James Chansa v Stephen Mukupa (sued in his capacity as National Secretary of the National Union of Miners and Allied Workers) (2021/HN/284) [2022] ZMHC 76 (7 July 2022)

BETWEEN JAMES CHANSA AND PLAINTIFF STEPHEN MUKUPA (sued in his capacity as National Secretary of the National Union of Miners and Allied Workers) DEFENDANT Before the Hon. Mr. Justice D. Musonda. For the Plaintiff: Mr. D. S Libati - Messrs D. S. Libati Legal Practitioners .. ,,;. For the Defendant: Mr. K. C ~~~ Legal Practitioners Cases referred to: 1. Christine Mulundika and .,. GI-~~ ....... _ ~ --'<'. iple S. C. Z Appeal No.95 of 2. Daniel Pule and Others vs. The Attorney-General Selected Judgment No. 60 0f2018 3. Zulu vs. Avondale Housing Project Limited (1982) Z. R. 172 4. Khalid Mohamed vs. The Attorney-General (1 982) Z. R. 49 S. C J2 5. Zambia National Holdings Limited and United National Independence Party (UNIP) vs. The Attorney-General S. C. Z Judgment No. 3 of 1994 6. Patel vs. Patel 63 of 1996 (unreported). Legislation referred to: 1. The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016. 2. The Industrial and Labour Relations Act, Chapter 269 of the Laws of Zambia. Other works referred to: 1. Maltz G. 'The case for presidential term limits' (2007) Journal of Democracy 128,142. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 By Writ of summons dated 14th October, 2021, taken out of the Ndola District Registry, the plaintiff seeks the following reliefs against the defendant: (i) An order of the Court declaring Article 8(3) of the defendant's Union unconstitutional and void. (ii) An order of the Court declaring the plaintiff eligible to file in his nomination and re-contest for the position of president in the upcoming elections. (iii) An order of interim injunction restraining the National Union of Miners and Allied Workers from proceeding with its J3 quadrennial conference and elections to the office of president until such time that this matter shall have been heard and determined by this Honorable Court; (iv) Costs. (v) Any and/ further other reliefs the Court may deem.fit. 2.0 PLEADINGS 2.1 The plaintiff's averments in the statement of claim are that he was at all material times the president of the National Union of Miners and Allied Workers (NUMA W) and the defendant was its National Secretary. In September, 2012, the plaintiff was elected as president of NUMAW for the first four-year long term of office. 2.2 The plaintiff averred further that in 2016, he was re-elected as president for a second four- year term of office which expired in October, 2021. The plaintiff averred further that by the provisions of article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution, a person cannot hold office for more than two elected terms of office. 2.3 The plaintiff complained that by letter dated 20th May, 2021, the Labour Commissioner addressed the issue of the term of office for the president of the union and advised that the J4 provision of the NUMA W constitution limiting the term of office of the president to two terms was void. It was the plaintiffs further averment that on 7 th September, 2021, the defendant union wrote to the Labour Commissioner requesting that it be allowed to use the existing constitution during its elections. The Labour Commissioner reiterated his earlier position by letter under his hand dated 9 th September, 2021. 2.4 To this, the Labour Commissioner informed the defendant to conduct its elections in compliance with the constitution and the Industrial Relations Act. The plaintiff averred that he is desirous of re-contesting for the position of president of NUMAW. 2.5 The plaintiff complained that on 7 th October, 2021, he wrote a letter to the defendant requesting that NUMA W formally endorses the guidance given by the Labour Commissioner rendering article8(3) of the NUMAW constitution as void to allow the plaintiff to file his nominations and r e-contest in the elections. 2.6 The plaintiff complained further that the defendant neglected/ or failed to respond to the plaintiff. JS 2.7 The defendant filed an amended defence and counter-claim into court on 6 th August, 2022. The gist of the defendant's defence is that the Labour Commissioner addressed the issue of the term of office of president among other matters and in adherence to the guidance by the Labour Commissioner, the plaintiff was invited to file for nomination to contest the election and was not at any time barred from contesting the elections that were scheduled for 29th October, 2021. That based on the guidance of the Labour Commissioner, the plaintiff was allowed to file for nomination and stand for elections before the necessary amendments could be done to the NUMAW constitution. The amendments were subject to full consultation of all key stakeholders. The consultation could only be done during the quadrennial conference or a special supreme conference approved by the Labour Commissioner. 2 .8 The defendant's averments in respect of the amended counter claim are that the NUMA W constitution provides for methods to amend its provisions such as those claimed by the plaintiff J6 and the union could hold a special supreme conference for the purpose. 2.9 That the quadrennial conference not having been held on 29th October, 2021, the special supreme conference is the only forum for the union and its executive members to place an agenda to make the necessary amendments to the cons ti tu tion. 2.10 The defendant averred that on 1st November, 2021, the Union's National Execution Committee (NEC) held a meeting wherein it resolved to suspend the plaintiff from office. On 13th June, 2022, however, the plaintiff unilaterally purported to illegally suspend the secretary general, the vice president and the treasurer of the union. The defendant lamented that the said suspensions are illegal and aimed at frustrating the operations of the union. Thusly, the defendant claimed the following reliefs: i. An order directing that a "special supreme" conference be held that shall have the agenda of making any necessary amendments. And that the said conference be held within two months from the date of the Court's order/ directive. J7 ii. A declaratory order that the plaintiff's suspension from office dated 1st November, 2021 is lawful. m. A declaratory order that the plaintiff's action of purportedly suspending the secretary, vice president and treasurer of NUMA Won 13th June, 2022 is illegal and, null and void. w. Any other relief the Court may deem.fit v. Costs. 2 .11 On 11 th August, 2022, the plaintiff filed his amended reply and defence to counter-claim. The gist of the said amended reply is that the plaintiff was barred from contesting the elections that were scheduled for 29th October, 2021 and from engaging in any other union activity in a manner calculated at preventing him from standing at the quadrennial conference. 2 .12 The plaintiff added that his suspension was entirely based on the reason that the plaintiff chose to exercise his constitutional right to have his grievance addressed by an independent court. J8 2.13 The crux of the defence to the counter-claim was that the special supreme council does not have a mandate to amend the constitution, determine the date and the venue of the quadrennial conference. Further that the meeting held by the NEC was illegal as it was done in contravention of the NUMAW constitution in that it was held in the absence of the president of the union. 2.14 The plaintiff added that his purported suspension from the union was illegal, null and void because it was done without constitutional authority. On that basis, it was averred that the plaintiff was the duly elected president of NUMA W at the material time of the NEC meeting. That the suspensions he undertook were in his capacity as the legitimate president of NUMAW. 3.0 THE CASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF 3.1 On 25 th August, 2022, the plaintiff filed into court a witness statement on which he entirely relied. He is hereinafter referred to as PW 1. He stated that he was elected as president of NUMAW in September, 2012. He was re-elected as president J9 for a second four year term of office 1n 2016. The term was scheduled to expire in 2021 at the quadrennial conference that was supposed to be held on 29th October, 2021 and at which elections to the office of president were supposed to be conducted. 3 .2 PWl stated further that NUMAW was governed by a constitution and according to article 8(3) of the said constitution, a person cannot hold office for more than two elected terms of office. He added that by letter dated 20th May, 2021, the then Labour Commissioner advised that the provision of the constitution limiting the term of office of the president to two terms was void. The Labour Commissioner advised further that the union constitution should be amended to remove the provision limiting the tenure of office. 3 .4 PWl stated further that 1n a letter to the Labour Commissioner dated 7 th September, 2021, the defendant requested that the union should be allowed to use the existing constitution during the quadrennial elections. The Labour Commissioner responded by letter dated 9 th September, 2021 JlO reiterating his earlier guidance to the defendant. The Labour Commissioner thusly informed NUMA W that the elections must be conducted in compliance with the constitution and the Industrial Relations Act. 3.5 PWl added that, being desirous of filing his nominations as per guidance of the Labour Commissioner, he wrote a letter to NUMAW requesting it to formally endorse the guidance given by the Labour Commissioner but the union refused and / or neglected to do so. 3.6 When cross-examined, PWl stated that he had been a member of NUMAW since 2003. He added that the Labour Commissioner has authority to interpret the union's constitution except the Constitution of Zambia. He conceded that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution provides for the tenure of office and further that the president of the union has only two turns of office. 3 .7 PWl insisted that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution is in conflict with Article 21 of the Zambian Constitution. He stated Jll that he intended to run for a third term but could not as the constitution had not yet been amended. 3.8 PWl concluded by stating that he made efforts to ensure that the supreme council meets to consider amendments to the union constitution. 3. 9 That marked the close of the case for the plaintiff. 4.0 THE CASE FOR THE DEFENDANT 4.1 The defendant also filed a witness statement into court on 7 th October, 2022 on which he relied. He is hereinafter referred to as DW 1. He testified that the plaintiffs second term of office was supposed to come to an end in 2021 at the quadrennial conference that was scheduled for 29th October, 2021 at which elections to the office of president were supposed to be conducted. The quadrennial conference did not, however, take place on account of an injunction at the instance of the plaintiff. The union subsequently held an elective conference where new office bearers were elected. J12 4.2 DWl acknowledged that the union was governed by a constitution which under article 8 (3) limits the number of times one can hold office. He further acknowledged that in a letter dated 20th May, 2021, the then Labour Commissioner advised that the provision of the constitution limiting the term of office of the president to two terms should be amended. He stated that, based on the foregoing recommendation by the then Labour Commissioner, it was concluded by the general membership that the advice would be acceded to and the subject constitution tabled and amended at the quadrennial conference which was scheduled for October, 2021. 4.3 It was DWl 's further testimony that the general understanding was that any member and candidate wishing to contest for a position should file their nomination including that of president before the amendment to the constitution. DW 1 denied the assertion that the plaintiff was barred from filing his nomination as what was intended to be amended was the tenure of office. He added that by a letter to the Labour Commissioner dated 7 th September, 2021, the defendant J13 requested that it should be allowed to use the existing constitution during the elections as amendments to the constitution could only be done at the quadrennial conference under the existing constitution. The Labour Commissioner responded by letter dated 9 th September, 2021 reiterating his earlier guidance. 4 .4 DWI stated that 1n adherence to the guidance given by the Labour Commissioner, the plaintiff was invited to file his nomination to contest the elections. He was at no point barred from contesting the elections that were scheduled for 29th October, 2021. Notwithstanding, the plaintiff was not eligible to contest the elections. This was on account that at the time of the guidance by the Labour Commissioner, the amendment to the constitution was not effected and the plaintiffs tenure of office had expired on 12th March, 2021. 4.5 It was DWl's further testimony that the only way the amendment was to be effected was during and at the quadrennial conference and not before. Further that the guidance by the Labour Commissioner was mere guidance c;; J14 without the force of law. DWl stated that the interpretation of a statute was a preserve of the court. He explained that Section 5 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act referred to by the Labour Commissioner which provides for a person's participation in union activities was not in conflict with article 8(3) of the NUMA W constitution as the said article provides for tenure of office and did not in any way prevent the plaintiff or any other member from participating in the union activities. 4.6 That it is simply a cap on the tenure and is in fact in line with the tenets and principles of democracy where office bearers have limited tenure to avoid dictatorship or tenets that may favor it. In line with this, DWl explained that the union has had the right to invoke the tenets of democracy as supported by the Republican Constitution. 4.7 DWl stated that, whereas section 18 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act speaks to disqualifications, article 8(3) of the NUMAW Constitution provides for tenure which is tantamount to eligibility of a person who has twice held the office of president. To this, DW 1 said that this in itself is not a J15 violation of either section 18 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act or Article 21 of the Republican Constitution. 4.8 He added that disqualification and tenure of office are completely different. That despite the guidance of the Labour Commissioner, article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution does not violate any provisions of the law and therefore, it is not void. 4.9 In relation to the counter-claim, DWl stated that the constitution of NUMA W enacts methods to amend its provisions. The union can thus hold a "special supreme" conference to make such amendments. That the quadrennial conference not having been held on 21 st October, 2021 , the only forum for the union and its executive members to place an agenda to make the necessary amendments to the constitution wa s by calling upon the special supreme conference. 4 . 10 He continued to narrate that as regards the electing of office bearers, only the union can hold an elective conference for electing office bearers which was in fact done. On 1st J16 November, 2021, the National Executive Committee of NUMAW held a meeting which suspended the plaintiff from among others performing any duties under the office of president. 4.11 DWl concluded by stating that on 13th June , 2022, the plaintiff unilaterally purported to suspend the secretary, the vice president and the treasurer of the union. To this, DWl added that the suspensions were illegal and aimed at frustrating the running and activities of the union. He beseeched the court to dismiss the plaintiffs action and uphold his counter-claim. 4.12 When cross-examined, DWl stated that the NEC was in line with the constitution when it proceeded to hold a meeting and elect new office bearers. According to him article 8(3) of the union constitution does not disqualify anyone from contesting positions in the union. He conceded that the president of the union can only serve two terms of office. He explained that the special supreme council and NEC are provided for under the constitution of the union. :: J17 4.13 DWl explained further that even if the plaintiff was suspended from office, he had no letter to that effect. That marked the close of the case for the defendant. 5.0 SUBMISSIONS 5.1 I received final written submissions from both parties. 5.2 The plaintiffs submissions were filed into court on 25th October, 2022. The plaintiff started by giving the background of the matter and the summary of the evidence on record. The plaintiff contended that article 8(3) of the NUMA W constitution contravenes section 18 and S(c) of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act which governs trade unions. According to the argument, tenure of office is not among the limitations provided for under section 18 af orestated. 5.3 It was thus contended that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution violates not only the Industrial and Labour Relations Act but also the Republican Constitution by limiting a person's right to hold office beyond what is stipulated by law. The case of Christine Mulundika and 7 others vs. The J18 People 1 was relied on to posit that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution is null and void on the basis that it violates Article 21 of the Republican Constitution. 5.4 In relation to the counter - claim, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant is not entitled to the reliefs sought therein. That the special supreme council was not provided for under the NUMA W constitution but envisages its existence under article 6. It was contended that the special supreme council does not have t he mandate to amend the constitution. In this regard, the plaintiff contended that the reliefs sought by the defendant lack constitutional backing. 5.5 In relying on articles 6 and 8 of the NUMAW constitution, the plaintiff further submitted that it is mandatory for the NEC to consist of the president, secretary, treasurer, their vices and 4 trustees. He stated that the president is mandated to preside over all meetings of the NEC. The plaintiff argued that the union held a NEC meeting without the knowledge of and in the absence of the plaintiff, who was the president of NUMAW at the time. J19 5.6 It was argued further that the NUMAW constitution does not envisage a situation of the vice president presiding over meetings by reason of the other members of the NEC intentionally being kept away. The court was urged to declare the NEC meeting illegal on the authority of the case of Christine Mulundika and 7 Others vs. The People. 1 5. 7 The plaintiff submitted that he was not subjected to a disciplinary hearing after his suspension and that this was in breach of article 11 of the NUMA W constitution which makes it mandatory for adherence with the disciplinary code of the union. 5.8 In conclusion, the plaintiff submitted that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution contravenes the Constitution of Zambia and the Industrial and Labour Relations Act. The court was thus urged to grant the plaintiff all the reliefs sought. 5.9 The defendant's final written submissions were filed into court on 8 th November, 2022. The defendant equally started by giving the background of the matter and opined that there is only one issue for determination, namely: J20 (i). whether or not article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution is void. 5.10 As regards the counter-claim, the defendant was of the view that the issues for determination are as follows: (ii). whether or not in light of the fact that the quadrennial conference did not take place on 29th October, 2022, the court can direct and order the union to hold a special supreme conference for purposes of addressing and effecting the amendments as suggested by the Labour Commissioner (iii). whether or not the plaintiff's suspension on 1st November, 2021 was lawful and, whether or not the suspension of the defendant, the vice president and treasurer of the union by the plaintiff on 13th June, 2022 was lawful. 5.11 In relation to the first question, the defendant submitted that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution was not void as it does not violate Article 21 of the Zambian Constitution. That the Labour Commissioner in citing Article 21 of the Republican Constitution and sections 18 and 5 (c) of the Industrial and J21 Relations Act to suggest an amendment to the NUMAW constitution erred at law as he has no authority or jurisdiction to interpret either the provisions of the Republican Constitution or the Industrial and Labour Relations Act. 5.12 It was further contended that the Labour Commissioner's letter was merely guidance and / or an opinion that had no legal or binding effect. According to the submission, only the court has the requisite jurisdiction to interpret any provision of the Republican Constitution. To this, it was argued that the Labour Commissioner stepped out of line by attempting to interpret Article 21 of the Republican Constitution as it relates to article 8(3) of NUMAW constitution. That in any case, the Labour Commissioner was wrong 1n his purported interpretation. 5.13 It was contended that Article 21 of the Republican Constitution speaks to a person's freedom of assembly whereas article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution provides for the tenure of office. To this, the defendant argued that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution does not in any way prevent J22 the plaintiff from associating with other members of NUMA W or prevent him from being a member of NUMAW. That the article speaks to the tenure of office only, and the limit for such term being twice. 5 .14 The defendant gave an instance of Article 106(1), (2) and (3) of the Zambian Constitution as having equal effect with article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution. The case of Daniel Pule and Others Vs. The Attorney-General2 was relied on to posit that the tenure of office cannot be construed to be a violation of one's freedom of assembly and association. 5.15 In concluding his submissions in respect of the question whether or not article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution violates Article 21 of the Republican Constitution and sections 18 and 5 (c) of the Labour and Industrial Relations Act, the defendant submitted that there was no conflict that article 8(3) causes. Further that, since article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution is couched in mandatory terms, the plaintiff is not eligible to file his nomination and re-contest the elections as president. - - - - - -- - - J23 5.16 In relation to the counter-claim, the defendant implored the court to take judicial cognizance of the fact that the quadrennial conference did not take place on the scheduled date of 29th October, 2021 and further that the plaintiff's mandate ended 2021. 5.17 The defendant submitted that even though the defendant was not averse to the Labour Commissioner's opinion, the quadrennial conference was the only forum through which any amendment would have been effected as provided for under article 6 A(c)(vii) of the NUMAW constitution. 5. 18 Relying on Article 6 (c)(vii) of the NUMAW constitution, the defendant submitted that in the absence of holding the quadrennial conference, the supreme council was the only organ that was responsible for governing the union, upholding its laws and policies and advancing the union's interest. 5.19 The defendant submitted further that, in light of the fact that the union held its elective conference and ushered in new office bearers, it was in the interest of the union that the new president calls for a special supreme council that shall cover J24 all the issues the union is facing, including those stated in the opinion of the Labour Commissioner. To this, it was opined that it will be in the interest of the union that this court orders that a special supreme council meets so that it can make necessary amendments to the union's constitution. 5.20 On the suspension of the plaintiff from the union, the defendant submitted that the same was lawful as it was exercised in accordance with Article 6 D (i) and (iii) of the NUMA W constitution. That when the president cannot chair the meeting, he yields his position to his vice who in turn chairs the meetings. It was contended that the plaintiffs suspension on 1st day of November, 2021 was valid and lawful. 5.31 The defendant submitted further that since the plaintiff's mandate was ending in 2021, he had no authority to suspend the secretary, the vice president and the treasurer on 13th June, 2022. According to the argument, the purported suspension was illegal null and void as it contravened article 8(viii) of the NUMA W constitution. J25 5.32 In summation, the defendant prayed that the plaintiffs claims should be dismissed and the counter-claim upheld. 6.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 6.1 I have considered the pleadings, the evidence on record and the parties' final written submissions. I observe that the following are common cause. 6.2 The plaintiff was in 2012 elected NUMAW president for the first four year long term of office. The plaintiff was re-elected for a further four year long term in 2016. In this regard, therefore, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs tenure of office was expiring in 2021 at the quadrennial conference scheduled for 29th October, 2021. 6 .3 By letter dated 20th May, 2021 , and addressed to the Secretaries -General of various mine workers unions, the Labour Commissioner expressed the view that provisions in the union constitutions that limit the tenure of office for office bearers were inconsistent with the provisions of the law and ultimately, void. The Labour Commissioner thusly advised the J26 unions to amend their respective constitutions by removing the perceived illegality. 6.4 On 7 th September, 2021, the · defendant wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner requesting for permission to use the then existing constitution. According to the defendant, the basis for the request was that the constitution could only be tabled at the quadrennial conference that was scheduled for 29th October, 2021. 6.5 The Labour Commissioner responded to the defendant's letter on 9 th September, 2021 and reiterated his earlier guidance to various mine workers' unions. Flowing from that, the defendant circulated a memo to all election candidates on 11 th October, 2021 informing them that nominations would commence on 12th October, 2021 and end on 15th October, 2021 . The memorandum shown on page 27 of the defendant's bundle of documents confirms that position. 6. 6 It is further common cause that the quadrennial conference was not held on the scheduled date because of the injunction at the instance of the plaintiff. The fact giving rise to this J27 plaint is that the plaintiff was desirous of filing in his nomination and re-contest the elections as president of NUMA W. He was aggrieved that the defendant union did not endorse the guidance given by the Labour Commissioner to the effect that article 8(3) of the NUMA W constitution is void as it barred him from re-contesting the elections as president. 6. 7 The sole question for determination in respect of the plaintiffs claims is whether or not article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution violates the provisions of Article 21 of the Republican Constitution and Sections 18 and 5 (c) of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act. 6.8 In relation to the counter-claim, I agree with the defendant that the questions for determination are twofold, namely: (i). whether or not in light of the fact that the quadrennial conference did not take place on 29th October, 2022, the court can direct and order the union to hold a special supreme conference for purposes of addressing and effecting the amendments as suggested by the Labour Commissioner. J28 (ii). whether or not the plaintiff's suspension on 1st November, 2021 is lawful and, whether or not the suspension of the defendant, the vice president and treasurer of the union by the plaintiff on 13th June, 2022 was lawful. 6. 9 In answering the first question, it is cardinal to observe that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving his case if he is to succeed. See the case of Zulu vs. Avondale Housing Project Limited3 and Khalid Mohamed vs. The Attorney-General4 · 6.10 According to article 8 (3) of the NUMAW constitution, "The tenure of office for the presidency shall be two terms of four(4) years each only." 6.11 I have no doubt on my mind that the import of the above provision is to ensure that the position of president of NUMA W, is held rotationally so as to afford a chance to every eligible member of the union to aspire to hold that office in accordance with the tenets of democracy. - - - - - - J29 6.12 The Learned author of an article "The case for presidential Term limits" (2007) Journal of Democracy 128, 142 echo the foregoing when he writes that: "The popularity of presidential term limits .. . reflects a recognition that this office, more than any other, needs to be rotated on regular basis to ensure survival of democracy" 6.13 This reasoning formed the basis of the court's decision in the case of Daniel Pule and Others Vs. The Attorney -General2 wherein reference to Article 106 of the Zambian Constitution which limits the terms of the Republican President to two terms of five years each was made. It is noteworthy that Article 106 of the Zambian Constitution is worded in similar fashion as article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution. 6.14 I must state that the limitation placed on the holding of a political office cannot be said to be an infringement on one's right to the freedom of assembly and association as provided for under Article 21 of the Republican Constitution. Tenure of office is not synonymous with life appointments. The limitation of tenure of office is justified by the need to facilitate J30 alternation in the office to avert the emergency of autocracy which is associated with the concentration of power in one person. Post 1991, the 'weltanschauung', or view of life has been democracy. It is difficult to imagine that others would contemplate a return to the past. 6 . 15 It should be noted that infringement of one's rights entails disallowance of the freedoms or entitlements to which all human beings are legally entitled. The said article 8(3) of the NUMA W constitution does in any way or at all preclude the plaintiff from contesting for other positions in the union but simply puts a cap on the number of times one can get elected to the office of presidency of the union. The NUMA W constitution is, therefore, in tune with the letter and spirit of the Republican Constitution. 6.16 In view of the foregoing, I find no basis upon which I can uphold the plaintiff's assertion that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution which provides for limitation in holding office of president of the union is unconstitutional. I thus find nothing unconstitutional or a semblance thereof about the said article - - - - J31 8(3). The plaintiff's contention 1n this regard is clearly misconceived and cannot be upheld. 6.17 Coming to the plaintiff's further assertion that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution violates sections S(c) and 18 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, I am of the considered view that there is nothing 1n article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution which suggests or precludes the plaintiff from contesting for any other position in the union apart from the office of presidency. Similarly, there is nothing in article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution which bars the plaintiff from taking part in the activities of the trade union or seeking and holding any position in the trade union. The plaintiff's assertion, therefore, cannot be acceded to in the premises of this case. 6.18 In relation to the second relief sought by the plaintiff, it 1s cardinal, as both parties acknowledged, that the operations of NUMAW are guided by its constitution. Therefore, the plaintiff could only be eligible to re-contest for the position of president if article 8(3) of the constitution was amended to allow one who had exhausted the two terms to re-contest for the position J32 of president. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to declare that the plaintiff is eligible to file nominations and re contest for the position of president before the amendment to the NUMA W constitution is effected. Furthermore in light of my earlier finding that article 8(3) of the NUMAW constitution does not violate Article 21 of the Republican Constitution and Sections 5(c) and 18 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, I find no basis upon which I can grant the relief sought by the plaintiff. 6.19 I am fortified in so proceeding by the case of Zambia National Holdings Limited and United National Independence Party (UNIP) vs. The Attorney-General5 in which the court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court although unlimited, is not limitless since the court must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the law. Suffice to state that this court cannot declare the plaintiff eligible to re-contest for the position of president without a legal backing. 6.20 I must add that the observation by the Labour Commissioner that the limiting prov1s10ns on holding office are J33 unconstitutional cannot be the basis upon which the court can be moved to make declarations unless the said pronouncements are accompanied by necessary amendments to the NUMA W constitution. 6.21 It should be noted, as held in the case of Patel vs. Patel6 that policy pronouncements have no force of law and cannot prevail over an enactment. Similarly the guidance of the Labour Commissioner remained ineffectual until it was reflected in the NUMA W constitution by an amendment. This is what constitutionalism entails. 6.22 Coming to the counter-claim, the defendant has invited me to take judicial cognizance that the quadrennial conference did not take place on the scheduled date of 29th October, 2021. The assertion that the quadrennial conference did not take off is common ground and hence, I find it as factual. 6 .23 By that fact, I find that the mandate of the office bearers in the NUMA W executive came to an end by effluxion of time by 29th October, 2021. It goes without saying that the injunction obtained by the plaintiff did not extend the plaintiffs mandate J34 1n office. Suffice to state that the plaintiff's mandate as president of NUMA W equally lapsed. Therefore, the purported unilateral decision to suspend the vice president, secretary general and the national treasurer by the plaintiff was not only illegal but also null and void for two reasons. 6.24 Firstly, the mandate of the office bearers for NUMAW had lapsed by effluxion of time. Secondly, there is no indication or a scintilla of evidence that the plaintiff acted in conjunction with the NEC as mandated by the NUMA W constitution. 6.25 In view of the foregoing, I declare that the plaintiff's action of purportedly suspending the secretary- general, the vice president and the national treasurer on 13th June, 2022 is illegal and therefore null and void. 6.26 In relation to the claim that an order should be made directing that a special supreme conference should be held within two months of this court's order, I note that the NUMAW constitution provides for the supreme council to meet once a year under article 6. The supreme council has not met as mandated by the constitution. Consequently, I am of the J35 considered view that it is just for the meeting to be called and convened in the next two months from the date hereof taking into account all the necessary notice periods. I thus order accordingly. 6.27 Coming to the claim whether or not the plaintiffs suspension from office by letter dated 1st November, 2021 was lawful, I am in agreement with the defendant on his submission that article 6 D (iii) of the NUMA W constitution clothes the NEC with vast powers including those deemed necessary, proper and appropriate in the administration of the union. It should, however, be noted that at the time NEC convened a meeting, NUMAW had new office bearers. Therefore there was no mandate on their part to inform the plaintiff of the meeting. 6 .28 The plaintiff at the material time was not president of NUMAW as his mandate had already been terminated by· effluxion of time. The suspension did not therefore serve any purpose as the plaintiff was already out of office when his mandate came to an end by 29th October, 2021. 7.0 CONCLUSION J36 7.1 In view of the foregoing, I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case against the defendant on the balance of probabilities. I thus dismiss his case in toto. I further find that the defendant has partially succeeded on his counter-claim and I enter judgment in favor in the terms above pronounced. I award the defendant costs of and incidental to this action to be agreed upon or taxed in default thereof. DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023 ,~T ~DOLA ~ ..•............ D . ' , : ············,.··\····· ~ ONDA ·.: ~:\. ' _. ... HIGH COURT JUDG~> At', . ~ ; . ~,~ .... ~~_...~