Petroleum Training Institute V. Mr. Iyeke Matthew & Ors (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Benin Judicial Division, in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/181/2004 delivered on 27th January, 2005.

The 1st – 26th respondents were the Plaintiffs at the lower Court, while the Appellant and the 27th Respondent were the Defendants. In an originating summons dated 7th September, 2004 but filed on 8th September, 2004 and brought pursuant to order 7 rules 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, 2000 and S.15 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 432 LFN 1999,(sic) the 1st-26th Plaintiffs/Respondents raised the following 2 questions for determination. They are:-

1) Whether the Defendants are justified in withholding the monthly salary and allowances of the Plaintiffs since December, 2002;

2) Whether the Plaintiffs are not bonafide staff of the Defendants since February, 2003.

Upon the determination of these questions, they sought for the following reliefs namely:-

1) A declaration that the Plaintiffs were employed as staff the Defendant (sic) with effect from December 2002;

2) A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to their monthly salary and allowances since December, 2002;

3) An order directing the Defendant to pay over to the Plaintiffs their monthly salary and allowances since February 2003; and

4) An order directing the Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, privies and/or servants from discriminating against the Plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.

The summary was supported by an affidavit of 19 paragraphs deposed to by one of the Plaintiffs. It has some copies of documents attached; in its response the 1st Defendant/Appellant filed a counter affidavit of 15 paragraphs. Further to that, the 2nd Defendant/27th Respondent replied the summons with a 25 paragraph counter-affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the 1st Defendant/Appellant averred that paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19 of the affidavit in support of the summons were not true. On its own part, paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent did a blanket denial of every allegation in the affidavit in support, except such that were specifically admitted. Further to its counter affidavit, the 2nd Defendant filed a motion on notice on diverse grounds seeking for an order that the suit be struck out for being incompetent and want of jurisdiction.

The lower Court exercised its discretion and consolidated the motion to strike out the summons with same for hearing. After taking all the arguments and submissions of respective learned Counsel on both the motion in the nature of a preliminary objection and the summons itself, the learned trial adjourned the matter for judgment. In a judgment dated 2/03/05, the learned trial Judge dismissed the motion of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, considered the originating summons and granted all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

The 1st Defendant/Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment. It appealed to this Court initially in a notice of appeal dated 7/03/05 and predicated on 2 grounds. However, with the leave of this Court, the Appellant filed and argued 7 additional grounds of appeal. The original and additional grounds of appeal with their particulars are hereby set out thus:-

1) the learned trial Judge erred in law in entertaining and granting the reliefs of the Plaintiffs when: