JATAU TETE YOHANNA & ORS V. AGBASHI GABRIEL & ORS (2020)

Background

This appeal arose from proceedings commenced by originating summons before the National Industrial Court, Makurdi Judicial Division, in Suit No. NICN/LAF/01/2014. The appellants, principally members and representatives of the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), sought declarations that the Conference of Secondary School Tutors (COSST), also described as the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools (ASUSS), Nasarawa State Chapter, was not a registered trade union under the Trade Union (Amendment) Act 2005. They also sought orders restraining the Nasarawa State Government and its officials from recognising COSST or ASUSS as a trade union, and an order directing the deduction and remittance of check-off dues from secondary school tutors to the NUT.

The appellants sued Agbashi Gabriel and Bello Kwara as representatives of COSST/ASUSS Nasarawa State Chapter, together with various Nasarawa State government officials. The 1st and 2nd respondents and the 3rd–6th respondents filed preliminary objections challenging the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court. The trial court upheld the objections, holding that the proper legal entity, the Incorporated Trustees of COSST, had not been joined and that the action constituted an abuse of court process because substantially the same dispute had previously been determined by the Nasarawa State High Court. The suit was struck out, leading to this appeal.

Issues

1. Whether suing the 1st and 2nd respondents for and on behalf of COSST/ASUSS was a mere misnomer capable of correction by amendment.
2. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were proper parties and whether the action was competent without joining the Incorporated Trustees of COSST.
3. Whether the subsequent action was an abuse of court process and barred by res judicata.
4. Whether the trial court wrongly treated the earlier decisions as binding or relied on a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
5. Whether the refusal to determine COSST’s alleged right to practise trade unionism deprived the appellants of rights under the Trade Union and Labour legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court distinguished a misnomer from suing the wrong person. A misnomer occurs where the correct person or legal entity is before the court but is described by an incorrect name. In such a case, the court should ordinarily permit an amendment where the identity of the intended party is clear and no party has been misled. However, this case involved more than an incorrect description. The appellants knew that COSST was a registered parent body and that the 1st and 2nd respondents were merely the chairman and secretary of its Nasarawa State branch. They nevertheless sued the individuals rather than the Incorporated Trustees of COSST.

The court reiterated that only natural persons and artificial persons or bodies granted juristic personality by statute may sue or be sued. The Certificate of Registration showed that the Incorporated Trustees of COSST had become a corporate body under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act and could sue or be sued in that corporate capacity. Individual members or officers of a branch could not defend or prosecute an action on behalf of the registered body merely because they held office within it. Since COSST was a necessary party, the court could not make an effective or enforceable order concerning its rights in its absence.

Court Findings

The court held that no order can bind or be enforced against a person or body that is not a party to the proceedings. The failure to join COSST was therefore a jurisdictional defect, not a technical defect curable by invoking section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. The names of the 1st and 2nd respondents were properly struck out, and the remaining claims could not be determined in COSST’s absence.

The court also upheld the finding of abuse of court process. An earlier Nasarawa State High Court judgment in Suit No. NSD/LF9m/2002 had declared that the COSST applicants had a fundamental right to associate and could not be compelled to belong to the NUT. The NUT’s appeal was dismissed on 7 February 2006, leaving that judgment valid and subsisting. The later 2014 proceedings sought reliefs substantially overlapping with the earlier declarations and injunctions. The court concluded that the parties or their privies, the subject matter and the essential issues were materially the same.

For res judicata to apply, the parties or privies must be the same, the issues or cause of action must be the same, the subject matter must be the same, the earlier decision must be final and subsisting, and it must have been delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Those conditions were satisfied. Res judicata operates not only against the parties but also against the court, depriving it of jurisdiction to reopen a matter already finally determined.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The Court of Appeal affirmed the National Industrial Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction and its striking out of the suit. Costs of N100,000 were awarded in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents.

Significance

The decision demonstrates the importance of identifying and joining the correct juristic party, particularly where an incorporated trusteeship or registered association is involved. It also confirms that a claimant cannot recast an earlier dispute through new declarations or additional parties to evade the finality of judgment. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court where a necessary legal person is absent or where the proceeding is barred by res judicata.