IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT KADUNA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: WEDNESDAY 22^ND JULY, 2026

SUIT NO: NICN/KD/18/2025

BETWEEN

NIGERIA SOCIA INSURANCE TRUST

FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD                                              CLAIMANT

AND 

MOST REV. DR MATHWEW MAN-OSO

NDAGOSO                                                                                          DEFENDANT

(Trading under the name Sacred Heart Primary School)

REPRESENTATION

Defendant not represented

JUDGMENT

The Claimant filed the Originating summons pursuant to Order 3 Rule 3 and Rule 17 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 on the 18^th March 2025 wherein the Claimant set out seven questions herein reproduced below for the determination of this Court:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon the determination of the questions set out above, the Claimant pray for the following reliefs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the plenary trial on the 22^nd of July 2026, Counsel for the Claimant, A. U. Shiyaki, Esq. identified the Originating Summons filed on the 18^th of March 2026. The Summons was accompanied by a 17-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Joseph Alhamdu Shalzin. In compliance with the Rules of this Court, the Claimant also filed a Written Address in support of the Originating Summons. Counsel also identified an 11 paragraph Further and Better Affidavit and Reply on Point of Law filed on the 8^th of May 2025 deposed to by Joseph Alhamdu Shalzin and Reply on Point of Law. Counsel adopted these processes and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought. 

Counsel for the Defendant were not in court, relying on the provision of Order 45 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedures) Rules 2017, the Court adopted the 18– paragraph Counter-Affidavit deposed to by Lydia Omolola Ejisun, the headmistress of the Defendant, attached wherewith is Exhibit A, and Written Address filed on the 29^th of April 2025.

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMONS

The Claimant stated that upon the commencement of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010, the Claimant and other stakeholders like the Nigeria Labour Congress and Nigeria Employers Consultative Association held a meeting and agreed that as part of the full implementation of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 the payment by employers of contributions into the Employees' Compensation Fund as prescribed by the Act should commence in July 201l.

The Defendant operates the business of a School with employees he pays on a monthly basis at No. 46 Independence Way, Kaduna,Kaduna State. The Defendant has been operating the said business for many years with persons under a contract of employment, such as teachers, non-academic staff and administrative staff. The Defendant as one of the employers in Kaduna that the Claimant introduced the Employees' Compensation Scheme to, and enjoined him to key into the scheme as required by the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 for the benefit of her employees.

Since after introduction of the scheme to her, the Defendant has willfully neglected to furnish the Claimant with Defendant's complete and accurate total monthly payroll from July 20l1 when the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 became operational, up to date, and failed/refused to make minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of her total monthly payroll from July 2011 up to date into the Employees' Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant. The Enforcement and Inspection Officers of the Claimant in her Kaduna Branch Office have made several visits to the Defendant to solicit for access to inspect and examine Defendant's payroll from July 2c011 up to date with a view to assessing the Defendant of the appropriate 1.0 percent minimum monthly payroll contribution, but the Defendant has consistently refused these officers entry into her workplace and access to her payrolls.

In spite of repeated demands to Defendant to make her mandatory one percent total monthly payroll contribution to the Employees' Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant, the Defendant has willfully neglected to make the said contribution which has greatly and negatively impacted on the Claimant's mandate to provide a fair, adequate and guaranteed compensation for employees for injury. disease, and death arising out of or in the course of employment. The Claimant, following the default by the Defendant in furnishing it with a complete and accurate payroll from July 201l up to date despite repeated visits and demands by officers of the Claimant, imposed a penalty of 40% of the Defendant's total monthly payroll from July 2011 up to date.

The Claimant, following the default by the Defendant in making a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of his total monthly payroll from July 20ll up to date despite repeated visits and demands by officers of the Claimant, imposed an interest of 10% on the Defendant's total monthly payroll from July 2011 up to date.

By virtue of Section 73 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 the Defendant is an employer, having contracted some persons as staff of its School. Being an employer, the Defendant is under a statutory obligation pursuant to Section 33(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of his total monthly payroll into the Employees' Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant. Being an employer, the Defendant is under a statutory obligation pursuant to Sections 39(1) and 40 (a) and (b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 to cause to be furnished to the Claimant an estimate of the probable amount of the Defendant's payroll together with any further information required by the Claimant.

Where the Defendant fails to comply with the provisions of 39 (1) of the Act, the Defendant is liable to pay as a penalty for the default, a percentage of the assessment prescribed by regulations or determined by the Claimant, and the Claimant may make its own estimate of the payrolls, assess and levy on that estimate and the Defendant is bound by it pursuant to Section 39 (2) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010. Being an employer within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010, and considering the provisions of Section 39 (4) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 where the Defendant does not furnish a complete and accurate particulars of his or her payroll to the Claimant, or if the particulars of the payroll is not true and accurate, the Defendant, for every failure to comply and for every such particulars of the payroll shall be liable to imprisonment or fine, or both imprisonment and fine. Having regard to the combined provisions of Sections 53 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (G) and (7).and 54 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 an officer of the Claimant or any person authorized thereby, at any time and at all reasonable hours, can enter the Defendant's workplace with or without warrant or notice and require the production of the Defendant's payrolls and account records for inspection or examination of same with a view to ascertaining the accurateness of the Defendant's payroll and assessing same.

FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUMMONS

The Defendant stated that the Defendant has been sued in this suit in his personal and individual capacity not as a Bishop or the Registered Trustee of the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese. There is a sole Registered Trustee of the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese empowered to sue and be sued on behalf of the said Archdiocese and who is in charge of the properties of the church in the archdiocese. The defendant is not the employer of the staff of the Sacred Heart Primary School, Independence Way, Kaduna and is not part of that school management that pays salary to the school staff.

Prior to 2019 the Sacred Heart Primary School was managed by debenture holders and a board of governors. A legal dispute arose over the management and proprietorship of the Sacred Heart Primary School which led to the filing of a suit at the High Court, Kaduna which suit went on appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and finally determined by the Supreme Court in January 2019.

Following the determination of that suit by the Supreme Court the old management of the school went into an understanding with the new and present management resulting in the transfer and hand over of the Sacred Heart Primary School to the Catholic Archdiocese of Kaduna. It was agreed by the two managements that many old staff and teachers had to resign their appointments and some of them were later employed by the new Education Office of the Kaduna Archdiocese. As a result of the Covid 19 Pandemic which broke out in March 2020 and lasted up to November 2020 the school was closed and staff received no salaries for that period.

The issue which is the subject matter in this suit i.e. Employees compensation fund was not mentioned in the handing over notes to the new management of the Primary School by the old Management and Board of Governors. Sacred Heart Primary School and the Education Office of the Archdiocese got to know of the Employees Compensation Act and the contributory fund established when a letter dated 13-5-2019 was written to the school demanding the commencement of the scheme. 

Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 attached to the claimant's affidavit in support of the originating summons were received by the school between 2022 and July 2024 but none of these letters is addressed to the Registered Trustee of the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese. Following the claimant's letters demanding the commencement of the contributory fund scheme in the school, the management of the school requested the staff and inspectors of the claimant to properly educate the school management and its proprietor to enable them understand the working of the scheme and to in turn educate the staff of the school. Despite the request for educating the school on the scheme no such forum was created until the school received the legal action notice dated 24-7-2024. The management of the Sacred Heart School and the Education office are still awaiting such education to enable the school commence the contribution when it received the claimant's originating process in this suit. The failure to commence the Employees compensation fund is not deliberate but due to reasons stated in this counter affidavit and which matter can be amicably resolved.

LEGAL SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

Counsel for the Claimant nominated three issues for determination of this suit, to wit:

 

 

Counsel submitted that the provisions herein referred to are Sections 32(I)(a)(b) and (c); 33(1); 34(1)(2)(a)(b) and (3), 36(1) and (2); 39(1)(a)(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(2)(3) and (4), 40(1) (a)(b)(2) and (5), 53(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(G) and (7); and 54(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) and (g).

Submitted that from the affidavit evidence, particularly the facts contained in paragraphs 4-16 the Defendant MOST REV. DR MATHWEW MAN-OSO NDAGOSO (Trading Under the name Sacred Heart Primary School) operates with an employer name known as and called SACRED HEART PRIMARY SCHOOL and has operated as a business for many years with persons working for her under a contract of employment as teachers, non-academic staff and administrative Staff. By the provisions of Section 73 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010, the Defendant is for all intents and purposes an employer.

The Defendant, being an employer within the meaning of the Act, is mandatorily required to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of her total monthly payroll into the Employees' Compensation Fund established under Section 56 (1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010 pursuant to the provisions of Section 33 (I) of the Act. It is also the law, as encapsulated in Sections 39 and 40 of the Act that every employer shall cause to be furnished to the Claimant a complete and accurate estimate of the probable amount of the payroll of each of the employer's industries within the scope of this Act. 

It is the Claimant's affidavit evidence that that the Defendant is being in arrears of payment of contributions since July 2011, and several visits and demands have been made by the Claimant to the Defendant in respect of payment of contribution and submission of total monthly payroll, but Defendant has willfully neglected to make the minimum monthly contribution, and furnish the Claimant with his total monthly payroll, all in total breach of the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010. 

Officers of the Claimant have consistently been refused entry into the workplace of the Defendant, and refused access to the Defendant's payrolls and books of accounts for inspection in breach of the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 2010. 

LEGAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

Counsel for the Defendant nominated two issues for determination of this suit, to wit:

 

On issue one, the Defendant as named in this suit does not operate or own the Sacred Heart Primary School. The school by the judgment of the Supreme Court belongs to the Catholic Archdiocese of Kaduna and which diocese is under the proprietorship of a Registered Trustee. It is the Registered Trustee that has the legal power to sue and be sued on behalf of the Kaduna Archdiocese not the named defendant sued in his private capacity.

The Defendant as named in this suit lacks the legal capacity to be sued over the affairs of the Scared Heart Primary School and in the absence of a proper and legal defendant this suit is incompetent and ought to be struck out. For a court to be clothed with jurisdiction to hear a suit proper parties must be identified and be before it. The parties must be shown to be entitled to rights and obligations arising from the cause of action. The issue of proper parties is so fundamental that it goes to the competency and foundation of the suit. See the case of COTECNA INTERNATIONAL LTD VS CHURCHGATE NIGERIA LIMITED (2011) ALL FWLR (PT575) 253 AT 286C-E. 

On issue two, the claimant by instituting this suit is trying to enforce the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act 2010 but the issue is when did the Act become applicable to the Sacred Heart Primary School and when did the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese take over the ownership, proprietorship and management of the said school. The counter affidavit in paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and 10 clearly state the fact that prior to 2019 the Sacred Heart Primary School was managed by debenture holders and a Board of Governors. The ownership, proprietorship and management of the school became issues that led to a protracted legal tussle before the High Court, Kaduna up to the Supreme Court. These issues were finally resolved in 2019. See Exhibit A. Exhibit A is a memorandum of the process of handing over the Sacred Heart Primary School to the Kaduna Archdiocese, written to the defendant. Exhibit A is dated 25-6-2019, and it was thereafter the Archdiocese took over the management of the said school and it is clear by the Employees Compensation Act that the monthly contribution to the fund commences at the beginning of each calendar year. Paragraphs 5.2and 5.3 of Exhibit 1 are clear as to the fate of teachers and Staff as a result of the takeover and handing over of the school to the Kaduna Archdiocese. The covid 19 pandemic set in the year 2020 and lasted from March 2020to November 2020, during which the salaries of the staff of Sacred Heart Primary School was stopped.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

I have carefully gone through the affidavits and counter-affidavit and legal submissions of the parties for and against the summons; I am of the view that the issues for determination of this suit are as follows:

1. Whether the Defendant is an “Employer” under the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 and obligated to contribute 1% of total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant.
2. Whether the Defendant has an option to furnish payroll estimates and make contributions into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant and whether the Claimant can impose a penalty under Section 39(2) where no estimate furnished.

COURT’S DECISION

This suit was commenced by Originating Summons, which is appropriate for the interpretation and application of statutory provisions where the facts are largely undisputed or can be resolved on affidavit evidence. Order 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017. In OLLEY V. TUNJI (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1362) 275 P. 331. paras. F-H where the Supreme Court held that:

Generally, and it is no longer in controversy or dispute that an originating summons is used only when the facts of a case or matter is not likely to be or in fact are not disputed. In other words, it is to be used for non-contentious action, or not hostile proceedings. Therefore, whenever or wherever there is a dispute or likelihood of a dispute on the facts, an originating summons procedure is not appropriate and should not be used to commence a civil action. 

