Abraham N. Osadare & Ors. V. Liquidator, Nigeria Paper Mills Ltd. & Anor. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA G. MBABA, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/PET/1/2005 (Coram: Bilikisu B Aliyu J), delivered on 29/2/2009. Appellants in their motion filed on 30/10/2006 in the said suit had appealed against the decision of the Respondent (Appointed Liquidator of Nigerian Paper Mills Ltd) rejecting the Appellants’ claims against the company-in-liquidation. The Grounds for the Appeal were:-

(1) The Liquidator was in error in law by relying on the purported tripartite agreement between the Federal Ministry of Industry, and paper and Papers Products Senior Staff Association/Union Printing, Publishing and Paper Workers;

(2) Also, the Appellants were not parties to any agreement between the Federal Ministry of Industry, and Paper and Papers products Senior Staff Association/Union Printing, Publishing and Paper Workers in respect thereof;

(3) Assuming without conceding that there was any agreement in respect thereof, such agreement cannot replace the staff conditions of Service with the company;

(4) The staff condition of service with the company contains terms of contract of employment between the Appellants and no other “tripartite agreement” can govern the tenure of appellants’ employment and their entitlement on disengagement;

(5) Contrary to the Liquidator’s ground of rejection of claims, there was no agreement between the Appellants and the Federal Ministry of Industry in respect of the Claims

RELIEFS SOUGHT: ORDER OF COURT:

(1) reversing and or varying the decision of the Liquidator rejecting the Appellants Claims;

(2) accepting the Appellants’ claims as submitted for proof and regarding same as Proved.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE:

(1) An order granting leave to the Appellants to call witnesses to prove their claims before the Honourable Court, or

(2) An order of Court granting the Appellants leave to commence their suit which are (sic) still pending before the court; and any other orders the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the appeal”

After hearing that appeal, the learned Trial Judge ruled against the Appellants and said: