IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON.JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA (JUDGE)

                                                              

                                                                              SUIT NO: NICN/PHC/14/2021

DATE:  NOVEMBER 30, 2021

 

BETWEEN:

MRS. LOLIA BEVERLY EREGOBA                                             ] - CLAIMANT

 

AND

TEEBAZ GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD                                        ] - DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

O.T West, Esq.(with E.O Amachree, Esq;A.S Abdulkadir,Essq.)

-for the Claimant;

B.S Barasua, Esq. (with S.O Stowe)-for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.             The Claimant, who served as Financial Accountant with the Defendant Company but resigned, due to alleged unsatisfactory pattern of delayed salary payment, brought this suit against her former employer, vide a General Form of Complaint and frontloaded originating processes, dated and issued on 12th February 2021, basically seeking payment of her outstanding arrears of unpaid salaries, and refund of unremitted deductions of pension and tax.

 

2.             The Claimant’s endorsed reliefs are as follows:

a.    An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of two hundred and sixty one thousand, nine hundred and thirty three naira, eighty six kobo (N261,933.68) only being and representing the balance of of the Claimant’s salaries being owed her since her resignation from the Defendant’s services.

 

b.    An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of one hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and forty four naira (N110,544.00) only being the sum payable by the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as contributory pension to ARM Pension for the Claimant’s pension while in the employ of the Defendant.

 

 

 

c.    An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of sixty thousand, nine hundred and seventy (N60, 977.00) only being and representing outstanding amount due to the Claimant with respect to her PAYEE.

 

d.   Interest rate as shall be directed by the court on the sum of N261,933.68 only from 1st November 2020 until judgment is delivered.

 

3.             Upon service of the processes, the Defendant reacted with its counsel’s Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence and other frontloaded defence processes, all dated 2nd March 2021 and filed on 8th March 2021, in which the Defendant while admitting indebtedness to the Claimant disputed the correctness of the owed sum, and blamed its financial crisis on the Covid-19 pandemic and global economic meltdown. Trial opened at the proceedings of 28th June 2021, wherein the Claimant testified for herself as sole Claimant’s Witness (CW), adopted her Witness Statement on Oath deposed to on 12th February 2021, and tendered 8 sets of documents, admitted in evidence and marked as exhs.C1-C8, as described in the Claimant’s Lists of Documents dated 12th February 2021. CW was cross-examined by the Defendant’s counsel, and there being no Re-Examination by her counsel, she closed her case, while urging the court to uphold her claims.

 

4.             At the resumed trial proceedings of 30th June 2021, the Defendant opened its defence through one Josephine Ken Anonye, the Accountant of the Defendant Company, who testified as sole Defendant’s Witness (DW), adopted her Witness Statement on Oath and tendered 4 sts of documents, admitted in evidence and marked as exhs. D1-D4, as described in the Defendant’s list of documents of 8th March 2021. DW was cross-examined by the Claimant’s counsel, and the Defendant’s case closed, there being no Re-Examination by the Defendant’s counsel. DW prayed the court to dismiss the suit as the reason the Claimant came to court has been sorted out.

 

CASE OF THE PARTIES

5.             Going by the averments in the pleadings, testimonies and evidence led at the trial, the case of the Claimant is that by a letter of Offer of Employment dated March 22 2018 (exh.C1), she was employed as Financial Accountant by the Defendant Company, wherein the terms and conditions of the employment were specified including her salary and other emoluments.

CW further testified that while she was serving, the Defendant defaulted in payment of her salaries and have continued to make deductions for Pension Contribution purported to be remitted to ARMS Pension, her Pension Fund Administrator (PFA), and also deductions for PAYEE tax purported to have been remitted to the Rivers State Inland Revenue Service, as shown in the Claimant’s pay slips (exh.C2).

 

6.             Claimant maintained that it was the persistent attitude of the Defendant’s delay/non-payment of salaries that made her to resign vide her letter of Resignation dated 28th January 2020 (exh.C3), which ended her nearly 2 years with the Defendant. And as at the time of her resignation, the Defendant owed her over 10 months of salary arrears. Yet not being paid after her resignation, her Solicitors, by a letter dated 4th September 2020(exh.C4), demanded the payment of the owed sum to the tune of N792, 688.00. That the Defendant, in response, through its Solicitors’ letter dated 18th September 2020 (exh.C5), admitted owing her the sum of N473.933.68, being the correct sum based on accurate calculations of the sums due to the Claimant during her period of employment with the Defendant. Claimant’s Solicitors, in turn, by a letter dated 24th September 2020 (exh.C6) accepted the said sum of N473, 933.68, as the correct sum owed to the Claimant, but pointed that the remittance of the pension deductions to the ARMS pension could not be confirmed, and requested for proof of the remittance, as shown in the ARMS pensions summary Report on the Retirement Savings Account of the Claimant, for the period 01/01/18-09/17/20(exh.C8).

 

7.             Claimant went on, that on 28th October 2020, the Defendant transferred the sum of N150, 000.00 to her, which left a balance of N323, 933.68, of which the Claimant through her Solicitors’ letter dated 3rd November 2020 (exh.C7) acknowledged receipt of, and requested that the said balance be fully paid on or before 30th November 2020, otherwise, it would be paid with 20% interest on the outstanding sum.

 

8.             On the part of the Defendant, the case of the Defendant tallies with that of the Claimant on the employment history and the sum of N473.933.68, being the correct sum based on accurate calculations of the sums due to the Claimant during her period of employment with the Defendant, including that the sum of N150,000 was later transferred to the Claimant sometime on 28th October 2020 (exh.D1-D4). Defendant also confirmed that the sum of N60,000 was subsequently paid to the Claimant, as shown in the Defendant’s payment Voucher (exh.D1). The Case of the Defendant however, deferred markedly on the payment of deducted pension and PAYEE, which the Defendant contended that same were remitted to ARMS Pension and State Internal Revenue Services, respectively, and the Claimant is therefore not entitled to a repeat payment. Concluding, the Defendant urged the Court to dismiss the suit as the Claimant is not entitled to her claims.

COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS

9.             Learned counsel for the Defendant, S.O Stowe, Esq, in his Final Written Address (settled with B.S Barasua,Esq), dated 9th August  2021 and filed on 18th October 2021, raised and canvassed arguments on a sole issue for determination- Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the Claims sought in paragraph 19 of her Statement of Claims? For the Claimant, learned counsel, O.T West Esq., in his Final Written Address (settled with A.S Abdulkadir, Esq., and E,O Amachree, Esq.) dated 7th September 2021 and filed on 9th September 2021, raised and canvassed arguments on two issues- (1) Whether the Claimant is entitled to pension and payee while being a staff of the Defendant?, and (2). Whether Claimant is entitled to interest with respect to her unpaid salary? 

 

10.        At the resumed proceedings of 21st October 2021, both counsel adopted their respective Final Written Addresses, adumbrated on same, and urged the court to uphold their submissions as canvassed in their respective divide for the parties they represented. The Judgment was thereafter reserved. Full consideration would be accorded both counsel’s respective submissions on the issues raised and canvassed in the course of this judgment.

 

COURT’S DECISION

11.        I was actively involved in the engaging proceedings; read the pleadings and processes along with the submissions canvassed in the Final Written Addresses filed and exchanged by respective counsel, as well as their oral adumbration in advancing the case of the parties they represent. I also keenly watched the witnesses testify and had noted their demeanors, and also carefully evaluated the evidence tendered as exhibits in the proceedings. I have noted that in their respective Final Written Addresses, both counsel had raised and canvassed arguments in support of their respective standpoints on the case of the parties they represent.

 

12.        Upon review of the issues and supporting submissions by both counsel, I have formed the view that the respective issues raised and canvassed by both counsel though closely related and encompassing, but I would adopt a lone-issue approach as done by the Defendant’s counsel as against two issues raised by the Claimant’s counsel. I would nevertheless, streamline them to a sole issue - Given the state of pleadings and evidence led, is the Claimant entitled to the reliefs sought? I will proceed to resolve the dispute along line of this sole legal issue underpinning the dispute.

