Court adjourns suit against PENGASSAN till July 16

Counsel to some members of Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria, PENGASSAN, on Monday, told the National Industrial Court sitting in Lagos, that PENGASSAN deliberately evaded service of a court order restraining it from holding its delegates conference, by employing the services of fierce looking dogs and the police to ward off the court bailiff and claimant from its premises.

Counsel to claimants, Mr Uche Muoneke made the disclosure at the resumed hearing of a suit by Mr John Nwanosike and Jonathan Omare, against PENGASSAN, over alleged breach of their rights.

Defendants in the suit are PENGASSAN, its Chevron Branch, Mr Esanubi Frank and Mr Ayanate Kio.

The plaintiffs who are members of the Chevron branch of the association, had initiated the suit against the defendant through the counsel, seeking an order, restraining the defendants from holding any delegates' conference, pending the determination of the suit.

When the case was called on Monday, counsel to defendants, Mr Sola Iji informed the court that he was entering an appearance under protest on the grounds that the defendants were unaware of the case against them.

Counsel told the court that he had not been served with any originating processes, or orders, but only got wind of the interim orders made by the court from a different source, and had immediately rushed to court to obtain a certified true copy, only to be told that the copies had yet to be signed.

But reacting, Muoneke told the court that even the mere presence of the defence counsel in court today, was a clear contradiction of his submissions, since he was fully aware of every step in the proceedings.

Muoneke explained that shortly after the court had issued the interim orders restraining the delegates conference, the bailiff of the court alongside the claimant, had immediately proceeded to serve the orders on the defendants.

He said that the defendants, been fully aware of the position, tactically refused service, by employing the services of dogs and the police, to chase the bailiff and claimant from their premises.

"They loosed their dogs from the bounds, and set them against the bailiff and claimant who took to their heels" he said.

He told the court that the defendants still went ahead to hold its delegates conference, after ensuring that they had successfully evaded service of the orders, and despite clear knowledge of the order by the defence counsel.

He said that it was preposterous for the defence counsel who ought to be an officer in the temple of justice, to have encouraged his clients to go on with the conference, rather than ensuring that the dignity of the court was preserved.

He also told the court that the defence had also put up similar attitude in relation to service of the originating processes on them, adding that he would try another service on the defence, "only if they would accept"

According to Muoneke, the conduct of the defendants, represents the height of disregard for a sacrosanct order of the court, and urged the court to vacate all actions taken in contravention of its subsisting order.

Justice Amadi at this point, ordered the claimant counsel to effect service of the court processes on the defence counsel in the open court, and to the glare of all.

The judge then asked firmly: "Mr Sola Iji, have you now been served"?

Iji in a quick response said: "yes my lord I have been served just now."

Justice Amadi then adjourned the case to July 16 for hearing.

The judge added that since the action was one by originating summons, he would hear both the motion on notice and the main suit together.

It would be recalled that the plaintiffs had initially filed the suit before a Federal High Court in Lagos, but had had to file a notice of discontinuance of the suit, following an objection raised by the defendants.

The defendants had challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the suit, which they claim was labour related.

Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted a fresh suit before the NIC, by way of ex-parte application, seeking similar reliefs.

In their affidavit, the plaintiffs averred that they were duly elected as delegates to the PENGASSAN conference, adding that their tenure was valid for a term of three years.

They averred that the defendants, canceled their names as delegates, before the expiration of their tenure, thereby denying them the right to vote and be voted for at the conference.

The plaintiffs averred that in a bid to also prevent them from exercising their franchise, the second and third defendants set up a disciplinary committee to try them after they expressed the fear that their rights were been trampled.

According to them, the panel declared them guilty even when there was no evidence against them, as to the commission of any offence.

The plaintiffs therefore, seeks a declaration that the removal of their names as delegates to the Zonal conference and National Conference, was unconstitutional.

They also seek an order, mandating the defendants to include their names, as delegates, and an order of perpetual injunction, restraining them from holding the conference, until the illegality occasioned by their removal was redressed.

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court, had earlier in May, also granted an order of interim injunction, restraining the defendants from holding the conference, until the determination of the suit.

The plaintiff had however, also informed the court that the defendant flouted the order of court, and had gone ahead to hold the conference, despite of been served with the interim order.