Globerstar Engr. Co. Limited V. Sylvester Omatseye & 65 Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

This is a consolidated appeal against 2 decisions of 2 different judges of the Warri Division of the High Court of Delta State in Suit No. W/91/96. The first decision was the ruling of Narebor, J. dated 14th April, 1997, while the second decision was that of Akpomudjere, J. dated 27th October, 2000. The 66 Respondents, who were plaintiffs at the High Court, took out a writ, endorsed with the following claim:

“The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is as follows: – The sum of N50, 372,894.00 (Fifty Million, Three Hundred and Seventy-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Four Naira) being the total sum of money accruing and due to the plaintiffs as salaries and benefits, the plaintiffs being bona fide employees of the defendant, from 10th day of April, 1992 to the 15th day of March, 1996 based on the yearly collective agreement entered into between NUPENG (National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers) and the Defendant which the defendant had failed to pay despite repeated demands on her to do so. The defendant carries on business at Mcdermott Road, Warri, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

Salaries and benefits due and accruing to the plaintiffs as bona fide employees of the defendant from the 15th day of March, 1996 till judgment is entered by this Honourable Court based on the yearly collective agreement between NUPENG (National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers) and the defendant. The defendant carries on business at Mcdermott Road, Warri, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

Before the exchange of pleadings, the plaintiffs brought a motion on notice dated 12th December, 1996 and filed on 16th December, 1996 seeking for the following main relief: –

“An interlocutory order restraining the Defendant/Respondent by itself, its servants, workmen and/or staff/employees from molesting, harassing, embarrassing, arresting or causing to arrest or in any manner however, and/or suspending, transferring or terminating the plaintiffs/Applicants’ employment with the defendant/respondent pending the determination of the substantive Suit tiled.”

While this motion on notice was still pending, the plaintiffs filed an ex-parte motion seeking for an interim relief in terms of the main prayer in the pending motion on notice. This ex-parte application was heard and granted on 10th February, 1997. The motion on notice for interlocutory injunction was argued on 24th February, 1997 and the main prayer was granted in a ruling delivered on 14th April, 1997 by Narebor, J. The Defendant/Appellant was dissatisfied with this ruling consequent upon which it filed a notice of appeal dated 29th April, 1997. This appeal was duly entered as Appeal No. CA/B/9/2004 with a distinct record of appeal.

By a motion on notice dated and filed on 28th April, 1997, the Defendant/Appellant sought for an order to strike out the action before the lower Court for lack of jurisdiction and mis-joinder of parties and causes of action. This motion was brought pursuant to Sections 20 and 47 of the Trades Dispute Act CAP 432 LFN 1990, Section 1A of decree 47 of 1992, and Order 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1988 of Bendel State, applicable to Delta State High Court etc. Arguments on this motion began before Hon. Justice Akpomudjere on 14th July, 1999, more than one year since it was filed. Through various adjournments, arguments on the motion were concluded on 3rd April, 2000.

In a ruling dated 27th October, 2000, the learned trial Judge refused to grant the main prayer in the motion and proceeded to dismiss same. The Defendant/ Appellant were dissatisfied with the dismissal of the motion. It filed an appeal against that decision in a notice of appeal dated 9th November, 2000 containing a single ground of appeal. That appeal is Appeal No. CA/B/9A/2004. By a motion on notice dated 17th January, 2005, the Appellant/ Applicant sought for an order of this Court to consolidate these 2 pending appeals and also to file one brief of argument for both appeals. In the same application, the appellant also sought for leave of this court to file and argue 2 additional grounds of appeal and a deeming order that the filed and served 2 additional grounds of appeal were properly filed and served. These reliefs were granted as prayed on 7th June, 2005.

After all these preliminary issues were settled parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellant’s brief is dated 2/3/06, but having been filed out of time, it was deemed as properly filed and served on 29th March, 2006. The Respondent’s brief was also filed out of time.

It was deemed as properly filed and served on 18th April, 2007.

In its brief of argument, the Appellant formulated 3 issues for the determination of this appeal while the respondent also formulated 3 issues for determination in its own brief.

The issues formulated by the appellant are: –

1. Was the learned trial Judge right in granting an injunction in this case founded on alleged contract of employment? (Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal dated 29/4/97).
2. Was the learned trial Judge right in holding that the State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case? (Ground 1 of the notice of appeal dated 9/11/2000 and Ground 2 of the Additional Grounds of Appeal dated 17/1/2005).
3. Was the learned trial Judge right in holding that the application to strike out the suit for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action ought to fail when:

a) The alleged contract of employment (the existence of which is denied) is personal to each of the 66 Plaintiffs?