IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

 

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

 

DATE: WEDNESDAY 9^TH SEPTEMBER, 2026                  SUIT NO: NICN/YEN/14/2023

 

BETWEEN:

 

PRINCE SELEAKPO BOTU                 ----------        CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

1.      HRM EMMANUEL ARIKAWEI

2.     ETOPO ENERGY PLC                                                   DEFENDANTS

                                                               

JUDGMENT

 

1.1.              The claimant filed this Complaint and Statement of Facts together with other processes on the 9^th day of August, 2023, and claims the following reliefs against the Defendants:

 

i.                   A Declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to reduce the Claimant's salary as agreed from inception of employment as indicated in letter dated August 2019 and to make arbitrary deductions therefrom.

 

ii.                 A Declaration that the Defendants are bound in law to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014 by contributing eighteen percent of the Claimant's emolument of N487,804.88 (Four Hundred And Eighty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Four Naira, Eighty Eight Kobo Only) out of which the sum of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) is net income as agreed, from inception/commencement of his employment as Business Development Officer with the Defendants in August 2019 to a Retirement Savings Account with a designated Pension Fund Administrator up and until the termination of the Claimant's employment on March 2023.

 

iii.              A Declaration that all the Directors of the 2^nd Defendant including the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are liable for prosecution for their failure, refusal and or neglect to comply with the mandatory provisions of Pension Reform Act 2014 by the compulsory contributions as prescribed by the said law are to be paid into by every employer such as the Defendants.

 

iv.               An Order Directing the Appropriate Authorities to prosecute the Defendants and all directors of the 2^nd Defendant accordingly.

 

v.                  An Order directing the Defendants to pay up and transfer the sum of N3,360,000.00 (Three Million, Three Hundred And Sixty Thousand Naira) only, being unremitted pension contribution of N80,000.00 (eighty thousand naira ) per month representing 18% of the Claimant’s monthly salary of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only from August 2019 till March 2023 when the Claimant was relieved of his employment, to Claimant's Retirement Savings Account PEN100656175817 domiciled with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers.

 

vi.               A Declaration that the Claimant in the absence of the provision of period of termination of his employment in the contract of employment between parties is entitled to one month's notice or salary in lieu of notice, that is the sum of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only.

 

vii.             An Order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of N5,876,500.00 (Five Million, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only, over to the Claimant, which sums remain unpaid, being outstanding salaries and arbitrary deductions made by the 1st Defendant on salaries due the Claimant.

 

viii.          An Order directing the Defendants to pay over to the Claimant interest on the sum of N5,876,500.00 (Five Million, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only at the rate of 21% from March 2023 till judgment and thereafter at 10% until the final liquidation of same.

 

ix.               An Order directing the Defendants to pay over to the Claimant the sum of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only, being salary due the Claimant in lieu of notice before the termination of the Claimant's employment, with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 23rd March 2023 till judgment and thereafter 5% until final liquidation of same.

 

x.                 The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as general damages for arbitrary deductions, deliberate refusal to pay Claimant's pension contributions thereby losing all interests and benefits.

1.2.            Upon receipt of the originating processes, the Defendants filed their Memorandum of Appearance and a Statement of Defence and other processes on the 9^th of November, 2023.

 

1.3.            Trial in the suit started on the 19^th of November, 2024 when the Claimant opened his case by testifying for himself as CW. He identified and adopted his witness statement on oath that was filed on the 9^th of August, 2023, before tendering the following documents which were admitted by the Court:

 

1.       The letter of appointment dated 1^st August, 2019  ------- exhibit CW1A.

2.     The letter of job termination dated 23^rd March, 2023--- exhibit CW1B.

3.      The claimant’s letter to the MD of the 2^nd defendant ----- exhibit CW1C.

4.     The Solicitor’s letter of A. P, Egbegi & Co. dated 5^th April, 2023 ------- exhibit CW1D.

5.     The solicitor’s letter of Akoubodo M. O. & Associates dated 12^th April, 2023 --------- exhibit CW1E.

The witness (CW) was cross-examined by the Defendants’ Counsel D. O. Nwoye and discharged on the 12^th of December, 2024 without any re-examined by the Claimant’s Counsel. The Claimant closed his case on the same 12^th of December, 2024.

