IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

                                    

SUIT NO: NICN/LA/374/2022

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.A. YELWA…JUDGE

THIS 16th DAY OF JUNE, 2026                                     

 

BETWEEN:

IAN JOHN BRIDGER                                                     --         CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT 

AND 

  1. TISAJ INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED 
  2. TISAJ MEDIA & COMMUNICATION LIMITED 
  3. TISAJ HOME DESIGN LIMITED                             -           DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT
  4. J. JASIT ENGIEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD
  5. ISABELLE SAMUEL LITTLE

JUDGEMENT

This case was commenced by way of General Form of Complaint accompanied by other necessary processes filed by the claimant on 2/10/2020. Claimant obtained leave of court to serve the originating processes on the defendants by substituted means. The defendants similarly upon being served, sought for leave which was granted and entered appearance alongside their joint statement of defence dated 27/1/2022 but filed on 28/1/2022. With leave of court sought and obtained claimant amended his statement of facts. 

It should be noted that proceedings in this case commenced before Honourable Justice I.G. Nweneka on 12/1/2021. However, the case was transferred to this court whereby proceedings started denovo on 16/10/2024. Earlier the names of the 6th, 7th and 8th defendants were struck out on 28/4/2022 by order of court and the case proceeded against the 1th – 5th defendants. 

CLAIMANT’S CASE

 The claimant’s case as can be gleaned from the state of the averments in the amended statement of facts and other processes in that. The claimant is an expatriate with wealth of experience in project management in construction, infrastructure, oil & gas, marine, warehouse and housing projects but resides in the U.K. the 1st – 4th defendants are limited liability companies while 5th –8th are individuals who are Directors or Officers to the respective companies. Claimant maintained work relationship with the defendants. 

Claimant contended that his entitlements are contained in letter of his appointment and other documents signed between his and the defendants as well as correspondences of various type. Claimant avers that various acts of the defendants constitute deliberate extreme misconduct deserving of full condemnation and punishment as the defendants disregarded the claimant’s and his family’s wellbeing and livelihood because the conduct is not only unconscionable and oppressive but demonstrate the highest level of unfair labour practice against him. 

Claimant wherefore, claims against the defendants jointly and severally the following: - 

  1. A declaration that the claimant was rightfully employed as project Manager for the defendants having accepted the employment from the 1st defendant via the employment letter dated 1st June, 2017 and signed by the 7th defendant. 
  2. A declaration that the actions of the defendants in the non-payout of the claimant’s salary arrears which amounts to the sum of £282,742.49 (Two Hundred and Eighty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Two Pounds, Forty Nine Pence) is unconscionable and a breach of the terms of the contract of employment and a gross mistreatment of the claimant. 
  3. An order directing the defendants to pay the sum £282,742.49 = to the claimant being the outstanding earned salary arrears owed to the claimant from 1/6/2017 to 31/7/2020 by the defendant. 
  4. An order awarding the sum of £8,000.00 per month from the date of filing of this suit until judgement is delivered. 
  5. An order awarding 22% interest per annum on the judgment sum until same is fully liquidated.
  6. The cost of action as assessed. 

DEFENDANTS’ CASE

In a nutshell, the defendants denied the claimant’s claim so also denied the associate membership of some of the defendants to Tisaj Group of Companies to assumed any liability claimed by the claimant. It is contended that the claimant is rather indebted to several employee through the 4th defendant either in his personal and official capacity even. It is averred that there exists no privity of contract between the claimant and the 4th defendant while denying the existence of the 5th defendant at the CAC defendants stated that the 6th defendant is not a director or share holder in the 1st defendant while the 7th defendant had honorably resigned as a director and had never employed the claimant to carry on any business for him in Nigeria. That the 8th defendant had no relationship with the claimant and that the 8th defendants is being owed legal fees by the claimant in respect of suit No: MCL/834/18 Gemini Properties Ltd v Ian John Bridger. It is averred that the employment letter issued to the claimant by the 1st defendant was to last for 1 year and had since even elapsed, and thereafter, there was no need to keep the relationship of the claimant with the 1st defendant as there was no work in the 1st defendant. The claimant was challenged to produce particulars of contracts as he never executed any job for the defendants. 

The defendants denied in this entirety that they have refused, and/ or failed to pay the claimant’s salary calculated at £282,742.49 =.

 

 

TRIAL

As earlier stated, this case was initially assigned to Honourable Justice I.G. Nweneka before whom trial commenced on 12/1/2021 but in the course of proceedings, 6th, 7th & 8th defendants had their names struck out from the suit and subsequently,  the case was later transferred to this court where proceedings started denovo on 16/10/2024. Meanwhile, it is on record that through out the commencement of trial before this court claimant counsel has refused or failed to appear in the matter thereby incurring several unnecessary adjournments at the instance of the claimant, though records and proof of service indicates that counsel has been duly served with hearing notices at times of sitting of the court. 

Arising from the circumstances, counsel for the defendants rather resorted to applying for the case of the claimant be foreclosed and same was so foreclosed. Defendants’ counsel resorted to calling one Mr. Godwin Essien who testified as DW1 and tendered several exhibits in evidence at trial that were admitted and marked as exhibits D1-D9 respectively. 

On the application of the defendant is counsel the case was further adjourned to enable the claimant counsel be in court to cross examine DW1. All these opportunities were to no avail. The party’s case in all respects was closed on 11/6/2026.

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

Counsel for the defendants Dr. Udo John Udom Esq submitted that the claimant in this case has abandoned the case as he has not been coming to court to prosecute the case despite all the notices served by this court. The claimant has also never attended the proceedings of this court in this case. this situation led to the defendant calling their sole defence witness as DW1 who testified in evidence and the case for the defendants was closed. Defendants counsel submitted that there was no need for the defendants’ counsel to file any final written address since during proceedings the claimant did not call any witness and no document was tendered in evidence. Counsel urged the court to proceed to giving its judgment and prayed the court to dismiss the case of the claimant against the defendants with substantial cost of N500 billion in favour of the defendants. 

DECISION OF THE COURT

In this case, it is plain that pleadings have been filed and exchanged by the parties and trial has commenced however the claimant has abandoned the case and neither the claimant nor his counsel ever deemed it expedient to attain the court at trial. This court however, on the application of the defendants counsel fore-closed the claimant’s case as provided for under Order 38 rule 9 of the rules of the court, 2017. It was at the stage as such that the defendants counsel called DW1 who testified and tendered exhibits D1—D9 and consequently closed the case for the defendants. But there is no counterclaim filed by the defendants.

Ordinarily, the non-appearance of the claimant and his counsel in the case entitles the defendants judgment in the case, rather than striking out since issues are already joined and evidence taken on the part of the defendants as provided under Order 38 Rule 3 of the Rules of this court. 

Going further, there is need for the court to enter judgement having regard to the facts that the claimant has not proven on a balance of probabilities his case, hence this court is of the view to deliver a final judgement in favour of the defendants. 

This is in consonance with the law that pleadings by their nature cannot speak as it can only speak through witness. 

This court has given all the opportunities to the claimant to explore his rights to fair hearing as enshrined under section 36 (1) CFRN 1999 (as amended), but the claimant could not do that on his own. 

In the circumstances of the case, the case of the claimant has not been persued and prosecuted accordingly, it be and it is hereby dismissed.

Counsel for the defendants in his submissions, urged this court to dismiss the claimant’s with costs of N500 billion naira. It is within the law that a successful party in an action, unless misconducts himself is entitled to cost as of right. This position of law is premised on the principles that cost follows event and that a successful party in a litigation is entitled to be indemnified for all the reasonable expences incurred in the prosecution or defence of the matter up to judgment. See Ezennaka v COP, Cross-Rivers State (2022) 18 NWLR Pt 1862, p.369 @429 paras D-E (SC)

By Order 55 Rule 1 – 5 of the Rules of this court, this court can exercise its discretion to award cost. In this regard I apply my discretion and considering the rigour that the defendants were subjected in filing their defence processes and engaging counsel to defend the suit, cost of N500,000=is awarded against the claimant and in favour of the defendants which is to be paid within 30 days and evidence be filed in this file. 

Judgement is accordingly entered

 

 

 

__________________________

Hon. Justice S.A. Yelwa

(Judge)

Appearances: -

No appearance of counsel for the claimant.

Dr. Udo John Udom Esq- for the defendants.