BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP

DATE: August 12, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/71/2011

BETWEEN

1. Comrade Jimoh Adisa
2. Comrade Jonah Ekwere – Claimants

AND

1. The National Union of Chemical Footwear,
   Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees
   (NUCFRLANMPE)
2. Mr. Isok Boniface
3. Mr. Douglas Adiele – Defendants

REPRESENTATION
, for the applicants.
, for the defendant.

JUDGMENT
The claimants instituted this suit vide an originating summons pursuant to Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, section 46(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The originating summons is dated and filed on 19th July 2011. The claimants are seeking for the determination of the following questions –

1. What is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999?
2. Whether in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1st defendant in the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of the 1st defendant, is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants.
3. Whether by the wording of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant.
4. Whether by the wording of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The claimants then prayed for the following –

1. A declaration that in the absence of specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over members or officers of the 1st defendant in the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st defendant is bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
2. A declaration that by the wordings of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of the 1st defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant cannot exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant.
3. A declaration that by the wordings of Appendix B (2) of the constitution of 1st the defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant cannot exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in section 36 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
4. A declaration that the decision of the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant, presided over by the 2nd defendant, to suspend the 1st and 2nd claimants indefinitely from their respective positions in the 1st defendant, communicated to the claimants vide a letter signed by the 3rd defendant dated 27th of June, 2011, on the basis of an anonymous petition against the 1st and 2nd claimants, without a fair hearing given to the claimants, is a violation of the claimants’ rights to fair hearing under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and as such, the suspension is unconstitutional, null and void.
5. An order setting aside, nullifying or voiding the said suspension of the 1st and 2nd claimants and re-instating them to their respective positions in the 1st defendant with all the rights and privileges attached to the said positions.

In support of the originating summons is a 25-paragraphed affidavit filed on 21st July 2011 and deposed to by Jimoh Adisa, the first claimant in this suit. The depositions in the affidavit are as follows –

1. That I am the 1st claimant herein by virtue of which fact I am familiar with the facts deposed to herein.
2. That I am a member of the 1st defendant, which is the National Union of Chemical, Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employers.
3. That I am indeed the chairman of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Local Branch of the 1st defendant and the secretary, Lagos Area Council 1 of the 1st defendant.
4. That the 2nd claimant is also a member of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Branch of the 1st defendant and indeed the secretary of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd branch of 1st defendant and the assistant secretary, Lagos Area Council 1 of the 1st defendant.
5. That the 1st defendant is the national body of the union with control organs which include the Central Working Committee presided over by the 2nd defendant.
6. That the 3rd defendant is the acting secretary of the 1st defendant.
7. That through a letter dated 9th of March 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of my employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, signed by the 3rd defendant, and copied to my branch secretary who is the 2nd claimant herein, the 3rd defendant informed my employer that the Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st defendant had set up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against me and the 2nd claimant in an anonymous petition. Attached as Exhibits A1 and A2 are copies of the said letter and the said petition.
8. That through another letter dated 14th of March 2011, headed “REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI-UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of my employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, stated and copied to my local branch secretary who is the 2nd claimant herein, the secretary of the said three-man investigative committee informed my employer that the investigative committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, to carry out their investigation as mandated by the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendants, under the leadership of the 2nd defendant. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the said letter.
9. That all through the time till now, no formal information, notification or invitation was given to me or the 2nd claimant on the petition purportedly written against us, or on the particulars of the allegation contained therein or on the investigation to be conducted against us based on the said anonymous petition or even the date when the investigative committee would be coming to meet with us.
10. That this unfolding scenario, and our present predicament, is as a result of the case of financial recklessness and misappropriation of our union fund to the tune of N90 million Naira in a petition currently being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant by an anti-corruption group which members cut across many local branches of the 1st defendant and among whom are the 1st and 2nd claimants. [This is an opinion and is unsubstantiated.]
11. That since the EFCC started their investigation into this allegation of monumental corruption leveled against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant, the latter has launched a vitriolic counter-attack on all local branches’ officers and members of the 1st defendant who are perceived to be involved in the EFCC case against them, through police harassment and intimidation on spurious allegations, instigation of employers to terminate appointments, or vindictive and irregular suspension from the union.
12. That on the 15th of March 2011, I got an invitation from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, wherein I was asked to report on the 17th of March 2011 on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported. Attached as Exhibit C is the invitation letter.
13. That I reported to the Police on the said date and I was informed that the reason for my invitation was that I was mentioned in connection with the Petition sent to the Police by the 2nd defendant wherein he alleged one Yusuf Ajibola, with others, who was a former chairman of OM Ltd Local Branch of 1st defendant, before his appointment was terminated, and indeed the leader of the said anti-corruption group who spearheaded the EFCC petition against the National Executive members of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant currently being investigated, was sending text messages to him that they were coming to kidnap him and his family
14. That I exonerated myself from such spurious allegation and was released the same day.
15. That the 2nd claimant told me and I verily believe him that he was also invited by the Police on the same ground as afore stated through a letter dated 17th of March. Attached as Exhibit D is the invitation letter
16. That without any notice or invitation, members of the said investigative committee suddenly appeared in our company on the 1st day of June 2011 and announced, to our dismay that they had come to commence their sitting on the investigation against me and the 2nd claimant based on the said anonymous petition.
17. That we demanded to see a copy of the said petition which, till then, we had never seen.
18. That we additionally demanded to be given some time to study the petition and prepare our defence.
19. That members of the committee rose that day with the hope that we would be communicated to on the next day of sitting when we would properly appear to make our defence.
20. That we immediately wrote to the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant through a letter dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform them of what transpired on that day and the need to be accorded a hearing. Attached and marked Exhibit E is a copy of the letter.
21. That to our chagrin, we received letters of indefinite suspension dated 27thof June, 2011, signed by the 3rd defendant under the directive of the Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant presided over by the 2nd defendant. Attached and marked Exhibits F1 and F2 are copies of the said letters.
22. That the general congress of the workers of our local branch of the 1st defendant convened on the 7th of July 2011 and denied any connection with the said anonymous petition and demanded that the suspension order he lifted. Attached and marked Exhibit G is a copy of the resolution of the congress.
23. That arising from the above, therefore, we have filed this suit to seek the determination of the stated questions and the listed reliefs for it is only the URGENT intervention of the Court on the side of justice that can save us from this victimization as a result of the role we play or played in the 1st defendant, from the hands of our all time material to this case, contravene the constitution of the 1st defendant. Attached as Exhibit H is a copy of the said constitution.
24. That it is in interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought in this originating summons.
25. That I depose to this affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

In reaction, the defendants filed a 27-paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by Comrade Boniface Ijoko, the National Auditor of the National Union of Chemical Footwear Rubber, Leather and Non-Metallic Products Employees (NUCFRLANMPE), the first defendant. The depositions in the counter-affidavit are as follows –

