Facts:

The Appellants were former employees of the Respondent who were disengaged from its employment sometime in 2004 based on a collective agreement of 13th January, 2000. Dissatisfied with the amounts paid to them as retirement and redundancy benefits, the appellants brought an action against the respondent at the National Industrial Court wherein they claimed the following reliefs amongst others;
(i) A declaration that the purported management/union agreement dated the 25th day of May 2004 is null and void and therefore not binding on the claimants having been fraudulently executed, malafide and without regard to due process.
(ii) 5 10 15 20 25 30 (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) A declaration that the purported agreement dated 25th day of May 2004 is not binding on the claimants, same having been executed without the consent and input of the affected employees and at the same time being below the accepted standard in the industry.
(iii) A declaration that the agreement of 25th of May 2004 is not binding on the claimants whose employment was determined by a letter dated 24th of May 2004 incorporating the claimants redundancy benefit which was calculated on the basis of a non-existing agreement contrary to article 27 of the employees handbook.
(iv) A declaration that the agreement of 10th of September 2001 being the only valid management/union agreement existing at the time the employment of the claimants was determined is binding on the claimants and should be used in the calculation of the claimants’ redundancy allowance.
(v) A declaration that the claimants are entitle to be paid 26 weeks wages for each completed year of service or annual basic salary multiplied by the number of years left to clock retirement age, whichever is lower as full redundancy benefits due to the claimants in line with the agreement of 10th of September 2001.
(vi) An order of Court directing the defendant to pay the claimants the 20 weeks wages for every year of service which is the shortfall of the claimants’ redundancy benefits which is due to the claimants pursuant to the 10th of September 2001 agreement.”
In response the Respondent fi led its defence wherein it also denied the claims of the Appellants. The matter proceeded to trial and the trial court in its final decision dismissed the appellants’ claim.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.