Alleged breach: PENGASSAN avoided court service, lawyer tells court



The National Industrial Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos has been informed that the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN), allegedly intentionally evaded service of a court order stopping it from holding its delegates conference.

Specifically, lawyer to the plaintiffs at the hearing of a suit by two claimants, Messrs John Nwanosike and Jonathan Omare, against PENGASSAN, over allegation of breach of their rights insisted that the association engaged the services of what he termed fierce looking dogs and the police to ward off the court bailiff and claimant from its premises.

The lawyer, Uche Muoneke consequently joined as defendants to the suit: 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 chambers of Mr Festus Keyamo and co, seeking an order, restraining the defendants from holding any delegates' conference, pending the determination of the suit.

At the last hearing of the matter, the defendants lawyer, Sola Iji, informed the court that he was entering an appearance under protest on the reason that the defendants were unaware of the case against them. The lawyer informed the court that he had not been served with any originating processes, or orders, but only got to know of the interim order 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.

However in reacting, the plaintiffs lawyer, Muoneke informed 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 baliff of the court alongside the claimant, had immediately proceeded to serve the orders on the defendants.

The lawyer explained 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. According to Muoneke, "They loosed their dogs from the bounds, and set them against the bailiff and claimant who took to their heels."

The plaintiffs lawyer notified the court further 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 effecting another service on the defence, "only if they would accept"

Muoneke insisted that the alleged conduct of the defendants, represents the height of disregard for a sacrosanct order of the court, just as he prayed the court to vacate all actions taken in contravention of its subsisting order.

Consequently the Industrial Court presided over by Justice Kenneth Amadi directed the claimants lawyer to effect service of the court processes on the defence counsel in the open court.

According to the judge, "Mr Sola Iji, have you now been served"?, with a quick response by Iji who stated that, "Yes my lord I have been served just now."

The matter has been adjourned till July 16, 2014 for hearing.

Justice Amadi then adjourned the case to July 16 for hearing. The plaintiffs had in their suit insisted that they were duly elected as delegates to the PENGASSAN conference.
They also informed the court 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 a Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos had when the matter was earlier brought before him issued an order of interim injunction, restraining the defendants from holding the conference, until the determination of the suit.