 

13.        A guiding starting point on the sole issue - Given the state of pleadings and evidence led, if the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought, is to consider and determine the reliefs sought for by the Claimant.  Relief (a) is for “An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of two hundred and sixty one thousand, nine hundred and thirty three naira, eighty six kobo (N261,933.68) only being and representing the balance of the Claimant’s salaries being owed her since her resignation from the Defendant’s services”. I find from the record that the Claimant had chronicled her employment history with the Defendant, and laid testimonial and documentary evidence of how her claimed sum of N261,933.68 accrued to her as balance of the unpaid sums representing her salaries not cleared up by the Defendant at the point of her exit from the Defendant Company vide her letter of resignation from her nearly 2 years stint in the employment. The Defendant did not deny this claim but laid evidence to corroborate and confirm the said owed sum of N261,933.68, outstanding as at the time of filing this suit and proceedings thereof.

 

14.        A strange development however surfaced at the stage of filing and exchange of Final Written Address by both counsel. Learned Defendant’s counsel had alluded that there is no more debt owed by the Defendant, as the Claimant has been paid fully. There is no detailed information as to when that full payment covering the indebtedness in Relief (a) was made, as no such information came up throughout the length and breadth of the processes filed in the proceedings and no mention of such development during trial. Learned Defendant’s counsel had submitted that that out of N473,933.68 the Defendant owed the Claimant the sums of N150,000.00 and N60,000.00 have been paid, leaving a balance of N261,733.68, which she seeks to recover by this suit. Counsel however, further submitted that the entire outstanding sum has been paid and therefore there is no legitimate claim against the Defendant.  Hear counsel @para.4.6 of his Final Written Address: “We submit that in the interest of justice the Claimant is not entitled to the claims made in paragraph 19 of her statement of claim. This is due to the evidences before the court that the entire sum owed to her by the Defendant has been paid”.

 

15.        Claimant’s counsel followed the same pattern, while canvassing for payment of interest on the principal sum due, and made a scant revelation of payment full outstanding sum by the Defendant in the course of the proceedings. Hear counsel @para.12 of his Final Written Address: “My Lord, it is trite law that an employee is entitled to payment of unpaid salaries for the period of time she worked for the Defendant. The Defendant did not deny that the Claimant worked for 21 months. The Claimant’s salaries were not paid until the Claimant came to this honourable court. The Defendant in order to avert entering their defence paid the Claimant the outstanding salaries that were unpaid to her on 29th June 2021”. 

 

16.        With this development, as mutually alluded to by both counsel, that the said outstanding sum of N261,733.68 claimed in Relief(a) has been discharged, invariably, this relief becomes stale and is hereby discountenanced and dismissed, having been fully satisfied by the Defendant ahead of delivery of this Judgment. I so hold.  

 

17.        The Reliefs (b) and (c) would be taken together as they seek to recover unremitted statutory deductions in form of pension contributions and PAYEE tax. Relief (b) asks for “An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of one hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and forty four naira (N110,544.00) only being the sum payable by the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as contributory pension to ARM Pension for the Claimant’s pension while in the employ of the Defendant”. Relief (c) is for “An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of sixty thousand, nine hundred and seventy (N60,977.00) only being and representing outstanding amount due to the Claimant with respect to her PAYEE”.

 

18.        The deducted pension contribution was to be paid into the Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account (RSA) domiciled with her Pension Fund Administrator (PFA)- ARMS Pension, in line with the prescription of the extant Pension Reforms Act 2014, while the deducted PAYEE is a tax obligation deductible and remitted to the State Inland Revenue Service, which is evidenced by processing of a Tax Clearance Certificate in favour of the employee tax payer from deductions from earnings.  Claimant had alleged that the said deductions were not remitted.

 

19.        Learned Claimant’s counsel had contended that the Claimant is entitled to receive pension and PAYEE where deductions were made by the employer, but which was not remitted to the appropriate authorities, i. e the Pension Fund Administrators (ARMS Pension) or the State Inland Revenue Service, (RVIRS) respectively. Claimant therefore sought to recover same, citing and relying on Amur v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (2015)55 NLLR (pt.189)619, and arguing, in para.9 of his Final Address that “ the Claimant is entitled to these monies which she contributed but were not remitted”. Counsel had referred to paragraph 18 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath to the effect that N110, 544.00 was deducted as pension contribution for the Claimant but not remitted.

 

 

20.         I find that this non- remittance  was shown in exh.C8, which is the Summary Report for RSA Fund for the period 01/01/2018-09/17/20, showing that the Claimant’s RSA No. PEN20088087717, has zero (0) funding as no remittance was ever made, despite evidence of deductions as shown in the Claimant’s pay slips (exh.C2). Claimant had also laid evidence that the sum of N60, 977.00 was deducted at monthly rate of N2, 619.00 as PAYEE tax remittance for her, but there was no evidence of such remittance by the Defendant. Incidentally, the Defendant did not deny the deductions but maintained that same were paid over to the relevant authorities (the ARMS Pension and the RVIRS). The Defendant, who has the evidential burden to discharge on the particular fact of the remittance of the deducted sums, did not however provide any proof of such remittance.  On that note, I find that the Defendant wrongfully kept back deducted sums of money which it ought to remit to the appropriate pension and tax authorities in favour of the Claimant.

 

21.        Nevertheless, it remains to consider if the Claimant can recover the said sums directly from the Defendant. Regarding tax deductions, PAYEE (Pay As You Earn) being a specie of statutory tax deductions from earnings of employee, cannot be recovered by the tax payer on whose behalf the deducted sum ought to be paid to tax authorities. That obligation subsists as it has been earmarked from the salary of the employee, and as such must be paid over to the tax authorities, and evidence of payment given to the tax payer, who becomes entitled to tax clearance certificate issued by the tax authority, and processed on behalf of the tax payer employee by the employer. 

 

22.        With respect to Pension contribution deductions without remittance, where the employee has an existing Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) during the life-span of the employment relationship, direct payment of the unremitted pension deducted from employees earning by the employer, cannot be paid over to the employee, but paid into the employee’s RSA through which the sum can be accessed. See: Agbonyi Agbo Geoffrey v. Dangote Agro Sacks Limited (Suit No. NICN / LA/315/2013, Judgment delivered on December 7 2017), (Agbonyi’Case), to the effect that “Pension Reform Act, whether of 2004 or 2014, does not envisage the payment of pension directly to an employee by an employer…”

 

 

 

 

23.        This position of the law was aptly distinguished in Jorge Traquini v. ASC Nig Ltd (Suit No. NICN/LA/580/2017, Judgment delivered on March 10 2021), wherein it was held that where an RSA was not opened by or for and employee during the pendency of the employment relationship and the employer made deductions that were unremitted, the deducted sum is liable to be refunded to the employee directly, as the extant Pension Reforms Act 2014, did not deal with or envisage opening an RSA at post-employment stage. I hold the view that, the applicable case is that of Agbonyi’Case, to the effect that payment of unremitted pension should be done through the RSA of the ex-employee, the Claimant, having opened and maintained an RSA with a PFA (ARM Pensions) during the pendency of the employment. In the circumstance, Reliefs ((b) succeeds to the extent that the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N110,544.00 (one hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and forty four naira only, being the sum payable by the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as contributory pension to ARM Pension for the Claimant’s pension while in the employ of the Defendant. The said sum shall be paid to the Claimant through her Retirement Savings Account No PEN20088087717 with ARM Pension, the Pension Fund Administratorn within one(1) month of this Judgment. I so hold and order.

 

24.        Relief (c) succeeds to the extent that, the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N60,977.00 (sixty thousand, nine hundred and seventy)only, being and representing outstanding amount due to the Claimant with respect to her PAYEE, which was deducted by the Defendant but not remitted to the relevant tax authority during the lifespan of the employment. The said sum shall be paid by the Defendant to the Rivers State Inland Revenue Service (RVSIRS) on behalf of the Claimant, and Tax Clearance Certificate issued in favour of the Claimant for the tax period covered. Same shall be paid and the Tax Clearance obtained and released to the Claimant, within one (1) month of this Judgment. I so hold and order.

 

25.        Relief (d) asks for “Interest rate as shall be directed by the court on the sum of N261,933.68 only from 1st November 2020 until judgment is delivered”.  Claimant had contended that the Defendant did not pay outstanding salaries for 21 months, and such delay could attract interest at the rate of 10%, as permitted by the Rules of this Court. Counsel cited and relied on Or.47 Rule 7 of the NICN (CP) Rules 2017.

 

 

26.        The Defendant disagreed. Learned Defendant’s counsel had in para, 4.6 of his Final Address argued thus: “we submit that in the interest of justice that the Claimant is not entitled to the claims made in paragraph 19 of her statement of claim. This is due to the evidences before the court that the entire sum owed to her by the defendant has been paid”. Counsel cited and relied on E.B Plc, Awomamma v. Nwoloro [2012]14NWLR (Pt.1321)488 (Awomamma’Case), wherein it was held that “once a party has been fully compensated for a loss or harm suffered by him, it should not be open to the trial court to proceed to award him any other kind of additional damages that may amount to double compensation”.

 

27.        The tenor of the relief (d) presupposes pre-judgment interest and not post-judgment interest as postulated by the learned Claimant’s counsel, while resorting to Or.47 Rule 7 of the NICN (CP) Rules 2017, which rather guides award of post-judgment interest. It reads: “The court may at the time of delivering the judgment or making the order give direction as to the period within which payment is to be made or other act is to be performed or may order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment”. Let me clarify that the stages of interest claim in judicial proceedings are basically divided into two periods: post-judgment and pre-judgment. While pre-judgment stage starts pre-suit and terminates upon judgment, the post-judgment starts after judgment and takes effect from the expiration of the moratorium period given in the judgment to liquidate the judgment sum. Again, while the pre-judgment interest is considered as special damages claim, and requires proof of entitlement by the Claimant, the post-judgment award is guided by the Rules of the Court and based on the discretion of the court. Thus, while award of pre-judgment interest is a matter of proof and strength of evidence led, award of post-judgment interest is purely of judicial discretion in line with the Rules of the Court and based on the circumstances of the suit.

 

28.        Being a pre-judgment interest claim, the critical question remains, is the Claimant entitled to award of pre-judgment interest in the circumstance of this suit and was it proved as required by law? In Okafor & Anor.v. Ejiogu (2011) LPELR-3923(CA), it was held that “a claim for judgment interest is one which is calculated on a principal sum in a judgment at the pre-judgment rate from the date the cause of action accrued to the judgment date, it smacks of a claim for interest as of right”. In Intercontinental Bank Ltd v. Brifina Ltd [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) SC 1 @ 23 Para.F, the Supreme Court held that: “where interest is claimed, it must be proved before it can be granted”.

 

29.        From the record, I find no sufficient averments on pleadings and evidence led to ground award of pre-judgment interest in the circumstance of this suit, as none was laid by the Claimant in line with the pleading and evidential requirements for proving special damages claim. On that note, this Relief (d) lacks merit. It fails and is hereby discountenanced and dismissed. I so hold.

 

30.        I am however not unmindful of the vociferous submission of the learned Defendant’s counsel, citing and relying on the Awomamma’Case (supra), to the effect that ‘once a party is fully compensated for a loss or harm suffered by him, it should not be open to the trial court to proceed to award him any other kind of additional damages that may amount to double compensation’. Anchoring on this judicial postulation, learned counsel for the Defendant drew attention of the court to the emerging fact that the Claimant has received full payment of the owed sum that actually ignited this suit. Counsel did not however, explain or throw more light as to how the payment of the claimed principal sum in the course of the proceedings have amounted to ‘full compensation’ for the Claimant, who was deprived of her earned salaries and had to engage a Solicitor  and prosecuted this suit up to this stage. Could throwing in the balance of the owed sum in the course of the proceedings be ‘full compensation’ for the Defendant’s wrongful act of withholding the Claimant’s earned salaries and refusing to remit statutory deductions, in the wisdom of learned counsel?, or what could amount to ‘double compensation’ in the circumstances?, going by the prescriptions of the court in the Awomamma’Case, which learned counsel invoked and stoutly relied on.

 

31.        I find that this attitude of  unjustified holding on to payment of the Claimant’s earned entitlement and not paying same off when the parties parted ways vide the Claimant’s resignation in January 2020, coupled with unjustified non-remittance of Claimant’s statutory deductions of pension contribution and PAYEE tax obligation, which are all actionable wrongs  constituting injuries the Claimant complained about. No doubt, this conduct forms specie of the emerging concept of ‘unfair labour practice’, of which this court frowns at and curtails howsoever it arises in workplace dispute, courtesy of the new mandate of this Court reserved in S.254C(1)(f) of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (3rd Alteration 2010, effective 4th March 2011). In Abe Adewunmi v. Equinox International Resources Ltd (Suit No. NICN/LA/166/2015, Judgment delivered June 17 2020, per Ogbuanya, J), I had expressed the view and held that: “such acts of protracted post-employment dispute over recovery of accrued salaries and entitlements, which would have been wisely sorted out along with the employment termination, constitutes a specie of the emerging jurisprudence of the concept of unfair labour/employment practice, of which this court frowns at, and curtails, howsoever it rears up”. This conduct is usually compensated by way of general damages. I retain the same view in the circumstances of this suit. I so hold.

32.        Flowing from the foregoing analysis, I hold a considered view that the circumstance of this suit warrants award of consequential damages to compensate the wrong done on the Claimant by the recalcitrant attitude of the Defendant, which amounts to unfair labour practice. See: Eze & Ors, v. Governor of Abia State & Ors (2014) LPELR- 23276(SC). That calls for invocation of the hallowed rule of principle-Ubi jus Ibi Remedium; a pivotal thrust-point anchoring sustainability of the often admirable egalitarian society. Accordingly, the sum of N1, 000,000.00 (one million naira) is hereby awarded as consequential damages in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant, for the Defendant’s unjustified holding on to payment of the Claimant’s earned entitlement and not paying same off when the parties parted ways vide the Claimant’s resignation in January 2020, coupled with unjustified non-remittance of Claimant’s statutory deductions of pension contribution and PAYEE tax obligation. I so hold.  

 

33.        For clarity and avoidance of doubt, and on the basis of the reasons advanced in the body of the Judgment, the terms of this Judgment are as follows:

1.    Relief (1) succeeds, to the extent that it As mutually alluded to by both counsel, that the said outstanding sum of N261,733.68 claimed in Relief(a) has been discharged, invariably, this relief becomes stale and is hereby discountenanced and dismissed, having been fully satisfied by the Defendant ahead of delivery of this Judgment.

 

2.    Reliefs ((b) succeeds to the extent that the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N110,544.00 (one hundred and ten thousand, five hundred and forty four naira only, being the sum payable by the Defendant in favour of the Claimant as contributory pension to ARM Pension for the Claimant’s pension while in the employ of the Defendant. The said sum shall be paid to the Claimant through her Retirement Savings Account No PEN20088087717 with ARM Pension, the Pension Fund Administrator within one (1) month of this Judgment.

 

 

 

3.    Relief (c) succeeds to the extent that, the Defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of N60, 977.00 (sixty thousand, nine hundred and seventy) only, being and representing outstanding amount due to the Claimant with respect to her PAYEE, which was deducted by the Defendant but not remitted to the relevant tax authority during the lifespan of the employment. The said sum shall be paid by the Defendant to the Rivers State Inland Revenue Service (RVSIRS) on behalf of the Claimant, and Tax Clearance Certificate issued in favour of the Claimant for the tax period covered. Same shall be paid and the Tax Clearance obtained and released to the Claimant, within one (1) month of this Judgment.

 

4.    Relief (d) lacks merit. It fails and is hereby discountenanced and dismissed.

 

5.    The sum of N1, 000,000.00 (one million naira) is hereby awarded as consequential damages in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant, for the Defendant’s unjustified holding on to payment of the Claimant’s earned entitlement and not paying same off when the parties parted ways vide the Claimant’s resignation in January 2020, coupled with unjustified non-remittance of Claimant’s statutory deductions of pension contribution and PAYEE tax obligation.

 

6.    In line with the Rules of this Court, Cost in the sum of N100, 000.00 (one hundred thousand naira) is hereby awarded in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant.

7.    All compliances directed and ordered in this Judgment shall be performed within one (1) month of this Judgment. Also, the sums of money awarded and due in this Judgment shall be payable to the Claimant by the Defendant within one (1) month of this Judgment, failing which it attracts 10% interest rate per annum until fully liquidated.

 

34.         Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

………………………………………..

HON. JUSTICE N.C.S OGBUANYA

JUDGE

 

30/11/21