National Elecricity Power Authority V. Mr. B. Edegbero & Ors. (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BULKACHUWA, J.C.A.

All the respondents were employees of the appellant at the New Bussa Power Station. They were members of the N.E.P.A Workers Welfare Representative Committee, Kainji Power Station, (said to be an unregistered association) which is an affiliation of all power and transmitting stations of N.E.P.A. As a result of lack of confidence there was intra-union crisis between the Workers Welfare Representative Committee (W.W.R.C.) and the two existing unions in N.E.P.A – the National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (N.D.E.G.W.) and the Senior Staff Association (S.S.A). Series of letters were written to the Managing Director/Chief Executive of N.E.P.A., Assistant Manager (Industrial Relations) N.E.P.A. Headquarters and the Ministers of Mines, Power and Steel, Labour and Productivity to intervene in the crisis. There was no response. Another letter was written to the Managing Director, N.E.P.A. informing him that (W.W.R.C.) cannot guarantee industrial harmony within the organisation if no action was taken in response to their demands.

After that, the (W.W.R.C.) threatened to go on strike. The strike action was pre-empted by the Management staff who took over the Control Room, workers were on the 4th of August, 1994 asked to go home when the Security Agencies and the Management took over the Power Station. On 5th day of August, 1994, the respondents were arrested and interrogated by the Police and later at S.I.I.B., Minna. On the day they returned from Minna they were served with letters terminating their appointment with the appellant.

The respondents then as plaintiffs initiated an action at the New Bussa, High Court whereby by paragraph 16 of their Statement of Claim, they were praying for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiffs appointment with the defendant is irregular, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. An Order reinstating the plaintiffs appointment with the defendant and the payment of the plaintiffs salaries, allowances and entitlements from the purported day of termination till reinstatement.
3. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from harassing, intimidating and violating the plaintiffs right.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties and the case went for trial. Two witnesses testified for the respondents while the appellant/defendant rested their case on the respondents case. Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents addressed the court but before counsel for the appellant could address the court he received a copy of a letter from the Head of State in which approval was given to N.E.P.A. to disengage the workers under Decree No. 17 of 1984. By virtue of the said letter counsel then filed an application to amend the defendants Statement of Defence which application was granted by the court.

He further filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court in the matter. The preliminary objection was moved and overruled by the court. On 10th day of October, 1995, the appellant then filed an interlocutory appeal before this court but was withdrawn and struck out on 30th day of October, 1996.

The case was therefore reopened at the Suleja High Court before the same Judge who had been transferred from New Bussa to Suleja.

On 9th day of January, 1997 appellants counsel applied to address the court and call witnesses to give further evidence, but the trial Judge in his ruling allowed counsel to address the court but refused the application of calling additional evidence.

In his address counsel raised the issue of jurisdiction based on Decree 107 of 1993.

On 11th day of March, 1997 the court delivered its judgment whereby it dismissed the objection on jurisdiction and granted all the reliefs sought by the respondents.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the said judgment filed two notices of appeal on 19th day of March, 1997 and on 11th day of April, 1997.

This appeal is however argued based on the notice of appeal filed on the 11th day of April, 1997. The first appeal of 13th day of March, 1997 is therefore deemed abandoned and is hereby struck out.

In the notice of appeal of 11th day of April, 1997, the appellant has filed 9 grounds of appeal, shorn of their particulars the grounds read:

GROUND 1