Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi - Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge DATE: October 18, 2010 SUIT NO: NIC/ EN/05/2009 BETWEEN Mr. J.M. J. Asinobi Mr. S. Uche (For themselves and as representing the 2004 Aba Retirees of Nigerian Breweries Plc) - Claimants AND Nigerian Breweries Plc - Defendant REPRESENTATION Elder C. D. Ndukwe, for the claimants. Mr. Ogochukwu Onyekwuluje, for the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimants' brought this action by way of the General Form of Complaint dated and filed on the 3rd November 2009 for themselves and in a representative capacity for the year 2004 Aba retirees of the defendant company. They are claiming the following reliefs against the defendant company: (A) A declaration that the claimants are entitled to all their legitimate entitlements/benefits due to them at the time the employment was brought to an end on 26/11/2004 e.g. i. Six months full salary in lieu of notice of termination (less amount already paid). ii. Redundancy benefits as per the existing management/union agreements of 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service. iii. Service gratuities as applicable. iv. Benefits under the defendant's pension funds. v. Goodwill ex-gratia bonus of 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service in appreciation of their services. vi. Company's Product in appreciation of their services. vii. Incentive Cash Award otherwise called Productivity Bonus of 200% of the claimants' monthly basic salaries. viii. 2004 Christmas bonus, ix. Refund of their National Housing Funds. (A) A declaration that the claimants' successful periods of probation count as part of the length of service of the claimants for the exit or retirement benefit purposes. (C) An order of this Court directing the defendant to: i. Re-compute and pay the claimants, through their Attorney in this suit, all the claimants' legitimate entitlements/benefits due to them at the time the contract was brought to an end as specified in claim A above (less amount already paid), ii. Re-compute and pay to the following claimants through their attorney in this suit their retirement benefits based on 26 years service and not 25 years: Mr. J. M. J. Asinobi, Mr. E. Cookey, Mr. Nwakwe, Mr. I. K. Ugbogho and Mr. M. Ahuekwe. iii. Calculate and pay the claimants through their attorney in this suit their redundancy benefits as per the existing management union agreement of 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service, iv. Show the claimants the calculation of their retirement benefits. Attached to the complaint are the list of eighteen documents which are exhibited and the list of witness to be called. In reaction, the defendant filed its memorandum of appearance dated 20th November 2009 but filed on the 24th November, 2009 and its statement of defence dated 8th February 2010 and filed on the 9th February, 2010. It attached its list of witnesses but no documents. The claimants in reaction filed a reply to the statement of defence which is dated and filed on the 25th February, 2010. Thereafter, the defendant filed a preliminary objection praying this court to strike out the claimants' claim for want of jurisdiction on the grounds that this suit falls outside the provision of section 7(1) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, and that the claimants do not have common interest, common grievance or cause of action as the reliefs claimed are not common and beneficial to all; and that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. This court in a considered ruling delivered on the 10th May 2010, dismissed the objection and ordered that the case proceed to hearing. Both counsel agreed to argue the matter on the record; and they then filed and exchanged written addresses. The claimants' written address is dated 12th May 2010 and filed on the 13th May 2010. In filing its written address, the defendant's counsel brought an application dated 28th June 2010 and filed same day praying for an order to file its written address out of time, a deeming order as properly filed and served and an order allowing the defendant to file an additional document. This application was not objected to by the claimants' counsel and the orders were granted. The defendants' written address is dated and filed on the 28th June 2010 while the claimants' reply on points of law was dated and filed on the 7th September 2010. From the pleading, the facts giving rise to this case are undisputed. The claimants' position is that they are all former employees of the defendant company whose contract of service was terminated by the defendant on the 26th May 2004 when it issued uniform Early Retirement and Outplacement letters to the claimants. That the defendant short paid some of the claimant-retirees their retirement benefits and neglected to pay the others their entitlements contrary to the terms of the contract of service which is in writing and regulated by the defendant company's employee handbook and exit benefit scheme booklet. The claimants stated that during their service years with the defendant, they were paid annual emoluments comprising of basic salary, housing allowance, transport allowance, meal subsidies and leave allowance. They claimed that in terminating their contract of service, the defendant paid the claimants' early retirees uniform six months basic salaries in lieu of notice effective from 26/5/2004 to 26/11/2004, leave allowance for 2004, and refused to pay the other allowances which they receive monthly. The claimants in the outplacement category were paid three months' basic salary in lieu of notice and their leave allowance for 2004. That all the claimants were required to utilize their outstanding leave during the six or three month period of notice. The claimants contend that the retirement age from the service of the defendant was optional from 50 years of age and compulsory at 60 years of age and that none of the claimants had attained the age of 60 years before the defendant compulsorily terminated the employment of the claimants. That in case of redundancy occasioned by improvement of method as in this case, the claimants are to be paid redundancy benefits as per the existing management/union agreement on redundancy in force at the time. That agreement in force is dated 26/5/2004 and provides for 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service which the defendant pays as good will ex gratia. That they also rely on the agreements dated 13/1/2000 and 21/4/2001. It is the position of the claimants that the defendant paid only their service and retirement gratuity and denied them their pension rights when they are also qualified to receive pension. That in addition to salary in lieu of notice, service gratuity and pension, the defendant paid the redundancy benefit and goodwill ex gratia bonus of twelve months basic pay to some of the 2004 outplacement/early retirees who were below 50 years and who served for 15 years in appreciation of their service and denied others. That in calculating the service and retirement gratuity of the claimants, the defendant deducted one year service from the twenty six years service put in by Mr. J.N. J. Asinobi, Mr. E. Cookey, Mr. C. Nwakwe, Mr. I. K. Ugbogho, Mr. M. Ahuekwe and some others. That probation period counts and forms part of the length of service for the claimants and the effective date of termination of the claimant's employment is 26/11/2004 Dissatisfied with the defendants company's calculation of their severance benefits, the claimants consulted their solicitor who by a letter dated 9/9/2004 wrote the defendant company for the re-computation of the severance benefits. The defendant rejected, and declined to re-compute same in their letter dated 12/10/2004 whereupon the claimants commenced this action. The defendant company admits that the claimants are its former employees at its Aba Brewery who were retired or out-placed during the 2004 exercise and their entitlements were paid to and received by the claimants. It is the defendant's position that the basis for calculation of retirement benefits paid to the claimants-retirees or out-placed staff was a collective agreement reached between the claimants' union and the defendant and/or in accordance with the employee handbook which form the terms of the claimants' contract of service. That the claimants were retired or out-placed in accordance with the employee handbook and their severance benefits were calculated in accordance with the prevailing collective agreement and employee handbook. The defendant company also states that it has an option to retire any of its staff on the staff attaining 50 years and an employee may also voluntarily retire at the same age of 50 years or above. That retirement between age 50 and 59 years is valid and called early retirement. That the claimants' appointments were not terminated and they have all received their pension and other entitlements as contained in their individual letters. The defendant company's position is that the retirement exercise was undertaken in view of the global economic situation which affected businesses in the country and that it is not indebted to the claimants. Both counsel adopted their written addresses and relied on all the processes filed in respect of this suit. The claimants' counsel raised three issues for the determination of this court which are as follows: (a) Whether the claimants' employment was not terminated on grounds of redundancy? (b) Whether the claimants are not entitled to their legitimate entitlement and retirement benefits including pay in lieu of pre-retirement leave due to them as at the date of the termination of the contract of service on 26/11/04 (c) Whether the defendant paid the claimants all their legitimate entitlements, retirement benefits and pay in lieu of pre retirement leave due to them as at the date of the termination of their contract of service on 26/11/04. Learned counsel to the claimants stated that redundancy has been defined as an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by excess of man power, citing section 19(3) of the Labour Act Cap. 198, LFN 1990, North Riding Garages v. Butterwick [1967] 2 WLR 571, Obaleye v. Dunlop Nig. Industries Ltd [1975] 5 ECSLR 445 and Article 27 of the defendant company's employee handbook marked at Exhibit No. 4. That the defendant specified the reasons for the termination of the appointment of the claimants in paragraph 1 of the letters of retirement and outplacement as follows: After a painstaking review of the operations of our business in response to developments in the global environment, management has had to streamline and rationalise the various aspects of its operations. This exercise has- led to a reduction in the number of people needed to support the business. That it follows from this reason that the appointments of the claimants were terminated on grounds of redundancy occasioned by improvement of method. Counsel then submitted that the purpose of redundancy payments are to recognize the years of dedicated long service of the claimants to cushion the effect of the sudden exit which was not due to the fault of the claimants but as a result of economic and technological changes at the work place, to penalize the employer for clashing the employees' job prospects and then compensate the employees if in dashing the job prospects it damaged their interest; and where the termination of the appointment was due to the improvements of method, then to ensure that it is not development solely at the employees expense. Counsel then reproduced section 19(l)(a) — (c) of the Labour Act 1974 which provides for the procedures to be followed when a redundancy is declared and contended that the defendant company's 2004 exercise fell under Article 27 of the employee handbook (Exhibit 4) which entitles all the claimants to redundancy benefits under the provisions of the union/management agreement in force at the time. Counsel then cited Kato v. CBN [1997] 69 LRCN 1119, Chukwumah v. SPDC Plc [1993] 5 KLR 93 at .110-111 and Joseph Shittu v. Nigerian Breweries Plc reported in the Vanguard Newspaper of Thursday October 20, 2005 at page 34 and submitted that the failure of the defendant to pay the claimants their full salaries in lieu of six months notice was inconsistent with and amounts to non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service and rendered the termination a nullity. He urged the court to hold that the employment of the claimants was terminated on grounds of redundancy under article 27 of the employee handbook. On issue No. 2, learned counsel to the claimants submitted that the claimants are entitled to their full retirement or severance benefits due to them at the time their employment was determined. He referred to Kato v. CBN [1999] 69 LRCN 1119 at 113911, Swiss Nigerian Wood Industries Ltd v. Bogo [1970] NCLR 423 and Ifeta v. SPDC Nig. Ltd [2006] 142 LRCN 2664 at 2697 and urged the court to resolve issue 2 in favour of the claimants. On issue No. 3, counsel stated that he would argue each item claimed in paragraph 30(a) (i) - (viii) of the statement of facts separately and that to determine what the claimants' benefits are, the court will have to look at the contract of service which is regulated by the defendant's employee handbook and the exit benefit scheme booklet. In respect of claim (a)(i) counsel submitted that article 25(l)(b) of the employee handbook provides that employees going on retirement will normally receive six months notice and be expected to take annual leave due to them and the exit benefit scheme provides at page 12 that retirement from service is between 50 to 60 years and the retirement option could be exercised by either employee or employer. It is optional from 50 but compulsory at 60 years. He submitted that those claimants classified as early retirees were paid six months basic salary in lieu of notice and those out-placed were paid three months basic salary in lieu of notice. That the early retirees were those who had attained age 50 years or more as at 26th November 2004 and the out-placed retirees were those who were below 50 years as at 26th November 2004. Counsel submitted further that by virtue of the provisions of article 25(l)(b) of the employee hand book, there is no provision for three months notice to any employee going on retirement to justify the three months notice given to the out-placed claimants. That since the defendant company exercised its option of retirement irrespective of the ages of the claimants, all the claimants ought to be given six months notice in lieu of the retirement exercise of 26th November 2004 in accordance with the provisions of article 25(1)(b). He also argued that by the provision of article 23(d) of the employee; handbook, the claimants whose services were terminated were entitled to salaries up to the date of the termination of appointments referring to Ativie v. Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd [2008] 164 LRCN 71 at 84. That the period of notice was effective from 26th May 2004 in both early retirees and those out-placed because all the claimants were retired based on the same reason and therefore the notice expired on the 26th November 2004 for all the claimants and not 26th August 2004 for the out-placed retirees who were given three months notice. That where a contract of service provides for a specific period of notice, the effective date of the determination is after the period of notice. He referred to section 11(1) of the Labour Act 1990. The claimants' counsel argued that the word salary as contemplated in article 23(d) of the employee handbook did not include the word 'basic salary' and so it cannot be unilaterally included. That the claimants whose services were terminated are entitled to basic salary, housing allowance, transport allowance and meal subsidy. He referred to section 11(9) and (7) of the Labour Act and article 11(a) of Exhibit 4. Counsel urged the court to hold that payment of six months or three months basic salary without more by the defendant to the claimants is inconsistent with the contract of service, and order the defendant to re-compute and pay the claimants six months full salary in lieu of notice less the amount already paid. Counsel argued that the claimants classified as early retirees were not paid any redundancy benefit as per the existing management/union agreement in force as at 26/11/04 while the out-placed retirees redundancy benefits were not based on the existing management/union agreement on redundancy in force at 26/11/04 contrary to article 27 of the employee handbook. That the existing management/union agreement on redundancy in force on 26/11/04 was 32 weeks pay for every completed year of service which is 26 weeks pay for every completed year of service existing before 2000 plus six weeks pay for every completed year of service adopted by the defendant in 2001; and all the claimants having served for 15 years and above were entitled to the six weeks additions. Counsel argued that there was no reason why the claimants should be denied their rights to redundancy payment, citing the case of Hindle v. Percival Boats Ltd (1969) 1 WLR 174 at 180. The claimants' counsel also submitted that the contract of service between the claimants and the defendant has no provision for outplacement or early retirement. That the claimants' appointments were terminated on grounds of redundancy occasioned by improvement of method and are therefore entitled to redundancy benefits irrespective of age because it is the reason given by the defendant for the exercise of the retirement option and not age that determines the rights, entitlements and obligations of the parties under article 27 of the handbook, lie submitted that section 19(b) of the Labour Act enjoins employees to use their best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payment to a discharged worker who is not protected by regulations made by the Minister of Labour. He referred to "Cronin J. B, ILO Recommendation 119" and cited the case of Peugeot Automobile Nig. v. Oje [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 625, where the Court of Appeal held that redundancy does not carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be paid to the employees declared redundant. Counsel then submitted that this decision is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Plume Pipe Co. Ltd v. Their Workers [1959] 2 LLJ 830 and Brahmacharas Research Institute v. Their Workers AIR [I960] SC 257 where the Indian Supreme Court held that - Redundancy payment did not create a bar against the employee;-' claim for gratuity. The object of retrenchment compensation was essentially different from the object of gratuity. Retrenchment is meant to give retrenched employee partial protection from unemployment. Gratuity on the other hand is paid to employees after putting in a considerable period of service to the employer. He urged the court to distinguish the case of Peugeot Automobile Nig. v. Oje (supra) from this suit because in that case the defendant paid full redundancy benefit which was higher than gratuity but in this case the defendant paid gratuity which is lower. He further submitted that the decision of the Indian Supreme Court In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd (supra) though persuasive is superior to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Peugeot Automobile Nig v. Oje, supra. That the purpose of section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which provides that the court should have due regard to international best practice in labour or industrial relations is that in order to achieve the purpose set out in section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the court can distinguish the decision of our local courts and follow the decision of foreign courts if the foreign court decision was based on good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations. He referred to Novelty Industries Co. Ltd v. National Union of Textile Garments [1992] NICLR 22 at 43, Joseph Shittu v. Nigerian Breweries Plc, supra and Employment Law by Emeka Chianu, 2004 Edition page 373-415. The claimants' counsel further argued that the early retirees were not paid redundancy benefits or given ex gratia payments and the service and retirement gratuity of the claimants mentioned below were under calculated in view of the date on their long service award certificates. That the defendant in calculating the service and retirement gratuity deducted one year service from the 26 years service put in by Mr. E. Cookey, Mr. M. A. Ahuekwe and Mr. Ibe K. Ugbogho and so short paid them by one year. That J. M. J Asinobi and Mr. C. Nwakwue had their service gratuity calculated based on 25 years service instead of 27 years. That the period of probation should form part of the length of service for exit benefit purposes. Counsel submitted (hat the exit benefit scheme booklet Exhibit 5, particularly at pages 12 and 13 makes provision for pension which all the claimants are qualified to receive but have been denied by the defendant. Counsel urged the court to declare that the claimants are entitled to their pensions under the rules of the funds and to order (he defendant to pay same to the claimants through their attorney in this case until the claimants are deceased or pay the equivalent of the claimants' pension rights up to the guaranteed minimum of six years to the claimants or to 'he deceased claimants' estate through the attorney in this case. Counsel also submitted that the defendant breached the terms of the contract of service by failing to provide for the welfare and security of all its employees; that failure to notify and advise the claimants of their pre leave entitlements amount to fraudulent breach of contract. He urged the court to grant the necessary reliefs sought by the claimants in their statement of facts. Counsel also submitted that the defendant concealed the details of the claimants' entitlement under the contract of service when it stated HI the early retirement/outplacement letters given to the claimants that — By a copy of this letter the salaries/pensions admin, management is requested to calculate your entitlements. We shall notify you as soon as details of these are available. When you receive your entitlement under the pension's scheme and indicate your choice of company pension we shall advise you of any other entitlements in terms of pay in lieu of pre retirement leave. He argued that there were other entitlements in terms of pay in lieu of pre retirement leave which the defendant refused to make known to the claimants. He urged the court to order the defendant to notify the claimants and re-compute their entitlement and pay same through their attorney in this case. Counsel also argued that the claimants are by the management/union agreement existing before 2000 entitled to productivity cash award bonus of 200% monthly basic salaries for meeting the productivity targets set in 2003. That the claimants are also entitled to Christmas bonus of company products and public relations gifts which is a company policy. He referred to page 13 paragraph 4 of the exit benefit scheme and also submitted that the claimants are entitled to a refund of their monthly contributions through deductions from their salaries which were invested in the National Housing- Fund of the defendant as managed by the Fund Managers. He referred to page 18 of the exit benefit scheme and urged the court to order the refund of the claimants' contributions. The claimants' counsel further submitted that admitted facts need not be proved. That the defendant had admitted the facts pleaded by the claimant in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the statement of facts and that the personal facts and details of the claimants needed by the defendant in order to re-compute the claimants' entitlements are known to the defendant. He submitted further that the claimants through their exhibits had established and proved (he facts pleaded in the statement of facts. Counsel refereed to the case of CCB Plc v. Rose Amadi [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt. 544) 37 and submitted that the; decision in this case in which the Court of Appeal struck out the plaintiffs case on the ground that each plaintiff was employed separately with their conditions of service being personal to each of them does not apply in (his instance because the conditions of service are regulated by the defendant's employee handbook, the defendant exit benefit scheme booklet and the collective agreement reached by the unions of both parties varied by resolutions and agreement. He argued that the CCB Plc case, supra, is not in tandem with the present spirit of the National Industrial Court and urged the court to hold that in labour matters in this court, the defendant is not discharged but is required to establish or prove his defence even if the claimant fails to prove his case. He urged the court to hold that the claimants have proved their case and are entitled to their claims. He further submitted that this court has the jurisdiction to grant the declaratory reliefs claimed in the statement of facts, lie cited Osinoiki v. Ilekun [2003] FWLR (Pt. 162) 1768 and Eye v. Qudas [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 620 and argued that this court has the jurisdiction to make consequential orders which he submitted is an order giving effect to the judgment and is not an order made subsequent to a judgment which detracts from the judgment or contains extraneous matter. He referred to Amaechi v. INEC [2008] vol. 158 LRCN 1 at 184, Obayagbona v. Obazu [1972] 5 SC 247, Garba v. University of Maiduguri [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550, Okpupe v. FBIR [1974] 1 ANLR 314 and section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. The claimants' counsel stated that the claimants urged the court to order that their entitlements be paid through their attorney in this suit so as to ensure that all the entitlements due to the claimants are fully paid without cheating and to reduce the injustice and hardship of the individual claimants travelling to collect their pay and to show their attorney the detailed calculations of their entitlements to avoid further litigation. He finally urged the court to grant all the claimants' claims. Learned counsel to the defendant company began by stating that his case is purely documentary requiring only the interpretation of the documents already frontloaded. He stated that facts pleaded do not constitute evidence except they have been clearly admitted relying on Ajikawo v. Ansaldo Nig. Ltd [1991] 2 NWLR (Pt. 173; 359 at 363, Ojo v. Gbaroro [2006] 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 123 ratio 10 and Okeke v. A.G. Anambra State [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt. 215) 60 at 65. Counsel submitted that it is not in the place of the claimants' counsel to address the court on evidence which is not before (he court and such should be ignored. He cited Chukwujekwu v. Olalere [1992] 2 NWLR (Pt. 221) 86 at 93, Nigeria Arab Bank Ltd v. Femi Kane Ltd [1995] 4 NWLR (Pt. 387' 100 at 106 ratio 10, Achibong v. Edok [2006] 7 NWLR (Ft. 980) at 485 and Boniface Anyika & Co Ltd v. Uzor [2006] 15 NWLR (Pi. 1003) at 560. Counsel then urged the court to discountenance all the facts and arguments in their support as final address is not intended to be evidence or to proffer arguments on facts not before the court. The defendant's counsel argued that in the determination of a case, the court is enjoined to deal with matters which form the cause of action in controversy. That a cause of action is a set of facts which when proved would entitle a plaintiff to a remedy against a defendant, citing Bella v. A.G. Oyo State [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828, Akilu v. Fawehinmi (No.2) 2 NWLR (Pt. 102) 122 [counsel gave incomplete citation] and Oshobaju v. Amuda [1992] 6 NWLR (Pt. 250) 690. He then referred to the claimants' final address in which references were made to events that happened in 2^00, 2001 or 2005 and argued that the claimants' case is predicated on the defendant's actions initiated by its letter to of May 2004 to the claimants and submitted that this case should be fought on the basis of facts and documents relevant to the claimants' case which arose by reason of the defendant's letters of May 24, 2004. Learned counsel to the defendant submitted that there are two major sets of claimants in this suit made up of the employees whose employment was affected by early retirement, the employees who were affected by the outplacement exercise or redundancy and a third group who claim that their long service pay was not properly calculated in that the calculation was based on a terminal date of 26th May 2004 instead of 26th November 2004. Me stated that both parties agree that the employment of the claimants is guided by the provisions of the defendant's employee handbook and that in calculating the terminal benefits, the provisions of the handbook, the existing management/union agreement in force as at May 2004 and all other relevant regulations should be considered. That both parties agree that the employment of the claimants came to an end on the basis of rationalization or improvement in industrial process leading to a reduction in the number of staff. Lie then framed the following issues for the determination of this court: 1. Whether the named plaintiffs have the authority of the other retirees or out-placed staff to bring this action on their behalf. 2. Whether the collective agreements variously dated 13/1/2000, 21/4/2004 and 21/4/2004 frontloaded by the claimants are the management/union agreement referred to in article 27 of the employee handbook, which is the basis of the claim of the claimants. 3. Whether the claimants have made out a case to entitle them to any or all of their claims as in paragraph 30(a), (b) and (c) of the statement of facts. On issue 1, counsel stated that the claimants claim to have the authority of all the 2004 retired and out-placed employees from Aba Brewery to bring this action in a representative capacity and have frontloaded the Power of Attorney alleged to have been donated to them. He submitted that the said Power of Attorney is not dated or signed and therefore cannot confer authority on the named claimants to initiate this suit in a representative capacity. That the claimants are entitled to represent themselves and others if properly authorized but authorization by other persons is necessary to cloth the claimants with locus standi and failure to show such authority is fatal, lie cited Atanda v. Olanrewaju [1998] 4 NWLR (Pt. 89) 394 and submitted that while he concedes that the mere endorsement on the claim is enough, if the claimants plead an authority to do so, they must prove that authority to bring the action and where there is failure of proof the court should strike out the names of the others because the action cannot inure to the benefit of the named parties on record. That on the basis of the nature of the document, the claimants' Power of Attorney, which is not a document so called, he urged the court to strike out the suit as the claimants do not have the locus standi to bring this action. On issue 2, the defendant's counsel stated that the relevant provisions of the employees handbook is article 25 relating to retirement and benefits and article 27 dealing with redundancy, lie added that there are also provisions in the exit benefit scheme booklet, lie stated that in the calculation of redundancy benefits, article 27 provides (hat recourse should be made to the existing management/union agreement in force at the time. He urged the court to construe 'management' to mean Nigerian Breweries Plc and the union to mean the union existing in Nigeria Breweries Plc. That the agreements dated 13th January 2000, 21st April 2004 and another dated 21st April 2004 frontloaded by the claimants are collective agreements made between the Association of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Employers and the National Union of Food Beverage and Tobacco Employees. He argued that the defendant company was not a party to the said agreements neither was the union existing within the defendant company a party. That it remained for all purposes a collective agreement between the parties named therein. Counsel submitted that the agreements cited above are not the agreements mentioned in article 27 of the employee handbook as the management/union agreement. That the existing management/union agreement is that dated 24th May 2004 exhibited and allowed as an additional document by leave of court. He referred to the decision of this court in Lateef Alao Adesigbin & ors v. Nigerian Breweries Plc unreported Suit No NIC/8/2008 delivered on 15th July 2009 where, in consideration of this same issue, this court held that the phrase existing management/union agreement in article 27 of the handbook presupposes an agreement between the management of Nigerian Breweries Plc and the union in the company and not the collective agreement between the Association of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Employers and the National Union of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Employees NUFBTE. Counsel submitted that the three agreements frontloaded by (he claimants are not the existing management/union agreement mentioned in article 27 of the handbook. That the claimants have based their claim on that phrase in article 27. He urged the court to hold that the existing management/union agreement is the agreement dated 24th May 2004. In respect of the date of exit from the services of the defendant which the early retirees and the out-placed staff claim should be 26th November 2004, counsel to the defendant argued that by the provisions of article 25(1)(b) of the hand book, the early retirees were entitled to six months notice of retirement and not six months' salary in lieu of notice but the defendant paid them six; months' salary in lieu of notice. That the essence of the salary was to pay them off within the period when they ought to have been notified. That if the defendant wanted them to be in employment they would not have paid them six months' salary in lieu of notice. That having received salary in lieu of notice their employment came to an end on the 26th May 2004. He submitted that the out-placed employees were not entitled to period of notice under article 27 of the handbook but to salary in lieu of notice in accordance with their contract of employment as per the existing management/union agreement which provided for three months basic salary in lieu of notice. He argued that the out-placed claimants did not retire from service but were affected by a redundancy exercise and that their entitlements are as provided in article 27 of the employee handbook and not article 25 which deals with, retirement. Counsel submitted that the effective date of the cessation from employment is 26th May 2004 for the out-placed claimants and the early retirees and calculation of their entitlements based on that date is proper because they were not in employment beyond that date. Arguing further, the defendant's counsel contended that the claimants have not shown how they have been short-paid. That the existing management/union agreement in force at the time provided for basic salary in lieu of notice which he submitted is in line with the provisions of our law and practice referring to section 11(9) of the Labour Act Cap. 198 LFN. He also argued that salary is a component of an employee's wages. That while salary connotes basic earnings of an employee, it is his wages that is all encompassing. He referred to the Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition for the definition of salary at page 1337 and wages at page 1579 and submitted that the claimants' claim that in the calculation of their salary in lieu of notice they are entitled to all other benefits and bonuses within the period is misconceived and should be rejected. In reaction to the claimants' claim that they are entitled to 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service, learned counsel to the defendant argued that this assertion lost sight of the fact that all the claimants were not out-placed and so not entitled to redundancy benefits. He argued that only employees whose employments were cut short in the process of reduction of staff by reason of improvement of methods were entitled to redundancy benefits. He referred to section 19(3) of the Labour Act, and Union of Shipping Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Workers of Nigeria v. Management of Transaltic Nigeria Ltd [1978-2006] DJNIC 232 at 234 and National Union of Textile Garment and Tailoring Workers v. Nigeria Kraft Bags Ltd [1978-2006] DJ NIC 56 and submitted that only the out-placed claimants are entitled to redundancy benefits and not the early retiree claimants who are entitled to benefits provided in article 25(1) and (2) of the employee handbook. Counsel argued that the defendant calculated the exit benefits of the out-placed claimants in accordance with the existing management/union agreement in force. That the claimants have not shown how their benefits were wrongly calculated and so their case must fail for failure to discharge the burden placed on them, referring to Yussuf v. Oyetunji [1998] 12 NWLR (Pt. 579) 483, Arabambi v. Advance Beverages Industry Ltd [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1 SC, Agbi v. Ogbeh 12006] 11 NWLR (Pt. 990) 65. Replying the claimants' counsel submission urging this court not to follow the Court of Appeal decision in Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Ltd v. Oje, supra, but to follow the Indian Supreme Court decision in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd v. Their Workers, supra, he submitted that this court must not follow the Indian authority because it did not take into account the provisions of Nigerian labour law or the contract of employment in issue and so it cannot create any legal precedent in our legal system. He added that for this court to refuse to follow the Nigerian Court of Appeal decision on the same issue, it must be satisfied that there exists legal backing for it to do so. Regarding goodwill ex-gratia benefit of 12 months' basic salary which the claimants alleged were paid to some but denied to others, counsel submitted that the names of the recipients have not been disclosed but left to the conjecture or speculation of the court. Tie submitted that judicial proceedings are not to be speculated by the court and that the claims by the claimants that they are entitled to Goodwill ex-gratia bonus of 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service, 2003 productivity bonus of 200% of claimants monthly basic salary and 2004 Christmas bonus has not been proved by them as there is no such provision in the employee handbook and the existing management/union agreement in force at the time. That by the letter of outplacement, the defendant paid to the out-placed staff ex-gratia goodwill bonus calculated on the basis of length of service. That this payment is gratuitous and a bonus which is not a right but a privilege. He referred to Peugeot Automobile Nig. Ltd v. Saliu Oje, supra, and the decision of this court in Lateef Adesigbin & ors v. Nigeria Breweries, supra, where it was held that ex-gratia payment is not one the court can compel the defendant to pay because it has no legal obligation to pay same. Counsel however stated that the defendant has paid ex-gratia goodwill bonus to the out-placed claimants and that at page 13, paragraph 4 of the exit scheme booklet, gratuitous gifts are given to pensioners at the discretion of the company. He urged the court to hold that the claimants have not established their right to receive additional wages as ex-gratia bonus or any other bonus except what has been paid to them and to dismiss these claims as being frivolous. On the claimants' claim that their service gratuity was wrongly computed, the defendant's counsel submitted that by the provisions of article 25 of the handbook only the early retirees are entitled to service gratuity relying on the case of Peugeot Automobile Nig. v. Oje, supra. That by the combined provisions of the exit scheme booklet and the handbook, the retirement age from service is between the age of 50 and 60 years during which the defendant may retire an employee or the employee may retire voluntarily. That the defendant's letters to the early retirees shows that the defendant exercised its option as it is not bound to keep an employee in service up to 60 years. That calculation of retirement benefits was done on the basis of age on retirement. He urged the court to hold that the computation of service gratuity of early retirees based on their actual age at the time of retirement was correct. Regarding the third group of claimants who claim that their service gratuity was under-calculated in view of the dale on their certificate of Long Service Award, and that the defendant deducted 1 year from the service years of Mr. M. E. Cookey. Mr. M. A. Ahuekwe, Mr. Ibe K. Ugbogho and 2 years from Mr. .J. M. Asinobi and Mr. C. Nwakwue, counsel submitted that there is no error as their exit date is 26th May 2004. That their argument that they were in service till 26th November 2004 is geared towards giving them the extra period they claim. Counsel also argued that since the claimants are not challenging the defendant's option to retire them or out-place them and they are not seeking for an order of re-instatement or a nullity of the options exercised by the defendant, the argument of the claimants on the breach of contract is a non-issue, so also is the authority of Amaechi v. INEC, supra, which was cited. Counsel also urged the court to discountenance the claimants' arguments for pension rights as they arc without foundation because the letters of outplacement and early retirement clearly showed that the defendant provided for payment of their pension funds contribution which is calculated as applicable to each contributor. He submitted that the claimants were entitled to pension on proof that any of them joined the voluntary pension scheme of the defendant which will then entitle such a claimant to his contribution to the pension funds as applicable. That until these are proved, the court should decline to make any order in that regard as the claimants did not plead or show by documentary evidence that they joined or contributed to the voluntary pension scheme of the defendant. He also argued that the claimants have not proved by any documentary evidence that they made any contributions to the National [lousing Fund to entitle them to any benefit there from. That page 17 of the exit scheme booklet which the claimants referred to as authority for their claim deals with the defendant's Voluntary Savings Scheme and not National Housing Fund. He urged the court to dismiss the claim. Counsel submitted further that an employee on probation is not a confirmed or permanent staff and as such the period of probation does not count in the calculation of exit benefits for retiring or out-placed staff. He finally urged the court to hold that the claimants have failed to prove that they arc entitled to their claims and dismiss the suit as being frivolous, vexatious and an exercise in gold-digging. Replying in points of law, the claimants' counsel urged the court not to attach any weight to the defendant's additional document which they claim to be the management/union agreement in force because it was made in the course of or in anticipation of this suit as it was not frontloaded at the time of filing the defence. He argued that it was made on the 25n May 2004 after the defendant terminated the contracts of service of the claimants by their letter of the 24th May 2004. He submitted that by section 12(2)(a) and (b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 (his court may regulate its procedure and proceedings and as counsel for both parties opted to file written addresses, the court was right to order same and counsel cannot complain at this stage. He also submitted that by the provisions of section 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act, the events that occurred in 2000, 2001 and 2005 are connected with the facts in issue as to form part of the same transaction. That the Power of Attorney has annexure which includes the signatures of the donees and that in a representative action, it is not compulsory that all those being represented must sign. The claimants' counsel urged the court not to apply its decision in the case of Lateef Adesigbin v. Nigerian Breweries, supra, and other cases cited by defendants counsel because they followed the common law principle of the 18th century. Counsel finally submitted that the claimants have proved their case and are entitled to all their claims. We have carefully considered the facts of this case, the parties' documentary evidence, the submissions of counsel and all the authorities relied on. We must indicate our displeasure in the counsel to the claimants' inconsistency in citing legislation. For instance, counsel alternately referred to the Labour Act of 1974 and that of 1990 without indicating the utility of this. It would be neater if counsel can stick to one year of a legislation. We agree with the defendant's counsel (hat there are two major sets of claimants in this suit - the claimants who were given letters of early retirement and those who were given letters of outplacement. The claimants are not contesting their retirement or outplacement but arc contending that they have been denied some benefits, short paid and want their severance benefits to be re-computed. We shall begin with the claimants' locus standi to represent the 2004 Aba retirees of the defendant company which was raised by the defendant. This court has permitted parties to sue in a representative capacity without the necessity of seeking the leave of court or more. Order 4 Rule 2 of the Rules of this court simply requires the endorsement of the fact of suing in a representative capacity on the originating process. It provides as follows: Where a claimant sues, or a defendant or any of several defendants is sued in a representative capacity, the originating process shall state that capacity. The claimants have endorsed on the originating process the fact of a representative action which renders the unsigned Power of Attorney exhibited by the claimants irrelevant and unnecessary. We hold that the endorsement without more satisfies the requirement of suing in a representative capacity. What then are the rights and benefits accruable to the early retirees? Article 25(1) and 25(2) of the defendant company's employee handbook makes provision for retirement and benefits as follows: 25(1) Conditions of Retirement (a) The company may retire an employee on reaching the age of 50 years but in any case, employees must compulsorily retire on reaching the age of 55 years unless, in exceptional cases the company decides to extend the service further. Employees may however apply for voluntary retirement between the ages of 50 and 55 years. If such application is granted, the employee's pension will be based on his actual qualifying service but reduced by 5% for each year by which his/her age is less than 55. (b) Employees going on retirement will normally receive six months notice, during which period they will be expected to take such annual leave as is due to them. (c) An employee who attains retirement age but within less than 20 years service will have his benefits calculated in accordance with Rules 8 & 9 of the Nigerian Breweries Plc Pension Fund Scheme. He will not be entitled to a pension. 