Prince James Bandele Ladega (for Himself And Other Members Of Nigeria Union Of Pensioners Naoc Branch) v (1) Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd (2) Petroleum And Natural Gas Staff Associationof Nigeria (pengassan – Naoc Branch) (3) National Union Of Petroleum And Natural Gas Workers (nupeng – Naoc Branch)

JudgeHon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-osaghae
Judgment Date30 July 2012
Respondent(1) Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd (2) Petroleum And Natural Gas Staff Associationof Nigeria (pengassan – Naoc Branch) (3) National Union Of Petroleum And Natural Gas Workers (nupeng – Naoc Branch)
AppellantPrince James Bandele Ladega (for Himself And Other Members Of Nigeria Union Of Pensioners Naoc Branch)
Docket NumberNIC/LA/91/2011
CounselJ. D. Rufai for claimant. Ladipo Soetan, with him Mr Ita Edet for 1st Defendant.
CourtNational Industrial Court (Nigeria)
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HER LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE DATE: July 30, 2012 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/91/2011 BETWEEN

Prince James Bandele Ladega
(For himself and other members of Nigeria Union
of Pensioners NAOC Branch - Claimant

AND

1. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd
2. Petroleum and Natural Gas Staff Association
of Nigeria (PENGASSAN – NAOC BRANCH) - Defendants
3. National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Workers (NUPENG – NAOC BRANCH)

REPRESENTATION

J. D. Rufai for claimant.
Ladipo Soetan, with him Mr Ita Edet for 1st Defendant.
No appearance for 2nd & 3rd Defendants.

JUDGEMENT

The claimant by an Originating Summons filed on the 19th August 2011 seeks the determination of the following questions:
1. Whether the claimant is entitled to the harmonization of the pensions of their members, comprehensive Medicare with spouses, and other welfaristic packages as stipulated by the collective agreement between the claimant and the defendants.
2. Whether the claimant being a trade union under the applicable law are entitled to have their check off dues deducted from source and remitted same to the appropriate quarters in line with Trade Union Act, Cap 437 LFN 1990 by the 1st defendant.
a. Declaration that the claimant and other members of Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NAOC) Branch are entitled to harmonization of their pensions, comprehensive Medicare with their spouses, security and maintenance allowances 40th and 45th Anniversary package and other welfaristic provisions in line with the stipulations in the collective agreement existing between the claimant and the 1st Defendant.
b. Declaration that refusal, failure and/or negligence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants from taking necessary steps to ensure that the 1st defendant comply with and implement the collective agreement executed by them for and on behalf of the claimant is wrongful and improper.
c. Declaration that the refusal, failure and/or negligence of the 1st defendant to be deducting check off dues of the claimant’s union members Pensions from source and paying same to Nigeria Union of Pensioners headquarters account is wrongful and illegal.
d. An order compelling the 1st defendant to fully comply with and implement provisions of the collective agreement together with the Federal Government directives guiding the relationship between the claimant and the 1st Defendant as regards welfaristic provisions thereof.
e. An order directing the 1st Defendant to be deducting the claimant’s check off dues from source and paying same to the account of Nigeria Union of Pensioners Headquarters in Abuja.

The originating summons is supported by a 51 paragraph affidavit sworn to by Prince James Bandele Lageda, the claimant to which is annexed copies of documents marked Exhibit A, B, C & CI, D, E – E4, F & FI, G, H, I, J – J5, K, L. In reaction, the 1st defendant filed a conditional appearance on 7 December 2011 and a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging jurisdiction on the grounds that the conditions set down by the Rules of this court which invoke the jurisdiction have not been satisfied. In a considered ruling delivered on the 29th February 2012, the preliminary objection was dismissed.

The 1st defendant then filed a counter affidavit to the originating summons which was sworn to by Popoola Christopher Awofaju, Senior Remunerations and Benefits Officer in the employment of the 1st defendant on the 13th March 2012. Annexed to the counter affidavit are the Exhibits NAOC 1, NAOC 2, NAOC 3, NAOC 4, NAOC 5, NAOC 6, NAOC 7, NAOC 8 and NAOC 9. In response, the claimant filed a further affidavit which was sworn to by him on the 27th April 2012 to which is annexed Exhibit M.

Learned counsel were directed to file final written addresses. The claimant’s written address is dated 27th April 2012. The 1st defendant’s written address is dated 21st May 2012 but filed on the 23rd May 2012. The claimant’s reply on point of law is dated 4th June 2012 but filed on the 5th June 2012.

The brief facts of this case are that the claimant in his personal and representative capacities is a retired staff of the 1st defendant and receives a pension from the 1st defendant. The claimant and others he represents are dissatisfied with the pension they currently receive and desire to have their pensions reviewed and harmonised with other retirees of the 1st defendant or other companies operating in the Oil Industry like Shell, NNPC or in accordance with Federal Government circulars. They are also unhappy that the 1st defendant has stopped payment of annual pension increase since 2009, that the 1st defendant is not providing sufficient medical care for them and their spouses, and that they do not enjoy the same benefits as staff of the 1st defendant who are still in service. The summary of their grouse against the 1st defendant, is that it has neglected to provide adequately for them in view of the economic realities in the country and that the 2nd & 3rd defendant have failed to fight their cause.

The 1st defendant on the other hand insists that the pensions paid are in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement with its staff associations and unions. Its position is that an increase in pension is dependent on availability of funding and generation of income by the Pension fund portfolio performance. The 1st defendant has also stated that its medical facilities are extended to the claimant and those he represents and that it is not uncaring about the welfare of the claimant and those he represents.

Learned counsel to the claimant raised two issues for determination as follows:
a. Whether the claimant is entitled to the harmonization of the pensions of their members, comprehensive Medicare with spouses, and other welfaristic...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT