Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B.A. ADEJUMO, OFR (PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA) DATE: 23RDJUNE, 2015, SUIT NO. NIC/LA/50/2011 BETWEEN: AKINYELE TAJUDEEN AND 254 ORS…………… CLAIMANTS AND 1. GATEWAY HOTELS (ABEOKUTA) LTD. 2. GATEWAY HOTEL (OTA) LTD. 3. GATEWAY HOTEL (IJEBU-ODE) LTD. DEFENDANTS 4. OGUN STATE GOVERNMENT. 5. GATEWAY HOLDINGS LTD. 6. EQUITY ASSURANCE PLC REPRESENTATIONS: B. C. ANYANWU (MRS) FOR THE CLAIMANTS A. F. OBIENU (MRS) ASST. DIRECTOR CIVIL LITIGATION FOR THE 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS. OLUSEGUN WILLIAMS, ESQ; FOR THE 6TH DEFENDANT. JUDGMENT This suit was commenced by a complaint on the 9thJune, 2011. It was accompanied with a Statement of Facts. The reliefs claimed in the Statement of Facts are as listed hereunder: a) A DECLARATION that the Claimants who were involuntarily retired from the service of the 1st to 3rd Defendants on 10th November, 2008, by the 1st – 5th Defendants due to reorganization in the managements of 1st – 3rd Defendants are entitled to be paid their retirement benefits, gratuities and redundancy benefits in line with their conditions of service as provided in the Gateway Hotels Limited Junior Staff Handbook, 2005 Revised Edition, which regulates the payment of retirement benefits, gratuities and redundancy benefits to ex-employees of the 1st – 3rd Defendants. b) A DECLARATION that the Claimants whose employments with the 1st to 3rd Defendants were terminated by the 1st – 5th Defendants on 10thNovember, 2008, due to reorganization in the management of the 1st – 3rd Defendants are entitled to be paid their gratuities and redundancy benefits in line with their conditions of service as provided in the Gateway Hotels Junior Staff Handbook, 2005 Revised Edition, which regulates the payment of the retirement benefits, gratuities and redundancy benefits to ex-employees of the 1st – 3rd Defendants. c) ADECLARATION that the 1st – 5th Defendants having breached a fundamental term of indemnity/agreement dated 10th November, 2008, signed by the Claimants accepting the insufficient amounts stated in their said respectively signed indemnity/agreement as full and final settlement of their terminal benefits, to wit by not paying the balance of the said amount on or before 31st August, 2009, the said Defendants have voided the indemnity and the Claimants are discharged from it. d) A DECLARATION that by their conditions of service, the Claimants are entitled to be paid respectively the amounts hereinafter listed against each of their names being and representing their retirement benefits, gratuities and redundancy benefits computed by using the right and lawful parameters provided in Gateway Hotels Junior Staff Handbook 2005 Revised Edition to wit: Ex-employees of 1st Defendant: S/N NAME RETIREMENT GRATUITY REDUNDANCY TOTAL BENEFITS BENEFITS 1 AKINLEYE TAJUDEEN 2,708,177.64 1,644,250.34 2,224,573.86 6,577,001.84 2 IJIOLA TAIWO 1,406,129.92 730,105.92 1,216,843.20 3,353,079.04 3 ORETOLA BUKOLA 2,111,451.00 1,210,979.25 1769892.75 5,092,323.00 4 DAYO OGUNJIMI 2,217,524.20 1,271,815.35 1,858,887.05 5,548,146.60 5 SAMSON ALANI 1,823,309.40 1,002,820.17 1,549,812.99 4,375,942.56 6 SONEYE SEMIU 1,805,451.76 967,206.30 1,547,530.08 4,320,188.14 7 SUNKANMI ADERONMU 1,443,906.24 773,521.20 1,237,633.92 3,455,061.36 8 BABASOLA TOYIN 2,211,933.60 1,216,563.48 1,880,143.56 5,308,640.64 9 ADENIJI OLUSINA 3,466,535.52 2,104,682.28 2,847,510.64 8,418,728.44 10 BAMIGBAYE ADEYINKA 3,096,707.04 1,880,143.56 2,543,723.64 7,520,574.24 11 ORIYEMI TAIWO 2,458,035.20 1,474,821.12 2,027,879.04 5,960,735.36 12 MARIAM LAWAL B. 2,192,334.28 1,257,368.19 1,837,691.97 5,287,394.44 13 OLATEJU NOSIRU 2,347,968.24 1,369,648.14 1,956,640.20 5,674,256.58 14 EKUNDAYO OLUSESI 2,217,525.56 1,271,816.13 1,858,808.19 5,348,149.88 15 FAYOMI IYABODE 2,379,918.40 1,364,953.20 1,994,931.60 5,739,803.20 16 FATADE MAGRET 1,944,875.52 1,093,992.48 1,640,988.72 4,679,856.72 17 OGUNKOYA BABATUNDE 2,636,012.88 1,560,797.10 2,185,115.94 6,381,925.92 18 LEKAN SOROYE 1,322,156.16 686,504.16 1,144,173.60 3,152,833.92 19 ISSAH ABEEB 1,377,864.00 688,932.00 1,205,631.00 3,272,427.00 20 OGUNDARE ISAAC 1,959,595.16 1,160,287.20 1,624,402.08 4,745,285.44 21 OPEYEMI ELIJAH 1,607,496.24 861,158.70 1,377,853.92 3,846,508.86 22 ADEWOLE FATAI 2,192,334.28 1,257,368.19 1,837,691.97 5,287,394.44 23 YETUNDE IDOWU 2,063,373.44 1,160,647.56 1,740,971.34 4,964,992,132.00 24 BUNMI OSE 2,774,750.40 1,664,850.24 2,289,169.08 6,728,169.08 25 AKINLOLU BOLAJI 1,951,971.28 1,119,512.94 1,636,210.88 4,707,695.10 26 OGUNGBE KEHINDE 2,520,249.84 1,470,145.74 2,100,208.20 6,090,603.78 27 OLATUNJI OKULAJA 2,321,295.12 1,354,088.82 1,934,848.92 5,609,796.54 28 ABISOYE ADETUWO 2,515,055.84 1,489,177.80 2,084,848.92 6,089,082.56 29 ODEGBAROYE ADAMS 1,934,412.60 1,063,926.93 1,644,250.71 4,642,590.24 30 SYLVESTER OMANJIE 2,187,983.52 1,276,323.72 1,823,319.60 5,287,626.84 31 DIXON OLUFUNKE 2,347,966.80 1,369,647.30 1,956,639.00 5,674,253.10 32 ODUNAYO OGUNTAWASE 2,066,793.12 1,205,629.32 1,722,327.60 4,994,750.04 33 OBADIMU FUNMI 2,235,654.00 1,304,131.50 1,863,045.00 5,402,830.50 34 ALARAPE TAOFEEK 2,335,133.44 1,382,644.80 1,935,702.72 5,653,480.96 35 JIMOH WASIU 1,588,456.32 794,228.16 1,389,899.28 3,772,583.76 36 OGUNDIMU TIMOTHY 2,358,537.84 1,352,690.82 1,977,009.66 5,688,238.32 37 CHARLES OLATUJAYAN 2,649,423.48 1,519,522.29 2,220,840.27 6,389,786.04 38 AYORINDE SOLA 2,450,255.96 1,450,809.45 2,031,133.23 5,932,198.64 39 OLUSOLA ODU 2,063,373.44 1,160,647.56 1,740,971.34 4,964,992.34 40 ADELAJA TITILAYO 1,951,971.28 119,512.94 1,636,211.22 4,707,695.44 41 OYEBOLA COKER 1,630,506.60 896,778.63 1,385,930.61 3,913,215.84 42 AYOADE OKELEYE 1,647,215.40 905,968.47 1,400,133.09 3,953,316.96 43 KUYE RASHEEDAT 2,579,216.80 1,547,530.08 2,127,853.86 6,254,600.74 44 OLANREWAJU KADRI 2,739,294.60 1,663,143.15 2,250,134.85 6,652,572.60 45 ADIO SHORUNKE 1,304,403.84 652,201.92 1,141,353.36 3,097,959.12 56 CHRISTOPHER ROTIMI 1,275,010.36 662,024.61 1,103,369.28 3,040,404.25 57 AUGUSTINE EKAMS 2,192,334.28 1,257,368.19 1,837,691.97 5,287,691.97 58 FIAKALAMATEI AGAMA 2,066,417.32 1,185,151.11 1,732,143.93 4,983,712.36 59 OGUNTONA FOLAKE 2,936,606.40 1,782,939.60 2,412,221.40 7,131,758.40 50 ABIODUN OLOWOAKE 2,659,908.80 1,574,946.00 2,204,924.40 6,439,779.20 51 TAYO SOBANDE 2,359,857.00 1,397,283.75 1,956,197.25 5,713,338.00 52 ADESINA AKINTONWA 1,377,853.92 688,926.96 1,205,622.18 3,272,403.06 53 OKELANFA MONSURAT 2,066,430.24 1,185,158.52 1,732,154.76 4,983,743.52 54 TUNDE AKINDE 2,379,918.40 1,364,953.20 1,994,931.60 5,739,803.20 55 JAGINMOLU RONKE 3,301,462.40 1,980,877.44 2,723,706.48 8,006,046.32 56 DUROORIKE MOHAMED 2,192,334.28 1,257,368.19 1,837,691.97 5,287,394.44 57 JINADU RUKAYAT 2,497,275.36 1,456,743.96 2,081,062.80 6,035,082.12 58 ONOFOWOKAN K. O. 1,927,423.52 919,906.68 1,708,398.12 4,555,728.32 59 MURIANA TIAMIYU 2,398,676.28 1,456,339.17 1,970,341.23 5,825,356.68 60 DANJUMA SAMUEL 2,383,375.20 1,411,209.00 1,975,692.60 5,770,276.80 61 OLOLADE KEHINDE 1,134,497.76 541,464.84 1,005,577.56 2,681,540.16 62 BUKOLA LAWAL AGNES 2,497,277.52 1,456,745.22 2,081,064.64 6,035,087.34 63 FATAI RAFIU 0 230,180.28 402,815.62 632,995.80 64 OPE ABDUL 1,630,730.40 846,725.40 1,411,209.00 3,888,664.80 65 OGUNMAIKE ABIODUN 3,466,535.52 2,104,682.28 2,847,511.32 8,418,729.12 66 OLABODE ISIAKA 2,636,012.88 1,560,797.10 2,185,115.94 6,381,925.92 67 ALAO NOIMOT 0 251,755.44 440,572.02 692,327.46 68 ODEYINKA SEMIU 0 459,285.28 746,338.58 1,205,623.86 69 SULAIMON HAZAN 1,485,001.44 771,058.44 1,285,079.40 3,541,157.28 70 TAIWO ABAYOMI 1,406,661.88 730,382.13 1,217,303.35 3,354,347.56 71 OYELAKIN JANET 2,636,012.88 1,560,797.10 2,185,115.94 6,381,925.92 72 SERIKI OMOLOLA 1,934,412.60 1,063,926.93 1,644,250.71 4,642,590.24 73 SOTONNA MARY 2,321,295.12 1,354,088.82 1,934,412.60 5,609,796.54 74 SHITTU BOLAJI 2,063,373.44 1,160,647.56 1,740,971.34 4,964,992.34 75 TOYIN TIAMIYU 4,459,545.60 2,508,494.40 3,762,241.60 10,730,781.60 76 WOLE ADEGELU 1,630,506.60 896,778.63 1,358,930.61 3,913,215.84 77 BISI HAZAN 2,347,966.80 1,369,647.30 1,956,639.00 5,674,253.10 78 SOLOMON AKINBOMI 3,466,535.52 2,104,682.28 2,847,511.32 8,148,729.12 79 RUKAYAT ISMAIL 2,066,430.24 1,185,158.52 1,732,154.76 4,983,743.52 80 WUNMI OPE 1,195,704.84 570,677.31 1,059,829.29 2,826,211.44 81 TOYIN BAMBHOYE 1,134,497.76 541,464.84 1,005,577.56 2,681,540.16 82 HAKEEM AGBEDEJOBI - 219,628.72 384,350.26 603,978.98 83 ADEREMI ADENRELI - 407,626.65 638,615.12 1,046,241.77 EX-EMPLOYEES OF 2ND DEFENDANT S/N NAME RETIREMENT GRATUITY REDUNDANCY TOTAL 84 IBRAHIM AYANFISOYE 1,413,104.16 733,727.16 1,222,878.60 3,369,709.92 85 OLAITAN ADIGUN 2,358,529.00 1,352,685.75 1,977,002.25 5,688,217.00 86 YINKA ADEOLA 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 87 OLUKEMI OLALEYE 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 88 JOSEPH ADESINA 2,075,129.08 1,228,694.85 1,720,172.79 5,023,996.72 89 ISAAC OKEDAIRO 2,497,266.00 1,456,738.50 2,081,055.00 6,035,059.50 90 WALE OJO 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,108.00 6,381,902.00 91 ADETORO YAKUBU 2,321,279.28 1,354,079.58 1,934,399.40 5,609,758.26 92 GRACE FOLORUNSHO 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 93 BOLA OMISILE 1,837,130.24 1,033,385.76 1,550,078.64 4,420,594.64 94 IDOWU ADUNOLA - 324,171.12 544,144.38 868,315.50 95 GRACE ODUNJO 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.23 2,185,107.75 638,190,198.00 96 BOLADELE BELLO 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 97 RAMONI OLOKUNDE 2,913,477.00 1,768,896.75 2,393,213.25 7,075,587.00 98 OLUREMI IDOWU 2,066,418.00 1,185,151.50 1,732,144.50 4,983,714.00 99 TITILAYO SOYOYE 2,458,020.00 1,474,812.00 2,027,866.50 5,960,698.50 100 TOYIN EDALERE 2,212,218.00 1,290,460.00 1,843,515.00 5,346,193.00 101 OJOBO AGNES 1,031,360.00 541,464.00 928,224.00 2,501,048.00 102 FEMI IDOWU 1,944,864.00 1,093,986.00 1,640,979.00 4,679,829.00 103 GLADYS ADEYINKA-GABS 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 104 KEHINDE SANGODARE 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 105 MICHEAL ALUKO 2,739,282.00 1,663,135.50 2,250,124.50 6,652,542.00 106 RASAQ AKINSANYA 1,413,104.16 733,727.16 1,222,878.60 3,369,709.92 107 ADESOLA OSOKOYA 2,497,266.00 1,456,738.50 2,081,055.00 6,035,059.50 108 IDOWU BARUWA 1,944,864.00 1,093,986.00 1,640,979.00 4,679,829.00 109 SURAJU LASISI 1,443,908.48 773,522.40 1,237,635.84 3,455,066.72 110 WALE FAKOYA 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 111 ABOSEDE SOYEMI 1,701,750.00 911,655.00 1,458,648.00 4,072,059.00 112 SHEHU HASSAN 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 113 OLUBAYO SOYOOLA 2,187,972.00 1,276,317.00 1,823,310.00 5,287,599.00 114 RICHARD KILANKO 1,722,315.00 947,273.25 1,463,967.75 4,133,556.00 115 BOLAJI LAWAL 2,321,280.00 1,354,080.00 1,934,400.00 5,609,760.00 116 TOYIN ABIODUN 2,708,160.00 1,644,240.00 2,224,560.00 6,576,960.00 117 TAIWO OBADINA 1,847,905.44 1,059,828.12 1,548,979.56 4,456,713.12 118 SOLA ONIYIDE 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 119 TAIWO AKEWUSOLA 1,263,031.00 602,810.25 1,119,504.75 2,985,346.00 120 KELANI ADEWUNMI ONI 2,066,778.00 1,205,620.50 1,722,315.00 4,994,713.50 121 BIMPE ABATAN 1,018,827.47 486,258.57 903,051.63 2,408,137.67 122 JOSEPH ADEYEMI 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 123 TOLA AKINOSO 1,944,864.00 1,093,986.00 1,640,979.00 4,679,829.00 124 CAROLINE SHOYOMBO 1,134,496.00 541,464.00 1,005,576.00 2,681,536.00 125 ALFRED ELAKUMOR 1,959,843.92 1,160,433.90 1,624,607.46 4,744,885.28 126 SUNDAY ELELUWE 2,450,240.00 1,450,800.00 2,031,120.00 5,932,160.00 127 EDWIN OKON 2,192,320.00 1,257,360.00 1,837,680.00 5,287,360.00 128 LOLA ADEBAYO 1,739,205.12 978,302.88 1,467,454.32 4,184,962.32 129 ESTHER A. TOYOBO 2,219,792.00 1,248,633.00 1,872,949.50 5,341,375.00 130 BUKOLA SHOGBAMU 2,066,417.32 1,185,151.11 1,732,143.93 4,983,712.36 131 DAUDA OGUNMONA 2,187,972.00 1,276,317.00 1,823,310.00 55,287,599.00 132 JOHN ADEKANMI 1,823,310.00 1,002,820.50 1,549,813.50 4,375,944.00 133 KEHINDE AKINLOTAN 2,321,280.00 1,354,080.00 1,934,400.00 5,609,760.00 134 TOBI ADAMOLEKUN 1,529,042.48 819,129.90 1,310,607.84 3,658,780.22 135 PHILIPS KOLAJO 1,269,250.84 659,034.09 1,098,390.15 3,026,675.08 136 FOLASHADE TADE 1,944,864.00 1,093,986.00 1,640,979.00 4,679,829.00 137 KABIRU OLALEYE 1,529,042.48 819,129.90 1,310,607.84 3,658,780.22 138 FATIMO AKINSANYA 2,187,972.00 1,276,317.00 1,823,310.00 5,287,599.00 139 OLOYEDE AKINPELU 2,870,490.00 1,742,797.50 2,357,902.50 6,971,190.00 140 ELIAS ADEYEMI 2,453,338.00 1,407,061.50 2,056,474.50 5,916,874.00 141 TUNDE AYOADE 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 142 OLALEKAN OTUSANYA 1,007,024.16 503,512.08 881,146.14 2,391,682.38 143 RUBEEN ODUTOLA 1,722,315.00 947,273.25 1,463,967.75 4,133,556.00 144 AYODELE JAYEOLA PITAN 1,443,904.00 773,520.00 1,237,632.00 3,455,056.00 145 CAROLINE DADA 2,478,398.00 1,467,472.50 2,054,461.50 6,000,332.00 146 OLUSEGUN AKINWALE 1,837,136.00 1,033,389.00 1,550,083.50 4,420,608.50 147 YETUNDE ODUNUGA 2,187,972.00 1,276,217.00 1,823,310.00 5,287,599.00 148 BOSEDE SHODIPO 2,478,398.00 1,467,472.50 2,054,461.50 6,000,332.00 149 SALIU DADA 1,340,768.00 696,168.00 1,160,280.00 3,197,216.00 150 OSUNLETI JANET 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 151 YEMI TAIWO 2,358,529.00 1,352,685.75 1,977,002.25 5,688,217.00 152 YEMISI OSHINOWO 2,089,317.00 1,198,284.75 1,751,339.25 5,038,941.00 153 JIMOH OGUNTOLA 1,340,959.00 696,267.36 1,160,283.60 3,197,510.32 154 SHODIQ SHUAIBU 2,321,280.00 1,354,080.00 1,934,400.00 5,609,760.00 155 ADEBISI ADEYINKA 2,636,003.00 1,560,791.25 2,185,107.75 6,381,902.00 156 ADISA ABIDOYE 1,373,086.96 735,582.30 1,176,931.68 3,285,600.94 157 JOHN OLUKOSI 2,181,599.00 1,291,736.25 1,808,430.75 5,281,766.00 158 YUSUF AJAM 1,753,555.44 1,005,715.62 1,469,892.06 4,229,163.12 159 BRUCE ABIMBOLA 5,074,339.80 2,790,886.89 4,313,188.83 12,178,415.50 160 OBATEYE BOLA ODUSUSI 1,976,645.52 1,153,043.22 1,647,204.60 4,776,893.34 EX-EMPLOYEES OF 3RD DEFENDANT S/N NAME RETIREMENT GRATUITY REDUNDANCY TOTAL 161 MR SERO OLUKAYODE 8,178,524.16 4,842,547.20 6,779,566.08 19,800,637.44 162 MR AKINTOLA TIMOTHY 3,414,096.00 1,991,566.00 2,845,080.00 8,250,732.00 163 MR OLUSEGUN STEPHEN TAIWO 3,561,805.20 1,958,992.86 3,027,534.21 8,548,332.48 164 MISS OGUNWO AFOLAKE 3,198,890.92 1,894,080.15 2,651,724.21 7,744,695.28 165 MR ADETONA KOLAWOLE 2,416,512.00 1,359,288.00 2,038,932.00 5,814,732.00 166 MRS ADEBIYI OMOLARA 1,890,308.00 1,012,665.00 1,620,264.00 4,523,597.00 167 MRS LEKUTI OLAYIDE 9,308,416.16 5,511,562.20 7,716,187.08 22,536,165.44 168 MR MUSTAPHA GANIYU 2,713,530.24 1,582,892.64 2,261,275.20 6,557,698.08 169 MR MUNIRUDEEN KASIMAWO OLAWALE GIWA 3,044,879.20 1,812,889.00 2,524,044.60 7,371,812.80 170 MR OKEREKE OKECHUKWU 2,049,461.12 1,152,821.88 1,729,232.00 4,931,515.82 171 MRS BANKOLE-OJO OLUBUNMI 4,979,476.48 2,800,955.52 4,201,433.28 11,981,865.28 172 MISS OLUNUGA OLUSEYI 1,217,906.80 548,058.06 1,096,116.12 2,862,080.98 173 MRS SAWYER KEHINDE 2,869,608.00 1,699,110.00 2,378,754.00 6,947,472.00 174 MR ADEGBITE JOHN AYINLA 2,276,064.00 1,138,032.00 1,991,592.00 5,406,688.00 175 MRS SULAIMAN ADEREWAS 2,390,523.52 1,280,637.60 2,077,400.64 5,748,561.76 176 MRS OGUNDELE TAWA 2,567,622.24 1,497,779.64 2,139,685.20 6,205,087.08 177 MRS BABALOLA TAIWO 2,864,484.00 1,670,949.00 2,387,070.00 6,922,503.00 178 MR OROBIYI ABIODUN 2,864,484.00 1,670,949.00 2,387,070.00 6,922,503.00 179 MR LADENEGAN OLUWAFEMI 2,713,530.24 1,582,892.64 2,261,275.20 6,557,698.08 180 MR OGUNDIRAN AJANI 1,922,210.16 998,070.66 1,663,451.10 4,583,731.92 181 MRS ADEYEMI BAMIDELE 2,219,800.00 1,248,642.00 1,872,963.00 5,341,413.00 182 MR DADA JAMES 1,803,594.00 936,481.50 1,560,812.50 4,300,878.00 183 MR ADETOLA AZEEZ 2,636,022.00 1,560,802.50 2,185,123.50 6,381,948.00 184 MR ADEYEMI VINCENT 2,217,531.00 1,271,819.25 1,858,812.75 5,348,163.00 185 MRS ODUSANYA OLABISI 2,347,974.00 1,369,561.50 1,956,645.00 5,674,270.50 186 MRS SOREMI TAIWO 1,647,219.60 905,970.78 1,400,136.66 3,953,327.04 187 MR OLANIYI KOLAWOLE 1,508,606.32 783,314.82 1,305,524.70 3,597,445.84 188 MRS ALAMU MODUPE 2,087,088.00 1,173,987.00 1,760,980.50 5,022,055.50 189 MRS ODUBOTE RAMOTA 2,192,354.00 1,257,379.50 1,837,708.50 5,287,442.00 190 MR OGUNSANWO MICHAEL 2,066,445.88 1,185,167.49 1,732,167.87 4,983,781.24 191 MR FULANI EMMANUEL 1,413,121.32 733,736.07 1,222,893.45 3,369,750.84 192 MR ADELANO AJAYI ONI 1,304,419.68 652,209.84 1,141,367.22 3,097,996.74 193 MR ANDUL ALIDU 1,340,785.16 696,176.91 1,160,294.85 3,197,256.92 194 MR ADELAJA ODUSADE 1,701,778.96 911,667.30 1,458,667.68 4,072,113.94 195 MRS TAIWO TOPE 2,661,521.76 1,552,554.36 2,217,934.80 6,432,010.92 196 MR KOMOLAFE OLADIMEJI 3,105,108.72 1,885,244.58 2,550,625.02 7,540,978.32 197 MR LAWAL ADEBANJO 2,636,022.00 1,560,802.50 2,185,123.50 6,831,948.00 198 MR OGUNNAIKE ADEWALE 2,497,284.00 1,456,749.00 2,181,070.00 6,035,103.00 199 MR BALOGUN OLAMIDE 2,217,531.00 1,271,819.25 1,858,812.75 5,348,163.00 200 MRS AINA OLUFUNKE 2,197,354.00 1,257,379.50 1,837,708.50 5,287,442.00 201 MR LASAKI ADEBOWALE 1,805,468.00 867,215.00 1,547,544.00 4,320,227.00 202 MRS EKRIKA ADEJOKE 1,701,778.96 911,667.30 1,458,667.68 4,072,113.94 203 MISS OSINIBI OLUFUNSHO 1,195,718.04 570,683.61 1,059,840.99 2,826,242.64 204 MR ADEOLA SALIA 1,823,334.60 1,002,834.03 1,549,834.41 4,376,003.04 205 MISS ADESEGUN NIYINLOLAWA - 416,596.00 676,968.50 1,093,564.50 206 MRS AREMU OLUFUNKE 2,513,659.44 1,441,657.62 2,107,038.86 6,062,355.12 207 MRS FASHORANTI AYOOLA 2,358,546.00 1,352,695.50 1,977,016.50 56,882.58 208 MR OGUNKOYA ANTHONY 2,497,284.00 1,456,749.00 2,081,070.00 6,035,103.00 209 MR ADESANYA FRANCIS 2,497,284.00 2,081,070.00 6,035,103.00 210 MRS OSIFIESO OLUBUNMI 1,934,430.00 1,063,936.50 1,644,265.50 4,642,632.00 211 MRS OKELEYE KEHINDE 1,944,890.24 1,094,000.76 1,641,001.14 4,679,892.14 212 MRS AKERELE ATINUKE 2,321,316.00 1,354,101.00 1,934,430.00 5,609,847.00 213 MR ADEREMI ADEBOLA 1,934,430.00 1,063,936.50 1,644,265.50 4,642,632.00 214 MR ADEWUNMI PAUL 2,192,354.00 1,257,379.50 1,837,708.50 5,287,442.00 215 MRS JINADU FUNMILAYO 2,066,445.88 1,185,167.49 1,732,167.87 4,988,781.24 216 MRS ALABI VICTORIA 1,492,694.32 775,052.82 1,291,754.70 3,559,501.81 217 MR SODIQ 1,701,778.96 911,667.50 1,458,667.68 4,072,113.94 218 MRS ADESANYA BOLAKUNMI 1,195,718.04 570,683.61 1,059,840.99 2,826,242.60 219 MRS OLU-AYORINDE JANET 2,661,521.76 1,552,554.36 2,217,934.80 6,432,010.92 220 MR AWOSANYA ROTIMI 2,087,088.00 1,173,987.00 1,760,980.50 5,022,055.50 221 MRS ODUNUGA OLAYEMI 1,956,645.00 1,076,154.75 1,663,146.25 4,695,948.00 222 MR BASSEY MUKASA 1,823,334.60 1,002,834.03 1,549,834.41 4,376,003.04 223 MR ALIMI IBRAHIM 1,823,334.60 1,002,834.03 1,549,834.41 4,376,003.04 224 MRS ESEIGBE ADENIKE 1,492,694.32 775,052.82 1,291,754.70 3,559,501.84 225 MISS OBADINA ADEJOKE 1,031,373.20 464,117.94 928,235.88 2,423,727.72 226 MR OLANIYI OLUSEGUN 2,365,797.12 1,330,758.88 1,996,137.32 5,692,699,032.00 227 MR ADEKUNLE FELIX 2,497,284.00 1,456,749.00 2,081,070.00 6,035,103.00 228 MR ADEYEMO KABIRU 2,212,236.00 1,290,471.00 1,843,530.00 5,346,236.00 229 MR OBADIMU OLUSOJI 2,347,974.00 1,369,651.50 1,956,645.00 5,674,270.50 230 MR OGUNTORO AYOTUNDE 1,956,645.00 1,076,157.75 1,663,146.25 4,695,948.00 231 MR RAMONI FATAI 1,085,468.00 967,215.00 1,547,544.00 4,320,227.00 232 MR DIYAOLU MONDAY 1,823,334.60 1,002,834.03 1,549,834.41 4,376,003.04 233 MR AYENI KAYODE 1,492,694.32 775,052.82 1,291,754.00 3,559,501.94 234 MR OJUGBELI MONDAY 1,521,822.96 815,226.30 1,304,419.68 3,641,504.94 235 MR OKELEYE KAYODE 1,701,778.96 991,667.30 1,458,667.68 4,072,113.94 236 MRS ABIMBOLA ADEBIMPE 1,956,645.00 1,076,154.75 1,663,146.25 4,695,948.00 237 MR OJO MICHAEL IDOWU 2,088,839.50 1,218,489.72 1,740,699.60 5,048,028.34 238 MRS RUNSEWE FUNMILAYO 1,805,468.00 967,215.00 1,547,544.00 4,320,227.00 239 MR ODUYEMI OLAJIDE - 235,790.00 377,264.00 613,054.00 240 MR SARUMI ADEBAYO 1,304,419.68 652,209.84 1,141,367.22 3,097,996.74 241 MR OBAJIMI HELEN AYEDUN 2,358,546.00 1,352,695.50 1,977,016.50 5,688,258.00 242 MRS AYOADE OMOTUNDE 2,347,974.00 1,369,651.50 1,956,645.00 5,674,270.50 243 MR OMANJIE THOMAS 1,972,792.88 1,131,454.74 1,653,646.62 4,757,894.24 244 MRS LAWAL RAMOTA 2,497,284.00 1,456,749.00 2,081,070.00 6,035,103.00 245 MR DABIRI ABAYOMI 1,338,350.00 694,912.50 1,158,187.50 3,191,450.00 246 MRS KESA ADEBUKONLA - 389,738.73 633,325.42 1,023,064.14 247 MR OLUSEGUN AUGUSTINE 1,071,781.48 511,532.07 949,988.13 2,533,301.68 248 MR ADEYEMI MUKAILA 1,016,627.48 485,208.57 901,101.63 2,402,937.68 249 MRS QUADRI BUKONLA - 159,902.64 279,829.62 439,732.26 250 MRS BANJOKO FUNMILAYO - 153,773.36 269,103.38 422,876.74 251 MRS BANJOKO ADETOUN - 92,420.68 184,841.36 227,262.04 252 MR AWOSILE OLANIYI 924,206.80 415,893.06 831,786.12 217,885.98 253 MR SANNI SAMUSIDEEN AINA 924,206.80 415,893.06 831,786.12 217,885.98 254 MR AKPU CLETUS 924,206.80 415,893.06 831,786.12 217,885.98 255 MRS OGUNTIMEHIN HELEN - 153,053.36 267,843.38 402,896.74 e) A DECLARATION that the Claimants having been paid by the 1st – 5th Defendants, only amounts specified against each of their names in the table below [sic] as ‘payment received’, are entitled to be paid the amounts set out as ‘balances’ against their respective names in the said table being and representing the outstanding balances of their total terminal benefits due to them from the said Defendants. ▪ EX-EMPLOYEES OF 1ST DEFENDANT; S/N NAME TOTAL PAYMENT BALANCE BENEFIT (NAIRA) RECEIVED (NAIRA) (NAIRA) 1 AKINLEYE TAJUDEEN 6,577,001.84 1,427,179.94 5,149,821.90 2 IJIOLA TAIWO 3,353,079.04 672,198.81 2,680,880.23 3 ARETOLA BUKOLA 5,092,232.00 1,160,022.39 3,932,300.61 4 DAYO OGUNJIMI 5,548,146.60 1,193,157.19 4,154,989.41 5 SAMSON ALANI 4,375,942.56 870,448.92 3,505,493.64 6 SONEYE SEMIU 4,320,188.14 868,396.45 3,451,791.69 7 SUNKANMI ADERONMU 3,455,061.36 727,372.84 2,727,688.52 8 BABASOLA TOYIN 5,308,640.64 843,458.00 4,465,182.64 9 ADENIJI OLUSINA 8,418,728.44 1,613,139.00 6,805,589.44 10 BAMIGBADE ADEYINKA 7,520,574.24 1,633,577.00 5,886,997.24 11 ORIYEMI TAIWO 5,960,735.36 1,346,587.35 4,614,148.01 12 MARIAM LAWAL B. 5,287,394.44 1,195,008.45 4,092,385.99 13 OLATEJU NOSIRU 5,674,256.58 1,110,286.44 4,563,970.14 14 EKUNDAYO OLUSESI 5,348,149.88 1,086,105.99 4,262,043.89 15 FAYOMI IYABODE 5,739,803.20 1,147,124.39 4,592,678.81 16 FATADE MAGRET 4,679,856.72 981,951.10 3,697,905.62 17 OGUNKOYA BABATUNDE 6,381,925.92 1,341,132.15 1,341,132.15 18 LEKAN SOROYE 3,152,833.92 774,907.43 2,377,926.49 19 ISSAH ABEEB 3,272,427.00 783,807.89 2,488,619.11 20 OGUNDARE ISAAC 4,745,285.44 1,088,484.15 3,656,801.29 21 OPEYEMI ELIJAH 3,846,508.86 823,892.99 3,022,615.87 22 ADEWOLE FATAI 5,287,394.44 1,195,010.88 4,092,383.56 23 YETUNDE IDOWU 4,964,992.32 982,184.60 3,982,807.72 24 BUNMI OSE 6,728,169.08 1,498,872.22 5,229,296.86 25 AKINLOLU BOLAJI 4,707,695.10 1,057,043.26 3,650,651.84 26 OGUNGBE KEHINDE 6,090,603.78 1,385,680.39 4,704,923.39 27 OLATUNJI OKULAJA 5,609,796.54 1,259,271.13 4,350,525.41 28 ABISOYE ADETUWO 6,089,082.56 1,295,978.27 4,793,104.29 29 ODEGBAROYE ADAMS 4,642,590.24 813,117.34 3,829,472.90 30 SYLVESTER OMANJIE 5,287,626.84 1,298,302.37 4,097,324.47 31 DIXON OLUFUNKE 5,674,253.10 1,340,021.15 4,334,231.95 32 ODUNAYO OGUNTAWASE 4,994,750.04 1,116,569.91 3,878,180.13 33 OBADIMU FUNMI 5,402,830.50 1,287,235.77 4,115,594.73 34 ALARAPE TAOFEEK 5,653,480.96 959,752.84 4,693,728.12 35 JIMOH WASIU 3,772,583.76 1,335,426.75 2,437,157.01 36 OGUNDIMU TIMOTHY 5,688,238.32 1,144,939.50 4,543,298.82 37 CHARLES OLATUJAYAN 6,389,786.04 1,216,323.62 5,173,462.42 38 AYORINDE SOLA 5,932,198.64 1,252,351.99 4,679,846.65 39 OLUSOLA ODU 4,964,992.34 747,568.60 4,217,423.74 40 ADELAJA TITILAYO 4,707,695.44 1,047,611.49 3,660,083.95 41 OYEBOLA COKER 3,913,215.84 859,304.10 859,304.10 42 AYOADE OKELEYE 3,953,316.96 818,482.97 3,134,833.99 43 KUYE RASHEEDAT 6,254,600.74 6,254,600.74 6,254,600.74 44 OLANREWAJU KADRI 6,652,572.60 1,440,928.14 5,211,644.46 45 ADIO SHORUNKE 3,097,959.12 843,422.79 2,254,536.33 46 CHRISTOPHER ROTIMI 3,040,404.25 635,051.52 2,405,352.73 47 AUGUSTINE EKAMS 5,287,691.97 1,196,120.45 4,091,571.52 48 FIAKALAMATEI AGAMA 4,983,712.36 907,658.23 4,076,054.13 49 OGUNTONA FOLAKE 7,131,758.40 1,335,061.00 5,796,697.40 50 ABIODUN OLOWOAKE 6,439,779.20 1,356,282.01 5,083,497.19 51 TAYO SOBANDE 5,713,338.00 1,295,978.27 4,417,359.73 52 ADESINA AKINTONWA 3,272,403.06 813,157.61 2,459,245.45 53 OKELANFE MONSURAT 4,983,743.52 1,062,914.26 3,920,829.26 54 TUNDE AKINDE 5,739,803.20 1,120,160.00 4,619,643.20 55 JAGINMOLU RONKE 8,006,046.32 1,613,139.00 6,392,907.32 56 DUROORIKE MOHAMED 5,287,394.44 1,095,875.28 4,191,519.16 57 JINADU RUKAYAT 6,035,082.12 1,340,021.15 4,695,060.97 58 ONOFOWOKAN K. O. 4,555,728.32 552,289.00 4,003,439.32 59 MURIANA TIAMIYU 5,825,356.68 1,387,944.19 4,437,412.49 60 DANJUMA SAMUEL 5,770,276.80 1,245,571.84 4,524,704.96 61 OLOLADE KEHINDE 2,681,540.16 302,103.67 2,379,436.49 62 BUKOLA LAWAL AGNES 6,035,087.34 1,331,446.52 4,703,640.82 63 FATAI RAFIU 632,995.80 119,776.00 513,219.80 64 OPE ABDUL 3,888,664.80 815,510.00 3,073,154.80 65 OGUNNAIKE ABIODUN 8,418,729.12 1,613,139.00 6,805,590.12 66 OLABODE ISIAKA 6,381,925.92 1,220,022.95 5,161,902.97 67 ALAO NOIMOT 692,327.46 148,250.00 544,077.46 68 ODEYINKA SEMIU 1,205,623.86 256,409.73 949,214.13 69 SULAIMON HAZAN 3,541,157.28 690,393.57 2,850,763.71 70 TAIWO ABAYOMI 3,354,347.56 542,158.78 2,812,188.78 71 OYELAKIN JANET 6,381,925.92 1,334,647.15 5,047,458.77 72 SERIKI OMOLOLA 4,642,590.24 925,995.15 3,716,595.09 73 SOTONNA MARY 5,609,796.54 1,265,195.61 4,344,600.93 74 SHITTU BOLAJI 4,964,992.34 1,012,158.14 3,952,834.20 75 TOYIN TIAMIYU 10,730,781.60 2201,60 8,529,175.60 76 WOLE ADEGELU 3,913,215.84 859,153.55 3,054,062.29 77 BISI HAZAN 5,674,253.10 1,304,588.73 4,369,664.37 78 SOLOMON AKINBOMI 8,148,729.12 1,770,889.00 6,647,840.12 79 RUKAYAT ISMAIL 4,983,743.52 1,076,462.39 3,907,280.93 80 WUNMI OPE 2,826,211.44 304,593.69 2,521,617.75 81 TOYIN BAMGBOYE 2,681,540.16 303,633.67 2,377,906.49 82 HAKEEM AGBEDEJOBI 603,978.98 48,233.00 555,745.98 83 ADEREMI ADENRELE 1,046,241.77 202,510.00 843,731.77 EX-EMPLOYEES OF 2ND DEFENDANT 84 IBRAHIM AYANFISOYE 3,369,709.92 731,030.00 2,638,679.92 85 OLAITAN ADIGUN 5,688,217.00 1,452,135.00 4,236,082.00 86 YINKA ADEOLA 6,381,902.00 1,582,473.78 4,799,428.22 87 OLUKEMI OLALEYE 6,381,902.00 1,583,074.00 4,798,828.00 88 JOSEPH ADESINA 5,023,996.72 1,383,970.00 3,640,026.72 89 ISAAC OKEDAIRO 6,035,059.50 1,591,990.00 4,413,069.50 90 WALE OJO 6,381,902.00 1,775,169.00 4,606,733.00 91 ADETORO YAKUBU 5,609,758.26 1,498,010.00 4,111,748.26 92 GRACE FOLORUNSHO 5,932,160.00 1,467,501.00 4,464,659.00 93 BOLA OMISILE 4,420,594.64 1,064,083.00 3,356,511.64 94 IDOWU ADUNOLA 868,315.50 201,992.00 666,323.50 95 GRACE ODUNJO 6,381,901.98 1,583,459.00 4,798,442.98 96 BOLADELE BELO 5,932,160.00 1,476,317.00 4,455,843.00 97 RAMONI OLOKUNADE 7,075,587.00 1,779,625.00 5,295,962.00 98 OLUREMI IDOWU 4,983,714.00 1,213,971.00 3,769,743.00 99 TITILAYO SOYOYE 5,960,698.50 1,583,586.00 4,377,112.50 100 TOYIN EDALERE 5,346,193.00 1,413,771.00 3,932,422.00 101 OJOBO AGNES 3,501,048.00 622,149.00 1,878,899.00 102 FEMI IDOWU 4,679,829.00 1,216,994.00 3,462,835.00 103 GLADYS ADEYINKA-GABS 6,381,902.00 1,583,736.00 4,798,166.00 104 KEHINDE SANGODARE 5,932,160.00 1,549,115.00 4,383,045.00 105 MICHEAL ALUKO 6,652,542.00 1,677,459.00 4,975,083.00 106 RASAQ AKINSANYA 3,369,709.92 804,704.00 2,565,005.92 107 ADESOLA OSOKOYA 6,035,059.50 1,610,780.00 4,424,279.50 108 IDOWU BARUWA 4,679,829.00 1,236,120.00 3,443,709.00 109 SURAJU LASISI 3,455,066.72 827,958.00 2,627,108.72 110 WALE FAKOYA 6,381,902.00 1,659,425.05 4,722,476.95 111 ABOSEDE SOYEMI 4,072,059.00 1,050,041.00 3,022,018.00 112 SHEHU HASSAN 6,381,902.00 1,562,142.00 4,819,760.00 113 OLUBAYO SOYOOLA 5,287,599.00 1,442,478.00 3,845,121.00 114 RICHARD KILANKO 4,133,556.00 1,073,596.00 3,059,960.00 115 BOLAJI LAWAL 5,609,760.00 1,647,985.00 3,961,775.00 116 TOYIN ABIODUN 6,576,960.00 1,684,358.00 4,892,602.00 117 TAIWO OBADINA 4,456,713.12 1,050,727.00 3,405,986.12 118 SOLA ONIYIDE 5,932,160.00 1,558,780.50 4,373,379.50 119 TAIWO AKEWUSOLA 2,985,346.00 767,352.70 2,217,993.30 120 KELANI ADEWUNMI ONI 4,994,713.50 1,324,709.00 3,670,004.50 121 BIMPE ABATAN 2,408,137.67 490,526.00 1,917,611.67 122 JOSEPH ADEYEMI 5,932,160.00 1,605,917.00 4,326,243.00 123 TOLA AKINOSO 4,679,829.00 1,178,265.00 3,501,564.00 124 CAROLINE SHOYOMBO 2,681,536.00 607,823.00 2,073,713.00 125 ALFRED ELAKUMOR 4,744,885.28 1,318,529.00 3,426,356.28 126 SUNDAY ELELUWE 5,932,160.00 1,463,019.00 4,469,141.00 127 EDWIN OKON 5,287,360.00 1,450,523.00 3,836,837.00 128 LOLA ADEBAYO 4,184,962.32 1,044,762.00 3,140,200.32 129 ESTHER A. TOYOBO 5,341,375.00 1,631,447.00 3,709,928.00 130 BUKOLA SHOGBAMU 4,983,712.36 1,226,586.00 3,757,126.36 131 DAUDA OGUNMONA 5,287,599.00 1,441,087.00 3,846,512.00 132 JOHN ADEKANMI 4,375,944.00 988,120.00 3,387,824.00 133 KEHINDE AKINLOTAN 5,609,760.00 1,615,912.00 3,993,848.00 134 TOBI ADAMOLEKUN 3,658,780.22 874,118.00 2,784,662.22 135 PHILIPS KOLAJO 3,026,675.08 725,761.00 2,300,914.08 136 FOLASHADE TADE 4,679,829.00 1,138,158.00 3,541,671.00 137 KABIRU OLALEYE 3,658,780.22 921,580.00 2,737,200.22 138 FATIMO AKINSANYA 5,287,599.00 1,387,534.00 3,900,065.00 139 OLOYEDE AKINPELU 6,971,190.00 2,021,030.00 4,950,160.00 140 ELIAS ADEYEMI 5,916,874.00 1,173,866.00 4,743,008.00 141 TUNDE AYOADE 6,381,902.00 1,508,204.75 4,873,697.25 142 OLALEKAN OTUNSANYA 2,391,682.38 604,278.00 1,787,404.38 143 RUBEEN ODUTOLA 4,133,556.00 853,767.00 3,279,789.00 144 AYODELE JAYEOLA PITAN 3,455,056.00 774,791.00 2,680,265.00 145 CAROLINE DADA 6,000,332.00 1,430,994.00 4,569,338.00 146 OLUSEGUN AKINWALE 4,420,608.50 1,138,789.00 3,281,819.50 147 YETUNDE ODUNUGA 5,287,599.00 1,101,265.00 4,186,334.00 148 BOSEDE SHODIPO 6,000,332.00 1,492,556.00 4,507,776.00 149 SALIU DADA 3,197,216.00 819,798.89 2,377,417.11 150 OSUNLETI JANET 6,381,902.00 1,554,465.00 4,827,437.00 151 YEMI TAIWO 5,688,217.00 1,326,471.00 4,361,746.00 152 YEMISI OSINOWO 5,038,941.00 916,914.00 4,122,027.00 153 JIMOH OGUNTOLA 3,197,510.32 768,327.00 2,429,183.32 154 SODIQ SHUAIBU 5,609,760.00 1,100,667.00 4,509,093.00 155 ADEBISI ADEYINKA 6,381,902.00 1,583,459.00 4,798,443.00 156 ADISA ABIDOYE 3,285,600.94 782,433.50 2,503,167.44 157 JOHN OLUKOSI 5,281,766.00 1,381,170.83 3,900,595.17 158 YUSUF AJAM 4,229,163.12 1,078,725.00 3,150,438.12 159 BRUCE ABIMBOLA 12,178,415.52 3,177,068.20 9,001,347.32 160 OBATEYE BOLA ODUSUSI 4,776,893.34 1,211,824.70 3,565,068.64 EMPLOYEES OF 3RD DEFENDANT 161 MR SERO OLUKAYODE 19,800,637.44 2,664,345.00 17,136,292.44 162 MR AKINTOLA TIMOTHY 8,250,732.00 1,763,166.00 6,487,566.00 163 MR OLUSEGUN STEPHEN TAIWO 8,548,332.48 958,325.00 7,590,007.48 164 MISS OGUNWO AFOLAKE 7,744,695.28 1,912,151.00 5,823,180.28 165 MR ADETONA KOLAWOLE 5,814,732.00 1,152,069.00 4,662,663.00 166 MRS ADEBIYI OMOLARA 4,523,597.00 976,955.00 3,546,642.00 167 MRS LEKUTI OLAIYIDE A. 22,536,165.44 3,833,668.00 18,702,247.44 168 MR MUSTAPHA GANIYU 6,557,698.08 1,526,182.00 5,031,516.08 169 MR MUNIRUDEEN KASIMAWO OLAWALE GIWA 7,371,812.80 1,620,539.00 5,751,273.80 170 MR OKEREKE OKECHUKWU 4,931,515.82 1,178,043.00 3,753,472.82 171 MRS BANKOLE-OJO OLUBUNMI A. 11,981,865.28 2,175,369.00 9,806,496.28 172 MISS OLUNUGA OLUSEYI 2,862,080.98 323,452.00 2,538,628.98 173 MRS SAWYER KEHINDE 6,947,472.00 1,479,271.00 5,468,201.00 174 MR ADEGBITE JOHN AYINLA 5,406,688.00 1,157,576.00 4,249,112.00 175 MRS SULAIMAN ADEREWA 5,748,561.76 1,402,303.00 4,346,258.76 176 MRS OGUNDELE TAWA 6,205,087.08 1,357,473.00 4,847,614.08 177 MRS BABALOLA TAIWO 6,922,503.00 1,423,831.00 5,498,672.00 178 MR OROBIYI ABIODUN 6,922,503.00 1,537,478.00 5,385,025.00 179 MR LADENEGAN OLUWAFEMI 6,557,698.08 1,320,667.00 5,237,031.08 180 MR OGUNDIRAN AJANI 4,583,731.92 1,025,249.00 3,558,482.92 181 MRS ADEYEMI BAMIDELE 5,341,413.00 1,298,956.00 4,042,457.00 182 MR DADA JAMES A. 4,300,878.00 857,159.00 3,443,719.00 183 MR. ADETOLA AZEEZ 6,381,948.00 1,583,866.00 4,798,082.00 184 MR ADEYEMI VINCENT 5,348,163.00 1,307,328.00 4,040,835.00 185 MR ODUSANYA OLABISI 5,674,270.50 1,410,685.00 4,263,585.50 186 MRS SOREMI TAIWO 3,953,327.04 925,536.00 3,027,791.04 187 MR OLANIYI KOLAWOLE 3,597,445.84 818,625.00 2,778,820.84 188 MRS ALAMU MODUPE 5,022,055.50 1,290,818.00 3,731,237.50 189 MRS ODUBOTE RAMOTA 5,287,442.00 1,274,834.00 4,012,608.00 190 MR OGUNSANWO MICHAEL 4,983,781.24 1,164,309.00 3,819,472.24 191 MR FULANI EMMANUEL 3,369,750.84 778,835.00 2,590,915.84 192 MR ADELANO AJAYI ONI 3,097,996.74 713,985.00 2,384,011.74 193 MR ABDUL ALIDU 3,197,256.92 323,452.00 2,873,804.92 194 MRS ADELAJA ODUSADE 4,072,113.94 901,107.00 3,171,006.94 195 MRS TAIWO TOPE 6,432,010.92 1,572,090.00 4,859,920.92 196 MR KOMOLAFE OLADIMEJI 7,540,978.32 1,662,962.00 5,878,016.32 197 MR LAWAL ADEBANJO 6,831,948.00 1,459,367.00 4,922,581.00 198 MR OGUNNAIKE ADEWALE 6,035,103.00 1,527,151.00 4,507,952.00 199 MRS BALOGUN OLAMIDE 5,348,163.00 1,364,917.00 3,983,246.00 200 MRS AINA OLUFUNKE 5,287,442.00 1,248,214.00 4,039,228.00 201 MR LASAKI ADEBOWALE 4,320,227.00 855,229.00 3,464,998.00 202 MRS EKRIKA ADEJOKE 4,072,113.94 964,837.00 3,107,276.94 203 MISS OSINIBI OLUFUNSHO 2,826,242.64 694,880.00 2,131,362.64 204 MR ADEOLA SALIA 4,376,003.04 962,411.00 3,413,592.04 205 MISS ADESEGUN NIYINLOLAWA 1,093,564.50 254,154.00 839,410.50 206 MRS AREMU OLUFUNKE 6,062,355.12 1,398,042.00 4,664,313.12 207 MRS FASHORANTI AYOOLA 56,882.58 56,882.58 4,315,100.00 208 MR OGUNKOYA ANTHONY 6,035,103.00 1,463,126.00 4,571,977.00 209 MR ADESANYA FRANCIS 6,035,103.00 1,497,794.00 4,537,309.00 210 MRS ISIFIESO OLUBUNMI 4,642,632.00 1,050,833.00 3,591,799.00 211 MRS OKELEYE KEHINDE 4,679,892.14 1,047,102.00 3,632,790.14 212 MRS AKERELE ATINUKE 5,609,847.00 1,234,705.00 4,375,142.00 213 MR ADEREMI ADEBOLA 4,642,632.00 1,095,416.00 3,547,216.00 214 MR ADEWUNMI PAUL 5,287,442.00 1,208,728.00 4,078,714.00 215 MRS JINADU FUNMILAYO 4,988,781.24 1,314,058.00 3,669,723.24 216 MRS ALABI VICTORIA 3,559,501.81 889,257.00 2,670,244.81 217 MR SODIQ WAIDI 4,072,113.94 898,595.00 3,173,518.94 218 MRS ADESANYA BOLAKUNMI 2,826,242.60 623,394.00 2,202,848.64 219 MRS OLU-AYORINDE JANET 6,432,010.92 1,459,737.00 4,972,273.92 220 MR AWOSANYA ROTIMI 5,022,055.50 1,086,588.00 3,935,467.50 221 MR ODUNUGA OLAYEMI 4,695,948.00 1,137,314.00 3,558,634.00 222 MR BASSEY MUKASA 4,376,003.04 1,102,616.00 3,273,387.04 223 MR ALIMI IBRAHIM 4,376,003.04 938,453.00 938,453.00 224 MRS ESEIGBE ADENIKE 3,559,501.84 753,107.00 2,806,394.84 225 MISS OBADINA ADEJOKE 2,423,727.72 312,361.00 2,111,366.02 226 MR OLANIYI OLUSEGUN 5,692,699.32 1,319,868.00 4,372,831.32 227 MR ADEKUNLE FELIX 6,035,103.00 1,469,177.00 4,565,926.00 228 MR ADEYEMO KABIRU 5,346,236.00 1,286,144.00 4,060,092.00 229 MR OBADIMU OLUSOJI 5,674,270.50 1,359,947.00 4,314,323.50 230 MR OGUNTORO AYOTUNDE 4,695,948.00 974,087.00 3,721,861.00 231 MR RAMONI FATAI 4,320,227.00 985,130.00 3,335,097.00 232 MR DIYAOLU MONDAY 4,376,003.04 987,663.00 3,388,340.04 233 MR AYENI KAYODE 3,559,501.94 863,320.00 2,696,181.94 234 MR OJUGBELI MONDAY 3,641,504.94 846,675.00 2,794,829.94 235 MR OKELEYE KAYODE 4,072,113.94 896,517.00 3,175,596.94 236 MRS ABIMBOLA ADEBIMPE 4,695,948.00 1,146,603.00 3,549,345.00 237 MR OJO MICHAEL IDOWU 5,048,028.34 1,283,660.00 3,764,368.84 238 MRS RUNSEWE FUNMILAYO 4,320,227.00 981,936.00 3,338,291.00 239 MR ODUYEMI OLAJIDE 613,054.00 39,428.00 573,626.00 240 MR SARUMI ADEBAYO 3,097,996.74 757,077.00 2,340,919.74 241 MRS OBAJIMI HELEN AYEDUN 5,688,258.00 1,377,769.00 4,310,489.00 242 MRS AYOADE OMOTUNDE 5,674,270.50 1,429,140.00 4,245,130.50 243 MR OMANJIE THOMAS 4,757,894.24 1,206,266.00 3,551,628.24 244 MRS LAWAL RAMOTA 6,035,103.00 1,477,343.00 4,557,760.00 245 MR DABIRI ABAYOMI 3,191,450.00 755,998.00 2,435,452.00 246 MRS KESA ADEBUKONLA 1,023,064.14 254,154.00 768,910.14 247 MR OLUSEGUN AUGUSTINE 2,533,301.68 317,261.00 2,216,040.68 248 MR ADEYEMI MUKAILA 2,402,937.68 300,503.00 2,102,434.68 249 MRS QUADRI BUKONLA 439,732.26 62,132.00 377,600.26 250 MRS BANJOKO FUNMILAYO 227,262.04 93,554.00 133,708.04 251 MR AWOSILE OLANIYI 217,885.98 223,484.00 1,948,401.98 252 MR SANNI SAMUSIDEEN AINA 217,885.98 131,320.00 2,040,565.98 253 MR AKPU CLETUS 217,885.98 272,189.00 1,899,696.98 254 MRS OGUNTIMEHIN HELEN 402,896.74 59,478.00 361,418.74 f) AN ORDER mandating the 1st – 5th Defendants to pay to the Claimants respectively the amounts stated against each of the Claimants [sic] as outstanding balance of their terminal benefits computed in line with their conditions of service. g) Interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of this suit until judgment is delivered, thereafter, interest at 10% per annum until judgment sum is liquidated. Against the above, the 4th – 5th defendants and the 6th defendant filed their respective Statement of Defence. The 4th – 5th defendants’ Amended Statement of Defence was filed on the 10th June, 2014 while the 6th defendant filed its own on the 19th June, 2012. The 1st – 3rddefendants did not file any defence and were not represented throughout in spite of repeated service of hearing notices on them throughout the duration of the case. The case was subsequently opened on the 30th May 2013. The claimants called only one witness: Abdul Ope Oluwasegun – CLW1. After the initial preliminaries, DW1 testified that he was at the time the testimony unemployed. He testified further that he knew all the claimants in the case and that they were members of staff of Gateway Hotels Abeokuta, Ota, and Ijebu-Ode. He said he swore to a witness statement on oath dated 16/07/12 and filed same day. He tendered the witness statement on oath as his evidence in the case which was admitted without objection and marked as EXHIBIT CLW1 – 29. The case was adjourned at this juncture to 23/07/13 for continuation. But the case subsequently came up 19th July, 2013 but could not go on as the defendants’ counsel was not around. Case came up next on the 19th September, 2013. CLW1 continued with his testimony. CWL1 applied to tender the following further documents without objection and they were admitted as: 1. A bundle of documents which contains the claimants’ letters of appointment, confirmation letters and certificates of employment was marked as EXHIBIT CLWBDA1 – CLWBDA266; 2. Another bundle of documents containing the Claimants’ letters of retirement titled claimants’ documents to be relied on vol. 2 dated November 10, 2008 marked as EXHIBIT CWLBDB1 – CWLBDB210; and 3. Another bundle of documents titled claimants’ documents to be relied on Vol. 3 dated 10th November, 2008 was marked as EXHIBIT CWBDC1 – CWBDC28. CW1 thereafter asked the Court to use these documents to give judgments in favour of the claimants. The case was subsequently adjourned to 11th November, 2013. The case came up as adjourned on the 11th of November, 2013 for cross examination. Under cross examination by Mrs. Obienu, CW1 said he worked with Gateway Hotel Abeokuta between 1996 and 2007. He said the employer was Gateway Hotel Abeokuta. He said there was nothing like there was a time the Gateway Hotels were not functioning properly. He said there was no time the Gateway Hotels were not paying staff salaries. He replied that there was nothing like saying few months to when they were issued with their letters of retirement salaries were not paid. He also replied that there was never a review committee but rather there was a privatisation committee set up by the Government of Ogun State. He admitted that he belonged to a trade union. He said initially he was a member of the Hotels Services Workers but that he became a member of the Senior Staff [HAPSSA]. He replied further under cross examination that he was not aware of both senior and junior workers becoming members of the privatisation committee. He admitted knowing one comrade Dele Dada and that he was the former Organising Secretary of [HAPSSA]. He replied that comrade Dele Dada was never an employee of Gateway Hotels but was rather the Secretary of the Senior Staff Association called [HAPSSA]. He replied that prior to the retirement of the claimants comrade Dele Dada was working with the [HAPSSA] Headquarters as Secretary.He admitted knowing Prince S.O. Odusote. He said he was the Organising Secretary of the [HAPSSA] in the Ogun State Council. He said they were only told that comrade Dele Dada and S.O. Odusote were invited for a meeting and nothing like agreement was reached at the said meeting. He said it was just once. He said policemen were present both armed and in mufti when the management of Gateway Hotels were giving the indemnity letters to sign. He said further that they signed under duress. He said in Gateway Hotels Abeokuta alone, they could count up to 120 policemen and that same applied to Gateway Hotels Ota and Ijebu-Ode. He further said that people were given cheques. He retorted that no, policemen did not follow the staff to the Banks to cash their cheques. He said the staffers were paid three times in installments without following the conditions of service. He said the handbook is the conditions of service of both junior and senior staff that he has referred to and that it is between representative of the Union and the representatives of Government that were running the Hotels. Thus ended the cross examination by Mrs. Obienu. Mr. Williams thereafter took his turn to cross examine CW1.CW1 said he was not aware that the Gateway Hotels were concessioned [sic] to the 6th defendant but that they heard that the Gateway Hotels were concessioned without carrying the staff along. He said he is aware of the person who is currently managing the three Gateway Hotels. He said they did not have any claim against the 6th defendant. At this point the cross examination by Mr. Williams was brought to an end. The case was thereafter adjourned to 13/01/14 for further hearing. The case however came up next on the 14th of February 2014.The 4th – 5th defendants opened their defence with DW1: Ismail Oyede. DW1 said he is a civil servant with Gateway Holdings Ltd. He said he is the Chief Finance Officer of the company. At this juncture the examination-in-chief was interrupted by the announcement of the appearance of counsel to the claimants and her team. The examination-in-chief thereafter continued. He said he was the officer in respect of the concession of Gateway Hotels. At this point he tendered his witness statement on oath without objection and it was admitted and marked as EXHIBIT DW – DWC.He thereafter also tendered the following documents without objection: 1. The Review of Report on Privatization of Gateway Holdings marked as Exhibit DW2 – DW20; 2. Summary of Payment Analysis dated 7th June, 2012 marked as Exhibit DWWA – DWWA; 3. Summary of Payment Analysis Gateway Hotels, Abeokuta dated 7th June, 2012 marked as Exhibit DWWB – DWWB-184; and 4. Summary of Payment Analysis Gateway Hotels, Ijebu-Ode dated 7th June, 2012 marked as Exhibit DWWC – DWWC134. At this stage, the examination-in-chief was brought to a close with the witness urging the Court to use the documents tendered to give judgment in favour of the 4th and 5th defendants. The case thereafter proceeded to cross examination by Mrs. Anyanwu for the claimants. He replied that presently he is the chief finance officer of the 6th defendant. He said the review committee was set up to look into and make recommendations on how to treat the retirement benefits of the workers. He said the report of the committee is Exhibit DWW as a whole. He said there was no agreed amount of percentage of terminal benefits to be paid the workers as retirement benefits. He said the computation was done based on the workers conditions of service. He replied that a committee was further set up to negotiate with the workers on their terminal benefits. He said the report of the negotiating committee is not before this Court. He said they have paid up to 75% of the negotiated agreement. He agreed that the balance of the amount computed by the defendants was to be paid on or before 31/08/09 and that the balance has not been paid. He agreed that the 4th defendant still owes the claimants the amount stated in the indemnity clause. He said the 75% so far paid to the claimants were paid in cheques. At this stage, the cross examination by the counsel to the claimants was brought to an end. Cross examination by the counsel to the 6th defendant, Mr. Olusegun Williams commenced. DW1 replied that he was aware that the Gateway Hotels Ijebu-Ode has been concessioned to the 6thdefendant; and that the concession is for 25 years from year 2009. He said he is aware that the 6th defendant is in possession of Gateway Hotels Ijebu-Ode. He said he is aware that there is a concession agreement between the 6th defendant as a party and the 4th and 5th defendants as the other parties. He said it is the 4th defendant that is responsible for the payment of the terminal benefits of the Gateway Hotel workers. He said he agreed that the 6th defendant is not to be responsible for the payment of the terminal benefits of Gateway Staff – the claimants. The cross examination was brought to an end and case adjourned to 28/03/14 in the absence of re-examination for the 6th defendant. The case however came up next on the 5th June 2014. On this date the counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants applied to move her motion on notice to recall their sole witness and amend their Statement of Defence. This motion was not opposed by the counsel to the claimants. It was granted in its entirety. The claimants were also consequently allowed to effect consequential amendment to their pleadings and recall their own sole witness. The case was thereafter adjourned to 2nd July 2014 for further hearing. The case came up as adjourned on the 2nd of July, 2014. DW1 was recalled by counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants.DW1 stated that on the 10th of June, 2014 he swore to a Further Witness Statement on Oath. Same was tendered and admitted without objection as EXHIBIT DWWD – DWWD5.The following documents were also tendered and admitted without objection: 1. A bundle of documents with A/C 0011200/30191 Gateway Hotel Ibara, Abeokuta dated 29 February, 2008 – 31 January 2014 marked as Exhibit DWWEI – DWWE140; 2. A bundle of documents with A/C 0011200/31671 Gateway Hotel, Ota dated 30 April 2008 – 31 January 2014 marked as Exhibit DWWF1 – DWWF179; and 3. A bundle of documents with A/C 001200/38631 Gateway Hotel, Ijebu-Ode dated 31 October 2008 – 31 January, 2014 marked as Exhibit DWWG1 – DWWG352. At this stage, the examination-in-chief was brought to an end; and the cross examination resumed by Mrs. Anyanwu for the claimants. DW1 said he agreed that in the documents already admitted some payments had been made to the claimants but that there were still outstanding payments to be made. The cross examination by Mrs. Anyanwu was brought to an end. Mr. Olusegun Williams for the 6th defendants did no cross examine the witness; and there was equally no re-examination. The case of the 4th and 5th defendants was therefore closed. The case was subsequently adjourned to 30/07/14 for the 6th defendant to open its case. However the case came up next on the 11th November 2014. Counsel to the 6th defendant opened the case with DW6: Mr. Taiwo Ayanbayo. He said he is a legal practitioner and works with Equity Assurance PLC as the head of legal service. The witness statement on oath deposed to by the witness on 19/06/12 was tendered without objection and admitted as EXHIBIT DWWH – DWW3. Photocopy of the concession agreement between the 4th& 5th and 6th defendants dated 17th February, 2014 was also tendered, admitted without objection and marked as Exhibit DWWJ – DWWJ29. DW6 continued his testimony by saying that he knew Gateway Hotel Ijebu-Ode and that the 6th defendant is in possession of it. At this stage, the examination-in-chief was brought to an end. Mrs. Anyawu did not cross examine the witness and neither did Miss Lawal for the 4th and 5th defendants. The case of the 6th defendants was thereafter closed. And the case was adjourned to 26/01/15 for adoption of final written addresses. However, the case came up next on the 15th of April, 2015. The counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants, Mrs. Odiri adopted and moved their final written address dated 8th February, 2015 and filed on the 9th February, 2015. Thereafter the counsel to the claimants adopted and moved their final written address dated 14th April, 2015 and filed same day. Thereafter counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants asked for 7 days to file their reply on points of law since they were served right inside the Court by the claimants; and this prayer was granted by the Court. The 6th defendant did not file any final written address. Case was subsequently adjourned to 02/06/15 for judgment. Let me now go on to summarise the final written address of the 4th and 5th defendants being the first in time. In arguing the case, the counsel formulated three issues which are reproduced verbatim hereunder: 1. WHETHER THIS SUIT QUALIFIES AS A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED BY THE 64TH PLAINTIFF ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS. [sic] 2. IF THE FIRST ISSUE IS POSITIVELY RESOLVED WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMON INTEREST AND COMMON GRIEVANCIES [sic] 3. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO BE PAID IN ACCORDANCE TO THE TERMS IN THE JUNIOR HANDBOOK. [sic] ISSUES 1 & 2 1. WHETHER THIS SUIT QUALIFIES AS A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION HAVING REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED BY THE 64TH PLAINTIFF ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS? 2. IF THE FIRST ISSUE IS POSITIVELY RESOLVED WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE COMMON INTEREST AND COMMON GRIEVANCIES? Counsel argued issues No. 1 & 2 together. Counsel argued that in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs had different causes of action as shown in the different sums claimed this action was instituted jointly and severally and that as such the case amounts to misjoinder of parties. Counsel cited Hyson (Nigeria) Ltd v. Ijeoma& Sons &Ors. (2008) LPELR – 5159 (CA) and Sinurthwaite&Ors. v. Hannay (1894) AC 494 to the effect parties who had separate and distinct causes of action cannot join in one action. Counsel argued further that assuming parties in a situation like this can sue together; can they authorize one of them to give evidence on behalf of all? Counsel argued that plaintiffs conducted this action as a representative action in spite of the fact that it was not – counsel cited paragraph 3 of the claimants’ witness statement on oath which deposed that the witness had the authority of the other claimants to give evidence on their behalf as proof of his submission. Counsel submitted that as this action was conducted in representative capacity it should be treated as such. Counsel cited Oseni&Ors. v. Dawodu&Ors. (1994) LPELR – 2795 (SC). Counsel argued further that before an action can be prosecuted in a representative capacity it must satisfy the following conditions: 1. Interest must be same or common; 2. There must be a common grievance; and 3. The relief sought must be beneficial to all. Counsel went ahead to cite Koing Sythetic Fibre v. Ajibauo &Ors (2008) LPELR – 8648 (CA) on the legal principle that relief sought must be beneficial to all. Counsel argued that the non-commonality of the plaintiffs’ interest is proved by the fact that different sums were individually claimed. Counsel cited Idise v. Williams (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt. 370) 142 and Ovensen&Ors. v. Sagiede&Anor (1998) LPELR – 2834 (SC) to the effect that representative action is only permissible if interest of the plaintiffs are common and there is authority to sue in such capacity. Counsel submitted that although Mr. Olusegun Ope had the authority to give evidence on behalf of all but the interests of the plaintiffs were not common as their claims vary. Counsel cited Ayinde v. Akanji (1988) LPELR – 676 (SC) on this score. On this account the Court was urged to dismiss the suit. Counsel thereafter moved to the 3rd issue as formulated. Issue 3 WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO BE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS IN THE JUNIOR HANDBOOK? Counsel submitted that in the statement of defence of the 4th and 5th defendants in paragraphs 5 – 17it was pleaded that both parties had agreed to the settlement of the terminal benefits as indicated in the indemnities signed by all the claimants and have waived their rights to claim in accordance with the Gateway Junior Workers Handbook. Counsel submitted that the claimants had denied the above averments in their pleading by claiming that they signed under duress as armed policemen were stationed around. Counsel submitted that assuming the claimants were forced as alleged could the force still have continued to operate when they went from their various homes to cash the various cheques presented to them in banks? Counsel submitted that the evidence adduced during cross examination was that they were not forced to go and cash these various cheques from banks. Counsel therefore submitted that by conduct they had agreed to the sums stated in the various indemnities [Exhibits DWW1 – DWW25, DWWB1 – DWWB184, and DWWC1 – DWWC124) by cashing the cheques, and as such waived their rights to claim in accordance with the Gateway Hotels Limited Junior Staff Handbook 2005. Counsel cited Auto Import Export v. Adebayo (2005) LPELR – 642 (SC); NBCI v. Integrated Gas (Nigeria) Ltd (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 916) 617; Bullens and Jacobs 23rd Edition at 1455; United Calabar & Cov. Elder Dempster Lines Ltd (1972) ALL NLR 681; BremarHandelsgeseUschattmbhv. Vaden-AvenneIzegem (1978) 2 Lloyds rep. 109; Levey& Co. v. Goldberg (1922) 1 KB 688; and Charles Richards Ltd v. Oppheim (1950) 1 KB 616 on the definition and meaning of waiver. Counsel therefore submitted that though the claimants said they were forced to sign the indemnities the fact that they all withdrew the monies contained in the cheques given to them showed that they have waived their rights and cannot insist on being paid in accordance with the Gateway Junior Staff Handbook. Counsel submitted further that the fact that the claimants were not forced to sign the documentary evidence contained in indemnities is proved by the CW1 who testified that the claimants were not forced to go the banks to withdraw the monies. Counsel submitted that where there is conflict in documentary evidence the law is that this could be resolved via documentary evidence that supports one of the affidavits and that the conflict in the affidavits of the 4th& 5th defendants and that of the claimants on the issue of duress could be thus resolved. Counsel cited Atungwu&Anor v. Ochekwu (2013) LPELR – 20935 (SC). Counsel finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit. I now come to the final written address of the claimants. Counsel to the claimants formulated 4 issues to wit: a) Whether given the circumstances of this case, the indemnity agreement signed by the claimants respectively on the 10th November, 2008 are still binding on them. [sic] b) Whether the Claimants are entitled to be paid their terminal benefits in line with their condition of service. [sic] c) Whether the Claimants suit is properly before this Honorable Court. [sic] d) Whether the Claimants brought their suit in a representative capacity. [sic] Issue No. 1 Whether given the circumstances of this case, the indemnity agreement signed by the claimants respectively on the 10th November, 2008 are still binding on them? Counsel commenced his arguments by submitting that where time is of essence in a contract and a party fails to perform within the stipulated time, the contract becomes voidable at the instance of the innocent party. He referred to Saka v. Ijuh (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 405 at 427 and Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Min. FCT (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192). Counsel submitted that the agreement which the 4th and 5th defendants made with the claimants was that the percentages stated therein would be paid on or before the 31st August 2009 and that up till now the 1st to 5th defendants are yet to pay the outstanding balance. Counsel argued that evidence on this was not denied by the 4th and 5th defendants. He submitted that the 4th and 5th defendants only said the inadequate amount agreed upon were the sacrifice the claimants agreed to make in view of the misfortune of the company. He submitted that they only stated that the outstanding balances have not been paid due to financial constraints faced by the 4th defendant. Counsel submitted that the stipulated time of 31st of August 2009 is of essence of the agreement. Counsel submitted that what is admitted needs no further proof and that since the 4th and 5th defendants admitted not paying the balance within the stipulated 31st August 2009 they have admitted the breach of fundamental term of the contract; and as such the claimants are at liberty to rescind the contract. Counsel argued that consequently, parties are discharged of their respective remaining obligations in the said agreement. Counsel argued that the excuse that the failure to honour the agreement is due to financial constraints is of no moment and that more so, the defendants have not shown to this Court that the 4th defendant is bankrupt. Issue No. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to be paid their terminal benefits in line with their condition of service? Counsel argued that since the defendants having failed to honour the agreement by failing to pay up by 31st August 2009 as agreed the claimants are discharged from the obligations under the new contract and having rescinded from same, are now entitled to fall back on their original agreement as contained in the Junior Staff Handbook. Counsel argued that the relevant clauses of the Handbook are clauses 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5. Counsel argued further that the law is that where a contract is in writing, the parties are bound by the terms. He cited Ezekiel v. Westminster Dredging Nig. Ltd (2006) 5 NLLR (Pt. 13) 392 at 403. Counsel argued that the 4th and 5thdefendants are therefore bound to pay the terminal benefits as stipulated in the conditions of service. Counsel referred to Exhibit DWWJ1 – DWWJ29 (the concession agreement) clause 12.2.1 which puts the obligation of paying the retirement benefits of the 1st – 3rd defendants employees. Counsel submitted that all the arguments canvassed on the waiver of the claimants’ right and the authorities cited were grossly misconceived on the issues involved in the case. Counsel submitted that the case of the claimants is that they agreed to be paid the agreed sums on or before the 31st August 2009 and that failure of the defendants to comply with this time essence amounted to breach of a fundamental term of the contract and thus rendered the contract voidable; upon the claimants’ repudiation of same, they asserted their original rights. Counsel submitted that there is no shreds of evidence that showed that the claimant at any time waived their rights to be paid the agreed negotiated sums and that therefore all authorities cited go to no issue. Counsel submitted that the claimants are not disputing that payments have been made to them but are only asking that their entitlements be computed in accordance with their conditions of service and the balance after deducting the amounts so far paid be paid over to them. Counsel thereafter moved to his issue No. 3. Issue No. 3 Whether the Claimants’ suit is properly before this Honourable Court? Counsel submitted that the arguments of the counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants on the issue of misjoinder of parties and causes of action is misconceived on the ground of not being abreast of the sui generis nature of this Court and the numerous decisions of the Court that such joinder as done by the claimants herein are not bad and are permitted by this Court. To buttress his point counsel cited numerous decisions of this Court on the issue. These are: 1. Asinobi v. Nigerian Breweries Plc (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt. 60) 489 at 491 particularly at 517; 2. Fadairo&Ors v. Lagos Building Investment Company Ltd (unreported) Suit No. NIC/28/2007 Judgment delivered 2nd April, 2009; 3. Ogboso&Ors. v. Deli Foods Nig. Ltd &Anor. (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt. 58) 133; 4. Captain Oghide& 14 Ors. v. Jason Air Ltd &Anor (2010) 21 NLLR (Pt. 58) at 124; and 5. Akinyinka&Anor v. Moretime CO2 Gas Plant Ltd (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 50) 242. Counsel submitted that it is very clear in the instant case that: a. all the claimants signed the indemnity agreement in issue which the 4th and 5th defendants breached by failure to comply with the stipulated time therein; b. All the claimants consequently repudiated the indemnity agreement; and c. All the claimants now desire to be paid based on their original conditions of service as provided in the Handbook. Counsel submitted that arising from the foregoing all the claimants have common interest, common grievance and similar reliefs and that the same question of law is to be determined if different suits were commenced by the claimants. Counsel submitted that the only difference that exists in the instant case relates to differences in the financial entitlements of each and every one of them; and that this is not significant enough to make the joinder bad as it does not affect the substance of the case.Counsel argued that section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 [NICA] supports what the claimants herein have done in that it enjoins the Court to avoid all things that could lead to multiplicity of actions. Counsel submitted that if separate actions were to be commenced the resultant effect would be grave multiplicity of suits which could have been tried together at once. On the basis of this, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants on the issue of misjoinder. Thereafter, counsel moved to issue no. 4. Issue No. 4 Whether the claimants brought their suit in a representative capacity? Counsel argued that the submissions of counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants on the issue of representative capacity are grossly misconceived. Counsel submitted that it is clear that 255 named persons as listed in the complaint commenced this action in their individual right and that no unnamed person has been included as being represented. Counsel also submitted that no leave of court was obtained to commence this action as is wont in a representative action. Counsel argued that this being so, the suit as presently constituted is not a representative action. Counsel argued further that the issue being made out of the fact that only one witness testified for all the claimants is a no starter as the law does not prescribe the number of witnesses to testify to prove a case. On this score counsel cited Onowhosa v. Odiuzo (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 173 at 183.Counsel submitted further that the fact that the claimants who all have common grievance and similar reliefs called only one witness to testify on these commonalities does not make the action a representative one nor does it detract from the probative value of the sole witness. Counsel therefore urged the Court to discountenance the arguments of the learned counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants on this issue. Counsel finally urged the Court to give judgment in favour of the claimants. Thus, the claimants’ final written address comes to an end. I shall now move to the written reply address of the 4th and 5th defendants on points of law. Reply on Points of Law Counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants commenced arguments on the reply on points of law by conceding that the claimants are at liberty to rescind the indemnities for failure to comply with the time limitation and claim for their terminal benefits in line with their original conditions of service but that the snag here is that the 4th and 5th defendants were not parties to the agreement which was individually entered into with the 1st – 3rd defendants; and that as such, the 4th and 5th defendants cannot be made to follow the original terms and conditions being claimed at the moment. Counsel argued that the doctrine of privity prescribes that only parties to a contract have obligations and rights arising from the contract. Counsel cited Makwe v. Nwukor (2001) LPELR – 1839 (SC). Counsel argued that therefore the 4th and 5th defendants are not compellable to pay the claimants’ terminal benefits as they were not parties to this original agreement [conditions of service]. On this, counsel referred to Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. &Anor v. Enemaku&Anor. (2012) LPELR – 9253 (CA). Counsel argued further that the argument of counsel to the claimants that because clause 12:2:1 of the Concessioning Agreement thrusts the obligation of paying the accrued rights to the claimants it extends to letter of employment which prescribe that benefits would be paid in line with the conditions of service that this contention cannot hold. Counsel argued that it cannot hold because the right to claim in accordance with the conditions of service has been waived by all the claimants; and hence can no longer be resuscitated. Counsel further argued that it was because the three hotels in issue had failed and could not pay the claimants’ benefits that the 4th and 5th defendants negotiated and entered into fresh agreement with the claimants – the indemnity agreements. Counsel argued the proper order the claimants should have asked on this new contract is that of specific performance of it and not to resuscitate the terms of the conditions of service. On this, counsel cited Ibekwe v. Nwosu (2011) LPELR – 1391 (SC) at 13, paras. D – E. Counsel finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit of the claimants in its entirety. I have most painstakingly summarised the final written addresses of the parties to this action. I have also carefully perused all the relevant documents and exhibits relating to the case. I have also carefully digested the contentions of counsel. In resolving the disputes, I adopt the following issues formulated by the 4th and 5th defendants’ counsel but in a slightly modified form: 1. Whether this suit qualifies as a representative action having regards to the fact that evidence was adduced by the 64th plaintiff on behalf of the other plaintiffs? 2. Whether the plaintiffs waived their right to be paid their terminal benefits? I shall now take the two issues seriatim. Issue No. 1 Whether this suit qualifies as a representative action having regards to the fact that evidence was adduced by the 64th plaintiff on behalf of the other plaintiffs? Without wasting much time on this issue, I agree entirely with the counsel to the claimants that the fact that the claimants all called only one witness to testify for all of them does not turn this action into a representative one. InOtapo v. Sunmonu&Ors.[1987] LPELR – 2822 [SC] at 29, paras. A – E the Supreme Court has this to say on how to identify a representative action: A representative plaintiff is the sole plaintiff and is Dominus litis judgment, he can discontinue, compromise, submit to dismissal and other things as he decides during the course of the proceedings. If he falls out with the represented parties for any reason, the court has power to add or substitute any person represented though unnamed in the representative action and bring in as at the date of the original writ… Where several sue, they have the like power as single representative plaintiff but they must act together… From the above, it is as clear as daylight that the claimants’ action herein si not a representative action. Claimants have sued jointly and severally only calling one witness to give evidence in their favour. It has since become trite that cases are not won on prolixity of witnesses called but rather on the cogency and relevance of the evidence adduced by the parties – see Agbi&Anor v. Ogbeh&Ors. [2006] LPELR – 240 [SC] at 50, paras. B – C.In this particular case, it must be stressed that the pieces of evidence in this suit are all documentary. It must equally be noted that the hard facts of the case are not disputed at all. What in dispute is the applicable law to these agreed facts. So, all that the claimants needed to do was to get their frontloaded documents tendered before the Court and this they have done through their sole witness. I therefore hold that this action is not a representative action. Issue No. 2 Whether the plaintiffs waived their right to be paid their terminal benefits? This issue essentially raises the question of what is the nature of the new agreement reached by the parties to this action [the concession agreement] on the settlement of the terminal benefits of the claimants. Essentially the parties agreed that the terminal benefits of all the claimants were originally supposed to be paid in accordance with the Handbook containing their conditions of service. They are also agreed that original sums were negotiated downwards on the condition that these were paid on or before the 31st August, 2009. They are also agreed that part payment had been made but that the whole debts were not settled on the agreed date and till now. Though, the claimants have obliquely raised the issue of coercion, but this was not seriously pursued. As such, I cannot regard it as an area of divergence; and even if it is, my simple answer is that the acts of all the claimants in going to the banks to cash the various checks issued to them showed that they willingly entered into the indemnity agreements. The area of divergence is that while the claimants argued that the defendants having breached a fundamental term of the agreement and that as such they are entitled to repudiate and revert back to the original contract, the defendants are of the view that the claimants having entered into the concession agreement have created an entirely new contract and cannot therefore revert back to the old agreement in case of breach. These are the sacred facts of the dispute. It therefore becomes expedient to determine the nature of the subsequent agreement and the effect in law. These would answer the question of the rights and obligations of parties thereto. In doing this, I would therefore examine the following authorities. Julius Berger Nigeria Plc &Anor. V. Toki [2009)] LPELR – 4381 [CA] p. 30, paras. E – G the Court of Appeal has this to say on assignment of debts: Under common law, a debt or other legal thing in action includes the benefit of a contract or a debt arising out of contract from which payment was to be made at a future date. Such debt is capable of being assigned under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925… Furthermore it was held that the benefit of a contract is only assignable in cases where it can make no difference to the person on whom the obligation lies to which of two persons he is to discharge it. In Ashibuogwuv.The A-G, Bendel State &Anor [1988] LPELR – 578 [SC] pp. 38 – 40, paras. F – C, I found the following exposition of the law useful on the nature of the contract brought out by the facts of this case and the effect of the law thereof. The Supreme Court held that: If however, the parties to the contract have changed or can be said to have changed in the interim, the contract for the design of the NAL Headquarters would then be between the new parties to it and the obligation to pay for the work done will be on the new party to it. This is because of the concept Novation of contract. The meaning of Novation and its scope are stated as follows in Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Edition Volume 8 page 262 – 3:- “460. Meaning of novation. Novation is, in effect, a form of assignment in which, by the consent of all parties, a new contract is substituted for an existing contract. Usually, but not necessarily (c), a new person becomes party to the new contract, and some person who was party to the old contract is discharged from further liability. The introduction of a new party prevents the new contract from being a mere accord without satisfaction (p), and thus affords a defence to any action upon the old contract (q). For novation to ensue there must be not only the substitution of some other obligation for the original one, but also the intention or animus novandi (r)… 461. Consent essential. Since novation is a new contract, it is essential that the consent of all parties shall be obtained (b), and in this necessity for consent lies the essential difference between novation and assignment (c). Such consent may be inferred from conduct without express words… 462. Valuable consideration necessary. In addition to the consent of parties being obtained, it is necessary that the new contract should comply with all requirements of an original contract. There must, for example, be valuable consideration; but as a general rule the rescission of the former agreement of itself constitutes sufficient valuable consideration (h)… 463. Writing unnecessary. Since novation is a new contract, it follows that it need not be in writing as being a promise to answer for the debt of another, for the original debt no longer exists (i). Similarly, where the original contract was in writing, and before breach thereof a new oral contract has been entered into in substitution for it, evidence of such new oral contract may be admitted, for, the old contract being annulled, the new contract does not vary it (m), even though the new contract may adopt some of the provisions of the old one (o)” [Underlining for emphasis] In Unity Bank Plc v. Olatunji [2014) LPELR – 24027 [CA] pp. 45 – 46, paras. D – E, the Court of Appeal held thus: The term “novation” was defined by the Supreme Court in Union Beverages Ltd v. Owolabi [1988] 1NWLR [Pt. 68] 128 at 137 where Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC said: “A novation is a transaction whereby a new contract or new parties to a contract by consent of both parties express or implied is deemed to have been substituted for or with the one originally made, or a material part thereof is added to or materially amended.” …the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of novation thus: “The law is well settled that a later agreement by the parties to an original contract to extinguish the rights and obligations that the original contract has created is itself a binding contract, provided that the later agreement is either made under seal or is supported by consideration. Consideration raises no difficulty if the original contract sought to be extinguished is…still executory. This is because each party, by the later agreement, is deemed to have agreed to release his rights under the original contract in consideration of a similar release by the other. Such bilateral discharge may take the form of dissolution plus replacement. Thus, the parties may extinguish the original contract but substitute an entirely new agreement in its place. Now, on accord and satisfaction, the Supreme Court held thus: By express agreement, parties may agree that their contract be terminated and in that case their respective obligations are to be totally or partially discharged depending upon the terms of the agreement. If the original contract is wholly or partially executor, the consideration for the discharging agreement is the mutual release of liability; but if it has been completely performed by one party, his discharge of the other must be under seal or must take the form of accord and satisfaction supported by a fresh consideration.[See Chieke v. Olusoga&Anor (1997) LPELR – 845 (SC) pp. 10 – 11.Paras. G – C] From all the above cases, it appears that a distinction must be made between novation and accord and satisfaction. It would appear that accord and satisfaction must be between the same parties to the original contract and that its interest is in securing release of the parties from the obligations of the contract where the contract is executory but where one part has fully performed; its interest is in securing release from performance by the defaulting party; and in this, valuable consideration must move from the defaulting party to the other. In a way, accord and satisfaction is the purchase of release from the performance of the obligation of a contract. On the other hand, it would appear that the focus of novation is the substitution of the original contract with a new one either between the original parties or with another party added. The commonality between the two concepts is that where the prescribed conditions are met, the original contracts become extinguished. Now, coming to the bare facts of this case, what type of contract could be said to be in issue? It would appear to my mind that the contract presently in issue is ‘novation’. Why? A new party has been added to the contact in the person of the 4th defendant and a review of the original contract has been effected and replaced with the payment of a percentage of the original debt coupled with the understanding that the original debtors are released from further obligations on the original debts. The 4th defendant was by this new contract burdened with the responsibility of paying the claimants negotiated terminal benefits while the 1st – 3rd defendants are discharged of their original obligations to pay the claimants’ terminal benefits. It follows therefore that the old contract is no longer in existence. This makes the concession agreement an entirely new contract. I therefore agree with the contention of the counsel to the 4th and 5th defendant that there is an entirely new contract in the concession agreement; and I so hold. However, a distinction seemed to be made between an executory and executed contract on the effect either would produce on the validity of the novation. What can be deduced is that where the original contract is still executory, no problem arises; the new contract produces consideration in its mutual discharge of both parties. However, where one party has wholly executed its own part of the contract, fresh consideration needs to be furnished to make the novation valid. The Supreme Court gave inkling to a possible solution when it held that “The introduction of a new party prevents the new contract from being a mere accord without satisfaction (p), and thus affords a defence to any action upon the old contract” – see the underlined portion in the quotation from Ashibuogwu’s case [supra]. Thus, the plain implication of this is that consideration is supplied by the new party introduced into the novation and this is a complete answer to any attempt to fall back on the old contract. This is the decision of the highest court of the land and this Court is bound by compulsion under the doctrine of stare decisis. I therefore agree with the counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants that the claimants are estopped from falling back on the old contract; and I so hold. Now, the last question to answer is: what is the effect of repudiation of the novation by the claimants or rather, what is the remedy to the claimants on default of the 4th and 5th defendants in paying the debts in full within the agreed time frame and till date? Guidance is to be found in the following authorities: Commissioner for Works, Benue State &Anor v. Devcom Development Consultants Ltd &Anor [1988] LPELR – 884 [SC] p. 22, paras. B –D where the Supreme Court held that: Repudiation occurs when a party by words or conduct conveys to the other party that he no longer intends to honour his obligations in the agreement when they fall due. Repudiation which may either be express or implicit operates as an immediate breach and discharges the person repudiating from his obligations in the contract. And Olaniyan&Ors v. Unilag&Anor [1985] LPELR – 2565 [SC] p. 53, paras. E – F, where the Supreme Court held that: It is trite enough that wrongful repudiation of a contract does not, in general, determine the contract. It is for the innocent party to decide whether he will regard the contract as at an end and seek redress by way of damages, or whether he will regard the contract as subsisting and call for performance in accordance with the contractual terms. The facts of this case are not in dispute at all, what is in dispute is the applicable principles of law. It is also gratifying to note that the counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants conceded in his final written address the fact that they are in breach of the term of the novation by failing to pay within the stipulated time and up till the moment. Counsel also conceded the fact that the claimants are entitled to sue for specific performance of the novation. It is also clear from the bare facts of the case that the sums in disputes under both the original contract and the subsequent novation are liquidated sums. In Maja v. Samouris [2002] LPELR – 1824 [SC] pp. 21 – 22, paras. F – Cthe Supreme Court said: A liquidated demand is a debt or other specific sum of money usually due and payable and its amount must be already ascertained or capable of being ascertained as a mere matter of arithmetic without any other or further investigation. Whenever, therefore, the amount to which a plaintiff is entitled can be ascertained by calculation or fixed by any scale of charges or other positive data, it is said be ‘liquidated’ or made clear.[Underling for emphasis] Under the original contract, the terminal benefits are calculable by the scale provided in the Handbook of the 1st – 3rd defendants while under the second agreement, the amounts in issue have been worked out in the concession agreements. In either case, they are liquidated sums. In Maja’s case [supra] at the underlined portion of the quotation, the Supreme Court held that“A liquidated demand is a debt or other specific sum of money usually due and payable…” It would therefore appear that the effect of repudiation on a liquidated sum is constant and does not vary. It is only executory contract that the parties can make a choice between suing for specific performance and mere damages. In the case of liquidated sums, the debt already falls due and is payable and the claimants are by law constantly entitled to an order of specific performance of the duty to pay the debts that already fall due and payable. The word payable is defined at p. 1165 of the Black's Law Dictionary [8th Edition] as “(… a sum of money or negotiable instrument) that is to be paid.” Thus, the payment of liquidated sums must always be enforced by specific performance. The novation has specified the amount to which each and every of the claimants are entitled under the concession agreement. It is agreed between the parties that part of the sums have been paid each and every of the claimants while certain portions remain unpaid for each and every of the claimants. Since this Court has held that the claimants are not entitled to fall back on the original agreement by reason of the novation, it follows that they must be entitled to the remainder of the novation sums remaining unpaid to each and every one of the claimants; and I so hold. I therefore refuse to grant any of the reliefs (a) – (f) sought by the claimants in the suit as they are more than what they are entitled to or they are not the proper reliefs to claim as borne out by the facts of this case. In an instance as this, what happens? Are the claimants not going to be granted any reliefs? These questions devolve on the evidence before the Court. First, the law is that a relief to which a party is entitled is not going to be denied him simply because it was claimed under the wrong law or wrongly claimed – see Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria v. Okonedo [2007] LPELR – 8198 [CA] at 39, paras. D – G where the Court of Appeal correctly stated the principle of law thus: The law is now trite that, where there is a cause of action and a relief is properly claimed, the plaintiff cannot be refused it simply because he has applied for it under a wrong law. …Therefore a claimant who has established a legally recognised injury cannot be turned back on the ground that he has wrongly stated the head of law under which he is seeking a remedy. There is absolutely no doubt that the 4th and 5th defendants are indebted to the claimants herein by failing/neglecting to pay up the balances payable to each and every one of them under the concession agreement at the agreed date of 29th August, 2009 and up till date. This fact has even been conceded in their counsel’s final written address. What is admitted needs no further proof. It is also abundantly clear that the claimants erroneously claimed under the original contract under a wrong apprehension of the law that as a result of the breach they are entitled to repudiate and claim their original entitlements. But within this, it is no doubt clear that the claimants are claiming for their entitlements under the contract in issue. So they cannot be denied these entitlements simply because they claimed them under the wrong law; that is, under accord and satisfaction instead of novation. Besides, a court of law has the vires to grant a relief even if not claimed provided a statute gives it such power – see Raji v. The State[2012] LPELR – 7968 [CA] at 78 – 79, paras. G – D where principle was thus espoused: The appellant, stoutly, argued that the relief of restitution, granted, by dint of the provision, was not claimed so that the lower court lacked the vires to award it. What I have highlighted or ex-rayed above takes adequate care of that sterling submission. … Moreover, the principle of law that a court, not being a santaclaus, cannot dish out unsolicited claims to parties is, perhaps, unknown to the appellant, is riddle with exceptions. One of such qualifications, that is germane here, is that a court is vested with the jurisdiction to grant an unclaimed, relief suo motu when it is provided in an enactment. What the lower court did is a quintessence of this exception to unclaimed relief in adjudication. I have no reason to fault it. Section of 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 gives this Court the undoubted power to grant any appropriate relief to which a party seemed entitled even if not claimed.The Supreme Court has equally held in Ameachi v. INEC &Ors. [2001] LPELR – 446 [SC] at 113, paras. A – B that: It is the law even where a person has not specifically asked for a relief from a court, the court has the power to grant such relief as a consequential relief. A consequential order must be one made giving effect to the judgment which follows. It is not an order made subsequent to a judgment which derails from the extraneous judgment… The Supreme Court has also held in Dingyadi&Anor v. INEC &Ors. [2010] LPELR – 951[SC] at 53, paras. D – F that: A consequential order is not an order which is merely incidental to a decision, but one necessarily flowing directly and naturally from it and inevitably consequent. It must be closely related to the substantive relief claimed. The main reliefs claimed by the claimants are to be found in paragraphs (c) – (e) of their reliefs. The gravamen of these reliefs is that the claimants should be paid their terminal entitlements though under the Junior Staff Handbook. The Court has found that they are entitled to terminal benefits but not under the Junior Staff Handbook but instead under the Concession Agreements; the amounts under the concession agreements being lower than the amounts under the Junior Staff Handbook. Thus, the court is entitled to consequently order that they be paid the terminal entitlements the evidence before the Court shows they are entitled to even though lower than what is claimed. While a court of law cannot award more than is claimed, it definitely can award less than is claimed – see Olowu v. Building Stock Ltd [2003] LPELR – 7286 [CA] at 20, paras. D – G. Thus, where the Court does this, it is a consequential order flowing directly from the main relief. By relief (g) of the claimants’ reliefs, the claimants are claiming 21% prejudgment interest rates and 10% post-judgment interest rates. In resolving the question raised in this relief I find guidance in Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Company Ltd &Anor [2009] LPELR – 939 [SC] at 29, paras. D – G wherein, the Supreme Court espoused the principle of law relating to the award of prejudgment interest on debts in the following words: …the general rule at Common Law, is that interest is not payable on a debt or loan in the absence of express agreement or some course of dealing or custom to that effect. … Thus, interest would however be payable where there is an express agreement to that effect and such an agreement, may be inferred from a course of dealing between the parties. Further in this case, the Supreme Court also espoused the law in relation to post-judgment interest rates at 30 – 31,paras G – Cas follows: Also settled, is that it is not in every case that evidence has to be adduced in respect of interest claimed before interest is awarded. That is certain case, even failure to claim, will not preclude a successful plaintiff, from praying for and being awarded interest after judgment had been entered for an amount… I am also aware that the general rule, is that monetary judgment, attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed. Flowing from the above, it is clear that the claimants are not entitled to a pre-judgment interest rate as claimed, being that the main claim is a debt and, there is no evidence showing that there is any agreement as to interest between the parties and there is no proof of any custom to that effect in respect of the transaction between the parties in this suit. However, they are definitely entitled to post-judgment interest which they have claimed, in that this is a monetary judgment which ordinarily attracts interest rates even in the absence of a claim to that effect. I therefore firmly hold that the claimants are entitled to post-judgment interest. Based on my reasoning above and the authorities cited, it is hereby ordered that: 1. All the claimants without exception be paid the outstanding remainders of their terminal benefits yet unpaid in accordance with the Concession Agreements, also called, Indemnity Agreements/Clauses, dated 10th November, 2008[Exhibits DWW1 – DWW25, DWWB1 – DWWB184, and DWWC1 – DWWC124); and 2. All the claimants without exception are also entitled to post-judgment interest rates at 10% from the date of this judgment until all the judgments sums are fully liquidated. This shall be the judgment of the Court. ……………………………………. Hon. Justice B.A. Adejumo, OFR President, National Industrial Court of Nigeria