IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: JUNE 24, 2026                     

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/31/2025

 

BETWEEN

Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board     -                  Claimant

 

AND

LA Cosina Restaurants and Event Center Limited                  -            Defendant

 

REPRESENTATION

Adaeze Mbakwe, Esq., for the Claimant

C.O. Chigbata, Esq., for the Defendant.

 

JUDGEMENT

  1. The claimant commenced this action by way of an originating summons brought pursuant to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 and Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, seeking the interpretation of Sections 2(1), 32(1)(a)(b) and (c), 33(1), 34(1)(2)(a)(b) and (3), 36(1) and (2), 39(1)(a) and (b)(i)(ii) and (iii)(2)(3)(4), 40(1)(a) and (b)(2) and (5), 46, 47(a) and (b), 48(1)(a) and (b), and 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010.

 

  1. By the said originating summons, the claimant prayed this Court for the determination of the following questions:
    1. Considering the extant provisions of Sections 33 (1); 39 (1) (a) and (b) (i) (ii) (iii); 40 (1) (a) (b), and 73 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010, whether the defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 and by so being obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of her total monthly payroll into the Employees' Compensation Fund established under the Act and managed by the claimant.
    2. If the answer to question 1 above is in the affirmative, does the defendant have an option whether or not to cause to be furnished to the claimant an estimate of the probable amount of her payroll, and whether or not to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of her total monthly payroll into the Employees' Compensation Fund managed by the claimant.
    3. Having regard to the provisions of Section 36(2) and 39 (2) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010, where the defendant fails to cause to be furnished to the claimant an estimate of the probable amount of the defendant's payroll and signed copies of the defendant's total monthly payrolls, whether the defendant is liable to pay an estimated assessment as determined by the claimant.
    4. Whether, having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 33 (1) and 39 (1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 the claimant is entitled to be furnished by the defendant with estimates of the probable amount of the defendant's payroll from October 2017 up to date and thereafter, and signed copies of its payroll for each year, and is entitled to 1.0 percent of the defendant's total monthly payroll from October 2017 up to date and thereafter.
    5. Whether, having regard to the provisions of Sections 36 (1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 the claimant is entitled to the cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment from the defendant.

 

