NICN Suspension Deduction Suit 2020 NMA NARD

1
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN IN ENUGU
Suit No: NICN/EN/ /2020
BETWEEN
DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK .............................................................................. PLAINTIFF
AND
1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ...........1ST DEFENDANT
2. PROF INNOCENT UJAH (President, Nigerian Medical Association) ............... 2ND DEFENDANT
3. DR J. O. T. ONYIA (For and on behalf of himself and Nigerian Medical Association Enugu state
Branch) ..................................................................................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT
4. DR UYILAWA OKHUAIHESUYI (For and on behalf of himself and the Nigerian Association of Resident
Doctors-NARD) ......................................................................................... 4TH DEFENDANT
5. DR CHIMA EDOGA (For and on behalf of himself and the Association of Resident Doctors ESUT
Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu state) .................................................. 5TH DEFENDANT
THE NAMES AND DESCRIPTION AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES
CLAIMANT:
1. Dr Awkadigwe Ikenna Fredrick is Male, Adult, Specialist Medical Practitioner in the Department of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology at ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu, Christian and Nigerian citizen.
He is a member of all the defendant associations. His Address is Department of Obstetrics and
Gynaecology, ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu. Phone: 08039555380. Email:
awkadigweikenna@gmail.com
DEFENDANTS:
2
1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION is the stated Incorporated
Trustees of the Nigerian Medical Association. The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) is the national
association for all the medical and dental practitioners in Nigeria. Address is Nigerian Medical
Association National Secretariat: 8 Benghazi Street, Off Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse Zone 4, FCT, Abuja,
Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494
2. PROF INNOCENT UJAH is the current president and representative of the Nigerian Medical
Association. Address is Prof Innocent Ujah, President of the Nigerian Medical Association, Nigerian
Medical Association National Secretariat: 8 Benghazi Street, Off Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse Zone 4,
FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494
3. DR J. O. T. ONYIA is the incumbent Chairman of the Nigerian Medical Association Enugu State Branch.
Address is Nigerian Medical Association Enugu State Branch Office at No 29 Abakaliki Road, G.R.A Enugu
in Enugu state. Phone 08063810681
4. DR UYILAWA OKHUAIHESUYI is the incumbent President of the Nigerian Association of Resident
Doctors (NARD). The Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors is the national association of all the
resident medical and dental practitioners in Nigeria. Address is the Nigerian Association of Resident
Doctors Secretariat at No 6 Darioa Street, Wuse, Zone 1, Abuja. Phone: 08035935832
5. DR CHIMA EDOGA is the incumbent President of the Association of Resident Doctors (ARD) of ESUT
Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu. This is the Enugu State Branch of the Nigerian Association of Resident
Doctors. Address is Department of Ophthalmology, ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Enugu
state. Phone: 08063286165
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 2 RULE 4, ORDER 3 RULES 1, 2 , 3, 16 &17 AND ORDER 4 RULE 2 OF
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2016, SECTION 600
3
COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT (CAMA) 1990 (NOW SECTION 835 CAMA 2020), SECTION 36,
40 AND 254 (C) (1) (A) (B) (D) (J-{VI}) & (K) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
NIGERIA, 1999 (AS AMENDED BY THE THIRD ALTERATION ACT, 20103) AND UNDER THE INHERENT
JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
LET THE DEFENDANTS WITHIN THIRTY (14) DAYS after service of this Summons on them, inclusive of the
day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this Summons issued upon the
application of the Plaintiff herein named whose address is Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu, Enugu state, who seeks the determination of the following
Questions and claims the Reliefs set out hereunder:3
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the disciplinary action meted out on the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit Numbers NICN/EN/26/2019
and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said association, is hereby not against natural justice, equity and
good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff to force the hand of justice.
2. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st defendant
association, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit Numbers
NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said 1st defendant association, is hereby not
against natural justice, equity and good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff to
force the hand of justice.
3. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from the 3rd and
5th defendant associations, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suit with Suit
Number NICN/EN/26/2019 against the said associations, is hereby not against natural justice, equity and
4. Whether the disciplinary action initiated against the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association through
its National Executive Council (NEC) headed by the 2nd defendant without the requisite assertainment
of fact as provided by the 1st defendant association's Constitution during the pendency of the suit which
4
institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent referral of plaintiff by the NEC to appeal
to the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) which has the only power of adoption and ratification of the
said disciplinary action by the NEC of the association, the ADM also headed by the 2nd Defendant, is
thereby not reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the principles of natural justice,
equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of association, fair
hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws particularly Sections 34(1),
36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and
and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN
2004)
5. Whether the defendant associations have the powers to control their respective associations as they
wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and the CAMA.
6. Whether a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association can abrogate the statutory
association-membership rights of the plaintiff to participate in the association's general meetings and
resolutions (including resolutions to alter the association constitution and vote in officers of the
association), by using the instruments of the association's constitution made in gross violation of section
835 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 (previously section 600 CAMA 1990) without
the plaintiff's consent; and hand such rights over to an unelected organ of the association that does not
represent the interest of the plaintiff.
7. Whether in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu state branch
association constitutions of the 1st defendant association, the 3rd defendant can hand pick Delegates to
the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.

5
8. Whether the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of section 600
CAMA 1990 (re-enacted as section 835 CAMA 2020), are hereby not illegal, void and invalid, and all
those officials elected on the basis of the said void Association Constitutions, and all their purported
actions on behalf of the association were not hereby rendered null and void and of no effect, the said
officials having occupied those official positions for the associations illegally.
9. Whether in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant association can
validly sit and perversely find, and overrule the decision of a Nigerian superior court of record made in
favour of the Plaintiff on the application of the 1st defendant; so much so that the 1st defendant
association goes ahead to mete out a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based purely on such
perverse finding.
10. Whether in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the circumstances of this case
and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association can legally and validly, without
malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on one and the same
subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of both pathways.
11. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is compelled to belong to, and thus
be conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of the Plaintiff being a
medical practitioner in Nigeria.
12. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the Trade
Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended), the 3rd, 4th and 5th
Defendant associations are Registered and Recognised Trade Union organizations, that can enjoy the
rare statutory privilege of demanding and receiving their membership dues or levies directly deducted
from the source of salary of the plaintiff medical practitioner who is a member of the said associations.
6
defendant associations can lawfully demand and receive from the employer of the plaintiff medical
practitioner, in Nigeria, the association dues or levies of their respective associations, directly from the
source of the salary of this practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the practitioner's
written approval to the employers to that effect.
14. Whether the acts of the defendant associations illegally deducting plaintiff's salary from source,
imposing an illegal NMA Building Levy on the plaintiff, denying plaintiff his statutory association
participatory rights after conscription into the associations, maliciously suspending and widely
publishing the suspension of the plaintiff from all the medical associations in Nigeria during the
pendency of the suits because plaintiff came to this Honourable Court to ventilate these grievances, and
referring plaintiff to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for deregistration from the Medical
Register, are thereby not reprehensible, and gross violations of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of
association, access to court, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian
Laws particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria as amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification
and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the plaintiff is hereby not entitled to the full refund of all
those monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's salary without his consent, totalling so far
N365,800.00 as verifiable from the payslips of the plaintiff from the year 2013-2020, and all the Reliefs
sought, general and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit
15. Whether the Plaintiff has thereby not suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the wicked hands
of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for the time
7
being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted the plaintiff
by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.
RELIEFS SOUGHT
1. A DECLARATION that the disciplinary action meted out on the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant
association consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit Numbers
NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said association, is hereby against natural
justice, equity and good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff to force the hand of
justice.
2. A DECLARATION that the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st
defendant association, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit
Numbers NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said 1st defendant association, is
hereby against natural justice, equity and good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff
to force the hand of justice.
3. A DECLARATION that the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from
the 3rd and 5th defendant associations, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suit
with Suit Number NICN/EN/26/2019 against the said associations, is hereby against natural justice,
equity and good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff to force the hand of justice.
association through its National Executive Council headed by the 2nd defendant without the requisite
assertainment of fact as provided by the 1st defendant association's Constitution during the pendency
of the suit which institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent ratification of the said
disciplinary action by the Annual Delegates Meeting of the association also headed by the 2nd
8
Defendant, is thereby reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the principles of natural
justice, equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of
and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004)
5. A DECLARATION that the defendant associations do not have the powers to control their respective
associations as they wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA.
6. A DECLARATION that a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association cannot abrogate
the statutory association-membership rights of the plaintiff to participate in the association's general
meetings and resolutions (including resolutions to alter the association constitution and vote in officers
of the association), by using the instruments of the association's constitution made in gross violation of
section 835 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 (previously section 600 CAMA 1990)
without the plaintiff's consent; and hand such rights over to an unelected organ of the association that
does not represent the interest of the plaintiff.
7. A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu state
branch association constitutions of the 1st defendant association, the 3rd defendant cannot hand pick
Delegates to the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.
8. A DECLARATION that the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of
section 600 CAMA 1990 (re-enacted as section 835 CAMA 2020), are hereby illegal, void and invalid, and
all those officials elected on the basis of the said void Association Constitutions, and all their purported
9
actions on behalf of the association were thereby rendered null and void and of no effect, the said
9. A DECLARATION that in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant
association cannot validly sit and perversely find, and overrule the decision of a Nigerian superior court
of record made in favour of the Plaintiff on the application of the 1st defendant; so much so that the 1st
defendant association goes ahead to mete out a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based purely on
such perverse finding.
10. A DECLARATION that in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the circumstances
of this case and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association cannot legally and
validly, without malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on
one and the same subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of both
pathways.
11. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is not compelled to
belong to, and thus be not conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of
the Plaintiff being a medical practitioner in Nigeria.
Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended), the 3rd, 4th and 5th
Defendant associations are not Registered and Recognised Trade Union organizations, that can enjoy
the rare statutory privilege of demanding and receiving their membership dues or levies directly
deducted from the source of salary of the plaintiff medical practitioner who is a member of the said
associations.
10
Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended), the 3rd, 4th and 5th
Defendant associations cannot lawfully demand and receive from the employer of the plaintiff medical
source of the salary of the plaintiff practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the said
practitioner's written approval to the employers to that effect.
14. A DECLARATION that the acts of the defendant associations deducting plaintiff's salary from source,
suspending plaintiff maliciously from the associations and denying plaintiff his statutory association
participatory rights after conscription into the associations, are thereby reprehensible, and gross
violations of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of association, access to court, fair hearing and dignity of
human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and
254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and and the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the
plaintiff is hereby entitled to the full refund of all those monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's
salary without the his consent, totalling so far N365,800.00 from the payslips of the plaintiff from the
year 2014-2020, and all the Reliefs sought, general and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit.
15. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff has thereby suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the wicked
hands of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for the
time being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted the
plaintiff by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.
16. A DECLARATION that it is only an employee, in this case the plaintiff, that has the legal capacity to
demand for deduction of his salary from source, and not the Officers of the non-trade union defendant
associations acting on behalf.

11
17. A DECLARATION that the following parts of the 1st defendant association constitution are void and
are a nullity viz Articles 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, the 1st Schedule to the constitution and any other
part of the constitution giving general meeting authority to the Delegates Meeting.
18. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the defendants to join hands with the Plaintiff and
other medical and dental practitioners licensed in Nigeria to immediately produce brand new or any
part thereof as the Honourable Court may declare void of the association constitutions for the 1st and
4th defendant associations to enable the Plaintiff exercise his full franchise at the national elections of
the 1st and 4th defendant associations as well as participate fully in reaching binding resolutions at the
associations' general meetings.
19. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court immediately invalidating all the suspensions placed on the
Plaintiff by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations as being contemptuous of court,
unlawful, malicious, vindictive and gross violation of the constitutions of the respective associations,
principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, and the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
20. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations to
transmit forthwith elaborate letters of apology to the plaintiff, and immediately publish same in two
National Dailies of Plaintiff's choice.
21. AN ORDER directing the defendant associations to immediately return the Plaintiff to all those online
and offline association platforms from where the Plaintiff was removed, from the time of instituting the
suit numbers FHC/EN/CS/02/2019, NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019, as well as pay to the
plaintiff the cost of this suit estimated at N2Million only.
22. AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and their associations jointly and
severally to immediately pay to the plaintiff the sum of so far N365,800.00 being the currently available
12
computed aggregate unauthorized amount deducted directly from the source of salary of the Plaintiff
from December 2013 till the time of institution of this suit.
23. AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and their associations jointly and
severally to immediately pay to the plaintiff the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira)
being exemplary damages for their wilful, calculated, vindictive, malicious and unlawful ill-treatment of
the plaintiff, as well as the illegal acts of the defendants and their associations that have left the plaintiff
in an undeserved grilling agony and untold hardships over these affected years for standing on the path
of truth.
24. An Order of perpetual injunction against the 1st to 5th defendants and their associations from
demanding and receiving or further demanding and receiving of their association membership dues and
any other levies whatsoever, from source of salary.
25. An Order of mandatory injuction directing the 1st to 5th defendants and their associations to
withdraw forthwith all those written or oral applications and demands so far made for the purposes of
deduction of their association dues or levies from source of salary.
26. SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem just to make in the
circumstances of this case.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that if a Defendant intends to oppose the matter, a response shall be filed by
such Defendant in accordance with the provisions of Order 15 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 within fourteen (14)
days of service of this Complaint, failing which the matter may be set down for default judgment and
order for costs may be granted against that respondent.
Dated this............day of ..................... 2020

13
By order of the Court
.......................................
Registrar13
MEMORANDUM TO BE SUBSCRIBED ON THE COMPLAINT
N.B.: This Complaint is to be served within six calendar months from the date thereof, or, if renewed,
within three calendar months from the date of the last renewal, including the day of such date, and not
afterwards.The Defendant may enter appearance personally or by legal practitioner either by handing in
the appropriate forms, duly completed, at the Registry of the National industrial Court of the Judicial
Division in which the action is brought or by sending them to the Registrar by registered post or as
provided in Order 7, Rule 1 of these Rules.
Endorsement to be made on copy of Complaint forthwith after service:
This Complaint was served by me at ............................. the Defendant (here insert mode of service) on
the ......day of.............2020. Endorsed the ...day of .............. 2020. Signed...........................
Address…........................ The address must be within the jurisdiction.
The Registry, National Industrial Court of Nigeria.
In the Enugu Judicial Division
A sufficient affidavit in verification of the endorsement on this Complaint to authorize the sealing
thereof had been produced to me this ....... Day of........................ 2020
....................................................
Signature of Registrar
14
THIS Originating Summons was taken out by the Plaintiff Dr Awkadigwe Fredrick Ikenna whose address
for service is Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu, Enugu
state.
DATED …....... DAY OF…………………..2020
DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK
Plaintiff's Address for Service:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu
08039555380
NB: If the Defendants do not enter appearance within the time and at the place mentioned above, such
order(s) will be made and the proceedings may be taken as the Judge deems just and expedient.
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Nigerian Medical Association National Secretariat: 8 Benghazi Street, Off Addis Ababa Crescent, Wuse
Zone 4, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494
2. PROF INNOCENT UJAH
3. DR JOT ONYIA
Nigerian Medical Association Enugu State Branch Office at No 29 Abakaliki Road, G.R.A Enugu in Enugu
state. Phone 08063810681
4. DR UYILAWA OKHUAIHESUYI
15
Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors Secretariat at No 6 Darioa Street, Wuse, Zone 1, Abuja. Phone:
08035935832
5. DR CHIMA EDOGA
Department of Ophthalmology, ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Enugu state. Phone:
08063286165
HOLDEN IN ENUGU
BETWEEN
DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK .............................................................................. CLAIMANT
AND
16
3. DR JOT ONYIA (For and on behalf of himself and Nigerian Medical Association Enugu state
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
I, DR FREDRICK IKENNA AWKADIGWE, Male, Adult, Specialist Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu, a Christian, Nigerian
citizen, do hereby state as follows:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in this suit and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts of the
case. All my averments here are from my personal knowledge and experience. I hereby attach a copy of
my Certificate of Registration as a medical practitioner as Exhibit Awkadigwe 1.
2. That I know as a fact that this suit is about the interpretation of relevant laws and documents as they
affect me as a member of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations in this suit.
3. That I know as a fact that the 1st Defendant is the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Medical
Association (NMA) which is a bi-professional association to be registered under the repealed Land
Perpetual Succession Act, Cap. 98, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1958, for the members of the
medical and dental professions in Nigeria for their eligibility to practice medicine, and the protection of
the welfare of medical and dental practitioners in Nigeria in their workplaces, and other sundry
objectives.
4. That I know as a fact that the 2nd Defendant is the incumbent President of the 1st defendant
association elected into office this year using the 2017 constitution of the 1st defendant association by
the Annual Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.
5. That I know as a fact that the 3rd defendant is the incumbent chairman of the 3rd defendant
association which is the Enugu state branch of the 1st defendant association.
6. That I know as a fact that the 4th defendant is the current President of the Nigerian Association of
Resident Doctors, an association of all the medical and dental practitioners in Residency Training
Programme in Nigeria.
17
7. That I know as a fact that the 5th defendant is the current President of the Association of Resident
Doctors ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu, which is the ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu
branch of the 4th defendant association.
8. That I know as a fact that I am a Senior resident doctor in ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu and
by virtue of my being a resident doctor, I have belonged to the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant
associations.
9. That I know as a fact that my membership of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations were automatic
and by conscription immediately I registered as a medical practitioner with the Medical and Dental
Council of Nigeria (MDCN) and started paying my annual practicing fee to the MDCN. Exactly 70% of my
annual practicing fee is remitted to the 1st defendant association as my association annual subscription.
10. That I know as a fact that my membership of the 4th and 5th defendant associations was also by
conscription immediately I got appointed as a resident doctor in ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu,
having been compelled without prior information or consent to pay the monthly dues and levies of the
4th and 5th defendant associations directly deducted from the source of my salary.
11. That I know as a fact that the source deduction of monthly dues and levies of the 4th and 5th
defendant associations was also expanded and extended to the source deductions of monthly dues and
levies of the 3rd defendant association from my salary.
12. That I know as a fact that the 5th defendant association has been demanding, and taking delivery of
the direct deductions of monthly dues and levies from source of salaries of all the resident doctors in
ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu on behalf of the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations,
through the Accountant General of Enugu state and remitting parts of the money to the 3rd and 4th
defendant associations on worked out terms and conditions. A copy of one of such receipts of
remittance of such monies is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 2. A copy of one of such
letters of demand for deductions from source is also attached as Exhibit Awkadigwe 3. These letters
always did not pass through the right administrative channels.
13. That I know as a fact that the 4th and 5th defendant associations are plain associations and thus not
statutory corporations. They are also not registered or recognized Trade Union Organizations in Nigeria.
14. That I know as a fact that the 1st and 3rd defendant associations are the national body and state
branch of the 1st defendant association (NMA). The NMA is currently incorporated under the
Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 as an Incorporated Trustees.
15. That I know as a fact that the NMA is also not a registered or recognized Trade Union organization in
Nigeria.
16. That I know as a fact that the NMA is an association relating to my employment, labour, and my
work place. I cannot be employed or work as a resident doctor if I do not belong to the NMA effective on
my paying of my annual subscriptions to the 1st defendant association which are 70% of my statutory
practising fees. The 1st defendant association, which all the medical and dental practitioners in Nigeria
18
belong to on equal grounds, also engages government on workplace welfare concerns from time to
time.
17. That I know as a fact that the 1st defendant association is currently recognized by the Medical and
Dental Council of Nigeria as the Nigeria Medical Association referred to in the Medical and Dental
Practitioners Act Cap. M8 LFN 2004 (as amended), which shall receive 70% of the aggregate sum of the
practising fees paid by medical and dental practitioners to the Council annually for the operation of the
1st defendant association.
18. That I know as a fact that all the final binding decisions of the 1st defendant association, and the
final ratifications of such decisions are made by its National Executive Council (NEC) and the Annual
Delegates Meeting (ADM) comprising those designated Delegates in the constitution of the 1st
defendant association, none of which activities I am allowed to participate in. I also am not allowed to
vote at the election of the National Officers of the 1st defendant association, an association that I am a
full member, which membership is for the time being in force. A copy of my remita receipt for the
payment of my practicing fee for the year 2020, 70% of which is my annual subscription to the 1st
defendant association for the year 2020 is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit Awkadigwe 4.
19. That I know as a fact that only those designated Delegates by the constitution of the 1st and 4th
defendant associations are allowed to participate in the binding meetings of the 1st and 4th defendant
associations. It is only the Delegates that elect the national officers of the said associations. It is also only
the Delegates that participate and make final binding resolutions for the entire associations, including
discipline and amendment of the constitutions of the 1st and 4th defendant associations. The
Constitutions of the 1st and 4th defendant associations have no provision for the Annual General
Meeting of the associations with a final say in critical association matters like election of officers,
constitutional amendments and disposal actions on major association projects and disciplinary matters.
20. That I know as a fact that the said Delegates, as provided in the 1st defendant association
constitution, constitute only 0.5% (ie 1 in 200 members) of the entire membership of the 1st defendant
association, and those Delegates are erratically handpicked by the state branch chairmen without
constitutional backing and with no recourse to the state branch association Congresses.
21. That I know as a fact that the handpicked Delegates, who are not elected by the members of the 1st
defendant association, are made the highest decision making body of the 1st defendant association
pursuant to the 1st defendant association Constitution, and only those Delegates vote at the elections of
the National Officers of the 1st defendant association, make or amend the constitution of the
association, decide the fate of all the members of the association including disciplinary actions against
members, prescribe levies as they wished, and have access to information about the working of the
association including all the hushed information about the financial dealings of the association by its
national officers.
22. That I know as a fact that upon payment of my annual medical practising fee, I become entitled to
participate in the activities of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations as a full member by conscription. I
am also conscripted into the membership of the 4th and 5th defendant associations on my enrolment
19
into the salary platform of the Enugu State government as a resident doctor, and on the unauthorised
deductions made on my salary at source as the association monthly dues and levies for the 3rd, 4th and
5th defendant associations.
23. That I know as a fact that as a member of the 1st and 4th defendant associations, I have not been
able to protect my personal interests in the association as I have never been allowed, as a rudimentary
statutory entitlement, to vote at the national elections where the national officers who lead the 1st
defendant associations are elected.
24. That in addition to being disenfranchised from electing the National Officers of the 1st and 4th
defendant associations which I am currently a full member, having paid my 2020 practising fee, that I am
not allowed to participate or vote in the resolutions at the national meetings of the 1st and 4th
defendant associations where critical decisions are taken concerning issues that compulsorily affect me
and the vast majority of the members of the 1st and 4th defendant associations, including the decisions
as to direct deductions from my salary. Only the unelected Delegates constituting 0.5% of the entire
membership of the association are permitted to do this pursuant to the autocratic, despotic, illegal and
outdated NMA and NARD constitutions. I cannot push for the amendment of these Constitutions
because I, and 99.5% of members of the associations do neither have participatory rights at the
meetings nor voting rights at the call for binding resolutions, pursuant to the illegal provisions of the 1st
defendant association constitution.
25. That the voting power of a Delegate is equated to and equals the voting power of an aggregated
number of 200 full members of the association, thereby drowning the voice of many members by the
vote of one Delegate who incidentally contributes financially equally as every other ordinary member.
26. That I know as a fact that the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) which regulates
Incorporated Trustees made it mandatory that incorporated associations shall have a general meeting of
all the members (not Delegates) of the association for taking important resolutions especially as it
affects the amendment of association constitutions, appointment of Trustees and other issues. I am not
also permitted to participate in meetings of the association where the resolutions of the National
Disciplinary Committee (NDC) of the association are finally reviewed and adopted even when the
resolutions are on me.
27. That I know that the illegal imposition of Delegates on members of the 1st and 4th defendant
associations has made it impossible for me who am not Delegate to push my opinions and interests at
the General Meetings of the 1st and 4th defendant associations, or modify the constitution of the 1st
and 4th defendant associations to allow me to effectively protect my interests; the decision to alter or
modify the association constitutions having been illegally dispatched to the exclusive preserve of the
unelected handpicked Delegates.
28. That I know as a fact that I receive my own copy of my payslip from my employer every month since
May 2014. The copies of my available payslips showing the source deductions from my salary that were
remitted to the 5th defendant and his association for onward sharing with the 3rd and 4th defendant
associations, and sometimes directly to the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations, are hereby
20
attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 5. These available payslips show that the total amount of
money deducted illegally from my salary source for the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations
between 2014 and 2020 is so far N365,800.00 only for the available payslips in my possession at the
moment.. I shall add the remaining amount when I find the outstanding payslips.
29. That I know as a fact that I sought the intervention of this Honourable Court to put a final stop to the
source deductions from my salary in 2019 in the Suit Number NICN/EN/26/2019. This Suit was struck out
on the technical ground of nonjoinder of the 1st defendant association now joined in this Suit, and for
my failure to exhaust internal association remedies as provided by the Constitution of the 1st defendant
association.
30. That I know as a fact that I also sought the intervention of the Honourable Federal High Court
respecting an illegal imposition of an NMA Building Levy prescribed by the 1st defendant association on
all medical and dental practitioners across Nigeria in the Federal High Court of Nigeria in 2019 in Suit
Numbers FHC/EN/CS/02/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019. Suit number FHC/EN/CS/02/2019 was struck
out for being a Class suit without class authorization.
31. That I know as a fact that I filed Suit number FHC/EN/CS/170/2019, essentially as a refiling of the suit
number FHC/EN/CS/02/2019. This refiled suit was decided on merit and the Honourable Federal High
Court gave judgment in my favour and declared the collection of the NMA Building Levy by MDCN as a
crass illegality and a nullity. The Honourable Federal High Court also awarded a cost of N250,000.00
against the defendants and in my favour for the suit.
32. That I know as a fact that while the suit number FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 was pending in the Federal
High Court of Nigeria and the Suit Number NICN/EN/26/2019 was pending in this Honourable Court, the
President of the 1st defendant association, who was the de facto and de jury Head of all the defendant
associations, declared a medical association "fatua" on me for instituting the suits challenging the acts
of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations in Court.
a. Disciplinary procedure and action is handled by two mutually exclusive pathways in the Constitution
of the 1st defendant association at Article 5 and Article 25(8) of the association constitution currently in
use.
b. Members that are disciplined via Artlcle 5 do not pass through the process for members disciplined
through Article 25(8)
c. Article 5 provides for general discipline while Article 25(8) is specifically for members that institute
litigations against the 1st defendant association without exhausting the internal dispute resolution
mechanisms of the association.
d. Both general disciplinary pathway in Article 5 and specific litigation disciplinary pathway in Article
25(8) involve disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary action. The disciplinary action can only be handed
down after the disciplinary proceedings separately specified in both pathways.
21
e. The general disciplinary pathway in Artlcle 5 starts with the NDC, goes through the NEC and finally to
the ADM for final ratification, while the specific litigation disciplinary pathway starts with NEC and goes
to the ADM for final ratification.
f. Members of the association facing disciplinary concerns under Article 25(8) have no business with the
NDC, as the NEC is instead empowered to constitute itself as the fact finder and the decider of the fate
of that member. NEC is also incapable of handing out disciplinary action specified in that section without
completing its facts finding.
g. I faced disciplinary concerns under Article 25(8) and not under Article 5 of the 1st defendant
association constitution. NEC, without any notice to me and without finding facts from me as
compulsorily stipulated in 1st defendant association, held and issued disciplinary action on me on 14th
January 2020 for violating Artlcle 25(8). NEC, in the letter titled LETTER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION, asked
me to appeal to ADM if I wished. NEC curiously and unbelievablly asked me to go "interact" with the
NDC. A copy of the letter of Disciplinary Action sent to me on 15th January 2020 via my email address
awkadigweikenna@gmail.com by the NEC of the 1st defendant association, but dated 14th January
2020, is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 6.
h. On the same day that NEC sent me the Letter of Disciplinary Action, the NDC sent me an Invitation to
NDC via the same email address, but dated 15th January 2020. The NDC asked me to appear before it
with all the Court processes for them to sit on a matter pending before the Federal High Court and this
Honourable Court, albeit at the peak of COVID 19 pandemic. I demanded for virtual meeting albeit that I
was not going to allow them sit on a matter before the courts. They declined my request. A copy of the
letter of invitation to the NDC of the 1st defendant association is attached and marked Exhibit
Awkadigwe 7. Note that the job of NDC does not extend to disciplinary concerns initiated via Artlcle
25(8) as in my case. In addition, NDC does not have the power or authority to dabble into a matter that
NEC had already dispensed with and recommended me to appeal to ADM.
i. On 27th May 2020, I sent my appeal and preaction notice to the ADM scheduled to take place on 30th
May 2020 through the official email address of the 1st defendant association. A copy of this appeal and
preaction notice is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 8.
j. On 30th May 2020, the 2nd defendant released a Communique on behalf of the 1st defendant
association, clearly showing at number 7(i) of the ADM resolutions that the ADM ratified a
recommendation of the NDC suspending me from the association, when the current issue that I
appealed against was the Disciplinary Action of the NEC meted on me which I had appealed against 3
days earlier. A copy of this Communique published to the general public within and outside Nigeria in
the media is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 9. The ADM thus abandoned the Article
25(8) I was accused of violating and the clear recommendations of NEC to me to appeal to ADM in the
letter of Disciplinary Action of 15th January 2020.
k. On 9th July 2020, I received another letter via my email address from NEC dated 25th June 2020,
detailing another batch of Disciplinary Action against me on the same subject matter of violation of
Article 25(8), a violation which the ADM had laid to rest in the Communique of 30 May 2020 as the
22
highest decision making body of the association. NEC heaped more punishment on me and referred me
to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for deregistration from the Medical Register. A copy of this
threat and additional punishment letter is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 10.
l. I know as a fact that the current league of leaderships of the 1st defendant association and its organs
are let loose to destroy the medical profession in their quest to get rich while parasitizing on members. I
know this because I have borne the brunt over the years. They threaten, wallop and destroy any medical
or dental practitioner that challenges their ignoble impunity with distasteful promise of deregistration of
such outspoken members from the medical register. A copy of suspension letter issued to an Abuja-
based consultant urologist, Dr Kenenna Obiatuegwu dated 7th September 202, for challenging the 1st
defendant in Suit Number IV/895/2020 before Justice Belgore of Court 16 of the Federal Capital
Territory High Court sitting in Apo, Abuja, is hereby attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 11.
33. The 1st defendant association led by its president meted out its isciplinary Action on me on 14th
January 2020, and directed all the defendant associations to also permanently suspend me from their
associations for challenging the actions of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations in Court regarding the
illegal NMA Building Levy and deductions from source of my salary. The final resolution of the ADM as
well as all the disciplinary actions recounted above took place while the suits, upon which institution the
disciplinary actions were based, was taken during the pendency of the said suits, and without respect to
the Honourable Courts.
34. That I know as a fact that the 3rd and 5th defendant associations also suspended me from their
respective associations in their manipulated general meetings on 14th May 2019 and 9th August 2019
respectively, even before the omnibus Disciplinary Action of the 1st defendant association was handed
down on me for the same reason of my seeking redress in Court. Both 3rd and 5th defendant
association kept deducting their association dues and levies from the source of my salary from the time
of my suspensions in 2019 till the year 2020 notwithstanding that I have been ostracized from all the
defendant associations.
35. That I know as a fact that the 1st defendant association issued me with their Disciplinary Action on
14th January 2020 without commencing any disciplinary proceedings against me, or giving me any
notice of any allegations against me or giving me an opportunity to be heard.
36. That I know as a fact that the Disciplinary Action and all the suspensions meted out to me from the
1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations were carried out without regard to the provisions of the
constitutions of their respective associations guiding discipline and suspension of members. There was
no notice of allegations of misconduct given to the me by the defendant associations, no invitation to a
disciplinary organ of the associations, no requisite finding of facts from the parties involved, no hearing
whatsoever, and finally, no fair hearing, before the suspensions and or the disciplinary action were
slammed upon me.
37. That I have joined the 1st defendant association in this suit, and have also exhausted the internal
mechanism for conflict resolution as contained in the 1st defendant association constitution before
23
bringing this new suit, to remedy the reasons for striking out my earlier suit number NICN/EN/26/2019
in line with the adjurations of this Honourable Court.
38. That I have since given a preaction notice to the 1st defendant association on 27th May 2020 which
is more than the prescribed 6 months contained in the 1st defendant association constitution for
exhausting the internal mechanism of resolution of the association dispute if the 2nd defendant did not
take action. The 2nd defendant received and ignored the notice. A copy of this preaction notice sent to
the 1st defendant association's official email address nationalnma@yahoo.com. and also received by the
2nd defendant through his official whatsapp number has already been attached and marked.
39. That I have demanded without success for the certified true copies of the Constitutions of the 1st,
3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations from the respective associations so as to attach the
constitutions to this affidavit but they ignored my request. I hereby put them on notice to exhibit their
Constitutions in their processes, and more especially to the 1st defendant association to attach all the
versions of the 1st defendant association constitutions since 1960 to enable this Honourable Court find
when the departure from the provisions of section 600 of CAMA 1990 now section 835 of CAMA 2020
commenced. I hereby however attach an uncertified copy of the current 1st defendant association
constitution as Exhibit Awkadigwe 12.
40. That I know as a fact that the 1st defendant association has been smitten over the years with
leadership pilfering and financial squandermania, resulting in perennial loss and waste of massive
resources of the associations with reckless abandon.
41. That I know as a fact that billions of naira realized from our annual subscriptions compete effectively
with the annual budgets of some of the states in Nigeria, yet the 1st defendant association does not
engage in national education projects, road or rail building, and does not have budget for rural
electrification, military or police.
42. That I know as a fact that, on 26th January, 2018, Hon Justice K. N. Ogbonnaya, Judge of FCT High
Court in Suit Number FCT/HC/CV/1149/15, awarded over N330Million against the 1st defendant
association as damages in favour of one Arc. Kolawole Ayodeji for breach of contract for the
development of the piece of land allocated to the 1st defendant association by the FCT government.
This is just one of the numerous recklessness and negligent activities of the leaderships of the 1st
defendant association that verge on complicity akin to the Nigerian London P&ID case.
43. That immediately after the award of this humongous damages against the 1st defendant association,
the leadership of the 1st defendant association, at their secret Delegates meeting held in their coven,
levied each member of the 1st defendant association the sum of N20,000.00 and N40,000.00 depending
on the years of standing of practice as Building Levy without consulting with the members that will have
to pay the levy.
44. That I know as a fact that this levy was designed by NMA leadership to last for consecutive 6 years so
as to generate N6Billion to be used for the construction of the an NMA edifice.
24
45. That I know as a fact that the vast majority of members of the 1st defendant association knew that
the imposed NMA Building levy was a means of deceitfully realizing funds for the payment of the award
of the over N330Million damages against the 1st defendant association in favour of Arc. Kolawole
Ayodeji and thus the refusal of members to contribute to the NMA Building Levy.
46. That I know as a fact that the leadership of the 1st defendant association approached the Medical
and Dental Council of Nigeria whose statutory responsibility it is to collect Practising Fees from medical
practitioners across Nigeria, and co-opted the Council to make the payment of the unacceptable
Building Levy a condition for the payment of the statutorily mandatory Practicing Fees. The Council thus
compelled all the medical practitioners across Nigeria to pay the Building Levy before they would be
permitted to pay their mandatory annual Practising Fees.
47. That I know as a fact that this compulsion resulted in the Suit Number FHC/EN/CS/02/2019 that I
instituted against the 1st defendant association and the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria at the
Federal High Court Enugu Judicial Division.
48. That I know as a fact that this 1st defendant, as 3rd Defendant in that suit, raised an objection to the
suit for being premature and failing to fulfill association precondition in the 1st defendant association's
Constitution. The Honourable Federal High Court on 2nd December 2019, held that the said
precondition was for a suit instituted against the internal affairs of the 1st defendant association, and
cannot operate to frustrate or impede a suit interrogating the vires of the actions of the Medical and
Dental Council of Nigeria collecting Building Levy for this 1st defendant association.
49. That I know as a fact that medical practitioners across Nigeria have since been filing numerous suits
against the 1st defendant association in contest of its numerous oppressive practices against medical
practitioners in Nigeria. One of such suits against the 1st defendant association is the Suit Number
IV/895/2020 before Justice Belgore of Court 16 of the Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Apo,
Abuja.
50. That I know as a fact that the NMA is now known globally as an association where members fight
shamelessly over association executive positions. The latest bloody fight to get elected was widely
circulated in the media across Nigeria in the last botched election of NMA Enugu State where the 3rd
defendant was brutally injured during the election leading to the 1st defendant association cancelling
the election and taking over Enugu State NMA.
51. That I know as a fact that the financial rascality of the association leadership was so bad that the
difference between the Financial Report of the then Chairman of the 3rd defendant association in 2018
and the Financial Report of the uncompromised Financial Secretary of the association for the same
regime was over N100Million. This unaccounted N100Million deficit opened the eyes of members of the
3rd defendant association to the level of embezzlement going on in the 3rd defendant association.
52. That I know as a fact that the 5th defendant association set up Audit Panel in 2015 (under the 2015
President of the 5th Defendant association) to audit the 2013-2014 leadership of the association after
25
numerous complaints and allegations of financial recklessness were made against the then outgone
leadership of the association.
53. That I know as a fact that the Audit Panel, headed by me discovered that the 2013-2014 leadership
of the 5th defendant association mismanaged the funds of the association with the whooping
N10,440,000.00 not in any way accounted for. The Panel also discovered that a different hidden account
was also used for hiding the unaccounted funds deducted from source of salaries of the members of the
association.
54. That I have suffered enormous physical, emotional and psychological trauma in the hands of the 1st,
3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations in the course of my fight to protect my rights to protect my
salary from invasion by the defendant associations and protect my right to practice medicine that is
being truncated by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria because of NMA Building Levy.
55. That I know as a fact that I exposed the litiginous inconsistencies of a controversial deal between the
4th defendant association with their lawyer in 2017 as the Secretary of the Legal and Legislative
Committee of the 4th defendant association. This assignment was also delivered with utmost digital
exactitude. My achievements in this revelation was killed at the Delegates meeting of the 4th defendant
association as I was not entitled to participate in the meeting even as a full member of the association.
56. That after completing my Law School Bar Part 2 programme in 2016, I single-handedly produced the
blueprint with which the 1st defendant association is fighting the external aggression of the
Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria against the 1st
defendant association's College of the Nigerian Pathologists at the Appeal Court of Nigeria since 2017.
This blueprint has served and is still serving as an exposé for the 1st defendant association on the
statutory yardstick for the creation of the Medical Laboratory Science profession in Nigeria. Prior to this
exposé, the 1st defendant association had always argued the professional framework of pathology and
medical laboratory science from the old and ineffective premises of international best practices.
57. That I also prepared the Antiquackery Bill when I was the Secretary of the Antiquackery Committee
set up by the 3rd defendant association in 2017. This Bill, together with other Bills on burning issues
affecting the medical associations, funded and prepared by me for the benefit of the 1st and 3rd
defendant associations, were never transmitted to the relevant Executive or Legislative branches of the
Federal and State governments for the processes of legislative enactment, from 2017 till date. The only
thing the medical leaderships know how to do is to impose money on doctors and share the proceeds
amongst themselves.
58. That I know as a fact that the only thing I have not done in the medical profession is keep quiet or
support unilateral and inordinate violations of my right to peacefully practise medicine and my
unencumbered proprietary right to my salary. It is no longer news that even with the judgment of the
Federal High Court (FHC) Enugu Division on 9th November 2020 abolishing the illegal NMA Building Levy
and mandating the 1st defendant and MDCN to remove the illegal restrictions on its online portal, the
1st and 2nd defendants are still going about their normal business as if there was no judgement., and
are still busy forcing doctors, and even the judgment creditor, to still pay the building levy declared void
26
by the FHC. Only general, exemplary and aggravated damages and punitive cost can re-wire and reset
the medulla oblongata of the defendants and their associations. A copy of the Judgment Order is hereby
attached and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 13.
59. That I know as a fact that the leaderships of these defendant associations have repeatedly
demonstrated to me in many ways over these past years that they are not interested in the progress of
the associations or the medical profession but are only interested in invasion of members sources of
livelihood just for the sole aim of raising funds essentially to be shared amongst the association leaders.
62. That I know as a fact that the 1st defendant association suspended me and sent me to the Medical
and Dental Council of Nigeria for deregistration from the Medical Register just because of my suits
against the 1st defendant association and its branches and affiliates in both Federal High Court and this
Honourable Court. These suspensions were meted out against me during the pendency of those suits. A
copy of the letter referring me to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria has already been attached
and marked Exhibit Awkadigwe 10.
63. That I know as a fact that after my suspension from the 1st defendant association by the National
Executive Council of NMA headed by the President of the 1st defendant association that orchestrated
the suspension without the requisite assertainment of fact as provided by the 1st defendant association
Constitution; I was referred to the Annual Delegates Meeting of the association headed by the same
President for my appeals against the decision of the NMA NEC.
64. That I know as a fact that after dishing out the orchestrated disciplinary action against me without
ascertaining fact as required by its Constitution, the National Executive Council of the 1st defendant
association referred me again to the National Disciplinary Committee of the 1st defendant association, a
committee the National Executive Council ought instead to receive referrals from.
65. That the Constitutions of the 1st and 4th defendant associations do not provide for association
General Meetings as the highest decision making body of the association on the statutory issues of
alteration of the association Constitution and appointment of Trustees as mandated by CAMA 1990
reenacted as CAMA 2020. Instead, the constitution of the 1st defendant association handed over the
highest decision making authority on these issues to the Annual Delegates Meeting which is a meeting
of a group of unelected and handpicked members of the association that now illegally usurp the powers
of the association's general meeting.
66. That I know as a fact that the current constitutions of the 1st and 4th defendant associations were
made by the Delegates and not by the resolution of the general meeting of members of the associations
as mandatorily required by CAMA.
67. That I know as a fact that the failure of the failure of the leaderships of the 1st and 4th defendant
associations to follow the law in the making or alteration of the constitution of the 1st and 4th
defendant associations has wrought great hardships on me as a full member of the associations, and
prevented me from participating and enjoying my statutory association membership rights like voting in
27
resolutions of the associations' binding general meetings and in voting for candidates of my choice in the
elections of the 1st and 4th defendant associations.
68. That I know as a fact that the Constitution of the 1st defendant association took the wind off any
resolutions of the Annual General Conference of the 1st defendant association by designating such
resolutions as a mere non-binding recommendations to the Annual Delegates Meeting.
69. That the 1st defendant association constitution made it clear that only the resolutions of the
Delegates Meetings are made binding on the members of the association, and not the resolutions of the
general conference.
70. That I know as a fact that the 1st and 4th defendant associations unlawfully used the instruments of
their association constitutions, made and altered by some legally unauthorised persons called Delegates,
to disenfranchise more than 99.5% of their members from participating in the meetings and elections of
the associations, thereby leaving the affairs of the associations entirely in the hands of a few unelected
members of the associations called Delegates, who churn out unpopular, obnoxious, unacceptable,
despotic and illegal resolutions that they ultimately try to force down the throat of all the members of the
associations.
And that I depose to this affidavit in good faith believing the information to be true to the best of
my knowledge and in accordance with the Oaths Act 2004.
____________
DEPONENT
SWORN TO AT THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT REGISTRY, ENUGU
THIS DAY OF ............................, 2020
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS27