Before proceeding to resolve the specific questions submitted for the determination of this Court, it is necessary and legally expedient to first address the foundational issue of the legal status and locus standi of the Claimant to institute this action for the enforcement and implementation of the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the ECA 2010”).

Section 56(1) of the ECA 2010 establishes the Employees’ Compensation Fund into which shall be credited all moneys, funds or contributions by employers for the provision of adequate compensation to employees or their dependants for any death, injury, disability or disease arising out of or in the course of employment. By the combined effect of Sections 2(2) and 67 of the ECA 2010, the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board (the Claimant), established under the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Act, Cap. N133, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, is statutorily empowered and vested with the responsibility to manage, administer, and enforce the provisions of the Act, including the collection of contributions into the Fund, assessment of employers, and ensuring compliance by all employers within the public and private sectors of the economy.

The Claimant therefore has the requisite locus standi and statutory authority to initiate this action against any defaulting employer. This position is unassailable and flows directly from the enabling statutes.

On issue one, that is whether the Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the provisions of ECA. The first question submitted by the Claimant for the determination of this Court concerns the proper construction and application of Sections 33(1) and 73 of ECA 2010.  The Claimant invites the Court to determine whether the Defendant qualifies as an “employer” within the meaning of the Act and is thereby statutorily obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of its total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund (ECF) established under the Act.

Section 33 (1) of ECA provides that:

Every employer shall, within the first 2 years of the commencement of this Act, make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of the total monthly payroll into the Fund.

Section 73 of ECA defines an "employer" as follows:

Includes any individual, body corporate, Federal, State or Local Government or any of the government agencies who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as an employee or apprentice.

The provision of section 2(1) of the Act is also noteworthy. It provides that:

Subject to the provisions of sections 3 and 70 of this Act, this Act shall apply to all employers and employees in the public and private sectors in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

By the clear provisions of ECA, 2010, the Act applies to all employers in both the public and private sectors of the Nigerian economy. One of the fundamental obligations imposed on every such employer under the Act is the statutory requirement to make a minimum monthly contribution of one percent (1%) of its total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund (ECF). The Act, in Section 73, further defines an “employer” in broad and encompassing terms as any individual, body corporate, government, or agency that has entered into a contract of employment with any person as an employee or apprentice. Thus, before the provisions of the Act can be enforced against any person or entity, it must be established that such person or entity qualifies as an employer within the meaning of the Act. Once this threshold is met, the employer is mandatorily bound to comply with the contribution requirements stipulated under Section 33(1) of the ECA 2010.

The Claimant stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Affidavit in support of the summons that the Defendant operates the business of a School with employees he pays every month at No. 46 Independence Way, Kaduna, Kaduna State. The Defendant has been operating the said business for many years with persons employed under contracts of employment, such as teachers, non-academic staff, and administrative staff.

The Defendant, however, stated through its counter-affidavit that the Defendant has been sued in this suit in his personal and individual capacity not as a Bishop or the Registered Trustee of the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese. There is a sole Registered Trustee of the Kaduna Catholic Archdiocese empowered to sue and be sued on behalf of the said Archdiocese and who is in charge of the properties of the church in the archdiocese. The defendant is not the employer of the staff of the Sacred Heart Primary School, Independence Way, Kaduna and is not part of that school management that pays salary to the school staff.

The Claimant, through its Further and Better Affidavit, stated that the Defendant has always acted as the de facto and de jure management of Sacred Heart School since the 2019 transfer and handover, and received all regulatory correspondence addressed to the school including Exhibits 1 – 4. That Exhibit A attached to the Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit confirm that the Defendant took over the operation and management of Sacred Heart School and assumed responsibilities relating to the management of staff.

The Court has carefully examined the affidavit evidence filed by both parties. With respect to Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 attached to the Claimant’s Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the Court observes that there is no specific deposition in the affidavit linking or identifying these documents to the facts asserted by the Claimant.

It is trite law that a document exhibited to an affidavit forms part of that affidavit and must be properly linked to the facts it seeks to establish. See UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN V. OYALANA (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 737) 684). In the instant case, while the said documents were attached to the affidavit, they were not explicitly exhibited, marked, or tied by way of deposition to the material facts pleaded or asserted by the Claimant. 

