The National Industrial Court in Abuja has fixed October 21, 2026, for the hearing of a suit instituted by 70 former employees of Premium Pension Limited (PPL), who are challenging their disengagement and the alleged non-payment of gratuities and other entitlements.
The case has significant implications for employment relations and workers’ rights, as the former employees are seeking judicial determination on the legality of their disengagement and the recovery of outstanding benefits.
Justice Rakiya Haastrup fixed the new date after counsel to Premium Pension Limited, Johnson Usman (SAN), requested additional time to respond to the claimants’ defence to the company’s counterclaim.
During proceedings, Usman acknowledged that the claimants’ response to the counterclaim had been regularised following an earlier ruling of the court. He subsequently sought time to file a reply, prompting Justice Haastrup to adjourn the matter until October 21.
Earlier, on June 17, the court granted an application by the claimants’ counsel, M.O. Akinsanya, permitting the former employees to file their response to the company’s counterclaim out of time and deeming the process properly filed.
The suit was instituted by Ibrahim Usman Raji, Emmanuel Folorunsho, Mustapha Saidu Sulaiman, Muhammed Baba Ibrahim, and others, acting in a representative capacity on behalf of more than 60 affected workers. Premium Pension Limited is the sole defendant.
According to the claimants, their employment was wrongfully terminated without justification and in bad faith. They alleged that the company disengaged them without paying all accrued benefits despite repeated demands, leaving them and their families in severe financial distress.
The former employees are seeking eight declaratory reliefs and nine monetary claims. They want the court to affirm that valid employment contracts existed between them and Premium Pension Limited until the date of their disengagement.
They are also seeking declarations that the abrupt termination of their employment was wrongful, illegal, and unlawful because they were allegedly not given adequate notice or proper payment in lieu of notice.
In addition, the claimants are asking the court to order Premium Pension Limited to pay a lump sum equivalent to three months’ gross emoluments, as stipulated in their disengagement letters, together with gratuities previously communicated to staff and approved by the company’s board.
They are also seeking payment of all outstanding entitlements without deductions for what they described as purported liabilities.
In their statement of facts, the claimants stated that they received disengagement letters on August 4, 2025, although the letters were backdated to July 29, 2025, and made effective from August 1, 2025.
They argued that they had resumed work in August 2025 before receiving the letters and were therefore entitled to annual education subsidies ordinarily paid during that month. According to them, the backdating of the letters was intended to deprive them of earned benefits and the requisite notice or payment in lieu.
The former employees further alleged that Premium Pension Limited failed to pay profit-sharing benefits, performance bonuses, and productivity bonuses despite repeated demands, causing substantial financial losses, hardship, and emotional distress to them and their dependants.
However, Premium Pension Limited, in its defence, challenged the competence of the suit and urged the court to dismiss it.
The company maintained that the employees were disengaged as part of a restructuring and reorganisation exercise and argued that they had already been paid three months’ salary in lieu of notice, thereby extinguishing any further claim for notice payments.
Premium Pension also denied breaching labour laws or international best practices. The company argued that, as a private employer, it is entitled to disengage employees provided it complies with the provisions of its Human Resources Policy Manual and Employee Handbook, which require either notice or payment in lieu of notice.
According to the company, the disengagement of the claimants was carried out strictly in line with its internal policies and procedures.