1. That I am the said Boniface Ijoko and quite conversant with the facts of this case.
2. That I have the consent and authority of all the defendants herein to depose to this counter-affidavit.
3. That sometime in March 2011, the 1st defendant acting pursuant to a petition addressed to her, constituted a three (3) member Investigative Committee with me as chairman.
4. That we immediately notified all the parties concerned including the Management of Stallion Plastics, the claimants’ employer and the claimants of the programmes of the committee as confirmed by the 1st claimant vide his letter dated 1st June 2011 (Exhibit E).
5. That the claimants willingly submitted themselves to the investigative activities of our Committee particularly in our efforts to unravel the allegation of illegal imposition of levies, which allegations were found to be unsubstantiated after a careful study of the payroll of Stallion Plastic Limited (the Claimant’s employer) as made available by the Personnel Manager of the Company.
6. That a rather volatile point occurred in the course of our investigation when the claimants could not account for the various large sums of money received as rebate from the 1st defendant, which said statutory sums are meant to serve genuine union interest.
7. That in fact during one of such sessions the claimants boisterously walked out on the Committee, thus prompting an official complaint to the Personnel Manager of the claimants’ employers.
8. That the subterfuge foisting of a non-existent allegation of want of fair hearing is merely an afterthought and designed to obfuscate the course of justice. [This is an opinion.]
9. That after the claimants’ letter of 1st June 2011 i.e. Exhibit E, and notwithstanding the fact that the claimants have hitherto participated in the sitting of Investigative Committee set up by the 1st defendant, the claimants were still given more opportunities as demanded to enable them present their response and or defence to the allegation against them as contained in Exhibit A1.
10. That the claimants merely embraced an opportunity to be heard only when it favoured them but ready to jettison same if prejudicial to them all in a desperate bid round to allege infraction of a diabolical right to fair hearing.
11. That it is curious that a selfsame claimant who had pleaded for time to countermand the allegation of misappropriation of rebate dues and was duly obliged could turn round to allege a repudiation of his right to fair hearing. [This is an opinion/conclusion.]
12. That based on the above, it is a misplaced argument and assertion that the claimants were denied fair hearing when at all material time, they participated fully in the proceedings of the committee. [This is an opinion/conclusion.]
13. That immediately thereafter the claimants’ desperation to cling on to a discredited power took a rather bizarre dimension as the claimants unleashed numerous death threats against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for which the claimants are currently being investigated by the State Criminal Investigation Department, Panti, Yaba.
14. That the reference to the now discredited petition to the EFCC by the claimants is clearly redundant as it merely established the real motive behind ill-fated adventure. [This is an opinion/conclusion.]
15. That the crude intransigence of the claimants were verified in our report submitted to the Central Working Committee, exhibited hereto and marked “AA-1”. [This is a conclusion.]
16. That it is patently false and wicked for the claimants to allege want to disclosure of the deliberation against them when their employers had on March 15, 2011 drawn their attention to same. The said letter is Exhibited and marked AA-2.
17. That I know as a fact that the National Administrative Council (NAC) and Central Working Committee of the 1st defendant are competent and eligible to take decisions on behalf of the National Executive Council being constitutionally empowered to preside over the day to day management of the Union. [This is an opinion/conclusion on a question of law.]
18. That by virtue of my office I also know that such decisions by the Central Working Committee are usually submitted or ratification of review to the National Executive Council during its yearly meetings.
19. That it is superfluous and self serving to allege express authorization as is being presently canvassed before day to day activities are carried on by the Central Working Committee. [This is an opinion.]
20. That the claimants’ hasty recourse to the hallowed tributaries of this Court without due adherence to laid down appellate procedures by the 1st defendant is highly suggestive of an attempt to hoodwink this Court and record unmerited advantage.[This is an opinion.]
21. That it is true and tandem with good industrial relation practice to secure the management’s consent for the use of premises before meetings, seminars or even elections are held. [this is an opinion.]
22. That the hurried contraption and forged assemblage of rented signatures by the claimants just to procure compliance is very revealing of the claimants’ desperation to conceal salient details. [This is an opinion and is unsubstantiated.]
23. That the date of the supposed meeting as gleaned from the contrived document verifying the various phantom signatures was manufactured after the claimants’ suspension. [This is an opinion/conclusion and is unsubstantiated.]
24. That the names and the signatures of the claimants are conspicuously missing in the attendance sheet of the meeting allegedly held on 7th July 2011 at the claimants’ local branch as indicated in Exhibit G further corroborate the fact that the said Exhibit G is a makeup and a failed attempt by the claimants to mislead this Court. [This is a conclusion/opinion.]
25. That there is no positive averment and or fast placed before this Court indicating that the claimants are candidates in a proposed election as to warrant the grant of the reliefs claimed. [This is a conclusion.]
26. That the present application was brought in bad faith being wholly speculative, anticipatory and highly provocative and ought to be dismissed. [This is an opinion/conclusion.]
27. That I depose to this counter-affidavit bona fide. [Note that the deponent is NOT deposing to the counter-affidavit in accordance with the Oaths Act. This most probably explains why the counter-affidavit is in the main opinions, conclusions and unsubstantiated generalizations.]

Parties as earlier agreed filed written addresses. The claimants’ is dated 5th August 2011.
Final Written Address of Claimants

1.0. Introduction
1.1 By the originating Summons dated the 19th day of July, 2011 and filed on the 21st of July, 2011, brought pursuant to Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, Section 46 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the Claimants are seeking from the court the determination of the following questions:
1. WHAT is the true meaning, purport, intendment and interpretation of the provisions of Section 36(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999?
2. WHETHER in the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over member or Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is not bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimant.
3 WHETHER by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant?
4. WHETHER by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the exercising disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimant.
1.2 AND THE CLAIMANTS seek the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the absence of the specific provisions to be followed in exercising investigative and disciplinary powers over member or officers of 1st Defendant in the constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant, acting for itself or on behalf of any of the national organs of 1st Defendant is bound to comply with the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
2. A DECLARATION that by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without EXPRESS authorization and/or delegation from the National Executive Council of the 1st Defendant?
3. A DECLARATION that by the wordings of the APPENDIX B (2) of the Constitution of 1st Defendant, the Central Working Committee (CWC) of 1st Defendant can exercise disciplinary powers over the 1st and 2nd Claimants without observing the rules of natural justice and the constitutional provision on fair hearing as stipulated in Section 36 (1) & (2) of the of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
4. A DECLARATION that the decision of Central Working Committee (CWC) of the 1st Defendant, presided over by the 2nd Defendant, to suspend 1st and 2nd Claimants indefinitely from their respective positions in the 1st Defendant, communicated to the Claimants via letters signed by the 3rd Defendant, dated 27th of June, 2011, on the basis of an anonymous petition against the 1st and 2nd Claimants, without a hearing give to the Claimants, is a violation of the Claimants’ rights to fair hearing under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and as such the suspension is unconstitutional, null and void.
5. AN ORDER setting aside, nullifying or voiding the said suspension of the 1st and 2nd Claimants AND re-instating them to their respective positions in the 1st Defendant with all the rights and privileges attached to the said positions.
1.3 In support of the Summons is an affidavit of 25 paragraphs deposed to by the 1st Claimant and 10 Exhibits marked as follows:
EXIHIBIT A1 & A2 – Exhibit A1&A2 are copies of a letter dated 9th of March, 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employers, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, signed by the 3rd Defendant, informing the said employer that the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant had s et up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against the Claimants in an anonymous petition and the anonymous petition.
EXHIBIT B – a copy of letter dated 14th of March, 2011, headed “REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI- UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of the Claimants’ employers, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, by the secretary of the said three-man investigating committee informing the said employer that the committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, on the 17th of March, 2011, to carry out their investigation as mandated by the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, under the leadership of the 2nd Defendant.
EXHIBIT C – an invitation letter dated 15th of March, 2011 from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, written to the 1st Claimant to report on the 17th of March, 2011, on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported by the 2nd Defendant.
EXHIBIT D – AN INVITATION LETTER DATED 17TH OF March, 2011 from Special Investigation and Intelligence Bureau (SIIB), Panti, Yaba, Lagos, written to the 2nd Claimant to report on the 17th of March, 2011, on an investigation being conducted by the Police on a case reported by the 2nd Defendant.
EXHIBIT E- a copy of the letter jointly written by 1st and 2nd Claimants to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform them of what transpired on the 1st day of the unannounced visit of the Investigation Committee and the request to be accorded a hearing.
EXHIBIT F1 & F2- copies of letters of indefinite suspension of the Claimants from all union positions and activities, dated 27th of June, 2011, signed by the 3rd Defendant under the directive of the Cental Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant presided over by the 2nd Defendant.
EXHIBIT G- a copy of the resolution taken at the general congress of the workers of the Claimants’ local branch of the 1st Defendant convened on the 7th of July, 2011, signed by about one hundred and ninety-one (191) members who were absent either for reasons of ill-health or leave, denouncing any connection with the said anonymous petition and demanded that suspension order be lifted.
EXHIBIT H- a copy of the constitution of the 1st Defendant.

Following the service of the Summons on the Defendants, the Defendants caused to be filed, through their Counsel, GODDY EZIMOHA Esq., a Memorandum of Appearance, dated 2nd day of August 2011 and a Counter Affidavit with its Annexures of two Exhibits, marked Exhibits AA1 & AA2, but the served copy of the counter-affidavit and exhibits are however undated and unsworn.
In the Submission, the Claimants shall rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons and Exhibits attached thereto, in Support of the Originating Summons. The Claimants shall also have cause to refer to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Defendants in arguing their case.
2.0. Statement of Facts
2.1 This action is instituted to challenge the unconstitutional suspension of the Claimants from all union positions and activities of the 1st Defendant by the Central Working Committee presided over by the 2nd Defendant through letters of indefinite suspension (Exhibits F1 & F2 in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, signed by the 3rd Defendant. It is the contention of the Claimants that the said suspension and exercise of the such disciplinary powers, in the manner in which it was exercised, are in contravention of the due process of the laws, with particular regard to Section 36 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 on the fair hearing and the rules of natural justice.
2.2 THE Claimants are members of 1st Defendant, which is the National Union of Chemical Footwear, Rubber, Leather and Non Metallic Products Employees and indeed the chairman and the secretary of the Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd Local branch of the 1st Defendant respectively.
2.3 THE 1ST defendant is the national umbrella union of all the parties, with control organs which include but not limited to the Central Working Committee, presided over by the 2nd Defendant, as the national president of the 1st Defendants, while the 3rd Defendant is the acting national secretary of the 1st Defendant.

2.4 Through Exhibits A1 in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons a letter dated 9th of March, 2011, written to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employer, Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd signed by the 3rd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant informed the Claimants’ employer that the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant had set up a committee to investigate some allegations leveled against the Claimants. It is of note here that his letter was addressed to the Personnel Manager of the Claimants’ employer, and not the Claimants, through it was marked under the writer’s initials, cc: Branch union secretary, among others. It is also of much note that the particulars of the said allegation, which was said to include “other sundry anti-union activities”, were never disclosed in the said letter and no annexure was attached or referred to.
2.5 Through Exhibit B in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, another letter dated 14th of March, 2011, headed “RE:REBATES, ILLEGAL LEVIES AND OTHER SUNDRY ANTI-UNION ACTIVITIES”, written to the Managing Director of the Claimants’ employers, the secretary of the said three-man investigating committee, one Inaede Thomas, informed the claimants’ employer that the investigating committee would be coming to the company i.e. Stallion Plastics Industries Ltd, to commence their investigation on the 17th of March, 2011.
2.6 However, through Exhibit AA2, attached to the Defendants’ Counter Affidavit, a letter dated 15th of March 2011, signed for the Claimants’ employer and addressed to the committee secretary as response to the Secretary’s letter of 14th of March 2011, the Claimants’ employer complai9ned of the shortness of the notice given to them and wrote in the concluding part of the letter.
“We hereby request you to kindly give us time to retrieve al the required documents and invite you to come and commence your investigation as soon as we are through”.
2.7 From the above, it is impliedly clear that the said Committee did not commence their investigation on the 17th of March, 2011, as requested, based on the response of the Claimants’ employer as soon above.
2.8 That all through the time till the Claimants were indefinitely suspended, no letter of formal information, notification or invitation was addressed to both the 1st and 2nd Claimants on the petition purportedly written against them, or on the particulars of the allegation contained therein or on the investigation to be conducted against them or even the place or date when the said investigating committee would be coming to meet with them.
2.9 However, without any notice or invitation to the Claimants, members of the said investigating committee suddenly appeared in the Claimants’ company on the 1st day of June, 2011 and announced, to the Claimants’ dismay that they had come to commence their sitting of their investigation on the allegation against the 1st and 2nd Claimants.
2.10 The Claimants therefore demanded for a copy of the said petition which, till then they had never been privileged to see and the Claimants additionally demanded to be given some time to study the petition and prepare their defence and it was on this note that the members of the committee rose that 1st day of June, 2011.
2.11 Following this encounter, the Claimants immediately wrote to the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendant through Exhibit E in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, a letter dated 1st of June, 2011, to inform the 2nd Defendant and the 3rd Defendants of what transpired on that day and the need to be accorded a hearing,
2.12 The Claimants did not receive a response form the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the said letter and did not hear from the investigating committee against till they received letters of indefinite suspension dated 27th of June, 2011, signed by the 3rd Defendant under the directive of the Central Working Committee of the 1st Defendant presided over by the 2nd Defendant and the reason for the suspension is “non co-operation with the investigation committee”.
2.13 The general congress of the workers of the Claimants’ local branch of the 1st Defendant however convened on the 7th of July, 2011, and through a resolution, Exhibit G in the Claimants’ Affidavit in support of the Summons, signed by about one hundred and ninety-one (191) members, with exception of the suspended Claimants, who, by the implication of their indefinite suspension from union position and activities are forbidden from participating in the local branch union congress and the deliberations, and about other ten members who were absent either for reasons of ill-health or leave, and addressed to the 2nd and 3rd

source: https://nicn.gov.ng/view-judgment/322