IN
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT
ABUJA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP
HON. JUSTICE R. B. HAASTRUP
17TH
DECEMBER 2025
SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/344/2022
BETWEEN
MRS.
JESSICA N. OKEREDINMA …..………………………..…………………………….. CLAIMANT
AND
1.
………….……..DEFENDANT
2.
COMPACT MANIFOLD AND
ENERGY SERVICES
LEGAL
REPRESENTATION
C. U.
Onyeukwe Esq. for the Claimant
Chief Chidi
Ezenwafor Esq. with I. G. Nwaozichi Esq., O. F. Dibor Esq. and A. C. Lawrence for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
[1]
The Claimant commenced this suit vide a Complaint and Statement of
Facts dated and filed 2nd November 2022,
however vide an Amended Statement of Facts dated 27th November 2023
and filed 28th November 2023 she sought against the Defendants
jointly and severally the following reliefs:
(a)
The sum of Two Million, Two Hundred and Forty-Six
Thousand, Forty-One Naira, Sixty-Five Kobo (N2,246,041.65) representing
outstanding arrears of salaries owed by the Defendants to the Claimant for Five
Months in 2015 and Five Months in 2017 as clearly computed in the amended
Statement of Facts establishing this Suit.
(b)
The sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-One
Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty-Eight Naira, Thirty-Two Kobo (N1, 221,
848.32) being total outstanding Leave Allowances/Bonuses due to the Claimant by
the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally for the
period 2013 to 2016.
(c)
Aggravated damages in the sum of Ten Million Naira
(N10,000,000.00) for the suffering, mental torture, psychological trauma and
injury suffered by the Claimant for the Defendants inability to pay the Claimant
her outstanding monthly salaries and entitlements despite repeated demands by
the Claimant to that effect.
(d)
10% interest per annum on the Judgment sum awarded
by this Honourable Court from the date of Judgment until fully liquidated.
[2] On behalf of the 1st
and 2nd Defendants who were out of time, their counsel filed its
Memorandum of Appearance, Statement of Defence and other accompanying documents
dated 12th December 2022 but filed 13th December
2022, which were deemed properly filed and served by order
of Court made on 8th February 2023. However, by reason of Claimant’s
Amended Complaint and other processes, the Defendants filed an Amended Joint
Statement of Defence on 5th April 2024 which was deemed proper on 12th
July 2024. Also, the Claimant having earlier filed her Reply to the Statement
of Defence on 21st
February 2023; now filed a Reply to the
Amended Statement of Defence on 12th July 2024 and pleadings were finally
closed.
[3] The Claimant opened her case testifying
as CW1 from 28th March 2023 to 15th June 2023. She
adopted her witness statements on oath respectively dated 2nd
November 2022 and 21st February 2023. Thereafter Exhibits C1-C11A-D
were tendered through her and admitted in evidence by the Court. Next was the testimony of Eric Okeredinma (Husband to
Claimant) who testified as CW2 on 10th July 2023. He adopted his
written statement on oath dated 2nd December 2022 and tendered Exhibit
CE1.
Upon the application of the Claimant
counsel, CW1 was recalled to the witness box on 14th November 2024,
she testified, tendered Exhibit C12 and closed her case on 13th
March 2025. Defendants opened their case on 19th May 2025 with one Abdulrahman
Usman Ringim testifying as DW1. He adopted his witness statement on oath dated
29th May 2025 and tendered Exhibits D1 and D2, admitted in evidence
by the Court. He concluded his evidence
on 16th June 2025.
After
closing their cases, Defendant’s counsel filed his final Written Address on 20th
August 2025, vide a motion to regularize same filed 29th September
2025. The Defendants’ final written address was deemed proper by Court on 30th
September 2025. Meanwhile, the Claimant’s Counsel Final Written Address dated 1st
September 2025 was filed 4th September 2025 to which the Defendant’s
counsel responded with a Reply Address filed on 29th September 2025.
All the said Addresses were finally adopted on 30th September 2025
and the matter adjourned for judgment.
Claimant’s Case
[4] From
the pleadings, the crux of Claimant’s case is that she was employed by the 2nd
Defendant in 2003 vide Exhibit C1 until she got married in 2012 and that her gross
salary at the time of her marriage was the sum of Four Hundred Thousand Naira
(N400, 000.00) while the net salary after tax deductions was the sum of Three
Hundred and Sixty One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight Naira, thirty three kobo
(N361, 208.33). That her employment was now transferred to the 1st
Defendant by one Mr. Osunde Olufemi Osariemen, the Chief Executive Officer of
both Defendants, to enable her join her husband in Abuja.
Claimant
asserted that she resumed work in the 1st Defendant, a subsidiary of
the 2nd Defendant in January 2014 and by 2015 the said 1st
Defendant was indebted to her for 5 months (i.e. the months of April, August,
October, November and December) and that at the time her salary was N361,
208.33.
[5]
That in 2016, due to the economic downturn, 1st Defendant
unilaterally reduced staff salaries including that of the Claimant to the sum
of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only (N150,000.00), and further downwards
to the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00) which were paid
haphazardly. Yet again, that the 1st Defendant was owing her for
another 5 months for the year 2017, outstanding leave bonus amongst others. The
foregoing scenario propelled Claimant to resign her employment vide a letter of
resignation dated 18/12/2017 addressed to the Chairman of the 2nd
Defendant which was acknowledged by DW1. However, because of the failure of the
Defendants to pay her the outstanding sums, she has now instituted this action
to recover same.
Defendant’s Case
[6] In their defense, the Defendants
maintained that although the Claimant was indeed a staff member of the 2nd
Defendant, she had voluntarily abandoned her employment with the 2nd
Defendant and subsequently appeared at the 1st Defendant’s premises
in Abuja seeking employment, and she was taken as a casual staff engaged purely
on ad hoc basis, without any letter of employment and with no fixed salary, but
stipends and allowances were paid to her.
1st Defendant
maintained that both companies existed as distinct entities with separate legal
personalities; there was never any transfer-of-service agreement or arrangement
between the two and denied being liable to the Claimant at all.
Claimant’s Counsel Final Written Address and Legal
Submissions
[7] The Claimant’s counsel in his
final written address distilled a sole issue for determination to wit;
“Whether from the state of the
Pleadings and evidence led by the Parties in this case, has the Claimant
discharged the burden of proof imposed on her in law and is she entitled to the
reliefs sought in (sic) this Honourable Court?
[8] Claimant’s counsel
agreed with the submission of the Defendants at paragraphs 3.5 and
3.6 of their final written address that in a civil matter, the burden of proof
imposed on the Claimant is on the balance of probabilities as held in the case
of PHILLIPS V. E.O.C. INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (2013) 1 NWLR (PT. 1336) 618 @
640-641, PARAS. H – A. Also, that by Section 131 - 135 of the Evidence Act,
the party who asserts a fact has the burden of proving it, relying on the cases
of JALICO LTD V. OWONIBOYS TECH SERV. LTD (1994) 4 NWLR (PT. 391) 534 and
ALADE V. ALIC (NIG) LTD (2010) 19 NWLR (PT. 1226) 111 @ PG. 127 PARAS F-H.
[9]
Reverting back to the case at hand, it was posited for the Claimant that by her
Amended Complaint and Statement of Facts filed on the 28th November
2023, she is claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally which has
been interpreted to mean joint liability or individual liability: when the
creditor (or plaintiff) can, at his own option, institute an action against one
or more of the parties to such liability separately, or all of them together. He
cited in support the cases of NEW NIG. DEV. CO. LTD. V. UGBABE (2022) 16
NWLR (PT. 1855) 101 @ PG. 133 - 134, PARAS. H-C and AMAO V. C.S.C (1992)
7 NWLR (PT. 252) 214 @ 226, PARAS. A-B.
To prove her claims,
counsel referred to the Claimant’s employment letter with the 2nd
Defendant (Exhibit C1) with her conditions of employment including her
entitlement to leave allowance; then a letter from the 2nd
Defendant’s Human Resources Coordinator to Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, Abuja
dated January 9, 2018 titled, ‘Re: Confirmation of Remittance of Accrued
Pension Contribution-Jessica Okeredinma (PEN200005498002)’ wherein they
confirmed that the Claimant was employed on September 14, 2003 and that her
employment ended on December 18, 2017 (Exhibit C3). The counsel stated that the
dates herein prove Claimant’s employment and contradicts the position taken by
the Defendants in this case.
[10] Furthermore,
that the Internal Memo of the 1st Defendant’s Management to the Claimant
dated 28/6/2016 shows the unilateral reduction of Claimant’s salary by the 1st
Defendant and the fact that they were paying the salaries in fragments which
counsel here stated was confirmed by Exhibit C2 where the 1st
Defendant indicated bulk payment of N600,000. Specific reference was made to Exhibit
C7, particularly the column for payment on the 30/6/2016, reflecting the
payment of the sum N552.892.00 after tax deductions.
