NIC dismisses case against labour minister, others
The National Industrial Court (NIC) has dismissed a suit filed by incorporated trustees of Tricycle Owners Association of Nigeria against Tricycle Owners Association of Nigeria (TOAN).
The Incorporate Trustee Tricycle Owners and operators instituted the suit against the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment, Minister for Labour and Employment, Registrar of Trade Unions, Tricycle Owners Association of Nigeria, Augustine Apeh, Babatunde Ayenogun (The 5th and 6th Defendants sued in their capacity as National Executives of the 4th Defendant), Attorney General of Lagos State, Commissioner for Transport, Lagos State as first to eight defendant respectively.
They want the court in the suit delineated NICN/LA /504/2016 to nullify the registration of the Tricycle Owners Association of Nigeria.
The claimant also wants court to order (seventh and eight defendant), Attorney General of Lagos State and Commissioner for Transport, Lagos State to stop recognizing the association.
The claimant is Incorporated Trustees of Tricycle Owners & Operators Association of Nigeria with its officers, Joseph Odusanya, Ganiyu Dauda and Shakirudeen Arowoye as first to the fourth claimant.
The issues determined was whether the 1st Claimant and the 2nd- 4th have the right to institute the suit, whether the court has the original jurisdiction to entertain this suit, whether the registration of the 4th Defendant is defective by reason of the existence of the Claimants and which body between 1st Claimant and 4th Defendant is entitle to organise Tricycle Owners and Operators as a trade union.
Justice E. A. Oji stated that the first Claimant, from whom the rights of the 2nd – 4th Claimants emanate, is an association registered under part C of Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
She stressed that the court has held severally that Associations registered under part C of CAMA, though they have capacity to sue and be sued, they do not have capacity to sue before NIC.
She added that 1st Claimant lacks the competence to bring the suit, acknowledging that though the legal status of the 1st Claimant as an association registered under part C of CAMA is not in doubt but that status robs it of right before the court.