28
HOLDEN IN ENUGU
BETWEEN
DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK .............................................................................. PLAINTIFF
AND
3. DR J. O. T. ONYIA (For and on behalf of himself and Nigerian Medical Association Enugu state
PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
Plaintiff brought this Originating Summons pursuant to Order 2 Rule 4, Order 3 Rules 1, 2 , 3, 16 &17
and Order 4 Rule 2 OF National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2016, Section 254
(C) (1) (a) (b) (d) (j{vi}) & (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended
by the Third Alteration Act, 2010) and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. The
Originating Summons is accompanied with a 69 paragraph affidavit in support, with 5 exhibits. We rely
on all the paragraphs of the said affidavit and the records of the Honourable Court. The Plaintiff in this
29
suit is calling on this Honourable court to interpret all the relevant laws and documents which
interpretation will resolve all these non-contentious legal issues in this suit. The laws and documents
which the Plaintiff is seeking for interpretation to help resolve the burning issues include:
a. Medical and Dental Practitioners Act Cap. M8 LFN 2004 (as amended)
b. The Trade Unions Act (as amended)
c. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended )
d. The Constitutions of the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendant Associations.
e. Other relevant documents
2.0 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff herein is a medical practitioner who trains and works as a Senior Registrar in the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane, Enugu. His salary has
been under siege since his assumption of duty as a resident doctor in ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane
Enugu state by the activities of the defendant associations who have made it a habit to co-operate with the
employer of the Plaintiff to deduct the associations' dues and levies directly from source of plaintiff's
salary without plaintiff's approval. The plaintiff was contemptuously suspended from the defendant
associations because he challenged the source deduction of his salary in this Court and during the
pendency of the suit. The 1st and 4th defendant associations also unlawfully used the instruments of their
association constitutions made by legally unauthorised persons, to disenfranchise more than 99.95% of
their members from participating in the meetings and elections of the associations, thereby leaving the
affairs of the associations entirely in the hands of a few unelected members of the associations called
Delegates. Plaintiff is now urging this Honourable court to grant his Reliefs as contained in his
Originating Summons.
3.0 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
3.1. Whether the disciplinary action meted out on the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
3.2. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st defendant
3.3. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from the 3rd and
30
3.4. Whether the disciplinary action initiated against the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
through its National Executive Council (NEC) headed by the 2nd defendant without the requisite
of the suit which institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent referral of plaintiff by
the NEC to appeal to the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) which has the only power of adoption and
ratification of the said disciplinary action by the NEC of the association, the ADM also headed by the 2nd
Defendant, is thereby not reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the principles of
natural justice, equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of
association, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws particularly
Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as
amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act
(Cap A9 LFN 2004)
3.5. Whether the defendant associations have the powers to control their respective associations as
they wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA.
3.6. Whether a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association can abrogate the statutory
3.7. Whether in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu state branch
3.8. Whether the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of section 600
3.9. Whether in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant association can
perverse finding.
31
3.10. Whether in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the circumstances of this
case and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association can legally and validly,
without malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on one and
the same subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of both pathways.
3.11. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is compelled to belong
to, and thus be conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of the
Plaintiff being a medical practitioner in Nigeria.
3.12. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the Trade
Defendant associations can lawfully demand and receive from the employer of the plaintiff medical
source of the salary of the practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the practitioner's
3.14. Whether the acts of the defendant associations deducting plaintiff's salary from source,
suspending plaintiff maliciously from the associations and denying plaintiff his statutory association
participatory rights after conscription into the associations are thereby not reprehensible, and gross
violations of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of association, access to court, fair hearing and dignity of
human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and
254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and and the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the
plaintiff is hereby not entitled to the full refund of all those monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's
salary without the his consent, totalling so far N365,800.00 from the payslips of the plaintiff from the
year 2014-2020, and all the Reliefs sought, general and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit.
3.15. Whether the Plaintiff has thereby not suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the wicked
hands of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for the
time being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted the
4.0 ARGUMENT
4.1. Whether the disciplinary action meted out on the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said association, is hereby not self-help, and against natural
32
justice.
It is submitted that it is unlawful, being contemptuous of the Honourable Court, for the 1st defendant
association to mete out extrajudicial punishment against the plaintiff, simply because the plaintiff sued
the 1st defendant association over the violation of his rights. It is even more deplorable that this
punishment was embarked upon at the pendency of the said litigation. It is trite that when a dispute is
before a court of competent jurisdiction, all the involved parties must maintain the status quo ante
litem. The law is clear on what parties to a suit must do when the court is seized of the subject matter. In
the case of Ezegbu v F. A. T. B Ltd (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt 220) 669 at 705-707, Tobi JCA (as he then was)
restated the law on conduct of parties vis a vis pending litigation as follows:
"Where a matter is before a court of law, none of the parties can legally or lawfully take any unilateral
action that will prejudice or tend to prejudice the hearing or adjudication of the matter by the
court ...... Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not
given a specific injunctive order, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the
determination of the court process. They should, on no account resort to self-help. Whenever such a
situation arises, the court must invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of a recalcitrant
party...... ".
It is submitted that the defendant associations and their agents held this position of the law with utmost
contempt. Not only did they not hold fire on plaintiff's complained acts that triggered the suit which are
the illegal deductions from plaintiff's salary from source, imposition of illegal NMA Building Levy on the
plaintiff and the restrictions placed on the plaintiff's right to practice medicine, they even went ahead to
intimidate, pummel and mete out disciplinary actions against the plaintiff for complaining. In the most
recent Supreme Court judgement in Sani v Kogi state House of Assembly & Ors (2019) LPELR-
46404(SC)32on the suspension of the plaintiff/appellant who sued defendants/respondents for
suspending him consequent upon and during the pendency of his suit against them, Walter Samuel
Nkanu Onnoghen, C.J.N.(Delivering the Leading Judgment) stated clearly thus:
"...... Based on the above reasons of the Court and decided cases as well as statute referred to in
consideration of Exhibit 'C1', I agree completely with the argument of the Learned Senior counsel for
appellant and rely on the reasoning of the Court below to the extent of the admissibility of Exhibit C1
in coming to the conclusion that the trial Court was justified in acting on the facts contained in Exhibit
C1 to come to the conclusion that the suspension of the appellant by the 1st respondent for instituting
this action against the respondents is wrongful and condemnable. Issue No. 1 therefore is answered in
the positive and in favour of the appellant."32
It is submitted that the suspension of the instant plaintiff from the defendant associations for instituting
the action against the defendants and their associations is wrongful and condemnable. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.
4.2. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st defendant
33
This second issue, on the face value, looks like the first issue, but they are not the same thing. In the first
issue, it was argued that the disciplinary action taken out against the plaintiff by the 1st defendant
association was wrongful and condemnable. In this second issue, what is submitted to be wrongful and
condemnable is the suspension of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant association. The disciplinary action
has to be differentiated from the suspensions. It is true that Nigerian courts have tried to differentiate
between a disciplinary action and the disciplinary process in employment and educational matters
where there are employer-employee relationship and university-student relationship. In those cases,
suspension was taken as a legal disciplinary process geared towards a disciplinary action, and thus could
be employed before hearing from the accused. In the case of ESIAGA V. University of Calabar & 2 Ors (SC
52/1999) [2004] 21 (02 APRIL 2004), the Supreme Court justice said:
"In Garba's case there was outright expulsion of the student before being heard. In the present case,
an investigation body was to be set up to enable the appellant to put his own side of the case.The aim
of suspending the student is to abort any likelihood of the threatened disturbing atmosphere
snowballing into an uncontrollable situation. The university envisaged that they would set up a body
exercising administrative power where the appellant would be given the opportunity to clear himself
by offering his own defence......"
The import of the above decision is that suspension of the student need not be preceded by fair hearing
because suspension is a disciplinary procedure and not the disciplinary action itself. On the other hand,
expulsion is a disciplinary action that must be preceded by fair hearing for the action to be valid. It is
submitted that this distinction between disciplinary action and disciplinary procedure does not apply to
association matters where all the members are equal. There is no employer-employee, master-servant
or teacher-student relationships in association matters. What is more: the contract inter se of
associations relationships refers all cases involving discipline to the Disciplinary Committee of the
association which must sit before disciplinary action (including suspension, as contained in the 1st
defendant association constitution) can be meted out to the errant member. In the present case, the 1st
defendant association meted out both disciplinary action and suspension against the plaintiff. The
constitution of the 1st defendant association provided for the Disciplinary Committee at its Article 5
which is divided into Disciplinary Procedure and Disciplinary Action. Suspension is only found at the
Disciplinary Action part of the Article 5. It is therefore submitted that suspension, in the 1st defendant
association, must be preceded by fair hearing. In fact, the title of the letter sent to the plaintiff was
DISCIPLINARY ACTION. Article 25 of the 1st defendant association constitution is not also absolved of fair
hearing.
In an ancient case of Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180, a case which has
been approved in Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40, Durayappah v Fernando (1967) 2 AC 337 and Wiseman
v Borneman (1917) AC 297, all which are of very persuasive influence and importance and showing the
34
historical sequence of the development and application of that aspect of the law (coming from the
society i.e. England from which we inherited a bulk of our law and practice, Byles, J said;
"It seems to me that the Board are wrong whether they acted judicially or ministerially. I conceive
they acted judicially, because they had to determine the offence, and they had to apportion the
punishment as well as the remedy. That being so, a long course of decisions beginning with Dr
Bentley's case, and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive
words in a statute, requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will
supply the omission of the legislature."
The NMA NEC, which bypassed the Disciplinary Committee of NMA was enjoined to find facts before
delivering its Disciplinary Action. The NMA NEC refused to follow its association constitution in punishing
the plaintiff. That the suspension was made during the pendency of the triggering suit, and extended to
the affiliates and branches of the 1st defendant association makes the suspension grossly unlawful,
more damaging and disconcerting to the physical and emotional wreck of the plaintiff. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.
4.3. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from the 3rd
and 5th defendant associations, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suit with
Suit Number NICN/EN/26/2019 against the said associations, is hereby not against natural justice,
It also submitted here, just like in Issue 2 that these suspensions, executed consequent upon and during
the pendency of the triggering suit, is unlawful, intimidating, disconcerting and damaging of the person
of the plaintiff physically and emotionally as outlined in the relevant paragraphs of the Affidavit in
Support of the Originating Summons. Ubi jus ibi remedium.
4.4. Whether the disciplinary action initiated against the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
through its National Executive Council (NEC) headed by the 2nd defendant without the requisite
of the suit which institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent referral of plaintiff
by the NEC to appeal to the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) which has the only power of adoption
and ratification of the said disciplinary action by the NEC of the association, the ADM also headed by
the 2nd Defendant, is thereby not reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights
to freedom of association, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian
Republic of Nigeria as amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004)
Plaintiff's contention on this head of issue is that this disciplinary arrangement and the provisions of the
1st defendant association constitution supporting it are in contravention of the Nigerian Constitution
1999 as amended. See also Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (1985) 2
35
NWLR (Pt. 7) 300 ; (1985) 2 NSCC Vol. 16 page 998, cited with approval in Nwalutu v. NBA & Anor (2019)
LPELR-46916(SC) Per AKA'AHS, J.S.C. (Pp. 16-21, Paras. C-E)35stated:
"The amendment addressed the problem which arose in L.P.D.C v. Fawehinmi supra where the
Attorney-General of the Federation was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee and also initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The respondent applied to Court for an order
prohibiting the Disciplinary Committee as constituted from hearing the charges of professional
misconduct preferred against him having regard to the principles of natural justice embedded in the
principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be judge in his own cause). In seeking the order, the
respondent based his application on Section 42 (3) of the 1979 Constitution and sought for the
enforcement of his fundamental right to fair hearing under Section 33 of the Constitution. He
predicated his complaint on the likelihood of bias since the Attorney-General and 3 other members of
the Committee had actively participated in investigating the matter and had in an earlier occasion
expressed strong opinions against the respondent. The trial Judge found for the respondent and the
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the Committee. On a further appeal to the Supreme
Court, the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that in the exercise of its disciplinary authority over
erring legal practitioners, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee must observe the rules of
natural justice and in that context, it must not only avoid bias but also the likelihood of bias. Thus the
Attorney-General of the Federation has ceased to be the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee."
It is hereby submitted that this disciplinary arrangement is unlawful, oppressive and devastating to the
plaintiff who is made to bear the brunt during the pendency of the triggering suit without just cause,
and in an association which membership is compulsory, with members not at liberty to denounce the
association and join another. Ubi jus ibi remedium. It is reprehensible that the leadership of the 1st
defendant association has found this method of intimidation of outspoken members fashionable as can
be seen in the Exhibit 11 showing the suspension of Dr Kenenna Obiatuegwu who challenged the evils of
the 1st defendant association in Abuja Court.
4.5. Whether the defendant associations have the powers to control their respective associations as
they wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA 1990, now CAMA 2020..
It is submitted that an association and its constitution do not have the powers to control their respective
associations as they wish against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA 1990, now CAMA 2020. The law is trite that associations have
some levels of self-regulations. However, no association is permitted to to unlawful acts. Most
importantly, the latitude afforded associations with incorporated trustees to self-regulation, even in
lawful acts, is subject to the provisions of CAMA particularly at section 600 of CAMA 1990, now
reenacted as section 835 CAMA 2020 which provides: "Any change or alteration purported to be made
in contravention of section 832, 833 or 834 of this Part of this Act void."
36
In Alhaji Muhammad MAIGARI DINGYADI & Anor V Independent National Electoral Commission & 2 Ors
(SC.32/2010) [2011] NGSC 15 (08 April 2011) on the powers of the Political parties to control the affairs
of the party, per ADEKEYE, J.S.C (P. 53, paras. A-B), held:
"After the Electoral Act 2006, a political party is able to control the affairs of the party only to the
extent that the exercise of such control does not run against the provisions of the Constitution and
laws of Nigeria particularly Section 34 (1) and (2) of the 2006 Electoral Act."
It is submitted that section 34(1) and (2) of the 2006 Electoral Act, limits the extent a political party is
able to control the affairs of the party, just the same way section 600 of CAMA 1990 now section 835
CAMA 2020 limits the extent an incorporated association is able to control the affairs of the association.
4.6. Whether a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association can abrogate the
statutory association-membership rights of the plaintiff to participate in the association's general
meetings and resolutions (including resolutions to alter the association constitution and vote in
officers of the association), by using the instruments of the association's constitution made in gross
