Okwara Agwu & Ors V. Julius Berger Nigeria Plc (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE, J.S.C.

The Appellants herein were staff of the Respondent before they were declared redundant. The Respondent had industrial problem with its workforce in Abuja, that led to the closure of its activities on the 16th June 1999. By a circular dated 28th of June 1999, the respondent informed its workers that payment of salaries, wages and redundancy benefit for the period ending on 15th June,1999 will be made on the 30th June,1999, 2nd of July 1999 and 3rd of July 1999. By paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said circular, the workers were further informed as follows: –

“9. In spite of the illegal strike which cancels payment in lieu of notice, the management has directed the grant of notice of payment to those declared redundant.

10. Workers living in company’s Quarters have to vacate their quarters within a period of two days after payment.”

The Respondent’s workers felt threatened by the circular as they did not know who would be declared redundant. They collectively took out a writ of summons in a representative capacity on the 1st July, 1999 in which they claimed the following reliefs: –

1

a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their (Sic) agents, servants, privies, howsoever described from forcefully ejecting the plaintiffs and members of their families from any of their official quarters/Residences.

b) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their (Sic) agents, servants, privies howsoever described from declaring any of the plaintiffs redundant without first of all following the due process of the Law as stipulated in the various Acts and also the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

c) An order compelling the defendant company to pay the plaintiffs the sum of ten million naira (N10,000,000.00) only being the cost of hiring the services of a solicitor to pursue this matter consequent upon the threat to illegally declare the defendants (Sic, plaintiffs) redundant and to illegally force them out of their residence / official quarters.”This writ of summons was not accompanied with a statement of claim. The Appellants also filed a motion on notice on the 1st of July 1999, in which they sought for the following: –

“a) An interlocutory orders restraining the

2

Defendant/Respondent, either by themselves, (Sic) servants, agents, privies assign, howsoever described from unlawfully ejecting or any other way interfering with the quiet possession occupation and use of the plaintiffs’/applicant’s official quarters located in the Federal Capital Territory and Suleja pending the final determination of the substantive suit before this Honourable Court.

b) An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, their (Sic, its) agents, servants and/ or any person howsoever describe from unlawfully declaring any of the plaintiffs/applicants redundant pending the final determination of the substantive suit before this Honourable Court.

c) An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, privies however described from interfering with any of the rights and privileges due to the plaintiffs/applicants as workers/servants of the defendant company pending the final determination of the substantive suit pending before this Honourable Court.”

The writ of summons and the motion were served on the respondent on the 1st of July 1999. As a follow up, Mr. S. C. Peters, Learned