Getting back to the origin, the Court of Appeal on 21st May, 2009 set aside the judgment of the trial Federal High Court, Uyo delivered on January 24th, 2006 and held the 2nd-16th respondents are employees of the 1st respondent and not that of the appellants. It is a fact that appellants herein did not participate in the appeal by the 2nd-6th respondents as they were not aware of the said appeal, however the decision of the Court below was to the effect that 2nd to 16th respondents are employees of 1st respondent as against being those of the appellants which decision led to the appellants loss of their workers to the 1st respondent. It was in being aggrieved of the above stated decision that the appellants lodged Appeal No. SC/334/2010 against the 1st respondent.

To refresh the memory, the 2nd to 16th respondents had commenced this action by way of originating summons in the Federal High Court Uyo which the appellants herein objected to but the Court of trial overruled. I shall set out excerpts of the said judgment of the Federal High Court as follows:

"4 Some other issues (1) Commencement of Plaintiffs Action by Originating Summons.

"The 2nd-4th defendants (i.e. the appellants herein) challenged the method by which the plaintiffs commenced this action on the ground that the affidavits filed by the parties raised serious disputes over facts. Therefore the Originating Summons procedure was improper in commencing this action. The plaintiffs in their rejoinder submitted that the commencement of their action by Originating Summons was very proper. They submitted further that the affidavits are extensive and had several documents annexed as to them, but there was no substantial dispute as to the facts adduced by the carious parties".

That Court of trial went on further thus:

"My earlier review of a substantial part of the facts adduced by all the parties revealed that the facts related to the method of employment and recruitment of the plaintiffs as Spy Police. As submitted by the plaintiffs' counsel, there was no substantial dispute of these facts. In fact, both the plaintiffs and defendants were in agreement about the procedure and method adopted in the employment process. What was in dispute is whether the procedure was in compliance with the procedure laid down by law. Order 2 Rule 2 (2) (b) of the Federal High Court (Civil procedure) Rules provides that proceedings may be began by Originating Summons where there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of facts. It is this kind of case that Order 2 Rule 2 (2) (b) had in contemplation. I therefore hold that the plaintiffs rightly and properly began this action by way of Originating Summons. The case of Habib Nig. Bank Ltd v. Ochete (2001) FWLR (Pt. 58) 384 held is very apt and instructive on this issue. From the foregoing, I hold that plaintiff’s suit commenced by Originating Summons was properly commenced".

From those parts of the said judgment, the Objector cannot rightly object to the appeal of the appellants herein based on their being unaffected by the judgment of the Court below. This is because the judgment of both Courts below touched the interest of the appellants herein and they have a right to cry out and to be heard irrespective of their not being parties to the appeal in the Court below.