Fiicharles Organ & Ors V. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited & Anor (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

The appellants herein as plaintiffs at the Rivers State High Court, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, took out an originating summons against the respondents as the defendants seeking the determination of the following questions:-

“(1) Whether on a proper construction of the employment of the Plaintiffs:-

(a) The circumstances and manner of employment of the plaintiffs.

(b) The police wireless message dated D.T.O. 301015/10/2001 with reference CH: 3100/BDE PT/FHQ/ABJ/Vol. 1/55.

(c) The NLNG spy police force announcement.

(d) The address of Mr. Maduka, the then Human Resources Manager of the 1st Defendant on the passing out parade of the plaintiffs on 5th May, 2000 as contained in a video tape and

(e) The identity cards issued to the plaintiffs by the 1st defendants.

The plaintiffs are not entitled to be recognized as staff of the 1st defendant

(ii) Whether the action of the 1st defendant in withholding the payment of plaintiffs’ entitlements is not in violation of the plaintiffs rights by law and the Constitution

(iii) Whether the defendant is right and/or empowered to further withhold or delay the payment of plaintiffs entitlements

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to enjoy the benefits being enjoyed by other employees of the 1st Defendant”

Upon the determination of the foregoing questions by the court, the appellants sought the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are staff of the 1st Defendant, and as such, entitled to enjoy all the benefits of the 1st Defendant.
2. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid their accrued entitlements by the 1st Defendant.
3. A declaration that the action of the Defendants in withholding or delaying the payment of the Plaintiffs’ entitlements is in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the law and the constitution.
4. An Order directing the 1st Defendants, its servants and officials to pay the Plaintiffs their accrued entitlements in the sums respectively computed in favour of each plaintiff.
5. An injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its servants or agents from withholding or delaying or continuing to withhold or delay the payment of the accrued entitlements of the Plaintiffs or interfering with the plaintiffs, rights to receive such entitlements as and when due.
6. An injunction restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, their servants, agents from intimidating or victimizing the plaintiffs.”

The originating summons which was filed by the appellants on 23rd August 2004 was supported by a fourteen paragraph affidavit and five annexures marked as Exhibits A-E and a further and better affidavit dated and filed on 19-7-2005 to which Exhibit FBA1 was annexed.