Mrs. Patience Omagbemi Vs Guinness Nigeria Ltd. (1995)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONU, JSC.

The appellant, who was plaintiff, by her amended Statement of Claim claimed against the respondent(a limited liability Company), which was defendant, in the High Court of Bendel (now Edo State) holden at Benin City, the following:

(a) a declaration that at all material times the Company is bound by the rule and practice 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 direction;

(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 for perpetual injunction that the defendant stay action in respect of the advertisement referred to above;

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

(f) 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;

(g) or in the alternative special damages being total emoluments due from the date of the original removal until

age 55 including all annual increments less redundancy fees paid.

(h) general damages.”

The parties, having exchanged pleadings as ordered by the trial court, later amended same before the case went to trial. After witnesses on either side had testified, the learned trial Judge (Obi, J.) in his judgment dated September 15, 1987, found in favour of the appellant to the effect that respondent was bound by the custom of L.I.F.O; that appellant’s retrenchment made in derogation of the statutory provision enshrined in S.19 (now S.20) Labour Law should not be allowed to stay. He therefore granted her reinstatement and made the order that she was to be in employment until age 55 and finally granted the perpetual injunction sought.

The respondent being dissatisfied with the said judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal. Before I set out the facts of the case herein it may be necessary to make the following observations in order to throw light on the surrounding circumstances to the case thus: