IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 17th January 2023                                               SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/359/2020

           

Between:

 

Ngozi Ogbonna                                                                   -                                               Claimant      

 

And

 

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc.                                        -                    Defendant

 

Representation:

Dr. Obinna Onyia, with him, E. C. Umezurike for the Claimant

Rose Adaji for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

The Claimant instituted this suit on 2nd December 2020 and her claims against the defendant are as follows:

1.      A Declaration that the Defendant acted negligently when they failed to provide the Claimant with personal protective equipment and a safe working environment in the course of her employment which exposed the Claimant to an adverse medical condition that severely impacted the Claimant’s health.

2.      A Declaration that the negligent act of the Defendant which exposed the Claimant to an adverse medical condition which compelled the Claimant to resign her employment amounts to constructive dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant.

3.      A Declaration that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant in the sum of N400,000 being medical bills incurred by the Claimant between January 2020 to October 2020 arising from the negligence of the Defendant.

4.      An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N400,000 being medical bills incurred by the Claimant between January 2020 to October 2020 arising from the negligence of the Defendant.

5.      An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000 as damages for constructive dismissal of the Claimant.

6.      An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N5,000,000 as damages for the physical, emotional, and mental trauma occasioned by the Defendant on the Claimant.

7.      An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N2,061,000 being the one year basic salary of the Claimant as damages for loss of income occasioned by the Defendant.

8.      An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N1,000,000 as cost of this suit.

 

CLAIMANT’S CASE

The Claimant gave evidence in proof of the claims. She explained that she was employed by the Defendant as an Executive Trainee on 18th January 2016 and on 29th March 2016, she was upgraded to Officer III Grade. As part of her role with the Defendant, she was appointed Head Teller/ATM custodian for about 3 years but she has worked with the Defendant for over 4 years. Her daily routine involves handling cash and sorting cash for ATM which is done manually without protective equipment and this exposed her to germs, bacteria, viruses, dust and dirt from cash. She made several oral demands to her supervisors for provision of personal protective equipment but her demands were ignored by the Defendant. Sometimes in April 2019, she started having chesty cough which produces very thick mucus and it refused to heal despite several treatments and visits to hospitals. She was informed by doctors that her medical condition was occasioned by her continuous exposure to dust and dust particles from her daily exposure in handling dirty cash. In May 2020, she was asked to fill a questionnaire stating any health issue she has before returning to work after the Covid-19 lockdown. She reminded officers of the Defendant that she has been coughing for over 1 year but the Defendant recklessly or negligently re-assigned her to work in the Gwarimpa branch of the Defendant where she and other staff of the Defendant had to sort out huge amount of cash per day to feed the ATMs.

 

The Defendant started providing nose masks after the pandemic but by then her health had deteriorated. The work environment without personal protective equipment worsened her health and she was diagnosed in Nizamiye Turkish Specialist Hospital and other laboratories with Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis and its symptom was the constant cough. She was placed on treatment and advised to stay away from dust, cold and musty environment in order to heal. Since her medical condition was caused by unsafe working environment, she will need to stay away from such unhealthy environment for a considerable period to enable her heal. She was given a medical pass to be on bed rest and treatment from 3/6/2020 to 12/6/2020. She informed the Defendant of this. She was however called back by the Zonal Manager and asked to resume at the UAC branch [ATM only branch] to handle the vault activities every day despite her doctor’s report. This further aggravated her condition as she spent longer hours in the dusty environment. She submitted a medical report dated 17th June 2020 and addressed to the Defendant. The medical report advised that she be kept away from work environment that aggravated her health crisis but the report was ignored by the Defendant despite follow up emails in that regard.

 

She informed the Zonal Manager that she wants to resign as she was made to choose between her job and her health but she was advised to speak to Human Resources over her plight. She was not assigned to another department but was asked to work from Federal Secretariat branch where she was asked to sort out cash and handle other cash operations via an email. At this point, she was left with no choice than to put in notice of resignation of her employment against her wish. She incurred medical bills in the sum of N400,000 as a result of the negligence of the Defendant and the bill is still accumulating as she is undergoing medical treatment. She has been exposed to mental, emotional, psychological trauma and loss of income occasioned by the defendant and she is entitled to damages. The Defendant has a duty to ensure a safe and conducive work environment. The negligent acts of the Defendant towards her amounts to constructive dismissal as no reasonable person can be expected to work in such inhuman condition she was subjected to. Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis is not one that can be treated completely. She has to manage with the ailment for the rest of her life. She expends funds in treatment of the medical condition caused by the negligence of the Defendant. She is no longer medically fit to take up certain employment due to the deterioration of her health. She has engaged lawyers to write demand letter to the Defendant and to institute this suit against the defendant for which she paid the sum of N1,000,0000 as legal fees in pursuit of her claims.

 

The Claimant tendered 7 documents in evidence which were admitted in evidence and marked respectively as Exhibits A, B, C, D1, D2, E and F. In cross examination by counsel for the Defendant, the Claimant stated that it is the duty of an employer to provide task in line with the schedule of duty. She was a head teller. They failed to provide her personal protective equipment which are nose mask, hand gloves, dust jacket, cash sorting machine, and cash humidifier. She resigned from the job. She had to choose between her life and the job. Before Covid-19, there was a standard practice for banks to provide nose masks for cash handlers but they were not provided any. It is not possible that she may have contracted bronchitis via other causes apart from handling cash. She handled cash every day at work.

 

DEFENCE

The Defendant filed an amended statement of defence on 14th March 2022 and called one witness in defence of the claims of the Claimant. DW1 is one Princewill Abumere, Human Resources Manager of the Defendant. In his evidence, DW1 stated that the Claimant was offered provisional employment into the Defendant’s training school on 16th January 2016 but the Claimant became an employee of the Defendant on 29th March 2016. The Claimant voluntarily resigned her appointment by a notice of resignation dated 17/8/2020 but effective 16/9/2020. During the period of the Claimant’s employment, she was expected to carry out different roles in any of the Defendant’s offices as deemed fit by the Defendant and she consented to it. This was stated in the Claimant’s contract of service dated 16th January 2017 and offer of employment. Upon her appointment as head teller, the Claimant was informed of the standard job description. The Defendant provided electronic counting machine and masks to the Claimant and other staff because of the dust inherent in the handling of cash. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Defendant went further to provide extra protection for its employees by supplying gloves, masks, sanitizers and cash humidifier for its employees to work with. The Defendant did not expose the Claimant to any form of stressful working condition as the duties assigned to her were within the scope of her duties as contained in her contract of employment which she voluntarily signed. She Claimant was not forced to continue working for the Defendant when she felt she was unable to meet up her job schedule.

 

The Defendant places considerable welfare on its staff by providing them medical care and other benefits as indicated in a Notice of Compensation/Benefit review dated 2nd July 2018. The Defendant set up and implements a safe working environment for all its staff and it complies with best practices as it relates to safe work place and safety measures. The Claimant had access to the Defendant’s health insurance for its employees. The Claimant did not complain of chesty cough at any time in 2019. The Defendant, being an empathic institution, obliged the Claimant’s excuse duty from 3rd June 2020 to 12th June 2020 and another one from 13th June 2020 to 18th June 2020 with payment of all her salary as advised by her doctors. The Claimant’s health issues were only brought to the knowledge of the Defendant in June 2020 as shown in email correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant. The Claimant never complained to the Defendant before the Covid-19 lockdown which commenced in March 2020. The Defendant had provided facemasks to staff sorting out cash and with the Covid-19 pandemic, it provided PPEs and disinfectants. The Claimant’s alleged chronic/asthmatic bronchitis could not have been contracted in the course of her role as there are other causes of the ailment.

 

Due to the medical report received, the Defendant made sure the Claimant was available at work only 3 hours in an all-ATM branch. The Defendant interviewed the Claimant for possible re-assignment of her role but it was revealed that the Claimant did fit into person description for both retail and commercial teams of the Defendant and because the Claimant mentioned that she prefers a role with zero customer interaction owing to her asthmatic condition, the interview was aborted. The interview feedback was communicated to the Claimant on 17th July 2020. In consideration of the Claimant’s request for non-customer facing roles, she was moved to an ATM only branch at the National Assembly/Federal secretariat and the UAC branches in 2020 where she would only be responsible for ATM management with zero exposure to customers and minimal contact with cash. The arrangement required the Claimant’s physical presence in the office twice a week and work less than 30 minutes each. The Claimant was aware of the Defendant’s health insurance scheme and she was duly registered and she had access to any of the registered hospitals. However, the health scheme does not stop any of the employees from seeking medical attention from other hospitals but the cost incurred will be borne by the employee who exercised that right. The Claimant voluntarily resigned her employment without any fault of the Defendant.

 

Chronic/asthmatic bronchitis can be treated and not managed. Once patient takes medication and avoid triggers of the ailment which the Claimant was supposed to do by the provision of face masks and PPEs. Chronic/asthmatic bronchitis complained of by the Claimant is not work related. There are other factors such as smoke from fried foods, stuffy environment, genetic tendencies triggers such ailments. During the training of its staff and during the course of their employment, the Defendant provided face masks to staff handling cash to protect their nostrils. The Claimant has relocated abroad and gainfully employed. The Claimant is still capable of being employed. 9 documents were received in evidence from DW1. They are Exhibits UBN 1, UBN 2, UBN 3, UBN 4, UBN 5, UBN 6, UBN 7, UBN 8 and UBN 9.

 

In cross examination by counsel for the Claimant, DW1 stated further that every staff undergoes a comprehensive medical checkup as part of requirement for employment. The Claimant underwent this medical checkup. There was a medical report of fitness for the Claimant when she resumed. DW1 said he works in the head office of the Defendant and he has been in the head office for 13 years. The Claimant was employed in 2016 and resigned in 2020. Cash dehumidifiers and nose masks are to be provided for bulk room staff use only. It is not his duty to visit branches to ascertain whether or not the dehumidifiers and nose masks have been provided. It is expected that they were provided. He is not a doctor so he is not aware that cash dust is a cause of acute bronchitis. Before Covid-19, nose masks were with the head teller while dehumidifiers stayed in the bulk room. He is not aware that nose masks were not provided in the Claimant’s branch. He got the information in paragraph 34 of his deposition from the Claimant’s supervisors.

 

In re-examination, DW1 said Exhibit C is not a resignation letter. It is used to garner information with a view to knowing reason why people are leaving the bank.

 

I have read the various final written addresses of counsels as well as the Defendant’s reply address. I do not see any reason to rehash their contents here. However, arguments proffered by counsels in their respective written addresses were duly considered and evaluated. Reference will be made to them as it becomes necessary in the course of this judgment.

 

COURT DECISION

It is not in dispute in this suit that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 29th March 2016 and she resigned from the employment on 16th September 2020. According to the Claimant, she resigned from the employment because she suffered from the ailment of Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis in the employment as a result of the failure of the Defendant to provide her with personal protective equipments. It was on that ground she sought relief 1 for a declaration that the Defendant acted negligently when it failed to provide her with personal protective equipment and a safe working environment in the course of her employment which exposed her to an adverse medical condition. From this relief, the issues to be considered in this judgment are whether the Claimant proved that she suffered the alleged medical condition during and in the employment and whether the Claimant proved that she suffered the medical condition as a result of the negligence of the Defendant.

 

In her evidence, the Claimant said upon her employment, she was appointed Head Teller/ATM custodian and her daily routine involved handling cash and sorting cash for ATM which is done manually without protective equipment and this exposed her to germs, bacteria, viruses, dust and dirt from cash. She made several oral demands to her supervisors for provision of personal protective equipment but her demands were ignored by the Defendant. Sometimes in April 2019, she started having chesty cough and on visit to hospitals, she was informed by doctors that her medical condition was occasioned by her continuous exposure to dust and dust particles from her daily exposure in handling dirty cash. In 2020, she was diagnosed in Nizamiye Turkish Specialist Hospital and other laboratories with Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis. Exhibit D1 is the medical report from Nizamiye Hospital Ltd dated 17th June 2020 indicating that the Claimant was diagnosed with Asthmatic Bronchitis.

 

In defence of the suit, the Defendant averred that the Claimant did not complain of chesty cough at any time in 2019 or before the Covid-19 lockdown which commenced in March 2020. The Defendant also averred that the Claimant’s health issues were only brought to the knowledge of the Defendant in June 2020. It is interesting to point out that the Defendant admitted that it became aware of the Claimant’s health condition in June 2020. From the statement of defence and the evidence of DW1, the Defendant did not dispute the fact that the Claimant was diagnosed of Asthmatic Bronchitis in 2020. What the Defendant contends however is that the Claimant did not make any complaint to it in 2019 of suffering from such ailment. 

 

The fact that the Claimant did not complain to the Defendant in 2019 of having chesty cough does not imply that the Claimant was not suffering from the condition since 2019. I have seen the medical report in Exhibit D1 where it is reported that the Claimant had the complaint of cough and mucus for about 1 year prior to the date of the report. This indicates that the Claimant has been having the cough symptom since 2019. The fact that the Claimant did not inform the Defendant in 2019 of the medical condition is of no moment. What is necessary to consider is whether the Claimant suffered the medical condition in the employment.

 

From all that the Claimant said in her evidence, she started to have the chesty cough, which resulted to being diagnosed of Asthmatic Bronchitis, in 2019. In Exhibit D1, the Claimant was advised in the medical report to avoid “dust, humidity, smoke, chemical materials and detergent materials” as being in “dusty, smoky and damp environment is harmful for her health”. From the report, it is clear to me that dust, humidity, smoke, chemical materials are what can cause the medical condition the Claimant was diagnosed with. According to her, the cause of the cough was her extended exposure to germs, bacteria, viruses, dust and dirt from cash while carrying out her daily routine of handling cash and sorting cash for ATM.

 

The Claimant was employed in March 2016. DW1 told this court in cross examination that the Claimant underwent a medical checkup as a requirement for her employment and there was a medical report of fitness for the Claimant when she resumed work. From the testimony of DW1, it is clear to me that the Claimant was given a clean bill of health in the medical checkup and that was why she was employed. It is also clear to me that the Claimant was not suffering from Asthmatic Bronchitis at the time of her employment. Now, when she was diagnosed of Asthmatic Bronchitis in 2020, the implication is that she developed the condition during her employment. The Claimant has been able to show that the daily schedule of her duties as at 2019, which include manual handling of cash and sorting cash for ATM exposed her to germs, bacteria, viruses, dust and dirt from the cash and this was the cause of the ailment.

 

The Defendant contended that the Claimant’s alleged chronic/asthmatic bronchitis could not have been contracted in the course of her role as there are other causes of the ailment. It was averred by the Defendant that there are other factors such as smoke from fried foods, stuffy environment or genetic tendencies which triggers such ailments. Even though this assertion is not supported with any medical evidence, the Defendant failed however to refute the fact that dust and dirt from handling cash on daily basis could cause the medical condition. It is clear in Exhibit D1 that dust is one of the causes of the condition and the Claimant has shown that she was exposed to dust and dirt from daily handling of cash.

 

Without going too far on this first leg of relief 1, I find that the Claimant has proved that she suffered the condition during and in the employment. This takes me to the second leg of the claim which is whether the Claimant proved that she suffered the condition as a result of negligence of Defendant.

 

The Claimant alleged she was given the duty of handling cash and sorting cash for ATM without being given personal protective equipment and this caused her to be exposed to germs, bacteria, viruses, dust and dirt from cash. She said she made several oral demands to her supervisors for provision of personal protective equipment but her demands were ignored by the Defendant. The evidence of the Claimant, in sum, is that it was the failure of the Defendant to provide her with PPE, which she mentioned to include nose mask, hand gloves, dust jacket, cash sorting machine and cash humidifier, that caused her to be exposed to dust from cash which resulted to her contracting the ailment.

 

In paragraphs 7 and 9 of the amended statement of defence, the Defendant confirmed that the Claimant was appointed a head teller and that dust is inherent in handling cash. The Defendant proceeded to aver that it provided the Claimant with electronic counting machine and masks to the Claimant and other staff and that During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Defendant went further to provide extra protection for its employees by supplying gloves, masks, sanitizers, cash humidifier for its employees to work with. The summary of the case of the Defendant is that it provided face masks to the Claimant and other staff sorting out cash; and with the Covid-19 pandemic, it provided PPEs and disinfectants to its staff. The witness called to substantiate these averments is DW1. In cross examination, DW1 said he had worked in the head office of the Defendant for 13 years and it is not his duty to visit branches to ascertain whether or not the dehumidifiers and nose masks were provided as it is expected that they were provided. He also said he is not aware that nose masks were not provided in the Claimant’s branch. The implication of the evidence of DW1, who did not work in the same branch or in the same office or duty as the Claimant, is that DW1 did not know and cannot confirm that the Claimant was provided PPE. The witness only assumed that the items were provided. Therefore, the Defendant did not adduce evidence to dislodge the Claimant’s evidence that she was not provided PPE by the Defendant. The consequence is that the Claimant has proved that the Defendant did not provide her with PPE in her task of handling cash on a daily basis.

 

I have mentioned that the Defendant agreed in paragraph 9 of the statement of defence that dust is inherent in the handling of cash. The Defendant also admitted that provision of PPE is necessary for the protection of the staff handling cash. These averments are acknowledged by the Defendant that it owes a duty to the staff handling cash to provide them with PPEs and that the failure to provide PPE to the staff could cause health hazard to the staff. The Defendant is therefore aware that it ought, as a duty, to provide PPE to staff involved in such task, including the Claimant. Although the Defendant had tried to say that it provided the Claimant with PPE, the evidence of DW1 to that effect is too shallow to sustain the averment of the Defendant. The Defendant is unable to prove that it provided the Claimant with any of the PPEs.

 

The Claimant succeeded in establishing that in the course of her handling cash without PPE, she was exposed to dust and it resulted to her medical condition of Asthmatic Bronchitis. It is thus clear that the failure of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with the PPE caused the Claimant to contract the ailment. I find the Defendant negligent when it failed in its duty to provide PPE to the Claimant.

 

In this case, it is not in dispute that the Claimant resigned her appointment with the Defendant. In explaining how she resorted to resigning from the employment, the Claimant stated that as a result of her health condition, she had to choose between the job and her health and she decided to put in notice of resignation of her employment against her wish. She added that the negligent acts of the Defendant towards her amounts to constructive dismissal as no reasonable person can be expected to work in such inhuman condition she was subjected to by the Defendant. For this reason, the Claimant sought in relief 2 a declaration that her resignation from the Defendant’s employment as a result of her health condition amounts to constructive dismissal by the Defendant. On its part, the Defendant contended that the Claimant voluntarily resigned her employment without any fault of the Defendant and that the Claimant was not forced to continue working for the Defendant when she felt she was unable to meet up her job schedule.

 

The service relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant was that of master and servant. Either party has a right in the contract to terminate the contract any time. As stated by the Defendant, the Claimant was not forced to continue working for the Defendant when she felt her health was being affected by the job. Since the Claimant felt the job was affecting her health, the proper thing for her to do was to leave the job. The Claimant confirmed that she decided to resign from the employment in favour of her health. That was a good decision, in my view. Therefore, the decision by the Claimant to resign was a voluntary action in her own interest. The Defendant did not force her to remain in the employment nor forced her to resign. I cannot agree with the Claimant that her resignation should be considered as constructive dismissal. Accordingly, I do not find merit in reliefs 2 and 5 sought by the Claimant.

 

Related to the reliefs 2 and 5 is relief 7 where the Claimant sought an order directing the Defendant to pay her the sum of N2,061,000 being her one-year basic salary as damages for loss of income occasioned by the Defendant. In other words, the Claimant wants to be paid 1 year salary which she considered as income she lost arising from the alleged constructive dismissal.

 

First, I have resolved the Claimant’s allegation of constructive dismissal against her. Therefore, she cannot make any claim for payment of salaries based on such allegation. The Claimant’s resignation was voluntary. She ceased to be an employee of the Defendant from the date of the resignation and as such she is not entitled to be paid any salary thereafter. See OBOT vs. CBN (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 310) 140. Second, claim for loss of income is a specie of special damages.  The law is settled that a claim in special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved at trial. See AMIRA NIG. LTD vs. MALL NIG. LTD (2001) FWLR (Pt. 77) 896 at 924; IBOK vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 682) 1782 at 1794. The Claimant did not plead any fact to show she was paid salary while in the employment nor did she plead the amount of her monthly or annual basic salary. She also failed to plead any fact to explain how she arrived at the sum of N2,061,000 which she seeks to be paid in relief 7 as 1 year basic salary. Besides the pleading, the Claimant also failed to give evidence to prove the claim. The result is that relief 7 is also not proved.

 

In relief 3, the Claimant sought a declaration that the Defendant is indebted to her to the sum of N400,000 being medical bills she incurred between January 2020 to October 2020 arising from the negligence of the Defendant and in relief 4, the Claimant sought for an order directing the Defendant to pay to her the incurred medical bills in the sum of N400,000. The Claimant wants this court to first declare that the Defendant is indebted to her for the medical bills she incurred in treating herself before making a claim for payment of the medical bills. Now, the law places a heavy burden of proof on the Claimant in respect of the relief. Declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the Defendant where a Claimant fails to establish his entitlements to the declaration by his own evidence. The weakness of the Defendant’s case does not assist the Claimant’s case. The Claimant swims or sinks with his own case. See ADDAH vs. UBANDAWAKI [2015] 7 NWLR [Pt. 1458] 325; ZACCALA vs. EDOSA [2018] 6 NWLR [Pt. 1616] 528 at 547; DUMEZ NIG. LTD vs. NWAKHOBA [2008] 18 NWLR [Pt. 1119] 361.

 

It is also observed that the claim for payment of medical bills or expenses is a claim in special damages. See OBASUYI vs. BUSINESS VENTURE LTD (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 658) 666 at 695: TAYLOR vs. OGHENEOVO (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 610) 1358 at 1374. Therefore, for the Claimant to be entitled to the claim for payment of medical expenses, the Claimant is expected to particularize the expenses in her pleadings and prove the expenses she allegedly incurred in treating herself. What the Claimant pleaded simply in paragraph 15 of the statement of facts with respect to the claim is she that she incurred medical bills in the sum of N400,000 between January 2020 to October 2020 as a result of the negligence of the Defendant. This is all that the Claimant said in her evidence. The Claimant did not plead or prove how she incurred medical bills amounting to the sum of N400,000. She also did not tender any receipt in evidence to back up her claim that she incurred medical expenses. From a careful consideration of the averments and evidence of the Claimant, she failed to prove the claim in reliefs 3 and 4.

 

The Claimant claims the sum of N5,000,000 from the Defendant as damages for the physical, emotional and mental trauma occasioned by the negligent act of Defendant. I have held in this judgment that the Claimant proved that the Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis she suffered was caused by the nature of work she was assigned by the Defendant and this was as a result of the Defendant’s negligence of not providing the Claimant with personal protective equipment. The Claimant stated in her evidence that she has been exposed to mental, emotional, psychological trauma occasioned by the negligent act the Defendant. General damages are what the law presumes to be the direct, natural or probable consequences of the act complained of in a suit. See G.K.F. INVESTMENT NIG. LTD. vs. NIGERIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC LER [2009] SC 177/2005. In an employment relationship between an employer and an employee, the employer owes a duty of care to its employees. The employer is always under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety and health of the employee, and where an employer fails or was negligent in its duty of care to the employee resulting in injury to the employee, the employer will be liable in damages to the affected employee. See ROYAL ADE NIGERIA LIMITED vs. N.O.C.M. CO. PLC (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 874) 206; IYERE vs. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 453) 1217 at 1244; IGHOSEWE vs. DELTA STEEL COMPANY LTD (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 410) 741 at 757.

 

In this case, I find that the Defendant was in breach of its duty of care it owed to the Claimant. The Claimant contracted Chronic/Asthmatic Bronchitis as a result of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of its duty of care it owed to the Claimant. In my view, the Defendant is liable to pay damages to the Claimant. The medical report relied on by the Claimant in this case was issued since June 2020. The Claimant did not present herself for physical assessment by this court as she gave her evidence via Zoom while she was in faraway Canada where she is now resident. She also did not show any recent medical report to this court to show that she still suffers from or still is being treated for the medical condition. In any event, it is trite that the purpose of an award of general damages in personal injury cases is to compensate the Claimant for damage or injury suffered. In my view, the sum of N1,000,000.00 will fairly compensate the Claimant for the ailment she suffered while in the Defendant’s employment.

 

The last claim of the Claimant is for an order directing the Defendant to pay her the sum of N1,000,000 as cost of this suit. In her evidence, the Claimant said she engaged the law firm of Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN & Co to institute this suit against the Defendant, for which she paid the sum of N1,000,000 as legal fees in pursuit of her claims. The Claimant tendered the receipt issued to her for the payment in evidence. It is Exhibit F. From the evidence of the Claimant, it is clear to me that the money sought by the Claimant in relief 8 is to cover the fee she paid to her lawyers to prosecute this suit. The fee paid by the Claimant to her counsel is not part of her cause of action in this suit. Furthermore, the fee was negotiated and agreed between the Claimant and her counsel for the purpose of prosecuting this suit. The Claimant cannot claim such fee from the Defendant. I find no reason to grant this relief. Parties shall therefore bear their respective costs.

 

To conclude this judgment, I find that the Claimant has proved relief 1.  The Declaration sought in this relief is granted accordingly. Relief 6 is also granted only in the sum of N1,000,000.00 general damages. Reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 have not been proved and they are hereby dismissed.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge