Joseph Enugunum & Ors V. Chevron Nigeria Limited (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the Judgment of the Lagos State High Court, delivered on 1st July 2011 by Dabiri, J. In brief, Appellants were drivers to the Respondent; Respondents officers invited, interviewed, and subsequently employed them. The officers of the Respondent subjected them to medical examination; they were eventually given Drivers handbook each, which they all thought was their letter of appointment.

Respondent was responsible for their appraisal and discipline. Respondent gave them uniforms bearing their logo, and granted them access to their canteen and paid their salaries, even though they were not issued with any salary slips.

On the 8th day of August 1999, two different Companies issued Appellants letters of termination of appointment. Appellants said the Respondent was apparently aware that letters of termination were served on them by the Companies; they were eventually relieved of their appointments without any pay-off.

This action naturally offended the Appellants, they protested without success. They eventually resorted to filing an action against the Respondent at the Lagos State High Court on 16th May 2002 claiming as follows:

1. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Plaintiffs appointment conveyed by the Defendants letter dated the 8th day of August, 1999 is wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and howsoever.
2. AN ORDER of Court directing Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs all their outstanding salaries, allowances and other benefits accruable to a staff of the Plaintiffs caliber in the Defendants employment forthwith.
3. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether by its self, servants, agents and/or privies from further acting and or implementing the contents of the letters dated the 8th of August 1999 in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.

The matter went to trial and at the conclusion of trial; the learned trial Judge gave Judgment in favor of the Respondent against the Appellants. They became aggrieved and therefore filed Notice of appeal against the said decision on 27th September 2011. Appellants Notice of Appeal is at page 587-591 of the record of appeal. The grounds of appeal and their particulars are also reproduced as follows:

GROUND 1

The learned trial Judge erred in law by holding that the Claimants action cannot be brought in a representative capacity.

GROUND II

The learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself by holding that the Claimants failed to render any contract of agreement which stipulates the conditions of service that will entitle them to the relief sought and as such held that there is no employer/employee relationship between the Claimants and the Defendant.

GROUND III

The learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he held that the Defendant has successfully shown to the Court that they are not employers of the Claimants as they were all either employed by one A.T. AMUSSAH & SONS or DELOG with whom the Defendant had a contract of service.

GROUND IV

The learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected him when he held that the totality of the evidence adduced and the exhibits tendered by the Claimants are not enough to establish a contractual relationship between the Claimants and the Defendant.