Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: July 13, 2015 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/232/2014 BETWEEN 1. ADEMULEGUN GBENGA COSMAS 2. EDACHE SALIFU DAVID YAKUBU 3. DIJI OLUWADAMILOLA OLUWAKAYODE 4. NKOLE ISAIAH UKO 5. AKHIME GODWIN IKHUORIA 6. MRS. LOUIS OLUYEMISI KAYODE-OYEDELE 7. OSENI MICHAEL AKANMU 8. MR. ROBINSON ANYONYI ICHA 9. A.O. OLUBANJO 10. MS. J.O. ORUBO 11. A.M.S. UMAR 12. M.K. FARUK 13. MRS. H.D. ABDULLAHI 14. P.E. AMOS 15. M.S. ABUBAKAR 16. MRS. C.O. EMELE 17. R.A. ICHA 18. T.O. OLADAPO 19. S.B. DIKKO 20. A.R. ABDULRAHMAN 21. O.A. EHIMEAKHE 22. MRS. J.E. OKONKWO CLAIMANTS 23. ETINI-JOSIAH PATIENCE EGOMA 24. OGAMBA EXIAHA IHEARIOCHI 25. EZEKWECHE CHRISTIAN OGOEGBUNAM 26. UMESI CALYSTER UWANNE 27. ALIU ABDULMININU 28. ENWEZOR HELEN CHIBUOGWU 29. ONYIAENE ANTHONY 30. NDUBUEZE CHIBUIKE NNANYERE 31. AGBASI OGOCHUKWU CHUKS 32. EJIM NDIDI QUEEN 33. OKEKE NNAJI MICHAEL 34. EZEKIEL CHRISTOPHER 35. OGBONNA CHIMERENKA 36. EZE-VINCENT OBIAGERI THERESA 37. CHUKWUJINDU UJU CELINE 38. YUSUS ABDUL LATEEF AMINU 39. CHINKE NKECHI ERINMA 40. AMADI ANTHONY ORLU 41. NWAEKPE LOVEDAY CHUKWUDI 42. UCHE CHUKWUDIKE CHINEDU 43. MR. SIKIRU OLATUNJI JIMOH 44. MR. A.E. AHANEKU 45. MISS JOY ENIFOME SENU 46. GIWAMOGOREWA ADEJARE IBIKUNLE 47. MISS NIKE MUJIDAT OLANIPEKUN 48. JIMOH MUSIBAU AJANI 49. SHITTU NIKE MUJIDAT 50. CHRISTOPHER UBONG EDET 51. MISS KUBURAT AFOLASHADE RASAKI 52. NDUKWE JONES OBIOMA 53. OLUKOYA OLUWATOYIN LINDA 54. KATAGUM HUDU MAGAJI 55. APAKALA HAMOD OLATUNDE 56. OJO OMOLOLA EFUNYEMI 57. OGBONNA JUSTINA AKUAGOZI 58. AZUMARA ULOAKU 59. NWANKWO OBIDIKE IKECHI 60. NWANKWO LOVELYN OBIOMA 61. NGADI GODWIN NGBONYEREM 62. ONYEYE-GIFT JOY EZINNE 63. UDO-OBIKE UZOMA CHINYEREUGO 64. OLAJIDE SEGUN OLANREWAJU 65. AKINWALE OLUSOJI AKINKUNMI 66. DAN-MUSA AHMED MOHAMMED 67. NMESIRIONYE MARTHA ONYINYE 68. UDEAJA PEACE AMAKA CLAIMANTS 69. EZE-NWARU CHINENYE BLESSING 70. ONYEABO OBIANUJU NWAMAKA 71. FOLASEYI OLUWABUNMI AYOKA 72. ABIMBOLA OLADOTUN AYOTUNDE 73. CHUKWU INNOCENT UWAZIE 74. ADEKOYA OLAJUMOKE ENITAN 75. OJO EBISAN P. 76. OLUWADARE JOSEPH OLUWAFUNSHO 77. UCHE CHINASA STELLA 78. IKEKE CELESTINA OYASO 79. OJEI ISRAEL CHIBUZOR 80. IBRAHEEM YAKUB OLANREWAJU 81. BRAIMAH-ADAMS JOSEPHINE ASEKEIGBE 82. EHEME THERESA OGOCHUKWU 83. ISIKA NKECHINYERE ULOMA 84. NWOGWUGWU ANGELA IFEANYI 85. CHIMA UCHENNA 86. NWALEMA ADAUGO URENNA 87. OBIAKPANI UZOMECHINA GEORGE 88. EZEAMAMA-AMADI PRINCESS CLEMENTINA EKEDI 89. ESEKHALU FIDELIS TUNDE 90. OGEDEGBE EDNA O. 91. AKHAFA PETER EDEKI 92. IMOLORHE JOEY OKHAKUME 93. IKEOGU GLORIA AKUDO 94. OGABU PATRICIA O. 95. UCHE CAROLINE CHUKWUDIKE 96. BATNA LABIGAH ELI 97. EZEAGBO ONYINYECHI FELICIA 98. BASSEY AKPAN EMMANUEL 99. EZEAGABU NGOZI GRACE 100. AL-HASSAN HUSSAIN 101. EMEA KALU NWANKWO 102. UDOM CHRISTIANA NSE 103. OBITAYO AFOLAKE OLUSOLA 104. DADA SUNDAY OZIGI 105. OFFERE MACAULAY OSHI 106. AKPUO ABIGAIL JOSEPH 107. EFEGI TAMARAEBI 108. DAROMOSU MARYAM AYODELE 109. OROH DANIEL AYO 110. ADEOLA ADESHINA ROTIMI 111. ACHODIKE EZINWA ONUOHA 112. THOMAS BEATRICE OLUFUNKE 113. OJIMADU NKECHI NNENNE 114. MUSA KEHINDE MULIKAT 115. TALABI CHINWE EKENE 116. GEORGE IWAJULOLA SOTEMEH 117. NDUNCHE LAWRENCE UBA 118. TAIWO OLABISI OPEOLUWA KAYODE 119. RUFUS MARGARET NWAKAEGO CLAIMANTS 120. ONYEAGBA CYNTHIA NGOZI 121. ELUDIRE OLAYINKA ADEBOWA 122. OLANIPEKUN-ESHO CHINONYE A. 123. UBA NKEIRUKA CHINEDU 124. NWUKA CHRISTIAN UCHE 125. OMOLETU GODWIN ERHUVWUFORUA 126. EHIMIGBAI BRIGHT OHIMAI 127. MBAH CHIADIKA PAUL-AQUINOS 128. JOSHUA OLU EMMANUEL 129. MOHAMMED ABDULKAREEM 130. SULEIMAN MUHAMMED TUKUR 131. OGBA-OKECHUKWU NKECHINYEREM 132. GAUJI ANDREW 133. DACHOMO SAMUEL PAM 134. AJALA OLUWAYEMISI GRACE 135. KHOZA EMMANUEL TABAT 136. EHIMEAKHE ISAH SHAKA 137. BULUS ROSE KATYIE 138. IBRAHIM RABI ADAMU 139. ABDULLAHI SAIDU 140. BAMTALE HASSANA NASIRU 141. DAHIRU ABUBAKAR BALARABE 142. MOHAMMED SA’ADU 143. OLISAEMEKA IFEOMA CONCILIA 144. MARCUS JANE UCHE 145. JOEL-TAIWO OLUWAFEMI OLADIPUPO 146. OTA ANTHONY OSAGIE 147. ONAGHISE SHOLA RITA 148. ARIYO ESTHER ADEREMI 149. THOMAS PAUL OLUMUYIWA 150. MBAIAMNOZIE SALOME NJIDEKA 151. DICK CHUKWUEMEKA F. 152. PAUL NNEKA 153. UMEZURIKE CHIDINMA CHRISTIANA 154. IKWUONWU ADAMMA SARAH 155. OGBUEHI CHIDIAKO CHUKWUDI 156. EZERIBE CHINWE 157. CHUKWUEGU DEDEGU UCHENNA 158. FASEHA FEYISAYO AGNES 159. NWAUBANI CHUKWUEMEKA LINUS 160. OKONJI ANNE NKECH 161. CHIMEBELE NKEHI PATRICIA 162. DISU JOY ENIFOME 163. JAHLIN EUGENIA UGOCHI 164. EGESIE OGECHI CELESTINA 165. OWOTOKE VICTORIA ADIAHAAKPAN 166. NWAOGWUGWU IKECHUKWU DAVID 167. ALABI ADEYINKA ESTHER 168. ONYEJI OKECHUKWU SUNDAY 169. EMEAHARA AZUNNA COLLINS 170. OKARAONYEMA CHRISTINA CHIKA CLAIMANTS 171. EMEZIE VINCENT CHINEDU 172. OBIKE ELIZABETH AFUEKWE 173. ILOENYENWA LOUISA ONUWABUCHI 174. UWAKWE ADAKU MARYANN 175. ACHAMAJA ABIOLA TEMITOPE 176. IBEJIH MICHAEL CHUKWUEMEKA 177. ODU FELIX OGUZIE 178. UDOH GODWIN SEBASTIN 179. IFENKWE NGOZICHUKWU FELICIA 180. OGBONNAYA IKECHUKWU 181. AZORO PAULINUS 182. JOHN ETIM JOHN 183. DANIYAN VIVIAN OLASUMBO 184. WILLIAMS SOLOMON UGO 185. OTITOJU AYOOLA AKINSOPE 186. OGEDENGBE TOPE EMMANUEL 187. OMOTAYO ADEWALE OWOLABI 188. OYEDELE LOUIS OLUYEMISI 189. SADIQ HASSANA OKINO 190. ATTAHGANI JOSHUA 191. AUDULA IBRAHIM SULE 192. EKINE ABOLORE RISIKAT 193. CYRIACUS-MOGBO EZINNE 194. EZEGBU GHUKWUEMEKA A. 195. OJI DORIS OBIAGELI 196. AKINFENWA ADEOLU OLUFEMI 197. JOHNSON OBINNA 198. GARBA BARBARA MLUWAM 199. SABO ABUBAKAR 200. AHMED UMAR 201. OJUKWU NNENNA OGECHUKWU 202. FALODUN OLUWUMI 203. MARTIN-KUZHE GYEM 204. NWOGWUGWU AUGUSTINE MICHAEL 205. ODUMAH OGECHI GEORGEANA 206. UCHE KALU UWAOMA 207. OZOJIOFOR ANTHONIA OBIAGERI 208. AJEH JONAH ANDREW CLAIMANTS 209. NWEKE IHEANYICHUKWU OKPO 210. AMUKA FREDERICK CHUKWUMA 211. ADAMU ISMAIL 212. ALERU MUHAMME OLADIPUPO 213. DIGWO ROSE NWAMARA 214. NWANKWO CHRISTIAN OKECHUKWU 215. OKEKE JOH IKECHUKWU 216. AGUNBIABE PETER OLUDOTUN 217. FALADE OLUFUNKE ADEOLA 218. ITODO PIOUS ITODO 219. JORO YUSUFU KUTEPSIANDE 220. EKE-ADEPITAN BOSEDE FUNLOLA AND UNION HOMES SAVINGS AND LOANS PLC -DEFENDANT REPRESENTATION E. O. Odum for claimants. Adedumade Onibokun for defendant. JUDGMENT The claimants filed this originating summons on the 22nd May 2014 against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: 1. A declaration that by the contract of service between the claimants and the defendant as stated in clause 3.8 of the Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007, the employment of the claimants with the defendant can only be terminated on grounds of acts of misdemeanor such as refusal to comply with lawful order or instruction, disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized persons, conducts that are inimical or tarnishing to the image of the defendant, unsatisfactory performance of duties and any other actions detrimental to the defendant company. 2. A declaration that the termination of the appointment of the claimant on grounds not stated in contract of service as stated in clause 3.8 of the herein before stated Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007 is in breach of contract and is unlawful. 3. A declaration that by virtue of the contract of service as contained in the Staff Policy Guideline, in the absence of cases of dismissal for misconduct or termination for misdemeanor, or termination due to redundancy or resignation by the claimants, the claimants are to remain in employment until retirement when they attain 60 years of age or 35 years of service whichever comes first. 4. A declaration that by virtue of the contract of service as contained in the Staff Policy Guideline, the claimant’s termination of appointment not based on clause 3.8 of the Guideline is a termination arising from redundancy as in clause 8:11 of the Guideline. 5. An order that the claimants be paid their salaries, emoluments, entitlements and other benefits up to and until they attain the contractual retirement age of 60 years or on the attainment of 35 years of service as duly computed. 6. In alternative to prayer 5, an order that the termination of the appointment of the claimants is and be deemed a redundancy exercise pursuant to clause 8:11 and that the appropriate redundancy benefits as stated in Clause 8:12 of the Guidelines be properly calculated and paid to the claimants. 7. An Order that: (i) On the determination of the employment of the claimants in accordance with the terms of employment, the gratuity and terminal benefits of the claimants be computed based on the gross pay of the claimants in line with the Union Homes Staff Policy and Staff Provident Fund/Gratuity Pension Scheme and the age long practice of the bank. (ii) The properly computed terminal benefits of the claimants be immediately paid to them. (iii) The claimants’ entitlements under the Legacy Pension Scheme be immediately paid to the claimant or to the claimants nominated Pension Fund Administrator. 8. A declaration that the loans and facilities obtained by the claimant from the defendant as staff at staff rate cannot be terminated, revoked or recalled until the claimants leaves the services of the defendant as is stated in the conditions of service by retirement or resignation and as is contained in the Staff Policy Guidelines and not otherwise. 9. The cost of this suit including Solicitor's fees assessed at N10,000,000. The claimants have raised the following questions/issues for the determination of the Court: 1. Whether the defendant can terminate the employment of the claimants outside the provisions of the terms and conditions of the contract of employment as is contained in the Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007? 2. Whether the claimants and the defendant are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of employment as contained in the Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc Staff Policy Guideline and other expressly documented terms? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed. The originating summons is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the 1st claimant to which is annexed Exhibits A1-17, B, C1-17 and D and a written address. The defendant entered a conditional appearance on 12th June 2014 and filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 4th July 2014 praying for an Order dismissing the action on the grounds that: 1) The claimant’s counsel herein lacks the instructions to institute this suit; 2) The issues herein set out by the claimants for the determination of this Honourable Court are triable issues which are disputed by the parties herein. 3) The defendant’s dispute the applicability of the Defendant’s Staff Policy Guideline of July, 2007 to the employment of the claimants and; 4) This action is an abuse of court’s process. Also filed along with the objection is a counter affidavit to the Originating Summons sworn to on the 4th July 2014 by Princewill Abumere Head of Human Resources of the defendant to which is annexed Exhibits UH1, UH2, UH3, UH4, UH5A & 5B, UH6A & 6B and a written address. The claimants’ filed an address opposing the preliminary objection on 23rd September 2014, a further and better affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and a reply on point of law was filed on 23rd December 2014. Counsel to the parties were directed to argue the preliminary objection together with the originating summons. They adopted their written addresses. The facts upon which the claimants’ have premised their questions for determination and the reliefs sought are as contained in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. To briefly state the facts, the claimants state that they were employed by the defendant and the terms and conditions of their contract of service is as contained in their letters of appointment and the defendant’s Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007. That between the years 2012 and 2014, the defendant terminated their appointment and has not paid their terminal benefits nor remitted their contributory pension and non contributory legacy pension to their respective Pension Fund Administrators. The position of the defendants is contained in paragraphs 5 