A. O. Afolabi & Ors. V. Western Steel Works Limited & Ors (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Lagos State High Court and the respondents were the defendants. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally was for:

1(a) A DECLARATION that the laying-off from February of July 1982 by the 1st defendant and of the 6th and 7th plaintiffs Union members employed by the 1st defendant and numbering about 268 is illegal, wrongful, null and void as being contrary to the provisions of the Labour Act 1974.

(b) A DECLARATION that the lock-out of members of the 6th Plaintiff’s Union by the 1st defendant on 27th September, 1992 is a breach of:

(i) The Agreement reached between the 1st defendant’s Management and 6th Plaintiff Union at the Ministry of Labour and Productivity on 17th September, 1962 is a breach of:

(ii) The agreement made on 16th September, 1981, between the Association of Metal Products and Iron and Steel employers on the one hand and the Iron and Steel Workers Union of Nigeria on the other.

(iii) The collective Agreements between the Association of Metal Products and Iron and Steel Employers of Nigeria on the one hand and Iron and Steel Workers Union of Nigeria on the other.

(c) N5,000 (Five Thousand Naira) for each of the 6th and 7th plaintiffs Union members represented in this suit being general damages for the said breaches.

(a) A DECLARATION that the lock-out by the 1st defendant on 27th September, 1982 of the 6th and 7th plaintiffs Union members employed by the 1st defendant aforesaid is illegal, null and void as being contrary to both the Trade Dispute Act 1976, and the forms and conditions governing the said employment.

(b) A DECLARATION that the employees referred to in (a) above are still in the 1st defendant’s employment.

(c) PAYMENT that employees referred to in (a) and (b) above and in the schedule, all the said employees salaries, wages, redundancy payment and other entitlements from February 1982, to the date of judgment in the manner shown in the schedule attached hereto.

3.(a) AN INJUNCTION restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating and paying out for any purpose whatsoever without an order of the Honourable court any portion or portions or the money in the 1st and or 3rd defendants account or any asset or assets tangible or intangible belonging to the 1st and or 3rd defendant, whether belonging to the 1st and or 3rd defendant alone or jointly with another or others pending the final settlement of any sums adjudged payable to the employees referred to in 2 (a) above.

(b) AN ORDER setting aside any transaction or deal by the 1st AND/OR 2nd defendant since February, 1982 assigning alienating or transferring any tangible or intangible asset or assets of the 1st defendant to the prejudice of the plaintiffs claim against the defendants.

Five witnesses were called by the plaintiff, while the defendants did not call any witness in their defence. In the judgment delivered on the 13th day of May, 1996 the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff failed to call sufficient evidence to show the 3rd defendant had acquired the liabilities of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. On appeal a sole issue was determined and it was: