IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE P. I. HAMMAN --- PRESIDING JUDGE

 

DATE: WEDNESDAY 9^TH SEPTEMBER, 2026          SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/05/2024

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR. INYANG COLLINS     ----------------------                   CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

CHINA CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION            DEFENDANT

CORPORATION NIGERIA LIMITED

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.              The claimant filed this Complaint and Statement of Facts on the 29^th day of February, 2024, and claims the following reliefs against the Defendant:

 

a.   A Declaration that the claimant is entitled to the payment of compensation the sum of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200, 000, 000. 00) being payment for injury, pains, loss of financial earnings, loss of amenities, loss of occupation and time spent in receiving treatment from injury occasioned by the defendant's working equipment (iron rod) at the defendant's work site.

 

b.   A Declaration that the claimant is entitle(sic) to his monthly salary/entitlement the sum of Fifty-Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira, (N53, 850. 00) being the claimant monthly salary/entitlement from April, 2023, September, 2023, October, 2023, November, 2023, December, 2023 and onward.

 

c.   An order directing the defendant to pay compensation to the claimant the sum of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200, 000, 000. 00) being payment for injury, pains, loss of financial earnings, loss of amenities, loss of occupation and time spent in receiving treatment from injury occasioned by the defendant's working equipment (iron rod) at the defendant's work site.

 

d.   An order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant forthwith the sum of Two Hundred and Sixty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira, (N269, 250. 00) being the cumulative monthly salary/entitlement for the period of Five (5) months, beginning from April, 2023, September, 2023, October, 2023, November, 2023 and December, 2023.

 

e.   An order directing the defendant to continue to pay roll the claimant forthwith the sum of Fifty-Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira, (N53, 850.00) being the monthly salary/entitlement from January, 2024 and onward.

 

f.     An order for the payment of general damages in the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (NI00, 000, 000. 00).

 

g.   Twenty Million Naira (N20, 000, 000. 00) as cost of litigation.

 

h.   Post judgment interest of 10% (Ten Percentage).

 

1.2.            The Defendant filed her Memorandum of Conditional Appearance and Statement of Defence together with other accompanying processes on the 3^rd of September, 2024, which were however deemed to have been properly filed and served on the 3^rd of March, 2025. The Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 18^th of November, 2024.

 

1.3.            Trial in the suit commenced on the 12^th day of December, 2024 when the Claimant testified for himself as CW. The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath he made on the 29^th of February, 2024. Upon the recall of the claimant on the 21^st of July, 2025, he identified and adopted the further witness statement on oath he filed on the 18^th of November, 2024. The following documents were tendered by the claimant and admitted by the Court:

 

1.       The letter of appointment dated 23^rd April, 2022 --------- exhibit CW1A.

2.     The Medical Report of the Federal Medical Centre Yenagoa dated 5^th October, 2023 ----- exhibit CW1B.

3.      The bundle of pictures (4 in number) ------- exhibit CW1C1 – CW1C4.

4.       The Certificate of identification  ------- exhibit CW1D.

5.     The Solicitor’s letter of Earthinitiative Capacity Law House dated 19^th May, 2023   ----- exhibit CW1E.

6.     The Solicitor’s letter of Earthinitiative Capacity Law House dated 27^th October, 2023       ---- exhibit CW1F.

7.     The Solicitor’s Receipt of Earthinitiative Capacity Law House dated 9^th January, 2024   ---- exhibit CW1G.

8.     The Tranex City Express Waybill with No. 0110 dated 27^th October, 2023 ------ exhibit CW1H.

The witness (CW) was cross-examined by the Defendant’s Counsel Emmanuel Agabi on the 4^th of January, 2025 and Aniebiet-Abasi Akpan on the 15^th of October, 2025 before he was discharged without any re-examination. The Claimant closed his case on the 15^th of October, 2025.

 

1.4.            The Defendant opened her defence on the 26^th of February, 2026 by calling her sole witness Fuoebi Ebitari (the Defendant’s Secretary in Bayelsa State Branch) who testified as DW. She identified and adopted her witness statement on oath filed on the 3^rd of September, 2024, and the following documents were tendered through the witness and admitted by the Court:

 

1.       The bundle of receipts in the name of Inyang Collins-------- exhibit DW1 (under protest).

2.     The bundle of receipts of Gloryland Medical Centre and Federal Medical Centre Yenagoa --- exhibit DW2 (under protest).

3.      The Medical Report of Silhouette Diagnostic Consultants dated 17^th March, 2023  --- exhibit DW3 (under protest).

4.     The Folder of Silhouette Diagnostic Consultants dated 13^th March, 2023 which contains two x-ray films  ----------- exhibit DW4.

The witness was cross-examined by the Claimant’s Counsel J. Amity before she was discharged without any re-examination. The defendant closed her case on the 26^th of February, 2026.

 

1.5.            With the conclusion of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. While the Defendant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 16^th of June, 2026 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 16^th of June, 2026, the Final Written Address of the Claimant was filed on the 16^th of June, 2026. These court processes were adopted on the 22^nd of June, 2026, with J. Amity appearing for the Claimant. Since the Defendant’s Counsel was not in Court, the final written address of the Defendant filed on the 16^th of June, 2026 was deemed adopted pursuant to Order 45 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court 2017.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

2.1.       The Claimant pleaded and testified that he was employed by the Defendant as an iron bender, and while carrying out his duties for the defendant he got injured at the defendant's construction site in Angiama-Oporoma water side, Bayelsa State on the 8^th March, 2023. He was rushed to the Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State on the 8^th March, 2023 by the defendant for treatment, and subsequently presented to the Orthopedic Unit of the Federal Medical Center on the 14^th of March, 2023, but that the defendant failed to give adequate attention to the claimant as he continued the treatment of his injury till October, 2023. That the defendant suddenly and abruptly stopped paying his salary/entitlement in the month of April, 2023 and September, 2023 till date. He was also short paid by the defendant in the months of May, 2023, June, 2023, July, 2023 and August, 2023.

 

2.2.     That the defendant also failed to pay adequate compensation to the claimant to cushion the condition of the injury, pains, loss of financial earnings, loss of amenities, loss of occupation and time spent in receiving treatment from injury occasioned by the defendant's working equipment (iron rod) at the defendant work site. That he engaged the services of a Legal Practitioner who wrote to the defendant demanding for the continuous payment of his salary and also payment of adequate compensation to cushion his state of incapacitation and health condition, but the defendant did not respond to the letter written to the defendant dated 19^th May, 2023.  He further engaged the services of a Legal Practitioner who wrote another letter to the defendant for similar payment of his salary and payment of compensation. That he has been incapacitated as a result of the injury because he cannot do any serious work regarding iron bending as the injury affects his foot.

 

2.3.      The Claimant pleads his net monthly salary to be the sum of Fifty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira, (N53, 850. 00), and that his lawyer charged him the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20, 000, 000.00) as legal fees for the prosecution of the suit.

 

DEFENDANT’S CASE:

 

3.1.            The Defendant avers that, the Claimant who was employed as an iron bender got injured on 8^th March 2023 while at the Defendant's work site and that the seriousness or the gravity of the injury was reduced due to the fact that the Claimant was wearing his Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) duly provided by the Defendant to all its site workers in compliance with industry safety Regulations and industry best practices. This is quite apart from the fact that the Claimant like other site workers received regular trainings on safety within the work place, and such trainings are fully paid for by the Defendant. The Claimant was rushed to the hospital immediately the injury occurred, and he was given adequate care at the Accident and Emergency unit of the Federal Medical Center, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State (a reputable Federal Government-run medical institution) where the wound was immediately sutured, and the next day, drugs were prescribed for the Claimant and the Defendant purchased every single one of them for the Claimant, inclusive of crutches, and then gave the Claimant Ten Thousand Naira (N10, 000, 000) as allowance.

 

3.2.           According to the Defendant, admission was advised for the Claimant but he opted to return home and only come in as an outpatient for the dressing of the wound. He was then taken to his home in Igbogene, Bayelsa State and the Defendant always sent a vehicle to pick him to the Galaxy Medical Centre where he received very good out-patient treatment every two days for the dressing of his wound and thereafter driven back to his home. That the switch from Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa to Graceland Medical Centre was due to the late arrival from Igbogene which always resulted to the Claimant waiting his turn for long hours before getting attended to.

 

3.3.           That in order to ascertain that the Claimant was not injured beyond his flesh, the Defendant paid for and had an X-ray scan conducted on the right foot of the Claimant at Silhouette Diagnostic Consultants, and that he received assistance from the Defendant inclusive of being picked up every two days from Igbogene to Yenagoa for the dressing of his wound, a journey that took all of two hours for the round trip, until around 30^th March 2023. When the Claimant complained of the distance and sought for some money to enable him seek treatment close to his home at Igbogene, he was given the sum of Eighty-two Thousand Naira (N82, 000) and he signed an agreement to accept same as full and final settlement.

 

3.4.          That after receiving the monies for his treatment, he visited the Defendant's project office to ask for an extended time to enable him get treated, and when the Project Manager of the Defendant asked the Claimant to choose a time convenient to him to return to work, he said he would return after 3 months. He was also promised his salaries for the time he needed to heal so as to enable him cater for his family and to return to work thereafter. The salary was paid for up to five months, but he never returned to work after that but started communicating with the Company through a lawyer.

 

3.5.           That over time, the defendant discovered that the injury the Claimant sustained had healed but the Claimant refused to report to work, hence the defendant stopped his salary from September 2023 but paid compensation to him, fully catered for him medically and also paid full salary for the months he was reasonably expected to be absent from work. That the Claimant is not entitled to any further compensation having received 5 months of salary undeservedly, as well as the sum of Eighty-Two Thousand Naira (N82, 000) with a further promise to return to work which he never kept. He has not lost financially, nor has he lost amenities as the Federal Medical Centre has confirmed that he has healed from his injury.

 

3.6.          The Defendant states further that, rather than return to work, the Claimant wrote through one J. Amity, Esq. demanding the sum of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200,000,000) as compensation vide his letter dated 19^th May 2023, and when he saw that his salary had been stopped in September 2023 due to his no-show at work, the Claimant again wrote through J. Amity, Esq. in October to communicate his full recovery and demanded for reinstatement to work. That since he never showed up to work, the Defendant is not under any obligation to keep paying salaries to an absconded staff.

 

3.7.           That the Claimant is healthy and strong, and not incapacitated by any means because the injury he sustained was a flesh injury for which he received utmost good care, and not one that could render the Claimant incapacitated.

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS.

 

4.1.            The learned Counsel to the Defendant identified these two (2) Issues for the determination of the Court:

 

a.     Whether this suit is a nullity thereby robbing this Honourable court of the jurisdiction to entertain same in the light of Claimant’s outright and forthright denial of signing the Witness Depositions of 19^th February 2024 and 18 November 2024?

 

b.     Whether the Claimant is entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought having failed to substantiate in its entirety, by way of credible evidence, the facts averred in their pleadings as contained in his Statement of Claim?

 

4.2.          It is was submitted on Issue one (1) that, the question of jurisdiction is very fundamental that when it is raised, a Court of law must pause and consider whether there is any legal power authorizing the Court to adjudicate in the matter. See A. G. Federation V. Abubakar (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 135 (P. 158, Paras. D-E) and Ngere V. Okurukex XIV (2023) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1904) 361 (P. 394, paras. F-G). A Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction before assuming jurisdiction to entertain any matter. There must be proper parties before the Court; the subject matter of the suit is within the Court's jurisdiction and that the case is initiated following due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. See Madukolu & Ors V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 431; (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 594 and Ohakim V. Agbaso & Ors. SC.3/2010 P.26, paras. A-D.

 

4.3.          That the failure of the Claimant to support his Complaint with a valid Witness Deposition as mandated by the law, particularly Order 3 Rule 9(c) of the Rules of this Honourable Court robs this Court of the jurisdiction to entertain this suit in its entirety or to countenance any piece of evidence hinged on the invalid Witness Statements on oath as adopted by the Claimant on 4^th February 2024. That the Claimant who admitted under cross-examination that he did not sign any witness statement on oath before the Court adopted a witness statement on oath not belonging to him, and this invalidates his evidence thereby leaving his pleadings bare without any supporting evidence. That having denied his deposition, there was nothing upon which he could be cross-examined, relying on the cases of Okafor Ilukwe (2013) NWLR (Pt. 1363) 465 and Gundiri V. Nyako (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 211 at 242, paras. E – F.

 

4.4.          That even though the Claimant’s Counsel had the opportunity to re-examine the Claimant if there was any error on his part in denying his witness statement on oath, but the Claimant’s Counsel failed to exploit the opportunity as there was no re-examination of the Claimant. See Amadi V. Orisakwe (200) 7 NWLR (Pt. 924) PG. 385. That a witness statement on oath must be adopted by the maker to be effective, and to activate the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. That the complaint filed by the Claimant is incompetent because there is no supporting witness statement on oath, relying on the cases of Okobiemen V. U.B.N. Plc (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1662) 265 at 277, paras. D – E, Abubakar V. INEC (2022) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1833) 463 at 477 paras. B – C and I.N.E.C. V. Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1126) 524. Learned Counsel quoted the Holy Bible in Psalm 11:3 (KJV) where it is written that, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Defendant, discountenance and strike out the witness deposition accompanying the Complaint filed on 29^th February 2024 and the Further Witness Deposition erroneously adopted by the Claimant having denied making the depositions.

 

4.5.          With respect to Issue two (2), it was argued that, having denied the witness depositions of Inyang Collins as his, and with nothing done to clear that doubt, the Claimant has no deposition before this Honourable Court. The consequence of the absence of any deposition is that there is an absence of evidence from the Claimant in this suit. See Section 223 of the Evidence Act. That for a party to be entitled to the reliefs sought in his statement of claim, he must lay bare his facts and lead credible evidence to establish same, relying on the cases of University of Jos v. Dr. M. C. Ikegwuocha (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360) 478, PP. 498, Paras C-G, 505 paras G-H, 506, A-B, Adamu v. Nigerian Airforce (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1822) 159 and Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as Amended).

 

4.6.         With respect to reliefs A and B, it was posited that, being declaratory reliefs, they must be proved by the party seeking same. See Waya v. Akaa & Ors (2023) LPELR-60096(SC), Okoye & Ors v. Nwankwo (2014) LPELR-23172 (SC), Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum (NIG) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864(SC) and Obe v. MTN (2021) LPELR-57730(SC) pages 28-29, paragraphs D –A. That the declaratory reliefs sought by the claimant cannot be granted as a matter of course. That while the pictures tendered and admitted in evidence only sufficed to show the state of the claimant's injury on the day it occurred, the Medical Report tendered by the Claimant exculpates the Defendant of any liability, and he failed to produce his statement of account so as to demonstrate how his salary was allegedly reduced from N53,000 to N18.000. There is nothing to show that he worked and therefore entitled to his salary.

 

4.7.          For reliefs C, D, E, F, G and H, it was submitted that, the Claimant confirmed under cross-examination that he received his salary during the time he was recovering from the injury. That he did not suffer any loss of amenities, and the letter from the Federal Medical Center showed that he fully recovered. There is therefore no basis for his claim to the sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) for pain and suffering as he did not disclose any permanent incapacitation occasioned by the injury. That the Court can only award damages for loss of amenities if there is proof of physical incapacitation/disability brought upon by the injury, relying on the cases of U.B.A. Ltd. V. Achoru (990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 56) 254 and Ebe v. Nnamani (1997) NWLR (Pt. 53) 478.

 

4.8.         That the claimant is not in a position to engage in the dereliction of duty and then summersault thereafter to ask for salaries for the period he was away from work, especially given the fact that he did not return to his employer at any time following the expiration of the leave granted to him. He is therefore not entitled to his claim for salary having not worked in that time. That an employee will only be paid for the period wherein he served his employer, relying on the case Skye Bank v. Adigun 15 NWLR (Pt. 1960) I Pg. 46-47, paras H-A.

 

4.9.         On the claim of NI00,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) in general damages, it was argued that since he cannot show that the injury sustained in the course of his work with the Defendant (for which he received fair and commendable treatment) caused him pain and suffering and loss of amenities, which failure has disentitled him from the Claim in relief C, then he cannot hide under relief F to surreptitiously obtain that same relief although in lesser sum. He claims that he paid the sum of Twenty Million Naira as legal fees but when quizzed as to the evidence of the payment, he claimed that his uncle in the United Kingdom made the payment.

 

4.10.       For relief G in the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000 000) as cost of litigation, it was argued that, it would be against public policy to enter into a contract and ask a third party who was not privy to same to bear the burden of paying the fee agreed under the contract. That by the doctrine of privity of contract, the law holds true that a contract cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not party to same, relying on the cases of Makwe v Nwukor & Anor (2001) LPELR-1830 (SC) and The Leona II v. First Fuels Ltd. (2002) LPELR-1284 Pp 26-26, Paras C-E (SC). That the claimant who said he paid the legal fees himself, also stated under cross-examination that one of his uncles in the United Kingdom paid the fees for him. He cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time, relying on the case of Friday V. Gov. Ondo State (2022) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1857) 585 (P. 666, paras. A-B).

 

4.11.         That legal fees paid by a party to his lawyer is not recoverable from the opposing party in court. The fee is not recoverable from the Defendant firstly, for the reason that it does not form part of the cause of this action, relying on the case of Top Services Ltd & Anor. V Artee Industries Ltd (2021) LPELR- 55704 (CA). That it is a claim that if granted, will be unethical as it exposes each and every lawyer to the embarrassing toil of retrieving their legal fees from the opposing litigant in court rather than the litigant who retained his services, relying on the case of DHL v. Eze- Uzoamaka & Anor (2020) LPELR-50459 (CA). That the Claimant’s failure to establish the tort of negligence and the other reliefs sought against the Defendant is fatal to the claim for solicitor's fees. The claim is in the nature of special damages and must be strictly proved, relying on the case of Guinness (Nig.) Plc. V. Nwoke (2000) LPELR 6845 Pp 24-25, Paras B-A (CA). The Court was finally urged to dismiss the Claimant’s suit in its entirety.

 

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS

 

5.1    The learned Claimant’s Counsel submitted these two (2) Issues for the Court’s determination:

 

i.     Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle to the reliefs sought.

 

ii.     Whether there is any fundamental defect in the claimant’s adopted written depositions affecting the jurisdiction of this court and competence of this suit.

 

5.2              It was submitted on the two (2) Issues which were argued together that, the claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought going by exhibits CW1A, CW1B, CW1C, CW1D, CW1E, CW1F, CW1G and CW1H. See Sections 131, 132 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. That the claimant has shown that he is an employee of the defendant and the employment is still subsisting and valid in that there is nothing before this court to show that the claimant's employment has been terminated in line with exhibit CWIA. He has also shown that he got wounded by the defendant’s working equipment while he was on duty under the employment of the defendant. See Section 7 (1) (2) (3) and (4) of the Employees Compensation Act No 10, 2010 and the cases of Nagakam V. Strabag (Nig) Ltd (1960) FSC 130/60 and Scandinavian Shipping Agencies V. Ajide (1966) NMLR 262. That the injury sustained by the claimant is permanent disability in that his foot is sliced resulting in his inability to walk uprightly. See Taylor v. Ogheneovo (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1316) P. 46; Garba v. Kur (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt 831) 280; Shuaibu v. Maiduguri (1967) NMLR 204; Obere V. Board of Mgt, Eku Baptist Hospital (1978) 6-7 SC 15; Agaba V. Otubusin (1961) 2 SCNLR 13; Eseigbe v. Agholor (1993) 9 NWRL (Pt 3156) 28 and Ediagbonya v. Dumez Nig. Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (pt 31) 753.

 

5.3.           That since it has not been shown that the Claimant’s employment has been terminated, he is entitled to his salary until the employment is properly determined by the Defendant. That where a contract is terminated in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the contract, the employer must pay for the breach. See Yusuf V. Volkswagen of Nigeria Ltd (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt 463) p. 746; Katto V. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (pt 607) page 390 at 406 Para D-G and Spring Bank Plc .Vs. Babatunde (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1292) Page 83 at 101. That the reason given for the non-payment of the claimant’s salary is untenable to exonerate the defendant because where the employer gives reasons for terminating the appointment of his employee, the onus is on him to establish that reason and such servant must be given a fair hearing as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. See U.B.A Plc V. Oranuba (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt 1392)1; Olatunbosun V. NISER Council (1988) 3 NWLR (pt 80) 25; Osisanya v. Afribank Nig Plc (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) page 565 at 576-577 para H-A and Oforishe .vs. NGC Ltd (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt 1602) page 35 at 61 A-C.

 

5.4.          That from exhibit CW1A, the method by which the appointment can be terminated is very clear, and that the procedure must be followed by the defendant, and any failure to follow the procedure is a fundamental breach of the terms of employment. The claimant was not allowed to resume work after he got well, hence the purported termination of his employment is contrary to the terms of contract. See Sections 9 (7) and 11 (3), (6), (7) and (8) of the Labour Act, Cap. L1, LFN 2004. That an employee who is wrongfully removed from his employment is entitled to damages for breach of contract, relying on the cases of Savannah Bank Nig Plc V. Fakokum (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544 Rotio 6 and Nigeria Airways V. Gbajumo (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 735 Ratio 8. That no notice or salary in lieu of notice was given to the Claimant as stipulated in exhibit CW1A, relying on sections 9 (7) and 11 (3), (6), (7) and (8) of the Labour Act, Cap L1, LFN 2004 and the cases of Oyedele V. Ife U.T.H (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 155) 194 ratio 5 and Onalaja V. African petroleum Ltd (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt 206) 691 Ratio 1. An employer owes duty of care to his employee who sustained injury while at work. See Usong V. Hanseatic Int. Ltd (2009) 38 (Pt. 1) NSCQR 372 at P. 386.

 

5.5.           It was further submitted that, while most of the exhibits tendered by the defendant relate to other persons and not the Claimant, the receipt of the Gloryland Medical Centre was not pleaded.