to 17 of the counter affidavit. It has stated that some of the claimants are still in its service while some others voluntarily disengaged from its service and some terminated on account of acts of misconduct. The defendant states that the Staff Policy Guideline is an unsigned document and is not applicable to the claimant’s contract of service. That its relationship with the claimants is governed by the contracts of service entered into and signed by the claimants; and that gratuity paid to the disengaged employees was correctly computed based on its Staff Pension Fund/Gratuity & Pension Scheme. Learned counsel to the claimants on issue 1, submitted that the defendant cannot terminate the appointment of the claimants outside the provisions of the terms and conditions of the contract of employment as is contained in Staff Policy Guideline (Exhibit B) which embodies and regulates the contractual relationship between the parties. He referred to Clause 3.8 of the Policy which provides as follows: “An employee of Union Homes may be dismissed where he is guilty of gross misconduct or convicted of a criminal offence. Other acts of misdemeanor such as refusal to comply with lawful order or instruction, disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized person (s), conducts that are inimical or tarnishing to the image of the organization, unsatisfactory performance of duties and any other actions detrimental to the company shall attract termination of appointment”. He submitted this provision did not give the defendant the right or authority to terminate the appointment of the claimants without any reason as shown in Exhibit Cl. He submitted that the claimants and the defendant are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of employment as contained in the Staff Policy Guideline Exhibit B and any other expressly documented term citing Babatunde v Bank of the North [2012] 206 LRCN 61 at 84 and AG (Rivers) v AG (Akwa Ibom) [2011] LRCN 23. That Exhibit B applies to all categories of staff including the claimants. That the defendant did not comply with the provisions of clause 3.8 as no act of misdemeanor was disclosed against the claimants. He submitted that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract freely entered into citing Union Bank v Ozigi [1994] 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385, UBA Ltd v Penny Mart Ltd [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 228 at 234, National Salt Co. v Innis Palmer [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 422 at 426. He submitted that the court is to interpret the agreement giving it the ordinary meaning without more. Counsel submitted that parol evidence cannot be admitted to add to, vary or contradict a written instrument. He submitted that the defendant is not contractually authorized to terminate the claimants’ appointment outside the provisions of Exhibit B. Counsel argued that the combined effects of clause 3.6, 3.8., 8.8, 8.11 and 8.12 is that the permanent appointment of the claimants can only be terminated for misdemeanor, or redundancy which has financial benefits arising therefrom. It was his submission that the premature termination of the appointment of the claimants did not arise from a misdemeanor and is therefore a termination due to redundancy which attracts the financial benefits arising therefrom. He submitted that the claimants are entitled to all the reliefs as claimed referring to S.P.D.C v Olanrewaju [2009] 171 LRCN 255 at 278, S.S.C Ltd v Afropak Ltd [2008] 164 LRCN 36 at 58. He then urged the court to enter judgment in favour of the claimants. The defendant’s preliminary objection is supported by an affidavit sworn to by Adedunmade Onibokun of counsel. Learned counsel raised two issues: whether the claimant’s action is an abuse of court process; and what is the appropriate order for court to make in the instance that this action is an abuse of court process. He submitted that Order 3 of the Rules of Court stipulates that every action shall be commenced by complaint and did not provide for commencement by way of originating summons. He submitted that where a statute mentions specific things, those things not mentioned are not intended to be included citing Osahon v Federal Republic of Nigeria [2003] 16 NWLR (Pt 845) 89 and Abacha V FRN [2006] 4 NWLR (Pt 970) 239. He further submitted that the issues set for determination are triable issues which are disputed and as such this action cannot be properly brought by originating summons. It was his contention that the defendant’s Staff Policy Guideline 2007 is not a legal document that can be considered as a deed, will, enactment or instrument in respect of which an originating summons can apply citing Ministry Internal Affairs v Okoro [2004] 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 58. Counsel submitted that the suit was not initiated by due process of law and that this is a feature which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that this suit is an abuse of the process of court citing Saraki v Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156 at 188-189. He submitted that the proper order the court ought to make is an one of dismissal citing TSA Industries Ltd v First Bank of Nigeria Plc (No 1) [2012] 14 NWLR (Pt 1320) 326. In opposing the originating summons, learned counsel to the defendant formulated two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the defendant can terminate the claimants’ employment in accordance with the terms of their respective contracts of service? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed? He submitted as a preliminary point that the claimants have not instructed counsel to commence this action as some of the claimants are still in the employment of the defendant while some others voluntarily resigned from employment or were dismissed for misconduct referring to Exhibits UH1, 2 and 3. He further submitted that the by terms of the claimants’ contracts of service, either party has the right to determine the contracts of service at any time by giving a month's notice of termination or payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice and that the claimants were paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice referring to Exhibits UB6B, the statement of accounts showing the payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice and gratuity paid to some of the claimants whose employment was terminated. Learned counsel argued that the claimants who have received payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice and gratuity are estopped from bringing this action citing Ekeagwu v Nigeria Army [2006] 11 NWLR Pg. 382 at 397. On the issue 2, he submitted that the claimants are not entitled to the reliefs claimed as they have failed to establish their claims by furnishing sufficient materials regarding the terms of their employment before the court. He further submitted that the Staff Policy Guidelines 2007 relied upon by the claimants is not their contract of service, as same is not incorporated in their respective contract of service. It was his further submission that the employer has the power to hire and fire in accordance with the agreed terms of employment citing Chukwuma v Shell Petroleum [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt.289) 512 at 560, Mobil Oil Ltd v. Assan (Supra) at Pg. 320-321, N.E.P.A v Eboigbe [2009] 8 NWLR (1142) 150 at 162. He then urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial costs. In opposing the preliminary objection, learned counsel to the claimants submitted that it is only the claimants who can challenge his authority to represent them and not the defendant reying on Nnakwe v The State [2013] 233 LRCN (Pt 1) 1. He submitted that Order 5 Rule 5A of the Rules of Court as amended by the Practice Direction 2012 permits the institution of suits by way of originating summons. He argued that the grounds upon which the objection is made touches on the merit of the substantive suit and the court cannot make a pronouncement on the merits of the substantive suit at an interlocutory stage citing Sumbade & Ors v Oyewunmi [2007] 148 LRCN 1144. It was his further submission that this suit is not an abuse of the process of court citing Ojo & Ors v AG Oyo State [2008] Vol 164 LRCN 130. Replying on point of law, learned counsel to the claimants submitted that in the event of a claimant wrongly or improperly joined, the court can strike out the name for misjoinder on the application of the persons affected and not on a speculative deposition or submission. He submitted that the Staff Policy Guidelines were approved and issued by the defendant’s Board of Directors and it is the contract of service between the parties. It was his further submission that payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice does not stop the claimants from claiming their rightful entitlements by legal action. That the defendant can only determine a contract of employment in line with the contractual terms and not capriciously as the terms supersede any other consideration. I have carefully considered the processes filed, submissions of counsel and authorities cited and will begin this judgement with the determination of the preliminary objection raised. Order 3 Rule 5A(1) of the 2012 Practice Directions of this Court provides that; “Any person claiming to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument may apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested”. The claimants have approached the court for the interpretation of clause 3.8 of the Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007. I find from the affidavits filed by the claimants’ that they engaged and instructed Ekene Odum Esq to institute this action on their behalf. It therefore does not lie in the mouth of defence counsel to challenge this. Rather, it is those claimants who never gave their instructions to be included in the suit to so inform the court. This action has been properly commenced by originating summons and there is no substantial dispute of facts by the parties. There is said to be an abuse of the process of Court when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent such as instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues whether in the same court or in different courts. It is not the existence or pendency of a previous suit that causes the problem, rather it is the institution of a fresh action between the same parties and on the same subject matter when the previous suit has not yet been disposed off that constitutes abuse of process of court. See Okafor v A-G Anambra State [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt 200) 659 at 681, Kotoye v Saraki [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156, Okorodudu v Okoromadu [1977] 3 SC 21. This is not the position in this instance. This suit does not constitute an abuse of the process of court. This Preliminary objection is dismissed in its entirety. I will now go to the questions/issues for determination. The issue placed before the Court is interpretation of clause 3.8 and 8.11 of the Staff Policy Guidelines as it affects the claimants whose appointments have been terminated by the defendant. The defendant in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit has stated as follows: 6. In denying paragraphs 6 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the claimants’ originating summons, I state that the Staff Policy Guideline referred to by the claimant is an unsigned draft contemplated by the defendant as its, operational manual/ information to its employees in 2007. However, the draft policy was not finalized or used and neither was it agreed upon nor signed by the claimant and the defendant. In fact, there is no Staff Policy Guideline applicable to the claimant’s contract of service. 7. I further state in denying paragraphs 6 and 8 of the claimants’ originating summons that there is nothing in the unsigned draft of the Staff Policy Guideline or the claimants’ respective contracts of service which restricts either the claimant or the defendant from determining the contract of service at any time or until they attain the age of sixty. 8. I further state that the defendant did not at any time declare the claimants redundant or disengage their services as a result of any redundancy scheme as alleged. The claimants in paragraph 5 of their further and better affidavit stated : 5. That in reaction to paragraph 6, 7, 10, & 12, I restate that the Staff Policy Guideline of 2007 constitute the terms and conditions of the claimants contract of service which was approved and issued by the Board of Directors of the defendant on January 21 2008. Extract of the minutes of the 80th Board meeting of Monday January 21 2008 is hereby attached as Exhibit E and the Terms approved is contained in paragraph 6.1 of the said minutes. I have seen Exhibit E and the defendant’s Board of Directors approval for the issuance of the Staff Policy Guidelines. Indeed clause 1.0 of the Staff Policy Guidelines (Exhibit B) at Paragraph 3 states that: This document has therefore been prepared to guide and enlighten existing staff at all levels to understand the general policy of the organization towards its staff, the terms and conditions of employment under which they are engaged, and the governing regulations framed in the best mutual interest of the employer and the employees. I hold that the Staff Policy Guidelines together with the claimants’ letters of employment and contracts of service are the three documents that regulate the claimant’s employment with the defendant. I hold that both parties are bound by the provisions of the three documents which must be construed holistically. The relevant clauses from the Staff Policy Guidelines are reproduced below: 3.8 TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT An employee of Union Homes may be dismissed where he is guilty of gross misconduct or convicted of a criminal offence. Other acts of misdemeanor such as refusal to comply with lawful order or instruction, disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized person (s), conducts that are inimical or tarnishing to the image of the organization, unsatisfactory performance of duties and any other actions detrimental to the company shall attract termination of appointment. An employee’s service may be terminated within any period of 12 months if the employee had been guilty on three occasions of committing any act of misconduct for which a warning letter has been issued. Termination shall only be effected in the third occasion provided warnings in writing have been given to the employee in respect of the two previous cases of misconduct within the preceding 12 months. Persistent breaches however shall be treated in accordance with the employee’s previous records even though they may have been ineffective after 12 months from date of warning. In interpreting clause 3.8, the simple grammatical meaning is that termination of an employee’s appointment by the defendant shall be on grounds of misdemeanor and/or misconduct having been found guilty. Now, the defendant has written similar letters of termination to those it disengaged. I will reproduce the letter written to Shittu Nike Mujidat the 49th claimant in this suit: Dear Nike, LETTER OF TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT Your appointment with the bank is hereby terminated with effect from 1st July 2013 as your services are no longer required. Your account has been credited with a month’s salary being payment in lieu of notice. Benefits due to you and from which outstanding liabilities are to be deducted will be credited to your account shortly. You are required to submit all the Bank’s property in your custody, including your Identity card to your Zonal Business Controller/ Head of Department. Please acknowledge receipt. Yours sincerely, Pricewill Abumere FOR: HEAD HUMAN RESOURCES & ADMIN. The letter of termination does not state that the claimant’s appointment was terminated was on grounds of misdemeanour or misconduct. Services no longer required is not a ground for termination under clause 3.8 and I so hold. This same letter was written to other claimants who had their appointments terminated in this manner. The defendant has exhibited one letter of dismissal written to Olowoaku Jamiu Adewale who is not a party to this action and has not shown the court which of the claimants was dismissed or terminated on grounds of misconduct. The affidavit evidence before the court as deposed to by the claimants in paragraph 8 of their further and better affidavit is that there has been mass retrenchment by the defendant of its employees due to its inability to stabilize its business process model from failure after numerous attempts and advice from the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation which has resulted in series of measures being taken to reposition the defendant. Learned counsel to the claimants has submitted that the premature termination of the claimants’ permanent appointment not arising from a misdemeanour is a termination arising from a redundancy. The defendant’s Staff Policy Guidelines defines redundancy in clause 8.11 as follows: 8.11 REDUNDANCY Redundancy is regarded as involuntary, but either temporary or permanent loss of employment caused by an excess manpower resulting from economic, business or technological change in force at that time. This organization affirms its recognition of the importance of security in employment and continuity of employment will therefore, be one of the principal aims of our personnel policy. Every effort shall be made, by means of advance planning of personnel requirement to avoid the declaration of redundancy. The organization will endeavor to avoid terminating services of an employee on the ground of redundancy by using its best endeavours to find alternative placement within the company before making any staff redundant. If however, owing to unavoidable circumstances, it becomes necessary to reduce staff strength, management will take into account determined factors such as efficiency, length of service, diligence and loyalty. However, the principle of “first in last out” shall be given to the affected staff. Interpreting and applying the above definition, I find from the affidavit evidence that the claimants whose employment were terminated was caused by excess manpower resulting from economic and business changes in force at the time in the defendant company. This, I find to be a redundancy and I so hold. The only probable explanation for redundancy not being given as the reason for termination was to avoid paying the affected retrenched claimants, redundancy benefits as contained in clause 8.12 of the Staff Policy Guidelines. I hereby hold that the claimants whose appointments were terminated are entitled to payment of redundancy benefits as contained in clause 8.12 of the Staff Policy Guidelines. I hereby order that they be so paid. An employee who voluntarily resigned his/her employment is not entitled to redundancy benefits. For all the reasons given above, I hereby declare and make the following orders: 1. By the contract of service between the claimants and the defendant as contained in clause 3.8 of the Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc Staff Policy Guideline of July 2007, the employment of the claimants with the defendant can only be terminated on grounds of misdemeanor or misconduct. 2. By the contract of service as contained in the Staff Policy Guideline, the termination of the claimants appointment was not based on clause 3.8 of the Guideline; it is a termination arising from redundancy as provided in clause 8: 11 of the Guideline. 3. Redundancy benefits as provided in Clause 8:12 of the Staff Policy Guidelines are to be paid to the claimants whose employment were terminated within 60 days from the date of this judgement. 4. The defendant is to pay the claimants all their outstanding terminal benefits and Pension as provided under the contract of service. 5. Costs of N100,000 is to be paid by the defendant. Judgement is entered accordingly. _____________________________ Hon Justice O.A. Obaseki- Osaghae