Download PDF
The claimants filed a general form of complaint dated 8th June, 2012 and filed on the same date. The claims of the claimants are as follows: 1. The claimants were workers with the defendant and served various years before their retirement by the defendant before their attainment of 60 years of age. 2. By the Collective Agreement between the claimants’ Union and the defendant’s Union, involuntary loss of employment attracts monetary compensation as redundancy. 3. The claimants were not fully paid the compensation but part. They complained to the defendant, the defendant saw merit but said they must demand or claim for it formally. 4. The defendant printed its standard demand/claim form for the claimants. The claimants filled and demanded for the balance of their unpaid money since year 2009, the defendant received and did acknowledge the receipt of the Demand Notice but refused to reply to it nor paid the claimants the balance of their money. 5. Whereof the claimants claim from the defendant (i) The sum of N49,067,452.17 as balance for their unpaid retirement benefits. (ii) 10% interest per annum from the date of Judgment. (iii) Cost of action. The complaint was accompanied by an amended statement of facts, dated 4th September 2012, list of witnesses, exhibits, witness statements on oath. The defendant in reaction, filed a memorandum of appearance, statement of defence, witness statement on oath and list of documents to be relied upon. By their amended statement of facts, the case of the claimants is that they are retirees of the defendant and they variously reside at Jos and its environs. That the defendant is a bank having one of its Area Business Offices in Jos and manned by Principal Officers including a Principal Manager. That all the claimants worked for the defendant at various times before they were retired as senior staff of the defendant. The claimants averred that their letters of employment with the defendant incorporated collective agreement to be part of their contract of service. That their employment letters for some of them is hereby pleaded while some of the claimants have lost their employment letters. The claimants also averred that the collective agreement entered into between the representatives of the claimants’ union at anytime in force formed part of their contract of service with the defendant, they were members of the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) a Trade Union representing the interest of the claimants herein. That they as members paid their union dues individually to their union. That the documents of such payments i.e (pay slips) of the claimants to the above union are hereby pleaded. The claimants pleaded that the defendant is a member of the Nigerian Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions (NEABIAI) an employers’ Union. The claimants further averred that their union (ASSBIFI) representatives entered into a collective agreement as agent of the claimants for the individual benefit of the claimants with the representatives of the defendant’s Association (NEABIAI) in the year 2005. The claimants also states that they were at various times retired at the currency of the collective agreement they entered into with the defendant in the year 2005 and their retirement benefits were or are to be paid on the basis of the said collective agreement of the year 2005. That they were paid various sums of money as their retirement benefits against the collective agreement between them (ASSBIFI) and that of the defendant (NEABIAI) which provides for redundancy payment upon loss of work without the cause of the employee. That they protested the non-payment of their full benefits pursuant to the collective agreement to the defendant. That the defendant admitted fault but said it cannot pay without a formal demand by the claimants. That pursuant to that the defendant printed its standard demand forms and gave them to the claimants who demanded for the balance of the unpaid benefits in the year 2009. That the defendant received demand notices but refused to reply nor pay the claimants. The claimants further averred that as at the time of the retirement, the collective agreement in force between them was that of 2005. That the 1st claimant put in 24 years, 1 month of service in the defendant and is entitled to N16,492,648.17 as retirement benefit but was only paid N7,297,541.68 leaving a balance of N9,195,106.47 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. That the 2nd claimant put in 29 years, 11 months of service in the defendant and he is entitled to N24,479,690.01 as retirement benefit but was paid N11,368,426.15 leaving a balance of N13,111,263.85 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. That the 3rd claimant put in 15 years of service in the defendant and he is entitled to N5,204,810.31 as retirement benefit but was paid N3,358,361.67 leaving a balance of N1,846,448.64 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. That the 4th claimant put in 24 years of service with the defendant and is entitled to N7,466,480.16 as retirement benefit but was only paid N3,300,999.63 leaving a balance of N4,165,480.53 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. That the 5th claimant put in 24 years of service in the defendant and is entitled to N10,704,923.34 as retirement benefit but was only paid N4,497,478.90 leaving a balance of N5,907,444.44 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. Also that the 6th claimant also put in 22 years of service with the defendant and is entitled to N12,725,118.52 but was paid N6,743,301.12 leaving a balance of N5,981,817.40 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. That the 7th claimant on his part also put in 22 years of service with the defendant and is entitled to N13,046,704.77 as his retirement benefit but was only paid N6,912,222.33 leaving a balance of N6,134,482.44 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. The 8th claimant put in 19 years of service with the defendant and is entitled to N6,390,883.00 but was paid N3,665,834.00 leaving a balance of N2,725,048.40 unpaid pursuant to the collective agreement. The claimants further averred that their retirement benefits pursuant to the collective agreement is for Redundancy having been retired or laid off without a course of theirs and having not reached retirement age. That if the defendant pays the sum of N49,067,452.17 to the claimants through their counsel before the date stipulated for appearance, the proceedings shall terminate. The claimants therefore claim as per their complaint. In its statement of defence, the defendant denied paragraphs one to three of the statement of facts. As regards paragraph four, the defendant states that the employment letters and collective agreement are independent documents. That the collective agreement though referred to in the claimants’ letters of employment as a paragraph, the alleged collective agreement referred to by the claimants is a different document from the letters of employment. The defendant also denied that the collective agreement was a contract between the claimants and defendant. That the claimants were not party to this agreement. The defendant also denied paragraph 6 of the amended statement of facts that the claimants are members of the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) a Trade Union and will at the trial require the claimants to prove strictly the averment contained therein. The defendant states that the agreement “the procedural and main collective agreement” was made between the Nigerian Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions to which the defendant belongs as a member and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks Insurance and Financial Institutions in 2005 and shall contend that this agreement is not the contract of employment between it and the claimants as the claimants were not party to the collective agreement. That the booklet “The procedural and Main Collective Agreement” between the Nigerian Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions 2005 shall be relied upon at the trial. That the defendant shall contend at the trial that the provisions of the aforesaid agreement does not avail the claimants’ reliefs. The defendant therefore averred that there was no collective agreement with the claimants. That the defendant admits paragraph 10, only to the extent that the claimants were paid their retirement benefits in full and that the retirement benefits were not on the basis of any collective agreement or on the basis of redundancy clause. That upon the retirement of the claimants, retirement benefits were correctly calculated in line with the terms of the contract of service and fully paid by the defendant to the claimants. That none of the claimants rejected, refused or returned the benefits as computed and paid to him or her nor raised any objections whatsoever. The defendant denied paragraph 11 of the amended statement of facts as at no time did it admit any fault or short fall in the benefits paid to the claimants having paid them their various benefits in full and had no notice of protest except through the court notice. The defendant averred in answer to paragraph 12 of the claim that it has no standard form to receive any notice of protest in any form whatsoever. The defendant also denied receiving any demand notice and will at the trial put the claimants to the strict proof of the facts in paragraph 13 of the claimants’ statement of facts. The defendant denied paragraph 14 of the claim as it was not a signatory to any collective agreement. The defendant insists that the collective agreement and employments letters are independent documents with different parties. The defendant denied the averments in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the amended statement of facts in respect of each of the claimants’ specific claim of balance payment against the defendant and stated that each of the claimants was paid and has received his or her full and final retirement benefit upon retirement and are not entitled to the sum claimed by each of them. The defendant also denied that at no time did it declare redundancies in relation to the claimants. That the defendant retired the claimants and did not declare them redundant. The defendant also denied possession of any original collective agreement between it and the claimants. That the claimants were retired at various times between September 2006 and August 2008 and paid all their retirement benefits. The defendant averred that the alleged calculation of the claimants’ terminal benefits as contained in the statement of facts is wrong, incorrect and inaccurate. That the claimants conditions of service with it states that the claimants after putting in certain number of years in service can retire voluntarily from the employment of the defendant and by the said conditions of service the defendant retired them from service. The defendant further states that the claimants are not entitled to the sum of N49,067,452.17 as claimed as the claim is misconceived, speculative, frivolous and unmaintainable and prayed the court to dismiss the claimants’ claim with substantial cost for lacking in substance and merit. In reply to the statement of defence, the claimants denied paragraph 13 of the statement of defence and replied as follows: (a) That the contract of service agreement has no provision for payment of REDUNDANCY and involuntary retirement the claimants having not put in 35 years of service or 60 years of age hence were never paid their retirement benefits in full pursuant to that. (b) That upon signing the contract of service, the defendant keeps it. The claimants therefore put the defendant on Notice to produce the contract of service of the claimants. At the trial the claimants called two witnesses on their behalf. The first witness CW1 his name is Aliu S. Adam who is also that 1st claimant. He went into the witness box, swore by the Holy Bible to speak the truth. He thereafter adopted his witness statement on oath as well as the documents frontloaded. The said documents were then admitted in evidence as exhibits. The witness statement on oath is on all fours with the averments in the statement of facts and so will not be repeated here. Under cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW1 agreed that he is a retiree of the defendant. He also agrees that he draws his pension on monthly basis. He responded that he was employed on 1st July 1983. He said he was given a letter of appointment by the defendant. He agreed that he signed the letter of appointment. He said he was employed as a graduate Trainee/Property Manager. He agreed that it is a senior cadre. He responded that he was retired on 9th August 2007. He said he was communicated in writing. That he was not told the reason for his retirement. He responded that he was not properly paid that is why he is in this court. But that he collected what was paid to him. That this was in 2007. He told the court that he protested when he was not properly paid in 2009. He said the grievance procedure is applicable to staff who are in the service of the bank. He agreed that it does not apply to retirees. There was no re-examination of CW1 by the claimants’ counsel. The second claimants’ witness is Mrs. Mercy Nanko Dakwal i.e. CW2. She also swore by the Holy Bible to speak the truth. She adopted her two witness statements on oath which she had deposed to on the 4th of September 2012 and 2nd November 2012 respectively. She also adopted the frontloaded documents which were admitted as exhibits. The contents of CE2 statement on oath is also the same as the statement of facts which has already been reproduced in this Judgment. Under cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW2 responded that she was employed on 7th August 1986. That she was employed as a Clerk. She said she was given an employment letter. She agreed that she accepted the job based on the contents of the letter she signed. That she was retired on 16th August 2008. She said she was communicated in writing. She also said no reason was stated for her retirement. She also responded that upon her retirement she was paid but not all her entitlements were paid. That she was paid on 27th October 2008. She said she was paid in 2008 and she complained. CW2 agreed that Redundancy payment is not provided in her letter of employment. She said she was employed as a Clerk in 1986. She said she was not sure but she thinks she converted in 2008. There was no re-examination by the claimants counsel. The claimant thereafter closed their case. The defendant on its part called one witness whose name is Ritji Gofwen – DW1. He affirmed to speak the truth. He adopted his written deposition made on 15th October 2012 as the defendant’s evidence in this case. The contents of the written deposition of DW1 is on all fours with the statement of defence and so will not be repeated here. Responding under cross examination by the claimants’ counsel, DW1 agreed that he is a Legal Practitioner. He also agreed that he is more than ten years at the Bar. He told the court that from what he had read it is not true that collective agreement is not part of the conditions of service but that it refers to it. He said the employment contract made reference to collective agreement as a separate letter of employment. But that it does not form part of the document of the employment. He said the claimants were senior staff of the defendant before they were disengaged. He told the court in response that as senior staff, they were members of the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI). He agreed that the defendant is also relying on the collective agreement in the defence of its case. DW1 says he did not know if the claimants were up to 60 years before they were disengaged by the defendant. He agreed that the defendant received exhibit T1 i.e. one of the demand letters from the 1st claimant to the defendant bank in 2009. DW1 insisted that the defendant has paid the claimants correctly but that the defendant has no evidence before this court to show that it has correctly paid the claimants. That the defendant also does not have documents to show the basis of how it paid the claimants. DW1 says the defendant did not produce or bring the conditions of service for the claimants before this court. The witness said it is the claimants union that entered into the collective agreement with the defendant. That at the time the claimants were in service, they were members of ASSIBIFI that entered into the agreement with the defendant. He also said it is correct to say that the defendant entered into this collective agreement with the union on behalf of their members and for their good. DW1 now answered that there are three documents governing the conditions of service of the claimants. These are letters of employments, conditions of service and collective agreement. There was no re-examination of DW1 by the defendant’s counsel. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were thereafter ordered to file final written addresses in accordance with the provisions of Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. In its written address dated and filed on the 3rd May 2013, the defendant raised two issues for determination: (1) Whether the relationship that existed between the claimants and the defendant bank is not one governed by simple contract regulated by the contract of service founded upon the letter of offer of employment as applicable to each claimant and signed by both parties. (2) Whether the Collective Agreement between the Nigerian Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institution (NEABIAI) the defendant’s employers Union and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks Insurance and Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) the claimants’ former employee union formed part of the contract of service between the claimants and the defendants. Arguing issue one, the defendant’s counsel submitted that it is not arguable that the relationship that existed between each of the claimants and the defendant bank was one of master/servant governed by the principles of the common law and, law of contract. That in this vein, when the defendant bank made an employment offer to the claimants as applicable to each which offer was accepted and signed by both parties, it created a contractual master servant relationship between them. To counsel, it is trite that in the simple master-servant relationship as created as shown in Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘C’ which also embodies the conditions/terms of the employment was entered into by the parties is all that guides the relationship. That it is apposite to state that each of the claimants freely and willingly entered into the relationship and contract of service. That any question arising with respect to the contract, the terms spelt out in the document upon which the relationship began will invariably guide its interpretation. That since parties are bound by the terms of their contract willingly entered into, it will be unfair to read into such a contract the terms on which there has not been an agreement. That the court is duty bound to interpret the terms of the contract and not to make a new contract for the parties. The court was referred to the cases of Oceanic Bank International Ltd v. Undumebraye [2008] All FWLR (pt. 430) 769 and KAYDAX Ventures Ltd v. Min. FCT [2010] 7 NWLR (pt. 1192) 171. Learned Counsel also submitted that PW1 under cross examination admitted to have been given a letter of appointment and that he signed it. That the CW2 was even more emphatic by revealing that she accepted the job based on the content of the letter she signed. That the letters of offer of employment as applicable to each claimant is the only document before this court which was signed by each claimant and the defendant bank with respect to the relationship. Counsel then submitted that this court cannot go outside what is before it to import terms upon which there had not been an agreement by the parties to enter an agreement, citing the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Soares [2012] 11 NWLR (pt. 1312) 550 at 568 paras B – D. On this issue, learned counsel finally submitted that the only document governing the relationship between the parties in this Suit is the letter of offer of employment as applicable to each claimant which the parties signed and urged the court to so hold. On issue two, the defendant’s counsel again referred to the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (Supra) that: “An extraneous agreement not entered into by parties to a contract of service cannot be made the basis of an action by an employee unless it is incorporated into the contract of service agreement of such an employee”. To counsel this presupposes that to form a basis for an action, the terms of such collective agreement must be directly, positively and clearly expressed as terms and embodied in the contract of service. That it cannot be extrinsic to the main terms of the contract which the parties have signed and would not admit a situation where reference is made vaguely to a separate document as in the wordings of the clause relied heavily upon by the claimants, which is quoted as follows: “Other conditions of service will be as laid down in the contract of service agreement and also the collective agreement currently in force. If you are prepared to accept this offer which will remain open until …… please sign and return the attached copy of this letter”. To counsel, the collective agreement relied upon by the claimants was made in 2005, several years after each claimant was employed and so the present collective agreement cannot be said to be the one currently in force at the time the contract of service between the parties came into being. Also that DW1 was precise in his denial that the said clause does not form part of the contract of service. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the paragraph in Exhibit A relief upon by the claimants and under consideration only makes reference to a collective agreement and did not incorporate it into the terms or conditions of service or contract of service of the claimants. The defendant’s counsel further submitted that in the case of NNB Plc v. Egun [2001] 7 NWLR (pt. 711) 1 it was also held that: “An individual employee not being a party to a collective agreement between the employers and employees association no privity of contract arises between an individual employee and his employer by virtue of that agreement”. That in the instant case, the claimants and the respondents were no parties to the main collective agreement between NEABIAI and (ASSBIFI) therefore cannot sue it in their individual capacities. Also that in the case of Okoebor v. Eyop Eng. Services Ltd [1991] 4 NWLR (pt. 187) 553 it was held that a contract generally cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party to it as it only affects a party thereto, even if it is to his benefit and purports to give him a right to sue on it. The defendant’s counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the collective agreement to which claimants and defendant were not parties does not avail the claimants any benefits. That assuming without conceding that the claimants are availed any benefits by the collective agreement, it is our submission that their claim cannot even be founded on the Redundancy Clause therein. That it is noteworthy that Redundancy was not given as a reason for the retirement of each of the claimants, and that in fact no reason was given at all as this is within the right of the master under a master-servant relationship. That the attempt to hide under the cloak of redundancy clause in the collective agreement to calculate and make claims of outstanding payment is an attempt to fish in a desert and was given a still birth under cross examination. Learned counsel also reiterated the fact that a master is not obliged to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his servant, citing the cases of Olanrewaju v. Afribank Plc [2001] All FWLR (pt. 72) 2008, ATIVIE v. CABLE METAL [2008] All FWLR (pt. 438) 667 and Ogbaji v. Arewa Textiles Plc [2000] All FWLR (pt. 24) 1493 and urged the court to so hold. The defendant’s counsel concluded that the claimants are vested on a faulty premise and urged the court to dismiss this Suit with substantial cost. The claimants’ counsel in his written address dated 10th May, 2013 but filed on 13th May, 2013 raised one issue for determination, i.e. “Whether the claimants have proved their case before this court to entitle them to the Judgment of this court”. The claimants’ counsel then pointed out that the claimants had averred that their service with the defendant has the collective agreement as forming part of their contract of service. That the claimants equally gave evidence along that line and that the defendant through its sole witness affirmed same under cross examination in which DW1 agreed that the service of the claimants was governed by a letter of employment, contract of service and collective agreement. Learned counsel therefore submitted it is trite law that what is admitted needs no proof or better still, where the evidence of the defendant supports the claims of the claimant, the claimant can rely on it. To counsel, the defendant’s witness having agreed under cross examination that there are three documents forming the contract of employment of the claimants with the defendant, the defendant is bound by the terms of the contract constrained in the three documents therein. That in A.G Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom State [2011] 8 NWLR pt. 1248 p. 31 at 83, para H. the Supreme Court held: “It is elementary law that where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement, they are bound by the provisions of the contract or agreement”. That the claimants pleaded collective agreement to govern their employment with the respondent and relied on the same collective agreement for their claim. That the defendant also relied on the same collective agreement in its pleadings and evidence. That the defendant’s witness also admitted under cross-examination that the defendant too relies on the collective agreement and defendant bank is also a party to the collective agreement – Exhibit ‘S’. That it is equally in evidence that Exhibit ‘S’ is made for the benefit of the claimants and so this proves the averment of the claimants in paragraph 8 of their amended statements of facts. To counsel, the law is that where collective agreement is pleaded, evidence led on it and the parties rely on it, it applies to the contract between the parties, citing the cases of Emmanuel Nwobosi v. A.C.B Ltd [1995] 6 NWLR pt. 404, p. 658 and MRS. RISI SHAIBU v. UNION BANK PLC [1995] 4 NWLT pt 388 p. 173. The court was also referred to SASEGBONS LAWS OF NIGERIA Vol. 16 p. 4 paragraph 10” Enforceability of Collective Agreement in Contracts of Employment”. The claimants’ counsel then submitted that from the foregoing, the argument of the defendant that collective agreement is an extraneous document has collapsed without redemption as the defendant too relies on it as it is pleaded and evidence led on it. That Exhibit A and C equally incorporated the collective agreement into the contract of employment of the claimants. The claimants’ counsel further argued that the defendant’s arguments above are all under the old regime of the status of collective agreement. That a collective agreement is now a constitutional issue, i.e. the interpretation and applicability of collective agreement is now a constitutional question which the jurisdiction to do so lies on this court. That Section 254 C (1) (i) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act 2010 provides as follows: 254 C (1) (i) “Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters:- (j) Relating to the determination of any question as to the interpretation and application of any (i) Collective Agreement;” That the issue of collective agreement is no longer an issue of whims and caprices but statutory pursuant to the constitution and hence cannot be termed extraneous document as determined by some courts prior to the above constitutional provision. To counsel, in the new regime therefore, whenever there is a collective agreement, this court is empowered to interpret it between the parties. That an amendment dates back to the original date and so the constitutional amendment herein dates back to 1999 and that the collective agreement sought to be interpreted is made in 2005. That it therefore means that this court can interpret Exhibit ‘S’ as the applicability has been admitted by the defendant’s sole witness. That the interpretation of Article 5 thereof is the only issue which the defendant has never made issue of it. Learned counsel further submitted that the crux of the claimants’ case is that they were retired without fault of theirs and they never attained the age of retirement. That the defendant in its defence averred that the claimants have been paid their entitlements. That it means the onus of showing how the claimants were correctly paid shifted to the defendant. This court was referred to the case of TAHIR v. UDEAGBALA HOLDINGS LTD [2005] ALL FWLR pt. 240, p. 120 at 137 para A – B, where it was held that: “It is trite that where a party admits owing the other party, the onus of proof shifts on him to show that the indebtedness had been settled.” That the defendant having admitted that the claimants worked for it before they were retired and allege correct payment has the onus to prove correct payment. To counsel, the defendant has not discharged this onus as the defendant’s sole witness under cross examination testified that they had no document to show the basis of the computation of the retirement benefits of the claimants and equally have no document to show how the bank correctly paid the claimants. To the claimants’ counsel, in the absence of any document from the defendant showing the basis of computation and correct payment of the retirement benefits of the claimants, the only irresistible conclusion this court will reach is to accept the computation of the claimants pursuant to the collective agreement i.e. Exhibit ‘S’ since there is no contrary computation from the defendant. That the claimants demanded for the balance of their unpaid benefits vide Exhibit ‘T’ – ‘Z1’. But the defendant refused to respond to the said letters, the consequence is therefore that the defendant has admitted the debt, citing Trade Bank Plc v. Chami [2004] All FWLR pt. 235 p. 118 at 166 para C – D where the court held that: “The respondent did not answer the letter and its failure to or neglect to answer such a letter on the circumstance tantamount to an admission of the assertion in it”. That the defendant had long been put on notice on its failure to compute the retirement benefits of the claimants pursuant to the collective agreement. That since the defendant did not refute that it amounts to an afterthought. Learned counsel finally urged this court to uphold the computation of the claimants pursuant to Article 5 (a), (d) of Exhibit ‘S’ i.e. the collective agreement as there is neither contrary computation nor basis of computation of their retirement benefits by the defendant and enter Judgment for the claimants . The defendant’s counsel’s reply on points of law is dated 23 May, 2013 and filed on the same day. Replying, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimants’ counsel gravely misapprehended the position of the law on the status of collective agreement in a master-servant relationship. That the Supreme Court espoused on the position of the law on this in the case of SHUAIBU v. N.A.B LTD [1998] 4 SCNJ 109, [1998] 5 NWLR (pt. 551) 582 as follows: “The collective agreement of Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions e.t.c is at best a gentleman’s agreement, an extra legal document totally devoid of sanctions. It is a product of Trade Unionists’ pressure”. Learned Counsel further referred to the following cases where this principle was re-echoed i.e. Anaja v. U.B.A Plc [2011] 15 NWLR (pt. 1270) 377 where the Court of Appeal held thus: “A collective agreement on its own does not give individual employees the right of action in respect of any breach of its terms, unless it is accepted to form part of the terms of employment. This is because the agreement is between the employer and his employee and a non party cannot enforce a contract even if it was made for his employee and a non party cannot enforce a contract even if it was made for his benefit. Thus a collective agreement is at best, gentleman’s agreement, an extra legal document totally devoid of sanctions. In the instant case there was no evidence on record that Exhibit ‘M’, the main collective agreement between the Nigerian Employers Association of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions and the Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Allied Institutions was adopted to form part of the terms of the employment of the appellant. The document did not regulate the relationship between the appellant and the respondent and neither of them could sue on it”. Learned counsel also submitted that the position of the law is very clear that oral or extrinsic evidence cannot be imported or imputed into a contract that has been reduced into writing, just as a witness interpretation or understanding of a document is not a guide in the construction of document citing the case of YADIS (Nig) Ltd v. Great Nigeria Insurance Co. Ltd [2007] 14 NWLR (pt. 1055) 584 where the Supreme Court held that: “A document legally speaking speaks for itself and cannot speak through the testimonies of witness. Therefore, in the construction of documents, the court is not concerned with how witnesses interpret the document or what they understand it to mean”. See Section 125 (1) and 128 (1) (3) Evidence Act”. Learned counsel also submitted that the case of Emmanuel Nwobosi v. ACB Ltd cited by the claimants’ counsel to buttress his argument is of no moment as the issues, facts and evidence are at variance with the instant case and should be discountenanced. In another response, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimants’ counsel was in error when he posited that collective agreement in Section 254 C (i) (ii) of the 1999 Constitution as amended stood collective agreement as statutory and a constitutional provision. That this is standing logic and constitutional jurisprudence on the head. That a constitutional provision is a specific benefit offered and protected by law. That the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution and the Section under reference is only to the extent of extending the jurisdiction of this court to entertain matters pertaining collective agreement. That the provision only gives cover and bite or vests additional jurisdiction on the court and not making collective agreement constitutionally enforceable agreement between parties or right or a self executing provision. This court was referred to the case of Ishola v. Ajiboye [1994] 7 – 8 SCNJ (pt. 1) p. 1. To the defendant’s counsel, assuming without conceding that collective agreement is a constitutional provision, the provisions of the amended constitution cannot prevail in the instant case. That this is because the provisions cannot take a retrospective effect, the cause of action having arisen or accrued to the claimants at various times between 2007 and 2009 when their retirement took effect. That the Third Alteration to the 1999 Constitution was in 2010. Counsel cited the case of HOPE Democratic Party v. OBI [2011] 12 SCNJ 182 where the Supreme Court stated the position of the law while interpreting the amendment to the 1999 Constitution as follows: “The applicable law is the law in existence at the time the cause of action arose and not the law in force at the time of instituting the action or time of Judgment”. In further reply, the defendant’s counsel submitted that the claimants were paid their entitlements according to the defendant bank’s guidelines as reiterated in the evidence of DW1. That the claimants’ hold on collective agreement as basis for their computation and pillar having collapsed against them, they have no basis for their unilateral computations and so the onus remains on them. The defendant’s counsel concluded his submission that the claimants have only embarked on fetching water with a basket weaved with straw and have woefully failed to prove their claims and urged this court to dismiss this Suit with substantial cost against the claimants. After a careful consideration of the processes filed, the argument for counsel for both parties and the authorities cited, I am of the view that the issue for determination in this case is whether the claimants should be paid their retirement benefits based on the redundancy provisions in the collective agreement. In other words, whether the claimants were declared redundant by the defendant. The argument of the claimants in this case is that having been retired or laid off without any cause and having not reached the retirement age, they are deemed to have been declared redundant. It is in this regards that the claimants premised their claims on Article 5 (g) of the collective agreement as the basis for their claim. To buttress this point all the claimants in their respective DEMAND LETTER FOR SHORTFALL & UNDERPAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS hinged their demand on the fact that the defendant in calculating their retirement benefits did not take into account the provision of Article 5 (a) d (i) (e) and (g) of the collective agreement between NEABIAI & ASSBIFI. Article 5 (a) of the said Collective Agreement provides as follows: (a) Redundancy is understood to mean and means in the context of this Agreement, the involuntary loss of employment through no fault of the Employee, caused by excess of manpower or contraction of available work through causes beyond the control of the Employer (d) Any Employee declared redundant shall be entitled to monetary compensation on the following basis: (i) Less than 5 years of service 12 weeks total emolument for each completed year of service. (ii) 5 years but less than 15 years 14 weeks total emolument for each completed year of service. (iii) 15 years and above 16 weeks total emolument for each completed year of service. (e) The above payments shall be made without prejudice to the Employee’s entitlement to three months’ notice or three months salary in lieu of notice. (g) Where a pension and gratuity scheme is in operation, the Employee shall receive either redundancy benefits or gratuity entitlement whichever is higher without prejudice to the payment of pension benefits earned. It is in line with the above provisions that the claimants calculated their outstanding entitlements of redundancy payment against the defendant. The defendant on the other hand has argued that the claimants’ claim cannot be founded on Redundancy Clause because the claimants were never declared redundant neither was redundancy given as a reason for their retirement that as a matter of fact the claimants were simply retired by the defendant. The question that this court need to answer is were the claimants declared Redundant? Section 20 (3) of the Labour Act 2004 defines redundancy as an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by excess manpower. Redundancy also means a situation where workers were declared redundant due to no fault of the defendant but because there were more employees than the available work required thereby making the employer to operate at a loss. See the case of Obilor v. Bristow Helicopters (Nigeria) Ltd [2011] 25 N.L.L.R (pt. 71) p. 224. See also ASSBIFI V. NEABIAI [2009] 15 N.L.L.R (pt. 41) 195. In order to determine whether the claimants were declared redundant, I perused the Retirement Letter of the 1st claimant which is in on fours with that of other claimants. I will endeavour to reproduce the said retirement letter for the purpose of this Judgment. ALIU A.S. 3534635 Manager Jos Area Office. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. RETIREMENT. We advise that the Bank has approved your retirement with effect from 09 August 2007. Your gratuity will be 255% of your terminal annual total emolument which amounts to N5,196,203.85. Your retirement incentive is made up of the following: (a) One year Basic salary which is 763,330.00 (b) One year Housing allowance, which is 707,998.00 (c) One year Transport allowance which is 413,907.00 (d) One year Lunch allowance which is 152,492.00 (e) One month Basic salary in lieu of notice 63,610.83 Your account will be credited with N7,297,541.68 being the total amount due to you. The gratuity is not subject to tax deduction, but the authority of the State Board of Internal Revenue must be obtained as per the personal income Tax Guideline. Any unearned/prepaid allowance made beyond 12 months would be deducted from the total amount due before disbursement of funds. In keeping with the terms of the current pension scheme, you are entitled to an immediate pension of N1,059,618.04 per annum calculated on the basis of 52% of total emolument annual Basic salary, Housing, Transport and Lunch having attained the age of 45 years. In view of the above, fifty per cent of your outstanding liabilities would be deducted from the retirement benefits, while the balance shall be repaid at 6% Interest Rate from your monthly pension which becomes payable immediately since you are pensionable. The conditions spelt out in the signed guarantee document for cash payment in lieu of official car shall also apply. SGD Deputy General Manager Human Resources Department. After a careful perusal of the above letter of retirement of the 1st claimant along with that of other claimants before this court I am unable to agree with the claimants that their retirement was based on redundancy. From the exhibits before me, I am of the humble opinion that the claimants were duly retired by the defendant. There is no evidence that the claimants were declared redundant by the defendant. The claimants on their part did not lead evidence to prove that they were declared Redundant by the defendant to entitle them to Redundancy payment. In the circumstance I agree with the submission of the defendant’s counsel that the claimants claim cannot be founded on the Redundancy Clause in the said Collective Agreement without more. I equally agree with the submission of the defendant that the attempt by the claimants to hide under the cloak of redundancy clause in the collective agreement to calculate and make claims of outstanding payment is an attempt to fish in a desert. In the case of Charles Shapu v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc Suit No. NICN/MAID/01/2012, a judgment of this court delivered on 11th July 2013, this court held that the relationship between employee and the employer is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. See Akinfe v. UBA Plc [2007] 10 NWLR (pt. 1041) p. 185, Afribank (Nig) Plc v. Osisanya [2000] 1 NWLR (pt. 643) p. 592 and Olanrewaju v. Afribank Plc [2001] All FWLR (pt. 72) 2008. It is also trite that where conditions of service exist between an employer and an employee, the provisions contained therein are binding on them. See Dornier Aviations Nig. Ltd v. Oluwadare [2007] 7 NWLR (pt. 1033) p. 336. From the foregoing, I am therefore of the view that the claimants case which is built solely around Redundancy fails in its entirety. I therefore find and hold that the claimants have failed to prove that they were declared Redundant. In the circumstance the case of the claimants fails and is accordingly dismissed. I award N10,000 cost against each of the claimants. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge