The Presiding Judge, Yenagoa Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman has declared the Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council’s interference or involvement in the affairs of the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu Mile 3, Diobu, Port Harcourt as unconstitutional, null and void.
The Court granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council or her agents, assigns, privies or cohort from wading into the affairs of the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu unless on the invitation of the association.
Justice Polycarp granted a consequential order, nullified any results or outcomes of any election conducted by the Port-Harcourt Local Government Council during the pendency of the suit and ordered for a fresh election to be conducted to fill any vacancies in the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu.
However, the Court refused the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu’s claim for the sum of N19.4m special damages for lack of proof.
From facts, the claimant- Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu had submitted that as a registered/incorporated body, it has the right to associate and conduct its affairs including elections without hindrance from the Local Government Council.
The association averred that the right to associate and belong to any group including trade unions and political parties is sacrosanct and the act of the Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council in interfering with the activities and management of the claimant is in violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
In defence, the Defendant- Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council contended that the incorporation of the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu was done without the consent and authority of the members of the Association and further that the council being the owner of the Ultramodern Market Nkpolu is also the regulator of the market pursuant to the Fourth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The Council maintained that it has been supervising the conduct of elections in the association, and the association normally appoints an election committee known as ELECO which also serves as a caretaker committee when the tenure of the elected executives elapses, urged the court to dismiss the case and grant the counter-claims sought.
In opposition, the learned counsel to the association, T. U. Nmah Esq argued that the actions of the Portharcourt Council in conducting election and or appointing executives for the Modern Market assocition constitute acts of interference and obstruction to the activities of his client and urged the court to dismiss the counter-claims and grant the reliefs sought.
In a well-considered judgment, the Presiding Judge, Justice Polycarp Hamman held that the argument of the Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council that the incorporation of the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu was done without the consent and authority of the members of the Association to amend the 1994 Constitution of the Association was misconceived and further that Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council cannot object to the registration of the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu via the suit as the Court has no jurisdiction to look into the registration of entities pursuant to the Companies and Allied Matters Act.
Justice Polycarp held that the regulation envisaged by the constitutional provision on the function of the Local Government Council does not include foisting on the marketers who should lead their association.
Justice Polycarp faulted the Port-Harcourt City Local Government Council for flouting an order of the court restraining it from conducting elections or appointing caretaker or electoral committee for the Registered Trustees of Ultra Modern Market Nkpolu Oroworukwu on the 5th day of March 2021 despite being duly served.
Justice Polycarp stressed that no court of law will sit and watch a litigant flout its order, particularly when it is confirmed that such order was brought to the notice of the said litigant.
“What the defendant did in this case was to flagrantly disobey the Order by calling the bluff of this Honourable Court. This court therefore deprecates in the strongest terms the shameless and blatant attitude of the defendant, which should never go unpunished if the Court is to preserve its image and dignity.”
“No result of such election conducted during the pendency of the order of this Court should be allowed to stand. This will send a clear signal and message to not just the defendant but other litigants to desist from such barefaced and brazen conducts in the future.” The Court ruled.
On the counter-claim, Justice Polycarp held that the defendant who brazenly flouted the order of the Honourable Court is not deserving of any discretion from the same Court it disregarded, and dismissed the counter-claims in its entirety.
