IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON JUSTICE A.N UBAKA

 

DATED 9^TH JULY 2026                                                                   

 Suit No: NICN/LA/295/2023

 

BETWEEN

 

UWEN AKANGSON                                                                                          CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

1.     FEDERAL MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION                    1^st DEFENDANT       

2.     NIGERIAN AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT AGENCY          2^nd DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIMANT         

 

REPRESENTATION:

A.  Ajayi with Charles Okechukwu for the claimant

Jeniffer Usidame holds the brief of Peter Ekavwo for the 1^st defendant

No legal representative for the 2^nd defendant

 

JUDGMENT

 

By a complaint filed by the claimant on the 12^th of June, 2018 against the Defendants seeking the following reliefs:

 

1.     Declaration that the purported letter of termination dated 21^st December 2017 is invalid, null and void and not in compliance with the provisions of the 2^nd defendant’s condition of service or the public service rules relating to the termination of employment.

 

2.     A Declaration that the failure of the 2^nd defendant to give the claimant at least a month’s notice or payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice before terminating his employment is a gross violation of the provision of the 2^nd defendant’s handbook on conditions of service and the public service rules.

 

3.     A Declaration that the employment of the claimant into the service of the 2^nd defendant commenced from the date as stated in the letter of employment.

 

4.     A Declaration that the claimant remains and is still in the employment of the 2^nd defendant.

 

5.     A Declaration that the claimant is and still remains in the services of the 2^nd defendant and thereby entitled to all the benefits, entitlements accruing to a person in similar position i.e. Director, which said benefit include the use of his official vehicle, and other benefits.

 

6.     An order directing the 2^nd defendant to pay the claimant all his salary and entitlements from the date of the illegal termination until the date he is lawfully terminated by the 2^nd defendant and thereafter pay his severance entitlement in accordance with conditions of service and relevant provisions.

 

7.     An order directing the defendant to pay the sum of N3, 000, 000 as special damage being incurred by the claimant as solicitor fees.

 

8.     An order directing the 2^nd defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N50, 000, 000 as General damage for breach of his contract of employment.

 

ALTERNATIVELY

 

An order of this honourable court directing the 2^nd defendant to pay to the claimant all the sums the claimant would have earned as salary and entitlement from 21^st December 2017, the date of his said termination, up until the date of his retirement at 60 years of age. 

 

Accompanying the complaint is the claimant’s written statement on oath, list of witnesses and documents to be relied upon on trial dated and filed 12^th June, 2020

                                                                    

The 1^st defendant in reaction to the Claimant’s complaint filed its statement of defence on 31^st August, 2018 while the 2^nd defendant in reaction to the Claimant’s complaint filed its statement of defence and counter claim on 2^nd November, 2018. In its counter claim, the 2^nd defendant/counter claimant claimed as follows:

 

1.      A declaration that the failure of the defendant to the counterclaim to release the Toyota Prado Vehicle with registration number NAMA 21E54FG upon disengagement from the service of the counter claimant is a breach of the subsisting contract and conditions of service governing the claimant’s employment with the counter claimant.

 

2.      An order directing the defendant to the counterclaim to immediately release the 2012 Toyota Prado Vehicle with registration number NAMA 21E54FG to the counterclaimant.

 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RELIEF B

 

An order directing the defendant to the counter claim to pay the sum of N22, 000, 000 as value for the 2012 Toyota Prado Model

 

3.      The sum N10, 000, 000 as general, aggravated and exemplary damages for breach of contract and unlawful retention of the 2012 Toyota Prado Vehicle with registration number NAMA 21E54FG by the defendant to the counterclaim.

 

4.      The sum of N8, 000, 000 against the defendant to the counterclaim being the cost of prosecuting this counterclaim.

 

On 5^th October, 2021, the honourable court struck out the claims of the claimant against the 2^nd defendant on the authority of Order 38 Rule 3 (1) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and ordered the matter be proceeded by the 2^nd defendant/counterclaimant to prove its counterclaim.

 

On 15^th November, 2024, the claimant/applicant filed a Motion on Notice to relist the claimant’s suit struck out on 5^th October, 2021 but the honourable court by its Bench Ruling on 18^th March 2026 and on the authority of Order 38 Rule 6 (1-3) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 refused and dismissed the claimant’s motion to relist the suit after 4years of the matter being struck out on 5^th October, 2021.

 

The Counter Claimant/2^nd defendant opened its counter claim by calling its sole witness, Mr. Solomon Edekin Ohiomah, the Deputy General Manager, Industrial Relations and Discipline of the defendant, wherein he adopted his witness statement on oath as evidence in this case. The 2^nd defendant’s sole witness statement on oath is that he knows the claimant who was in the employ of the 2^nd defendant until sometimes around the month of August, 2017 wherein he was disengaged by the 2^nd defendant; that the claimant did not receive the sum of N1, 220, 439. 56 per month whilst in the employ of the 2^nd defendant but rather received the net sum of N885, 441. 38 after deductions as his monthly salary, nevertheless the sum of N334, 936. 18(representing annual leave allowance) is paid annually in addition to the claimant’s salary and that the claimant’s annual salary was not N14, 645, 268 whilst in the employ of the 2^nd defendant. That the claimant being the Director of Human Resources of the 2^nd defendant was only entitled to a Operational Vehicle and not entitled to an official vehicle for the day-to-day activities of the office of the claimant; that it is not in the condition of service, norm or custom regulating the 2^nd defendant’s operations that vehicles attached to management staff are boarded and given to such relevant staff automatically upon termination of such staff’s employment; that the boarding of a vehicle used by a former employee/staff of the 2^nd  defendant is not a matter of right as the 2^nd defendant’s condition of service makes provision for when official vehicles may be depreciated and qualify for board-in in accordance with Government rules and guidelines.

 

That even though an operational vehicle was attached to the claimant, the claimant in contrast to the 2^nd defendant’s condition of service, still collected the monthly sum of N39, 254. 62 as transportation allowance and that not once did the claimant request for a refund for any purported maintenance expended by him on the operational vehicle; that in a bid to carry out its functions effectively in the aviation and airspace industry, the 2^nd defendant had informed the claimant of his imminent disengagement from the services of the 2^nd defendant. Consequently, the claimant, amongst other directors laid off by the 2^nd defendant, were aware of their contract termination before receiving a letter of termination. However, upon the claimant’s solicitors demand for payment of one (1) month salary, the 2^nd defendant in fulfilling all righteousness and erring on the side of caution, paid the claimant the sum of N1, 220, 439. 56 as salary in lieu of notice being monthly salary of N885, 441. 38 and outstanding annual leave allowance of N334, 998. 18; that upon the claimant’s receipt of his letter of disengagement on 21^st August, 2017, the claimant thereafter met with the 2^nd defendant’s Managing Director to discuss the claimant’s handing over of all documents, properties and handover notes to the 2^nd defendant; that rather than return the operational vehicle in his possession, in compliance with the extant provisions of the 2^nd defendant’s condition of service, the claimant refused to return the operational vehicle and that despite several written demands to the claimant for the release of the 2^nd defendant’s operational vehicle in the claimant’s possession, the claimant has refused to return the vehicle and the 2^nd defendant has continued to incur running costs and liabilities in the management of the office of the Director Human Resources.

 

That the claimant cannot force, wheedle or coax the 2^nd defendant in acting contrary to the provisions of its establishing Act and condition of service which the claimant was bound by as a staff of the 2^nd defendant; that the claimant was not in the service of the 2^nd defendant for up to a period of 5years as he was employed on the 21^st September, 2012 and was disengaged from the Agency on the 21^st August 2017 making it a total period of 4years and some months but less than 5years. Consequently, the claimant is not entitled to severance benefits/payments upon the termination of his employment; that even though the claimant is not entitled to any severance payment from the 2^nd defendant, the severance payment due to the claimant if he had served for 5years will not amount to N14, 645, 268 as his annual salary was not N14, 645, 268. That the claimant has since been credited with the sum of N1, 220, 439. 56 as salary in lieu of one month’s written notice and as a result there are no live issues in this suit as presently constituted; that the claimant filed the instant suit against the defendants to coax the 2^nd defendant in granting the claimant’s application for boarding of the operational vehicle assigned to him which the 2^nd defendant has blatantly refused to grant; that as it stands, this suit is but a ploy by the claimant to willfully convert the 2^nd defendant’s Toyota Prado Sport Operational vehicle with registration number NAMA 21E54FG for his selfish gains. That because of this continued confinement of the 2^nd defendant/counterclaimant’s vehicle in the custody of the claimant/defendant to counterclaim, the 2nd defendant/counterclaimant has been made to brief its Solicitors to pursue the counterclaim and has thus incurred the sum of N8, 000, 000 as solicitor’s fee; that the operational vehicle is a black 2012 Toyota Model Prado Sport and is currently valued at the sum of N22, 000, 000. That the claimant’s suit is misconceived, misleading, mala fide, vexatious, amounts to gold digging and abuse of court process of the honourable court and should be dismissed with punitive and substantial costs.   

 

Under cross examination by the claimant’s counsel, the 2^nd defendant’s witness stated that his schedule of duty as his position implies interface with the management of the Agency and the Registered Trade Unions-Air Transport Servies, Amalgamation Union; that his day-to-day activities is to provide secretariat meeting between the management and union, represent the agency at the ministerial levels etc.; that if the property of the government is to be boarded based on depreciation, the agency will set up a board committee to look into it on the basis of 1^st refusal and that it is the obligation of the agency to extend same to the first user; that for purposes of official documentation, he has heard the names of John. C Onyegiri and Ifeanyi Nwoko but that he does not know them; that he joined the agency on August, 15, 2015; that they were the replacement of the claimant; that he is not aware that John. C Onyegiri and Ifeanyi Nwoko vehicles were boarded; that it is not correct that the decision not to board the vehicle was activated by malice.

 

There was no re-examination by the Counterclaimant/ 2^nd defendant’s counsel. The Counterclaimant thereafter closed its case.

 

On 18^th March, 2026 the right of the defendant to counter claim/Claimant to file a defence to counterclaim was foreclosed because the Counter claimant/2^nd defendant had since filed the counter claim on 12^th November, 2018 without a defence to counter claim by the claimant.

 

The parties were thereafter directed to file their final written addresses.

 

On 26^th May, 2026, the honourable court by her Bench Ruling refused and dismissed the claimant/applicant’s motion on notice to stay proceedings pending the appeal of the Ruling to relist the suit after 4years.  

 

On 26^th May, 2026, only the Counter Claimant/ 2^nd defendant filed and adopted its final written address dated and filed 14^th April, 2026.

 

Learned counsel on behalf of the Counterclaimant/2^nd defendant framed a sole issue for the court’s determination viz:

 

Whether the Counter-Claimant is not entitled to its claim in the face of the unchallenged evidence by the Defendant and preponderance of evidence before this Honourable Court.

 

It is the counterclaimant’s counsel submission on the sole issue that despite the clear provisions of Section 20.1, page 44 of exhibit UA8 (Conditions of Service) which provides:

 

The vehicles attached to Management Staff are primarily utility vehicles needed for the day-to-day activities of their offices. The vehicle remains the property of the Agency and shall not be taken away upon the disengagement of the staff from the Agency.

 

the defendant went away with the said official vehicle and have refused to return same, despite the demand for it; that parties are under obligations to keep to the sanctity of their contracts of employment and the honourable court ought to give effect to the terms of contract of between the Counter-Claimant and the Defendant. That besides, the Defendant did not file a defence to the Counter-Claim which is an obvious sign of his admission of the case of the Counter-Claimant. He cited the case of UniAbuja v AMCON (2025) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1975) 179 and urged the honourable court so hold and grant the reliefs sought by the Counter-Claimant.

 

I have considered the processes filed, the evidence of the parties, written submissions and authorities cited. In my considered opinion, the issue for determination is:

 

 Whether the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim.

 

The case of the defendant/counter claimant is that the defendant to the counter claim was employed by the counter claimant who is the 2^nd defendant in the main suit in 2012 as Director Human Resources & Administration Nigeria Airspace Management Agency.  His employment was terminated on 21^st August 2017. He then brought action against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants claiming for wrongful termination and entitlement. On the 2^nd of November 2018, the 2^nd defendant filed a motion that the matter is statute barred and the court ruled that it was not statute barred on the 8^th of May 2020 as it had jurisdiction to determine the case.  On the 5^th of October 2021, the Honourable court struck out the suit for non-diligent prosecution and adjourned for the counter claimant to prove its claims. Trial then commenced on the 25^th of November 2024 and the counterclaimant’s witness was cross examined by the counsel to the claimant now defendant to counterclaim and the defendant closed its case. The defendant to the counterclaim thereafter brought a motion on the 3^rd of March 2026 for leave to amend his motion on notice by substituting the motion with one filed on 1^st November, 2023. The court in a bench Ruling on the 18^th of March 2026 refused to grant same as the procedure is unknown to law. The claimant’s motion filed on the 15^th of November 2024 to relist the case struck out on the 5^th of October 2023 was taken and the court in a bench Ruling on the 18^th of March 2026 refused and dismissed same.

 

It is trite law that a counterclaim is a separate and independent action, though it is usually filed along with a defence to the original action, A counterclaimant has the burden to prove his counterclaim just as the claimant in the original action. As earlier stated, the claimant in the original suit who is now the defendant to the counterclaim did not file any defence. In Sky power Airways Ltd v Olima (2005) LPELR -7548 (CA) the Court of Appeal held on when the onus of proof is discharged on minimal proof.  Even if no defence to a counterclaim is filed or no evidence is led by the defendant to the counterclaim, the law insists that a counterclaim must be proved as required by law.  See Oroja & Ors v Ebenezer Ilo Adeniyi & Ors (2017) LPELR -41985 (SC). As the 2^nd defendant has counterclaimed as in the instant case, he will be in the same position as the claimant to prove his counterclaim

 

As required by law to prove its case, the counter claimant tendered the claimant’s letter of appointment (exhibit UA1), Acceptance of offer of Appointment (exhibit UA2), Termination of appointment (exhibit UA4 ) Application for boarding of the official vehicle assigned (exhibit UA5),  Re: Application for boarding (exhibit AU6), Re: Application for boarding of official vehicle (exhibit UA7)  Pages of NAMA condition of service (exhibit UA8), Variation advice (exhibit UA 8),  Pay slip (exhibit UA 10)

 

From the pleadings, the case of the counter claimant is that the defendant to the counterclaim who is the claimant in the original case was offered employment, given a status car and equally paid allowance for transport. After the termination of his appointment, the counter claimant paid all entitlement due to him but he refused to release the Prado jeep that was attached to his office as the head of Human Resources. The 1st relief by the counterclaimant is for a declaration that the failure of the defendant to the counterclaim to release the Toyota Prado vehicle with registration number NAMA 21 E54FG upon disengagement is a breach of the subsisting contract and conditions of service governing the claimant’s employment with the counterclaimant

 

The counterclaimant’s pleading on this is as averred in 2^nd defendant’s statement of defense paragraphs 2 and 6 of the counter claims and averred thus:

 

2. That the defendant to the counterclaim upon being disengaged from the service of the counterclaimant took away the operational vehicle assigned to the office of the Director of Human resources of the counter claimant.

 

6. That the operational vehicle, that is still in possession of the defendant to the counterclaim, is a Black 2012 Toyota Model Prado Sport Operational vehicle and is currently valued at the sum of N22, 000, 000.

 

A Germaine question seeking for verdict is whether or not after the claimant’s employment, he is entitled to the Prado jeep.  The counterclaimant’s contention is that this is wrongful and prays the court to mandate the defendant to the counterclaim to release the Toyota Prado vehicle with registration number NAMA 21 54 FG. The counter claimant averred that the defendant presented a car to the claimant to aid his official duty. After the termination of his appointment, the defendant to the counterclaim did not return the car which was not included in the contract of service. The company’s vehicle policy is as stated in exhibit UA8.   The defendant to the counterclaim’s letter dated 25^th August 2017 (exhibit UA5), the claimant applied for boarding of the official vehicle to him. Below is part of the letter to the Managing Director of the counterclaimant:

 

In January 2013, as Director Human resources, I was assigned an official vehicle, Black 2012 Model Prado with registration number NAMA 21 E 54 FG (official vehicle) 

 

I am willing to pay the book value of the official vehicle and or negotiate for the book value to be deducted from any entitlements due to me from the Agency.

 

The counter claimant responded by exhibit UA6 and below is the response 

 

Further to the agency’s letter dated 3^rd Oct 2017, on the above subject matter, I am directed to inform you as follows, that the operational vehicles in your possession has not been slated for boarding

 

Furthermore, we wish to also bring to your attention section 6.20.1 of the NAMA condition of service which provides inter alia ‘The vehicles attached to management staff are primarily utility vehicles needed for the day-to-day activities of their offices. The vehicles remain the property of the Agency and shall not be taken away upon the disengagement of staff from the Agency’

 

The above provision is in NAMA condition of service clause 6.20.1 of exhibit UA8 which is before the court and provides as follows

 

Official vehicles attached to management staff may be depreciated over a period of Ten years and shall be boarded in accordance with extant Government rules and guidelines, where the vehicles are to be boarded, the officer shall have the option of first purchase. 

 

I find from the provisions of the staff handbook that any employee leaving the Agency after termination is to return the official vehicle and may only be depreciated over a period of ten years of which the defendant to the counterclaim did not fall into that category as he was employed in September 2012 and his appointment terminated in 2017 which is less than 5 years.

 

Under cross examination to the question by the defendant to the counterclaim ‘’ would I be correct to say upon disengagement of a senior staff official vehicles are depreciated and the value deducted from the severance benefit of the staff and the counterclaimant witness responded ‘’ I interface and advise Management, I am not aware of the above question’’ and to a further question ‘’ so when a senior staff leaves the 2^nd defendant employment, what happens to the vehicle and he responded ‘’ 1^st in the agency we have the senior and management staff, in relation to vehicles in line with Government rules, the agency does not have official cars but Government  procures cars for day to day running of the place and if there is any reason for termination or resignation it remains  the property  of the Federal Government but if there is any reason to board on depreciation, the agency will set up a board to look into it on the basis of first refusal’’

 

There is no document showing the Prado jeep formed part of the claimant’s severance package. Under cross examination to the question ‘’ Are you aware that the claimant requested that the official vehicle be boarded and in response the Counterclaimant stated that he is aware that several people made such wish ‘’

 

The claimant is to return the Prado jeep with registration number NAMA 21 E54FG to the 2^nd defendant. I do not know how demand for official car is discrimination. It was for the defendant to the counterclaim to prove this and convincingly too and given the totality of the foregoing testimony of CW, I am unable to hold that he is entitled to retain the car.  Having granted the main relief there will be no need to look into the alternative relief.

 

It is in consideration of the above, that I make the following declarations and orders:

 

1.     It is hereby declared that the failure of the defendant to the counterclaim to release the Toyota Prado vehicle with registration number NAMA 21 E54FG upon disengagement is a breach of the subsisting contract and conditions of service governing the claimant’s employment with the counterclaimant.

 

2.     The defendant to the counterclaim is ordered to return to the counterclaimant forthwith the counterclaimant’s Toyota Prado vehicle with registration number NAMA 21 E54FG in the possession of the defendant to the counter claim within 30 days.

 

3.     Cost of this suit is put at N200,000 to be paid by the defendant to the counterclaim.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA

JUDGE