JOHN HOLT NIGERIA LIMITED v. HOLTS AFRICAN WORKERS UNION

Before Their Lordships

Between

John Holt Nigeria Limited ---PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

John Holt & Co. (Liverpool) Ltd(Joined by Order of Court)

And

Holts African Workers Union of Nigeria and Cameroons---DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

……………………………A……………………………

Reasons for Judgement of the Court

Given by

Sir Adetokunbo Ademola. C.J.N.

The plaintiffs/respondents are members of a Trade Union; and as the name signifies, members of the Union are employed either by the firm of John Holt Nigeria Ltd. (the 1^st defendants/appellants) or John Holt & Co. (Liverpool) Ltd. (2^nd defendants/appellants). It would appear that the firm of John Holt & Co. (Liverpool) Ltd. (2^nd defendants/appellants) intended to carry out a Reconstruction Plan in the interest of their business, the terms of which the plaintiffs/respondents view with some concern. The latter therefore proceeded to bring an action against the 1^st defendant, John Holt Nigeria Ltd, seeking a declaration and injunction in the following terms:-

“(1) for a declaration that the Reconstruction Plan intended to be put into effect by the defendant on 1^st September, 1961, whereby the central organising body of Nigerian workers in the defendant Company, that is to say, the plaintiff Union, will be abolished by the defendant is unlawful as being an infringement of the right of the members of the plaintiff Union to belong to a trade union for the protection of their interests, and as being a violation of the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1960;

(2) For an injunction restraining the defendant, its servants or agents from carrying out the said Reconstruction Plan”.

A few days after this action had been filed, the plaintiff Union filed a Motion for an interim injunction to be granted to restrain the 1^st defendant (John Holt Nigeria Ltd.) from putting into effect the proposals contained in the Reconstruction Plan until the determination of the suit. Despite the protests made by the 1^st defendant that they were not employers of the members of the plaintiff Union and that at the material time to the action the 1^st defendants were managers of the principal Company’s (2^nd defendants) business in Nigeria, and also that the Reconstruction Plan which is the subject matter of the declaration and injunction sought had been introduced and implemented by the principal Company (2^nd defendant) as a lawful re-organisation of its Company structure, the learned Judge before whom the Motion was argued on the 11^th September, 1961, made the following ruling: