Goldie Ekasa & Ors V. Aluminium Smelter Co. Of Nigeria PLC (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Ikot Abasi Division delivered on 16th of May, 2011.

The Appellants as Plaintiffs at the Lower Court brought this action by originating summons and raised the following questions for determination by the court:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs who were appointed and employed by the Defendant with valid letters of employment and who have since employment in the service of the Defendant been performing their duties diligently and satisfactorily without any suspension order, termination of appointment or retirement in the service of the Defendant being communicated to them are presently not staff or employees of the Defendant.
2. Whether the neglect, refusal and or failure by the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs their salaries, allowances, emolument and other entitlements without any justifiable reason does not amount to a breach of the Plaintiffs’ right to work. Put in another words, whether the Plaintiffs as employees/staff of the Defendant are entitled to payment of their salaries, allowances, fringe benefits and other emoluments with effect from 1st April, 2007 when same were wrongfully and illegally withheld from April, 2007 up till today.

The following reliefs were sought:

1. A Declaration that the Plaintiffs whose names are stated on Exhibit A are still in the employ of the Defendant company and are thus entitled to salaries, allowances, fringe benefits and other prerequisites with effect from 1st April, 2007 up to date, their appointments having not been terminated.
2. An Order directing the Defendant to accord the Plaintiffs all their rights, privileges and settlements as staff of the Defendant including instant and immediate payment of arrears of salaries, allowances and other prerequisites from 1st April, 2007 to date and beyond as long as they remain employees of the Defendant.
3. One Hundred Million Naira (N100m) as general damages for unlawful and wrongful interference with the Plaintiffs’ employment.

After adoption of written addresses by both counsel, the learned trial judge delivered his considered judgment, declaring that the Plaintiffs’ termination of appointment should have been done by a written notice, rather than by an oral notice.

The trial Judge held inter alia:

That the Defendant was liable to pay the Plaintiffs’ one month salary in lieu of notice as stipulated in Clause 17 of Exhibit D.

That the Plaintiffs were in the circumstances not entitled to damages but cost assessed at N15,000.00 against the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment and filed a Notice of Appeal on 5th July, 2011 containing four grounds. Appellants’ Counsel in arguing this appeal distilled four issues for determination. They are set out as follows:

(1) Whether failure, refusal and or neglect by the learned trial Judge to consider, resolve and make specific pronouncement on the issues brought before him for determination by the plaintiffs/appellants did not occasion injustice and or denial of fair hearing to the plaintiffs/appellants?

2. Whether the findings, observations, deductions and the entire judgment of the learned trial Judge was not perverse thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the plaintiffs/appellants?
3. Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law when he granted a relief not sought or asked for by any of the parties?
4. Whether failure by the learned trial Judge to properly assess and evaluate the evidence adduced at the trial did not render the judgment perverse and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the plaintiffs/appellants?

The Respondent adopted the first two (2) issues articulated by the Appellants and proffered arguments on them. The Respondent also articulated two issues for determination. They are set out thus:

(i) Whether the Defendant’s Counsel had capacity to abandon paragraph 4c of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Defendant in suit No. HAB/29/2009 during adoption of his written argument.

(ii) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter judgment in the case on 16th May, 2011, in view of the provisions of the Section 254(c) of the Amended 1999 Constitution which created the National Industrial Court to handle all employment matters.

The second issue bordered on the jurisdiction of the Court below to hear this matter. This issue is on jurisdiction and must, therefore, be dealt with expeditiously before going into the merits or demerits of the appeal.