Facts:

As claimant before the lower Court, the 1st Respondent’s case was that he was employed as a contract lawyer by the 2nd Respondent on behalf of the 1st Appellant on 3/8/2013. He was interviewed in July 2013 by the 1st Appellant in its Abuja office prior to the issuance of a letter of employment to him by the 2nd Respondent. The employment of the 1st Respondent was to last through the duration of the E.M.T.S. Project being handled by the 1st Appellant at the time. The 1st Respondent claimed that he performed his responsibilities to the best of his ability and was even made to perform duties beyond his employment terms. But on 22/11/2013, the 1st Respondent received a letter via e-mail that he had been disengaged by the 1st Appellant due to poor performance. When his entreaties to be reimbursed for outstation allowances were unsuccessful, the 1st Respondent instituted a suit before the Abuja Judicial Division of the lower Court in which the Appellants were the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

The Appellants denied the claims of the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Appellant was one of the project managers employed by the 1st Appellant, who had the duty to assign responsibilities to outsource staff that were not employees of the 1st Appellant. The 1st Respondent was employed by the 2nd Respondent but outsourced by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Appellant to support specific projects of the 1st Appellant. The case of the Appellant was that there was no contractual or employment relationship existing between the 1st Respondent and the 1st Appellant. The 1st Respondent, who was employed by the 2nd Respondent and seconded to the 1st Appellant to support its projects, had his remunerations paid by the 2nd Respondent and not the Appellants. To the Appellants, the 1st Respondent had no basis to make any demands on them as they were not his employers.

At the conclusion of trial, the lower Court delivered judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent, granting reliefs including general damages of ₦7 million to be paid equally by the 1st Appellant and the 2nd Respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.