25.2 Retirement Pension and Gratuity. (a) For an employee to qualify for pension on retirement, he must have served for 20 or more years in a pensionable position. The 20 years will be calculated from the date he joined the company. Such an employee shall be entitled to anyone of the following options: (i) A full pension plus retirement gratuity. (ii) A relevant pension plus a lump sum from the fund plus retirement gratuity. (iii) Refund of his 'A' and 'B' accounts balances plus service gratuity. (b) Employees with less than 20 years service at the date of retirement do not qualify for pension. Provided such employees have completed at least 5 years qualifying service, they shall be entitled to: - their 'A' Accounts and a proportion of their 'B' Accounts a:; per Rules 8 & 9 of (he Nigerian Breweries Plc Pension Scheme. - Service gratuity. On page 11 of the defendant's exit scheme booklet, it provides that the retirement age from the service is between 50 and 60 years. Between those years the Retirement option could be exercised by either the employee or the employer. It is optional from 50 years of age and compulsory at 60 years of age. The Retiree will qualify for the pension benefit option if he has put in a minimum qualifying service for pension purposes as shown below: Management Employee — 20 years of service Non Management Employee - 15 years of service. The letter of early retirement frontloaded as number 2 on the claimants' list of documents informed Mr. Uche Samuel, a claimant, that in response to developments in the global environment, management has had to rationalize various aspects of its operation and the exercise has led to a reduction in the number of people needed to support the business and consequently he was required to proceed on early retirement from the company effective from 26th May 2004 in accordance with the existing provisions of the Nigerian Breweries Pension Fund. That having qualified for early retirement by age and length of service, the company has decided to pay him six months' salary in lieu of notice and the Salaries/Pensions Admin Manager is requested to calculate other entitlements. Also, when he receives his entitlements under the pension scheme and indicates his choice of company pension, he will be advised of any other entitlements in terms of pay in lieu of pre-retirement leave. This was the same document communicated to all the claimants classified as early retirees. The defendant admitted communicating same to them in paragraph 10 of the statement of defence. By the combined provisions of the employee handbook and the exit scheme booklet the defendant company was entitled to exercise the early retirement option and retire the claimants early on their attaining 50 years. Article 25(l)(b) of the employee handbook provides that employees going on retirement will normally receive six months notice.. There is no provision for payment of six months' salary in lieu of notice. The notice period is prospective and not retrospective and therefore the retirement takes effect at the end of the notice period. See Rufus Amokeodo v.: Inspector General of Police & ors [2005] 3 NLTR (Pt. 7) 28. This means that the notice period commenced on the 26th May 2004 and ended on the 25th November 2004. The legal consequence is that the early retirees were still in the service of the defendant company and entitled to enjoy all the benefits, advantages, basic salary and other allowances that staff of their cadre are entitled to until the expiration of the notice. We, therefore, find that the actual dale of severance from the defendant company for the early retirees is 26lh November 2004. The next issue is whether the claimant-retirees have been denied their pension rights as alleged by them. By the combined provisions of the employee handbook and the exit scheme booklet, the early retirees who are all non-management staff will only qualify for pension benefits if they have put in a minimum of 15 years service. Now paragraph 6 of the defendant's letter to the early retirees states, "when you receive your entitlements under the pension scheme and indicate your choice of company pension, we shall advise you of other entitlements in terms of pay in lieu of pre-retirement leave". Also in paragraph 23 of the statement: of facts, the claimants averred that the defendant directed them to sign a form for their pension which they refused to do and in paragraph 20 of the statement of facts they admitted that they were paid their service and retirement gratuity. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Now none of the claimants exhibited any letter of employment/appointment. We could not therefore slate the actual date of employment of the claimants. This can only be deduced from the certificates of long service award issued by the defendant to the five claimants, namely, Messrs M. E. Cookey, M. A. Ahuekwe and Ibe K. Ugbogbo, and J. M. J. Asinobi and C. Nwakue, who contend that the defendant deducted one year's service and two years' service respectively from the total number of years of service they put in and so under-calculated and under-paid them. The certificates of long service award indicates the number of years of long service indicating in the process when the year of service started. It is from this deduction that we were able to find out the number of years of employment that the claimants put in. As indicate earlier, Messrs M.E Cookey, M. A. Ahuekwe and Ibe K. Ugbogbo, and J. M. .J. Asinobi and C. Nwakue contend that the defendant deducted 1 year service and 2 years service respectively from the total number of years of service they put in and so under-calculated and under-paid them, this is in view of the dates on their certificate of Long Service Award frontloaded and numbered as 11 on the list of documents. Mr. M. A. Ahuekwe was issued the certificate of long service award on the 10th of July, 1993 completing 15 years of service. It follows that as at the date the notice of retirement expired i.e. 25th November 2004, he had put in 26 years and 5 months. As to Mr. K. Ugbogho, his certificate of long service award dated 28th July 1993 indicates that he completed 15 years on that date and so must have had put in 26 years and 5 months as at 25th November 2004. In relation to Mr. C. Nwakwue, his certificate of long service award of the 2Tsl April 1993 wherein he completed 15 years of service meant that lie had put in 26 years and 8 months as at 2511 November 2004. Regarding Mr. J. Asinobi, his certificate of long service award indicates that he completed 10 years of service on the 21st April 1988, which means that he had put in 26 years and 8 months as at 25th November 2004. Mr. E. Cookey, who did not exhibit his certificate of long service award, however, has his name on the list of recipients for 1988 ceremony. This 1988 list is contained in the defendant's internal memo dated 30/9/88 as frontloaded. In the said list, he is said to have put in 10 years by that date and so had served for 26 years as at 25th November 2004. It is our finding, therefore, that the computation of their service and retirement gratuity should be based on their years of service as at 25th of November 2004 particularly since article 25.2 (a) of the defendant's employee handbook provides that the years of service of an employee for the purposes of calculation of pension will be from the date he joined the company. The claimants, who are early retirees, claim they are entitled to goodwill ex-gratia bonus of 32 weeks' pay for every completed year of service, 2003 productivity bonus of 200% of the monthly basic salary and 2004 Christmas bonus and refund of National Housing Fund contributions. Page 18 of the exit scheme booklet, which they relied on in support of their contributions to the National Housing Fund, deals with the defendant company's Voluntary Savings Scheme and not National Housing Fund. In a civil case, the burden of proof is cast: on the party who asserts the affirmative of a particular issue. See Ibrahim v. Ojomo [2004] Vol. 4 M.ISC 143. The claimants are not discharged of this duty in this court as their counsel would want us to hold. They are expected to substantiate and prove their claims to the reasonable satisfaction of the court. They have not been able: to discharge this burden and so the claims are dismissed. The second set of claimants comprises those who have been out-placed and declared redundant. The defendant company has not denied this fact. One may then ask again what the rights or benefits accruable to the out-placed claimants are. The letter of outplacement written to Mr. Ohanenye Cajetan, which is exhibited and which is what was communicated to all the out-placed staff, informed him that the management has to streamline and rationalise its operations in response to the operating environment which has led to a reduction in the number of personnel needed. That as a result his services will no longer be required with effect from May 26, 2004 and management even though aware of his entitlement under the existing industry agreement has decided to enhance his exit package by paying the following: 1. 3 months' pay in lieu of notice. 2. Redundancy package applicable to you as per the industry agreement between the National Union and the Employers Association. 3. A goodwill ex-gratia bonus of 12 months' basic pay. This gift is made to you by the company in appreciation of your services. 4. Service gratuity as applicable to you. 5. Your entitlement under the Nigerian Breweries Plc Pension Fund. The outplacement letter also stated that even though the industry redundancy agreement stipulates that an employee is not entitled to the payment of service gratuity and redundancy benefit at the same time, the management had decided to pay both in addition to the goodwill ex-gratia bonus. Also article 27 of the employee handbook makes provision tor Redundancy. The relevant portion for this purpose is as follows: Employees whose appointments are terminated on grounds of redundancy will be paid redundancy benefits as per the existing management/union agreement on redundancy in force at the lime. They will also be paid salary in lieu of notice in accordance with their contract of employment, and any outstanding leave. We agree with the defendant's counsel that the existing management/union agreement on redundancy in force is that exhibited by defendant's counsel as an additional document marked Exhibit 001 which is titled "Conclusion Reached Between the National Union of Food, Beverage and Tobacco Employees (NUFBTE) and Nigerian Breweries Plc management at a meeting held on Monday 24th Monday 2004 in the Nigerian Breweries Plc Headquarters, Iganmu House, Lagos". We do not agree with the claimants' counsel submission that this document was made in anticipation of this suit. Rather we find that this agreement was reached in compliance with section 20 of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 which provides for the steps the union and management must fellow when a redundancy is declared. The agreements dated 13th January 2001, 21st April 2004, and another dated 21st April 2004 are collective agreements made between the Association of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Employers and the National Union of Food, Beverages and Tobacco Employees which bind unit branches. However, neither the defendant nor the union made an issue as to their enforceability in the case at hand. Although the claimants contended that these three agreements were the management/union agreement mentioned in article 27, we do not think so as the said article is specific as to an agreement between the defendant and its local union. In this regard, we are inclined to following our reasoning and decision on this issue in the earlier case of Lateef Adesigbin & ors v. Nigerian Breweries, supra. We have not been shown any convincing reason why we should depart from it by the claimants' counsel. The effective date of the management/union agreement i.e. Exhibit 001 is May 26th 2004 wherein parties agreed that out-placed employees will be paid as follows: 1. Three (3) months basic salary in lieu of notice. 2. Industry negotiated redundancy benefit. 3. Service gratuity. 4. Nigerian Breweries Plc Pension Fund contribution as appropriate. 5. Ex-gratia goodwill bonus. The out-placed claimants are entitled to 3 months' basic salary in lieu of notice only. Their employment with the defendant company was rightly determined on the 26th May 2004 and so they were no longer in the employment of the defendant after 'he 26th May 2004. The defendant company in its letter to out-placed staff has complied with the provisions of the existing management/union agreement in force on redundancy. We must at this stage comment on the claimants' counsel submission urging this court not to follow the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Peugeot Automobile Nig v. Oje, supra, but to follow the Indian Hume Pipe Coy Ltd v. Their Workers decision delivered by the Supreme Court of India which he submitted that even though it is persuasive, it is superior to the Court of Appeal decision. Nigerian courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis whereby decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts. This court is bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal and must follow and apply such decisions in the cases before it. It is therefore, wrong for counsel to submit that this court should disregard the Court of Appeal decision which is binding on it and apply the decision of a foreign court. The point must be stressed that foreign decisions, irrespective of which court delivers them, are only of persuasive authority to Nigerian courts; and where they are in direct conflict with a decision of our Court of Appeal, the decision of our Court of Appeal is to be preferred. As a general rule of practice, much premium is placed on the doctrine and we are not unmindful of the attitude of superior courts to lower courts which refuse to follow judicial precedent. See Adegoke Motors v. Adesanya [1989] 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, Atalogbe v. Awun [1997] 9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 536 and Onyemaizu v. Ojiako [2000] 6 NWLR (Pt 659) 25. The out-placed claimants have not established that the defendant failed to pay them their entitlements as stipulated in their letter of outplacement or short-paid them in any way. They are only entitled to the severance benefits contained in their letter of outplacement. All other claims by then against the defendant company fails and are dismissed. For all the reasons stated above, we hereby hold as follows: 1. The claimants, who are early retirees, are entitled to six months notice of retirement and remained in the service of the defendant up to the 25th November, 2004. 2. The claimants, who are early retirees, are entitled to their monthly basic salary and all other monthly allowances up to the 25tth November, 2004. They are not entitled to redundancy benefits. 3. The calculation of the years of service of the claimants, who are curly retirees, shall be from the date they joined the defendant company. 4. The years of service of the following early retirees are as follows: (a) Mr. M. A. Ahuekwe 26 years and 5 months. (b) Mr. K, Ugbogho 26 years and 5 months. (c) Mr. C. Nwakwue 26 years and 8 months. (d) Mr. J. Asinobi 26 years and 8 months. (e) Mr. E Cookey 26 years. 5. The out-placed claimants are not entitled to any further benefits. We, therefore, make the following orders: 1. The claimants, who are early retirees, are to be paid all their monthly allowances for the period 26th May 2004 to 25th November 2004. 2. The retirement benefits of Mr. M. A. Ahuekwe, Mr. K. Ugbogho, Mr. C. Nwakwe, Mr. J. Asinobi and Mr. E. Cookey are to be re-computed and any outstanding difference paid directly to them, taking into account their years of service as indicated in the immediately preceding paragraph. Judgment is entered according. We make no order as to costs. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Judge Judge