ATTN!ATTN!ATTN!!!
FLELOW COMRADE BE INFORM THAT THE SUIT FILED BY PETER OGBOLU & 97 OTHERS AGAINST ZENITH BANK PLC & ITS CRIMINAL SUBSISAIRIES ZENITH SECURITIES LTD AND PEOPLE PLUS MGT SERVICES LTD SHALL BE COMING UP FOR HEARING ON WED 5TH JUNE 13 BY 9.00AM @ NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT ,LUGARD AVENUE IKOYI.KINDLY MOBILIZE OTHERS AND BE THERE IN TIME.

PETER OGBOLU & 97 OTHERS CASE SUIT AGAINST ZENITH BANK PLC AND ITS CRIMINAL SUBSIDIARIES (ZENITH SECURITIES,PEOPLE PLUS MAGT SERVICES) SLATED FOR 10TH WED APRIL 2013 HAS BEEN PROSPONED TO FRI 3RD OF MAY 2013 ACORDING TO THE INFO AVAILABLE DUE TO JUDGES CONFERENCE .KINDLY TELL OUR TEAMING MEMBER.
NO RETREAT NO SURRENDER,ALUTA CONTINUA VICTORY ASCERTA!!! THE LORD SHALL AREST THE CAPITALIST WHO ENGAGE IN ENSLAVING NIGERIA CITIZEN JUST BECAUSE OF GOVT INSENSITIVITY TO THE WELFARE OF ITS CITIZENS.

Court orders Zenith bank to defend N970m suit
....bank loses bid to stall proceedings

The National Industrial Court, sitting in Lagos has ordered Zenith bank PLC to file its defence in a N970 million suit instituted by ninety seven former employees of the bank over an alleged termination of their appointments.
The aggrieved former employees had in the suit joined Zenith Securities Limited and People Plus Management Service Limited as defendants.
Ruling on the bank’s application seeking for stay of proceedings, the presiding judge, Justice F I Kola-Olalere (Mrs.) described the application as an abuse of court process and an attempt to mislead the court.
The bank had in a preliminary objection challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit contending that the suit did not disclose any reasonable course of action.
But, Justice Olalere held that the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit and declared that the objection raised by the bank lacked merit.
Counsel to the bank, Mr. Kola Awodeyin SAN then appeal against the ruling and urged the court to stay proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the suit at the Court of Appeal.
However, Justice Olalere in her ruling noted that the bank’s application for stay of proceeding was unknown to law and to rules of court.
The court held “In my opinion the reason for this application is not tenable at all. Counsel should bear in mind that adjournment is not granted as a matter of cause. It is discretionary and so it should be exercise judicially and judiciously.’’
The court noted that the matter was filed on October 7, 2011 and up till now the defendants have not filed their statements of defence.
Justice Olalere further observed ‘’the defendant counsel is a member of the inner-Bar in the sacred temple of justice. He is therefore expected to be an authority in law and a minister in the temple of justice. He should guide the junior ones in ensuring that justice is done to all parties in all situations even if that does not favour his client. What do we have here, the learned senior advocate tried desperately to confuse the court and take advantage of the opponent counsel as a junior member of the outer-Bar.
The court held that the application for adjournment not to any specific date was unreasonable and ought not to be granted.
The court held that if the request of the bank was granted it would amount to over indulgence of the defendants
The former ex-employees had in suit No-NIC/LA/124/2011 filed by Peter Ogbolu, Charles Chukwu, Mangey Bitrus Bulus, Adeniran Adebisi and Abdullahi Olayiwola Alfa suing for themselves and on behalf of 97 other former employees of Zenith bank, the claimants are seeking for an order compelling the 1st and 2nd respondents (Zenith Bank and Zenith Securities) to reinstate them immediately or in the alternative pay N10 million to each of the claimants as compensation for the alleged unfair labour practice.
The claimants had in their statement of claim signed by Olusola Salawu from Falana& Falana’s chambers averred that they were employed at various time by the 1st and 2nd respondents as system administrators and were issued letters of employments and hand book of the 1st respondent stating the condition of service.
They averred that they were paid by Zenith bank (1st defendant) and were issued payslip by the bank and that they have worked in the employment of the defendants between five to ten years.
Besides, the alleged that contrary to the best labour practice as implemented to other categories of employees within the industry they were never promoted nor given the opportunity to progress on the job.
The claimants added that when they decided to agitate for a fair labour practice devoid of discrimination, the 3rd respondent (People plus Management Service) allegedly terminated their appointments without notice and on the ground of restructuring.
The claimants are also seeking for a declaration the purported transfer of the employment to the services of People plus Management Service was done under duress and without their consent.