IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE MINNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 1^st July 2024                                           SUIT NO: NICN/MN/06/2018

 

Between:

 

1.     Sunday Opeyemi O.

2.     Umar Mamman

3.     Bamigboye Olakunle Musbau                                                                               Claimants

4.     Eniola Akintububo                                                                           

 

And

 

1.     Mr. Agboola Rasheed

(Niger State Divisional Area Manager of the Incorporated

Trustees of Self-Reliance Economic Advancement Programme)                              Defendants

2.     The Incorporated Trustees of Self-Reliance

Economic Advancement Programme                                                               

 

Representation:

A. A. Siraj for the Claimants

I. F. Yusuph for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

The Claimants instituted this suit on the 9^th day of November 2018. In an amended Complaint filed by the Claimants on 22^nd May 2019, the claimants sought these claims:

1.        An Order directing the defendants to pay the 1^st claimant the sum of N168, 250.00 being the total amount of outstanding monies currently due to the 1^st claimant from the defendants as per paragraphs 5(b) and (c) of the statement of material facts.

2.        An Order directing the defendants to pay the 2^nd claimant the sum of N298, 500.00 being the total amount of outstanding monies currently due to the 2^nd claimant from the defendants as per paragraphs 8 (c) of the statement of material facts.

3.        An Order directing the defendants to pay the 3^rd claimant the sum of N340, 000.00 being the total amount of outstanding monies currently due to the 3^rd claimant from the defendants as per paragraph 10 of the statement of material facts.

4.        An Order directing the defendants to pay the 4^th claimant the sum of N341, 000.00 being the total amount of outstanding monies due to the 4^th claimant from the defendants as per paragraph 13 of the statement of material facts.

5.        An Order directing the defendants to pay each of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th claimants the sum of N500,000.00 as general damages.

6.        An Order directing the defendants to pay each of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th claimants the sum of N300,000.00 as cost of action incurred by the claimants.

7.        An Order directing the defendants to pay each of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th claimants pre-judgment interest over their respective current total amount of entitlements, accruing from the respective dates of resignation or disengagement of the each of the individual claimants from the employment of the 2^nd defendant.

8.        An order directing the defendants to pay each of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th claimants post judgment interest over the total judgment sum accruing on monthly basis from the date of the Judgment of this Honorable Court until the judgment is fully obeyed and complied with.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANTS

In proving these claims, each of the claimants gave evidence in this suit. From the evidence adduced by the claimants, the case of the claimants is as follows:

 

1^ST CLAIMANT

The 1^st Claimant was an employee of the 2^nd Defendant until recently when his employment was terminated. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Claimants were also employees of the 2^nd Defendant until their recent resignation from the employment. The 1^st defendant is the Divisional Area Manager of the 2^nd Defendant who is currently heading Minna branch office of the 2^nd Defendant where the Claimants served as employees of the 2^nd Defendant.

 

The 1^st Claimant worked for the 2^nd Defendant based on agreement since 30^th November 2012 until sometime in the month of May 2017 when his employment was terminated. During the period of his employment, the following unwarranted deductions were made from his monthly salaries and they include "Recovery" deducted from his salaries between October 2014 and June, 2016 amounting to a total of N140,000 for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd defendant by its employee(s) which the 1^st Claimant has nothing to do with; "General savings " deducted between February 2017 and May 2017, amounting to the sum of N4, 000.00; "Provident fund" amounting to the sum of N47,500.00, which was not refunded to the 1^st Claimant and Security deposit in the sum of N20,000 which was never paid back to the 1^st Claimant. Again, the 1^st Claimant’s salary for the month of May 2017, in the sum of N54,393 was withheld by the Defendants. The 1^st Claimant had previously instituted an action against the Defendants before the Chief District Court III, Minna and during the pendency of the suit, the 2^nd Defendant paid the 1^st Claimant the sum of N97,643 out of his total claims. The balance of the money due to be paid to the 1^st Claimant by the Defendants is the sum of N168,250.00.

 

2^ND CLAIMANT

The 2^nd Claimant worked for the 2^nd Defendant since the year 2010 until sometime in the year 2018 when he resigned his employment. During the period of his employment, the 2^nd Defendant made the following unwarranted deductions from his monthly salaries: Provident fund, deducted from his monthly salaries between the years 2010 and 2018 amounting to N71,500; the sum of N5,000 deducted in the year 2012 from his monthly salary for the purpose of shares which were not allotted to the 2^nd claimant; the sum of N3,500 deducted from the 2^nd Claimant' s salary for purchase of pressing iron which was not given to him; Security deposit in the sum of N25,000 deducted in the year 2014 out of the 2^nd Claimant' s salary and never paid back to him; General savings to the tune of N16,000 deducted in the year 2017/2018 out of the 2^nd claimant's monthly salaries; the sum of N6,500 deducted from the 2^nd Claimant's salary in the year 2014 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd defendant at its Suleja branch by one of its employees which the 2^nd Claimant has nothing to do with; the sum of N36,000 deducted from the 2^nd Claimant's salary in the year 2014 as recovery for the fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant by its employee at its Ibadan branch which the 2^nd Claimant has nothing to with; the sum of N13,500 deducted from the 2^nd Claimant's salary in the year 2015/2016 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant by its employees at its Bida branch which the 2^nd Claimant has nothing to do with. The total amount of monies due to the 2^nd Claimant and unpaid by the Defendants is the sum of N298,500.00.

 

3^RD CLAIMANT

The 3^rd Claimant worked for the 2^nd defendant since 1/3/12 until 30/4/18 when he resigned his employment. During the period of his employment, the following unwarranted deductions were made from his monthly salaries: Security deposit in the sum of N25,000 deducted in the year 2014; the sum of N18,000 deducted from the 3^rd Claimant's salary in October 2014 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd defendant at its Ibadan branch by its employee which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N18,000 deducted out of the 3^rd Claimant' s salary in November 2014 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant at its Ibadan branch by some of its employees which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N6,500 deducted from the 3^rd Claimant's salary in November 2014 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd  defendant at its Suleja branch by its employee which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N5,000 deducted from the 3^rd Claimant's salary in May 2015 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd defendant at its Bida branch by some of its employees which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to with; the sum of N10,000 deducted from the 3^rd Claimant's salary monthly from June 2015 to December, 2015 and from January, 2016 to June, 2016 amounting to N130,000 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant at its Bida branch office by some of its employees which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to do with; providence fund deducted between the years 2012 to 2018 amounting to N63,000 which was never refunded back to the 3^rd Claimant; general compulsory savings deducted out of the 3^rd Claimant's monthly salaries between February 2017 and December 2017 and between January 2018 and April 2018 amounting to N30,000 out of which N12,000 was refunded to the 3^rd Claimant leaving the balance of N18,000.00 still outstanding; default payment in the sum of N18,000 deducted from the 3^rd Claimant's salary in April 2018 as payment for bad loans of the 2^nd Defendant' s customers which the 3^rd Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N38,500 being half of the 3^rd Claimant’s monthly salary for the month of September 2017 which was withheld by the Defendants. The total amount of monies currently due to the 3^rd Claimant from the Defendants is the sum of N340,000.00.

 

4^TH CLAIMANT

The 4^th Claimant worked for the 2^nd Defendant since 1/8/2011 until 3^rd August 2017 when she resigned her employment with the 2^nd Defendant. During the period of her employment, the following unwarranted deductions were made from her monthly salaries: providence fund deducted from her monthly salaries between the years 2011 to 2017 amounting to N57,500, the sum of N5,000 deducted from the 4^th Claimant's salary in the year 2012 for shares which he was not allotted and the said money never refunded back to her; security deposit in the sum of N20,000 deducted in the year 2014 from the 4^th Claimant's salary which has not been refunded back to her; general compulsory savings deducted out of the 4^th Claimant's monthly salaries between January and July 2017 amounting to N7,000 which was never paid back to her; the sum of N110,000 being the outstanding salaries of the Claimant for the months of June and July 2017 which were withheld by the defendants; the sum of N6,500 deducted out of the Claimant's salary in 2014 as recovery, for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant at its Suleja branch office by some of its employees which the 4^th Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N27,000 deducted from the 4^th Claimant's salaries between October and November 2014 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant at its Ibadan branch by some of its employees which the Claimant had nothing to do with; the sum of N108,000 deducted from the 4^th Claimant's salaries between 2015 and 2016 as recovery for fraud allegedly committed against the 2^nd Defendant at its Bida branch office by some of its employees which the 4^th Claimant had nothing to do with. The total amount of monies currently due to the 4^th Claimant from the defendants is the sum of N341,000.00.

 

The claimants also asserted that all the mentioned deductions made from their respective monthly salaries were made by the defendants without justification, and that the withholding of their monies have made them to suffer a lot of financial hardships and psychological trauma.

 

DEFENCE

The defendants filed statement of defence on 10^th July 2019 and the 1^st defendant gave evidence in defence of the claims of the claimants as DW1. In his evidence, DW1 said he is the Divisional Manager of the 2^nd Defendant at its Bida branch while the 1^st to 4^th Claimants are employees of the 1^st Defendant at its Bida branch. He said the claims of the Claimant are baseless and unsupported and the Claimants are not entitled to their claims.

 

I have read the various final written addresses of counsels. I do not see any reason to rehash their contents here. However, arguments proffered by counsels in their respective written addresses were duly considered and evaluated. Reference will be made to them as it becomes necessary in the course of this judgment.

 

MOTION ON NOTICE OF THE DEFENDANTS

The defendants filed a motion on 27^th March 2023 seeking an order dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction. I will first determine the motion.

 

In the grounds of the motion as well as in the affidavit in support, the contention of the defendants is that the Claimants jointly instituted this action against the Defendants meanwhile the 2^nd defendant is a co-employee with the claimants in the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant is not the employer of the claimants and the claimants cannot institute a joint action because each of them has separate employment. It was also contended that the mode of commencement of this suit is not recognized by the rules of this court. For these reasons, the defendants said the suit is not competent and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the written address in support of the motion, it was submitted that for this court to assume jurisdiction over a matter, the matter must be a trade dispute or the dispute must be between employer and worker or works and workers and the dispute must be connected to the employment or non-employment or the term of employment and physical condition of workers. It was submitted that there is nothing showing that the 2^nd defendant is the employer of the claimants. The name of the 2^nd defendant ought to be struck out. It was also submitted that the suit is incompetent as there is no provision for joint claim under section 254C [1] CFRN 1999 [as amended]. It was argued that the word “any employee” in the provision connotes a single worker and does not accommodate claims of different persons. Contrary to the provision, this suit combined different claims and different causes of action of the claimants. Counsel urged this court to dismiss this suit for being in competent.

 

The claimants filed a counter affidavit to the motion on 6^th April 2023 wherein it was averred that the claims and reliefs sought by each of the claimants is separated and district from the claims and reliefs sought by the others. The 1^st Defendant in this suit is sued in his official capacity as the Niger State Divisional Area Manager of the 2^nd Defendant while the 2^nd Defendant was the employer of the Claimants. The instant suit was initiated in compliance with requirements of the law and therefore competent, and that all necessary and proper parties have been joined in the suit. In the written address in support of the counter affidavit, it was submitted that there is a trade dispute between the 1^st defendant and the claimants. It was also argued that Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Court 2017 permits several claimants to file a joint action. 

 

DECISION ON THE MOTION.

From the grounds of the motion, the affidavit and written address in support, the defendants raised two issues to wit: That there is no employment dispute between the claimants and 1^st defendant and that the claimants cannot institute a joint action. These are the reasons the defendants want the suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

From the evidence of the claimants, they were employees of the 2^nd defendant. The 1^st defendant too is said to be an employee of the 2^nd defendant and held the position of Divisional Area Manager of the 2^nd defendant. The case of the claimants is about the deductions made from their monthly salaries. I have seen from the evidence that the contract of employment and payment of salaries was entered between the claimants and their employer. I have seen the claimants’ respective employment letters wherein the 2^nd defendant entered into a contract to employ and pay the claimants monthly salaries. Thus, the responsibility to pay the claimants salaries is that of the 2^nd defendant and not the responsibility of the 1^st defendant. The deductions made from the claimants’ salaries and the salaries unpaid to the claimants are the liabilities of their employer. There is no employment relationship between the claimants and the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant has also not been identified by the claimants as the one who deducted from their salaries or withheld their salaries. The 1^st defendant is clearly not a proper or necessary party in this suit. He had been wrongly joined as defendant. I hereby strike out the name of the 1^st defendant from this suit.

 

For the 2^nd defendant, I see that the claim of the claimants is for recovery of sums deducted from their salaries while they were employees of the 2^nd defendant. Their case against the 2^nd defendant is employment related and comes within the jurisdiction of this Court in Section 254C [1] CFRN 1999.

 

The defendant contended that the claimants cannot institute a joint suit because the employment of the claimants is personal to each of them. I have read the averments of the claimants in the statement of facts and the evidence adduced by the claimants. From the case of the claimants, I find as a fact that the claimants were employed separately, at different dates, for different positions and different amounts of salaries. They also left the defendant’s employment at different times. That apart, the facts show that the claimants have the same employer and they worked in the same employment. The complaint of the claimants in this suit against the defendant is basically with respect to monies deducted from their salaries while they were employees of the defendant. The claimants have pleaded facts showing that they have a common cause of action and similar reliefs against the defendant. In the circumstance, the claimants are permitted to institute a single suit against the defendant to seek remedies accruing to them, jointly or severally, from the actions of the defendant which they complained about. Order 13 Rule 1 of the Rules of this court 2017 provides:

“All persons may be joined in one action as Claimants in whom any right to relief is alleged to exist whether jointly or severally and judgment may be given for such Claimant(s) as may be found to be entitled to relief and for such relief as the Claimant may be entitled to without any amendment.”

 

This rule permits persons who have a common cause of action or joint right to a relief being sought to sue jointly as claimants. The facts pleaded by the claimants upon which the cause of action arose entitle them, under the rule, to jointly sue the defendant. Furthermore, it is trite that joinder of persons in one action as plaintiffs or claimants or the joinder of causes of action is permissible if these conditions are present:

i           The right to reliefs in respect of or arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and

ii.         If separate actions were brought by such persons, a common question of law or fact would arise.

 

See BEST OIL LTD vs. ORUOSA (2003) FWLR (Pt.147) 1038; TAIWO vs. A.R.M.T.I.  (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 617) 781; C.B.N vs. ADEDEJI (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 244) 912. The facts pleaded by the claimants disclose that the complaints of the claimants against the defendant are the same such that if the claimants have brought different actions against the defendant, a common question of law would arise for determination. The law permits, in such instance, a joint action or claim by the claimants. It is to avoid separate and multiple actions by claimants who have a common cause of action or joint right to a relief against an employer that the rules of this court permit such claimants to bring a single suit against the employer. Therefore, notwithstanding that the claimants were separately employed by the defendant and at different dates, the same issues of law and facts are likely to arise for determination if they had filed separate suits.  It is my view that a single suit, as has been instituted by the claimants, is proper.

 

In the result, I do not find any merit in the 2^nd issue of the defendant’s motion. Save the 1^st defendant who is improperly joined and has been struck out, the defendant failed to show that the suit is not competent. I do not find any reason to grant the order sought in the motion. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed.

 

DECISION ON THE MAIN SUIT.

The claimants were former employees of the defendant. The 1^st claimant was employed on 30^th November 2012 and terminated in May 2017. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th claimants were employed on 9^th August 2010, 1^st March 2012 and 1^st August 2011 respectively and they resigned from the employment on 30^th March 2018, 30^th April 2018 and 3^rd August 2017 respectively. In reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the claimants claim some monies from the defendant. According to the claimants, the monies were either deducted from their respective monthly salaries or withheld by the defendant without any justification. The claimants supported the averments in their statement of facts with evidence adduced by each of the claimants and Exhibit B [B1-B58], being the defendant’s payroll showing payments and deductions from the monthly salaries of the claimants.

 

The claimants, having proved the deductions made from their salaries by the defendant, the burden shifts to the defendant to justify the deductions. The only thing DW1 said in his evidence is that the claims of the claimants are baseless and unsupported. Nothing else. No facts to explain or controvert the claimants’ allegations. The defendant failed to give any justification for the deductions from the claimants’ salaries. The defendant did not offer any defence to the claims of the claimants in reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Contrary to what DW1 thought, I find the claims of the claimants to have basis and supported by evidence. Without further ado, I find that the claimants have proved these claims.

 

The claimants however failed to prove the sums claimed as general damages and cost of action in reliefs 5 and 6. There is also no basis for the claim for pre-judgment interest in relief 7. For these reasons, these claims cannot be granted. Under the Rules of this court, the claimants are entitled to post judgment interest on the judgment sums. By the effect of the Rules, I will grant relief 8. In the result, I hold that the claimants have proved reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 4. These claims are granted. Reliefs 5, 6 and 7 are refused. It is ordered as follows:

1.        The defendant is ordered to pay to the 1^st claimant the sum of N168,250.00 being the outstanding amount due to the 1^st claimant from the defendant.

2.        The defendant is ordered to pay the 2^nd claimant the sum of N298,500.00 being the outstanding amount due to the 2^nd claimant from the defendant.

3.        The defendant is ordered to pay the 3^rd claimant the sum of N340,000.00 being the outstanding amount due to the 3^rd claimant from the defendant.

4.        The defendant is ordered to pay to the 4^th claimant the sum of N341,000.00 being the outstanding amount due to the 4^th claimant from the defendant.

5.        The defendant is ordered to pay the above sums to the claimants within 30 days from today. Failure to comply with this order will result to the defendant paying interest at 10% per annum on the sums until the time the sums are completely paid to the claimants.

6.        Cost of N400,000.00 is awarded in favour of the claimants.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge