Judgment
ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment delivered by Honorable Justice B.A Adejumo, Honorable Justice B. B Kanyip and Honorable Justice M.B Dadda of the National Industrial Court sitting in Lagos in Suit No NIC/8/2002 on the 5th of February 2008, as seen on Pages 107 – 118 of the Records of Appeal. The Appellant (then Plaintiff) instituted this suit by filling an Application dated and filed 28th of May 2002 and 30th of May 2002 respectively.
The Appellant is a Trade Union with Members who are Employees of the 1st Respondent who was the 1st Defendant in the suit. The Appellant went into series of discussions and negotiations with the 1st Respondent on settlement, further to which the Parties mutually agreed to lay off the workers with an undertaking on the 1st Respondent to pay salaries, allowances, and terminal benefits amounting to N45 Million (Forty-Five Million Naira) payable to the Appellant’s Members.
In furtherance to this Agreement, 1st Respondent wrote the Appellant on the 10th of October 2001 promising, “to make all payments not later than January 31, 2002”.
The 1st Respondent delivered a Tripartite Deed of Assignment dated 19th of February 2002, which was earlier, executed between the 1st & 2nd Respondent and Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited to the Appellant alongside a Tripartite Deed of Loan and Transfer between the 1st Respondent & 2nd Respondent and ESI Engineering International Limited to the Appellant. It further wrote a letter dated 6th of March 2002 informing the Appellant that arrangements had been made with the 2nd Respondent regarding the payment of its liabilities and advised the Appellant to liaise and cooperate with the 2nd Respondent for the payment of their terminal benefits.
The Appellant claimed to have met with the 2nd Respondent unsuccessfully until when in April 2002, the Managing Director of the 2nd Respondent, reported to the Police claiming that some of the affected workers threatened breach of the peace further to which they were arrested and charged to the Magistrate Court. Consequently, by its conduct, it has made further discussions impossible thereby making the enforcement of the Agreements mutually reached by the parties impossible. The Appellant’s questions for determination at the lower Court were as follows: 1.