[11] In
addition was Claimant’s counsel reliance on the Letter of Resignation of the Claimant
addressed to the Chairman of the 2nd Defendant dated 18th
December, 2017 (Exhibit C3), which was accepted on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendants
by DW1 in two separate letters written on their distinct letter headed papers
as evidence by exhibits C4 and C5, which the Claimant counsel submits goes to
show the relationship between the 1st and 2nd Defendant
companies as the letters also stated that the accounts office will
calculate the entitlements of the Claimant and advise her accordingly which was
never done necessitating her letter of request dated 20/6/2019 (Exhibit C6).
[12] Claimant
counsel in order to further substantiate Claimant’s case argued that at the
initial stage of the case, the Defendants denied Claimant was their employee,
but later stated that she abandoned her employment with the 2nd
Defendant sometime in 2012 without resigning. That she was engaged by the 1st
Defendant in Abuja on a casual basis when she re-surfaced explaining her
relationship with the 2nd Defendant; and that she was only paid
stipends/allowances until she resigned in 2017. However, that such facts were
controverted in Claimant’s additional witness depositions on oath adopted on
the 28/3/2023 and 14/11/2024 respectively.
Counsel
then submitted that the foregoing is applicable to the evidence of DW1 which
was punctured under cross examination regarding the amounts paid to the Claimant
as salary, shown in exhibit C7 (her statement of account). Counsel particularly
relied on the column for 12/5/2015 (i. e. Claimant’s November 2014 salary)
wherein the sum of N361, 208.33 (Three Hundred and Sixty One Thousand, Two
Hundred and Eight Naira, Thirty Three kobo) was paid and the column for
10/6/2015 which clearly indicated GFFC salary for the sum of N361, 208.33
(Three Hundred and Sixty One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eight Naira, Thirty
Three kobo).
[13] That
DW1 admitted the sum as the same amount paid to the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant in 2015. The same scenario he posited applies to the column for
10/7/2015 which clearly indicated January 2015 salary. DW1 however stated that
for November 2014, December 2014, January 2015, February 2015, March 2015, May
2015, June 2015 and September 2015, that the 2nd Defendant was the
one paying as at that date.
Still on the above, that having joined issues on the above facts, this Court
can rely on the evidence elicited under cross examination from DW1 citing LAMURDE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT V. KARKA & ANOR (2010) 10NWLR (PT. 1203). PG. 574 @ 590.
[14]
Counsel went further by urging the Court to consider and compare the signatures
on the various witness statements on oath
filed for the Defence viz-a-viz exhibit C2, C4, C5 and C8, which reflects that thy
are the same as that of DW1, hence disproving the line of defence canvassed by
the Defendants as he contends that it was an afterthought designed to
deprive the Claimant of the arrears of salaries and other entitlements due to
her for her meritorious service to the Defendants for 14 years. This he urged
the Court to so hold.
[15]
Reacting to the contention by Defendants’ counsel that the two Defendants are
not subsidiaries, Claimant counsel submitted that a look at the documents
frontloaded by the Defendants which were not tendered as evidence showed there
is an integral relationship between the two companies which share the same
MD/CEO, staff, office space among others. Counsel submitted, it is trite that a
Court can look at its record in the interest of justice to arrive at a just
determination of a suit and he relied on the case of EZECHUKWU V. ONWUKA
(2016) 5 NWLR (PT. 1506) 529 @ 562, PARAS. G-H and MOHAMMED V. N.D.I.C
(2024) 14 NWLR (PT.1957) 67 @ 106, PARAS. E - H. Thus, that the Court should find against
the Defendants the presumption of withholding evidence as encapsulated in
Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, having failed to tender the front-loaded incorporation documents
contained in their Joint Statement of Defence filed on the 13/12/2022, knowing
it would have been against them as that would have clearly established the
relationship between the two Defendants.
[16] The
above point of an intertwining relationship between the two Defendants’
companies was further argued upon by the Claimant counsel when he drew the
attention of the Court as to who DW1 works for. He noted that the evidence
given thereon was not borne by pleadings as the extant statement of defence
before the Court is that of 5/4/2024
even though they amended their witness statement on oath on 29/5/2025 which
they adopted on the 16/6/2025. Hence that the Court should give no credence to the
testimony of DW1 in that regard, while urging the Court to hold that 2nd
Defendant is an affiliate of 1st Defendant.
[17] Finally, Claimant counsel prayed the Court to
grant her relief for aggravated damages for the torture, suffering and
financial lack she was made to go through by the Defendants having worked 14
years for them, acknowledged her resignation and yet did not even bother to
oblige her written response for over a year and now putting her through the
hurdle of pursuing her claims in Court.
Defendants’ Counsel Final Written Address and
Legal Submission
[18] Defendant counsel submitted four issues
for the resolution of the Court hereunder reproduced thus:
I. Whether the Claimant has
discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that she was
an employee of the 1st Defendant and/or that her services were lawfully
transferred from the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant.
II. Whether the Claimant has established her
entitlement to the sums claimed as arrears of salaries and leave
allowances/bonuses for the periods stated, having regard to the pleadings,
evidence, and applicable legal principles.
III. Whether the Claimant has proved her claim
for aggravated damages for alleged suffering, mental torture, psychological
trauma, and injury, and whether such a claim is legally sustainable in the
circumstances of this case.
IV. Whether the Claimant is entitled to
interest at the rate of 10% per annum on any judgment sum from the date of
judgment until final liquidation in the absence of any contractual or statutory
basis.
Legal
Submissions on Issue One
[19] Defendants’ counsel submitted that flowing from the points of
divergence between the parties that there was no arrangement for the transfer of the Claimant
from the services of the 2nd Defendant to the 1st
Defendant and neither is the 1st Defendant a subsidiary of the 2nd
Defendant as postulated by the Claimant; he argued that the trite principle of law in all civil
claims, is that the party who asserts a fact must prove it as firmly entrenched
in Sections 131–133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which has been consistently
upheld in a long line of authorities, including OKUBULE V. OYAGBOLA (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 147) 723 @ 744 and AKINBADE V. BABATUNDE (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1617) 366 @ 393–394.
Underscoring the above principle as it
relates to the contention supra, Defendants’ counsel submitted that Claimant
failed to establish by any credible evidence the transfer of her employment
from 2nd Defendant to 1st Defendant when she stated under
cross examination that there was no agreement; nor the claim that the two
companies are subsidiaries of each other.
[20] Counsel further
argued that assuming without conceding there was a subsidiary relationship
between the two companies, they existed independent of one another as separate
legal entities as shown in their exhibits D1 and D2. That the act of one cannot
bind the other citing in support the cases of WILLBROS WEST AFRICA, INC. &
ORS v. MCDONNEL CONTRACT MINING LTD (2021)
LPELR-54544(CA) and ASSET MANAGEMENT NOMINEES LIMITED & ANOR V.
FORTE OIL PLC. & ORS (2017) LPELR - 43553(CA) (Pp 44 - 46 Paras D - A). Similarly, that the
inability of the Claimant to show there was any employment contract (being the
bedrock of any employment relationship) having a description of her job duties,
fixed salary, compensation, benefits and any other entitlements between herself
and the 1st Defendant, disentitles her to claim any reliefs in this
suit. More so, she had admitted she no longer had an employment relationship
with the 2nd Defendant while holding the view that exhibit C1 does
not create any privity of contract between the Claimant and 1st
Defendant. He relied on the authorities of IRONBAR V. FEDERAL MORTGAGE
FINANCE LTD (2024) LPELR-62186 (SC) (Pp
24 - 25 PARAS. E - B) and MOHAMMED V. FCDA &
ORS (2022) LPELR 57594(CA) (Pp 53 - 54 PARAS. D - B).
[21] Also,
the Claimant having not controverted the Defendants’ averments as contained in
paragraph 5 of the Defendants’ Amended Joint Statement of Defense is deemed to
have admitted these averments and the Court is bound to act on it as true. He
relied on NDIC V. BALONWU & ORS (2017)
LPELR-41963(CA) (PP. 7-8 PARAS. B - B)
and AMACHA ENTERPRISES (NIG) LTD & ANOR V. KEYSTONE BANK (2019)
LPELR-48258(CA) (Pp 25 - 26 PARA. E -
A). On the whole, Defendants
counsel urged this Court to resolve issue one in favour of the Defendants.
Issue Two
[22] Counsel to the Defendants
adopted his submissions on issue one above for their issue two.
Issues Three and Four
[23]
In proffering arguments for issues three and four, counsel to the Defendants
posited that if the Court upholds their issue one, then the instant issues
become spent and require no further proof. However, that should the Court hold
there exists an
employment relationship with the Claimant and 1st Defendant, he
argued that Claimant who is seeking special damages-such as arrears of salaries
or allowances-must not only plead the specific amounts claimed, but must also
strictly prove them by credible evidence, relying on the cases of NIGERIAN GAS CO. LTD V. DUDUSOLA (2005) 18
NWLR (PT. 957) 292 AT 317; UNION BANK OF NIG. PLC V. ALHAJI ADAMS AJABULE
(2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) 152 @ 183.
