INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS v. MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED & ORS

I find it cumbersome and a waste of precious judicious time to repeat the exercise. This appeal should abide the outcome of appeal No. SC.33/2010. Accordingly, I hold that this appeal has no merit and is also dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
Appeal Dismissed.
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.: I had the benefit of reading a draft copy of the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother, Okoro, JSC.
My learned brother has affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I agree with his lordship.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, John Inyang Okoro, JSC and to register the support I have in the reasonings, I shall make some remarks.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division: Coram: Kumai B. Akaahs, JCA (as he then was), Jean Omokri and Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua, JJCA otherwise called the Court below or Lower Court delivered on the 21st day of May, 2009 which upturned the decision of the trial Federal High Court per G. K. Olotu J. sitting at Uyo which decided that 2nd-16th respondents are not employees of the 1st respondent but employees of the appellant.
The details of the facts leading to this appeal are well set out in the lead judgment and I shall not repeat them save to make references to any part as the occasion warrants.
ISSUE TWO:
3.2 Whether, having found that the action was wrongly commenced by an Originating Summons, the lower Court was right in ignoring its earlier decision in N.N.P.C. v. Abdulrahman (2006) NWLR (Pt. 993) 202 and other Supreme Court decisions, by not striking out the case. (Grounds 2 and 3).
ISSUE THREE:
3.3 Whether the Court below correctly construed Section 18 of the Police Act by holding that Supernumerary Police Officers are appointed from members of the Nigeria Police Force. (Grounds 4 and 6).
ISSUE FOUR:
3.4 Whether, having found the 2nd-16th Respondents to be employees of the 1st respondent (i.e. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited) a non-statutory employer, the lower Court was not wrong to have ordered the reinstatement of the 2nd-16th respondents which is only consistent with statutory employment. (Ground 5).
ISSUE FIVE:
3.5 Whether the Court below was right in disturbing the findings of fact by the learned trial Court which held that from the onset of the recruitment exercise the plaintiffs (now 2nd-16th respondents) were aware that they were being recruited as Spy police for the establishment of the 1st defendant (i.e. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited) and that the appellant (the police) pay the salaries of the 2nd-16th respondents, while the 1st respondent (i.e. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited) pay the 2nd-16th respondent only variable allowances and that there was substantial compliance with the law in the enlistment of the 2nd-16th respondents by the defendants. (Ground 7).
Learned counsel for the 1st respondent, K. Sofola SAN did not file a brief of argument.
Learned counsel for the 2nd-16th respondents adopted their brief of argument filed on 11/12/17 and deemed filed on 23/1/18 and in it raised five issues for determination which are thus:-
1. Whether the process leading to employment of the 2nd-16th respondent were in accordance with the provisions

…………………….B…………………….