO ITS PURPOSE

---

I have held earlier in this judgment that the CTC was rightly constituted in June 2025 to administer the branch in the absence of election to elect the BECOM. The CTC’s priority was to ensure that the branch election was organized and conducted to elect the BECOM. It seems however that the primary focus of the CTC was to discipline the claimants because of the urgency at which it set up the EGDC. The CTC ought to have left the issue of the discipline of the claimants to the incoming BECOM who could competently compose or set up the EGDC. – Per Anuwe, J.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 36(1)

2. National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017

3. Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), Section 168(1)

4. Trade Unions Act, Sections 37 and 38

5. Petroleum Industry Act 2021

6. PENGASSAN Constitution 2022 — Rules 4.4(b), 9.5, 9.9, 10.2, 10.3, 10.7, 10.10, 11.4.1, 11.4.3, 11.5.3, 11.7.3, 12.7, 13.6.1, 13.6.2, 13.6.4, 16.2, 20.1, 23.5, 23.5.1, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 28.1, 28.2, 31.2, 31.4, 31.5, 32.1, 32.7, 32.8, 34.4, 34.5, 34.9, 34.10.1, 34.10.2; Schedules 2.2.8 and 2.3

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

---

COUNSEL

---

1. Zakariya Hussaini (SAN) for the Claimants

2. Ezra Enwere for the Claimants

3. Munirat Yahaya for the Claimants

4. Amb. Sola Iji  for the Defendants

5. Femi Abimbola for the Defendants