Appeal Court awards N10m cost against PENCOM over alleged unfair labour practice

Gizali and 19 others had, in their suit before the NICN, claimed among others to have been unfairly treated by PENCOM, which issued them employment letters after being subjected to the rigour of an interview process and made to resume duty on May 2, 2017, but were neither assigned responsibilities nor paid remuneration.

The staff, who claimed to have been asked by PENCOM to resign from their previous employments, stated that upon their resumption, PENCOM later asked them to tarry awhile and await further directives, which it failed to issue to date.

In its June 13, 2023 judgment, the NICN held in favour of PENCOM and its Chairman, who were the defendants, on the grounds that there was no valid contract of employment between the parties, a decision the aggrieved staff appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In its judgment on March 6 in the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/830/2024, the Court of Appeal held otherwise, stating that there existed a valid contract of employment between the parties.

Read Also: CBN wins Central Bank of the Year 2026 for turning economy around

Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, who delivered the lead judgment of the appellate court, faulted the argument by PENCOM and the Chairman that the employment was subject to conditions that had not been met and thus, the employment was inchoate.

Justice Oyewumi held that, as against the claim by PENCOM and its Chairman, "there is nothing in the offer of employment letter to support the respondents’ assertion," adding that "there is nothing in the document stipulating a time lapse for the fulfilment of the conditions, except with regards to the date of acceptance of the offer."

She added, "What is more, it has thus, become so clear as the day break that the appellants (Gizali and others) are actually, by their various letters of employment, employees of the first respondent (PENCOM), whose employment is first and foremost a probationary one for six months but their resumption to duty was truncated/frustrated by the first respondent, who suspended their resumption date till a date yet to be announced by the respondents.

"The whole process of writing the aptitude test and participating in an interview culminating in the issuance of employment letters to the appellants evinces that there was a valid employment relationship between the appellants and the first respondent once they accepted the offer given to them.

"It also means that parties intended to create and thus created an employment relationship with each other by the issuance of the letters of employment to the appellants.

"This expectation was heightened by the acceptance of the offer by the appellants and the terms stated in the letters until their expectation, hope, trust, and anticipation to start work on the 1st May, 2017, was shattered by the respondents when they were asked to wait for further directive, which has since failed to come to be.”

Justice Oyewumi further held that PENCOM and its Chairman "should not be allowed to take advantage of the appellants by their own act of withholding or truncating or suspending or frustrating the employment of the appellants, while at the same time they gave the appellants hope and an impression that they would be called upon at a later date.

"Again, by the conduct of the respondents, the appellants believed that they had been employed as staff of the first respondent and acted upon it by resigning from their previous employment to their detriment.

"The respondents would be estopped from changing the rules of the game at the time it did, having made the appellants believe that they are staff of the first respondent and have acted upon that belief by their consequential act of resignation.

"One thing is certain, and that is the fact that the action of the respondents was an unfair labour practice, breach of contract of their employment, and an expectation right of the appellants for which the appellants are entitled to damages and costs," the judge said.

Justice Oyewumi added, "It is in the light of all I have said that I find merit in this appeal and allow the same."

She proceeded to set aside the June 13, 2023 judgment of the NICN and awarded a cost of N10m against the respondents for "putting the appellants to unnecessary and unwarranted rigours of litigation since 2022.”