Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction & Claims 1. The Claimant filed this case on 2/12/14 and by his amended General Form of Complaint and the accompanying processes dated 16/1/17 sought the following reliefs from this Court - 1. The sum of One Hundred and Four Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty One (=N=104, 254,731.00) Naira being special and general damages as compensation for negligence of the Defendants for the permanent injury disability sustained by the Claimant in the course of the discharge of his official duties to the Defendants. 2. Interest on the sum of One Hundred and Four Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty One (=N=104,254,731.00) Naira at rate of 21% per annum from 2nd December, 2014 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 21% per annum till judgment is liquidated. 3. Cost of this action (Professional and filing fees) 2. The Defendant entered an appearance on 14/7/16 and by its amended statement of defence and the accompanying frontloaded processes dated and filed on 16/2/17 denied liability in whatever form or guise to the Claimant. Case of the Claimant 3. Claimant opened his case on13/2/18 and testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition dated 16/1/17 as his evidence in chief. Witness also adopted his further deposition dated 23/2/17 as his further evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C14. 4. The case of the Claimant as revealed by his pleadings and evidence in chief is that he was employed as factory worker by the 1st Defendant while the 2nd Defendant was the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant; that he worked in the Serihraph Department of the 1st Defendant for a period of 3 years; that he was subsequently employed as a contract staff in 2011 and issued an identity card and Defendant's overall uniform; that he was transferred to Grinding Department as an Assistant Supervisor; that on or about 23/8/14 in the discharge of his official duties while operating the Defendant's industrial machine the machine gripped his left fingers and crushed them due to the Defendant's negligence in employing an inexperienced, untrained, unskilled and new staff and posting the said new staff to work in the Grinding Department which resulted in the Claimant sustaining a serious and permanent injury in his left fingers; that he was rushed to Ago Medical Centre where it was revealed that he sustained a deep laceration which crushed injury affected his left digit 3rd and 4th with injury to the 5th digit nail bed; that further surgical procedure carried out on him led to the excision of his 3rd digit finger which has become a permanent injury to live with for life; that he was placed on admission for 12 days at Ago Medical Centre; that he was granted 21 days sick leave; that he was recalled to work on 22/9/14 while still feeling the pains of the said permanent injury; that on resumption of work he was transferred to Seihraphy Department where he was still subjected to use the injured fingers at work; that he was advised by his Counsel and he agreed that he should embark on medical leave to save him from being accused of an offence he did not commit as the Defendants were looking for an opportunity to do so since receipt of the letter from his Counsel demanding compensation; that the Defendant was not registered with the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund and that the Defendants have no defence to this action. 5. Under cross examination, the witness testified that the Defendants were his former employers; that he was a casual worker with Defendant in 2007 in the Machine Department; that he operated Machine when he was a casual worker; that he could not remember how long he worked as an Operator; that he is not conversant with the machine; that nobody explained to him how to operate the machine; that he could not remember when the injury occurred; that he was not trained how to operate the machine; that a white man placed him on the machine; that while working on the machine a new employee went and put it on while his hand was inside the machine; that he has not been operating the machine for long; that he does not take part in the employment process of new staff by Defendant; that there are no signage or safety measures at the Defendant; that there are no protective gears for staff; that he could not remember the date the accident happened; that he was taken to the hospital, treated & discharged and resumed work; that the Defendant paid the hospital bill; that his Lawyer asked that he proceeded on medical leave and he did; that he did not go back to Defendant because his hand was paining him; that he is not aware that the Insurance Company has computed his entitlement and issued a cheque and that before he was employed he had no experience about how to operate machine. Case of the Defendant 6. On7/5/18, the Defendants opened their defence and called one Ayoade Rafiu as their lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition of 16/2/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 16 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh.D16 respectively. 7. The case of the Defendants is that the Claimant was employed under the old Management as a casual worker in Serihragraph Department in 2007; that in 2009, the 1st Defendant bought the company; that the Claimant was given an option to reapply so as to continue working for the new Management which he agreed; that the Claimant was employed and retained in the same Department as a yearly contract appointment subject to annual review; that Claimant was later transferred to Grinding Unit still under the same Department as an operator; that sometimes on Friday 23/8/14, there was a strange cry from Grinding Unit; that on getting there it was discovered that there was industrial accident which affected the Claimant; that after thorough investigation it was revealed that the accident was caused by the Claimant’s negligence, carelessness and non-challant attitude while on duty; that the Claimant was immediately rushed to company hospital Ago Palace Hospital, Isolo for treatment; that on 3/9/14, the Claimant was discharged from the hospital and placed on sick leave for further treatment as an outpatient until he was certified to resume work; that on 20/9/14, Claimant was officially discharged and certified to resume work but to be placed on light duty which the Management compiled; that the Defendant paid medical bills of the sum of =N=334,300.00 (Three Hundred and Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred Naira) at this point the Claimant started to behave abnormally, flaunting instructions, absenting himself from work without permission which prompted the Defendants to issue him several queries but however was still endured by the Defendants because of his condition; that on the 14/11/14, the Claimant’s Counsel wrote a letter to the Defendants complaining of harassment and intimidation of the Claimant and ordered the Claimant to embark on indefinite sick leave which the Claimant complied with; that the Claimant has since abandoned and absconded his duty post based on his Counsel's advice till date and that the Claimant therefore filed this claim against the Defendants. 8. Under cross examination witness testified that the accident was caused by negligence of the Claimant; that he does not work in the Grinding Department; that he is a Human Resource personnel; that he was not the Supervisor to the Grinding Department at the time of the accident; that he was not there at the time of the accident but in his office; that his evidence is based on the Report of the supervisor; that the query issued to the Claimant was due to his dereliction of duty and that the Claimant worked for about 6 years before the accident. Submissions of learned Counsel 9. At the close of trial learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted a 10-page final written address in which he set down 2 issues for determination as follows - 1 Whether having regards to the pleadings and evidence in this case, the claimant acts with reasonable care or act carelessly in a way that contributed to the happening of the accident or whether the claimant was negligent. 2. Whether the claimant have been paid adequate and fair compensation for the injury having regards to insurance compensation report dated 11/08/15, UBA draft for =N=36,936.00 and Diamond bank cheque for =N=50,000.00. 10. Learned Counsel submitted that for the Claimant to succeed in an action for negligence he must prove the 3 essential elements of negligence which are that the Defendant owes him a duty of care, 2. that the Defendant is in breach of the duty of care and 3. that he suffered damage as a result of the Defendant's breach of the duty of care citing Adeoshun v. Adeisa (1986)5 NWLR (Pt. 40) 225; that the Defendants owe a duty of care not only to the Claimant and all their workers but also to the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to ensure that they comply strictly with the safety standard before the Defendants are allowed to their products; that the Defendants recognised this duty of care hence they placed caution signs within and around the factory to give directions and guidelines to workers and that they provide wooden stick to each machine for the operator to use in removing odd materials tangled in the machine; that the Defendants are not in breach of the duty of care having taken measures to ensure that no worker falls a victim of an accident; that the Claimant had been working in the same Department for a while and that the Claimant was the cause of his own injury because he failed to take reasonable care. Counsel added that the Claimant failed to abide by the caution signs, wandered around and put fingers in the machine where and when he was not supposed to; that the Claimant was paid adequate and fair compensation for the injury having regards to the insurance compensation report dated 11/8/15, the UBA Draft for =N=36,936.00 and Diamond Bank Cheque for =N=50,000.00 citing Section 3 of Workers Compensation Act Cap. 470, 1990 as amended. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss this case. 11. On 2/7/18, a 19-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Claimant. Counsel identified these 2 issues for determination - 1. Whether the amended statement of defence dated 16th February, 2017 and Defendants final written address dated 11th June, 2018 is not incompetent for failure to affix Seal and stamp with the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Seal. 2. Whether the Defendants are liable in negligence for the permanent injury disability(sic) sustained by the Claimant in the course of the discharge of his official duties to the Defendant 12. Counsel submitted that the amended statement of defence dated 11/2/17 and the final written address of Counsel did not bear the Nigeria bar Association Seal as required by Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 and citing Yaki v. Bagudu (2015)18 NWLR (Pt. 1491) 288 at 318 prayed the Court hold that these processes were not properly signed or filed. On whether the Defendants are liable in negligence, Counsel submitted that the Defendants owed the Claimant a duty of care which was breached; that the particulars of the breach were that the Defendants were negligent in employing an inexperienced, untrained, unskilled and new staff and posting the said new staff to work n the Grinding Department which he knew nothing about; that the Defendants' failure and/or refusal to employ permanent employees to work at the Grinding Department caused the Claimant to sustain his permanent injury and that having sustained permanent injury the Claimant is entitled to both special and general damages. Learned Counsel urged the Court to find in favor of the Claimant and award the damages sought. Decision 13. I have read with clear understanding all the processes filed by learned Counsel in this case. I heard the oral testimonies of all the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. I also listened attentively to the oral submissions by Counsel. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to be as follows - Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient and credible evidence in support of his claim. 14. The nature of adjudicatory proceedings in this country places the burden of proof on he who approaches the Court for judicial redress. It is thus for he who asks for reliefs to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of his case. Such credible and cogent evidence may be either oral or documentary or even both. This state of the law is supported by both the statute law and the case law. The main relief sought by the Claimant is for - ''The sum of One Hundred and Four Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Four Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty One (=N=104, 254,731.00) Naira being special and general damages as compensation for negligence of the Defendants for the permanent injury disability sustained by the Claimant in the course of the discharge of his official duties to the Defendants''. The other 2 reliefs are ancillary. They are for interest on the sum claimed and cost of the action. The main claim of the Claimant in this case is akin to a claim for special damages being a sum certain in Naira. It is expected to be specially pleaded and strictly proved. See NEKA B.B.B. Manufacturing co. Ltd v. ACB Ltd (2004) LPELR-1982(SC); (2004) ALL NWLR (Pt. 198) 1175, and Xtoudos Services Nig. Ltd v. Taise (W.A.) Ltd (2006) 6 KLR 2411 at 2425; (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 333) 1640; (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1003) 533.The evidence in chief of the Claimant in support of this claim is contained in his 54-paragraph Claimant's witness statement on oath dated 16/1/17, adopted on 13/2/18. 15. I perused the pleadings of the Claimant along with his evidence in chief and the exhibits tendered and admitted. It is important to stress that pleadings is the basis upon which the case of a party is founded. Parties are expected in civil cases to lay foundation for their respective case and to lead evidence as appropriate in support of same. 16. It is settled position of the law that the parties to a civil suit as well as the court itself are all bound by the pleadings the importance of which in civil proceedings cannot be over - emphasised. It is the basis of the parties' respective cases where they present the summary of their position in the case in a narrowed down manner and in the form of issues upon which they rely as the basis of their stand (or position) in the case. The purpose of such exercise which is enjoined under our adversary system (of practice and procedure) is to give due notice to each other and to avoid surprises on what they are going or coming to face in conducting their cases during the trial. It also allows the parties to agree (i.e. admit) or disagree (i.e. deny) with the facts or issues presented or averred by their adversaries. At the end of the exercise, when issues are said to be joined it affords an opportunity for the Court to know all the issues admitted or denied by the parties. Those admitted need no proof while those denied or are in controversy will call for proof. The attitude or approach of the Court towards pleadings of the parties in a civil suit is to construe such pleadings strictly or even sometimes technically. 17. Thus, parties are bound by their pleadings and will not be allowed to deviate from it or to introduce any issue or evidence which is not covered by or based on their pleadings. See George & Ors. v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd. (1963) 1 SCNLR 117; (1963) 1 All NLR 71 at 77; Oduka & Ors. v. Kasunmu & Ors. (1968) NMLR 28; Aderemi v. Adedire (1966) NMLR 398 at 401; Ogida v. Oliha (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 786; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.13) 523; Overseas Construction Ltd. v. Creek Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd, (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.13) 407 at 418-419; Lawal v. G.B. Ollivant (Nig.) Ltd. (1972)1 All NLR (Pt.1) 207; Metalimpex v. A.-G. Leventis & Co. (Nig,) Ltd, (1976)2 SC 91 at 102 and Ehimare v. Emhonyon (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 177 at 183. Now the sum of money claimed by the Claimant is for both special and general damages. The propriety of lumping together these 2 different and distinct damages together appears to me to leave much to be desired. Fact is that both are species of damages. While one is expected to be strictly pleaded and proved the other does not require such conditions of pleadings and proof. Thus the question arises as to how much of the sum claimed is claimed as special damages and the amount claimed as general damages. No doubt it is for he who seeks judicial intervention to convince the Court of its entitlement to the relief sought. 18. Essentially, the case of the Claimant as revealed in both his evidence in chief, the exhibits tendered as well as evidence under cross examination is that he was employed in 2007 as a casual worker and that on or about 23/8/14 in the discharge of his official duties while operating the Defendant's industrial machine the machine gripped his left fingers and crushed them due to the Defendant's negligence in employing an inexperienced, untrained, unskilled and new staff and posting the said new staff to work in the Grinding Department which resulted in the Claimant sustaining a serious and permanent injury in his left fingers. This is the basis of the claim of the Claimant as reflected in paragraph 10 of the Claimant's amended statement of facts filed on 15/1/17. 19. The entire evidence in chief of the Claimant including all the exhibits tendered and his evidence under cross examination have been included in this Judgment. I find no nexus between the injury sustained by Claimant and the Defendants. Claimant did not provide any link in whatever form or manner. Were the Defendants responsible for the injury sustained by the Claimant while working for them? How did the Defendants come to be responsible for same? I have no answers to these questions. Yes, and of a truth, the Defendants owe to the Claimant a duty of care as employers of labour. Did the Defendants breach that duty of care? There is no evidence before me pointing to the fact that either the 1st or 2nd Defendant breached any duty of care to the Claimant. Is the case of the Claimant one founded on Negligence? Claimant had alleged that the breach of duty of care to him by the Defendants was in the Defendants '' ... employing an inexperienced, untrained, unskilled and new staff and posting the new staff to work in the Grinding Department which resulted to the Claimant's sustaining a serious and permanent injury disability in his left fingers''. Now, who was the new, unskilled and untrained staff employed by the Defendants? Was the Claimant part of the employment process of the said new staff? How did the untrained staff contribute to the injury sustained by the Claimant? The Claimant left too many questions unanswered. It is certainly not for the Court to manufacture answers to any of these questions. 20. In a case of this nature, that is a case allegedly founded on negligence, in order for a Claimant to succeed, this Claimant must prove the following - (a) that the defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant; (b) that the duty of care was breached and (c) that the plaintiff suffered damages arising from such breach. See SPDC Nigeria Limited v. Ikontia & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4910 (CA). It is imperative to bear in mind that a mere occurrence of an accident is not a proof of negligence. Negligence is also not proved simply because a party sustains an injury in the course of his employment. Thus, where there is duty of care and that duty is breached without an injury sustained there will be no award of damages. Secondly, where there is no duty of care but a party sustains an injury, no damages will lie for negligence. Thirdly, where there is no duty of care and accident occurs leading to injury the Court will not intervene to award damages. The point has earlier been made that negligence is a question of fact to be proved. The circumstances leading to the accident, the nature and extent of the accident must be pleaded and cogent evidence adduced in support. It is then that the Court will be able to determine whether partially or wholly, either the Claimant or the Defendant, caused the accident. See Abubakar & Anor. v. Joseph (2008) LPELR-48 (SC). I have taken time in setting out the law on negligence so as to prepare ground for the next enquiry which is whether the Claimant in this case has discharged the burden of proof on him to be entitled to a positive disposition by this Court. I find and hold that the required burden of proof has not been discharged by the Claimant to be entitled to the relief sought. Not having been proved, I have no hesitation in dismissing this case. I so do. 21. I make no order as to cost. 22. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge