Download PDF
REPRESENTATION: Ray Akanwa Esq. appeared for the Claimant. O. C. Chikezie Esq. appeared for the Defendant. JUDGMENT On the 27 day of March, 2014 the Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint dated 27th March, 2014. In paragraph 18 of the Statement of Claim he claims against the Defendant, the following reliefs: 18. Whereof the claimant claims as follows: 1. An order of court directing Union Bank Nigeria PLC to issue the claimant with his National Housing Fund updated passbook; or in the alternative, pay him the sum of thirty million Naira which is the cost of that booklet and its allied benefits. 2. Twenty million Naira (N20,000,000.00) damages for the hardship the failure of the Bank to issue him with his National Housing Fund updated passbook has occasioned on him despite repeated demands to that effect. 3. Five Hundred thousand Naira (N 500,000.00) cost. The Complaint was accompanied with a Statement of Claim, list of witnesses, Witness Statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Upon being served with the processes of the Claimant the Defendant entered appearance and filed a Statement of Defence accompanied with a list of witnesses, witness statement on oath and list (and copies) of documents to be relied on at trial. The case went to trial. The claimant gave evidence as CW1 and tendered Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 and C9. The defendant called one witness, DW1 and tendered Exhibit D1. Both witnesses were cross examined. After trial the parties filed written addresses. The Defendant filed its written address dated 24th July, 2015 on the same date. Thereafter in response the Claimant filed his reply final address dated14th August, 2015 on the 19th of August, 2015. Parties adopted their respective written addresses. In his written address the learned defendant’s counsel formulated and argued the following issues: a) Whether the Claimant’s National Housing Fund passbook in question was ever updated by the defendant, and when? b) Whether the claimant was informed that this National Housing Fund passbook has been updated, for his collection? c) Whether there is any time frame for a former employer for updating an ex-staff National Housing Fund passbook for that staff who failed to do the updating while in service? d) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the claimant suffered any hardship and therefore entitled to damages for any reason whatsoever? On his own part, the learned claimant’s counsel formulated and argued three issues for determination of the court as follows: 1. Whether the plank or nucleus of this suit is the National Housing Fund Scheme original passbook of the claimant? 2. Whether the said National Housing Fund Scheme original passbook of the claimant was lost, if yes by who?; and whose duty was it to replace it? 3. Whether in the circumstances of this case, the claimant suffered any hardship and therefore entitled to damages for any reason whatsoever? From the processes filed, evidence led as well as arguments and submissions of the parties in this case, the sole issue for determination is whether or not the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The facts of the case simply put are that the Claimant was an employee of the defendant and worked at its Abakaliki Branch before his dismissal in 2009 for gross misconduct. That during the period of his employment he participated in the National Housing Fund Scheme and was issued with a passbook to this effect. That after his dismissal in 2009 by the defendant he sought to access his contribution to the fund and therefore applied to the management of the National Housing Fund Scheme. He was requested to submit his updated passbook in respect of his fund in possession of the National Housing Fund Scheme before his application could be processed. The Claimant thus approached the Defendant for the updating of his passbook for he was asked to submit the original copy of the said passbook, which he did on 14/10/2011. Despite submitting the said original copy the claimant still had to send several reminders for the passbook to be sent to him after it was updated. The original passbook could not be delivered to him and hence this suit for its delivery or in the alternative payment in lieu of same. The defendant on the other hand is of the view that the claimant was careless with the updating of his National Housing Fund Scheme passbook which was to be done every month from his pay slip. This he did not do when he was in service. The Claimant then sent his original passbook to the Headquarters of the Defendant for the said updating. Then he now brought this action claiming that the failure of the Defendant to update and return his passbook has occasioned hardship on him and wants damages. From his pleading and evidence the case of the claimant is that his original passbook was received by the Defendant’s Head of Operations Mr Nwakanma D. A. on 14/10/2011. The said passbook was accompanied with a letter Exhibit C1. The claimant signed the said letter forwarding the original passbook to the defendant. He further shows by exhibit C3 his requests to the Defendant to update and send him the said passbook. He claims that he has suffered hardship as a result of the inability of the Defendant to update and release the passbook to him. In its defence, the Defendant said that the National Housing Fund Passbook was given to every staff of the Bank for easy updating from their pays slip which it makes available every month. That the Claimant was careless and non-challant about his contribution that made him to wait till his disengagement from the service of the Bank before seeking to update the passbook. That the Bank accepted to update and in fact re-issued a new passbook to the Claimant which was updated and sent to the last known branch of the Claimant for collection. That the said procured passbook had been with the principal officers of the Abakaliki branch of the Defendant where he last worked for his collection. That the present action of the claimant is a gold-digging action calculated to embarrass and demand for a pound of flesh from the Bank for dismissing him in 2009 for gross misconduct. The main grouse of the Claimant is that the Defendant had failed to update and send him the National Housing Fund Scheme Passbook (hereinafter referred to as “the Passbook”). It is quite clear that the Defendant in this case did not update the Claimant’s original passbook during the time the Claimant was in its service before his dismissal on 29th December, 2009 for gross misconduct. However, When the Claimant sought to access his contribution to the National Housing Fund Scheme after his disengagement, it became clear to him that he needed to have the passbook fully updated up to the last date. Here the Defendant had argued that the Claimant himself was negligent in not updating his passbook fully while in service. In this regard, the Claimant has tendered a photocopy of the original passbook Exhibit C8, which shows that the passbook was actually updated by the employer from December, 1996 to May, 2001. The updates all show that the employer initialed all the endorsements made. See pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Exhibit C8. In my view this lends credence to the Defendant’s argument that there was a level of negligence on the part of the Claimant in not ensuring that his passbook was fully updated as at the time he was disengaged by the Defendant. However, the issue here is that the passbook of the Claimant which he submitted upon the demand of the Defendant has not been updated and returned to him. This the Defendant has admitted but put up in its defence the fact that it has now reissued and updated a new original copy of the passbook for the Claimant. The said newly reissued passbook has been with the principal officers of the Defendant at its Abakaliki Branch Office for the Claimant to collect. What the Defendant is saying here is that it has lost the original submitted by the Claimant and has replaced same for him. Having considered the submissions and arguments of the parties it is quite clear to me that in terms of the claim of the claimant that his passbook has not been updated and given to him succeeds because the original copy as such has not been shown to be even in existence by the Defendant. Furthermore, the reissuance and updating of another copy of the said passbook is an admission that the submitted original copy has been lost. This I so find. However, it is equally the Claimant’s claim, relief 18 (1) that he be issued with his updated passbook or in the alternative be paid the sum of Thirty Million Naira (N30,000,000.00) which is the cost of the passbook and its allied benefits. I have carefully looked at this alternative claim since the original passbook has not been returned to the Claimant. However, the said alternative claim is in the form of special damages claim which requires special pleading as well as strict proof. See Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Company Ltd vs African Continental Bank Ltd (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 858) 521, Osuji vs Isiocha (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 623. In African Continental Bank’s case, the Supreme Court, per Iguh JSC, held that: It must be stressed that the law is firmly established that special damages must be pleaded with distinct particularity and strictly proved and a court is not entitled to make an award of special damages based on conjecture or on some speculative estimate of alleged loss sustained by a plaintiff. In this case therefore, in the absence of any clear pleading on the cost of the passbook and/or its allied benefits as well as evidence thereof, the court is unable to accede to the claimant’s claim. The second relief is for general damages. It is for payment to the Claimant of the sum of Twenty Million Naira Damages for the hardship the failure of the Defendant to issue him the updated passbook has occasioned on him despite repeated demands to that effect. Here too let me refer to the Supreme Court decision in Yalaju-Amaye vs A.R.E.C Ltd (1990) NWLR (Pt. 145) 422; (1990) LPELR-3511(SC) where it was held, Per KARIBI-WHYTE JSC at p. 47 paras, A-B that: It is well settled that general damages is the kind of damage which the law presumes to now flow from the wrong complained of. They are such as the Court will award in the circumstances of a case, in the absence of any yardstick with which to assess the award except by presuming the ordinary expectations of a reasonable man. See Lar v. Stirling Astaldi Ltd (1977) 11/12 SC. 53; Omonuwa v. Wahabi (1976) 4 S.C. See also, NEPA vs Malam Muhammad Auwal (2010) LPELR-4577 (CA); UTB Nig Ltd vs Ajagbule (2005) LPELR-7563 (CA); and Okonkwo vs CCB (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 822) 347. In this case, the Claimant’s claim is that he has not been able to access his contribution from the National Housing Fund Scheme and that this inability to so access the said funds is attributable to the failure of the Defendant to provide him with an updated passbook. In determining this let me refer to the law of the National Housing Fund Scheme itself. It is the National Housing Fund Scheme Act, Cap N45, Laws of the Federation, 2004. The law is meant to enable Nigerians who are employed both in the public and private sectors to acquire houses at affordable prices. It is basically to be attained through the provision of loans while the contributor to the Scheme is in paid employment. See Section 2 (a) and (b) of the Act. The other relevant provision, based on the fact that the Claimant has retired and wants a refund of the contribution from the Scheme, is Section 17 of the Act. It provides as follows: 17. Any contributor who has not obtained a housing loan from the bank and has- (a) attained the age of 60 years; or (b) retired from his employment and becomes incapable of continuing the contribution to the Fund as specified in this Act, shall be eligible to a refund of his contribution within three months of the application at the rate of interest prescribed by the Minister. Now the Claimant submitted that his application for the refund of the contribution could not be processed because of the failure of the Defendant to update and give him the said passbook. The question is: has by that suffered damage or injury for him to be compensated by the Court through general damages? As the cited authorities earlier referred to show, general damages are those that must be taken to flow naturally from the damage or injury claimed by the claimant. In this case the claimant was only entitled to whatever he had contributed plus an interest that would be prescribed by the Minister. The claimant, by the content of his original passbook which he had updated himself up to May, 2001, had contributed N17, 230.00 only to the Fund. Furthermore, Exhibit D1, which is the reissued passbook of the Claimant tendered by the Defendant has the sum of N94, 851.00 only, as the total contribution made as at December, 2009 when the Claimant lost his job with the Defendant. I have to point out that the Defendant had submitted that the reissued passbook was in fact reissued on the 10th of March, 2014 and this is supported by the date on it (Exhibit D1). Also the date on which he sent the original passbook was as contained in Exhibit C1 is 14 October, 2011. Therefore, if anything, the claimant’s loss must be counted to have occurred during that period of the failure of the Defendant to provide the Claimant with the updated passbook. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the power of the court to award damages as enshrined in Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, the claimant is entitled to some compensation. Even though the Defendant had reissued the passbook to the Claimant, there is nothing to show that the Claimant Was informed of the said reissued passbook. It was sent to his former branch and he was not notified or sent any text message or electronic mail for him to collect same and utility accordingly. In the circumstance, the suit of the claimant succeeds I part and I hereby order that the Defendant pays the Claimant the sum of One hundred Thousand Naira Only (N100,000.00) only as damages. Also relying on the provisions of Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, I hereby order that the reissued passbook, Exhibit DI be handed to the Claiment. The defendants shall pay cost of N50,000.00. Judgment entered accordingly. Hon. Justice A. Ibrahim, PhD Presiding Judge