Supreme Court decries Mobil’s reluctance to prosecute appeal
The Supreme Court has decried the reluctance of Mobil Producing Unlimited (MPU) to prosecute an appeal it filed in 2010 against the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar.
The appellate court had held that about 860 Nigerian Mobil workers hired as security guards between 1990 and 1996 were its staff and not officials of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) as the company claimed.
A five-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Suleiman Galadima, noted that the appellant appeared unwilling to prosecute the appeal. It urged Mobil to be certain about what it intends to achieve with the appeal.
The court’s position was informed by the uncoordinated approach of the appellant’s lawyers and the consistency in the errors they commited in the filing of applications, which often led to adjournments.
When the case was called on April 25, Mobil’s lawyer, Rowland Obaji sought leave of court for an extension of time to file an appeal and deem the already filed amended appeal as properly filed.
Justice Galadima drew Obaji’s attention to a wrong prayer in his motion and noted that the court could not amend defective documents for parties.
Without objection from lawyers to the workers and the police, O. K. Salawu and Sebastian Barth Ozoana, the court struck out Mobil’s motion.
Justice Galadima noted that similar motions dated September 29 and 30, and December 15, 2015 filed by Mobil had been withdrawn and struck out.
When asked if he knew when the other motions were earlier struck out, Obaji said he could not recall because the file where it was indicated was with the Senior Advocate leading him in the case.
“It seems you are not prepared to prosecute this appeal. You should tell us what you intend to do with this appeal. You seem not to be familiar with your appeal and processes filed so far,” Justice Galadima said.
The court then directed Obaji to file a new motion to regularise the appeal, following which a new date will be issued for hearing.
Since Mobil lodged the appeal in 2010, it has taken no major steps to ensure its prompt determination. Most adjournments have been at its instance.
When parties returned to court on June 1, 2015, it was also the unpreparedness of Mobil that foisted an adjournment on the court, prompting the Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad-led five-man bench to impose N100,000 cost on the company and adjourn to December 14.
On December 14, Mobil’s lawyer, A. O. Wahab attempted to move his client’s application for leave to regularise the appeal, only for Justice Mohammad to, again, notice that the application was incompetent.
Justice Muhammad also observed that a motion for stay of execution of the judgment, which Wahab said his client filed on February 12, 2010 for stay of execution of the Appeal Court’s judgment was not in the court’s file.
He consequently ordered the appellant to withdraw the defective application, re-file it on a later date and ensure that all the necessary processes were in the court’s file. Justice Mohammad was however, silent on the return date, prompting lawyer to the workers, Ifeanyi Maduabuchi to draw the court’s attention to the fact that the case was about labour dispute, which requires prompt hearing.
Maduabuchi said despite the order in the judgment restraining Mobil from dismissing or punishing the workers, it had allegedly sacked some and was subjecting others to unfriendly treatment. He urged the court to intervene and protect the workers.
The 860 Nigerians were engaged by Mobil as security personnel between 1990 and 1996 to secure its assets in Lagos, Port-Harcourt (Rivers State), Eket and Quo-Ibo in Akwa-Ibom State.
Dispute arose about their employment status in early year 2000 when about 27 of them in Eket were issued transfer letters by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), transferring them to Lagos. The 27 rejected the purported transfer on the ground that they were not staff of the Nigeria Police.
They complained to Mobil, who claimed it had transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police and thus raising the question about whether the company could alter the terms of their employment without their knowledge and consent.
The workers claimed they were directly employed and paid by the oil company (as reflected in their employment letters tendered in evidence in court); that they were only trained by the police on security operations (under an arrangement between Mobil and the Nigeria Police Force), and that they are entitled to the same benefits as other employees of the oil company.
On its part, the oil company insists that they should look up to the police for their benefits and other entitlements because it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not actual staff.
FROM NATION.
The appellate court had held that about 860 Nigerian Mobil workers hired as security guards between 1990 and 1996 were its staff and not officials of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) as the company claimed.
A five-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Suleiman Galadima, noted that the appellant appeared unwilling to prosecute the appeal. It urged Mobil to be certain about what it intends to achieve with the appeal.
The court’s position was informed by the uncoordinated approach of the appellant’s lawyers and the consistency in the errors they commited in the filing of applications, which often led to adjournments.
When the case was called on April 25, Mobil’s lawyer, Rowland Obaji sought leave of court for an extension of time to file an appeal and deem the already filed amended appeal as properly filed.
Justice Galadima drew Obaji’s attention to a wrong prayer in his motion and noted that the court could not amend defective documents for parties.
Without objection from lawyers to the workers and the police, O. K. Salawu and Sebastian Barth Ozoana, the court struck out Mobil’s motion.
Justice Galadima noted that similar motions dated September 29 and 30, and December 15, 2015 filed by Mobil had been withdrawn and struck out.
When asked if he knew when the other motions were earlier struck out, Obaji said he could not recall because the file where it was indicated was with the Senior Advocate leading him in the case.
“It seems you are not prepared to prosecute this appeal. You should tell us what you intend to do with this appeal. You seem not to be familiar with your appeal and processes filed so far,” Justice Galadima said.
The court then directed Obaji to file a new motion to regularise the appeal, following which a new date will be issued for hearing.
Since Mobil lodged the appeal in 2010, it has taken no major steps to ensure its prompt determination. Most adjournments have been at its instance.
When parties returned to court on June 1, 2015, it was also the unpreparedness of Mobil that foisted an adjournment on the court, prompting the Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad-led five-man bench to impose N100,000 cost on the company and adjourn to December 14.
On December 14, Mobil’s lawyer, A. O. Wahab attempted to move his client’s application for leave to regularise the appeal, only for Justice Mohammad to, again, notice that the application was incompetent.
Justice Muhammad also observed that a motion for stay of execution of the judgment, which Wahab said his client filed on February 12, 2010 for stay of execution of the Appeal Court’s judgment was not in the court’s file.
He consequently ordered the appellant to withdraw the defective application, re-file it on a later date and ensure that all the necessary processes were in the court’s file. Justice Mohammad was however, silent on the return date, prompting lawyer to the workers, Ifeanyi Maduabuchi to draw the court’s attention to the fact that the case was about labour dispute, which requires prompt hearing.
Maduabuchi said despite the order in the judgment restraining Mobil from dismissing or punishing the workers, it had allegedly sacked some and was subjecting others to unfriendly treatment. He urged the court to intervene and protect the workers.
The 860 Nigerians were engaged by Mobil as security personnel between 1990 and 1996 to secure its assets in Lagos, Port-Harcourt (Rivers State), Eket and Quo-Ibo in Akwa-Ibom State.
Dispute arose about their employment status in early year 2000 when about 27 of them in Eket were issued transfer letters by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), transferring them to Lagos. The 27 rejected the purported transfer on the ground that they were not staff of the Nigeria Police.
They complained to Mobil, who claimed it had transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police and thus raising the question about whether the company could alter the terms of their employment without their knowledge and consent.
The workers claimed they were directly employed and paid by the oil company (as reflected in their employment letters tendered in evidence in court); that they were only trained by the police on security operations (under an arrangement between Mobil and the Nigeria Police Force), and that they are entitled to the same benefits as other employees of the oil company.
On its part, the oil company insists that they should look up to the police for their benefits and other entitlements because it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not actual staff.
FROM NATION.
Comments
Post a Comment