Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited V. Okon Johnson & Ors (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal; Calabar Division delivered on the 21st day of May, 2009 wherein the Court below allowed the appeal of the 1st – 15th Respondents [who were appellants at the Court below] and set aside the judgment of the Trial Federal High Court sitting in Uyo. As can be gleaned from the record of appeal, a summary of the facts giving birth to this appeal may be stated as follows:-

The 1st – 15th Respondents are security personnel who were engaged to secure the properties of the Appellant. At various times, the 1st – 15th Respondents responded to the Appellant’s advertisement for recruitment into the security unit of the Appellant as spy Police Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. They took the qualifying examination conducted by the Appellant and were selected for interview by the Appellant.

Upon their success at the interview, they were offered employment into the security unit of the Appellant via Exhibits C1, C2, JR1, JR2, JR3, JR4, JR5 and JR6, with their salaries and emolument determined by the Appellant.

1

They were sent for training to the 16th – 18th Respondents on basic guards duties. Thereafter the 1st – 15th Respondents were issued Exhibits G1 and G7 which are certificates of participation in the course and subsequently resumed duty of securing the Appellant’s properties.

To the utter surprise of the 1st – 15th Respondents, the Appellant by Exhibits F and JR17a urged the 17th Respondent to absorb the 1st – 15th Respondents into its supernumerary police outfit without the knowledge of the 1st – 15th Respondents and the 16th and 18th Respondents.

When the 17th Respondent transferred the 1st – 15th Respondents from one State to another, they protested and kicked against the said transfer on the ground that they were not the employees of the 16th – 18th Respondents but those of the Appellant and that only the Appellant could effect their transfer being their employer.

Furthermore, the 1st – 15th Respondents protested the attempt by the Appellant to transfer their services to that of the 16th – 18th Respondents whose process of employment or recruitment is expressly provided for in the Statute under Section 18 of the Police Act.

2

As a result of this protest, Exhibit JR17 at page 735 was written by the 16th Respondent stating clearly that the issue of transfer of the 1st – 15th Respondents was within the prerogative of the Appellant which is the company that employed them.

Despite this unambiguous declaration in Exhibit JR17, the Appellant still insisted that the 1st – 15th Respondents are the employees of the 16th – 18th Respondents so as to deny them their entitlement as its employees. The 1st – 15th Respondents thereafter commenced this action by way of Originating Summons.

The 1st – 15th Respondents [as plaintiffs) had in their Amended Originating Summons filed on 15th March, 2005 before the Federal High Court Uyo, sought the following reliefs against the appellant and the 16th – 18th Respondents.

1. A DECLARATION that having regards to and/or considering the circumstances, nature, procedure and methods of the appointment and/or employment and work of the plaintiff in the service, work or employ of the 1st Defendant and provisions of Section 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Police Act, the plaintiff are employees, workers and staff of the 1st Defendant entitled to all benefits,

3