 

1.4.            The Defendants opened their defence on the 5^th of May, 2025 by calling the 1^st Defendant HRM King Emmanuel Arikawei who testified as DW1. The witness identified and adopted his witness statement on oath that was filed on the 9^th of November, 2023. The following documents were tendered through DW1 and admitted by the Court:

1.       The Etopo Control Services Nigeria Limited Conditions of Service ----- exhibit DW1A (under protest).

2.     The Mandate/Payment Voucher     ------ exhibit DW1B (under protest).

3.      The Etopo Energy Plc Internal Memo dated 5^th June, 2020 --- exhibit DW1C.

4.     The Etopo Energy Plc Memo on salary adjustment due to Covid 19 Pandemic --------- exhibit DW1D.

5.     The Query dated 26^th May, 2020 ---------- exhibit DW1E.

The witness (DW1) was cross-examined by the Claimant’s Counsel A. P. Omoro on the 19^th of January, 2026 and discharged without any re-examination. The Defendants closed their case on the same 19^th of January, 2026.

 

1.5.            With the close of evidence in the suit, the parties were directed to file their final written addresses. While the Defendants filed their Final Written Address on the 6^th of May, 2026 which was however regularized on the 6^th May, 2026, the Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on the 14^th of April, 2026. These court processes were adopted by Counsel on the 17^th day of June, 2026 with A. P. Omoro appearing for the Claimant, and D. O. Nwoye appeared for the defendants.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT:

2.1.       The Claimant pleaded and testified that he was employed as a Business Development Officer in August 2019 on a Salary of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) net of all deductions. That he accepted to work for the Defendants at a far reduced salary compared to his salary with his previous employers on account of filial considerations with a promise on the part of the Defendants, particularly the 1^st Defendant that the Claimant's salary and emolument would be reviewed upwards as the 2^nd Defendant's affairs and undertakings improved. That he was also in charge of all IT issues including but not limited to hardware, software and server management and the day to day running of the 2^nd Defendant's network. He equally doubled as Project Manager for the Defendants' Refinery Project, liaising with Western Expatriates and industry regulators via emails whilst also carrying out external and internal presentations both for the defendants' marketing requirements and image laundering. The Claimant also played the role of Finance Manager under the last expatriate Managing Director, Roberto Rosi, before the latter abruptly resigned due to conflict with the 1^st defendant. He was also involved in preparing technical and commercial bids for the Defendants.

 

2.2.     According to the Claimant, throughout the duration of his employment with the Defendants until the abrupt termination of his appointment on 23^rd March 2023, he made use of and deployed his personal laptop to meet the needs of the Defendants as none was provided for him. The Claimant responded to the termination of his employment formally, and requested payment of his salary balance in the sum of N5,876,500.OO (Five Million, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) only as well as evidence of remittal of mandatory contribution towards pension. That the defendants failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Pension Reform Act 2014 as it relates to making the necessary contributions to the Claimant's Retirement Savings Account PEN100656175817 domiciled with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. That the sum of N3,360,000.00 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) being Unremitted Pension Contribution of N80, 000.00 (Eighty Thousand Naira) per month representing 18% of the Claimant’s monthly salary of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only from August 2019 till March 2023 when the Claimant was relieved of his employment has remained unpaid by the defendants.

 

2.3.      That the appointment was terminated without notice, and a total sum of N5, 876, 500.00 (Five Million, Eight Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) remains unpaid by the defendants. Despite demands made to the Defendants through letter dated 5^th April 2023 from the Claimant's solicitors, Messrs A.P. Egbegi & Co, they have failed and refused to pay him the outstanding salaries.

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

 

3.1.            The Defendants aver that even though the Claimant was paid the sum of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) as salary per month, the Defendants did not engage in any arbitrary deduction from the Claimant's salary. That the 1^st Defendant does not share any filial relationship with the Claimant and neither was the Claimant employed on any other consideration other than suitability for the job he was engaged to do. That the Claimant was not promised any special upward review of salary and emoluments as the issue of review of salary and emoluments is handled by the HR Department of the 2^nd Defendant subject to economic realities and the growth of the 2^nd Defendant's business.

 

3.2.           According to the Defendants, the Claimant was employed to serve as the Business Development Officer strictly in the DD/MWD/LWD segment of the 2^nd Defendant's business and his duty portfolio as Business Development Officer was to attract business in the segment, but regrettably the Claimant was unserious with his job and did not attract one single business in his area/segment throughout the duration of his employment. He did not at any time serve as the Project Manager for the 2^nd Defendant's Refinery Project because at the time the Claimant was with the company and until he left, no work was ongoing in the 2^nd Defendant's refinery project alluded to.  The 2^nd Defendant company has Admin Officers and I.T. Consultants whose duty were to manage the company's e-mail accounts and handle all I.T. related issues, and the 2^nd Defendant was not aware of Claimant using his personal laptop to do his job at any point in time as the Company had, upon his employment, provided him with a Laptop and a Smart Pad for his use in discharging his duties.

 

3.3.           That the Claimant did not submit any Retirement Savings Account (RSA) Number to the 2^nd Defendant Company at any time during employment, hence the 2^nd Defendant Company did not make any single deduction from the salary of the Claimant on account of Pensions. The Claimant was aware that no such deduction was made from his salary for pension and did not insist that deduction should be made and credited to his RSA, nor did he make any representation to the 2^nd Defendant or relevant Public Agency like the Pension Commission for the deduction to be made.

 

3.4.          The defendants aver further that, the 2^nd Defendant had consistently paid the Claimant's salary save for the periods of May to August, 2020 that the Claimant's salary was not paid due to Claimant's absence from work without excuse or permission. It was also discovered within the period that he was working as a Special Assistant to the Executive Governor of Delta State. The Claimant was queried and suspended for four (4) months without pay. During the 2023 electioneering campaign periods the Claimant abandoned his job and focused on political campaigns which forced the 2^nd Defendant to terminate his employment with it. That his salaries were paid from the date of employment till the termination of the employment inclusive of the month termination.

 

3.5.           That the deductions complained of by the Claimant were not done arbitrarily or without the knowledge and consent of the Claimant and other staff because the 2^nd Defendant with cogent reasons reduced the Salary of the Claimant and other members of its staff during the outbreak of COVID 19 when the company was not doing any job or contract but out of its humanity and magnanimity it decided to reduce the salary of its staff by 30% instead of laying them off as most companies did within the period. The reduction in Salary was carried out after the 2^nd Defendant company's CEO held a meeting with all members of its staff at the premises of the Company's head office. The reduction cuts across all strata of the 2^nd Defendant's workforce including the staff at the marine section of the 2nd Defendant who were even the only staff that were working at the time, and the outcome of the meeting was communicated to all members of staff via a Memo dated 28^th April, 2019.

 

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS:

 

4.1.            The Learned Counsel to the Defendants submitted these two (2) Issues for the determination of the Court:

 

1.       Whether given the conduct of the Claimant and the principle of master-servant relationship, the Defendant’s termination of his employment without notice or salary in lieu is lawful.

 

2.     Whether the claimant has proved his case as to entitle him to the grant of the reliefs sought.

 

4.2.          The Defendants’ Counsel submits on Issue one (1) that, the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendants is one governed by the general principles of a master-servant relationship; hence an employer can summarily dismiss or terminate the employment of his servant for gross misconduct. And where the employee's dismissal is founded on an allegation of gross misconduct, the employee is not entitled to any notice or salary in lieu of notice. That from exhibit CW1B the dismissal of the claimant is founded on unseriousness and continuous absence from work. See Ekunola V. CBN (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 224 at P. 268, Paras. D; 269, paras. A-E and Udegbunam V. F.C.D.A. (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 449) 474 at P. 487, Para. G. That since the Claimant did not file any Reply to the Statement of Defence of the Defendants, and no effort whatsoever was made by the Claimant to controvert the Defendants’ averment that his dismissal was predicated on unseriousness and continuous absence from work, he is deemed to have admitted the averments in the statement of defence. See Iwuoha v. Nipost Ltd. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822) 308 and MAUTECH v. Yari (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1748) 395. The Court was urged to resolve Issue one (1) in favour of the Defendants, and hold that the defendants were within their power to have summarily terminated the Claimant's employment without notice and payment of salary in lieu of notice for gross misconduct.

 

4.3.          With respect to Issue two (2), it was posited that, since the termination of the claimant’s employment is on ground of gross misconduct, he is not entitled to reliefs (vi) – (ix) because he is not entitled to either notice or salary in lieu of notice.

 

4.4.          For reliefs (i), (vii) and (viii), it was submitted that, the Claimant has failed to establish his entitlement to the reliefs. That from exhibit CW1B, the Claimant reported zero payment of salary for the months of May, June, July, and August 2020. For these periods, the Claimant is not entitled to any payment of salary as he was suspended without pay for the four (4) months for his absence from work without leave. A query was issued to the Claimant prior to that decision and he failed to respond to it as can be gleaned from exhibits DWIB and DWIC.

