Frank Jowan & Ors. V. Delta Steel Company Ltd. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL. J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Benin Judicial Division in Suit No. FHC/B/142/95 delivered on 6th August,2002. The appellants were employed on different dates by the Respondent. Each of them had worked in different capacities for a period of over ten years. In the year 1995, the respondent embarked on a staff rationalization exercise in the course of which the appellants were declared redundant. By a letter dated 6th October, 1995, the Respondent, upon declaring the appellants’ redundant dispensed with their services.

In November, 1995, the appellants, as Plaintiffs, brought a representative action before the lower Court, on behalf of themselves and other staff of the Respondent that were affected by the staff rationalization exercise that led to the loss of their respective employments. In their further Amended Statement of Claim dated 6th November, 2000, the Appellants, as Plaintiffs before the lower Court claimed as follows: –

1. A declaration that the letter titled “REDUNDANCY” issued by the Defendant and served on the Plaintiffs between the 4th of October, 1995 and 6th of October, 1995 with which the Defendant purports to have dispensed with the service of the Plaintiffs is illegal, null, void and of no consequence or effect whatsoever;
2. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to remain in the employment of the Defendant and enjoy all the entitlements, rights and privileges of that status, unless and until their appointments were validly terminated in a manner that accords with laid down procedures and all relevant laws;
3. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to their remuneration and all forms of entitlements due to them during the pendency of this action;
4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from withdrawing, tampering, interfering or in any way depriving the Plaintiffs and their dependants of all the rights, benefits, entitlements and privileges of the ‘status of staff heretofore enjoyed by the Plaintiffs, relating but not limited to housing, educational, medical and recreational facilities; and
5. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from rejecting the Plaintiffs from staff residential quarters and/or denying Plaintiffs and their dependants access to staff medical clinic and schools absolutely or on terms made more onerous as a consequence of the purported sack of the Plaintiffs in a manner not in accord with laid down procedures and all relevant laws.

Issues were duly joined in the filed and exchanged pleadings and the matter went to trial. At the trial oral and documentary evidence were adduced. After the addresses of respective learned Counsel, the lower Court gave its judgment wherefor it dismissed the claim in Suit No. FHC/B/142/95 for lacking in merit. The Plaintiffs/Appellants were dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to this Court vide a notice of appeal dated 7th August, 2002.

In a 2nd Amended Brief of Argument dated 19/09/06 and filed on 20/09/06 but deemed properly filed and served on 21/02/07, the appellants formulated the following 4 issues for determination in this appeal. They are: –

i. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Labour Act does not apply between the appellants and the respondent;

ii. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Respondent company, by virtue of being wholly owned by the Federal Government is not a Public Company;

iii. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that there is no nexus between the condition of service (Exh. C) and the Labour Act; and

iv. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in predicating his judgment on a point not canvassed by the parties at the trial.

In its brief of argument the Respondent identified the following 3 issues for determination. They are: –

i. Whether the provisions of the Labour Act CAP 198 LFN on redundancy apply to the employment of the appellants when Exhibit C has made similar provisions on redundancy;

ii. Whether the mere reason that the Respondent Company is l00% owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria elevates the status of the appellants to that of employment with statutory flavour; and

iii. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Appellants are entitled to be re-instated to their

employment.