A public sector trade union cannot sue on behalf of its members under individual employment contracts; such actions require individual claims.

Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ:

By originating summons dated 7 September 1991, the respondent as plaintiff in the High Court sought the following orders against the appellant who was then the defendant:

(1) That the employees of the defendant who opted to become pensionable as a result of the implementation of the Harun Scheme of service are entitled to participate and benefit under the Staff Provident Fund from its date of implementation until the date of the Harun Scheme of implementation becoming effective.

(2) That Employees of the Defendant who opted to remain eligible for Employees Provident Fund as a result of the Harun Scheme are entitled to all rights under the Staff Provident Fund.

(3) Costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the cause.

(4) Such further and/or other relief as may this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant.

This was followed by the summons in chambers filed by the appellant dated 9 November 1991 for the originating summons to be struck out under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (hereinafter "the Rules") or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action, and/or it was frivolous and/or vexatious, and/ or it was an abuse of the process of the court.

The prayers of the originating summons were subsequently amended on 14 May 1992 to read as follows:

(1) That the members of the Plaintiff who are and were the employees of the defendant who opted to become pensionable as a result of the implementation of the Harun Scheme of service are entitled to participate and benefit under the Staff Provident Fund from its date of implementation until the date of the Harun Scheme of implementation becoming effective.

(2) That members of the Plaintiff who are and were the Employees of the defendant who opted to remain eligible for Employees Provident Fund as a result of the Harun Scheme are entitled to all rights under the Staff Provident Fund.

(3) Costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the cause.

(4) Such further and/or other relief as may this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's summons-in-chambers on 2 November 1995. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard on 16 July 1997 and it was dismissed with costs on 29 April 1998. Hence this appeal before us.

When leave to appeal to this court was granted on 2 February 1999, the question posed was:

Whether a Trade Union in public sector possesses locus standi to bring an action on behalf of its members past and present on the individual contracts of employment to which the Trade Union was not a party.

The facts are really not an issue. The dispute was as regards employees of the Employees Provident Fund Board (hereinafter "the Board") who came under the Harun Scheme and the Cabinet Committee Scheme. The respondent is a trade union which purports to represent the said employees while the appellant is the Board governing the affairs of the Employees Providend Fund (hereinafter "the EPF").

Only employees in Grade B and below are eligible to be members of the respondent. In 1958, the Staff Provident Fund (hereinafter "the SPF") was established by the EPF for its employees where both employees and employers were required to contribute one per cent extra to the SPF. Upon retirement, an employee was entitled to withdraw from both the EPF and the SPF.

The existing terms were replaced by Service Circular 1/75 which was issued on 15 January 1975. In particular, paras 177 and 178 stated:

177.

The rules and regulations governing the terms and conditions of service obtaining in the Statutory Authority shall cease to be applicable to those employees who opt to accept the New Salaries and terms and conditions of service as set out in this Service Circular.

178.

Steps are being taken to repeal, cancel or amend the relevant laws, ci