Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court, Port-Harcourt Division, has held that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) is not empowered by extant laws to register organisations with the aims and objectives of a trade union.
He delivered judgment in a suit marked NICN/PHC/48/2022 filed by the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria against a rival association, the Incorporated Trustees of Freight Forwarders Transport Association along with their trustees and the CAC.
Justice Ogbuanya clarified that the registration of incorporated trustees falls in the category of organisations reserved for CAC under the Companies & Allied Matters Act.
Registration of trade unions, he noted, is reserved for the Trade Union Registrar under the Trade Unions Act.
The court held that neither the CAC nor the Trade Union Registrar can register an organisation that does not fall appropriately under its statutory mandate.
The judge, therefore, held that the CAC does not have the legal power to accept and register an organisation as an incorporated trustee, which by its disclosed aims and objective, is a disguised trade union designed to carry out related activities, particularly conflicting with an existing trade union, as in the instant suit.
The Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria claimed that some of its members broke off to register another association with the CAC, which issued it a Certificate of Incorporation.
The claimant said the association, whose aims and objectives conflict with the trade union activities of the Maritime Union, was used to carry out trade union activities such as demanding check-off dues and tickets at Onne Port and on the highways, among others.
The union had earlier petitioned the CAC over the unlawful use of the new association to carry out trade union activities, but the CAC declined to intervene and advised them to go to court.
The claimant filed the suit to challenge the activities of the Freight Forwarders Association, not being a registered trade union.
But the defendants insisted that the association having been lawfully registered by the CAC, can carry out its aims and objectives despite the claimant’s complaints.
It asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain it.
Justice Ogbuanya dismissed the objection on jurisdiction as grossly misconceived by counsel for the defendants.
He distinguished the extant laws regulating the registration of trade unions and those of incorporated trustees, particularly the provisions of Sections 823(1)and 825(1)(b) CAMA 2020 dealing with membership, objectives and registration of incorporated trustees, and Section 45 of the Trade Union Act.
The section stipulates: “CAMA shall not apply to any trade union, and registration of any such body under that Act shall be void”.
The court noted that the membership of the defendant, which includes “truck drivers, truck owners or transport agents within Nigeria” and operating at the Nigerian ports, and its principal objectives, which in Article 3(b) of its Constitution is “to ensure at all times the preservation of rights, claims, benefits and obligations of all members of the association” portray it as a trade union.
The court held the view that the association with such membership and aims & objectives ought not to have been accepted for registration by the CAC.
Justice Ogbuanya held: “I find that what has happened is that the CAC has aided the first defendant’s registration.
“Armed with the Certificate of Incorporation of the first defendant, the second to ninth defendants and their members started operating as a trade union within the domains of the claimant union, which resulted in the clash with the members of the claimant union leading to the fracas at the Onne port, which was only quelled by police intervention, to restore peace and harmony.
“This is an avoidable conflict if only the legal regime of operations of trade union was noted and complied with by the defendants.
“Had the 10th defendant (CAC) adverted to this legal regime, it would have queried the said aims and objectives contained in the Constitution of the first defendant association when presented for registration, as such does not properly fall within the expected organisation to be registered under CAMA by the CAC.
“Thus, it is my considered view that the first defendant association does not ordinarily qualify for registration as an Incorporated Trustee, in view of the combined provisions of Ss.823 (1) and S.825 (1) (b) CAMA 2020 on criteria for membership and scope of operation of Incorporated Trustees, coupled with its evidenced modus operandi indicating its activities conflicting with the operational area of the Claimant, a registered trade union. I so hold.”
The court granted declaratory and injunctive reliefs for the claimant.
Justice Ogbuanya added: “Accordingly, the claimant’s Reliefs (1) and (2) are hereby granted to the extent that it is hereby declared that the first – ninth defendants, not being a registered trade union under the Trade Unions Act LFN, cannot in law collect check-off dues or any dues whatsoever from the truck drivers or members of the claimant engaged by clearing and forwarding agencies to convey containerised goods and general cargoes from the ports including Onne Port, Rivers State to designated places within the Federation of Nigeria, or in any manner whatsoever perform the functions of a registered trade union.
“It is hereby further declared that given the legal regime for registration and operation of organisation registerable under CAMA and the Trade Union Act, as stipulated under Sections 823 (1) and 825 (1) (b) CAMA and Section 45 of the Trade Union Act, the Certificate of Incorporation dated 17th January 2019 issued by the CAC for registration of the first defendant as an Incorporated Trustee does not in any manner whatsoever entitle the first defendant and its members to perform the duties and activities of the claimant trade union or any other trade union whatsoever. I so hold and declare.”
The court awarded N10 million as general damages against the defendant for its members’ unlawful invasion of the claimant’s office, and N1 million cost in favour of the claimant.
