Download PDF
<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Yemi Ojo George with O.O. Osadola for the Applicant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">E.A. Agbelusi for the Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">RULING</span></u></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">By a Motion on Notice filed on 20<sup>th</sup> April, 2016 and brought pursuant to Section 254C (1) (J) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended) and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, Claimants’ Counsel sought for the following orders:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">AN ORDER of this honourable court to interpret the judgment delivered by this honourable court on 14th day of March 2016, parties having diverse or different interpretation or understanding of the judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">AN ORDER of this honourable court calculating the entitlement of the Claimants/Judgment creditors in accordance with the judgment of this court delivered on 14-3-2016. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">The grounds of the <a name="_GoBack"></a>application are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">1. The honourable court ordered the Defendant/Judgment debtor to calculate the final entitlement of the Judgment creditors with consolidated base salary to be based on the April, 2014 salary review. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">2. The judgment debtor did not use the known definition of consolidated base salary but used base salary. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">3. The Judgment creditors are not ready to accept the interpretation and the calculation done on the Judgment debtor's calculation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language: HE">This app</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">lication was supported by a 31 paragraph affidavit to which Exhibits A to I were annexed; deposed to by one Oladapo Akinyemi. In the accompanying address, Counsel relied on all the paragraphs of the affidavit especially paragraphs 3-30 of the affidavit and on all the attached Exhibits. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the opinion of Counsel that in the present application, the Claimants/Applicants who are the<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Judgment Creditors have placed before the court in Exhibits "A" to "C" what their consolidated base salary or gross salaries were. In this sense, counsel submitted that Consolidated means "joined together as a whole" in its literal sense. Thus, in Counsel’s opinion consolidated salary is the amount a worker gets monthly or weekly basis. It consists of all the entitlements joined together. It can also be stated as consolidated gross. Counsel further submitted that consolidated base salary means the gross salary. <br> Consolidated base salary contains all allowances. Also, it is counsel’s submission that the Defendant/Judgment debtor's interpretation of consolidated base salary to contain or include only basic salary and leave allowance is strange to the universal definition and interpretation of the term consolidated base salary. Counsel argued that the Defendant/Judgment debtor misinterpreted consolidated base salary to be the same as base salary. Counsel referred to the definition of base salary according to business dictionary.com as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <i>"a fixed amount of money paid to an employee by an employer in <br> return for work performed. Base salary does not include benefits, bonuses <br> or any other potential compensation" from an employer." <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Thus, counsel contended that that the difference between base salary and consolidated base salary is that consolidated base salary includes all benefit, including the base salary of an employee, while base salary does not include benefits only basic salary. Counsel urged the court to interpret consolidated salary as universally known, not as the Defendant/Judgment debtor interpreted it to be. The Claimants/Judgment Creditors collected the amount calculated and issued in the cheques and is demanding for the balance of their entitlements with 10% interest as ordered by the honourable court in the judgment of 14-3-2016. It is the opinion of Counsel relying on all the Exhibits especially Exhibits "D" to "I" to show clearly that the Defendant/Judgment debtor misinterpreted the judgment of the court. Particularly, in light of the fact that the handbook of the Defendant/Judgment debtor did not define what a consolidated base salary means. In conclusion, Counsel urged the court to grant the prayers of the Claimants/Judgment creditors as contained in the motion paper with 10% interest on the balance as stated in the affidavit attached to this application in the interest of justice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In opposition to this application, the Defendant/Judgment Debtor/Respondent filed a 19 paragraph Counter-affidavit on 6 May, 2016 deposed to by Eniola Agbelusi. In the written address filed alongside, Counsel formulated one issue for determination as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">Whether the Honourable Court ought to give a different interpretation duly entered into by parties.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In his legal argument, Counsel stated that a contract of employment is governed by service agreement or conditions of service that regulate the relationship between an employer and employee. See <b>UNION BANK vs. EDET (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 287) 288.</b> Counsel argued that parties in this suit pleaded the Respondent’s Handbook, and the Claimants calculated their entitlements based on it. Clause 7.1 of the said Handbook provides as follows: <i>“entitlements shall be stipulated by Nigerian employment regulations and Company policy from time to time”.</i> It is counsel’s further argument that whilst the term consolidated base salary may not have been specifically defined in any document before the court, it is an industry accepted term that is adopted by respective companies in calculating employees’ benefits. In the present case, counsel submitted that base salary for the respondent’s rig workers refers to the amount they accrue daily whether they are on the rig to work or not, which translates into 66% of their annual gross (basic 60% + leave 6%).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In addition to base salary, respondent’s rig workers can earn field allowance when on the rig (12.75%). Other allowances due are accommodation and education allowance, which are annual lump sums paid on anniversaries for confirmed employees (totaling 16.25%) and 13th month salary paid annually in November (5% or 60% divided by 12 months). In effect, counsel contended that consolidated base salary will be interpreted in line with its standard use with the provisions stipulated in the terms and conditions regulating the employer-employee relationship as well as previous application in the course of time. Again, the Respondent’s policy regarding the calculation of terminal benefit which the applicants confirmed was duly communicated to them was that “gratuity is calculated at 8.33% of annual basic salary and leave allowance multiplied by years of service as noted in page 8 of the court’s judgment. The letters of the Applicants’ termination clearly spelt out the interpretation and application of the consolidated base salary in calculating the applicants’ terminal benefits. It is counsel’s submission that that facts admitted require no further proof. See Section 75 of the Evidence Act and <b>TYNOZUGHUL vs. A.G BENUE STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 918) 226 at 254</b>. Again, it is settled that documentary evidence is the best proof of the contents of a document, and no oral evidence will be allowed to discredit the contents pleaded except where fraud is pleaded. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Respondents calculated the Applicants’ entitlement in line with its policies and the provisions contained in the Respondent’s Handbook.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Furthermore, the Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Applicant should not be allowed to pick and choose the interpretation to ascribe to the Respondent’s policies/handbook because that will defeat the essence of entering into the agreement. See the following cases of:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">TEJU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY COMPANY LIMITED vs. ALHAJI SUBAIR (2016) LPELR<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">EVBUOMWAM vs. ELEMA (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 353) 638 at 650<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE">IDONIYE-OBU vs. NNPC (2003) 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 612<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In conclusion, counsel submitted that the Applicants are bound by the policies in the Respondent’s Handbook; he urged the court to refuse the prayers in this application and hold that the Respondents have duly complied with the Court’s Judgment of 14<sup>th</sup> March 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">In response, the Claimant/Judgment Creditors/Applicants filed a further affidavit of 15 paragraphs and a Reply on points of Law on 11<sup>th</sup> May, 2016. In counsel’s reply, counsel by way of introduction stated that the Respondents did not object to the main issue of this application. Counsel submitted that instead, the Respondent’s counsel sought to re-open its case. Counsel also stated that the Respondent failed to, as at 7:00pm on 10/5/2016, to serve signed and filed copies of his counter-affidavit on the Applicants. What was served were soft copies of his processes. Further, counsel submitted that paragraphs 6-10,13-15 and 17 of the counter-affidavit were deposed to by counsel, which according to <b>EKPETO vs. WANOGHO (2005) 3 WRN 72 at 87</b> the Supreme Court decried as an undesirable practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Replying to the issues raised by the Respondent’s counsel in his address, counsel rehashed a portion of his arguments in his address summarized above. In addition however, counsel submitted that the court shall give ordinary interpretation to a document when its language is unambiguous. See <b>ARIJE vs. ARIJE (2011) WRN 146</b> and <b>WEMA BANK vs. LINTON NIG LTD (2011) 4 WRN 47.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">It is counsel’s further submission that the court cannot rely on the Respondent’s policy that is not placed before this court. The Respondent also claimed that the Applicants admitted to its calculation in paragraph 2.13 of its address in support of the counter-affidavit. This said admission was contained in paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim, to which the Respondent in paragraph 26 of its defence denied.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Accordingly, counsel submitted that the court will not allow a party to reprobate and approbate at the same time. The Respondent’s counsel did not establish anywhere that the base salary of the Applicants is 8.33% of the annual salary and leave allowance. Thus, counsel urged the court to discountenance the Respondent counsel’s argument and grant this application. Counsel contended that the calculation contained in the Applicants’ termination letters were not accepted hence the filing of this suit. Again, it is counsel’s opinion that Section 75 of the Evidence Act Cap E14 cited by the Respondent’s counsel has been repealed since 2011. The said Section in the 2011 Act deals with character in civil cases not facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel urged the court to discountenance the arguments of the Respondents and grant this application in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <b><u>Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In the judgment in this matter delivered on 14<sup>th</sup> March 2016, this court held that the claimants, applicants herein, are entitled to be paid the following entitlements-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1<sup>ST</sup> APPLICANT</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">i. Two </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">months consolidated base salary in lieu of redundancy notice,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. One month’s consolidated base salary for each completed years (4 years) of service, and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">iii. Gratuity<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2<sup>ND</sup> APPLICANT</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> –<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Two months consolidated base salary in lieu of redundancy notice, and<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. One month’s consolidated base salary for each completed year (1 year) of <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> service. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3<sup>RD</sup> APPLICANT</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Two months consolidated base salary in lieu of redundancy notice,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">ii. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">One month’s consolidated base salary for each completed year (3 years) of service, and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">iii.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> Gratuity.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The court also held that these entitlements of the Applicants are to be calculated using their gross annual salary as reviewed in April 2014. The Respondent was directed to recompute the Applicants’ appropriate entitlements and pay to them. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It appears the parties were confronted with a misunderstanding as to the appropriate sums due to the Applicants in the computation of their entitlements hence the Applicants have brought this application for the court to interpret the judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the affidavit in support of the motion, it was deposed that after the judgment, the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicants counsel on 29/3/2016 attaching 3 cheques to it for the Applicants. In the cheques, the 1<sup>st</sup> Applicant was paid the sum of <s>N</s>6,588,450.00; the 2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant was paid <s>N</s>l,197,900.00 and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant was paid <s>N</s>4,074,590.30. The Applicants have previously computed their entitlements in accordance with the judgment using the gross annual salary as contained in the salary review of April 2014 and arrived at the sum of <s>N</s>9,982,500 for the 1<sup>st</sup> Applicant, the sum of <s>N</s>1,815,000 for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant and the sum of <s>N</s>6,173,62l for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant. Upon receipt of the cheques, the Applicants’ counsel sent an e-mail to the Respondent’s counsel on 30/3/2016 demanding explanation on how the amounts on the cheques were arrived at. In the response of the Respondents counsel same day, it was explained that consolidated base salary is the calculation of basic salary plus leave allowance only. The Applicant’s counsel further sent a mail to the Respondent’s counsel seeking to know the provision of the OPSL Handbook or in the appointment letters of the Applicants where it was stated that consolidated base salary is defined as basic salary plus leave allowance. The Respondent’s counsel, in his reply, did admit that the term “consolidated base salary” was not defined in the OPSL Handbook. While this issue was still unresolved, the Applicants were advised by their counsel to cash the cheques and to approach court for the balance of their entitlement. It was further averred that the balance of the 1<sup>st</sup> Applicant is <s>N</s>3,394,050; the balance of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Applicant is <s>N</s>615,100 while the 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant’s balance is <s>N</s>2,099,031.10.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In the Respondent’s counter affidavit, it was deposed that since 2011, the Respondent’s formula for calculating gratuity and entitlements of its employees was annual basic salary plus leave allowance multiplied by the number of years. This fact is known to the Applicants. In addition, the Respondent has explained what consolidated base salary meant to its employee at various town hall meetings, interactions and inductions. The Applicants’ exit computation contained in their termination letters was done in conformity with the Respondent's policy already known to the Applicants and it was based on the Respondent's pre-redundancy policy on salary reviewed in 2014.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-bidi-language:HE"> The Applicants’ entitlements have been computed in compliance with the order of court and have been sent to them within 30 days as ordered by the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Although the prayer of the Applicants on the motion is for this court to interpret the judgment of 14<sup>th</sup> March 2016, upon reading the facts of the application however, it is clear to me that the application is seeking the assistance of this court in the computation of the Applicants’ appropriate entitlements under the judgment rather than interpretation of the judgment. The misunderstanding between the parties arose from the calculation of the Applicants’ entitlements. While the Applicants are of the view that their entitlement should be calculated on the basis of consolidated base salary or gross salary, the Respondent based the computation on base salary, which according to it, comprises of basic salary and leave allowance. The issue which the Applicants have now submitted for solution by this court is the calculation of the Applicants’ appropriate entitlements arising from the judgment. Therefore, the question in this application is what the formula for the calculation of the Applicants’ entitlements should be. Is it on the basis of consolidated base salary as understood by the Applicants or on the basis of the term as understood by the Respondent?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The entitlements of the Claimants, as outlined in the judgment, include salary in lieu of redundancy notice,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">salary for each completed years of service and gratuity. As for salary in lieu of redundancy notice and salary for each completed years of service, the payments, as provided in Clause 7.3 of the OPSL handbook, are based on consolidated base salary. As for gratuity, clause 7.1 of the OPSL handbook merely provided that g</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ratuity entitlements are payable to staff who have attained a minimum of three (3) years of uninterrupted service with the firm </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">without stating how calculated. It is however stated in the clause that the entitlement shall be as stipulated by Nigerian employment regulation and company policy from time to time. I have observed that the Applicants, in paragraphs 13 and 17 of the affidavit in support of the motion, calculated the gratuity of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicants on the basis of one month consolidated base salary for each completed year of service. Similarly, in the Applicants’ exit computation annexed by the Respondent to its statement of defence, gratuity was calculated on the basis of one month consolidated salary for each year of service. Also, in the Applicants’ letters of termination, gratuity was based on one month consolidated salary for each completed year of service. I am convinced therefore that gratuity too is computed using consolidated base salary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The question at this point is: What is consolidated base salary? As observed by the counsels to the parties, this term is not defined in the OPSL handbook. That, perhaps, is the reason the parties gave it different interpretations. The OPSL handbook has however given a way out of the impasse. Clause 7.3 provides that the redundancy benefit is paid in accordance with the Respondent’s policy prevailing at the time. Therefore, the simple solution in this matter, as I see it, is to take recourse to the Respondent’s policy on what “consolidated base salary” meant in the Defendant’s employment. In the Respondent’s counter affidavit, the facts were averred that the Respondent’s formula for calculating gratuity and entitlements of its employees since 2011 was the basic salary plus leave allowance and this fact was known to the Applicants. I have also re-examined the pleadings and documents of the parties in the case and it appears to me the policy of the Respondent on computation of entitlement is based on basic salary and leave allowance as stated in the Respondent’s counter affidavit. In paragraph 20 of the Applicant’s amended statement of facts, the Applicants pleaded some e-mails exchanged between them and the Respondent in February 2015. Some of these mails were front loaded. In e-mails by the Respondent to the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicants on the computation of the Applicants’ entitlements, the Applicants were informed that the consolidated base pay of the Defendant is made up of basic salary and leave allowances. I have also now observed that the computation of the Applicants’ exit entitlements by the Respondent in the termination letters dated 11<sup>th</sup> February 2015, which computation was the dispute which led to the institution of this suit by the Applicants, was calculated by the Respondent using this policy. That is to say the policy observed by the Respondent on what constitute consolidated base salary is the basic salary and leave allowances. The Applicants have been informed of this fact by the Respondent even before this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In view of this finding, I am unable to agree with the Applicants that literal meaning be given to the term “consolidated base salary” to include the entire items which constitute the Applicants gross pay. To take that part may result to expanding the Respondent’s condition of service that existed with the Applicants and also likely to lead to miscarriage of justice at this stage of the matter. When I held in the judgment that the entitlements of the Claimants be computed using their annual gross salary existing before the redundancy reduction, I also explained that it meant the computation should be based on the salary review of April 2014 and not as reduced during the redundancy period. The Applicants appeared to have misconstrued that part of the judgment. Their entitlements were never meant to be computed based on the overall gross of their salaries. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In view of the foregoing, using the consolidated base salary as obtained in the Respondent’s employment, the Applicants’ entitlements will be as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">1<sup>ST</sup> APPLICANT</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">His one month consolidated base salary, using his salary review of April 2014 in the sum of <s>N</s>11,979,000, is <s>N</s>658,845. Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Salary in lieu of notice- 2 months consolidated base salary in lieu of notice= <s>N</s>1,317,690.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. Redundancy Entitlement- 1 month’s consolidated base salary for each of the 4 years of completed service= <s>N</s>2, 635,380.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">iii. Gratuity- 1 month’s consolidated base salary for each of the 4 years of completed service = <s>N</s>2, 635,380.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 1<sup>st</sup> applicant’s total terminal entitlements is <s>N</s>6,588,450.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:72.75pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:red; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:red; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">2<sup>ND</sup> APPLICANT</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">His one month consolidated base salary, using his salary review of April 2014 in the sum of <s>N</s>7,260,000, is <s>N</s>399,300. Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Salary in lieu of notice- 2 months consolidated base salary in lieu of 2 months notice= <s>N</s>798,600<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. Redundancy Entitlement- 1 month’s consolidated base salary for 1 year of completed service= <s>N</s>399,300.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 2<sup>nd</sup> applicant’s total terminal entitlements is the sum of <s>N</s>1,197,900. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">3<sup>RD</sup> APPLICANT</span></u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">His one month consolidated base salary, using his salary review of April 2014 in the sum of <s>N</s>9,260,432, is <s>N</s>509,323.79. Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Salary in lieu- 2 months consolidated base salary in lieu of 2 months notice= <s>N</s>1,018,647.58.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. Redundancy Entitlement- 1 month’s consolidated base salary for each of the 3 years of completed service= <s>N</s>1,527,971.36.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">iii. Gratuity- one month’s consolidated base salary for each of the 3 years of completed service= <s>N</s>1,527,971.36<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Applicant’s total terminal entitlements is the sum of <s>N</s>4,074,590.30.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I have reviewed the sums in the cheques sent to the Applicants by the Respondent and I see that the sums represent the appropriate payments the Applicants are entitled to under the Respondent’s condition of service and the judgment of this court. The Applicants have acknowledged that the sums have been paid to them within the time limited for the Respondent to do so. Accounts have therefore been settled. The matter is concluded. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Judge</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-bidi-language: HE"> </span></u></b></p>