violation of section 835 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 (previously section 600
CAMA 1990) without the plaintiff's consent; and hand such rights over to an unelected organ of the
association that does not represent the interest of the plaintiff.
It is the submission of the plaintiff that he joined the medical profession in 2007. Prior to him joining the
medical profession, the CAMA 1990 had already provided that any change or alteration purported to be
made in contravention of section 832, 833 or 834 of this Part of this Act is void. Yet, the leadership of
the 1st defendant association went ahead to make alterations in the 1st defendant association
constitution in contravention of section 600 of CAMA 1990. The plaintiff's statutory rights to participate
in binding resolutions of the 1st defendant association on alteration of its constitution was handed over
to the Delegates as against the members (including the Plaintiff) in a general meeting of the association.
Even the appointment of trustees of the 1st defendant association, required by section 600 of CAMA
1990 to be made by members (including the Plaintiff) in the general meetings of the association was also
handed over to the Delegates. See Article 22 of the 1st defendant association constitution on Trustees,
Article 26 on the alteration of the association constitution, and Article 28 on the adoption of the current
constitution of the 1st defendant association at Delegates Meeting. All these provisions and acts of the
association are in stark contravention of the clear provisions of CAMA. The transfer of right was done by
the leadership of the 1st defendant association without the consent of the Plaintiff. In fact, the transfer
was done even before the now unlawfully disentitled Plaintiff joined the association even as a
conscripted member for that matter. It is submitted that it is against the law for any person or group of
persons in an association to yank out statutory rights of another person who is a member of the same
association by conscription, and give such rights to another person or group of persons without the
consent of that other person. It is submitted that the 1st defendant association, acting at the back of the
plaintiff, cannot disentitle the plaintiff of participatory rights bestowed upon the plaintiff by CAMA which
is the association's regulatory law. It is trite that right-infringing statutes are narrowly construed against
the statute and in favour of the owner of the right to be taken away. See FCDA V. Sule (1994) LPELR-
1263 (SC) 30-31, E-F. A corollary is right-infringing association constitution as seen in the 1st and 4th
37
defendant association constitutions, purporting to take away plaintiff's participatory rights in the 1st and
4th defendant association meetings, that must be narrowly construed against the association
constitution and in favour of the plaintiff who is the owner of the participatory right to be taken away.
This is more so, when the right to be infringed is the general meeting participatory right of the plaintiff
in an association he fully belongs, which could only be speciously waived by unequivocal consent of the
plaintiff in writing, otherwise, section 34(1)(a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution is infringed. As such,
conscripted membership of the plaintiff into the defendant associations where plaintiff's statutory
participatory rights had been abrogated long before he was even conscripted into the associations
would violate the dignity of the plaintiff as a human being and thus, would amount to degrading
treatment verging on servitude.
According to section 833 of CAMA 2020 (previously section 598 CAMA 1990, "Subject to sections 827
and 828 of this Part, an association whose trustees are incorporated under this Part may alter its
constitution by resolution passed by simple majority of its members and approved by the
Commission." The clear import of this section is that an association like NMA may or may not alter its
constitution; but whenever it chooses to its constitution alter, it shall be by resolution passed by simple
majority of its members. Any law that seeks to disentitle plaintiff's rights shall be construed strictly. In
addition, the Delegates are just 0.5% of the membership of the 1st defendant association. These
Delegates are mostly unelected and represent their own selfish interests and not the interest of the
plaintiff as guaranteed under section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution. See Article 7 of the 1st defendant
association on Delegates especially section 8(e). Furthermore, section 834 (1) CAMA 2020, previously
section 599(1) CAMA 1990 stated: Where a body or association intends to replace some or all its
trustees or to appoint additional trustees, it may by resolution at a general meeting do so and apply in
the prescribed form for the approval of the Commission." It is noteworthy that no such resolutions at a
general meeting was ever taken because the constitution of the 1st defendant association does not
provide for such resolutions or such general meetings. I urge the Honourable Court to hold that this
current constitution of the 1st defendant association is void and a nullity together with all the acts of the
association performed pursuant to the void constitution.
4.7. Whether in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu state branch
association constitutions of the 1st defendant association, the 3rd defendant can hand pick Delegates
to the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.
It was averred in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons that the state branch association
Chairmen handpicked their stooges and friends and made Delegates for the purposes of Delegates
Meetings of the 1st defendant association where the officers of the 1st defendant association were
elected, trustees appointed and the constitution of the association altered. This, the chairmen do
without authorization of the association constitution. See Article 7 of the 1st defendant association on
Delegates especially section 8(e) on the selection of Delegates. The state branch Chairman was only
permitted to be a part of the delegation and not the producer of the delegates list. It is submitted that
where the constitution of the 1st defendant association is silent on the mode of selection or
appointment of Delegates, the Congress, which the Delegates are sent to represent shall elect those
Delegates. I urge the Honourable Court to so hold.37
38
4.8. Whether the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of section
600 CAMA 1990 (re-enacted as section 835 CAMA 2020), are hereby not illegal, void and invalid, and
all those officials elected on the basis of the said void Association Constitutions, and all their
purported actions on behalf of the association were not hereby rendered null and void and of no
effect, the said officials having occupied those official positions for the associations illegally.
It is the contention of the plaintiff on this head of issue is that the 1st and 4th Defendant Association
Constitutions, made in contravention of section 600 CAMA 1990 (re-enacted as section 835 CAMA
2020), are hereby illegal, void and invalid, and all those officials elected on the basis of the said void
Association Constitutions, and all their purported actions on behalf of the association were thereby
rendered null and void and of no effect, the said officials having occupied those official positions for the
associations illegally. Plaintiff's contentions find fortifications in the clear provisions of CAMA 1990 and
CAMA 2020 where the statute subjected the power of an incorporated association to the provisions of
section 600 of CAMA 1990 now section 835 CAMA 2020. The current association constitutions of the 1st
and 4th defendant associations contravenes this section of CAMA by abrogating associations General
Meetings and replaced same with Delegates Meetings and consequently unlawfully deprive the plaintiff
of his statutory association rights created under CAMA. According to section 833 of CAMA 2020
(previously section 598 CAMA 1990, "Subject to sections 827 and 828 of this Part, an association whose
trustees are incorporated under this Part may alter its constitution by resolution passed by simple
majority of its members and approved by the Commission." The clear import of this section is that an
association like NMA may or may not alter its constitution; but whenever it chooses to alter its
constitution, it shall be by resolution passed by simple majority of its members. It is trite that the law
shall be strictly construed against any person or association that seeks to derogate plaintiff's statutory
association rights preserved in participatory right in association general meetings, and hand the same
right over to a group of unelected Delegates without plaintiff's express consent. In addition, the
Delegates are just 0.5% of the membership of the 1st defendant association as opposed to the
stipulation for simple majority in section 598 CAMA 1990. These Delegates are mostly unelected and
represent their selfish interests. See Article 7 of the 1st defendant association constitution on Delegates
especially section 8(e) on selection of Delegates as one for 200 doctors. Furthermore, section 834 (1)
CAMA 2020, previously section 599(1) CAMA 1990 stated: "Where a body or association intends to
replace some or all its trustees or to appoint additional trustees, it may by resolution at a general
meeting do so and apply in the prescribed form for the approval of the Commission." It is noteworthy
that no such resolutions at a general meeting was ever taken in the 1st and 4th defendant associations
because the constitutions of the 1st and 4th defendant associations do not provide for such resolutions
in general meetings. I urge the Honourable Court to hold that these current constitutions of the 1st and
4th defendant associations, having been made in contravention of the clear provisions of CAMA
prohibiting the making of such constitutions, is void and a nullity together with all the acts of the
association performed pursuant to the void constitutions.
4.9. Whether in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant association can
39
perverse finding.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that part of the Disciplinary Action meted out against him by the 1st
defendant association was based purely on plaintiff's violation of Article 25 of the 1st defendant
association constitution prohibiting a member from seeking redress in court of law in matters that are
purely association issues unless after a minimum of 6 months of a preaction notice. Article 25(8)(e)
prescribed disciplinary action after ascertainment of facts by NMA NEC. For the disciplinary action to be
handed down under this provision, the disciplinary procedure pathway of the association Disciplinary
Committee is dispensed with. The NMA NEC sits as the Disciplinary Committee under this provision of
the 1st defendant association constitution. The NMA NEC is seized of the matter as the Committee of
first instance. Coincidentally, the 1st defendant association raised the issue of plaintiff's violation of its
Article 25(8) in the Federal High Court in the Suit Number FHC/EN/CS/02/2019 which triggered the so-
called disciplinary action. The Court unequivocally held that there was no violation of Article 25(8) of the
1st defendant association constitution by this plaintiff as the suit upon which the disciplinary action was
based was not purely of association matter. To drive home the point that the plaintiff did not violate
Article 25(8) of the 1st defendant association constitution, the Federal High Court again in Suit Number
FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 on the same issue of violation of Article 25(8) of the constitution of the 1st
defendant association by this plaintiff, held on 9th November 2020, that there was no violation
whatsoever. The Honourable Federal High Court even went ahead to repeal the said Article 25(8) as
being an obnoxious piece of document. With all these realities on ground, the 1st defendant association
still went ahead to find that the plaintiff violated Article 25(8) of its constitution, and handed down the
damaging disciplinary action against the plaintiff, days after the clear Ruling of the Honourable Federal
High Court on their own application for the interpretation whether the plaintiff brought the triggering
suit in violation of its Article 25(8). I therefore submit that in view of the circumstances of this case, it is
immensely unlawful for the organs of the 1st defendant association to sit and perversely find, and
overrule the decision of a Nigerian superior court of record made in favour of the Plaintiff on the
application of the 1st defendant; so much so that the 1st defendant association goes ahead to mete out
a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based purely on such perverse finding. It is even more unlawful
that this perverse disciplinary action came during the pendency of the suits upon which the disciplinary
action was conceptualized.
4.10. Whether in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the circumstances of this
case and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association can legally and validly,
without malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on one
and the same subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of both
pathways.
Disciplinary procedure and action shall be definite and clear. The contention of plaintiff on this head of
issue is that the 1st defendant association proceeded against the plaintiff under two different and
mutually exclusive pathways of its constitution on discipline guaranteed under Articles 5 and 25(8) of
the association constitution, maliciously prevaricated on both pathways so as to lay mines on the road
for the plaintiff, and then in a wiley manner went ahead to punish the plaintiff on the two pathways in a
40
vengeful satisfaction of its vindictiveness. The NMA NEC activated Article 25(8) of the association
constitution which absolutely dispensed with the referral of the plaintiff to the National Disciplinary
Committee (NDC) of the association. Article 25(8) required that the NEC should do its finding of facts and
slam disciplinary action based on the facts found. The NEC in its haste to do harm to the plaintiff by
slamming plaintiff with the disciplinary action of suspension, refused to find facts. It instead went ahead
to hand down disciplinary action on the plaintiff, and as an afterthought, referred the plaintiff to the
National Disciplinary Committee for "interactions". See paragraph 32 of the affidavit in support of the
Originating Summons and Exhibits Awkadigwe 6 to 10. One wonders what they meant by "interactions".
Disciplinary procedure and action is handled by two mutually exclusive pathways in the Constitution of
the 1st defendant association at Article 5 and Article 25(8) of the association constitution currently in
use. Members that are disciplined via Artlcle 5 do not pass through the process for members disciplined
through Article 25(8). Article 5 provides for general discipline while Article 25(8) is specifically for
members that institute litigations against the 1st defendant association without exhausting the internal
dispute resolution mechanisms of the association. Both general disciplinary pathway in Article 5 and
specific litigation disciplinary pathway in Article 25(8) involve disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary
action. The disciplinary action can only be handed down after the disciplinary proceedings separately
specified in both pathways. The general disciplinary pathway in Artlcle 5 starts with the NDC, goes
through the NEC and finally to the ADM for final ratification, while the specific litigation disciplinary
pathway starts with NEC and goes to the ADM for final ratification. Members of the association facing
disciplinary concerns under Article 25(8) have no business with the NDC, as the NEC is instead
empowered to constitute itself as the fact finder and the decider of the fate of that member. NEC is also
incapable of handing out disciplinary action specified in that section without completing its facts finding.
I faced disciplinary concerns under Article 25(8) and not under Article 5 of the 1st defendant association
constitution. NEC, without any notice to me and without finding facts from me as compulsorily
stipulated in 1st defendant association, held and issued disciplinary action on me on 14th January 2020
for violating Artlcle 25(8). NEC, in the letter titled LETTER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION, asked me to appeal
to ADM if I wished. NEC curiously and unbelievablly asked me to go "interact" with the NDC. On the
same day that NEC sent me the Letter of Disciplinary Action, the NDC sent me an Invitation to NDC via
the same email address, but dated 15th January 2020. The NDC asked me to appear before it with all the
Court processes for them to sit on a matter pending before the Federal High Court and this Honourable
Court, albeit at the peak of COVID 19 pandemic. I demanded for virtual meeting albeit that I was not
going to allow them sit on a matter before the courts. They declined my request. Note that the job of
NDC does not extend to disciplinary concerns initiated via Artlcle 25(8) as in my case. In addition, NDC
does not have the power or authority to dabble into a matter that NEC had already dispensed with and
recommended me to appeal to ADM. On 27th May 2020, I sent my appeal and preaction notice to the
ADM scheduled to take place on 30th May 2020 through the official email address of the 1st defendant
association. On 30th May 2020, the 2nd defendant released a Communique on behalf of the 1st
defendant association, clearly showing at number 7(i) of the ADM resolutions that the ADM ratified a
recommendation of the NDC suspending me from the association, when the current issue that I
appealed against was the Disciplinary Action of the NEC meted on me which I had appealed against 3
days earlier. The ADM thus abandoned the Article 25(8) I was accused of violating and the clear
recommendations of NEC to me to appeal to ADM in the letter of Disciplinary Action of 15th January
41
2020. On 9th July 2020, I received another letter via my email address from NEC dated 25th June 2020,
detailing another batch of Disciplinary Action against me on the same subject matter of violation of
Article 25(8), a violation which the ADM had laid to rest in the Communique of 30 May 2020 as the
highest decision making body of the association. NEC heaped more punishment on me and referred me
to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for deregistration from the Medical Register. I know as a
fact that the current league of leaderships of the 1st defendant association and its organs are let loose
to destroy the medical profession in their quest to get rich while parasitizing on members. I know this
because I have borne the brunt over the years. They threaten, wallop and destroy any medical or dental
practitioner that challenges their ignoble impunity with distasteful promise of deregistration of such
outspoken members from the medical register. The 1st defendant association led by its president meted
out its isciplinary Action on me on 14th January 2020, and directed all the defendant associations to also
permanently suspend me from their associations for challenging the actions of the 1st and 3rd
defendant associations in Court regarding the illegal NMA Building Levy and deductions from source of
my salary. The final resolution of the ADM as well as all the disciplinary actions recounted above took
place while the suits, upon which institution the disciplinary actions were based, was taken during the
pendency of the said suits, and without respect to the Honourable Courts.
The law is trite that a body acting in quasi-judicial capacity must find facts and observe fair hearing even
if the regulations did not specifically demand that it finds facts. NMA NEC, by activating Article 25(8) of
its constitution with the aim of handing down a disciplinary action against the plaintiff owed the plaintiff
fair hearing which they woefully failed to do. In an ancient case of Cooper v Wandsworth Board of
Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180, a case which has been approved in Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40,
Durayappah v Fernando (1967) 2 AC 337 and Wiseman v Borneman (1917) AC 297, all which are of very
persuasive influence and importance and showing the historical sequence of the development and
application of that aspect of the law (coming from the society i.e. England) from which we inherited a
bulk of our law and practice, Byles, J restated the law thus;
"It seems to me that the Board are wrong whether they acted judicially or ministerially. I conceive
they acted judicially, because they had to determine the offence, and they had to apportion the
punishment as well as the remedy. That being so, a long course of decisions beginning with Dr
Bentley's case, and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive
words in a statute, requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will
supply the omission of the legislature."
The NMA NEC, which bypassed the Disciplinary Committee of NMA by refusing to apply Article 5 and
instead applied Article 25(8), was enjoined by the provisions of Article 25(8) to find facts before
delivering its Disciplinary Action. The NMA NEC refused to follow its association constitution in punishing
the plaintiff. That the suspension was made during the pendency of the triggering suit, and extended to
the affiliates and branches of the 1st defendant association makes the suspension even more grossly
unlawful, more damaging and disconcerting to the physical and emotional tolerabilities of the plaintiff.
What is more!!! The NMA NEC still accused the plaintiff of refusing to "interact" with the National
Disciplinary Committee of the 1st defendant association and meted additional disciplinary action on the
plaintiff as can be clearly seen in the Exhibit 10 ratifying the recommendations of the National
42
Disciplinary Committee. It is remarkable to note that the plaintiff did not answer the National
Disciplinary Committee (NDC) for two obvious reasons. First, the application of Article 25(8) dispensed
with the referral to the NDC. The application of Article 25(8) presupposes that the NEC, which takes
referrals from NDC, has dispensed with the job of NDC, having been empowered by Article 25(8) to do
the fact finding and mete out Disciplinary Action after finding facts. The referral of the plaintiff to the
NDC by NEC pursuant to the application of Article 25(8) was thus ultra vires the functions of the NMA
NEC applying Article 25(8), void and invalid. The second and most important reason plaintiff did not
answer the NDC was simply because, apart from COVID 19 pandemic, the Honourable Federal High
Court and this Honourable Court were already seized of the subject matter which the NDC sought to
dabble into. As can be seen from the Exhibits 7, the NDC had the timerity to ask the plaintiff to present
before it with the processes filed in pending cases in the Courts to determine. It is so appalling to see the
1st defendant association apply Articles 5 and 25(8) on the plaintiff on the same subject matter. Ubi jus
ibi remedium.
4.11. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is compelled to belong
to, and thus be conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of the
Plaintiff being a medical practitioner in Nigeria.
The contention under this heading is that the defendant associations are not associations in compliance
with sections 40 and 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, all having
conscripted the plaintiff into their associations without the plaintiff's consent sought and obtained. The
plaintiff found himself compelled to belong to the 1st and 3rd defendant associations upon induction
into the practice of medicine and surgery. Plaintiff also found himself conscripted into the 4th and 5th
defendant associations upon being appointed into the residency training program. All the efforts made
by the plaintiff to extricate himself from the associations proved abortive, hence his membership by
conscription to all the defendant associations till date. Plaintiff has maintained that membership by
conscription into these associations is therefore unconstitutional, illegal and void. The reasons for the
unconstitutionality of the defendant associations span from the illegal membership methods of the
associations down to the unconstitutional methods of decision making and election of their National
Officers. The major contention in this issue is that no association is compulsory in Nigeria, on the
authority of sections 40 and 45 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.
The laws are clear on the freedom of association in Nigeria. Nobody could be coerced into an association
or made to suffer any injury because of his refusal to belong to an association, except according to the
law validly made in that regard. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides thus:
1(1). This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the
authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria..... (3). If any other law is
inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that
other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
43
40. Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in
particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association
for the protection of his interests.....
45. (1) Nothing in sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of this Constitution shall invalidate any law
that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (a) in the interest of defence, public
safety, public order, public morality or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the
rights and freedom of other persons....
From the foregoing, it is clear that the 1st Defendant association, which is the headmaster of the other
defendant associations, ought to be a voluntary organization for it to be constitutional. I urge this
Honourable Court to hold so. The 1st Defendant association is not an association made pursuant to
section 45, and thus could not effectively derogate section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria as amended. It was not made pursuant to any other provisions of the enabling statute. The
constitution of the 1st defendant association is not a law in Nigeria. It is thus clear that the membership
of the 1st defendant association can not validly derogate the fundamental rights of the Nigerian
citizenry and medical practitioners as enshrined in sections 40 and 45 of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Membership of the 4th defendant association is not by
registration. It is by conscription. On the authority of the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the 4th
defendant association, being a voluntary association of Resident Doctors in Nigeria, cannot compel all
the resident doctors in Nigeria to belong to NARD. A cursory look at a corollary provision of the
constitution of the Nigeria Barr Association (NBA) appears more receptive in this regard, as it did not
compel any lawyer to be a member. In fact, it allowed every member who wished to belong to the
association to voluntarily go and register for membership. Section 4 of the NBA Bylaw states:
4. MEMBERSHIP: (1) There shall be two categories of membership .... (a) FULL MEMBERSHIP:
(i) A full member of the Association shall be any person duly enrolled at the Supreme Court of
Nigeria as a legal practitioner and registered with a Branch of the Association.
Contrast this with Article 4 of the constitution of the 4th defendant association. The constitution of the
4th defendant association is oppressive and negates the basic principles and minimum requirements
stipulated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended for the formation of an
association. The Constitution of Nigeria contemplated that Nigerians could participate in formation of
free associations for one purpose, ie for the protection of their individual interests. This is clearly stated
in section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. This presupposes that
every association in Nigeria must be such that every member is afforded the opportunity to protect their
interests. Contrary to this constitutional provisions in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
as amended, the 4th defendant association constitution is a far cry from this basic constitutional guide
to the formation of an association. Full members of the 1st and 4th defendant associations are not
allowed to vote in the election of the National Officers of the 1st and 4th defendant associations. The 1st
and 4th defendant associations also arbitrarily expunged the membership participatory rights as
preserved in section 600 of CAMA 1990 and reenacted in CAMA 2020. The Constitution of the 4th
44
defendant association, at the Article 10, removed the power of ordinary members to elect their National
Officers and handed it to the delegates.
Article 10: i. Voting shall be by secret ballot. ii. All elections shall be by Council vote except the
election of members of the National Executive committee which shall be by delegates vote. iii.
A collegiate voting module shall be in force with one vote for every five registered members.
This is without prejudice to the requirement of minimum of ten members for eligibility of
centre registration/enrolment as a branch.
It is submitted that collegiate voting system in an association under section 40 of the Nigerian
Constitution and section 835 of CAMA, for the officers of an association, is illegal. Section 40 of the
Nigerian Constitution is clear on the reason for the formation of any association in Nigeria. Section 835
and its subjecting sections empowered members, not delegates, to vote at association resolutions. The
singular reason for the formation of any association in Nigeria is for the individual member's
PROTECTION OF HIS INTERESTS. See section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
40. Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in
particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association
FOR THE PROTECTION OF HIS INTERESTS.....
The individual is also free to denounce membership of the association. Conscription of membership
is thus an anathema. The Constitution of an association cannot remove a fundamental right of an
individual. If the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, grants a right to an
individual, the bylaw of a non-statutory association cannot take away that right. The right to form
or belong to associations can be derogated by a justifiable law made in a democratic society in the
interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health. The right to form or
belong to associations can be derogated by a justifiable law made in a democratic society for the
purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons. In the instant cases, it is submitted
that none of the defendant associations can enjoy the privilege of derogation of section 40 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. I urge this Honourable Court to
hold that membership of all the defendant associations ought not be compulsory.
from the source of salary of the plaintiff medical practitioner who is a member of the said
associations.
It is submitted that the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations are not Registered and or
Recognised Trade Union organizations in Nigeria that can enjoy the rare statutory privilege of
demanding and receiving membership dues of their members directly deducted from the salaries of
their members as paid by the members' employers. Section 17 of Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended) states it clearly thus:
45
17. Upon the registration and recognition of any of the trade unions specified in the Third Schedule to
this Act, the employer shall- (a) make deduction from the wages of every worker who is a member of
any of the trade unions for the purpose of paying contributions to the trade union so registered; and
(b) remit such deductions to the registered office of the trade union within a reasonable period or
such period as may be prescribed from time to time by the Registrar.
Section 17 of the Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended)
thus forbids non-trade union organizations from direct deductions of fees from salaries of their
members because, the associations in question were not registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions nor
were the fees being collected for their registration. Furthermore, no specific provisions of the Medical
and Dental Practitioners Act gives the 1st and 3rd defendant associations the right to compulsory
deduction from the source, thus both lack the powers of compulsory deductions of any dues from the
salary sources of members. See International Standard Securities v. Union Bank of Nigeria PLc (2009)
LPELR-8788 (CA) 23, B-C and Bashar v. Jokolo (2016) LPELR-40241 (CA) 26, D-E. The 4th and 5th
defendant associations in this case cannot also rely on section 7(2)(c) of Medical Residency Training Act
to justify invasion of the employment rights of citizens by compulsorily deducting from sources of their
salaries. While it is true that the Medical Residency Training Act says failure to abide the conditions and
terms of employment as a resident terminates the appointment, this cannot by any means be
interpreted as giving a right to invade the private and personal employment rights of citizens to deduct
direct from their salaries, subscriptions or dues for any association. The said provision of the Medical
Residency Training Act did not specifically say that compulsory deduction of dues and subscriptions
direct from the source is one of the incidents of appointment as residents. A statute could only remove
a vested right by direct and clear provisions and not amorphous provisions like section 7(2)(c) of the
Medical Residency Training Act. To accede to such interpretation is to open a floodgate for employment
rights of citizens, as residents, to be completely eroded. Right-infringing statutes are narrowly construed
against the statute and in favour of the owner of the right to be taken away. See FCDA V. Sule (1994)
LPELR-1263 (SC) 30-31, E-F. This is more so, when the right to be infringed is the proprietary right of an
employee to his salaries, which could only be speciously waived by unequivocal consent of the
employee in writing otherwise, section 34(1)(a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution is infringed. As such,
conscripted deductions of salaries would violate the dignity of the employee as a human being and thus,
would amount to degrading treatment verging on servitude. From the foregoing, the defendant
associations are not registered Trade Unions. It is patently illegal for the Defendants for themselves, and
on behalf of their associations, to demand and receive their association dues from a deduction from
source of the salaries of the plaintiff even after illegal suspension of the plaintiff for challenging this
source deduction from his salary. I urge this Honourable Court to hold this salary deduction from source
as harmfully unlawful.
practitioner, in Nigeria, the association dues or levies of their respective associations, directly from
46
the source of the salary of the practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the
practitioner's written approval to the employers to that effect.
It is submitted, that, like the voluntary associations which the associations in issue ought to be, they
must be contended with getting voluntary contributions from their members by creating interest or
benefit arousing incentives or programmes to entice funds, which programmes/advantages could only
be accessed by members on payment of dues; or attach punishment of expulsion as member if
subscriptions are not paid within a specified period. That is the civilized methods by which voluntary
associations generate funds. If ever, deduction from source must be made, it must be with the written
consent of the residents as individuals and not the association officials or the approval of the Hospital
Management Boards, who are not the owners of the salaries. It is unheard of that a Board or association
officials, not being the owner of the salaries, would approve deductions from source from the salaries of
employees. It is only registration as trade union that can confer this right on any association or union, or
speciously very clear written consent of the employee as an individual instructor, otherwise, a very
dangerous precedent would be set, which could totally erode the rights of employees and embolden the
supposed associations established for the protection of the interests of members not to be responsible
because, either or not they perform, steady means of incomes by direct deductions at sources of the
salaries of the residents are assured! Equally, any extracted conditions and terms at inception of
employment are simply void ab initio. This should not be encouraged by any sane society nor endorsed
by a court of law, particularly, a labour court. Such practice is in sharp contravention of the provisions of
section 254C-(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which abhors unfair labour practice. This
Court has the sacred duty to prevent unfair labour practice. The extension of the statutory privileges
afforded registered Trade Unions to any unregistered Trade Union or associations, is not only ultra vires
the powers of the defendant associations, and void, but also illegal and deserving of award of damages,
jointly and severally against all the parties involved in the illegal deductions to the Plaintiff. The
employer cannot turn itself into a universal ombudsman that collects monthly dues for every Tom, Dick
and Harry association, outside of the express stipulations of the regulating statutes on deduction from
source.
4.14. Whether the acts of the defendant associations illegally deducting plaintiff's salary from source,
pendency of the suits because plaintiff came to this Honourable Court to ventilate these grievances,
and referring plaintiff to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for deregistration from the Medical
association, access to court, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the
Nigerian Laws particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the plaintiff is hereby not entitled to the
full refund of all those monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's salary without his consent,
47
totalling so far N365,800.00 as verifiable from the payslips of the plaintiff from the year 2014-2020,
and all the Reliefs sought, general and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit
The contention of the plaintiff under this head of issue is that the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of all
those monies deducted from his salary for the enjoyment of the defendant associations once this
Honourable Court declares the deduction a nullity. The plaintiff started residency training in December
2013. He has kept his payslips showing the deductions made from source of his salary from his salary
paid from December 2013 to November 2020. It is plaintiff's contention that these source deductions
made from his salary for the affected defendant associations is unlawful, and are thus summarily
recoverable from the defendant associations without any more assurance. This Honourable Court is so
urged to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to immediate refund of all those illegal deductions from source
of plaintiff's salary by the defendant associations acting alone or in cahoots. Plaintiff therefore seeks full
grant of his reliefs, general and exemplary damages, and the cost of the suit. To plaintiff, if the
defendants and their associations had acted lawfully, there would have been no need for this suit and
the damages done to the plaintiff consequent to the illegal acts of the defendants and their associations.
The clear distinction has to be made between general and special damages as the former lies in the fact
that the Court is entitled to presume or infer the injury as the plaintiff is not under any obligation to set
out the particulars of general damages and specifically prove them while special damages are of a
different kind being that which has to be specifically pleaded and proved. See Akinkugbe v Ewutum
(2009) Vol.6 MJSC I34 at 146; S.P.D.C (Nig.) Ltd v Tiegbo VII (200s) 9 NWLR (pr.931) 439."Per PETER-
ODILI, J.S.C. (P. 67, Paras. B-D), see also MEKWUNYE v. Emirates Airlines (2019) LPELR-46553(SC). In
Daniel v. AKPERAN Orshi College of Agriculture, Yandev: (2018) LPELR-45888(CA), held:
"However, on the claim for general damages, the Appellant claimed the sum of N50, 000, 000.00 (Fifty
Million Naira). It is the law that general damages such as the law will presume to be the natural or
probable consequence of the defendant's act need not be specifically pleaded. It arises by inference of
law and need not therefore be proved by evidence and may be averred generally. This is quite unlike
special damages, as stated above, which will not be presumed but specifically pleaded and strictly
proved. See FBN Plc V Assoc. Motors Co. Ltd (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 441 at 465-466. As aforesaid,
the Appellant claimed the sum of N50,000, 000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as general damages in addition
to the award of special damages. This nature of damages are such that the law would presume to be
the direct, natural and probable consequence of the act complained of and need not be strictly
proved."Per SANKEY, J.C.A. (Pp. 13-14, Paras. F
The law is trite that defendants that acted reprehensibly and maliciously against the plaintiff are liable in