 

4.5.          For the monthly deductions of N107,500.00, it was argued that the deductions are not arbitrary but followed an agreed salary adjustment by the Defendants to all their staff as a result of inactivity in the Defendants' business and operations occasioned by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The adjustment was made after the Defendants held meetings with all members of their staff, and this was communicated to all staff via exhibit DW1C. That since the Claimant did not at any time protest the deduction as arbitrary, he agreed to the salary adjustment (deductions) and will therefore be estopped from resiling from it and suing for it as arbitrary. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended).

 

4.6.         With respect to reliefs (ii), (iii) and (iv), it was submitted that, Section 11 (1) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 places a mandatory obligation on an employee to submit his Pension Fund Account for the purposes of Pension Remittance. That since the Defendants’ averment that the claimant did not submit his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) remains uncontroverted and admitted by the Claimant, the failure to have the Pension Remittances is a result of the wrongs of the Claimant for non- compliance with a mandatory statutory obligation to furnish the Defendants with his RSA. The law is trite that no one benefits from his own wrong. See C.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. SCOA (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 300 at P. 366. That awarding the Claimant the claimed Pension Remittances when he deliberately chose not to furnish the Defendants with an RSA (even though he has one) in a bid to enjoy his full salaries (which he had done for years) will amount to the Claimant eating his cake and yet having it, and this will be unfair and prejudicial to the interests of the Defendants.

 

4.7.          It was further posited that, the claim for the alleged unremitted Pension Contributions is speculative because while the Claimant has consistently claimed N80,000.00 as representing 18% of his salary of N400,000.00, his pay was however N292,500.00 for the substantial period that he worked with the Defendants. That courts are not given to the award of speculative reliefs, relying on the case of John Holt Plc v. Allen (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 443.

 

4.8.         That under sections 18 and 23 of the Pension Reform Act, the authority with the power to enforce the Act is the National Pension Commission, while the power to prosecute is resident with the Attorney General of the Federation pursuant to Section 105 of the Act. Both the National Pension Commission and the Attorney General are not made parties to this suit. The Honourable Court therefore cannot make orders against parties that are not before it.

 

4.9.         For relief (ix) for damages it was argued that same offends the rule against double compensation because it is asking for damages for the same liquidated money demand for alleged arbitrary deductions and unremitted contributions which have been claimed with interest in other heads of reliefs. See U.B.N. Plc v. Ishola (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 735) 47 at P.86 Para. B. The Court was urged to resolve Issue two (2) in favour of the Defendants.

 

4.10.       The Court was finally urged to dismiss the suit for lacking merit with substantial costs against the Claimant.

 

CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

 

5.1.            The Claimant’s Counsel identified this lone Issue for the determination of the Honourable Court: Whether the Claimant is not entitled to all the reliefs sought against the Defendants.

 

5.2.          It was submitted on the single Issue that, there is evidence that the 2^nd defendant who has over 400 staff employed the Claimant as a Business Development Officer. That since the contract is governed by the terms of the contract of employment between the parties, the defendants cannot unilaterally deduct the claimant’s wages as section 5 of the Labour Act permits deductions from an employee’s salary only in circumstances where he has been overpaid. See Damisa V. UBA (2025) 19 NWLR (Pt. 2021) 409, SC at Paras E-F.

 

5.3.           That the Defendants have not been able to prove that the employment of the Claimant was terminated because of his purported absence from work, and that section 2 (2) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 makes the provisions of the Act applicable to employers in the private sector with about 15 employees or more. That the Defendants who admitted to having over 400 staff are mandated to comply with section 3(1) of the Act with respect to the Contributory Pension Scheme. See National Pension Commission V. Omatek Computers Ltd. (2025) 1 P.L.R. 231, 233. That the defendants failed to remit any pension contribution into the Claimant’s pension account domiciled with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers with account no. PEN100656175817 maintained from the Claimant’s previous employers. That having contravened the provisions of the Act, the Defendants are liable to be penalised and referred for prosecution, relying on the provisions of section 99(1) of Part XIV dealing with Offences, Penalties and Enforcement Powers. The Court was also urged to compel the Defendants to remit all unpaid contribution under the Contributory Pension Scheme from the time of the claimant’s employment in August 2019 to March 2023.

5.4.          It was further posited that, the Claimant is entitled to all his unpaid salaries and emoluments during the period of the employment; and the claim of interest flows from the denial of the monies due to the claimant having worked as an employee of the Defendants. See Ekwunife V. Wayne (W/A) Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) at pg 441. The Court was finally urged to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant, and grant all the reliefs in the suit.

 

COURT’S DECISION:

 

6.1.           After considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both Learned Counsel to the parties, the Court shall adopt and determine the suit on the basis of the Defendants’ Issue two (2) which is substantially the same as the Claimant’s sole Issue. The Issue is: Whether the Claimant has proved his case as to entitle him to the grant of the reliefs sought.

 

6.2.          Let me first make the point that, since the Claimant is the one desiring the court to give judgment in his favour, and who will fail if no evidence is adduced by the parties in the suit, the onus of proof is on the claimant to establish his case on the preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities as required under sections 131, 132, 133 and 134 of the Evidence Act. See Cadbury Nigeria Plc V. Olubunmi O. Oni (2012) LPELR-19821(CA) and Mr. Peter Onyeachonam Obanye V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2015) LPELR-25891(CA), where the Court of Appeal held that, “the law is settled that in a claim for wrongful termination of appointment, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove the terms of the contract allegedly breached and in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer.”

 

6.3.          In the bid to establish his case, the claimant testified in chief vide his witness statement on oath filed on 9^th of August, 2023, and then tendered exhibits CW1A – CW1E. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the claimant during his cross-examination by the Defendants’ Counsel D. O. Nwoye on the 12^th of December, 2024 are that, he worked for the Defendants for a period of four (4) years not five (5) years, and that the sum of N5, 876,500.00 he claims the Defendants are owing him is for the whole period of four years he worked for the Defendants. That for the period of four years he did not have any reason to request for the money until he was dismissed without notice. That he made the tabulation of the amounts from a bulky statement, and he affirmed that from the annexure to exhibit CW1C there is a consistent deduction from September 2020 to January, 2023. He however refuted that he received any circular for the reduction of salary due to the Covid-19 pandemic. That even though he submitted his Retirement Saving Account to the Defendants, no remittances were made to the account. He affirmed that from the inception of his employment he has lived at Agip Estate Port Harcourt, and that both the residence and office addresses of his employers are in GRA Port Harcourt, but that the Defendants have a Base in Yenagoa. He refuted signing his deposition at his lawyer’s office, but that the deposition was signed at the Registry of the Court.

 

6.4.         In further evaluation of the evidence on record, I also have the privilege of seeing the evidence in chief of the defendants’ witness (DW1) as contained in the deposition filed on the 9^th of November, 2023 which the witness adopted before he tendered exhibits DW1A – DW1E. Some of the highpoints of the answers elicited from the witness during his cross-examination by the Claimant’s Counsel A. P. Omoro on the 19^th of January, 2026 are that, they have over 400 staff from different parts of the world, and that to his knowledge the Claimant started working for the defendants in the year 2020. That no amount was deducted from staff salaries because they wanted to have their full salaries. That during the Covid-19 pandemic he called for meetings with all the workers, and there is a memo to that effect.

 

6.5.          Having evaluated the entirety of the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the Claimant was employed by the Defendants by virtue of exhibit CW1A which is the letter of appointment as Business Development Officer. I have however seen from the state of the pleadings that the Claimant is claiming arrears of salaries allegedly deducted by the defendants unilaterally, unremitted pension contributions and also payment of salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment.

 

6.6.         With respect to the claims for arrears of salaries allegedly deducted from the Claimant’s salaries, it is in evidence as admitted by the claimant that the claims are based on his own computation/tabulation attached to exhibit CW1C. The defendants however contends that the claimant received his full monthly salaries of N400,000.00 except during the Covid-19 pandemic when all salaries were reduced by 30% to avoid laying off the workers which they accepted, and also for the periods the claimant was suspended from work without pay in May to August 2020 when he absented himself from work without permission and served as Special Assistant to the Executive Governor of Delta State, and also during the 2023 electioneering campaigns when he abandoned his worked and focused on political campaigns which led to the termination of the employment.

 

6.7.          I have seen that exhibit DW1D is a Memo issued by the Defendants on salary adjustment during the Covid-19 pandemic dated 28^th April, 2020, which reduced the salaries of all staff by 30%. It is clear from exhibit DW1D that contrary to the Claimant’s allegation of unilateral reduction of his salaries, the decision was not unilateral and peculiar to the claimant but the decision affected all the workers in the defendants. Having received the reduced 30% monthly salaries from 2020 without any protest by the claimant, I do not think that it is just and equitable for the claimant to at this moment claim ignorance of the said reduction. Section 169 of the Evidence Act relating to estoppel will not allow him to deny knowledge of the reduction as contained in exhibit DW1D.

 

6.8.         The Defendants also tendered exhibit DW1E which is a query issued to the claimant on the 26^th of May, 2020 for being absent from the office without any explanation. There is no indication that the claimant responded to the query. He was subsequently suspended from work for four months vide exhibit DW1C dated 5^th June, 2020.

 

6.9.         It may be apposite to at this juncture make the point that, despite the damaging averment at paragraphs 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant missed the opportunity to respond to the averments which contain new facts or allegations by way of a Reply to the Statement of Defence. The averments having not been responded to by way of a reply to the Statement of Defence obviously constitute admission on the part of the Claimant. This legal position was restated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gabriel Iwuoha and Others V. Nigerian Postal Services Ltd and Anor. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822) 308 and Ogechukwu Ifeanyiwa Igwenagu V. Hon. Minister Federal Capital Territory and 3 Others (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1988) 145 at 185 – 186, paras. G – B thus:

 

“It is settled law that a reply is the defence of the plaintiff to the case put forward by the defendant or even to the counter-claim of the defendant or to the new facts raised by the defendant in his defence to the plaintiffs statement of claim. See APC v. PDP & Ors (2015) LPELR-24587 SC; (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1, Olubodun v. Lawal (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1115) 1, Ishola v. S.G.B.N. (1997) 2 NWLR (Pt. 488) 405. There is no general proposition of law that failure to file a reply to rebut an averment in a statement of defence is tantamount to an admission. However, where a defendant by his pleadings sets out a case, that cannot be met by mere denial and which has not been taken care of by the averments in the statement of claim, it is a matter of utmost prudence, if not necessity, to file a reply to the statement of defence. See Egesimba v. Onuzuruike (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 466. Where a plaintiff fails to file a reply to averments in a statement of defence that has not been taken care of by averments in his statement of claim, he would be deemed to have admitted the averments in the statement of defence.”

 

6.10.      On the claims for unremitted pension contributions, I have seen that the claimant’s allegation is not that the defendants made deductions from his salaries for pension but refused to remit the deductions into his Retirement Savings Account. His allegation is rather that the defendants failed to make the requisite deductions and remit to his RSA. This means that the claimant had his full salaries for the duration of his employment with the defendants. While I agree with the claimant that the defendants are under statutory obligations to make pension deductions/contributions and remit to his RSA, the point being made is however that any complaint relating to any allegation of non-deduction of pension contribution is to be made to the National Pension Commission (PENCOM) for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. It is not for this Honourable Court to direct or order the appropriate authorities to carry out any criminal prosecution of any infractions of the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. Having not shown that deductions were made from his salaries but not remitted into his RSA, I hold that this Court cannot grant the claims directing the prosecution of the defendants and all the directors of the 2^nd defendant. Whatever grievance the claimant has relating to any crime committed by the defendants can be channeled to the appropriate authority charged with the investigation of contravention of the provisions of the Pension Reform Act.

 

6.11.         On the claim for the payment of salary in lieu of notice, exhibit CW1A which is the appointment letter is silent on the mode of termination of the appointment, and the notice period required. From exhibit CW1B which is the letter of termination, the appointment was terminated on the 23^rd of March, 2023, for continuous absence from work. It is pleaded by the defendants that during the 2023 electioneering campaigns the claimant abandoned his duties and focused on election campaigns without any permission from the defendants. This is aside from the period he left his job to serve as a Special Assistant to the Governor of Delta State which earned him four months suspension. An employee who without permission absented himself from work to undertake political campaigns to the detriment of the employer’s business cannot turn around to complain of non-payment in lieu of notice, particularly where no such provision forms part of the clear terms of the employment contract.

 

6.12.       In the final result, I do not find merit in the case of the Claimant. Having failed to prove his claims before the Court, the lone Issue is hereby resolved against the Claimant. The case fails, and same is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. The parties are to bear their respective costs.

 

 

Hon. Justice P. I. Hamman

Presiding Judge

REPRESENTATION:

A.P. Omoro for the Claimant.

D. O. Nwoye for the Defendants.