BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E. D. SUBILIM

 

 

DATE: 24TH JULY, 2025                                

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/394/2024

 

 

BETWEEN;

 

  1. OLAMIJULO I. THOMPSON

(Suing for himself & On-behalf of Other Claimants).

  1. AMURA TANKO
  2. MANASSEH F. YAKWO                                                   CLAIMANTS
  3. IGBAYUE A. BETHEL.
  4. EZIGBO KINGSLEY.
  5. SIMON CELESTINE 

 

AND

 

 

1.SOLSAN TECHNOLOGY VENTURE LIMITED 

 

2.MR. SHOLA AJAY                                                         DEFENDANTS

                                   

REPRESENTATION:

Maxwell Okpara Esq with J. J. Onaolapo Esq, Yagagie Obinna Esq and Ogbonna W. Esq for the Claimants

P.C Ashuikeka Esq with Anthony Nwabanor Esq for Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

 

  1. The Claimants instituted this action against the Defendants via a General form of Complaint and other accompanying originating processes filed on the 31st day of October, 2024. The Claimant seeks against the Defendants jointly and severally the following reliefs

 

  1. A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the relationship between the Defendant and the Claimants is one founded on the principles of Employment Contract, and by virtue of the peculiar terms of the employment contracts executed in favour of each Claimants by the Defendant, parties shall be bound by the said terms and conditions of the agreement and all provision of law in respect of employment contract.

 

  1. A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the termination of the Claimants’ appointment on such terms as contained on the various termination letters are unfair and unjustifiable and as such illegal, unlawful and condemnable.

 

  1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimants listed in the schedules below all benefits and packages such as; Pensions Packages, Unremitted Tax and Unpaid Salaries in line with the letters of appointment and the conspicuous charges on Claimants remunerations summing up to N8,728,000 (Eight Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Naira) as Special Damages under listed in the schedule below;

 

 

S/N

Names of Claimants

Dates of Employments and Termination

No. of Months Calculated

Deducted Employee Pension Contribution + The Supposed Employer pension contribution 

Salary Due

Tax Deduction Unremitted

Total in Naira (N)

1.

OLAMIJULO I. THOMPSON

01/11/13 – 20/7/17

41

387,000

260,000

82,000

729,000

2.

AMURA TANKO

15/9/14 - 20/7/17

30

288,000

240,000

60,000

588,000

3.

MANASSEH F. YAKWO

01/02/14 - 20/7/17

38

360,000

240,000

76,000

676,000

4.

IGBAYUE A. BETHEL

03/11/14 - 20/7/17

29

279,000

240,000

58,000

577,000

5.

EZIGBO KINGSLEY

10/08/14 - 20/7/17

32

306,000

240,000

64,000

610,000

6.

SIMON CELESTINE

08/06/14 - 20/7/17

22

216,000

240,000

44,000

500,000

        TOTAL                                                                                                                                      3,680,000

RSA-Gain/Interest-110%-of-3,680,000                                                                                                              4,048,000

Other--Expenses                                                                                                                                                  1,000,000

SUM-TOTAL                                                                                                            8,728,000

 

  1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT directing the Defendant to pay the sum of NGN100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) as General Damages to all the Claimants. 

 

  1. AN AWARD OF NGN2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) Only as Cost of Prosecuting this suit. 

 

  1. AN AWARD of 10% post Judgment interest per annum on the entire judgment sum from the date of judgment till same is fully liquidated.

 

  1. The Defendants, from the records, were served with the Court’s processes in this matter on the 14th day of November 2024. After the time allowed by the Rules to file and serve Defendants processes had expired and or elapse, defendant fail to put up a defense within 21 days after service. Learned counsels: P.C Ashuikeka Esq., with Anthony Nwabanor Esq., only appeared for the Defendants on the 21st day of January 2025 and had the matter adjourned for hearing and on 29th day of April 2025 counsel cross examined CW1 and no more. Defendants were finally foreclosed.

 

  1. It is the Claimants’ case that they were all under the employment of the Defendants before their employments were terminated on the 20th day of July, 2017 without any justification. They equally averred that the labour and employment laws, regulatory frame work and other extant policies of the Company including contract of employment were not put into consideration before the unlawful termination.  According to the Claimants after the termination they were promised all the entitled benefits from the company, while they were promptly laid off by the Defendants. The Claimants also averred that they worked for the Defendants in different capacities for the period of 3-4 years and they were diligent with their responsibility and job descriptions. That in the employment contract granted them, the pension contribution agreement contains in the offer of employment provides that 7.5% of each of the Claimants basic salary will be deducted and another 7.5% of each of the Claimants basic salary from the Defendants summing up to 15%. Continuing, the Claimants avers that the said amount will be paid into each of their retirement savings account for the months they have worked with the Defendants but the Defendant have not complied with any of the said terms and conditions before it terminated their employment contract. It is the averment of the Claimants that N4,500 which is the 7.5% which is the basic sum of the total salary of N60,000 will be deducted from the Claimants salary while an additional N4,500 as contribution from the defendants that sums up N9000 will be paid into Claimants pension account. These sums was never paid from the time of appointment till the date of termination. The Claimants averred that the actions of the Defendants are contrary to the employment contract and have deprived them of their rightful benefits. Furthermore, the Claimants also averred that the agreement stipulates that there shall be a deduction of N2000 for tax, but this was never remitted to the relevant authority and that they have tirelessly contributed their skills, time and dedication to the success of the Defendants and it is disheartening to learn that they have been denied their rightful entitlements. That the Defendants enticed them with a persuasive retirement plan by enrolling them to open a pension account with STANBIC IBTC which was only meant to deceive and defraud them. That the only time the Defendants remitted money into the retirement saving account with No. PEN100690230813 and paid the tax sum of N2000 was in November and December 2013 for just the 1st Claimant, but failed to make any payment for the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and January to July 2017 when they were laid off. The Claimants aver that the said sum that was paid in 2013, was about N44,000 and having accrued interest over the years, it now amounts to N103,000 as at December 2023. It is the averment of the Claimants that in line with the letter of appointment issued to the Claimants and the Staff Handbook upon their termination, the Defendant must pay to the Claimants all their entitled benefit as provided in the schedules below; 

S/N

Names of claimant 

Dates of employment and termination

No. of months calculate

Deducted employee pension contribution+ the supposed employer pension contribution

Salary due

Tax deduction

Total in Naira

1.

Olamijulo I. Thompson 

01/11/13- 20/7/17

41

387,800

260,000

82,000

729,000

2.

Amura Tanko 

15/9/14- 20/7/17

30

288,000

240,000

60,000

588,000

3.

Manasseh F. Yakwo

01/02/14- 20/7/17

38

360,000

240,000

76,000

676,000

 

4.

Igbayue A. Bethel

03/11/14- 20/7/17

29

279,000

240,000

58,000

577,000

5.

Ezigbo Kingsley

10/08/14- 20/7/17

32

306,000

240,000

64,000

610,000

6.

 

 

Simon Celestine

08/06/14- 20/7/17

22

216,000

240,000

44,000

500,000

 

TOTAL                                                                                                                   3,680,000

RSA-Gain/Interest- 110% of 3,680,000                                                                 4,048,000

Other—Expenses                                                                                                    1,000,000

SUM TOTAL                                                                                                       8,728,000

 

  1. The Claimants avers that after briefing the office of Messrs Maxwell Opara and Associates, a letter was caused to be submitted to the Defendants for the unlawful termination of appointments and breach of contract, demanding for payment of their salaries and benefits from the Pensions constantly deducted from the Claimants’ account.

 

COMMENCEMENT OF HEARING

 

  1. On the 13th day of March, 2025 Claimants opened their case, Olamijulo I. Thompson testified on oath as CW1 by adopting his written depositions as his oral evidence in this case. Exhibits Thompson 1 (a-e), 3, 4 and 5 were tendered through him. He was subsequently cross-examined by learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant was thereafter foreclosed having failed to filed any process before the Court. The matter was adjourned for adoption of Final Written Addresses.

 

CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

  1. On the 21st day of May 2025, the Claimants filed their final written address wherein Counsel on behalf of the Claimants raised three issues for determination of this Court viz; 
  2. Whether from the pleadings, available evidence and circumstances of this case, the Defendants has breached the contract with the claimant. 
  3. Whether this Honourable Court can act solely on the Claimant final written address.
  4. Whether the Claimant are entitled to the reliefs sought, having regard to the terms of their employment contracts, applicable labour laws, and the conduct of the Defendant.

 

  1. On issue one the Claimant’s Counsel submitted that from the evidence presented in the case the Claimants is entitled to all reliefs sought against the Defendants. It is the position of Claimants’ Counsel that the action brought against the Defendants is an action for breach of employment contract. He placed reliance on the case of Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh [2011] 46 (Pt. 2) NSCQR Pg 1124 @ 1152, and Gambaga v. Rabiu & Ors [2014] LPELR 41079 (CA). Counsel urges the Court to enter judgment for the Claimants relying on the authorities cited above and the Defendants not having any defence to the breach. He cited the case of Nationele Computer Services v. Oyo State Government & Ors [2019] LPELR 48077(CA) in backing up his point. Claimant’s Counsel stated that in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airline v. Idehen [2017] LPELR (CA) the Court spells out what a Claimants must establish to succeed in the case of breach of an agreement. The Claimants Counsel submitted that the Defendant owes the Claimants a duty of care and not expose him to damages, harm or any loss. He relied on the case of Mobil Oil V. Barbedos Cars Ltd [2016] LPELR-41603 (CA). It is equally the submission of Counsel that based on the credible evidence pleaded, the claimant is entitled to the relief of general damages, cited the case of Chicason Group of Co. Ltd V. Oteri (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt.1772) 222 @ 246-247. Counsel also posited that the Court is at liberty to assess the cost of litigation based on facts and circumstances of a case. 

 

  1. Regarding issue two the Claimants Counsel submitted that where a party has an opportunity to file and address the Court but chose not to cannot raise the issue of denial of fair hearing. He placed reliance on the case of John v. State [2015] LPELR-40424 CA; Ezomo V. Oyakhire [1985] 2 S.C 260 LPELR-1216; Shell Petroleum Development Co Nig. Ltd V. Edamkue [2009] and Anaeme V. Okpala [2017] LPELR-42780 CA.

 

  1. Respecting issue three, the Claimants’ Counsel cited Sections 7&11 of the Labour Law Act Cap L1 LFN 2004 and posited that an employment relationship must be governed by terms expressly agreed upon and that in this instance the Claimants rely on the employment letter and the terms and conditions therein. The Claimants’ Counsel posited that an employment letter contains a valid contract and Sections 91 and 254C (a) of the 1999 Constitution gives the National Industrial Court the jurisdiction to enforce such contracts. He cited in support of his assertion the case of Udegbunam v. FCDA [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 487. The Claimants’ Counsel also states that although, it is the prerogative of the employer to terminate an employment contract, the employer cannot do such without limitation. He relied on the case of Olayinka Kusamotu V. Wemabod Estates Ltd [1976] 9-10 SC 254. It is the contention of the Claimants that their termination lacked compliance with internal company policies, regulatory frameworks and globally recognized labour standard. Continuing, Counsel explains that cross-examination without filing a statement of defence is incompetent, that the Defendants having not filed a statement of defence as required under Order 15 Rule1 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 are not entitled to the right of Cross examination. He relied on the case of Akinlade v. INEC [2015] 1NWLR (Pt. 1440) 299 @ 346. He posited that the employer owes a duty of care to the employees, and such duties include remitting pensions, taxes and paying salaries, these are obligations that were breached by the defendants. He placed reliance on the case of Ajomale v. Yaduat (N0.2) [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt.191) 266. The claimants have set out their respective claims and everything including pension deductions, unremitted tax and unpaid salaries which sums up to 8,728,000. That these figures are backed by evidence and not denied by the Defendants. He relied on the case of Ajomale V. Yaduat (NO.2) [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt.191) 266. He urged the Court to grant the Claimants’ claims against the Defendants as being meritorious and enter a judgment in favor of the Claimants.

 

COURT’S DECISION

 

  1. I have carefully gone through the claimants’ processes filed, the evidence adduced, and the Final Written Address of counsel to the claimant. I have noted the attitude of defendants’ counsel in the way and manner he prosecuted this case. Throughout the hearing of this case, defendants did not file any process. At the close of claimant’s case counsel to defendants was giving 21 days to file his written address but despite proof of service of Claimants’ Final Written Address on counsel, Counsel to Defendants fail to so file Defendants’ Final Written Address. 
  2. On this note having considered the Claimants case and the Final Written Address filed by the Claimants, the lone issue to my mind that will determine this case is: 

 

Whether on the balance of probabilities the Claimants have successfully discharge the burden of proof on them 

 

  1. In an action for wrongful dismissal, it is necessary to plead the contract of employment, which is the foundation of the action. Without the contract and its particulars being pleaded by the claimant, no evidence of the terms of the contract which has been breached would be admissible at the trial and this will be fatal to this action since it will lack foundation. The Supreme Court per UWAIS, J.S.C, in Morohunfola V. Kwara State College Of Technology [1990] LPELR-1912(SC) (PP. 16 PARAS. A) had cause to make a categorical statement on the nature of a contract of employment in the following words:

 

"... it appears clear to me that since it is the plaintiff's case that his dismissal by the defendants is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between them. It is for the plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question... In the absence of the conditions of service between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, one cannot see whether or not the Governing Council or the sole administrator of the second defendant has anything to do with the contract sued upon by the plaintiff."

 

See Aji v. Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor [2015] LPELR-24562(SC) (PP. 15-16 Paras. C), Amodu v. Amode & Anor [1990] 3 NSCC 226 @ 237 and Baba v. N.C.A.T.C. [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388 @ 413. 

 

  1. Also, in the case of Syke Bank Plc v Adegun [2024] LPELR – 62219 (SC), Page 38-39, E-A, the Supreme Court held thus;

 

“An employment contract is premised on an agreement between a person or body, “employer” who seeks to retain the services of another, “employee” effectively putting the employee under their payroll. Like every contractual relationship, any of the parties can decide to bring this relationship to an end at any time, or it can be brought to an end based on several factors such as an express agreement by parties, effluxion of time or death…”

It follows therefore that in the instant case the Claimants who are claiming under a contract of employment has the duty to place before this court the condition of service between them and the Defendants.

 

  1. I have also observed that the foundational reliefs of the claimants are declaratory in nature. For this, let me state here that in a suit where the Claimants is seeking for declaratory orders, the burden of proof rests on the party seeking the order to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are entitled to the declaration. In other words, in a claim for declaratory reliefs, the onus is on the Claimants to establish his case on a preponderance of evidence. He will not be entitled to such reliefs, even on the admission in the pleadings of the defense because the Court must be satisfied that he is entitled to the relief claimed. In the case of Sanusi v. Ameyogun [1992] 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 527, the Supreme Court noted that the first stage of enquiry in a claim for declaratory relief is to consider whether the Claimants has made out a prima facie case. It follows therefore that the burden of proof in a claim for declaratory reliefs as in the instant case is on the Claimants and the Claimants must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the Defendants’ case. The Claimants would not be entitled to judgment even on admission of the Defendants to the claimants’ claims. This is more so as it is the duty of the Claimants to first prove the existence or non-existence of what he asserted by relevant, admissible and credible evidence. Once this burden so placed on the Claimant is discharged, the onus then shifts to the Defendants. See the case of Uzodinma v. Ihedioha [2020] 5NWLR (Pt 1718) 529 @ 578, Paras D-G. However, the exception to this general rule is that Claimants are allowed to rely on aspects of Defendants’ case that support their own. See the case of Hanatu v. Amadi [2020] 9 NWLR (Pt 1728) 128, Paras A-C and; Salisu v. Mobolaji [2016] NWLR (Pt 1535) 280-281, Paras H-A and; C.D.C. (Nig) Ltd v. SCOA [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt 587)410.

 

  1. In the instant case, let me caution that the fact that the Defendants did not take part in this case to so defend this suit does not absolve the Claimants from proving their case to the satisfaction of this court, giving the minimal evidence rule, which is that a Claimants cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgment just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court. See AG Osun State v. NLC [2013] 34 NLLR (Pt. 99) 278; Mr Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University Kano [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt70) 45; Ogunyade v.Oshunkeye [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt 1057) 218.  

 

  1.  From the evidence before this Court Claimants called a witness who testified and tendered exhibits. Claimants through their witness tendered Exhibit Thompson 2 A-E which are serial appointment letters of the Claimants to establish the employment relationship between the parties. On the face of the letters of offer, the terms and conditions of the employment contract are glaringly stated. It is the case of the claimants that the defendants unilaterally terminated their employment contracts without even observing the terms and conditions of employment chiefly among which is the want of notice or payment in lieu of notice. 

 

  1. The Defendants as noted earlier did not file any process nor give evidence but only ended up cross examining the Claimants witness in this case. I have gone through the letters of termination of all the Claimants. The opening sentence of each of the termination letters is in the following words: 

 

“In accordance with your terms of employment which expires on 28/02/2017, you were notified by your site manager to indicate your interest in renewing your contract, which you did not, nor declined to express any interest in doing so. Giving this scenario, we are not obliged to renew your contract. you are hereby required to return all company’s materials, documents, IDs, to which you had access during the period of your contract.” 

The law as it relates to documentary evidence was espoused by the Court in the case of Mrs. Betty Darego V. A.G. Leventis (Nigeria) Ltd& Ors LER [2015] CA/L/481/2011 (CA) - JULY 2015) per Y. B. NIMPAR J.C.A-

 

“It is trite law that he who asserts must prove. "Documentary evidence Is held to be the hanger upon which oral evidence can be verified. See the Case of Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR- 827 (SC) where the court held thus: "Documentary evidence always serves as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony. " See also Kindley v. M G of Gongola State [1988] 2 NIWLR (P 77) 473 on when there is oral as well as documentary evidence. It was held as follows:

‘The legal proposition that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, documentary evidence should be used as a hanger from which to assess oral testimony is a sound one’.” 

 

  1. In the same vein, in the case of Kusha v. Modu & Ors [2022] LPELR- 57320 (CA). Hannatu Sankey, JCA held thus:

 

“The law is trite that documentary evidence serves as the hangar upon which to test the veracity of oral evidence. Thus, oral evidence that is supported by documentary evidence will be deemed more credible. This position of the law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and this Court in innumerable decisions. For instance, in the case of Zakirai v. Muhammad (2017) LPELR-42349(SC) 73, A-F, Augie, JSC restated the law with clarity when he said: “it is an elementary principle that documentary evidence is used as a hanger to test the veracity of evidence, whether oral or by affidavit… The lower Court was right to place greater value on documentary evidence, which bears eloquent testimony to what happened – See Aniki v. Idowu (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47, wherein it was observed – “Documents when tendered and admitted in Court are like words uttered and do speak for themselves. They are even more reliable an authentic than words from the vocal cord of man because they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and misinterpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages. The documents bear eloquent testimony to what happened.”

 

  1. Now in the face of these authorities no one can accept the oral evidence giving to vary the content of Exhibits Thompson 1 A-E. I find therefore based on the evidence before this court that the contract of service between the parties before this court was a fix contract and renewable. Not only this I have also taking my time to look at the said Exhibits Thompson 1A-E which is dated 20/06/2017 as it clearly shows that the contract was terminated in 2017. The necessary question that follows is whether this suit is not statute barred? From the content of Exhibit 1A-E and the originating processes filed before this court, it is clear that this suit was filed on the 31/10/2024, which shows it took about 7 years from the period the cause of action inured before it was filed.

 

  1. I am mindful that the general principle is that a Court should not raise an issue suo motu (on its own motion) and decide it without giving the parties or their counsel an opportunity to address it. This principle is rooted in the rules of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule (hear the other side), which ensures fairness by allowing parties to respond to issues that may affect them. However, there are exceptions where the Court may validly raise and determine an issue suo motu without necessarily inviting Counsels to address it, particularly when the issue pertains to matters of law or jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Tukur v. Government of Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 held that a Court may raise an issue of law or jurisdiction suo motu and decide it without hearing the parties, as issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

 

  1. The issue of statute of limitation when invoked goes to the competence of a suit which usurps the jurisdiction of this court. Now section 7 of the Limitation Act of the FCT provides that actions founded on simple contracts shall not be brought to court after the expiration of 6 years. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Okoronkwo v. I.N.E.C. [2025] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1991) 131 held that a cause of action becomes statute barred if it is brought at a time beyond the period of time prescribed by statute within which such an action ought to be filed in the trial court. A cause of action can be said to be statute-barred where the proceedings cannot be commenced because the period prescribed under the law of limitation has already lapsed. And this can be determined simply by critically and dispassionately considering the originating process, that is, the Complaints and the statement of facts or the originating summons or motion and the supporting affidavit, alleging when the wrong was actually committed, thereby giving the claimant a cause of action. Thus, once the date on which the originating process was filed is beyond the period prescribed by the limitation law, then the action is deemed to be statute-barred. I need not argue any further. From the evidence before this court the claims of the Claimants’ is statute barred. The import of this is that it usurps the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate over this suit. And this I so hold. 

 

  1. On the whole, for the above reasoning, I find that this suit is statute barred in line with section 7 of the Limitation Law of the FCT. Accordingly, having arrived at this conclusion, I am left with no option than to dismissed this action. This case is accordingly hereby dismissed. This I so hold. 

 

  1. Judgment is hereby entered. There is no order as to cost.

 

 

 

                                               ……………………………

                          Hon. Justice E. D. Subilim

                                                                                                        JUDGE