IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

 

DATE: 17th JUNE, 2025.                                    SUIT NO. NICN/IB/35/2023

BETWEEN

IYEDUPE OLADAPO AKINBOLA ----------------CLAIMANT

AND

1. TEEBAZ GLOBAL RESOURCES LIMITED ---- DEFENDANTS        2. MR. TELEMA IBIENEYE                                                                                      

 

REPRESENTATION

A. Folajuwon Banjo for the Claimant.

No legal representation for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.The Claimant commenced this suit by General Form of complaint dated the 24th day of May, 2023, accompanied with statement of facts and other Originating processes of same day. The Claimant sought for the following reliefs against the Defendants:-

1. A DECLARATION THAT the refusal of the Defendants to pay the Claimant his outstanding wages totaling the sum of N1, 953,000.00 (One Million Nine Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand Naira Only) for the work done for the Defendants from January 24th to March 16th 2022 is unlawful and breach of contract.

2. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay immediately the sum of N1, 953 000.00 (One Million Nine Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand Naira Only) to the Claimant being his outstanding wages for the work done from January 24th and March 16th, 2022.

3. AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT DIRECTING the Defendants to pay damages in the sum of N2, 500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for direct hardship suffered by the Claimant as a result of not being able to access his outstanding wages having worked for the Defendants for 52 days and also due to the prevalent inflation in the country which has reduced drastically the purchasing of the sum claimed.

2. Though service of the originating processes were effected on the Defendants with several hearing notices issued and served on them, the Defendants neither enter appearance nor filing any statement of defence. The Defendants also failed to cross-examine the Claimant after he led his evidence –in –chief. After several adjournments at the Defendant’s instance, the Defendants were foreclosed from entering defence pursuant to the Claimant’s counsel application for foreclosure and the case was adjourned for adoption of final written address and subsequently for judgment.

CASE FOR THE CLAIMANT

3. On the 10th day of December, 2024, the Claimant opened his case, testified as CW1 and adopted his statement on Oath dated the 24th May, 2023 as his evidence-in-chief and tendered 7 documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A to G respectively. He prayed the Court to enter Judgment in his favour as per his claims. The case of the Claimant briefly as apparent from the pleading and evidence led is that he is an instrumentation and process Control Engineer (commissioning) in the oil and Gas Industry. That he was engagedfrom January 24, 2022 to March 16, 2022 for a role of freelance/contractor with Mr Telema Ibieneye, of Teebaz Global Resources Limited. That he was on work site i.e Shell Facility at Escravos, Ogidigben, Warri, Delta State for 52-days as a Supervisor of Instrumentation and Control.

That the Defendants agree to pay him the sum of N85, 000. 00 (Eighty Five Thousand Naira Only) per day amongst other terms of employment. That his main responsibility was to couple and preserve compressor and gas engine unit D. That this particular job was done by three persons, including himself and two other persons who were his direct workers. That upon successful completion of the job i.e after 52 days, a total sum of N3, 413, 000.00 (Three Million, Four Hundred Thirteen Thousand Naira Only) accrued to his as his wages. That, out of the said sum, the Defendants paid a total sum of N1, 500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) between on 9th June 2022 and September 2nd, 2022 of N1, 000,000.00 and N500, 000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) respectively.

That the balance sum of N1, 913,000.00 (One Million Nine Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira) is still yet unpaid by the Defendants till date. That he personally put calls through to the 2nd Defendants including mails messages to demand for the payment of the outstanding wages but all to no avail. That as at the time of filing this suit, the payment of the outstanding sum of N1, 913,000.00 (One Million Nine Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira) has been due for over one year and is still yet unpaid by the Defendants till date. That he instructed his solicitors in person of Ayodotun Folajuwon-Banjo Esq to formally demand from the Defendants his unpaid wages.

That a letter of demand dated the 5th March, 2023 was written to the Defendants through his solicitor demanding for payment of outstanding wages. That till date, the Defendants have refused to pay his outstanding wages since March, 2022 by the Defendants has caused him untold financial hardship because he barely fend for himself and relations.

 

 

CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

4. The Claimant final written address dated and filed on 3rd day of March, 2025 wherein counsel to the Claimant, Ayododun Folajuwon Banjo ESQ distilled 4 issues for determination, to wit :-

1. Whether by failure/ refusal and neglect of the Defendants to file statement of defence and/or call evidence in this suit, the Defendants should be adjudged as having no defence to the action and judgment should therefore be entered for the Claimant accordingly?

2. Whether the Claimant he is entitled to all the reliefs sought in this action, having proved by credible evidence?

3. Whether the Defendants are not liable to pay the Claimant damages?

4. Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to judgment based on uncontroverted evidence in this particular suit?

5. In arguing the issues, counsel submitted on issue one that the failure/refusal and /or neglect of the Defendants to call evidence in this matter should be adjourned that the Defendants has no defence to this action and as such judgment should be entered for the Claimant accordingly.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the Defendants having not filed any defence to this suit nor adduced any evidence and thus deemed to have accepted the facts adduced by the Claimant in this suit. Reliance was placed on the case of OKONKWO V. KANO AGR. SUPPLY CO. LTD. (2023) WRN 69@ 42-73 & JIMOH V INEC (2012) 24 WRN 48@ 52.

7. Arguing further, counsel submitted that the Defendants action for not calling evidence is tantamount to admission and needs no further proof and same would be taken as established. Reliance was made to the case of IDOGHOR V. IDOGHOR (2024)41 WRN 164 at 168.

8. Again, counsel submitted that this Honourable Court should restrict itself to the pleadings filed and evidence adduced in support of same, so as to be able to make it finding on issues in controversy and in favour of the Claimant. That the Court is bound to consider the totality of the evidence led by each of the parties before placing it on the imaginary scale of justice to see which of the two sides, the scale of justice is titling towards. That the Court can only exercise it duty of considering evidence before it, in favour of the Claimant as the Defendants hence no evidence before the Court. Reliance was placed on the cases of ADETULE V. ADETULE (2015) 32 WRN 37 at 41 LAGGA V. SARHUMA (2018) 50 WRN 63 at 70.

9. Finally on issue one, counsel submitted that the Claimant did not rely on the weakness of the Defendants but on the strength of his case and urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and enter judgment as per the reliefs sought. Reliance was placed on the case of ACHIR & ANOTHER V. CHABO & ANOTHER (2019) LPELR- 48763 (CA) 26-28 para A.

10. On issue two, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s unchallenged statement on Oath which is evidence before this Honourable Court would demonstrate that the Claimant has proved his case, showing that he has outstanding sum to claim from the Defendants and further reliefs.

11. In his another submission, counsel stated that the Defendants have not put up any evidence to contradict the position of the Claimant and that the document tendered are like words and will speak for themselves. Reliance was placed on the cases of AIYEOLA V. PEDRO (2024) JELR 33 108 (SC); AFEWAI MICROFINANCE BANK LTD V. SEACOS (NIG) LTD (2024) LCM/6958/ (CA)/ LADOTUN V. OYEWUNMI (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 504) 1559 at 1568; OGUNDELE &ANOTHER V. AGRIC & ANOTHER (2019) 12 S.C (Pt.) 135.

12. Finally on issue two, counsel submitted that the testimony of the Claimant is credible and ought to be given evidential weight in the assessment and/or consideration of this suit.

13. On issue three, counsel submitted that the Claimant has proven that he is entitled to reliefs sought by his unchallenged statement on Oath particularly in paragraph 25-27 of his statement on Oath and that the refusal by the Defendants to pay the outstanding sum has caused unimaginable sufferings to the Claimant and his family. He cited the case of International Ltd V.N.D.I.C (2011) 15 NWLR (PT 1270) 407 @ 436.

14. In his final and further submission on issue three, counsel stated that the Court in the assessment of damages should act on the credible evidence that has been adduced by the Claimant in this suit in assessing damages.

15. On issue four, counsel contended that the Defendants were served hearing notices but failed to have legal representation in court nor did they appear in court throughout the duration of this suit.

16. Consequently, counsel submitted that it is settled law that where evidence is given by a party which is not controverted by the other party who had the opportunity to do so, the Court should accord credibility to such evidence. Reference was made to the case of OMOREGBE V. DANIEL LAWANI (1980) 3-4 SC 108 at 117.

17. To this extend, counsel submitted that the Claimant having established his case against the Defendants, is entitled to all the reliefs as claimed in the front-loaded processes.

18. On the whole, counsel urged the Court to grant all the reliefs as stated in the statement of material facts and witness statement on Oath and give judgment in favour of the Claimant.

 

 

COURT’S DECISION

19. Having carefully perused the processes filed by the Claimant in this suit, having also evaluate the evidence adduced by the Claimant both oral and documentary, I also watched the demeanor of the Claimant while testifying as CW1, it is therefore my humble view that the four issues raised by the Claimant’s counsel in his final written address can be sum up into one, that is whether the Claimant from the totality of evidence adduced before this Honourable Court has proved his case as required by law to be entitled to the reliefs sought.

20. Let me begin by stating the law that the onus of proof rest on a party who assert. In other words, he who asserts must proof with credible and admissible evidence. This position of law was encapsulated in section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides thus:-

“whoever desires any Court to give Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he averts shall prove that these facts exist.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court held in the case of TUMBIDO V. INEC & ORS (2023) LPER 60004, per ADAMU TAURO, JSC AT PAGE 42-42, PARAGRAPH A-B thus:-

“He who asserts must prove and the burden of proof lies on the party who will fail if no evidence at all is given on another side.”

See also the case of INIAMA V. AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1116) 225.

21. In trying to discharge the onus of proof placed on him, the Claimant testified as CW1, adopted his statement on Oath and tendered in evidence documents which were admitted and marked accordingly.

22. From the totality of evidence of CW1 before the Court, the Claimant led evidence that he was engaged by the Defendants as a freelance/contractor for Mr. Telema Ibieneye, of Teebaz Global Resurces Limited from January 24th to March 16th 2022 and he worked on site i.e shell facility at Escravos, Ogictignen, Warri, Delta State for 52 days as a Supervisor of Instrumentation and Control as Shown in Exhibits A and B. It is the evidence of the Claimant before the Court also that parties agreed that he shall be paid a sum of N85,000. 00 per day amongst other terms of employment. It is in evidence of the Claimant before the Court moreso that upon successful completion of the job i.e after 52 days, a total sum of N3, 413.000.00 (Three Million, Four Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira Only) accrued to him, out of which the 2nd Defendant paid a total sum of N1, 500,000.00 One Million, Five Hundred Naira Only in installment by paying N1, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira Only) on the 9th June, 2022 and N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira Only)on the 2nd of September, 2022 as shown in Exhibit C. Claimant also led evidence that the balance of N1, 913,000.00 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira Only) is still unpaid until the date of filing this suit despite putting phone calls through the 2nd Defendant including mails messages and letter of demand to the Defendants as shown in Exhibits F and G.

23. However, the Claimant’s counsel stated in their final written address particularly at paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 that the Defendants had paid a total sum of N1, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira Only) out of the total sum of N1, 913, 000 . 00 owed to the Claimant since 2022 and now the sum owed by the Defendant is N803, 000, 00 (Eight Hundred and Three Thousand Naira Only).

 

24. Having pointed out this, it is germane to note as pointed out earlier   that the Defendants did not file any process in defence of this suit. To put it differently, the entire evidence of the Claimant before this Honourable Court is unchallenged and uncontroverted. That being the case, the law is settle that this Honourable Court is bound to accept the evidence of the Claimant as the correct position of the case. In this respect, I refer to the case of OGUNYADE V. OSHUNKEYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR – 2355 per DAHIRU MUSTAPHER, JSC at page 16 – 16 paragraphs D – D where it was held thus:-

“The law in my view settled that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the Court seised of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it..”

 

25. Furthermore, it is apparent from the record of the Court that the Defendants were served with the originating processes and several hearing notices which shows that the Defendants are aware of the Claimant’s case but choose not to defend same. The Defendants’ conduct points to a singular conclusion that they have no defence to the claims of the Claimant. To this extend therefore, the law is settled that where a Defendant is given opportunity to defend a suit but it fails to utilize the opportunity given, the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the claims of the Claimant. In this regards, I call in aid the decision of the supreme Court again in the case of JEMILE V. AINANI (2007) FWLR (PT. 62) 1937 at 1953 where it was held thus:-

“In respect of facts in the statement of claim which are admitted or not disputed by the defence, and accordingly no issue was joined between the parties, no proof of such facts is required and no evidence is necessary or admissible in further proof of such admitted facts.”

26. In the light of the above, it is not in doubt that the facts pleaded by the Claimant and the evidence adduced are unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Defendants. To that extend, it is settled law that where the Defendant did not dispute the claims of the Claimant, the onus of proof on the Claimant is discharged on minimal proof. This position of law was re-echoed by the Court of Appeal in the case of MARTINS V. SOLOMON & ORS (2022) LPELR – 57457 per BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGWILL, JCA where it was held at page 31 – 36 paragraphs C – D thus:-

“It follows therefore, in the determination of whether a claimant has proved his case on a balance of probability or propondence of evidence the burden of proof on a Claimant whose case is unchallenged is in law said to be minimal”

See also the case of KEMBU V. FCMB PLC (2022) LPELR – 58826 (CA).

27. Before I conclude, the Claimant is claiming for N2,500,000.00 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as damages for direct hardship suffered by the Claimant as a result of not being able to access his outstanding wages having worked for the Defendants for 52 days.

Although, the damages claimed is not specify, whether general or special damages. Nevertheless, from the way it was couched, it is a general damages. Therefore, let me quickly refer to the supreme Court decision in the cases of UBN PLC V. CHIMAEZE (2014) LPELR – 22699 per OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC at page 42 – 42, paragraphs B – D, where it was held that:-

“On the general damages claimed, it needs not be specifically pleaded. It arises from inference of law and need not be proved by evidence. It suffices once generally averred in the pleadings. As I stated earlier, they are presumed by the law to be the direct and probable consequence of the act of the Defendant complained of unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of substantially exact calculation…”

See also the case of CAMEROON AIRLINES V. OTUTUIZU (2011) LPELR – 827 (SC).

28. In the light of the foregoing and without further ado, I come to a conclusion that the Claimant has proved his case as required by law on the preponderance of evidence and balance of probability. I so hold. To that extend, I hereby resolved the issue for determination in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendants and enter judgment for the Claimant and declare as follows:-

1. That the refusal of the Defendants to pay the Claimant his outstanding wages totality the sum of N803, 000,00 (Eight Hundred and Three Thousand Naira Only) for the work done for the Defendants from January 24th to March 16th 2022 is unlawful and a breach of contract.

2. The Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the Claimant immediately the sum of N803, 000, 00 (Eight Hundred and Three Thousand Naira Only) being his outstanding wages for the work done from January, 24th to March 16th, 2022.

3. The Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of N500, 000, 00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) as general damages.

4. No order as to cost.

 

 

 

 

 

5. The Defendants are to pay these sums to the Claimant within 30 days from today. In Default, the sum shall thereafter attract 10% interest per annum until the sums are fully paid to the Claimant.

29. Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

Presiding Judge