 

5.6.          With respect to the defendant’s contention that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it was submitted that, a court is said to have Jurisdiction and competence to determine a suit when: It is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu V. Nkemdidim (1962) 2SCNLR 341 and Abbas V. Tera (2013)2 NWLR (Pt. 1338) 284.

 

5.7.           That there is no fundamental defect in the claimant's adopted written depositions affecting the jurisdiction of this court and the competence of this suit. That the written deposition of the Claimant dated 29^th day of February, 2024 is competent and valid before the court, and any answer arising from cross-examination does not affect the jurisdiction of this court and competence of this suit because the said written deposition is signed and dated before a person duly authorised by law. See Oduma V. Arunsi (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1298) 55. That once a written statement on oath has been adopted by the deponent it becomes the evidence in chief upon which the deponent may be cross-examined. See Aregbesola V. Oyinlola (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt 1253) 458 at 562-563. Oral evidence cannot be used to contradict, vary, or alter documentary evidence, relying on the case of Owoeye V. Oyinlola (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt 1322) 84 (CA).

 

5.8.          The Court was urged to resolve the two (2) Issues in favour of the Claimant, and to grant all the reliefs sought by the claimant in the suit.

 

 

 

 

COURT’S DECISION:

 

6.1.           Having pored over the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both Learned Counsel to the parties, the Court shall determine the suit on the basis of the two Issues submitted and argued by both parties.

 

6.2.          I shall however start by resolving the preliminary points of law raised by the Claimant’s Learned Counsel with respect to the objections to the admissibility of the documents tendered in the suit by the Defendant. The Claimant’s Learned Counsel has asked the Court to discountenance the Defendant’s exhibits because while some of the documents relate to persons other than the Claimant, the receipts from the Gloryland Medical Centre were not pleaded by the Defendant.

 

6.3.          The Claimant’s Learned Counsel did not identify the particular documents/exhibits that are not in the name of the Claimant and who they relate to.  I have seen that the exhibits are in the name of the Claimant and they relate to the treatments he received for the injuries sustained by him.  On the objection that the receipts from Gloryland Medical Centre are not pleaded, I have seen that the receipts are contained in exhibit DW2. The defendant having pleaded facts relating to the treatment of the Claimant at paragraph 5 of the Statement of Defence, I hold the considered view that there was no need to plead the particular document in question. See Sifax Nigeria Limited and Others V. Migfo Nigeria Limited and Anor (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1623) 138, where the Court of Appeal held that reference to a document in a pleading makes the document a part of the pleadings. I therefore find no merit in the objection of the Claimant, and same is hereby overruled.

 

6.4.         With respect to the Defendant’s Issue one (1), the defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to entertain the suit on the ground that since the claimant allegedly admitted during his cross-examination that he did not sign any witness statement on oath at the Registry of the Court, he only adopted depositions that do not belong to him. That his evidence has been invalidated, leaving bare his pleadings thereby rendering incompetent the Complaint. The Defendant is urging the Honourable Court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit.

 

6.5.          While I have seen that at the hearing of the suit on the 4^th of February, 2024, the Claimant informed the Court that he can read and write to some extent, and also that he did not sign any witness deposition before the Court, I however do not know how this will deprive the Honourable Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as being contended by the defendant. The same Claimant had on the 12^th of December, 2024 and 21^st July, 2025 clearly and emphatically identified and adopted the depositions in question. The Claimant having been sworn before the Court and duly adopted his witness statements on oath, I have not seen any defect in the depositions of the claimant as being argued by the defendant’s Counsel. See Clement Ottah and Ors V. Raphael Okeke and Others (2024) LPELR-62379(CA) at pages 18 – 20, paras. F – C and Sqimnga Nigeria Limited V. Systems Applications Products Nigeria Ltd (2025) 2 NWLR (Part 1977) 423 at 444 paras D – E, where it was held that a witness statement on oath does not become evidence until same is adopted in court by the deponent as the evidence in the case the deposition relates. Having taken an oath before the court before adopting the depositions as his evidence in the suit, I hold the considered view that the said depositions are competent as the claimant’s evidence before the Honourable Court. I therefore without further ado resolve Issue one (1) against the Defendant and in favour of the Claimant. I hold that the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to determine the suit has not in any way been impeded or hampered.

 

6.6.         With respect to Issue two (2), the burden of proof is clearly on the Claimant who is asking for compensation and general damages for personal injury suffered by him as a result of alleged negligence of the defendant. See sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Since this suit is founded on alleged negligence on the part of the defendant which allegedly led to the injury sustained by the claimant while working for the defendant on the 8^th of March, 2023, the Claimant is expected to establish the following ingredients as stated in the case of A.B.C. (Transport Company) Limited V. Miss Bunmi Omotoye (2019) LPELR-47829(SC):

i.                   The existence of a duty of care owed to the claimant by the defendant.

ii.                 Breach of that duty of care by the defendant.

iii.              Damages suffered by the claimant as a result of the breach of the defendant of the duty of care.

In the case of Mr. Obadare Onaolapo V. ZTE Nigeria Limited (2022) LPELR-57592(CA), the Court of Appeal held that, “In law, in a claim for damages for negligence, the Claimant must plead and prove the following three main ingredients of the tort of negligence, namely; 1. The Defendant owed the Claimant a duty to exercise due care; 2. That the Defendant failed to exercise due care or had breached the duty of care; 3. The Defendant’s failure was the cause of the injury suffered by the Claimant.” See also the cases of Abuja Glazing Technology Limited V. Stanley Uchenna Nwajesus and Others (2021) LPELR-54904(CA), per Nimpar, JCA at pages 50-51, paragraphs E-F and Mr. Oriabure Patrick V. The Branch Controller, West African Examinations Council Benin, Benin City and Another (2022) LPELR-57587(CA), per Abundaga, JCA at page 11 paragraphs B-E.

 

6.7.          It is manifest from the state of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties that the facts of the claimant being an employee of the defendant, and also that he sustained injury while carrying out his duties as an iron bender at the Defendant’s construction site at Angiama-Oporoma Waterside in Bayelsa State on the 8^th of March, 2023 are clearly not in contention in the suit. Exhibit CW1A is the letter of appointment of the Claimant as an iron bender on the 23^rd of April, 2022.

 

6.8.         Having established the employment relationship between the parties, and the fact that the claimant sustained injury on the 8^th of March, 2023 while working on the defendant’s iron rod, it is pertinent to make the point that the Defendant as an employer owed the Claimant the duty of care to take reasonable care by providing a safe equipment and work environment generally to enable him discharge his duties safely. I find support for this legal position in the case of Kabo Air Limited V. Ismail Mohammed (2015) 6 ACELR 71 at 95, where the Court of Appeal held as follows regarding negligence or duty of care in employment cases: “It is also settled that the liability of an employer under the duty of care rests upon the law of tort rather than on the law of contract and this is because under the general law of tort, a duty of care is said to arise when two persons are so closely and directly related that the activities of one of them may involve an appreciable risk of injury to the other- Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562. Such a close and direct relationship exists between an employer and his employee and thus, under the ordinary principles of tort, the employer owes a duty of care and he is liable for negligence – Baker v. James (1921) 2 KB 674, Mackinnon V. Iberia Shipping Ltd (1954) 2 Lloyds Rep 372 and Davie v. New Merton Board Mills Ltd supra. An employee is, however, at liberty to sue under contract if there are special advantages – Matthews v. Kuwait Bechtel Corporation (1959) 2 All ER 345.” See also the case of Bright Chinedu Wodi V. Differential Aluminium and Steel Company Ltd and 1 Other (2014) 42 N.L.L.R. (Pt. 129) 29.

 

6.9.         Having pored over the entirety of the pleadings and evidence on record, it is evident that the claimant had a severe laceration on his right heel and outer part of the right foot, and was rushed to the Accident and Emergency Unit of the Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa by the defendant where the wound was sutured as can be evidenced by exhibits CW1B and CW1C. He was subsequently treated at other medical facilities as can be gleaned from exhibits DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW4. The Claimant informed the court during cross-examination that he was employed by the defendant as an iron bender, and that his monthly salary of N53,850.00 from the defendant was his only source of income. He refuted the suggestion that he was given three (3) months to recuperate, and that after he recovered from the injury he went to the defendant two times to resume work but he was turned back. That while he was not paid his April 2023 salary, he was only paid N18, 000.00 for three months which is not his full salary.

 

6.10.      I have equally seen some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the Defendant’s sole witness during her cross-examination, wherein she answered that, the mention of Graceland Medical Centre in paragraph 8 of her deposition is an error as the Claimant was taken to Silhouette Diagnostic Centre and not Graceland Medical Centre. That she does not have any document to support the statement at paragraph 10 of her deposition that the Claimant was paid N82, 000.00 to continue his treatment at home. She refuted the suggestion that the claimant wanted to resume work after he was healed but the defendant refused, but that the defendant did not respond to the letter by the claimant’s lawyer that he wanted to resume work. That exhibit CW1F is the letter written by the claimant’s lawyer, and the claimant was asked to resume work but he failed to turn up. She affirmed that the last date she witnessed the claimant’s treatment was on the 30^th of March, 2023, and that from March 2023 onward it was the claimant that was treating himself. The witness also affirmed that from her observation when the incident occurred the accident was not a minor one. That even though the claimant was paid five months basic salaries without doing any work, she however did not have the pay slips to show the payments to the claimant.

 

6.11.         It is apposite to make the point that, a worker engaged in iron bending works is exposed to physical risks which necessitates the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as helmet, goggles, hand gloves and safety boots etc. The defendant contended that the severity of the injury sustained by the claimant was reduced because the claimant was given Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which he wore at the time of the industrial accident in compliance with industry safety regulations and best practices. There is however nothing before the Court to indicate that such PPE were provided and worn by the Claimant, as no damaged safety boot was produced before the Court as the one worn by the claimant at the time of the accident. The point is not whether the claimant received adequate treatment after the accident as evidenced by exhibits DW1 – DW4, but the procedures and processes put in place by the defendant to protect the claimant from the accident happening in the first place. I am of the considered view that the Claimant has not only established the fact that there was an accident which caused the injury to his right foot as a result of the negligence of the defendant, but also that the injury or damages sustained was a direct flow or consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act of not taking proper care and precaution for his safety at the workplace.

 

6.12.       With respect to the reliefs in the suit, I have seen that reliefs (a) and (c) are for the sum of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200,000,000.00) as compensation for the injury, pains, loss of financial earnings, loss of amenities, loss of occupation and time spent in receiving treatment. While the claimant would seem to predicate the claims on alleged permanent disability, the evidence before the Court however suggests that he has recovered from the injuries and even expressed the desire to resume work. While the Court has held the defendant negligent, there is however no justification for the award of Two Hundred Million Naira (N200,000,000.00). The Court hereby awards the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) to the claimant as compensation/general damages.

 

6.13.       For reliefs (b) and (d) for the cumulative sum of Two Hundred and Sixty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira (N269, 250.00) as salaries for the months of April, 2023, September, 2023, October, 2023, November, 2023 and December, 2023, there is nothing before the Court to show that the claimant worked for the months in question. The evidence before the Court suggests that the defendant continued to pay the claimant monthly salaries for five months after the accident. Reliefs (b) and (d) are hereby refused.

 

6.14.      As for relief (e) for an order of court directing the defendant to continue to payroll the claimant on monthly salary of Fifty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira (N53, 850.00) from January 2024 onward, the point needs to be made that the employment relationship between the parties is not one with statutory flavour which may necessitate an order of specific performance or reinstatement. Being an employment between a master and servant, the claimant is not entitled to the relief which has the effect of an order of reinstatement. Relief (e) is therefore refused.

 

6.15.       Having granted reliefs (a) and (c) and awarded the sum of Twenty Million Naira against the Defendant as general damages for the injury sustained by the Claimant, relief (f) for an award of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000.00) has been adequately taken care of. Any award under this head of claim will amount to double compensation to the claimant.

 

6.16.      For relief (g) in the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) as cost of litigation, there is no doubt that the claim is in the nature of special damages which the law enjoins the claimant to specially plead and strictly prove. See the cases of Casmir Obok and Ors V. Chief Christopher Agbor and Ors (2016) LPELR-41219(CA) and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Clifco Nigeria Limited (2011) LPELR-2022(SC), at page 30, paras B – E. The Claimant is placing reliance on exhibit CW1G as proof of the payment of N20,000,000.00 to his lawyer for the prosecution of the suit. There is however nothing on the face of the document to link it to the claimant’s case. The said exhibit CW1G does no bear the name of the claimant to indicate that same was addressed to him. There is also no proof of any payment by the Claimant to his lawyer to support this claim. More so, during his cross-examination, the claimant admitted that going by his monthly salary he cannot afford such amount, but that the money was paid to his lawyer by his uncle who lives in the United Kingdom. There is however no proof of such payment before the Court. Relief (g) is therefore refused.

 

6.17.       Relief (h) for post judgment interest of 10% is granted as same is in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court, 2017.

6.18.      In the final result, Issue two is resolved in favour of the Claimant, and the suit succeeds in part. The Court hereby awards the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20, 000, 000.00) in favour of the Claimant as compensation/general damages. The terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today, failing which it shall attract interest at 10% per annum until it is fully liquidated. Judgment is entered accordingly, and the parties are to bear their respective costs.

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

 

REPRESENTATION:

 

J. Amity for the Claimant.

Kufre Ebong holding the brief of Emmanuel Agabi for the Defendant.