  1. Upon the favourable determination of the above questions, the claimant seeks the following reliefs against the defendant:
    1. A declaration that the defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 and, by so doing, obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of the defendant's total monthly payroll from October 2017 up to date and thereafter into the Employees' Compensation Fund managed by the claimant.
    2. A declaration that the defendant, being an employer within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 is obligated to cause to be furnished to the claimant complete and accurate particulars of the defendant’s total monthly payroll from October 2017 up to date and thereafter.
    3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment from the defendant.
    4. A declaration that given the defendant’s willful refusal to provide the claimant with her complete and accurate payroll for assessment, the claimant is entitled to assess the defendant of 1.0 percent of the defendant’s total monthly payroll based on estimates, the outcome of which the defendant is bound to pay.
    5. An order compelling the defendant to provide the claimant with estimates of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll from October 2017 up to date and thereafter, and signed copies of reports of the employer’s payrolls for each year from October 2017 up to date and thereafter.
    6. An    directing the defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum of Four Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand, Two Hundred Naira (N496,200.00) only, as an outstanding sum established through a statutory estimation of the defendant’s salaries and wages record for the period, October 2017 to April 2025.
    7. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum of One Hundred and Ninety-Eight Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty Naira (N198,480.00) only, being an amount equal to 40% of the defendant’s outstanding liability established through estimation, as penalty for default in failing to cause to be furnished to the Fund estimates of the probable amount of the Employer’s payrolls and signed copies of the total monthly payroll for each year from October 2017 up to date and thereafter, and for failure to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of total monthly payroll for the period under review into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant.
    8. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum of Forty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty Naira (N49,620.00) only, being an amount equal to 10% of the defendant’s outstanding liability established through estimation from October 2017 to April 2025 as default fee for willful refusal to pay her outstanding debt within the stipulated time frame.
    9. An order directing the defendant to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 per cent of its Gross Payroll from the month following the estimated assessment, being May 2025, till date and thereafter, into the Employees Compensation Fund.
    10. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employees' Compensation Fund the sum of Two Million Naira (N2,000,000.00) only, in General Damages.
    11. AN order directing the sealing up of the defendant's business premises until all unpaid contributions have been remitted.
    12. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The facts of this case, as disclosed in the affidavit in support of the originating summons, are that the claimant is a statutory body established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and charged with the responsibility of managing and administering the Employees’ Compensation Fund pursuant to the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. According to the claimant, the defendant is an employer within the meaning and contemplation of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and is engaged in business activities employing staff for the purpose of its operations. The claimant averred that by virtue of the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, every employer is under a statutory obligation to make a minimum monthly contribution of one percent (1%) of its total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant. It is the case of the claimant that despite repeated demands and statutory obligations imposed by the Act, the defendant failed, neglected, and refused to furnish the claimant with estimates of the probable amount of its payroll and signed copies of its payroll records from October 2017 to date. The claimant further averred that the defendant equally failed to remit the mandatory statutory contributions due into the Employees’ Compensation Fund for the relevant period. The claimant stated that consequent upon the defendant’s failure to provide the required payroll information and records, the claimant, pursuant to its statutory powers under the Employees’ Compensation Act, proceeded to assess the defendant’s liability based on estimated payroll assessment. Following the said assessment, the defendant’s outstanding statutory contribution for the period spanning October 2017 to April 2025 was assessed at the sum of N496,200.00. The claimant further stated that in addition to the outstanding assessment, the defendant became liable to statutory penalties and default fees arising from the failure to furnish payroll information and failure to make the required statutory remittances into the Fund. The claimant averred that the defendant is liable to pay the sum of N198,480.00 being penalty for default, and the further sum of N49,620.00 as default fee for failure to liquidate the assessed liability within the stipulated time. The claimant maintained that notwithstanding demands and opportunities afforded to the defendant to comply with the provisions of the Act, the defendant failed and refused to regularize its obligations under the Employees’ Compensation Act, thereby necessitating the institution of this action.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. Learned counsel for the Claimant filed a Written Address in support of the originating summons wherein counsel formulated six issues for determination.
  2. On issue (1), learned counsel submitted that by virtue of Sections 2(1), 33(1), 39, 40 and 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the defendant qualifies as an employer within the meaning of the Act and is therefore under a statutory obligation to make a minimum monthly contribution of one percent (1%) of its total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant. Counsel argued that the affidavit evidence before the Court established that the defendant operates as “La Cosina Restaurants and Event Center Limited” and employs various categories of staff including directors, managers, administrative officers, cooks, and waiters who are paid salaries on a monthly basis. Counsel submitted that the defendant consequently falls within the definition of “employer” under Section 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. It was further submitted that Sections 39 and 40 of the Act impose a mandatory duty on every employer to furnish the claimant with complete and accurate estimates of its payroll and signed copies of its payroll records. Counsel contended that the defendant failed to comply with the said statutory obligations despite repeated notices and demands issued by the claimant.

 

  1. On issue (2), learned counsel submitted that by the combined effect of Sections 36(2), 39(2), and 48(1)(a) and (b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the claimant is empowered to estimate the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll, assess the one percent (1%) statutory contribution therefrom, and levy the defendant accordingly where the defendant fails to provide the required payroll information. Counsel argued that the defendant persistently failed and refused to provide payroll records and other relevant documents despite several requests and notices from the claimant, thereby entitling the claimant to rely on estimated assessment pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Counsel referred the Court to the affidavit evidence and Exhibit NSITF “D” in support of the submission.