[24]
Further to the above, counsel reiterated that the Court in receiving the
evidence of a party, such a party or as in the instant case, Claimant must
be a person of truth, holding unto the maxim of equity that he who seeks equity
must come with clean hands, since equitable reliefs will not be granted to a
party tainted by falsehood, citing AKINROTIMI V. MAERSK NIGERIA
LTD (2013)
LPELR-20336(CA).
[25] Relating the above to the proceedings of 15th
June 2023, counsel here faulted Claimant’s responses given during
cross-examination, when she was confronted with contradictions in her testimony
regarding submitting her original ID card to Defendant and the source of her pay
slips tendered in evidence. Equally reproduced was Claimant’s evidence under
cross examination regarding the status of her employment with the 1st
Defendant, as well as her claim of being owed several months’ salary in 2017 by
the 1st Defendant, yet that her statement of account (Exhibit C7) contradicted
that claim by showing payments during the very months in question. On the heels
of such scenarios, he submitted that Claimant was not a witness of truth and
that having failed to submit material evidence before the Court, renders her entire
testimony unreliable.
More so, that Claimant’s attempt at amending her statement
of claim after closing her case in order to change the months being owed her
based on error, was nothing but a mere afterthought, this he urged the Court to
so hold. Hence, that the amended process of the Claimant be expunged from the
record of the Court having amounted to an abuse of Court process.
[26] Running with the submissions above, Defendants’ counsel
argued that Claimant has failed to substantiate her claims to the monetary
damages she seeks from the Court having no credible evidence to ground such
claims hence, that the Claimant has wholly failed to prove the precise monetary
reliefs claimed.
Finally, Defendants counsel urged the Court to resolve issues 2, 3, and 4
in favour of the Defendants and to dismiss the Claimant’s suit in its entirety as
lacking merit, credibility, and evidentiary support.
Defendant’s
Counsel Reply on Points of Law
[27] Responding to
the issue of joint and several liability canvassed by the Claimant counsel and
attributed to the Defendants, Defendants’ counsel submits that even though such
is applicable in principle, that the Clamant in this case did not prove the
existence of same having not shown joint participation in the tortious or
contractual wrong. He cited the case of DICKSON V. ASSAMUDO (2013)
LPELR-20416; and BODUNDE & ANOR V. STAFF COOP. INV. & CREDIT SOC. LTD
(2012) LPELR-19843 (CA) to the effect that the discharge of one Defendant in a joint cause
amount to discharge of all.
On the issue of oral testimony contradicting
documents, counsel maintained that the testimony of DW1 extracted under cross
examination cannot be used to contradict the evidence in exhibits D1 and D2
which shows the two Defendants are separate legal entities.
[28] Furthermore, on the issue of
failure to produce documentary evidence, counsel to the Defendant submitted
that a party cannot be compelled to tender documents not pleaded; for the law
presupposes that such pleadings is deemed abandoned. He relied on TAKPA V.
SHESHI (2019) LPELR-48448 (CA) and that the Court is not permitted to shop
for evidence as held in LAWAN ABDULLAHI BUPA WASSAH V. TUKSHAHE KARA (2015)
4 NWLR (PT.1449) 374.
[29] Reacting to the assertion that Defendants
failed to comply with the order of amendment made by the Court, counsel posited
that the amendment was only applicable to witness statement on oath of DW1 and
not the pleadings. He argued that the records of Court are authentic and
binding and cannot be impeached through bare argument.
In concluding his arguments, counsel
contended strongly that the Claimant has failed to prove her case before Court and
that her claims are liable to be dismissed.
DECISION
[30] I have in the course of
conducting the entire proceedings in this matter and now writing this judgment
taken time to peruse the various documents filed and tendered by the parties as
well as listened carefully to their oral evidence and submissions. I am of the
view that the pertinent issues which need be distilled for the resolution of
this case are:
a.
Whether there is an employment relationship between the Claimant and 1st
Defendant?
b.
Whether the Claimant has established her claims to entitle her to the
reliefs sought?
Resolution of Issues One and Two Jointly
[31] It is trite that in civil cases, the onus
of proof lies on a party who will lose if no evidence is adduced at all, while
the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of
the issue and not upon the party who denies it. See sections 131-133 of the
Evidence Act and the case of NITEL LTD.
V. OKEKE (2017) 9 NWLR (PT.1571) 439 @ 462, PARAS. G-H.
[32] I need to first resolve the
contention raised in the submission of Claimant’s counsel regarding the witness
statement on oath of DW1 as adopted before this Court. The Claimant’s counsel
argued that because Defendants did not amend its Statement of Defence, hence
same should be discountenanced. The order of Court in the above regard was only
as it pertains to the said witness statement on oath of DW1 of which the
counsel sought to use an oral application to correct the errors therein and the
Court directed them to refile their witness statement on oath reflecting the
correction.
Hence, I hold that the arguments of Claimant’s
counsel in that regard are misconceived and are hereby discountenanced.
[33] Also, I am minded to state that
even though Defendant counsel has sought to attack Claimant’s evidence as CW1 alleging
contradictions in her evidence, I have given due consideration to the purported
areas of contradictions bordering on her evidence regarding the non-presentation of her entire bank
statement for the period she worked with Defendants as asserted, relating to pleading facts that she submitted
her original ID Card with 2nd Defendant when she was leaving,
evidence relating to the source from which she printed her pay slips (i.e.
Exhibits C11A-D) etc. It is pertinent to note that in as much as
contradictions in the eyes of the law are such that can affect the reception or
probative value to be ascribed to any piece of evidence, the kind of
contradiction regarded by the Court are material contradictions and not just
the slightest of errors. See the case of OGUN V. AKINYELU (2004) 18 NWLR
(PT.905) 362 @ 392, PARAS. E-G. In the instant case, I have gone over both
the pieces of evidence and facts relating to them and cannot find any form of
material contradiction as would necessitate this Court to dispense with the
evidence under review. Consequently, Defendant’s counsel submission is also
discountenanced as being frivolous. I so hold.
[34] The law is settled that where an employee
complains of a breach in the terms of his employment, he needs to place before
the Court the document or documents that contain the terms and conditions of
his employment as it is
what regulates the relationship between the parties which is binding on them
and the Court will not look outside of it to determine their rights and
liabilities. See the cases of OFORISHE
V. NIGERIAN GAS COMPANY LTD (2018) 2 NWLR (PT. 1602) 35 @ 53 PARA. D; OLANREWAJU V. AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC (2001) 13
NWLR (PT.731) 691 PG. 712 PARA. C.
[35] The Claimant had contended that she was
initially employed by the 2nd Defendant vide exhibit C1 in 2003 in
Lagos State; later, that her employment was transferred to the 1st
Defendant in 2014 after she got married. She alluded that exhibits C2, C3, C5,
C8 among others prove that there was an employment relationship between them.
The 1st Defendant on their part contended otherwise and argued that Claimant
was not in their full employment, but was only taken as a casual staff who was
paid stipends/allowances to offset expenditure.
[36] I have taken cognizance of the exhibits
referred to above and the evidence of the Claimant elicited under cross
examination to point out that she was not given any written document showing
her services were transferred to the 1st Defendant, but that it was
based on mutual understanding. It is trite that where more than one document contains the terms of a contract
of employment or service, then such documents must be construed jointly in
order to have the total account of what the terms of the contract were. I am in
this regard fortified by Court’s position in the case of LADIPO V. CHEVRON NIG. LTD (2005) 1NWLR (PT. 907) 277 @ 289, PARA. F-H,
291-292, PARA. D-B.
Also, section 91 of the Labour Act
defines a contract of employment as;
“any
agreement whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person
agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the
employer as a worker.”
The records of this Court bears witness that
the Claimant had both in her witness statement on oath and oral evidence even
under cross examination stated that her employment was transferred from the 2nd
Defendant to the 1st Defendant verbally on mutual understanding,
because the CEO of the 2nd Defendant (Mr. Osunde) was also the CEO
of the 1st Defendant. More so, the evidence contained in paragraphs 8
and 9 of the witness statement on oath of DW1 dated 29th May 2025
reveal that Claimant was absorbed by the 1st Defendant on a
temporary basis.
[37] Similarly, in responding to Claimant’s
letter of resignation which was clearly addressed to the person of Mr. Osunde
as chairman of 2nd Defendant (exhibit C3), the replies evidenced in
exhibits C4 and C5 were written for 2nd and 1st Defendants
respectively and signed by DW1 on behalf of the management of the two companies. This to my mind boldly
points to the fact that there was an intertwined relationship between the two Defendants
especially as it pertained to the employment of the Claimant herein. The oral
testimony of DW1 cannot in anyway dissociate one from the other even if they be
two separate legal entities as borne in exhibits D1 and D2. I so hold.
The gamut of
the law referred to above and the evidence on both sides before the Court leads
to a simple logical conclusion that Claimant was an employee of the 1st
Defendant as Section 91 of the Labour Act has shown that an employment contract
can be created orally as was the apparent situation that played out in the
instant case. I so hold.
[38] Subsequent to the above is the need to
now ascertain on what terms was the Claimant absorbed by the 1st
Defendant. While Claimant had alluded that her monthly salary at the time of
transferring her services to the 1st Defendant was the sum of N361,208.33
relying on exhibit C7 which is the Claimant’s FCMB bank statement of account;
particularly the column for 4th March 2015, 12th May
2015, 10th June 2015, 10th July 2015 among others.
However, such was denied by the Defendants who alluded through their witness
that she was only being paid some stipends/allowances to help offset her
expenditure with no fixed salary (see paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 of DW1 witness
statement on oath).
To
ground her claim for the outstanding salary arrears for the period of April
2015, August 2015, October 2015, November 2015 and December 2015 in the sum of One Million, Eight Hundred and Six
Thousand, Forty-One Naira and Sixty Five Kobo only (N1, 806,041.65), reference
was made to exhibit C7 which is the Claimant’s FCMB bank statement of account
and the various dates earlier referred to above. (See Claimant’s additional witness
statement on oath of 28/11/2023).
[39] I find it beyond contention as contained
in exhibit C7 that Claimant did not only establish that she was being paid salaries and not just stipends as
asserted by the Defendants, but that for the period under review, 1st
Defendant was paying her a monthly salary in the sum of N361,
208.33 (Three Hundred and Sixty One, Two Hundred and Eight Naira, Thirty Three
kobo) as clearly seen on the dates of for 4th March 2015, 12th
May 2015, 10th June 2015, 10th July 2015. This is in
addition to the fact that there were no payments seen for the months of April
2015, August 2015, October 2015, November 2015 and December 2015. The Defendants
on their part beyond mere denials have not placed any credible evidence before
the Court to disprove the said claims. Thus, I find and hold that the claims
for outstanding arrears to the Claimant for the months of April 2015, August
2015, October 2015, November 2015 and December 2015 in the sum of One Million,
Eight Hundred and Six Thousand, Forty-One Naira and Sixty Five Kobo only
(N1,806,041.65) stands proved.
[40] Regarding
the claims for the outstanding arrears of N440, 000.00 (Four Hundred and Forty
Thousand Naira) for five months of October -December 2017 as contained at
paragraph 22 of Claimant’s amended statement of facts of 28/11/2023, paragraph 7
of her witness statement on oath of 12th July 2024 at the rate of
N100, 000.00 – N12, 000.00 tax deductions (i.e. N88, 000.00 monthly): Claimant
relied on her exhibits C7, C2 (Internal memo dated 2/6/2016) and C6. Defendants
again have denied being indebted to the Claimant.
[41] A
cursory look at exhibit C2 first of all shows that there was a reduction of Claimant’s
monthly salary from N150, 000.00 to N100, 000.00 effective from July 2016. That
being established, the record as borne by exhibit C7 shows that Claimant’s
salary for the year 2017 as claimed was not paid as at when due. To illustrate
this fact, her January 2017 salary was paid on 3rd February 2017;
February salary was paid in 3 tranches between 21st and 26th
April, March salary was paid in two instalments on 15th and 16th
May, April on 3rd July, with May salary paid on 23rd and
31st August, up to the payment for July salary made on 10th
October 2017.
[42] The issue
in contention now is payment for August 2017-December 2017 which Claimant
asserts was not made and the Defendant being indebted to her. Under cross
examination, Claimant as CW1 when confronted with entries of the dates 14th,
27th and 30th November 2017 in exhibit C7 confirmed that
monies were being paid to her by the Defendant as her salary and for which this
Court confirms the payments of the sums of N25, 000.00, N10, 000.00 and N15,
000.00 respectively as part payment for the month August 2017. Thereafter, is
the entry of 21st December 2017 which reveals a payment of
N100,000.00 as salary for the month of September 2017.
The
foregoing implies that out of the N440,000.00 being claimed as arrears of
payment for the months of August 2017-December 2017, the sum of N150,000.00 had
already been paid which now leaves an outstanding of N290,000.00 (Two Hundred
and Ninety Thousand Naira) only. That being the case and in the absence of the Defendants
tendering any document to prove the contrary, it is my holding that they are
indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N290,000.00 (Two Hundred and Ninety
Thousand Naira), being outstanding arrears of salary as follows; part of August
2017, October, November and December 2017.
[43] Moving on to the claim for leave bonus,
the Defendants had initially
denied such assertion by the Claimant, but during cross examination of DW1 when
confronted with exhibit C1 (letter of employment) with regards to the
entitlement of Claimant for leave bonus, he answered thus;
“Yes, but I was not there when it was signed”.
I have observed that the claim for
leave bonus by the Claimant spans from 2013-2016 during which time she worked
for the 2nd Defendant and then later the 1st Defendant.
Exhibit C12 was tendered to establish Claimant actually proceeded on leave for
the year 2013 (i.e. before she commenced any employment relationship with the 1st
Defendant). Notwithstanding, Claimant has not supplied this Court with further
evidence to convince the Court that no payment was made to her in that regard.
No bank statement for the period in question was presented before the Court to
justify the claim. It should not be forgotten that the law places the burden
upon the person who asserts a fact and that same will not shift (in the case of
evidential burden) unless the fact in question has been established. See
section 131-133 Evidence Act. Hence, I find that Claimant stopped midway in a
bid to establish her claim for the grant of leave bonus for the year 2013, I so
hold.
[44] For the period covering
2014-2016, Claimant did not tender any approval to proceed on leave or a leave
form showing she actually did proceed on leave for the period in question;
unlike for the year 2017 as captured in exhibit C8, she evidenced the fact that
she proceeded on leave which is the first step in entitling her to any leave
bonus. Yet, having already stated that Claimant did not show she had approval
to go on leave for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, I find that her claims have
no foundation to stand on and must as a consequence collapse for lacking in
merit. I so hold.
[45] Next in line is Claimant’s claim
for aggravated damages in the sum of N10,000, 000.00 for the suffering, mental
torture and psychological trauma she went through having resigned her job due
to the prevailing circumstances and after writing a letter of request demanding
for her outstanding payments. Aggravated damages in law are an extra
compensation awarded to a party due to the willful act of malice, oppression or
insult; connoting some form of fraud or flagrant disregard. See the case of MEKWUNYE
V. EMIRATES AIRLINES (2019) 9 NWLR (PT.1677) 191 @ 225, PARAS. D-E. Claimant
herein asserted that the acts of the Defendants in ignoring to calculate and
pay her entitlements for more than a year and a half even after receiving her
letter of resignation and acknowledging it (exhibits C3, C4 and C5) amounts to
conducts deserving of aggravated damages. Also, that the attitude of the 1st
Defendant in denying the Claimant was ever its employee and that she abandoned
her work in Lagos are such the Court should consider in granting her this
relief.
[46] Having considered the evidence
before the Court and the entire submissions of counsel on the issue at hand
vis-à-vis my earlier holdings, I can only agree with the Claimant counsel that
Defendant’s conduct is quite reprehensible for failing to honour their
commitment after Claimant’s resignation and then subsequently claiming she was
not their employee and are not indebted to her. This is in addition to the fact
that the cause of action arose in 2017 and this is year 2025; a fleeting period
of 8 years and the time lapse in my view has added to the pains and sufferings
of the Claimant as caused by the refusal of the Defendants to pay what is due
to her.
In all these, to my mind, makes the Claimant
deserving of aggravated damages. Thus, this Court awards the sum of N2, 000,
000.00 (Two million naira) only against the Defendants and in favour of the Claimant
for aggravated damages.
[45] In
conclusion, the case of the Claimant succeeds in part and it is hereby ordered that
the 1st and 2nd
Defendants are liable to the Claimant jointly and severally as follows:
1. The sum of One Million, Eight Hundred
and Six Thousand, Forty-One Naira and Sixty Five Kobo only (N1,806,041.65) as Claimant’s
outstanding salaries for the months of April 2015, August 2015, October 2015,
November 2015 and December 2015.
2. The sum of N290, 000.00
(Two Hundred and Ninety Thousand Naira), being outstanding arrears of salary as
follows; part of August 2017, October, November and December 2017.
3. The sum of N2, 000, 000.00 (Two Million
Naira) only as aggravated damages
4. 10% post judgment annual interest shall
accrue on the total judgment sum in the event the Defendants fail to offset
same within 30 days from the date of delivery of this judgment.
5. Relief (b) for payment of annual leave
bonuses fail and is refused.
Judgment is hereby entered
………….………………………………..
Hon. Justice R. B. Haastrup
JUDGE