Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos –His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos on Tuesday 12th February 2019 in a landmark judgment dismissed suit filed by Peter Yinkore & 73 Ors (claimants) against Neconde Energy Limited and The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (1st and 2nd Defendants) for lacking merit, ordered claimants to pay the sum of Three Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (N370,000) to the defendants as cost of action within 30 days.
The claimants sought against the defendants jointly and severally among others; A declaration that the 1st defendant is in breach of the contract of employment entered into with the claimants by failing to pay them their salaries since March 2012 till date. A declaration that the purported letter headed “CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT” which the 1st defendant asked the claimants to sign before being paid their March 2012 salary is in violation of their contract of employment.
An order of court compelling the 1st defendant to pay the claimants all the benefits accruing from the contract of employment, been (sic) salaries, medical benefits, value of status car and grant (to those entitled to it), relocation expenses from Warri (for those affected) and all other emolument from March 2012 until the 31st December 2013 been (sic) the agreed minimum period of two years of continuous employment covered by the agreement entered into.
An order of general and exemplary damages against both defendants in the sum of Five Hundred Million Naira (N500,000,000) per claimant for misrepresentation and willful deceit.
To the claimants’ they were employees of the 2nd defendant until the 31st December 2011. That sometime in the year 2011, the 2nd defendant decided and reached an agreement to sell to the 1st defendant its interest in OML 42 and Pursuant to that agreement, the claimants were selected with 41 others making a total of 115 and divested along with the facility so that they will operate the facility (OML42), for the 1st defendant. That the claimants were guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd defendants of continuous employment for a minimum of two years, at a meeting with the management of the 1st defendant and were formally introduced to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant.
That it was based on these assurances that the claimants accepted to severe their relationship with the 2nd defendant reluctantly. That in accordance with the terms and conditions of service and collective agreements applicable with the 2nd defendant, the claimants are entitled to receive between 14% to 35% of their annual basic salary, multiplied by the numbers of years of service left unserved till their retirement age of sixty years, up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) years, which is called Selected Voluntary Severance package (SVS).That the 2nd defendant failed to meet this obligation. That till date, the SVS has not been paid, instead an exgratia payment was made which was at the 2nd defendant’s discretion.
At a meeting on 10th April 2012, with the Chief Operations Officer and Human Resources leadership team of the 1st defendant, attempted to distribute a letter titled “Cessation of Employment”, which the claimants refused to accept or sign for. The claimants insisted that there must be discussions and agreement as to terms of termination if there must be any, which must take into account the agreement reached at the time of employment.
Case of 1st defendant, By a Sales Purchase Agreement, the 2nd defendant transferred its entire interests in OML 42 to the 1st defendant and discussions was held with the labour unions to which all its employees (inclusive of the claimants) belonged, an agreement was reached and the claimants accepted the severance of their employments and payment of their terminal benefits.
Accordingly, the 2nd defendant computed and paid to each of the claimants their end of service and severance benefits, thus terminating the contracts of employment with all the claimants individually.
2nd defendant on his part maintained that the claimants have not disclosed any cause of action against the 2nd defendant since the principal reliefs sight from this Court are against the 1st, not 2nd, defendant.
Counsel to the first defendant submitted that considering the totality of the evidence of the 1st claimant before this Court, the claimants’ suit is incompetent and liable to be dismissed in its entirety that the witness statement on oath with the documents to be relied upon at the trial of this suit was filed, deposed to and stamped at the registry of the High Court of Delta State that has no affiliation whatsoever with this court that the claimants’ suit from the beginning was grossly incompetent, defective and in violation of the Rules of Procedure set out by this Court.
Furthermore, the claimants did not explain the basis for the claims and its computation, that the particularity of the claims were not even pleaded nor proved.
2nd defendant reiterated the submissions of the 1st defendant as to the processes of the claimants filed at the High Court of Justice, Ughello in Delta State that the affidavit sworn to at the High Court of Justice, Ughelli was not valid and incompetent to be used in this Court.
To the claimants, the 1st failed to adhere to the regulation made under statutory empowerment, that the approval of the Minster of Petroleum resources be obtained before Nigerian workers in the oil industry are released from employment.
That the 1st defendant predicated their argument on the provisions of Order 3 Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules of the National Industrial Court (NIC), whereas this action was filed under the 2007 Rules then applicable in NIC and the practice direction, 2012. That Order 3 Rule 9 of the 2017 Rules does not apply.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip held that the affidavit in support of the claimants’ motion having not been sworn to and filed in this Court is defective and so invalid for purposes of the claimant’s instant motion.
“I looked at the written statement on oath sworn to at Ughelli very closely. Nowhere on it was it stamped received by the NIC. Other than being in the case file, there is nothing on it showing that it was received by this Court, It bears no recent stamp of this Court whatsoever.
“This being so, there is no competent deposition in support of the claimants’ suit. The suit is accordingly incompetent and is liable to be struck out. It is herein struck out.” His Lordship declared.
On the whole, the court dismissed the case for lacking merit, ordered claimants to pay the sum of Three Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira (N370,000) to the defendants as the cost of action within 30 days.