general and aggravated damages and cost in favour of the plaintiff notwithstanding that the plaintiff did
not ask for them; while the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of his other reliefs in peace. In the celebrated
case of Emmanuel Ejiogu Onuhikemi v. Smridu Nigeria Limited (Suit NICN/LA/265/2015) instituted and
decided in this Honourable National Industrial Court in 2016, having been begun by way of Originating
Summons like the instant case, the plaintiff, among other things, prayed for general, aggravated and
exemplary damages and cost. The Honourable National Industrial Court Holden at Lagos per Hon. Justice
O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae, granted, among other things, general damages and cost, refusing to grant
aggravated and exemplary damages by relying on CHIEF F. R. A. WILLIAMS V. DAILY TIMES OF NIGERIA
48
LTD (S.C. 21/1987)[1990] NGSC 55 (9 JANUARY 1990) to refuse the grant. In Chief F. R. A. Williams supra,
Eso JSC stated the law:
" ......There has always been a difference between exemplary and aggravated damages. Exemplary
damages are usually awarded where Statutes prescribe them and apart from this, they are only
awarded for two categories to wit (1) oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of
the Government. See Lord Devlm in Rookes v Bernard (1964) A.C. 1230 matters for compensation are
different from matters for punishment. In McCaney v . Associated Newspapers (1965) 2 Q.B. 104,
Pearson. L.J. held compensatory damages . . . may include not only actual pecuniary loss and
anticipated loss or any social disadvantages which result or may be thought likely to result from the
wrong which has been done.This is not punishment. Punishment is best illustrated in the dictum of
Lord Hailsham in Broome v. Cassell (1972) A.C. 1070, where Lord Hailsham regarded the principle of
exemplary damages as teaching the defendant that tort does not pay. Lord Devlin has formulated in
Rookes v. Bernard that exemplary damages includes cases where the defendant with a cynical
disregard for plaintiff's rights has calculated that the money to be made out of his wrong-doing will
probably exceed the damages at risk. All these, that is in regard to exemplary damages include some
deliberations that warrant punishment. (2.) where the defendant's act which has been held to be
tortious was done with a guilty knowledge, the motive being that the chances of economic advantage
outweigh the chances of economic or even (perhaps) physical penalty. (Another act of
deliberateness). Aggravated damages which the Judge awarded and which Ademola, J.C.A., did not
advert to might result out of malevolence on the part of the tortfeasor, spite by him or just the
manner of committing the wrong which injures plaintiff's proper feeling of dignity and pride...............
It has long been established that conduct of the defendant is a matter which the plaintiff may rely
upon in the determination of aggravated damages. ............... and this in the language of Lord
Hailsham in Broome v. Casseli (supra) the natural indignation of the court at the injury inflicted on the
plaintiff is a perfectly legitimate motive in making a generous, rather than a more moderate award to
provide an adequate solatium.....Indeed it means the defendant's conduct has aggravated the
damages payable". Per Eso JSC.
In the same vein, Mohammed Bello. C.J.N.(as he then was), still on Chief F. R. A. Williams supra, stated
thus:
"There is a distinction between exemplary damages and aggravated damages. Whilst the former is
awarded in order to punish a defendant whose conduct has been outrageous or scandalous, the latter
is to compensate the plaintiff for any aggravated harm done to him, such as injury to his feelings as a
result of the special circumstances of the case-see Kemp and Kemp on the Quantum of Damages , 4th
Edition, page 102."
It is submitted that, in the circumstances of this case, this plaintiff is deserving of general, exemplary and
aggravated damages, as well as cost. It is no longer news that even with the judgment of the Federal
High Court Enugu Division on 9th November 2020 abolishing the illegal NMA Building Levy and
mandating the 1st defendant and MDCN to remove the illegal restrictions on its online portal, the 1st
and 2nd defendants are still going about their normal business as if there was no judgement., and are
49
still busy forcing doctors, and even the judgment creditor, to still pay the illegal building levy. Only
general, exemplary and aggravated damages and punitive cost can re-wire the medulla oblongata of the
defendants and their associations.
4.15. Whether the Plaintiff has thereby not suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the wicked
hands of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for
the time being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted
the plaintiff by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.
The plaintiff contends that he has suffered greatly at the wicked hands of the defendants and their
associations who have acted unlawfully to harm plaintiff, his aspirations and his interests.
5. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has therefore raised the following Issues for Determination:
1. Whether the disciplinary action meted out on the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association
2. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st defendant
3. Whether the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from the 3rd and
4. Whether the disciplinary action initiated against the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association through
its National Executive Council (NEC) headed by the 2nd defendant without the requisite assertainment
of fact as provided by the 1st defendant association's Constitution during the pendency of the suit which
institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent referral of plaintiff by the NEC to appeal
to the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) which has the only power of adoption and ratification of the
said disciplinary action by the NEC of the association, the ADM also headed by the 2nd Defendant, is
thereby not reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the principles of natural justice,
equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of association, fair
hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws particularly Sections 34(1),
36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, and
and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN
2004)
50
5. Whether the defendant associations have the powers to control their respective associations as they
wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and the CAMA.
6. Whether a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association can abrogate the statutory
7. Whether in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu state branch
8. Whether the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of section 600
9. Whether in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant association can
perverse finding.
10. Whether in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the circumstances of this case
and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association can legally and validly, without
malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the Plaintiff on one and the same
subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of both pathways.
11. Whether by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is compelled to belong to, and thus
be conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of the Plaintiff being a
medical practitioner in Nigeria.
51
source of the salary of the practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the practitioner's
14. Whether the acts of the defendant associations illegally deducting plaintiff's salary from source,
and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the plaintiff is hereby not entitled to the full refund of all
those monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's salary without his consent, totalling so far
N365,800.00 as verifiable from the payslips of the plaintiff from the year 2013-2020, and all the Reliefs
sought, general and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit
15. Whether the Plaintiff has thereby not suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the wicked hands
of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for the time
being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted the plaintiff
by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.
Whereof the Plaintiff Claims as follows:
association consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit Numbers
NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said association, is hereby against natural
justice.
2. A DECLARATION that the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant association from the 1st
defendant association, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suits with Suit Numbers
NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019 against the said 1st defendant association, is hereby
against natural justice, equity and good conscience, and an egregious intimidation of the plaintiff to force
the hand of justice.
3. A DECLARATION that the suspension of the Plaintiff by the 3rd and 5th defendant associations from
the 3rd and 5th defendant associations, consequent upon and during the pendency of the Plaintiff's suit
with Suit Number NICN/EN/26/2019 against the said associations, is hereby against natural justice,
52
4. A DECLARATION that the disciplinary action initiated against the Plaintiff by the 1st defendant
association through its National Executive Council (NEC) headed by the 2nd defendant without the
requisite assertainment of fact as provided by the 1st defendant association's Constitution during the
pendency of the suit which institution informed the disciplinary action; and the subsequent referral of
plaintiff by the NEC to appeal to the Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM) which has the only power of
adoption and ratification of the said disciplinary action by the NEC of the association, the ADM also
headed by the 2nd Defendant, is thereby reprehensible, and an unprecedented gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, and a gross violation of the Plaintiff's rights to
freedom of association, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws
particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004)
5. A DECLARATION that the defendant associations do not have the powers to control their respective
associations as they wish even against the clear provisions of statutes particularly the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA.
6. A DECLARATION that a compulsory association such as the 1st defendant association cannot
abrogate the statutory association-membership rights of the plaintiff to participate in the association's
general meetings and resolutions (including resolutions to alter the association constitution and vote in
officers of the association), by using the instruments of the association's constitution made in gross
violation of section 835 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 (previously section 600
CAMA 1990) without the plaintiff's consent; and hand such rights over to an unelected organ of the
association that does not represent the interest of the plaintiff.
7. A DECLARATION that in view of the provisions of laws in Nigeria, and the national and the Enugu
state branch association constitutions of the 1st defendant association, the 3rd defendant cannot hand pick
Delegates to the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.
8. A DECLARATION that the 1st and 4th Defendant Association Constitutions, made in contravention of
section 600 CAMA 1990 (re-enacted as section 835 CAMA 2020), are hereby illegal, void and invalid,
and all those officials elected on the basis of the said void Association Constitutions, and all their
purported actions on behalf of the association were thereby rendered null and void and of no effect, the
said officials having occupied those official positions for the associations illegally.
9. A DECLARATION that in view of the relevant laws in Nigeria, the organs of the 1st defendant
association cannot validly sit and perversely find, and overrule the decision of a Nigerian superior court
of record made in favour of the Plaintiff on the application of the 1st defendant; so much so that the 1st
defendant association goes ahead to mete out a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based purely on
such perverse finding.
10. A DECLARATION that in view of the Constitution of the 1st defendant association, the
circumstances of this case and the provisions of the Nigerian laws, the 1st defendant association cannot
legally and validly, without malice, simultaneously activate two pathways to disciplinary action on the
Plaintiff on one and the same subject matter, and yet go ahead to punish the Plaintiff on the outcomes of
both pathways.
53
11. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions of the laws, particularly
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Plaintiff is not compelled to
belong to, and thus be not conscripted into, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations by virtue of
the Plaintiff being a medical practitioner in Nigeria.
the Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended), the 3rd, 4th and
5th Defendant associations are not Registered and Recognised Trade Union organizations, that can enjoy
the rare statutory privilege of demanding and receiving their membership dues or levies directly deducted
the Trade Unions Act Chapter T14 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (as amended), the 3rd, 4th and
5th Defendant associations cannot lawfully demand and receive from the employer of the plaintiff
medical practitioner, in Nigeria, the association dues or levies of their respective associations, directly
from the source of the salary of the plaintiff practitioner who is a member of the associations, without the
said practitioner's written approval to the employers to that effect.
14. A DECLARATION that the acts of the defendant associations illegally deducting plaintiff's salary
from source, imposing an illegal NMA Building Levy on the plaintiff, denying plaintiff his statutory
association participatory rights after conscription into the associations, maliciously suspending and
widely publishing the suspension of the plaintiff from all the medical associations in Nigeria during the
Register, are thereby reprehensible, and gross violations of the Plaintiff's rights to freedom of association,
access to court, fair hearing and dignity of human person as guaranteed under the Nigerian Laws
particularly Sections 34(1), 36(1-3), 37, 40 and 254C (1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended, and and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004); and the plaintiff is hereby entitled to the full refund of all those
monies illegally deducted from the plaintiff's salary without his consent, totalling so far N365,800.00 as
verifiable from the payslips of the plaintiff from the year 2013-2020, and all the Reliefs sought, general
and aggravated damages, and the cost of this suit
15. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff has thereby suffered great trauma, harm and turmoil at the
wicked hands of the 1st and 3rd defendant associations which memberships are statutorily compulsory for
the time being, and in the hands of the 4th and 5th defendant associations who illegally conscripted the
16. A DECLARATION that it is only an employee, in this case the plaintiff, that has the legal capacity to
demand for deduction of his salary from source, and not the Officers of the non-trade union defendant
associations acting on behalf.
17. A DECLARATION that the following parts of the 1st defendant association constitution are void and
are a nullity viz Articles 9, 10, 11, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, the 1st Schedule to the constitution and any other
part of the constitution giving general meeting authority to the Delegates Meeting.
54
18. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the defendants to join hands with the Plaintiff and
other medical and dental practitioners licensed in Nigeria to immediately produce brand new or any part
thereof as the Honourable Court may declare void of the association constitutions for the 1st and 4th
defendant associations to enable the Plaintiff exercise his full franchise at the national elections of the 1st
and 4th defendant associations as well as participate fully in reaching binding resolutions at the
associations' general meetings.
19. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court immediately invalidating all the suspensions placed on the
Plaintiff by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations as being contemptuous of court,
unlawful, malicious, vindictive and gross violation of the constitutions of the respective associations,
principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, and the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
20. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendant associations to
transmit forthwith elaborate letters of apology to the plaintiff, and immediately publish same in two
National Dailies of Plaintiff's choice.
21. AN ORDER directing the defendant associations to immediately return the Plaintiff to all those online
and offline association platforms from where the Plaintiff was removed, from the time of instituting the
suit numbers FHC/EN/CS/02/2019, NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019, as well as pay to the
plaintiff the cost of this suit estimated at N2Million only.
22. AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and their associations jointly and
severally to immediately pay to the plaintiff the sum of N365,800.00 being the currently available
computed aggregate unauthorized amount deducted directly from the source of salary of the Plaintiff from
December 2013 till the time of institution of this suit.
23. AN ORDER compelling the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants and their associations jointly and
severally to immediately pay to the plaintiff the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira)
being exemplary damages for their wilful, calculated, vindictive, malicious and unlawful ill-treatment of
the plaintiff, as well as the illegal acts of the defendants and their associations that have left the plaintiff
in an undeserved grilling agony and untold hardships over these affected years for standing on the path of
truth.
24. An Order of perpetual injunction against the 1st to 5th defendants and their associations from
demanding and receiving or further demanding and receiving of their association membership dues and
any other levies whatsoever, from source of salary.
25. An Order of mandatory injuction directing the 1st to 5th defendants and their associations to withdraw
forthwith all those written or oral applications and demands so far made for the purposes of deduction of
their association dues or levies from source of salary.
26. SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem just to make in the
circumstances of this case.
This Plaintiff has made out a good case deserving of being granted all the Reliefs sought in the
Originating Summons in this suit. I so urge your Lordship to grant all the Reliefs sought in the
Originating Summons.
55
All the issues for determination have been adequately argued and cogently so. The clear provisions of the
relevant laws were cited to illuminate the salient points in the arguments. I therefore pray my Lord to
resolve all these issues in favour of the Plaintiff and grant all Reliefs sought by the Plaintiff.
May it please this Honourable Court.
DATED ………………….. DAY OF………………………..2020
Dr Awkadigwe Fredrick Ikenna
Plaintiff's Address for Service:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu
09091397950
FOR SERVICE ON:
1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
2. PROF INNOCENT UJAH
3. DR JOT ONYIA
Nigerian Medical Association Enugu State Branch Office at No 29 Abakaliki Road, G.R.A Enugu in Enugu
state. Phone 08063810681
4. DR UYILAWA OKHUAIHESUYI
56
Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors Secretariat at No 6 Darioa Street, Wuse, Zone 1, Abuja. Phone:
08035935832
5. DR CHIMA EDOGA
Department of Ophthalmology, ESUT Teaching Hospital, Parklane, Enugu, Enugu state. Phone:
08063286165
6.0 LIST OF AUTHORITIES
6.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
1. Code of Ethics for Medical Practitioners in Nigeria 2008
2. Medical and Dental Practitioners Act Cap. M8 LFN 2004 (as amended)
3. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
6.2 JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
Amasike v. Reg.-Gen., C.A.C. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1211)337 S.C.

NICN Suspension Deduction Suit 2020 NMA NARD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NICN Suspension Deduction Suit 2020 NMA NARD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION

Suit No: NICN/EN/ /2020

DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK .............................................................................. PLAINTIFF

1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ...........1ST DEFENDANT

THE NAMES AND DESCRIPTION AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES

Gynaecology, ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu. Phone: 08039555380. Email:

Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494

FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494

in Enugu state. Phone 08063810681

4. DR UYILAWA OKHUAIHESUYI is the incumbent President of the Nigerian Association of Resident

Doctors Secretariat at No 6 Darioa Street, Wuse, Zone 1, Abuja. Phone: 08035935832

state. Phone: 08063286165

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

force the hand of justice.

Nigeria and the CAMA.

represent the interest of the plaintiff.

the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.

medical practitioner in Nigeria.

written approval to the employers to that effect.

by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.

to force the hand of justice.

and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9 LFN 2004)

Federal Republic of Nigeria and the CAMA.

does not represent the interest of the plaintiff.

Delegates to the Delegates Meeting of the 1st defendant association.

such perverse finding.

the Plaintiff being a medical practitioner in Nigeria.

practitioner's written approval to the employers to that effect.

plaintiff by unauthorized direct deductions from plaintiff's salary.

associations acting on behalf.

associations' general meetings.

National Dailies of Plaintiff's choice.

suit numbers FHC/EN/CS/02/2019, NICN/EN/26/2019 and FHC/EN/CS/170/2019, as well as pay to the

plaintiff the cost of this suit estimated at N2Million only.

from December 2013 till the time of institution of this suit.

any other levies whatsoever, from source of salary.

deduction of their association dues or levies from source of salary.

circumstances of this case.

order for costs may be granted against that respondent.

Dated this............day of ..................... 2020

By order of the Court

MEMORANDUM TO BE SUBSCRIBED ON THE COMPLAINT

provided in Order 7, Rule 1 of these Rules.

Endorsement to be made on copy of Complaint forthwith after service:

the ......day of.............2020. Endorsed the ...day of .............. 2020. Signed...........................

Address…........................ The address must be within the jurisdiction.

The Registry, National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

In the Enugu Judicial Division

thereof had been produced to me this ....... Day of........................ 2020

DATED …....... DAY OF…………………..2020

DR AWKADIGWE IKENNA FREDRICK

Plaintiff's Address for Service:

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

ESUT Teaching Hospital Parklane Enugu

FOR SERVICE ON:

1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE NIGERIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Zone 4, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494

2. PROF INNOCENT UJAH

Zone 4, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: nationalnma@yahoo.com. Telephone: 08035870494

state. Phone 08063810681

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA