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: July 20, 2010 SUIT NO. NIC/58/2007 BETWEEN 1. Mr. Aloysius Odocha (for and on behalf of thirty other claimants) 2. Pius Obetta 3. Samuel Majoyegbe 4. Chidi Okere 5. Felix Obiakor 6. Ali Musa 7. Sale Bishara 8. Muhammed Zailani 9. Godwin John 10. Dungus Haruna 11. Telia Musa 12. Gilbert Omeje 13. MarkNgban 14. Lanky Osumah 15. Abdulrasaq Ibrahim 16. Innocent Okpongete 17. Sunday Christopher 18. ChikaEddi 19. BalaMukaila 20. Ali Muhammed 21. Augustine Igwe 22. Jasper Otumala 23. James Onyenegecha 24. Dickson Nwokolo 25. Gida Muhammed 26. Augustine Amuamuziam 27. Tony Isibor 28. Umunna Onyemaechi 29. Callistus Nwasogu 30. Emmanuel Oku 31. Taiwo Alabi - Claimants AND 1. Alan Dick & Company (West Africa) Ltd. 2. Halogen Security Company Limited 3. The Federal Minister of Labour - Defendants REPRESENTATION Mrs. Jacinta Ogbedeleto, for the claimants Sivbone Edu and with him are S. Momoh, Mrs. M. Edu, Osinachi Obasi, F. O. Efajemue and Miss D. Dagogo-Jack, for the 1st and 2nd respondents A. C. Osegi, Principal State Counsel, Federal Ministry of Justice, for the 3rd respondent JUDGMENT The claimants took out a complaint against the defendants claiming for the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the claimants' disengagement of service is illegal, null and void and of no effect and an order, for reinstatement and payment of the backlog of their salaries. Failing to pay them all their outstandings, which was due before termination of their appointment and redundancy benefits. 2. A declaration that the contract entered into by the 1st and 2nd defendants contravene the provisions of section 21(l)(a) - (b) of the Labour Act Cap. LI Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. 3. An order that the Minister of Labour should revoke the license given to the 2nd defendant who uses the said license to go about displacing people from their legal jobs. 4. An order that Corporate Affairs Commission should withdraw and cancel the certificate given to the 2nd defendant if the purpose or one of the objects of incorporation is recruiting and sub-letting for such activity is unknown to our law and it is against public policy and so illegal. The claimants had made the Corporate Affairs Commission the 4th respondent in this suit. At the court's sitting of November 26, 2008, the court drew the attention of the counsel to the claimants to the fact that the only relief claimed against the Corporate Affairs Commission was relief 4, which the court has no power to grant. In consequence of this, the counsel to the claimants orally applied that the name of the Corporate Affairs Commission be struck out. This application was granted by the court, hence the striking out of the name of the Corporate Affairs Commission from this action. By this act, the claim against the Corporate Affairs Commission i.e. relief 4 was also struck out. It will, therefore, not be considered in this judgment. Attached to the complaint is the statement of claims. In the statement of claims, the claimants essentially asserted as follows - 1. The [1st] claimant is the chief security officer under the employment of the 1st defendant, and others under him; letter of employment is hereby attached. 2. The 1st defendant is a limited liability company operating in Nigeria in that name with its head office situated at Plot PCI CA Commercial Center off Adeyemo Alakija Street, Victoria Island, Lagos. Specialist in towers, masts and antenna Systems. 3. The 2nd defendant is a limited liability company duly incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with its head office at 49, Adekunle Fajuyi Way GRA, Ikeja, Lagos State. 4. The 3rd defendant is a Minister of Labour under the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 5....................................... 6. That on the 23rd of August 2006 the claimants...were served with disengagement of service letters. The letter dated 23rd August 2006 will be relied upon. 7. That on the 30th day of August 2006 the 2nd defendant was offering the claimants...the same job and the letter of provisional employment was also bearing August 31st 2006. The Halogen Security Ltd provisional offer of employment will be relied upon and since then the 2nd defendant displaced us and took over our job. 8. The claimants also alleged that the 2nd defendant has been encroaching on their job since 2004, but that the owners of the company reassured them several times to go on their legal duties that nothing will happen to their jobs. The rumour became so much in 2005 that on 3rd May 2005 the management issued a memo to all staff to desist from such destructive rumour. The memo dated 3rd May 2005 will be relied upon. The 2nd defendant did not stop at that, so on January the 1st defendant sent us on training to Shirama Fire Tex Security Limited and certificate issued to us. We will be relying on Shirama Fire Tex Security Limited and certificate issued to us. We will be relying on Shirama fire Tex Security certificate dated 3rd to 6th January 2006. 9a. That the 1st defendant claimed in their disengagement of service letter that they were rationalizing but that was a lie because they went on to lay off all security staff and contracted the job out to the 2nd defendant against the law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and against the rule first come last go. 9b. That the 1st defendant just wanted to cheat us by giving us excuse of not paying annual increment and incentive bonus on the fact that the company has financial problems. But that was not true. We are able to prove that the company declared huge profit in 2005 and also show evidence that the company is doing well. ALANDICK Employee communications/Nigerian brief of 2005 are hereby exhibited. 9b. That the 1st defendant knew that they were planning to lay us off and so deliberately delayed paying us (a) Annual Increment (b) Incentive bonus and Christmas bonus popularly known as (PS) which was due from April 2005 to April to April 2006 financial year. These two letters of the previous years will be relied upon. 10. That the 1st defendant after laying us off short paid some of us in gratuity, leave allowance and leave pay for those who did not attend theirs before laid off. The redundancy letter given to us will be relied upon to prove individual cases of the short payment. 11. That the 1st defendant placed us on redundancy list as enshrined in the redundancy letter and so should be ordered to pay us redundancy benefit according to the provisions of Labour Act Cap LI laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 or severance benefits as damages. 12. That some of the claimants are due and entitled to be paid staff loyalty Bonus after loyally serving the company for three years and after two years the letter "staff loyalty Bonus" will be relied upon on the trial. 13. That some individual have special claims against the 1st defendant on their personal transaction which they will claim during trial with proof of their evidential documents. 14. That since the 1st defendant laid us off, we went to labour for help but none came, some individual went to High Court and was about joining us when we learnt that we can continue in a better footings in Industrial Court than in High Court, 15. That the claimants summary of claim is as follows (1) Annual Increment (2) Incentive Bonus (3) Leave allowance and leave pay (4) Gratuity short payment (5) Redundancy benefit (6) Staff Royalty pay/bonus. 16. That claimants aver that they suffered special and general damages from the breach of their contract of employment by the 1st and 2nd defendants and damages to the tune of N50million should be awarded. The claimants then claimed the reliefs enunciated above. We must remark on the poor drafting of the statement of claims, not just in terms of the tenses but even in terms of the structure. For instance, in the statement of claims would be found two paragraphs 9b; and in drafting the statement of claims, counsel personalized it as if counsel is also a claimant. The drafting is so poor that one wonders if counsel knows what she is doing and the effect such a poor job can have on the merit of the case. As part of the originating processes are the list of exhibits to be relied on and the list of witness to be called at the trial. In reaction to the claimants' processes, the 1st defendant filed a statement of defence where it asserted as follows - 1. SAVE And Except as is herein after expressly and specifically admitted the 1st defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the claimants' statement of defence as if such allegation of facts were separately and specifically set out and traversed seriatim. 2. With reference to the claimants' suit as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim, the 1st defendant shall contend at the trial of this suit that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit it being one for the determination and or the termination of contract of employment and not falling within the purview of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. 3. With reference to the averments in the claimants' statement of claim, the 1s defendant shall contend at the trial of this action that none of the claimants or any of the persons they purport to represent, have the same interests same grievances or are entitled to any of the reliefs alleged and claimed by them. 4. The 1st defendant shall also contend at the trial of this suit that the claimants' suit as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against her. 5. The 1st defendant deny paragraphs 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 9b 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the statement of claim and shall put the claimants to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein at the trial of this suit. 6. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 1 of the statement of claim that all of the claimants were variously employed by the 1st defendant in different job capacities including but not limited to Security Guards and by employment letters filled only as 'Letter of Appointment' with different dates and which employment letters embodied the terms and conditions of their Employment. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the different employment letters of the claimants at the trial of this suit. 7. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 6 of the statement of claim that the claimants' various employment letters titled only as 'Letter if Appointment' with different dates contained a clause for termination of the employment with appropriate notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. 8. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 6 of the statement of claim that the services of the 1st claimant and the other claimants were lawfully terminated by various and individual letters to the claimants with that of the 1st claimant dated 23rd August 2006 and pursuant to the terms of his contract of employment (contained in Letter of Appointment) dated December 5, 2001. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the 1st claimant's contract of employment (contained in Letter of Appointment) dated December 5, 2001 and letter dated 23rd August 2006 at the trial of this suit. 9. The 1st defendant avers hi response to paragraph 8 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of this action that the unsigned document claimants contained [contend?] as Memo dated 3rd May, 2005 is not an agreement between the claimants and the 1st defendant and possess no evidential value as to the averments to which it relates. 10. The 1st defendant states in further response to paragraph 8 of the statement of claim that she never at any time whether through her Management or otherwise communicated to the claimants or any persons an assurance or reassurance howsoever delivered that the claimants' services with the 1st defendant will not be terminated and or disengaged at any particular time, or at all. 11. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 9a of the statement of claim that she never at any time whether through letter dated 23rd August 2006 or any other date or means or otherwise communicated to the claimants or any persons howsoever delivered that the termination and or disengagement of the claimants' services from the 1st defendant were other than as stated in the letter of 23rd August 2006. 12. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 9a of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that - i. her right and capacity to enter into contract whether with the 2n defendant or any other person is not fettered, or at all. 13. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraphs 9b & 9b of the statement of claim that it did not cheat the claimants out of, delay or is it obligated to pay the claimants Annual Increment, Incentive Bonus and Christmas Bonus whether due from April 2005 - April 2006 or any other periods. 14. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 9b & 9b of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of this suit that the undated document claimants contained [contend?] as Alan Dick Employee Communications of 2005 is not an agreement between the claimants and the 1st defendant and possess no evidential value as to the averments to which it relates. 15. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraphs 9b & 9b of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the Suit that every salary increase and staff incentive bonus were based on criteria to be determined by the 1st defendant towards the claimants whether arising from their contracts of employments or otherwise. 16. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 9b of the statement of claim that its letters of 18th June 2004 and 17th November 2005 to the 1st claimant containing the staff incentive bonus contained a stipulation and criteria as to such staff incentive bonus being dependent on the assessed performance of the 1st claimant by the 1st defendant and company growth, etc. 17. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 9b of the statement of claim and that she did not pay the 1s claimant staff incentive bonus (or salary increment) due to 1st defendant's fortunes suffering in the years 2005 and 2006 which fortunes are determinable by the 1st defendant not the claimants 18. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 10 of the statement of claim that it duly calculated and paid the claimants (including the 1st claimant) all of their benefits and or entitlements due under their various contracts of employment on or about the 1st day of September 2006. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the Cheque Payment Voucher (together with accompanying cheques) at the trial of this Suit. 19. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that the claimants have not contained [contended?] anywhere in their pleadings what the 1st defendant paid to them as Gratuity Payments, Leave Allowance and Leave Pay for which there is a short payment. 20. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that it duly calculated with the 1st claimant all of his benefits and or entitlements due under his contract of employment in the sum of NGN 584,577.13 (Five Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Seven Naira, Thirteen Kobo) as follows — i. September Pay (i.e. payment in lieu of notice) = NGN 92,898.48 ii. Gratuity entitlement = NGN 371,593.92 iii. Leave Pay = NGN 58,152.41 iv. Leave allowance = NGN 61,932.32 and which calculation the 1st claimant accepted by indicating and signing upon the Tabulation Form on or about the 11th day of September 2006. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the Tabulation Form at the trial of this 20a. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that it duly calculated with the other claimants all of their benefits and or entitlements due under their contracts of employment in various sums and under heads as follows - i. September Pay (i.e. payment in lieu of notice) ii. Gratuity Entitlement iii.Leave Pay iv. Leave allowance and which calculation the other claimants accepted by indicating and signing upon the Tabulation Forms on or about the 1st day of September 2006. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the various Tabulation Forms of the other claimants at the trial of this suit. 21. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that payments in the sum of NGN 584,577.13 (Five Hundred and Eighty Four Thousand Five hundred and Seventy Seven Naira Thirteen Kobo) representing the benefits and or entitlements due to the 1st claimant under his contract of employment were made vide Cheque Payment Voucher and Zenith Bank Pic Cheque No. 00004419 dated 31st August 2006 and duly acknowledged received by 1st claimant on or about the 11th day of September 2006. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on Cheque Payment Voucher and copy of Zenith Bank Pic Cheque No. 00004419 dated 31st August 2006 at the trial of this suit. 2la. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that payments in the various sums representing the benefits and or entitlements due to the other claimants under their contracts of employment were made to the other claimants vide Cheque Payment Voucher and Zenith bank Pic Cheques and duly acknowledged received by the other claimants on or about the 1st day of September 2006. The 1st defendant shall found and rely on the Individual Cheque Payment Vouchers and Copy of Zenith Bank Pic Cheques made out to the other claimants at the trial of this suit. 22. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 11 of the statement of claim that the claimants' employment with her was determined in accordance with their various Letters of Employment with the 1st dependant and not otherwise. 23. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 11 of the statement of claim that it did not determine the claimants' employments owing to reasons of excess manpower. 24. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 12 of the statement of claim that the claimants whether individually, collectively or otherwise are not entitled to any 'Staff Loyalty Bonus' howsoever described under their various contracts of employment with the 1st defendant. 25. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 12 of the statement of claim that the decision of the Management of the 1st defendant to pay (which is denied) ' Staff Loyalty Bonus' howsoever described to the 1st claimant at the time (whether contained in Letter dated 4th March 2005 or otherwise) is not one of obligation to be discharged by the 1st defendant towards the 1st claimant at all times. 26. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 12 of the statement of claim and shall contend that the decision of the Management of the 1st defendant to pay (which is denied) 'Staff Loyalty Bonus' howsoever described to the 1st claimant at the time is one that existed according to the whims and caprices of the 1st defendant and did not constitute any intention to create legal relations. 27. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 16(b) of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that she is not in contravention of section 21(l)(a) - (b) or any other provision of the Labour Act, Cap LI, Volume 8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. (We note that there is no paragraph 16(b) in the statement of claims; what we have is relief (b), which is what the 1st defendant's reaction relates to.) 28. The 1st defendant avers in further response to the statement of claim especially paragraph 16 and shall further contend at the trial of the action that the claimants (including the 1st claimant) in the circumstances cannot maintain the reliefs they contained therein. (We note that paragraph 16 in the statement of claims does not deal with issue referred to here by the 1st defendant.) 29. The 1st defendant aver in further response to paragraphs 9b, 10 and 15 of the statement of claim that it does not owe the claimants any sums in respect of Redundancy Benefit, Gratuity Balance, Leave Pay Balance, or Leave Allowance Annual Increment, or any sum at all. 30. The 1st defendant avers in response to paragraph 16 of the statement of claim that it is not liable to the claimants in damages in the sum of NGN 50,000.000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) or any other sums at all for the termination of contract of employment entered into by the 1st defendant and the claimants. 31. The 1st defendant avers in further response to paragraph 16 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that the claimants cannot maintain a claim in special damages in the sum of NGN 50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) or any other sums and whether cognizable under that head or at all. 32. WHEREFORE the 1st dependant avers and shall contend at the trial of the suit that claimants' claims are frivolous, speculative and an abuse of the process of this court and should be dismissed with substantial costs. The 2nd respondent also filed a statement of defence wherein it asserted as follows - 1. SAVE And Except as is herein after expressly and specifically admitted the 2nd defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the claimants' statement of defence as it such allegation of facts were separately and specifically set out and traversed seriatim. (We do not know whether the claimants' process is actually a statement of defence as the 2nd respondent puts it.) 2. With reference to the claimants' suit as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim, the 2nd defendant shall contend at the trial of this suit that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit it being one for the determination and or the termination of contract of employment and not falling within the purview of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. 3. With reference to the averments in the claimants' statement of claim, the 2nd defendant shall contend at the trial of this action that none of the claimants or any of the persons they purport to represent have the same interests, same grievances or are entitled to any of the reliefs alleged and claimed by them. 4. The 2nd defendant shall also contend at the trial of this suit that the claimants' suit as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against her and shall further contend at the trial of this action that she is not a necessary and desirable party to this suit. 5. The 2nd defendant denies paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 of the statement of claim and shall put the claimants to the strictest proof of the averments contained therein at the trial of this suit. 6. The 2nd defendant avers in response to paragraph 7 of the statement of claim that it indeed offered the 1st - 30th claimants provisional employments contained in separate and individual letters dated 31st August 2006 and addressed to the 1st -30th claimants which offer the 1st - 30th claimants did not accept. 7. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraph 7 of the statement of claim that it does not know the 31st claimant and never offered him provisional employment whether contained in letter dated 31st August 2006, or at all. 8. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraph 7 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that by the 1st - 30th claimants' non-acceptance of her provisional offer of employment contained in letter dated 31st August 2006 it is not in any relationship with the 1st - 30th claimants by contract and the 1st - 30 claimants are unknown to her. 9. The 2nd defendant denies paragraph 8 of the statement of claim and avers in response thereto that it at no time whether in 2004 or at any other time encroached upon and or influenced the claimants' employment with the 1st defendant. 10. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 of the claimants' statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that - (i) her right and capacity to enter into contract whether with the 1st defendant or any other person is not fettered, or at all. 11. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 8, 16 and 16(b) of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that she is not in contravention of section 21(l)(a) — (b) or any other provision of the Labour Act, Cap LI, Volume 8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. (We note that there is no paragraph 16(b) in the statement of claims.) 12. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraphs 8 and 16 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that the claimants in the circumstances cannot maintain the reliefs they contained (contend?) therein. 13. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraph 16 of the statement of claim that she is not liable to the claimants in damages in the sun of NGN 50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) or any other sums at all for the termination of contract of employment entered into by the 1st defendant and the claimants 14. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraph 16 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that the claimants cannot maintain a claim in special damages in the sum of NGN 50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) or any other sums and whether cognizable under that head or at all.. 15. The 2nd defendant avers in further response to paragraph 16 of the statement of claim and shall contend at the trial of the action that the claimants cannot maintain and or support claims under paragraph 16 sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of the statement of claim.(We note that there is no sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph 16. What we have are reliefs (c) and (d) in the statement of claims.) 16. WHEREFORE the 2nd defendant avers and shall contend at the trial of the action that claimants' claim are frivolous, speculative and an abuse of the process of the court and should be dismissed with substantial costs. In reaction, the claimant filed a reply to the 1st defendant's statement of defence in the following terms — 1. In paragraph 1 of the statement of defense every allegation denied can be provable by documentary evidence. 2. In paragraph 2 of the statement of defense jurisdiction is denied to the court. The claimants are urging the court to assume jurisdiction that has been exclusively conferred on it by National Industrial Court Act 2006 by section 7(l)(a)(i). According to explanatory Memorandum in page 1 of National Industrial Act 2006, the Act confers jurisdiction on the court with respect to labour and industrial relations matters of which this suit is one. 3. In paragraph 3 of the statement of the defense, the claimants will be contending that the claimants have the same interest jointly and severally, they all have the same grievances, the relief sought is naturally beneficial to all of them, while the representer is the chief of them. 4. In paragraph 4 of the 1st defense the claimant will be vigorously contending that the circumstances on which the claimants were laid off contravene the provisions of our Constitution on which labour laws pivoted. That section 34(l)(a) and (b) of our Constitution is breached. That section 20(l)(a)(b) and section 10(1) and (2)(a) of Labour Act Cap. LI Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 are breached. Also breached is section 18(4)(a) - (b), section 27(1) and (2) - (3) of Labour Act. And that the claimant will also contend and will call on the court to look into and to stop the 1st and 2n defendants from invoking the provisions of section 48 especially sub (2) and ordering that the Minister of labour has not made any regulations or any modifications on which their contract can be founded upon. With respect to all the sections quoted above the claimants are calling on the court to order the 1st and 2" defendants to produce before the court such contract agreement that binds her and the 2" defendant. Also to produce before the court is their employer's permit or recruiter's license. The breached of all these sections provoked the cause of this action (emphasis is the claimants'). 5. In paragraph 6 of the defense, the claimants were variously employed at different dates and different year and were sacked at the same time and that is the reason for the cause of this action because the rule in labour law is first come last to go and it has been breached so the claimants are calling on this court to order that the rule of law should take pre-eminence. 6. In paragraph 7 and 8 of statement of defense, the claimants will be contending at the trial that it is not only the issue of giving one month notice or pay in lieu of notice that goes to the root of terms of employment and termination but that there are other issues that if not followed could void the termination of employment as in this case where there is no company approved handbook guiding the parties labour law will be resorted to and other documentary evidence showing their relationships for laws are made to check mate tyranny and cut down the whims and caprice of the executives/highly placed lawlessness against the weak and vice versa. That termination as in this case and this circumstance, founded on injustices because there is no way the 1st defendant will be able to convince the world that all the claimants sacked were all undesirable and redundant if not founded on some individual selfishness which is against public policy. See sections 20(1 )(a) and (b) of the Labour Act. The claimants will also contend that the only way to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of suits against the said defendants is to join together and bring an action where the claims will be obtained in good faith. 7. In paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the statement of defense the claimants will be contending at the trial against the defense that memo dated 3rd May 2005 exhibited goes a long way to prove how far their job was fettered by selfish individual Nigerian managers in the 1st and 2nd defendant companies. The 1st defendant expatriate manager refused taking in the 2nd defendant and demonstrated that by sending us to training to shirama firetex security limited which certificate is exhibited here, but when the expatriate manager left to London the Nigeria managers brought them in to displace us on selfish grounds. 8. In paragraph 12 of statement of defense the claimant will be contending that every person has right to enter into contract relationship so far such contract is not illegal and against public policy. 9. In paragraph 13 of statement of defense, the claimant will be urging the court to hold that it was a cheating not to pay your workers what you normally pay then after every financial year ending 1st April of each year and to be promising that you will pay at the end you use the money to pay another company to supply you workers while sacking the first. 10. In paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the statement of defense the claimants will be contending and will be employing the court to do justice according to the law and equity and as conferred on her by sections 13, 14 and 15 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 also section 7(6) of said Act — Salary Increment and incentive pay bonus are of international labour practice and cannot be reduced to the whims and caprice of the 1st defendant. In paragraph 14 of defense the undated memo referred to as Alan Dick Employee Communications/Nigeria brief 2005 defines incentive pay/bonus as a function of profit made during the financial year, it recognizes the effort and performance of each individual staff against set objectives, it is the combination of profit share (PS), objectives and performance Development Review (PDR) It was earned in 2003/2004 being 11% of annual pay, also 2004/2005 so 2005/2006 was due on 1st April 2006 before termination in September. The same thing goes to Annual Increment being 17.5% as at 2004/2005 financial year as exhibited before the court. We urge the court to order that the 1st defendant to make due their promises as evidenced. 11. That in paragraph 17 of statement of defense the claimants will be submitting that this court should carefully study the undated Memo Alan Dick Employee Communications/Nigeria Brief of 2005 and determine whether a company that organizes a quarterly get together and spent fortunes and expected a target turnover of N18b at that financial year is said to be suffering from misfortune and to make pronouncement on the issue of Nigeria misleading the investors which our leaders laboured to bring into the country for such is for development of all. The claimants are asking the court to order the 1s' defendant to produce her income tax payment for 2004 and 2005 to prove their case of misfortunes for court perusal (emphasis is the claimants'). 12. In paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 20a, 21, 21 a and 22 of the statement of defense that the 1st claimant was short paid one year of gratuity also some of the others who put up four years and above six months should be paid as five years because the termination was at the instance of the lsl defendant. Some claimants who did not attend their leave before termination were short paid in the allowances. So the claimants will forward the amount claimed by individual as the trial commence. That the claimants have to accept and sign what was paid to them and fight for the balance which they are doing now. The claimants also urge the court to hold that gratuity is not the same with redundancy. Gratuity is what is paid to a worker when he leaves the job voluntarily or involuntarily, while redundancy is paid when laid off involuntarily. 13. In paragraph 23 of the statement of defense the claimant will be urging the court to hold that the 1st defendant did not determine the claimants' employment owing to reasons of excess manpower as admitted but have not adduce any sufficient and provable reason, that our law has never contemplated neither has it enter into the spirit and imagination of the legislation the circumstances of this type of mass termination and so should hold it illegal and the workers reinstated, if not reinstated that the 1st defendant should employ directly and maintain their staff. Sub-letting of staff is illegal and alien to our labour law and amount to casualization and to slavery. 14. In paragraph s24, 25 and 26 of statement of defense the claimants will be submitting that long and loyal service award is of an international standard and the 1st defendant has started it and has to conclude it with the laid off workers as promised, the claimants will be urging the court to order for its payments in fulfillment of their promise evidenced before the court. There is an intention to create legal relations according to the rules of equity if you by oral, written, conduct or omission induce another to put extra effort to do a service for you and promise to reward and that person put the extra effort in serving you, you are bound to fulfill your promise, allowing reciling at this point will be too dangerous grave damage to our practice and precept in judicial and justice system. 15. In paragraph 29 of the statement of defense the claimants will be claiming that the 1st defendant is liable to pay them redundancy benefit as they placed them on redundancy list. See the defense exhibit, titled redundancy letter received dated 11/09/06. (Placed on redundancy list). That the summary of claim for the 1st claimant is as follows (emphasis is the claimants'): (a) Redundancy benefit 6 months salary - N557,390.00 (b) Gratuity short paid worked for 4 years and nine months - N92, 898.48 (c) Annual increment at 17.5% of annual salary - N195,080.49 (d) Annual incentive pay/bonus 11% annual salary - N 147,470.00 (e) Loyalty bonus calculated at last paid - Nl01,343.80 Total — N1,094.189.95 16. That the total sum claimed by the claimants Nil,980,574.58 (Eleven Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy Four Naira, Fifty Eight Kobo) (emphasis is the claimants'). 17. In paragraphs 30 and 31 of the statement of defense the claimant will be calling on the court that she should order that the 1st defendant is liable in damages to be determined by her as that is inherently discretionary to her. 18 That in paragraph 32 of statement of defense the claimants shall be employing the court to assume jurisdiction and order all the reliefs sought before her and should order for the payment of the cost of this suit with the solicitor's fees. From the statement of defence of both the 1st and 2nd respondents, the issue of jurisdiction and competence of this court to hear and determine the matter at hand was raised. The 1st and 2n respondents had in a preliminary objection dated May 22, 2008 raised these issues and the court in a considered ruling delivered on November 26, 2008 ruled that it has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive suit. All issues dealing with jurisdiction and competence of this court raised by both the 1st and 2nd respondents in their statements of defence will, therefore, not be considered in this judgment, those issues having been resolved in the ruling of November 22, 2008. The counsel to the claimants indicated that she will be calling the 1st claimant to testify on behalf of all the claimants. Mr. Aloysius Anyanwu Oduocha, the 1st claimant, was then called to the witness box and sworn on the Holy Bible. In evidence, Mr. Oduocha testified that he is at the moment unemployed and knows the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents. That his relationship with the 1st respondent is that he was an employee of the 1st respondent for he was in the employment of the 1st respondent between December 2001 and August 2006. The witness continued that on August 23, 2006, he was called to address his staff and tell them that his and their services were no longer needed. That his Administrative Manager gave him a batch of letters for each of his staff, which they were all required to acknowledge on the duplicate if they are interested in serving under Halogen security co. Ltd, the 2nd respondent. He said that he was made to understand that if any of his staff is interested in working for Halogen, they will be posted outside Alan Dick and Co. (West Africa) Ltd where Halogen is having security contracts. That he and his staff all rejected the offer of which termination letters were then served on them. That attached to the terminations was what was called their benefits served on each of them. That he complained to the Human Resources Department that the computation of the benefits was wrong. That in relation to himself, the computation was based on 4 years instead of 5 years. That the other staff were likewise affected. He continued that some of his staff were billed to go on leave and so the computation ought to have taken account of this fact but it did not. To the witness, the company runs a loyalty scheme where staff who served for 2 years unbroken service without any problem with the company is entitled to an award in c ash. That the company runs another incentive, which is based on the profitability of the company and performance of each staff in a fiscal year. That this incentive is in lieu of Christmas bonus. The witness continued that the company pays an annual increment every financial year which is given to the staff through a salary advice letter. That in relation to his gratuity, he was short-paid by one year which represents one month's salary. The witness then prayed the court to meet fully the reliefs enunciated in both the complaint and the statement of facts. Under cross-examination by the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents, the witness testified that he presented to the court his employment letter which contains a clause dealing with notice of termination which can be one month's salary in lieu. He acknowledged being paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. He continued that he represents a group of persons because he was their boss in the security section. That even after the termination, he thinks he still represents them. He acknowledged that he does not have any letter of authority asking him to represent them. He went on to state that the letters of proposal for employment for himself and all staff under him were given to him in bulk. That the letters were addressed in the individual names of the staff. He acknowledged that he did not accept the letter of employment from the 2nd respondent. He went on to state that he did not see any contract between the Ist and 2nd respondents; however, that the fact that the 2 respondent offered the staff a provisional employment while the staff were still in the employment of the 1st respondent must mean that there is an arrangement between the 1st and 2nd respondents. The witness acknowledged that all the claimants do not earn the same salary, nor were they employed at the same time. That every one of them was issued an individual termination letter. That the claimants are 31 in number and all of them are security guards. The witness reiterated that he is claiming 50 Million Naira as damages and then acknowledged that he has no relationship with the 2nd respondent given that he did not accept their offer and he never entered into any agreement with them. He went on to state that he knows what he earns as salary but not what the other 30 claimants earn. That the other 30 claimants did not write to him intimating what they earn as salary but that they may have informed counsel. In fact, that they did not inform him of all other entitlements. The witness continued that he complained in writing that the calculation of his benefits was wrong but the said letter is not in the case file. He then stated that he received his benefits vide a letter and he acknowledged receipt. He acknowledged that he did not mention the amount he was paid as gratuity. That the staff loyalty bonus was paid on May 3, 2005 and the amount was N101,343.80. That this payment was paid in arrears. To the witness, that he believes that the staff incentive bonus is a right and given if one performed well. He then stated that he is entitled to it; but he acknowledged that it is the company that determines the performance threshold. Under cross-examination form the counsel to the 3rd respondent, the witness acknowledged that he read the letter given to him and he presumed that the contents of the letter were the same with the letters of the other 30 claimants. The witness continued that he is suing the Ministry of Labour because when this matter came up, they expected the Ministry to come to their rescue but the Ministry did not. That the Ministry showed an appearance and simply disappeared after conferring with the Human resources department of the 1st respondent. That he never intended to claim any monetary award against the Ministry. That he only brought in the Ministry for the sake of evidence. Under re-examination, the witness stated that if the 2nd respondent did not take away their jobs, the jobs would still have been theirs. That he cannot ask for any damages against the 2nd respondent as he does not have any contract with it. That it is the 1st respondent he has a contract with. At this point, the claimants closed their case. The 1st and 2nd respondents indicated that they will be calling one witness. The matter was adjourned to enable them call their witness. At the next adjourned date, the counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents informed the court that the 1st respondent is in liquidation and so they are having problems getting their witness to testify. Three adjournments were granted the 1st and 2nd respondents to enable them call their witness; yet they were not able to call one. Whereupon the counsel to the claimants applied that the court should order the filing of written addresses by parties. This the court did. The claimants then filed their written address. Instead of filing theirs, the 1st and 2nd respondents came up with a motion praying for an order of court striking out the suit on the ground that the suit in its entirety is spent, invalid and/or otherwise an abuse of court process on account of the failure of the claimants to obtain leave of court to maintain the suit. In a considered ruling, this court rejected the 1st and 2n respondents' motion and proceeded with the business of the day which was the adoption of written addresses. As the respondents had not filed any written address, the claimants proceeded and adopted theirs, whereupon the court adjourned for judgment. In their written address, the claimants reiterated their claims/reliefs as per their originating processes and then went on to itemize their arguments. We have tried as much as possible to restate the arguments of counsel in her words as used in the written address. What follows is so disappointing that one wonders whether counsel to the claimants really appreciates what it means to be a counsel. If the drafting of the statement of claims was poor, then the written address of the claimants as couched by counsel is a disaster. Reproduced below then is the written address of the claimants; and we have tried as much as possible to make sense out of it. A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO ALL THE EXHIBITS TENDERED a. The 1st claimant is the Chief Security Officer under the employment of the 1st defendant, and the other 30 claimants under him. His letter of appointment has been forwarded by him and the others' letter of appointment was exhibited by the 1st defendant, and from the said letter, he was appointed on December 5 2001 b. That on August 23, 2006 the 1st claimant was disengaged with all the other security staff under him who are now before this court. The only reason giving was that the company was undergoing changes in business condition at the period, which the only changes observable at that time was laying-off of all the security staffs and replacing them with the ones supplied by the 2nd defendant. Reference to Halogen Security provisional offer of employment dated August 31, 2006 c. The 1st claimant averred that on August 31st 2006 when this provisional offer was served on him to forward the result to the junior staffs which he did, all of them rejected the offer. We also noticed that the letter of disengagement served on us was backdated to August 23, 2006. d. The claimants alleged that the 2nd defendant has been encroaching on their job and at a time, the General Manager has to come up with a memo addressing such rumors and warn all staffs that they should desist from such act and reassured all staffs that there is no fear. See the 1st defendant memeo to all staff on ‘ Rumour on Staff layoff’ dated 3rd May 2005, second line said ‘some Group of Staff. e. That due to 2nd defendant’s encroachment, the management has to send all security staffs to training. See Shirama Fire Tex Security Limited certificate issued to us after the training but still they persisted and had their way. f. the claimants therefore lay claims to entitlements and benefits accrued to them before and after termination of their appointments as they could not continue their former cordial relationships. AS PER THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT (i) Annual Increment called salary advice was paid first on June 23, 2003 and secondly on 15th July 2004 at the rate of 17.5% salary increase effective from every 1st april which is the financial year of the company. We are hereby claiming 2005. Financial year ending April 2006 was not claimed here. (ii) …………… paid one month salary as-gratuity entitlement. He worked 4 years and eight month, and eight month is above six months and the law says that they should be paid in full. (v) On the question of leave pay and leave allowance the 1st claimant did not claim anything on that because he was fully compensated as a Chief Staff who was also in the head office. But all the staff under him that was scattered at the various branches who were not able to monitor and complain immediately were wrongly short calculated, both those that attended the leave and those that did not attend. I will hereby attach a samples copy x of the 17th claimants Redundancy Pay Slip or letter for Court's perusal. (vi) Redundancy Benefits. The claimants urge the Court to order its' payment. The claimants are saying that the termination pay slip was headed redundancy letter and was placed on redundancy list. THE ISSUES AR1SING FROM THE EVIDENCE a. The 1st issue is whether someone whose appointment letter read December 5, 2001 and was terminated August 23, 2006 was not entitled to five months salary on gratuity instead of four months paid. b. The second issue is whether from the letter of appointment, someone employed as the Chief Security Officer cannot stand and represent his junior staff in a law suit as this. c. The third issue is, is it right for the 1st defendant to lay off in a whooping swoop thirty one staffs without reason recognized and allow by employment law in Nigeria or globally. d. Fourthly, the issue arising is whether 'Changing Business Conditions of the company at a particular period' as stated by the 1st defendant in the disengagement of service letter could justify their motive that necessitated to rationalizing and prompted the laying off their thirty one security staffs and replacing them with another thirty one security staffs supplied by the 2nd defendant. e. The fifth issue arose from the comparison deducible from the dated documents before the court. Disengagement of services letter dated August 23, 2006 which would have been dated 31st compared to Halogen Security Provisional offer of employment dated August 31, 2006. From this comparison could it not be justify if this Court could hold that the 2nd defendant was the direct cause of the 1st defendant disengaging her staff. And from the 2nd defendant provisional offer of employments letter the claimants are to start work the following day being September 1st f. The sixth issue is, if the fifth issue results in the affirmative, the evidences before the court on the 1st and 2nd defendants relationship or whatever contract or agreement that existed between them that led to the claimants lay off amounted to illegal contract or agreement or activities. g. The seventh issue arose from the fact that the 2nd defendant's provisional offer of employment did not house any salary package. Is this lawful in employment law? h. The eight issue arose also from the same 2nd defendant letter not housing salary for the proposed new employee. Is this not to prove that the 2nd defendant has no power to fix the salary at this stage. i. The ninth issue is, if the 2nd defendant is going about all this employment activities she engages herself without recruiter's license as provided in our Labour Act, what is left before this Court is but an option to visit her sin with the hammer of justice. j. The tenth issue. The claimants has calculated their entitlements and benefits accrued to them before and after termination and some short payments made during termination and has been forwarded to this court to the tune of Nl1,980,574.58 and the defendants has not deemed it fit to complain up till now. Would the court not construe it as admission and so give justice to whom justice belongs. k. The eleventh issue borders on the question whether an entitlement or benefit which the evidence has been placed before the court in the absence of any company handbook which has been proved to be customary between the employer and employee and which reading the wordings therein evidenced that it has become customary practice no matter whatever nomenclature either called 'bonus' or 'scheme' should be denied by this court to the claimants irrespective of any other court judgment whether inferior or superior to this court that is contrary. 1. The twelfth issue is premised on the payment of Redundancy. Is it appropriate here for the court to order redundancy payment. m. The thirteenth issue is, what is the real responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Productivity, when they could not rescue or intervene in matters people called on them to intervene. n. The fourteenth issue is whether the court after weighing the circumstances of this case will order a cost against the two defendants that will adequately compensate the claimants on their suffer in bringing this suit, and their Solicitor' fee. A SUCCINCT STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ON EACH ISSUE INCORPORATING THE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO (a) The argument on the 1st issue raised that borders on short payment of gratuity has been settled by Nigeria Labour Act Cap LI Laws of the Federation 2004 sections 18(1) and (4). It has become labour customary practice internationally that if a person works more than six month before termination he receives a full one month pay both in leave and gratuity, and we urge the court to so hold. (b) The claimants argue in the second issue that the issue of the 1st claimant representing the other 30 claimants has been put to rest by this court when the issue of preliminary objections and representative capacity was ironed out and the court cannot revisit it. It has been 'Rex Judicata' See the case of Ntuk v. NPA 31 NSCQR 431. And has become Functus Officio. See the case of Obi v. Obi [2004] 5 NWLR (Pt. 867) 689. (c) On the third issue the claimants are imploring this court to hold that the 1st defendant contravene sections 20(l)(a) and (b) of labour law of the Federation. They did not consult the trade union or workers representatives who would have helped them to either guide them or negotiate on the way out of the problem if any, they were facing at that time and also would have counseled them to follow what the law said on the principle of 'last in first out' which would have saved the company. We also urge the court to hold that Motive or reason to terminate employment should be made a compulsory prerequisite before termination. We refer the court to Article 4 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer Convention 1982 effective in 1985, which reads:- the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. See Emeka Chianu on Employment Law page 341. Nigeria subscribed to this convention. We are not talking about African Charter on Human and Peoples Right, Article V that prohibited all forms of human exploitation and degradation particularly slavery and slave trading that is being infringe daily in the name of employment and termination of contract of employment. While we give our court the chance to interpret what constitutes motives or reasons in termination of employment contract, is the one before the Court justified? We are abandoning reinstatement because the 1st defendant is under liquidation, we would have gone straight away, and we know this court would have ordered same. We believe we can move forward if this Court will grant our prayer. As in this case the claimants has undergone security training, we see no reason for the termination. See the case of West Construction Company Limited v. Batalha [2006] 7 MJSC 191. On need for Court not to lend itself to a defense that does violence to the principle of equity and good conscience, secondly the need for adjudication is to be in pursuit of justice. See also, Steyer (Nig) Ltd v. Gadzama [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt. 407) 305. (d) On the fourth issue we are still arguing that this court should not look back but to hold that Motive should be made a prerequisite to termination of employment. If an employee did not misconduct or insubordinate what on earth would be the reason to terminating the appointment of staff you have spent time and money to train, it only amount to foolishness and it expose the company to ridicule. We begin to wonder where is dignity for human person enshrine in section 34(1) of 1999 Constitution, where is job security and dignity of labour. Nigerians grudge under the heavy yoke of victimization to their own chagrin. It is a high time our Court should come to our rescue. See Akinfe v. UBA Plc [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt. 104) 189. On duty of an employer to observe and adhere to the conditions under which an employee is hired. (e) On the fifth issue the claimants urged the court to believe that the 2nd defendant was the direct architect of their problem. Casting the mind of the Court to the document exhibited on memo on 'Rumour on staff lay off, and on the second line where 'some group of staff was mentioned. This has gone to buttress the point that the 2nd defendant is a roving gambler and should be stopped. Since the inception of this suit they have woefully failed to tender to this court's perusal the licence and authority that empowered them to be indulging in employment activities. And as have failed we urge the court to arise and do justice by visiting the punishment provided in section 21(l)(a) - (c) and sections 23(1) and 47 (a) – (b) of the Labour Act. See Cappa $ D' Alberto Ltd v. Akintilo [2003] 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 58. On the issue of the defendant's failure to lead evidence and the duty of court to evaluate evidence adduced before her. See also Total (Nig) Pic v. Ajayi [2004] 3 NWLR (Pt. 860) 275. On the principle of what amount to an illegal contract, and the principle of public policy. The Court held that the principle of public policy is to protect public interest, and would not uphold whatever is injurious to the public welfare, or is against the public good. (f) The claimants argues on the sixth issue that the activities of the 1st and 2nd defendants has been proved illegal by section 21(l)(a) - (c). That the effect of such activities is repugnant to natural justice equity and good conscience. The 2nd defendant's activity amounted to a wicked enterprise. Fraudulently influencing the 1st defendant to believing they could supply them with cheap labour and when they succeed in doing that their labourers suffer a lot in their hand because they enslave them by not paying them well, no benefits, no gratuity. They are only interested hi what they will gain against the interest of Nigerians, especially the youth which they mostly employ. After all Nigerians do not deserve any good thing, what a slavery? The 2n defendant lacks duty of care to Nigerians and must be stopped with other security outfit who have followed their bad examples. See the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562. On the principle of duty of care, and the protection of your neighbour. Doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is negligence in the part of the defendants. See also the case of Nwankwo v. Ononeze Madu [2009] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1123) 671. Court of Appeal held that it is the duty of Nigerians to fish out criminals and to face punishment. (g) On the seventh issue the claimants argue that the 2nd defendant's provisional offer of employment which did not house any salary package irrespective of elegant drafting and well presentation reveals their dubious motives which led the claimants to reject the offer. Their terms and conditions of employment has been notoriously noted all over the place where they operate. They do not want to go to heaven and they will prevent others from going', hi other words they do not want to give any one a good living and they will bluntly prevent you from getting it from another. The 2nd defendant preferred the expatriates exporting and repatriating all the profits than Nigerians having some benefits. The 2nd defendant have set bad example in this area of contract employment of which this court has to stop. A good percentage of our youth who supposed to be in the University are involve in contract security where they pay them 10,000.00 naira monthly and the main salary goes into the pocket of the contractors. Is this not a bad omen for our economic development being song every day. The claimants urge the court to hold that every written and good employment contract must house a salary structure according to our labour law section 7(1 )(f) of labour act of the Federation, and anyone who did not follow this provision must be construed dubious and a motive to cheat. (h) On the eight issue the claimants argue that the 2nd defendant inability to fix salary at this state in their written contract of employment shows that they are incapacitated because their contract or agreement with the 1st defendant on how much the 2nd defendant will deduct for herself has not been finally certified. And this clearly shows that there is a contract between them. The 2nd defendant offer before they will determine how much to cut out for themselves and the remnant will now be the terms of employment. The troubling part of it is that this cutting goes on until they are disgraced out of job. So we urge this court to hold that this kind of relationship and practice amount to casualization and enslavement. Our law frowns at another predating on another. (i) On the ninth issue the claimants urge the court to deal with the 2nd defendant according to the provisions of our labour law for not possessing licence. We also urge the court to hold that the Minister of Labour should not give the 2nd defendant and all the security agents licence to undergo employment purposes because that is not and should not be in their object except if they will comply with the rules and regulation guiding employment agencies, and they should not give people licence without monitoring the use. (k) On the eleventh issue the claimants argue that contract generally including employment contract are governed by written contract. And the courts over the years have held that they cannot change such written contract except if it is based on illegality. Therefore we urge the court to evaluate all the documents which evidence the contract between us and the 1st defendant and give judgment base on that because they are the company's handbook given to us. If the handbook was given to us when we started all these terms would have been enshrined. We urge the court to read all the documents we presented and give effects to the wording. We also advert the mind of the court to the issue of bonus, the company promised and paid same and used it to motivate their worker into putting up hard work it should not be refused because of terminology. See the case of Steyer (Nig) Ltd v. Gadzama [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt. 407) 305 on the principle of Termination by fraud or subterfuge. Where the employer is guilty of unfair labour practice such that a remedy is called for in the interest of justice. (l) On the twelfth issue on redundancy payment. The claimants argue here that this issue has been so confused all over the world due to the differences in economic development. The meanings attached to it differ from one country to another and because of that the courts also differ in their interpretation. But in this case we are saying that section 20(1) has made provisions on how redundancy procedure should be based and followed and if those sections were contravened the hands of the court should be tied from helping anyone who is trying to import any other meaning to it for an escape. See Ifeta v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd [2006] 7 MJSC 126. On the principle of Damages recognized on employment law. On the second leg the claimants termination pay slip read 'Redundancy letter' so we urge the court to order its' payment. See Peugeot Automobile (Nig) Ltd v. Oje [1997] 11 NWLR (Pt. 530) 628. (m) On the thirteenth issue the claimants frankly urge the court to hold that the Minister of Labour and Productivity with their subordinates