Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge DATE: May 4, 2011 SUIT NO. NIC/17/2000 BETWEEN Trans International Bank Plc (Now Spring Bank Plc)..………..…...Judgment Debtor/Respondent AND National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees (NUBIFIE)……………………………..…...Judgment Creditor IN RE: AN APPLICATION BY MESSERS D. O. ADEDIRE, R. M. OWOLABI, R. A. SALISU, S. B. OJO, D. K. AKINWALE, AND DEOLA AFOLABI AS APPLICANTS PRAYING FOR INTERPRETATION AND FULL ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 3RD MAY 2007 AGAINST SPRING BANK PLC……………………………………………………….Applicants REPRESENTATION Tunde Rufai and Akindele Akinwunmi, for the applicants. S. O. Obajana, for the judgment debtor/respondent. RULING This court had on May 3, 2007 delivered judgment in this matter wherein the court affirmed the award of the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) and ordered that the six Executive Members of the Domestic Unit of NUBIFIE, as indicated by the IAP at p. 28 of its award, should be reinstated without loss of benefits and salaries. In a motion on notice brought pursuant to sections 7(1)(c) and (v); 10; 12(2)(a); and 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and under Order 2 Rules 10 and 16 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules Cap. S6 Laws of the Federation 2004, the applicants (Messrs D. O. Adedire, R. M. Owolabi, R. A. Salisu, S. B. Ojo, D. K. Akinwale and Deola Afolabi), the Executive Members of the Domestic Unit of NUBIFIE so mentioned at page 28 of the IAP award, prayed this court for the determination of the following questions and consequential orders – 1. Whether from the construction of the judgment of this court delivered on the 3rd of May 2007, the applicants are entitled to reinstatement by the judgment debtor. 2. Whether the judgment debtor having refused to reinstate the judgment creditor/applicants as directed by the judgment of this court dated 3rd May 2007 is duty bound to pay full severance/redundancy benefits to the applicants. 3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 above are affirmative, then a consequential order, that pursuant to the judgment of 3rd May 2007, the correct calculation of the entitlement due to the applicant is as shown and contained in Exhibits JC 4 (A – F) attached to this application. 4. An order of court compelling the judgment debtor to IMMEDIATELY pay the balance of the applicants’ entitlements in the way and manner as shown in Exhibit JC 4 (A – F). 5. An order compelling the judgment debtor to release the source of its calculations and or basis of the payments made so far to the applicants/judgment creditors. 6. And for such further order or orders as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The grounds for the application were put as follows – 1. The judgment of this court dated 3rd of May 2007 is subsisting, although, partly complied with. 2. The judgment debtor paid the judgment debtors/applicants salaries and allowances that were inadequate considering the judgment of the court and based on strange calculations. 3. The applicants were not reinstated as ordered by this court, and from all intent and purposes have been declared redundant by the judgment debtor. 4. That in redundancy matters for unionized workers in the Banking and Insurance industry, the process of calculating redundancy benefits is NOT arbitrary, but is as contained in Exhibit JC 1 dated 4th May 2005. 5. That the calculation of the applicants’ entitlements as contained in the attached Exhibit JC 4 (A – F) is based on the JNC’S REVIEW of 4th May 2005. The alternative ground for the application is – 6. That the judgment of this court should be fully complied with by immediate reinstatement of the applicants. In reaction to the motion, the judgment debtor filed a preliminary objection pursuant to section 10 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, Order 11 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court praying for – 1. AN ORDER of the Court dismissing in limine the motion on notice filed by the [applicants] as the filing of same amounts to an abuse of court process. 2. AN ORDER of the Court dismissing in limine the motion on notice filed by the [applicants] as they have no locus standi to file same having not been parties to the original proceedings before judgment was given. 3. AN ORDER of the Court dismissing in limine the motion filed by the [applicants] as the judgment the applicants are seeking to enforce has been settled between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor to the [applicants’] benefit. 4. AN ORDER of the Court dismissing in limine the motion on notice filed by the [applicants] as they lack the locus to file same as the judgment can either be enforced by the respondent and or the judgment creditor and upon settlement of the judgment debt between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor, the [applicants’] right under the judgment is hereby extinguished. 5. Cost of N100, 000.00 being exemplary/punitive cost against the [applicants] in favour of the judgment debtor/applicant. 