 

  1. On issues (3) and (4), which were argued together, learned counsel submitted that the claimant is entitled under Sections 39(2) and 46 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 to impose penalties and default fees on the defendant for failure to furnish payroll information and failure to pay the assessed liability within the stipulated period. Counsel contended that Section 39(2) empowers the claimant to impose a penalty based on the percentage determined by the Board where an employer defaults in complying with Section 39(1) of the Act, while Section 46 authorizes the Board to impose an additional penalty equal to ten percent (10%) of the unpaid assessment where an employer fails to pay the assessed liability or provide required security. Counsel referred to Exhibit NSITF “F” and the reliefs sought by the claimant in support of the argument.

 

  1. On issue (5), learned counsel submitted that Section 36(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 expressly grants the claimant a cause of action to recover unpaid assessments and entitles the claimant to recover the costs incurred in instituting such action. Counsel argued that the provision is clear and unambiguous and ought to be accorded its literal interpretation. Counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the claimant is entitled to recover the assessed contributions and the costs associated with the recovery action.

 

  1. On issue (6), learned counsel submitted that Sections 53 and 54 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 empower the claimant and its authorized officers to enter the workplace of an employer, inspect payroll records and other relevant documents, and conduct investigations necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Act. Counsel argued that the defendant denied officers of the claimant access to its payroll records and books of account despite repeated requests, thereby violating the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. Counsel referred the Court to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the claimant and grant the reliefs sought.

 

THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

  1. In opposition to the originating summons, the defendant filed a counter-affidavit deposed to by one Mr. Basil Ofozor Aniukwu, the Manager of the defendant company. The defendant averred that although it was incorporated on 24th October, 2017, it did not commence business operations until November 2018 due to financial constraints. According to the defendant, the business initially operated as a fast-food outfit between November 2018 and August 2019 but was subsequently shut down because the business was not profitable. The defendant further averred that all persons who worked for the defendant during the period were relatives, dependants, or domestic servants of the Directors of the defendant company and were not employed as salaried workers. The defendant stated that the Directors of the company include Okwuazi James O., Okwuazi Charles I., Okwuazi John C., and Okwuazi Mary N., and that the persons working with the defendant are family relations or dependants connected to the said Directors. The defendant further stated that from September 2019 till January 2021, the building housing the defendant’s business premises was under reconstruction and not in use for business purposes. It was further averred that after the reconstruction, the upper floor of the building was leased to Salvation Ministries sometime in 2022 for church activities and remains under the possession of the church. The defendant maintained that the remaining portions of the premises are used only for a small-scale restaurant and bar business and that the persons currently working with the defendant are Kenneth Okeke, Chidimma Eze, Okafor Mary Uchechi, Ogochukwu Mmaduibueze, and the deponent himself, all of whom were described as domestic servants, relatives, or members of the Okwuazi extended family. The defendant specifically averred that the persons working with the defendant are not paid salaries but are merely assisted by the Directors through provision of feeding, accommodation, clothing, school fees, medical care, and other welfare needs. The defendant contended that no payroll exists because no salaries are paid and no employment relationship exists between the defendant and the persons working in the business. The defendant further averred that the business was established primarily as a family support structure for relatives and dependants rather than for the employment of outsiders as employees. The defendant admitted receipt of the various letters and notices issued by the claimant and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F, but stated that it did not consider it necessary to respond because it believed that the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 does not apply to the defendant’s family-based informal business arrangement. The defendant consequently denied liability to make the one percent (1%) statutory contribution claimed by the claimant and further denied liability for the estimated assessment, penalties, and default fees claimed in the suit. The defendant also contended that the claimant cannot validly estimate any payroll contribution against the defendant since no payroll exists and no salaried employees are engaged by the defendant. The defendant finally urged the Court to dismiss the suit with punitive costs, maintaining that the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 does not apply to the defendant because the defendant is not an employer within the meaning of the Act and the persons working in the business are not employees.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL TO THE DEFENDANT

  1. Learned counsel for the defendant identified two issues for determination arising from the affidavit evidence before the Court as follows:
    1. Whether, in the circumstances of this suit, the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 is applicable to the defendant. 
    2. Whether, having regard to the affidavit evidence before the Court, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the originating summons.

 

  1. On issue (1), the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the central question is whether, in the circumstances of this suit as disclosed in the affidavit evidence, the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 is applicable to the defendant. It was further submitted that the applicability of the Act is contingent upon the existence of an employer–employee relationship as defined under the statute. Counsel referred to Sections 2(1) and 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and argued that the statutory scheme is designed to regulate relationships arising from employment contracts within both formal and informal sectors, but expressly excludes domestic servants who are members of the employer’s family.

 

  1. Learned counsel contended that the defendant’s unchallenged affidavit evidence establishes that all persons working within the defendant’s establishment are members of the extended family of the Directors, including relatives and domestic dependants, and that none of them are employed under any contract of service or paid salaries in the conventional sense. It was therefore submitted that the arrangement described in the affidavit evidence does not fall within the contemplation of an employer–employee relationship as envisaged by the Act. Counsel argued that since the statutory definition of “employee” excludes domestic servants who are members of the employer’s family, the entire framework of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 is inapplicable to the defendant.

 

  1. On issue (2), the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the originating summons. It was argued that the reliefs claimed are predicated entirely on the assumption that the defendant is an employer maintaining a payroll system and therefore subject to statutory assessment and contribution obligations under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. Counsel submitted that having established that no employer–employee relationship exists between the defendant and the persons working within its establishment, and that no payroll or salary structure is maintained, the statutory foundation for assessment, contribution, penalties, and enforcement under the Act is completely absent. It was further contended that declaratory reliefs cannot be granted where the foundational facts necessary to sustain such declarations have not been proved. Learned counsel maintained that the claimant’s case collapses once the statutory applicability of the Act is negated. Accordingly, it was submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and that the Originating Summons ought to be dismissed in its entirety.

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. Having carefully considered the affidavit evidence placed before this Court, the counter affidavit and further counter affidavit filed by the defendant, the further and better affidavit of the claimant, the written addresses of learned counsel on both sides, together with the statutory provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 relied upon by the parties, it is the considered view of this Court that the central issue arising for determination is:

“whether having regard to the facts disclosed and the applicable law, the defendant falls within the contemplation of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 so as to render it subject to the statutory obligations and enforcement mechanisms established thereunder”

 

  1. The claimant’s case, as disclosed in the originating summons and supporting affidavit, is predicated on the contention that the defendant is an employer within the meaning of Section 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and is therefore bound by the provisions of Sections 33, 36, 39, 40, 46, 48, 53 and 54 of the Act relating to contribution to the Employees’ Compensation Fund, submission of payroll information, inspection of records, assessment in default, and recovery of unpaid contributions and penalties.
  2. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that it does not operate a formal employment structure, maintains no payroll system, and pays no salaries to any category of persons within its premises. It is the defendant’s position that the individuals working within its premises are family members and domestic dependants maintained through family support arrangements rather than contractual employment relationships, and that the provisions of the Act are therefore inapplicable to it.

 

  1. Before considering the substantive reliefs sought by the claimant, it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether the defendant falls within the statutory framework contemplated by the Act. In this regard, Sections 2(1) and 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act are particularly instructive. Section 2(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 provides as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Act shall apply to all employers and employees in the public and private sectors in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Section 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 defines “employer” thus:

‘Employer’ includes any individual, body corporate, Federal, State or Local Government or any of the government agencies who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as an employee or for the benefit of any other person.”

The same section further defines “employee” in broad terms to include:

“a person employed by an employer under oral or written contract of employment whether on continuous, part-time, temporary, apprenticeship or casual basis and includes a domestic servant who is not a member of the family of the employer…”

 

  1. There is no dispute that the defendant is a duly incorporated limited liability company carrying on business activities. Being a corporate entity recognized by law, the defendant possesses a juristic personality distinct from its directors, shareholders, or persons associated with it. See Chikwe v. Chief Registrar, F.H.C (2026) 2 NWLR (Pt. 2027) 1; Ojo v. SDV (Nig.) Ltd (2026) 2 NWLR (Pt. 2029). Consequently, the mere characterization of persons working within its premises as “family members” does not, without more, remove the defendant from the regulatory reach of a statute intended to govern work-related relationships and workplace compensation obligations.
  2. It is also significant that the defendant does not deny that persons carry out functions within its operational premises. The real dispute between the parties is therefore not whether human labour exists within the defendant’s operations, but whether such arrangements fall within the statutory contemplation of employment under the Act.

 

  1. It is settled that proceedings commenced by originating summons are appropriate where the principal issue before the Court involves the interpretation of statutes or documents and where the material facts are substantially not in dispute. See Olley v. Tunji. (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 275. In the present case, the core issue revolves around the interpretation and applicability of the Employees’ Compensation Act to the operational structure of the defendant. The material facts relating to the defendant’s corporate existence, the presence of persons working within its premises, the statutory demands issued by the claimant, and the defendant’s refusal to comply are largely undisputed and sufficiently disclosed in the affidavit evidence and documentary exhibits before the Court.

 

  1. Thus, Exhibits placed before the Court, particularly the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the documents referred to as Exhibits NSITF “D” and “F”, show that the defendant was formally requested by the claimant to furnish payroll information and comply with statutory contribution obligations under the Act. The defendant did not deny receipt of these communications. Rather, it declined compliance on the basis of its legal contention that the Act does not apply to it.

 

  1. The statutory framework established under the Employees’ Compensation Act clearly anticipates situations where employers fail or refuse to maintain payroll records or disclose operational information. Sections 39(1) and (2) impose obligations on employers to maintain payroll records and furnish necessary information to the Board, while Sections 36(2) and 48 empower the Board to make assessments and estimates where compliance is absent or where available information does not reasonably reflect the employer’s operations.

 

  1. The combined effect of these provisions is that the statutory assessment and enforcement mechanism established under the Act is not defeated merely because an employer fails to maintain formal payroll documentation or declines to furnish operational records. To hold otherwise would permit employers to evade statutory obligations through non-compliance and thereby undermine the remedial and social protection objectives of the Act.

 

  1. In the present case, the crux of the defendant’s defence is that it maintains no payroll structure because no salaries are paid to the persons operating within its premises. However, the mere absence of a formal payroll system does not, without more, exclude the operation of the Employees’ Compensation Act where the affidavit evidence before the Court discloses that the defendant carries on organized business activities through the use and engagement of human labour. In such circumstances, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence displacing the existence of work-related arrangements, the Court is entitled to hold that the defendant’s operational structure falls within the broad regulatory framework contemplated under the Act.

 

  1. Furthermore, the inclusion of domestic servants and informal sector arrangements within the statutory definition of employee under Section 73 reinforces the legislative intention to widen, rather than restrict, the scope of protection and regulatory oversight under the Act. The Court therefore cannot adopt a narrow interpretation capable of defeating the evident purpose of the legislation.

 

  1. Equally relevant are the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act which confer powers of inspection, entry, and examination of records upon authorized officers of the Board for the purpose of ensuring compliance. The claimant’s affidavit evidence that attempts were made to inspect records and obtain compliance prior to the institution of this action has not been effectively rebutted by the defendant through any documentary evidence showing compliance or lawful justification for refusal.

 

  1. The defendant’s assertion that no records exist does not extinguish the statutory powers of inspection or assessment vested in the claimant under the Act. On the contrary, such non-availability of records is precisely the situation contemplated by Sections 36(2), 39(2), and 48 of the Act which authorize estimation and assessment in default situations.

 

  1. This Court is unable to accept the defendant’s contention that the mere classification of persons within its operations as family members automatically excludes the defendant from the statutory obligations imposed by the Act. Such an interpretation would create an unintended loophole whereby incorporated entities engaged in business activities could evade regulatory obligations simply by adopting informal remuneration structures or familiar descriptions of work relationships.

 

  1. Having regard to the totality of the affidavit evidence, documentary exhibits, and the relevant provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, this Court is satisfied that the defendant falls within the regulatory contemplation of the Act as an employer subject to statutory oversight, assessment, inspection, and contribution obligations thereunder.

 

  1. This Court consequently finds that the claimant possesses the statutory authority, subject to due process under the Act, to assess the defendant, require production of relevant operational records, estimate payroll where necessary, and enforce compliance in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010.

 

  1. On the issue of penalties and enforcement, Sections 39(2) and 46 of the Act provide for administrative sanctions and penalties in circumstances of non-compliance and failure to make required contributions. These provisions form part of the statutory enforcement architecture intended to ensure compliance with the Act and deter defaulting conduct.

 

  1. This Court also notes that Section 36 of the Act recognizes the authority of the Board to recover unpaid assessments together with costs incidental to such recovery where statutory default has been established.

 

  1. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the affidavit evidence, exhibits, statutory provisions, and submissions of learned counsel, this Court is satisfied that the claimant has established sufficient legal and factual basis to activate the enforcement and compliance mechanisms provided under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010.

 

  1. The defendant’s defence rests substantially on a restrictive interpretation of the terms “employer” and “employee”, which interpretation this Court finds inconsistent with the broad, remedial, and purposive framework of the Act.

 

  1. Accordingly, the issue for determination is resolved substantially in favour of the claimant. This Court finds that the defendant is subject to the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and that the claimant is entitled to exercise its statutory powers of assessment, inspection, estimation, and enforcement in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

 

  1. In view of the foregoing findings, this Court holds that the defendant falls within the contemplation of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 as an employer subject to the statutory obligations imposed thereunder. Consequently, the declaratory reliefs sought by the claimant in Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 4 succeed and are hereby granted. 

 

  1. With respect to Relief 5, this Court finds that the claimant is entitled under the provisions of the Act to require the defendant to furnish payroll information and operational records necessary for assessment and compliance purposes. Accordingly, an order is hereby made compelling the defendant to furnish to the claimant estimates of the probable amount of its payroll from October 2017 to date together with the relevant payroll reports required under the Act. 

 

  1. In respect of Reliefs 6, 7 and 8 relating to assessed contributions, penalties, and default fees arising from statutory estimation, this Court finds that the claimant possesses statutory authority under Sections 36, 39, 46 and 48 of the Employees’ Compensation Act to assess the defendant in circumstances of non-compliance and failure to furnish payroll information. The sums assessed by the claimant, having not been effectively disproved by credible evidence, are hereby upheld and the defendant is accordingly ordered to pay the assessed sums as claimed. 

 

  1. Relief 9 also succeeds. The defendant is hereby ordered to continue making the statutory monthly contribution of 1% of its gross payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 from May 2025 and thereafter as required by law. 

 

  1. With respect to Relief 10 seeking general damages in the sum of N2,000,000.00, this Court is not persuaded that the claimant has established sufficient legal basis for the award of general damages separate from the statutory penalties and enforcement mechanisms already provided under the Act. The said relief therefore fails and is accordingly refused. 

 

  1. On Relief 11 seeking the sealing up of the defendant’s business premises, this Court is of the view that such enforcement measures are matters primarily regulated by the statutory administrative enforcement procedures established under the Act. Accordingly, this Court declines to make the order sought in that regard at this stage.

 

  1. Judgment is entered in favour of the claimant in terms of Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, while Reliefs 10 and 11 are refused. 

 

  1. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to costs.

 

 

Hon Justice J.I. Targema, PhD