The Appellants herein were staff of the Respondent before they were declared redundant. The Respondent had industrial problem with its workforce in Abuja that led to the closure of its activities on the 16th June 1999. By a circular dated 28th of June 1999, the respondent informed its workers that payment of salaries, wages and redundancy benefit for the period ending on 15th June, 1999 will be made on the 30th June, 1999, 2nd of July 1999 and 3rd of July 1999. By paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said circular, the workers were further informed as follows: -

The Respondent's workers felt threatened by the circular as they did not know who would be declared redundant. They collectively took out a writ of summons in a representative capacity on the 1st July, 1999 in which they claimed the following reliefs: -

This writ of summons was not accompanied with a statement of claim. The Appellants also filed a motion on notice on the 1st of July 1999, in which they sought for the following: -

a

An interlocutory orders restraining the Defendant/Respondent, either by themselves, (Sic) servants, agents, privies assign, howsoever described from unlawfully ejecting or any other way interfering with the quiet possession occupation and use of the plaintiffs'/applicant's official quarters located in the Federal Capital Territory and Suleja pending the final determination of the substantive suit before this Honourable Court.

b

An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, their (Sic, its) agents, servants and/ or any person howsoever describe from unlawfully declaring any of the plaintiffs/applicants redundant pending the final determination of the substantive suit before this Honourable Court.

c

An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, and privies however described from interfering with any of the rights and privileges due to the plaintiffs/applicants as workers/servants of the defendant company pending the final determination of the substantive suit pending before this Honourable Court."

The writ of summons and the motion were served on the respondent on the 1st of July 1999. As a follow up, Mr. S. C. Peters, Learned Counsel for the Appellants' wrote two letters dated the same 1st July 1999 to the Respondent, warning it of the consequences of declaring any of the workers redundant during the pendency of the suit and the motion on notice. The Respondent ignored the Court processes and went on to declare the Appellants' redundant on the 2nd and 3rd July, 1999 and paid their entitlements which they collected. After a futile attempt to commit the Respondent for contempt of Court and invoking the interference of the police in the activities of the Respondent, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, by a motion on notice filed on the 4th of October 2000 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, sought for the following reliefs:

The defendant/Respondent opposed the application by filing counter affidavit. After resolving some preliminary issues, the motion was heard on the 26th April, 2000 and in a reserved and considered ruling delivered on the 30th May 2001, the trial court granted to the six Appellants only the reliefs sought on the following terms: -

"In the circumstances therefore, the declaration of redundancy against these plaintiffs/applicants which was made on the 2nd and 3rd July, 1999 after the filing of this action on the 1/7/99 amounts to the respondents taking into their hands a matter which is subjudice.

They are therefore deemed to be in the service of the defendant/respondent Julius Berger Plc until the final determination of the substantive suit. The application therefore succeeds on this ground and the Respondent is to afford the applicants all rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges of their offices to which they are entitled or responsible prior to the commencement of this suit. The plaintiffs/applicants shall, if they collected any terminal benefit refund same forth-with to the respondent and let the status quo ante bellum be maintained pending the determination of the substantive suit."

The Respondent was thoroughly dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court. Being aggrieved, it appealed to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court).

The Appellants herein were also dissatisfied with certain aspect of the ruling. They also filed an appeal at the lower Court. The two appeals which were filed at the Court of appeal Abuja Division were transferred to the Kaduna Division of the Court of Appeal and were renumbered as CA/K/250/2003 and CA/K/260/2003.

The two appeals were heard by a panel of Justice s of the lower Court comprising of Mary Peter-Odili JCA (as he then was) who presided and J. T. Tur and O. F. Ogbuinya JJCA. In their unanimous judgment delivered on the 9th day of May 2011, the two appeals were allowed. The ruling and orders of the learned trial Judge were set aside. The suit was remitted to the trial Court to be heard by another Judge.

It is against the judgment of the lower Court that this appeal is brought to this Court