6. Any or other Orders the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The grounds for the preliminary objection are – a) The parties in this matter were Trans International Bank Plc (now Spring Bank Plc) as judgment debtor and National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees as judgment creditor and neither is complaining about the settlement of the court’s judgment. b) That after the judgment, the two parties to the proceedings met and decided to settle this matter in line with the judgment of the court to the effect that the [applicants] were paid their entitlements from 1996 till 2009. c) That payment of 1996 to 2007 was made in 2008 whilst the payment for 2007 and 2009 was made in 2010. The [applicants] were also paid nine months salary in lieu of reinstatement which payment were received by the judgment creditor on behalf of the [applicants] without complain. d) That the judgment creditor i.e. National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees knew and agreed that it was settling the judgment of the court with finality as at the time the judgment of the court was settled between the parties. e) That the letter of Trans International Bank Plc (now Spring Bank Plc), judgment debtor, dated the 1st February, 2010 was quite clear on its tenor to the National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees. f) That the reply letter of National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees to Trans International Bank Plc dated 24th February, 2010 was quite clear as to what was being done in that the letter confirmed that the payment was in full and final settlement of the National Industrial Court judgment in the suit. g) The [applicants] have surreptitiously filed this application without involving the judgment creditor who has been relating with the [judgment debtor] for over 14 years when this matter was before the Honourable Minister of Labour through the Industrial Arbitration Panel and eventually the court till early this year. In support of the preliminary objection is a 27-paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Albert Nwanozie, a legal officer in the employment of the judgment debtor, wherein he deposed as follows: 1. That I am a legal officer in the employment of the judgment debtor and by virtue of my position I am conversant with the facts of this case as well as fact deposed herein. 2. That the judgment debtor was before the court in this suit and the judgment obtained therein was to the effect that the judgment debtor reinstates the six persons who are the [applicants] herein. 3. That the judgment debtor thereafter met with the judgment creditor severally and finally came to a conclusion on how to settle the judgment of the Court dated the 3rd day of May 2007. 4. That the [applicants] were paid their accumulated salary for May, 1996 to September 2007 by the judgment debtor. Attached herewith is a letter from the judgment creditor acknowledging receipt of the salaries dated the 12th May, 2009 and Marked Exhibit AN 1. 5. That consequent upon the settlement between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor, the judgment debtor forwarded its letter dated the 1st day of February, 2010. A copy of the letter is attached hereto and marked “Exhibit AN 2. 6. That by the said letter each of the beneficiaries of the judgment was paid their salary in full from the combined reading of all the Exhibits. 7. That nine months in lieu of reinstatement, which represented the redundancy period as agreed between parties to the judgment, was also paid to the beneficiaries of the judgment in one lump sum. 8. That the letter to the judgment creditor was headed with the following words “FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF NIGERIAN (sic) INDUSTRIAL COURT JUDGMENT (NIC) ON THE CASE OF NUBIFIE (TIB EX-STAFF) VS SPRING BANK. 9. That upon receipt of the letter as well as the accompanying cheques the judgment creditor acknowledged the letter and the cheques vide its letter dated the 24th day of February, 2010. A copy of the letter is attached and marked “Exhibit AN 3”. 10. That the judgment creditor’s letter was headed as follows “RE: REQUEST FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE CASE OF NUBIFIE (TIB EX – STAFF) VS SPRING BANK. 11. That the settlement between the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor duly acknowledged by both parties brought the case to an end. 12. That the [applicants] though beneficiaries were not parties to the action before the court. 13. That the filing of the application is an abuse of the Court’s process. 14. That parties to a suit before the court are at liberty to settle judgment of court amongst themselves. 15. That the liberty to settle judgment of court by parties to the judgment will be hampered should the applicants be allowed to revisit the court Judgment after same has been settled between the parties. 16. That the application of the [applicants] is an attempt to approbate and reprobate at the same time, the judgment creditor having collected monies from the judgment debtor on their behalf and they having accepted same and taken the benefits. 17. That it is in the interest of the society, the judiciary and even the litigants themselves that litigation does not linger on indefinitely. 18. That the 1st paragraph of Exhibits AN 3 is very germane to this application and same is reproduced hereunder viz “and are pleased to express our profound gratitude and unalloyed appreciation to you and your management for the final and full implementation of the National Industrial Court Award in respect of the six (6) ex-staff of TIB”. 19. That the judgment creditor was not under any pressure from the judgment debtor when the above letter was written. 20. That the second paragraph of “Exhibit AL 3” is of importance to the application and same is reproduced for emphasis – “Your action in this regard, clearly shows you are respecter of law, while we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that you also believe in the rule of law”. 21. That the judgment creditor also wrote a letter to the judgment debtor acknowledging full payment for 1996 to 2007 vide their letter dated 1st September, 2009. Copy is attached and marked “Exhibit AN 4”. 22. That the [applicants] are strangers to this case and cannot be heard. 23. That the [applicants] did not serve the court process on the judgment creditor, i.e. NUBIFIE which a necessary, desirable and proper party before the court. 24. That the non-service of the application on the judgment creditor was made to deceive the court by the [applicants]. 25. That the application is incompetent. 26. That the [applicants] lack the locus to bring this application. 27. That I depose to this affidavit in good faith. The applicants did not file any counter-affidavit in reply to the judgment debtor’s affidavit in support of the preliminary objection. The parties agreed to argue the preliminary objection on record and accordingly filed written addresses. In the written address of the judgment debtor, its counsel started off with a brief statement of facts as deposed to in the supporting affidavit. To counsel to the judgment debtor, after this court ordered that the judgment debtor reinstates the six persons who are the applicants in the substantive suit, the judgment debtor thereafter met with the judgment creditor, and both parties agreed on how to settle the judgment of the Court dated the 3rd day of May, 2007. Upon the settlement between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor, the judgment debtor forwarded its letter dated the 1st day of February, 2010. That by the said letter each of the beneficiaries of the judgment was paid two years salary in addition to the salary paid for years 1996 to 2007, which payment was acknowledged vide Exhibits AN 4 dated 1st September, 2009. That the applicants were each paid nine (9) months’ salary in lieu of reinstatement as agreed between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor which represented their redundancy package. That the judgment debtor’s letter to the judgment creditor was headed with the following words ‘FULL IMPLEMENTATIION OF NIGERIAN (sic) INDUSTRIAL COURT JUDGMENT (NIC) ON THE CASE OF NUBIFIE (TIB EX-STAFF) VS SPRING BANK”. That upon the receipt of the letter as well as the accompanying cheques, the judgment creditor acknowledged the letter and the cheques vide its letter dated the 24th day of February, 2010. The judgment creditor’s letter was also headed as follows “RE: REQUEST FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NUBIFIE (TIB EX-STAFF) VS SPRING BANK”. The applicants, after collecting salary from between May, 1996 to September, 2009 and salary for nine months in lieu of reinstatement, have now turned around to ask the court to reinstate them which is the crux of the application before the court which the preliminary objection seeks to challenge. The counsel to the judgment debtor then framed three issues for the determination of the court. The issues are – 1. Whether the applicants have the locus to file the Motion of Notice in this matter after the court judgment has been settled to their knowledge and benefits. 2. Whether the applicants can be heard to complain after the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor have settled the judgment of the court dated the 3rd day of May, 2007 between themselves to the advantage of the applicants. 3. Whether the filing of the application by the applicants amount to an abuse of court process? Regarding issue 1 i.e. whether the applicants have the locus to file the Motion on Notice in this matter after the court judgment has been settled to their knowledge and benefits, counsel contended that the applicants have no locus to file this application as they were not parties to the action in Suit No. NIC/17/2000 before the Court gave its judgment dated the 3rd day of May, 2007. Although the judgment was in favour of the applicants, they were not parties to the matter; and so counsel submitted that “persons who are parties to an action cannot enforce same” (sic). That it is only the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor that are entitled to and liable respectively under a judgment of a court. Counsel then referred the court to the case of ABC Bank Ltd v. PWT (Nig) Ltd [2005] 4 NWLR (Pt. 915) 375 at 385E where it was held thus – I shall start by saying that a judgment creditor and the judgment debtor are persons respectively entitled to the benefits of and liable under an enforceable judgment or order. See Order 4 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Law (Judgment Enforcement) Rules. Counsel further contended that the applicants cannot bring this application before the Court without involving the judgment creditor. That the applicants know that they will not enjoy the support of the judgment creditor as the judgment of the Court has been settled amicably between the parties, which was the reason they did not serve the application on the judgment creditor or join them as a party in the application. Counsel then urged the Court to dismiss the application with heavy cost against the applicants to serve as deterrent to others and send the signal that the Court is a place where serious business is conducted. Regarding issue 2 i.e. whether the applicants can be heard to complain after the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor have settled the judgment of the court dated the 3rd day of May, 2007 between themselves to the advantage of the applicants, counsel referred the court to Exhibits AN 1, AN 2, AN 3 and AN 4, which are the correspondences that were exchanged between the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor wherein the judgment of the court was settled. That the applicants did not object to the judgment creditor while it was representing them before the court pre and post judgment and till date no letter has been sent to the judgment debtor that it should not deal with the judgment creditor as per the judgment. Counsel further referred the court to paragraphs of the affidavit of the judgment debtor as deposed to by Albert Nwanozie with particular emphasis on paragraphs 4 to 27 and then urged the court to interpret Exhibits AN 1, AN 2, AN 3 and AN 4 as instruments of settlement of the judgment dated the 3rd day of May, 2007 and all the rights accruing to the applicants have been extinguished by virtue of the settlement between the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor which was carried out to the benefit of the applicants. Counsel then went on to quote from the respective exhibits attached to show that the matter has been settled between the parties. That from Exhibit AN 4 it is provided as follows – Please find the attached copy of the schedule of 24 months outstanding salaries and allowance for the six Ex-TIB staff as per previous payment. The bank had paid the salaries and allowance from May 1996 to September, 2007 while the outstanding covers the period of October 2007 to date i.e. September 2009 (24 months). (The underlining is the judgment debtor’s.) That Exhibit AN 2 complied totally with the above demand of the judgment creditor in that column 4 of its 1st page represents the 24 months salary of each of the applicants. Furthermore, column 7 of the same Exhibit AN 2 represents the applicants’ redundancy package which was also paid by the judgment debtor and acknowledged by the judgment creditor as contained in Exhibit AN 3. To counsel, it is important to also reproduce two of the paragraphs of Exhibit AN 3 in justifying the claim of the judgment debtor that the applicants are not entitled to reopen the case when judgment thereunder has been settled by parties. The paragraphs are as follows – We write to acknowledged with thanks, receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2010 on the above subject matter and are pleased to express our profound gratitude and unalloyed appreciation to you and your management for the final and full implementation of the National Industrial Court Award in respect of the six (6) ex-staff of TIB. Your action in this regard, clearly shows you are a respecter of law, while we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that you also believe in the rule of law. We commend you in particular and the management in general for magnanimously agreed (sic) to treat the matter to a logical conclusion despite the fact that the case was alien to you. Counsel contended and then submitted that the judgment creditor with the above quotation has brought the matter to a final conclusion and the Court should not allow the applicants to re-litigate the matter as doing so would open a flood gate of litigation. That the two parties to the judgment of the court were aware of the purport of their letters i.e. Exhibits AN 1, AN 2, AN 3, and AN 4. That the tenor, tone and the purport of AN 2 and AN 3 were to the effect that the payment mentioned will represent the full and final settlement of the judgment of the court dated 3rd May, 2007. Counsel referred the court to the heading of Exhibit AN 2, paragraph 1 of its second page, the heading of Exhibit AN 3 and its content especially paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof and to paragraph 2 of Exhibits AN 4 and then urged the court to dismiss the application as lacking in merit. Regarding issue 3 i.e. whether the filing of the application by the applicants amounts to an abuse of court process, counsel stated that it is a corollary of the above two issues. That upon the court resolving the two issues above in favour of the judgment debtor, it goes without saying that the applicants’ application is an abuse of the process of the Court. That abuse of court process was defined or described in the case of Nweke v. Udobi [2001] 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 456 at 461 D – E, 461 – 2 H – A in the following words – There is said to be abuse of the process of the court when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the irritation or annoyance of his opponent. Counsel then contended that the applicants are aware of the discussions between the judgment creditor on their behalf and the judgment debtor before the conclusion and the release of cheques to them only for them to turn around and file an application which is filed to the irritation of the judgment debtor. Counsel went on to submit that where a court finds that the process of the court has been abused, the court is left with an option and the option is to invoke its coercive jurisdiction contained in section 6 of the 1999 Constitution and dismiss such process. Counsel recommended the case of Nweke v. Udobi (supra) where the court held at page 461 paragraph G that – Once a court is satisfied that the proceedings before it is an abuse of its process, that court has the right, in fact a duly, to invoke its coercive powers under section 6(6)(a) of the 1979 Constitution to dismiss the action. To counsel, having argued that the applicants have no locus to file this application and having gone ahead to show by documentary evidence that the judgment of the court has been settled between the parties, which goes to show that the filing of the application by the applicants amounts to an abuse of court process, then the application of the applicants must fail in its entirety. Counsel then urged the court to dismiss the application with substantial and exemplary cost. In reacting to the written address of the judgment debtor, the applicants started their written address with an introduction to the effect that the applicants are the beneficiaries of the judgment of this court delivered on the 3rd day of May 2007. That they filed a motion on the 25th of March 2010 asking for interpretation of the said judgment delivered of 3rd of May 2007. That the notice of preliminary objection filed by the judgment debtor is for an order dismissing the motion of the applicants in limine because – i) Its filing amounts to abuse of court process. ii) The applicants have no locus standi to file same having not being parties to the original proceedings before judgment was given. iii) That the judgment the applicants are seeking to enforce has been settled between the judgment debtor and judgment creditor to the [applicants’] benefit. iv) The applicants lack the locus to file same. The applicants then framed the following 3 issues for the determination of the court – a) Whether the request for interpretation by a party dissatisfied with compliance with the judgment of court is an abuse of court processes. b) Whether the applicants being beneficiaries of the judgment of court have the requisite standing or locus to file the motion. c) Whether the court can determine whether the judgment of 3rd May 2007 has been complied with in-limine without hearing the motion filed by the applicant. Regarding issue (a), the applicants submitted that the position of the law is that this court by virtue of section 7(1)(c)(iii) of the NIC Act 2006 “shall and have exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes or matters relating to the determination of…the terms of settlement of any labour dispute, organizational dispute as may be recorded in any memorandum of settlement”. Furthermore, that the provisions of section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 provides that – The court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under the Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the court so that, as far as possible, all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided. That from these provisions, the applicants are legally entitled to approach this court for the purpose of interpretation and attendant claims contained in their prayers. The applicants then urged the court to rule that their motion is not an abuse of court processes. On issue (b), the applicants contended that the term locus standi denotes the legal capacity to institute an action in a court of law. It is a status which a claimant must have before being heard in court. That locus standi is a threshold issue not dependent on the merits of the case but on the showing of the claimant’s case to his statement of claim. In other words, the question whether a claimant has locus standi to sue is determinable from the totality of averments in the statement of claim, citing B. M. Ltd v. Woermann-Line [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149 at 199 C – D. In other words, that all the court should look for in determining whether the applicants have a standing to sue is to examine if the claims of the applicants – a) Reveal a legal or justiciable right b) Show sufficient or special interest adversely affected; and c) Show a reasonable cause of action. To the applicants, they have the necessary locus to file the motion. That their locus is as contained in Order 2 Rules 10 and 16 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules made pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Law Cap. S6 Laws of the Federation 2004. Order 2 Rule 10 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules Cap. S6 Laws of the Federation 2004 provides that – subject to any provision to the contrary, any application by a party for an order or direction of a court in relation to any judgment, execution or process shall be made in the same manner as an application for an interlocutory order in court. That the applicants complied with the provisions of the above rule of court and so are properly before the court. Continuing, the applicants quoted Order 2 Rule 16 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules Cap. S6 Laws of the Federation 2004 which provides as follows – Where a person not being a party in a proceeding obtains an order or has an order made in his favour, he shall be entitled to enforce obedience to such order by the same process as if he were a party in the proceeding; and any person not being a party in the proceedings against whom obedience to any judgment may be enforced shall be liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to such judgment as if he were a party. To the applicants, there is no doubt about the fact that they were not parties in the proceeding in this suit, but they have an order made in their favor by the judgment of 3rd May 2007 and as beneficiaries of the said judgment, they are legally empowered by Order 2 Rule 16 to enforce obedience to such order by the same process as if they were a party in the proceeding. That the only ground under which the applicants may be lacking in locus is if the judgment debtor can establish or show this court that the applicants are not the beneficiaries of the judgment of this court. The applicants continued that the case of ABC Bank v. PWT Ltd cited by the judgment debtor is inapplicable for the purpose of determining Order 2 Rules 10 and 16 of the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. That the position of the law is that when a litigant has obtained a judgment in a court of justice he is by law entitled not to be deprived of that judgment without very solid ground, referring to Brown v. Dean [1910] AC 373 at 374. The applicants then urged the court to rule that based on the argument canvassed above they have the locus standi to bring their application before this court. Regarding issue (c) i.e. whether the court can determine whether the judgment of 3rd May 2007 has been complied with in-limine without hearing the motion filed by the applicants, the applicants contended that the contention of the judgment debtor is that by virtue of Exhibits AN1, AN2, AN3 and AN4 they should be presumed to have complied with judgment. To the applicants, a cursory look at Exhibit AN4 shows the clear demand of the judgment creditor on the judgment debtor. That whereas redundancy computation was cumulatively put at N22,869,013.24, the Judgment debtor by virtue of Exhibit AN 2 (letter dated February 1, 2010) paid only N2,943,269.28, leaving a difference of about N20,000,000. That the question then is, if by the exhibits the judgment debtor themselves supplied to the court there is a shortfall of 20 million Naira, would the mere fact that the applicants’ letter (Exhibit AN2) was titled, ‘Final Implementation’ suffice and bind the hands of this court from at least looking into the claim of the beneficiaries to determine whether its judgment was complied with? The applicants answered in the negative. That the applicants have an unfettered right of access to court and any other law that subtracts or derogates from such right would be unconstitutional, referring to Ugwu & anor v. Araraume & anor [2007] 6 SC (Pt. 1) 88. That whether the court would grant the claims of the applicants is one thing but that the court cannot even look at it at all is indeed an invitation to lawlessness and anarchy. The applicants then urged the court to disregard the invitation to deny them a fair hearing of their motion by striking same out without hearing them on the merit. In conclusion, the applicants urged the court to dismiss with substantial cost to them the notice of preliminary objection as lacking in merit. The judgment debtor reacted on points of law. In response to the argument of the applicants to the effect that the case of ABC Bank Ltd v. PWT (Nig) Ltd [2005] 4 NWLR (Pt. 915) 375 is not relevant, the judgment debtor submitted that counsel has not furnished the court with the reason for submitting that the case is not relevant; instead learned counsel has gone ahead to cite an authority of the United Kingdom which is persuasive in nature. That in the absence of any cogent reason in objecting to the case cited above, the court should uphold the submission of the judgment debtor in respect of this preliminary objection. In response to the argument of the applicants, to wit M/s D. O. Adedire, R. M. Owolabi, R. A. Salisu, S. B. Ojo, D. K. Akinwale and Deola Afolabi that payment made by Spring Bank fell short of what Exhibit AN4 demanded from Spring Bank, the judgment debtor submitted that all Exhibits AN 1, AN 2, AN 3 and AN 4 should be considered together by the court. The judgment debtor continued that the entire 26-paragraphed affidavit of Albert Nwanozie remain uncontroverted, urging the court to deem same as being made in good faith and the facts deposed therein are true. The judgment debtor then referred the court to the cases of Ajomale v. Yaduat (No2) [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 266 at 283 – 283, Bello v. Eweka [1981] SC 101 and Brown v. State [2005] 34 WRN 135 at 162. Concluding, the judgment debtor urged the court to grant its preliminary objection by dismissing the application of the applicants i.e. M/s D. O. Adedire, R. M. Owolabi, R. A. Salisu, S. B. Ojo, D. K. Akinwale and Deola Afolabi. A careful consideration of the processes filed in this matter especially in relation to the judgment debtor’s preliminary object will reveal that what is being contested is the competence of the motion on notice of the applicants. This court had in its judgment of May 3, 2007 ordered that the applicants, Messrs D. O. Adedire, R. M. Owolabi, R. A. Salisu, S. B. Ojo, D. K. Akinwale and Deola Afolabi, should be reinstated without loss of benefits and salaries. The applicants, in that case, were not parties to the suit but beneficiaries of the said judgment. As beneficiaries of the judgment in issue, the applicants filed a motion on notice claiming that the judgment has not been complied with by the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor on the other hand claims that the judgment has been fully satisfied, hence the present preliminary objection. The simple issue before the court, therefore, is whether the judgment of this court delivered on May 3, 2007 has been complied with in a manner that will warrant this court not looking into the merit of the enforcement motion of the applicants. The argument of the judgment debtor is that after the court delivered its judgment, the parties to the action (the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor) renegotiated the court’s judgment; and so for monetary compensation, the judgment creditor waived its right for the reinstatement of its affected members, the applicants in the substantive motion. In support of this stance, the judgment debtor referred the court to the documents (Exhibits AN 1, AN 2, AN 3 and AN 4) attached to the affidavit in support of its preliminary objection. Exhibit AN 1 is a letter dated 12th May 2009 from the judgment creditor to the judgment debtor demanding for the outstanding salaries and allowances of the six applicants and their reinstatement. However, the judgment creditor noted as item 3 on the second page of the letter that “please note that 1 and 2 are still subject for discussion and negotiation with union”. Items 1 and 2 referred to relate to outstanding salaries and allowances, and the issue of reinstatement respectively. By this fact, the judgment creditor is making it clear that it is open to negotiation regarding the enforcement of the judgment of this court delivered on May 3, 2007. Exhibit AN 2 is a letter dated February 1, 2010 from the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor which details the total sums payable per individual regarding the six applicants with the statement at page 2 that “please note that the above payments are in full and final satisfaction of the judgment of National Industrial Court (NIC) thereby bringing the matter to a close”. The reply to this letter is Exhibit AN 3 dated 24th February 2010 wherein the judgment creditor expressed its “profound gratitude and unalloyed appreciation…for final and full implementation of the National Industrial Court Award in respect of the six (6) ex-staff of TIB”. Exhibit AN 4 is a letter dated 1st September 2009 from the judgment creditor to the judgment debtor where the judgment creditor outlined the financial implications of the judgment of this court of May 3, 2007 as being – A. Outstanding Salaries and Allowances for 2 years (24 months) = N74,848.08. B. Redundancy Computation = N22,869,013.24. Grand Total A + B = N30,717,731.32. The answer of the applicants to this state of facts is that by Order 2 Rules 10 and 16 of the Judgment Enforcement Rules made pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap. S6 LRN 2004 they have the locus standi to come to this court and ask for the enforcement of the judgment of May 3, 2007. There is no doubt that the applicants have the right to come to court; but can they come to court in respect of a judgment that has been renegotiated and satisfied in accordance with the renegotiation? This is the pertinent question that this court must determine regarding the competence of the motion of the applicants. The exhibits of the judgment debtor have not been challenged by the applicants. So they remain relevant and sacrosanct as far as this case is concerned. They must all be read as a whole not as separate documents as the applicants have contended. A reading of all the exhibits, therefore, reveals that when this court gave judgment, the parties on their own volition decided to negotiate the judgment. The law is pretty clear here that parties to a judgment may negotiate same and whatever they agree on subsequently supersedes the judgment itself. See Akio Abey & ors v. Alex & ors [1999] 12 NWLR (Pt. 637) 148 where the Supreme Court held at page 160 that – It would appear that…the power to settle or compromise “at any stage of pending proceedings” extends even to that of compromising judgments in certain situations. This is because…proceedings remain pending until satisfaction of the judgment. …a judgment may be compromised by the parties to it. I can see nothing unusual or unlawful about this. See also ‘lai Oshitokunbo Oshisanya – An Almanac of Contemporary Judicial Restatements – With Commentaries, Volume I, Practice and Procedure (Spectrum Books Limited: Ibadan), 2008 paragraph 2136 at page 669 where the learned author wrote that the “power to settle or compromise extends to even judgments in certain situations”. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor negotiating the question of reinstating the applicants and accepting something different. The question, however, is whether the applicants can come at this stage and complain that what was negotiated is not enough and so not acceptable to them. A negotiated judgment means that the judgment itself becomes secondary to what has been subsequently agreed to by the negotiating parties. In the substantive suit, the parties to the action were the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor. For the purpose of suing the judgment debtor, the applicants were content and did allow their union, the judgment creditor, to sue for and on their behalf. When the judgment creditor secured judgment, the applicants did not raise any objection. When the judgment creditor embarked on the negotiation of the judgment, the applicants raised no objection. It is only after the judgment creditor accepted the terms of the negotiated judgment that the applicants complained and filed the substantive motion. It is too late in the day for the applicants who trusted the judgment creditor to sue and claim on their behalf to now turn around to challenge the negotiation of the judgment of this court that the judgment creditor did on their behalf. The applicants cannot approbate and reprobate. The negotiation of the judgment done by the judgment creditor is valid and brings to an end the judgment of this court of May 3, 2007. There is nothing this court can do to reopen that fact. For all the reasons given the preliminary objection of the judgment debtor succeeds and is hereby upheld. The motion of the applicants is consequently dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly. We make no order as to cost. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim Judge Judge