Court Fines TUC, PENGASSAN N10m for Flouting Injunction in ASSBIFI’s Suit

Newsflash Nigeria StaffJune 6, 2023

2 minutes read

The National Industrial Court in Lagos has dismissed the suit filed by the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) and nine others against the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), challenging the outcome of the 11th Triennial Delegates Conference held on June 28, 2019 at NAF Center Abuja.

Justice Rabiu Gwandu ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was any valid agreement or resolution reached and ratified at the conference that entitled them to produce and assume the office of the President of the TUC for the year 2022 to 2025.

He also held that the plaintiffs did not tender any documentary evidence to support their claim, and that the video clip they relied on did not show the full details of any obligations that may or may not arise from it.

The judge, however, faulted the defendants for disobeying the court orders and ordered them to pay N10 million as penalty into the account of the Court Registrar.

The plaintiffs had sought an order of the court mandating, directing and compelling the TUC and PENGASSAN to enable them produce and assume the office of the President of the TUC in line with the alleged agreements and resolutions reached and ratified at the conference.

Labour’s Demand N200,000 Minimum Wage After Fuel Price Increase: Shehu Sani Reacts

The defendants had filed preliminary objections, challenging the locus standi of the plaintiffs and the disclosure of any reasonable cause of action or a justiciable dispute.

The defendants had also argued that the TUC’s constitution is supreme and that the national officers of the union must be elected during the conference notwithstanding any agreement or resolution that may have been reached to favour any candidate.

The court dismissed the defendants’ objections for lacking merit and berated their counsel for referring to the bench ruling and order of injunction granted by the court which they flagrantly disobeyed as scandalous.

The court said: “It is disheartening that counsel would be present when the order of this court was disobeyed. Counsel also had the duty to have informed my brother judge in Abuja that there existed a prior order which they were present when it was made, but they chose to be silent and use that contradicting order to their advantage. This does not show good faith on the part of counsel to the defendants.”