Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
AYEBI J.A.
The plaintiffs/appellants, numbering about 298 were employees of the defendant/respondent. On 6th September 1999, defendant terminated their appointment. The plaintiffs therefore sued the defendant for the following reliefs:-
(a) Damages for wrongful dismissal.
(b) Damages for violation of fundamental human right to form or join a union of their choice.
(c) Damages for unfair labour practice.
(d) Damages for wrongful lockout.
After a laborious trial, the High Court in its judgment on 16th November 2004 dismissed plaintiffs’ claim and entered judgment in favour of defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs appealed against it on the following grounds:-
(i) That the judgment was against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.
(ii) That the court erred in law when it held that defendant lawfully terminated the employment of the plaintiffs by its letter of termination dated 6th September 1999, when as far back as 26th August 1999, the defendant had refused to accept plaintiffs from reporting to work when the factory was re-opened on 26th August 1999.
(iii) That the court’s finding that plaintiffs did not write to the defendant indicating their readiness to report to work whenever defendant opened the factory is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial.
(iv) That the court erred in law and fact when it held that although defendant had put out notice cautioning its employees that any attempt to persuade or induce employees of defendant to sign the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU’s) forms on resignation or membership would amount to breaking the undertaking the employees had recently signed and was likely to lead to confusion at the factory, this was not sufficient to ground a finding that defendant’s action was in violation of plaintiffs’ right to form or join a union of their choice.
(v) That the court erred in law and fact when it held that the defendant did not engage in acts that amount to unfair labour practice.
The matters which the plaintiffs/appellants relied on to launch this action are as follows: The plaintiffs were unionized under the Textiles Garments and Leather Workers Union (TEGLU) of the Trade Union Congress. The Textiles Garments and Leather Workers Union thus held the bargaining certificate of plaintiffs in the defendant’s company. In early 1999, following a violent strike action by employees of the defendant, about 164 of plaintiffs’ colleagues were dismissed.
The plaint