Mrs Margaret Agoma V. Guinness Nigeria Ltd (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGWUEGBU, J.S.C. 

In the High Court of the former Bendel State the appellant herein as plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) a declaration that at all material times, the company is bound by the rule and practice of LIFO;

(a1) a declaration that the said custom exists and binds the defendant Company: i.e. priority of retrenched staff over fresh intakes in the matter of filling resuscitated posts;

(b) a declaration that the Company is bound by its own policy directive:

(c) a declaration that having derived goodwill and benefit from its policy Directive of 29th October, 1984, it is too late now for the defendant to renege in the case of the plaintiff: and plaintiff has acquired a vested right to be treated in accordance with the said Policy Directive:

(d) an order of perpetual injunction that defendant stay action in respect of the advertisement in the Nigerian Observer issue of 9:10:86:

(e) Special damages being total emoluments due from the date of the original removal until age 55, including all redundancy fees paid, or in the alternative:

(f)(i) an order that plaintiff is entitled to continue her service under the defendant Company till her retiring age of 55. unless earlier retired on grounds of ill-health or other reasonable grounds including proven inefficiency.

(ii) an order of reinstatement to the post advertised or any resuscitated position of similar nature:

(g) general damages.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties. The case proceeded to trial before Akpomudjere. J. on a further amended statement of claim and an amended statement of defence both filed with the leave of the court. After hearing which lasted about seven months, the learned trial Judge granted the reliefs contained in paragraphs 23(a), (ai ), (h), (d) and (f) of the further amended statement of claim. Reliefs (c), (e) and (g) were refused.

The defendant company appealed to the Court of Appeal which in a unanimous judgment dated 14:10:91 allowed its appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff then appealed to this court. Both learned counsel filed briefs of argument which they expatiated in their oral argument. The appellant submitted the following issues for determination:-

“(i) Whether Exhibit B is not an offer (a Representation, a proposal) by the defendant Company to any member of a class'(to wit the class of the retrenched) which proposal any member of that class ( to wit plaintiff) may be word or act accept and that in so accepting a valid contract is created between the plaintiff and the defendant.