Industrial Court to Hear Suit Against Premium Pension Limited
The National Industrial Court in Abuja has fixed Oct. 21 for hearing of a suit filed by 70 disengaged staff of Premium Pension Limited (PPL) against the company.
The affected former workers are challenging their disengagement and the company’s alleged failure to pay their gratuity and other entitlements.
Justice Rakiya Haastrup fixed the date after a lawyer to Premium Pension, Johnson Usman, SAN, applied for time to enable him to reply to the claimants’ response to the company’s counter-claim.
Justice Haastrup had, on June 17, granted an application by the claimants’ lawyer, M. O. Akinsanya, for leave to file their response to the defendant’s counter-claim out of time and to deem the response as being properly filed.
Shortly after the judge granted the claimants’ application, Usman said “with the grant of the application, the claimants’ defence to our counter-claim has been regularised.”
They prayed for more time to reply to their defence to our counter-claim.
The claimants, in the suit, contended that their disengagement was illegal and unjust as it was allegedly done by PPL for no reason, with malice and bad faith.
They added that their disengagement without being paid all they are entitled to, despite their repeated demand, had placed them in a situation of hardship.
The suit was filed by some of the affected staff, including Ibrahim Usman Raji, Emmanuel Folorunsho, Mustapha Saidu Sulaiman, Muhammed Baba Ibrahim – (suing in representative capacity on behalf of themselves and 60 others, whose employment were wrongly terminated).
Premium Pension Limited is listed as the sole defendant.
The claimants are praying the court for eight declaratory reliefs and nine monetary clams.
Raji and others want the court to, among others, declare that contracts of employment existed between the claimants and the defendant from the time the claimants were respectively offered appointments by the defendant and until their disengagement.
The claimants also want a declaration that the abrupt termination of their contract of employment was wrongful, illegal and unlawful for the refusal of the defendant to give adequate notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice and for no reason whatsoever.
They want the court to issue an order mandating PPL to pay them their gross emoluments in respect of “a lump sum payment equivalent to three months” as contained in their respective letters of disengagement.
The court is equally urged to order the defendant to pay all claimants their respective gratuity as communicated to all staff previously upon approval of the board of the defendant.
The claimants are also seeking and order mandating the defendant to pay all of them “their entitlements in full without any deduction of purported liabilities.”
They stated, in a statement of facts, that they were all disengaged and served with their respective letters of disengagement from Aug. 4, 2025.
They said although all the letters of disengagement were backdated to July 29, 2025 and stated to be effective from the Aug. 1, 2025.
Raji and others also stated that they had all resumed work in the month of August 2025 before they were served with their respective letters of disengagement and by so doing, they were all entitled to the payment of education subsidy which is paid annually in the month of August.
They added that the defendant deliberately backdated the letters of disengagement to the July 29, 2025 so as to deny them their earned benefits and requisite notice or payment in lieu.
The claimants further stated that the defendant had also refused to pay to them their profit share, performance and productivity bonus in spite of several demands.
The claimants stated that the defendant’s action had caused them and the other affected employees and their dependents severe hardship, financial loss, and emotional distress.
In its defence, Premier Pension faulted the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.
It stated that the claimants were disengaged as a result of restructuring/reorganisation.
The company stated that the affected ex-workers were paid their three month’s salary in lieu of notice and so they are not entitled to three months’ notice.
The company claimed not to have violated any international best practices on labour, employment and industrial relations.
It stated that being a private company, and the employment of the claimant being one that does not enjoy statutory flavour, it can disengage them at any time for any reason whether good or bad or for no reason at all provided it complied with its handbook by giving the claimants or its employees a notice or payment of three months’ salaries in lieu.
Premium Pension further stated that the claimants were disengaged in line with Premium Pension Limited Human Resources Policy Manual and Employee Handbook.