However, the probative value of these exhibits, though defective in form, must be weighed alongside the totality of the evidence, particularly the uncontroverted facts regarding the existence of the school, its employment of staff, and the repeated demands for compliance made by the Claimant’s officers. Defects in the formal exhibition of documents do not automatically render the entire case incompetent where other credible evidence supports the Claimant’s case.

There is nothing on the face of Exhibits 1 – 4 linking the Defendant to the management of the school. Thus, Exhibits 1 – 4 are of no utilitarian value to conclude that the Defendant is the employer in Sacred Heart School.

The Defendant, in paragraph 8 of the Counter-Affidavit, deposed that following the determination of the proprietorship dispute by the Supreme Court, the old management of Sacred Heart Primary School entered into an understanding with the new management, resulting in the transfer and handover of the school to the Catholic Archdiocese of Kaduna.

Interestingly, Exhibit A attached to the Counter-Affidavit was addressed directly to the Defendant, who is the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Kaduna. The combined effect of paragraph 8 of the Counter-Affidavit and Exhibit A clearly demonstrates that the Defendant is not only the head of the Archdiocese but also the head of the management of Sacred Heart Primary School. Consequently, the Defendant is the alter ego of the school in relation to its staffing and operational matters.

It is therefore established that the Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the term in section 73 of the ECA. Accordingly, as an employer, the defendant is under a statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the ECA which require every employer to make monthly contribution of 1% of its total monthly payroll into the Employees Compensation Fund. In the result, question 1 in the Originating Summons and issue one for the determination of this suit are resolved in the affirmative and in favour of the Claimant. I so hold. 

On the second, third, and fourth questions and Issue two for determination of this suit, Sections 39 and 40 of ECA require that very employer is required to maintain, at all times, complete and accurate particulars of its payrolls at a specified place in Nigeria whose location and address have been duly notified to the Board. Upon becoming an employer within the scope of the Act, and at such other times as the Board may require by regulation or specific direction, the employer must furnish the Board with an estimate of the probable amount of the payroll for each of its industries covered by the Act, along with any additional information the Board may demand. Furthermore, the employer must submit signed copies of its payroll reports not later than the 31^st day of December in each year, or at such other times and in such manner as the Board may direct.

Where an employer fails to comply with these obligations, it shall be liable to pay a penalty calculated as a prescribed percentage of the assessment, and the Board may itself estimate the payroll, make an assessment based on that estimate, and levy contributions accordingly. The employer shall be bound by the Board’s estimate. In computing the payroll for assessment purposes, regard shall be had only to that portion representing workers and employment falling within the scope of the Act.

Any employer who fails to comply with the above requirements, or who submits a statement that is not true and accurate, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, for every such failure or false statement, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine of not less than ?100,000 (or both) in the case of an individual. In the case of a body corporate, the penalty shall be a fine of not less than ?1,000,000, and every director, manager, or officer of the body corporate shall be deemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine of ?100,000 (or both).

Additionally, every employer must, not later than the last day of February in each year (or such other time as the Board may require), submit a statement in the form and manner determined by the Board containing: (a) the total amount of all earnings paid to its employees in the preceding year; (b) an estimate of the earnings that will be paid to its employees in the current year or any part thereof as directed; (c) the nature of the work activities carried on; and (d) any other information the Board may require.

If any such statement is found to be incorrect, the Board shall reassess the employer for each affected year and may charge interest at a rate determined by the Board on any unpaid assessment. Employers must declare the earnings of any employee who would be entitled to compensation but is employed outside Nigeria as though that employee were employed within Nigeria. Earnings paid to an employee in excess of the maximum assessable earnings shall not be included in the employer’s statement.

Unless the employer provides satisfactory evidence of its actual payroll for any period, the payroll as estimated by the Board shall be deemed to be the actual payroll of the employer. Where any person is deemed to be an employee under the Act, the Board may deem an appropriate amount to be the earnings of that employee. Where the employer’s business is carried on in more than one industry, the Board may require separate statements to be submitted for each industry.

In this instant case, the Claimant is the body statutorily charged with the management and administration of the Employees’ Compensation Fund under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. The Defendant is an employer operating within the scope of the Act in Kaduna. Upon the commencement of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 in July 2011, the Claimant introduced the Defendant to the Employees’ Compensation Scheme and enjoined her to comply with its mandatory provisions for the benefit of her employees. These depositions are not disputed. Undisputed facts go to no issue. Facts not disputed are taken as admitted and therefore established: see the case of MODIBBO V. USMAN (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1712) 470

By the clear and mandatory provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of ECA, every employer is under a statutory obligation to keep complete and accurate particulars of its payroll at a notified place in Nigeria, to furnish the Board (the Claimant) with an estimate of its probable payroll upon becoming an employer and at such other times as required, and to submit signed payroll reports annually or as directed. The employer is further required to submit annual statements of earnings paid and estimated, the nature of its business activities, and any other information demanded by the Board. Employers must also declare earnings of employees working outside Nigeria as if they were employed within the country, while excluding only earnings above the statutory maximum assessable limit.

 

In flagrant breach of these mandatory obligations, the Defendant has, since July 2011 up to date, willfully neglected and refused to furnish the Claimant with complete and accurate particulars of her total monthly payroll. Despite repeated visits by the Claimant’s Enforcement and Inspection Officers to the Defendant’s workplace in Kaduna soliciting access to inspect and examine her payroll records for the purpose of proper assessment, the Defendant consistently denied the officers entry and access. The Defendant has equally willfully refused and neglected to remit the mandatory minimum contribution of 1.0 percent of her total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the Claimant, despite repeated demands.

Consequent upon the Defendant’s persistent default in furnishing payroll particulars and in making the required contributions, the Claimant, in exercise of its powers under the Act, imposed a penalty of 40% of the Defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2011 to date and interest at the rate of 10% on the outstanding contributions. These measures were taken after the Claimant’s several unsuccessful attempts to secure compliance.

Furthermore, having a due regard to the combined provisions of Sections 53(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) and 54(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) and (g) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the Act expressly empowers any officer of the Claimant (or any person authorised by the Claimant) at any time and at all reasonable hours, with or without warrant or prior notice, to enter the Defendant’s workplace or any premises where the Defendant carries on business. Upon entry, such authorised officer may require the immediate production of the Defendant’s payrolls, account books, records, and any other relevant documents for inspection and examination. The purpose of such inspection includes ascertaining the correctness and accuracy of the payroll, determining the amount of earnings, and properly assessing the 1% mandatory contribution payable into the Employees’ Compensation Fund.

The Defendant’s consistent refusal to grant the Claimant’s Enforcement and Inspection Officers access to her workplace and payroll records from July 2011 to date constitutes a direct violation of the statutory powers conferred on the Claimant under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. These powers are designed to ensure effective monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of the scheme. The rights of entry and inspection are broad, mandatory, and not subject to the employer’s consent.

On all, questions raised for the determination of this suit are answered in affirmative, the judgment is entered in favour of the Claimant. Having regard to the statutory powers of the Claimant and the obligations of the Defendant under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, particularly Sections 33(1), 39(1), (2), (3) & (4), 40, 53(1)–(7), and 54(a)–(g), this Court holds as follows:

1. The Defendant, as an employer within the scope of the Act, had a mandatory obligation from July 2011 (when the Act became operational) to keep accurate payroll records, furnish the Claimant with complete and accurate payroll particulars and estimates, submit annual returns, and remit 1% of her total monthly payroll as contribution into the Employees’ Compensation Fund. The Defendant had no option or discretion whatsoever to refuse or neglect these obligations.
2. The Claimant’s authorised officers have clear statutory powers under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act to enter the Defendant’s workplace at any time and at all reasonable hours, with or without warrant or notice, to inspect and examine payrolls and accounting records. The Defendant’s repeated refusal to grant access to the Claimant’s Enforcement and Inspection Officers was unlawful.
3. The Claimant was entitled to make its own estimate of the Defendant’s payroll when the Defendant failed to furnish the required particulars, and to assess and levy the 1% contributions together with the prescribed penalty of 40% and interest at 10% on the outstanding amounts. The Defendant is bound by the Claimant’s assessment.
4. The Defendant’s willful and continuous neglect and refusal to comply with the provisions of the Act from July 2011 to date constitute serious breaches of the law, exposing the Defendant to both civil and criminal liabilities under the Act.

Consequently, the Court hereby grants the reliefs of the Claimant as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgment is entered accordingly. 

 

 

HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

HON JUDGE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION