Download PDF
REPRESENTATION: Parties absent. S.O. Ekpo for the Claimants E.T. Odofin-Jolayemi RULING/ JUDGMENT This case commenced on the 18th of November 2015 by the writ of complaint filed on that day. In it the Claimants are seeking the following reliefs: A DECLARATION that the willful and deliberate refusal by the Defendant to pay the Claimants their earned salaries and allowances is wrongful and amounted to a breach of their right. THE PAYMENT of the sum of N4,109,800.86 (Four Million, One Hundred and Nine Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira Eighty Six Kobo) only to the 1st Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 1st Claimant for 33 months from February 2013 to October 2015 at the rate of N124,539.42 per month. THE PAYMENT of the sum of N3,393,342.00 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Two Naira) only to the 2nd Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 2nd Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 2nd Claimant for 24 months from November 2013 to October 2015 at the rate of N141,389.25 per month. THE PAYMENT of the sum of N3,393,342.00 (Three Million, Three Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty Two Naira) only to the 3rd Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 3rd Claimant for 24 months from November 2013 to October 2015 at the rate of N141,389.25 per month. THE PAYMENT of the sum of N2,127,682.09 (Two Million, One Hundred and Twenty Seven Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Two Naira, Nine Kobo) only to the 4th Claimant for 23 months from December 2013 to October 2015 at the rate of N92,507,917 per month being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances. THE PAYMENT of the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) only as general damages to each of the Claimant for stress, mental torture and untold hardship suffered by them. 10% interest on the Judgment sum from date of judgement until final liquidation. Cost of the action. The writ was accompanied with the Statement of Fact (claim) and a Witness Statement on Oath by each of the Claimants together with documents to be relied on at the hearing. The matter first came up before this Court on the 16th of January 2016 on which date the Defendant was represented by counsel. By a motion on notice filed on the 23rd of May 2016 the Defendants applicants applied for and got orders extending time from Court to file their memo of appearance Statement of Defence and Witness Statement on Oath and list of documents to be relied on at the trial. By this the Defendant filed a memorandum of conditional appearance. The Claimant on the 31st December 2016 filed a reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. In the course of proceedings the court had on 6th June 2016 urged the parties to explore settlement. This, the Court did by invoking Section 20 of the National Industrial Court Act (2006) and thereafter adjourned the case for report of settlement. On the 30th of November when the matter came up next. Counsel for the parties reported that settlement was ongoing. On the 23rd January 2017 the Court was informed by the Defence counsel that they had sent the terms to the Defendant. However, by the 1st March 2017 counsel for the Claimant informed the Court that it appeared the settlement had failed. Counsel to the Defendant insisted that it had not and the defendants were making efforts to see that the Claimants’ salaries be included in this year’s Budget of 2017. The Claimants through counsel informed the Court of his motion for Judgment filed on the 17th March 2017. The Application was made pursuant to order 15 rule 7 of the 2017 Rules of this Court. The reliefs sought are the same as prayed 1-6 of the originating process. However, in addition the Claimant/Applicant prayed for two further reliefs. These being: An order to the Defendant to pay the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) as general damages to each of the Claimant for each of the Claimants for the stress, mental torture and untold hardship suffered by them vis a vis the claims already admitted by the Defendant. “And order to the Defendant to pay the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) to the Claimants as costs incurred in prosecuting this action. An prayed for such further orders as the court would grant. The grounds of the application are: That the Defendant has conceded to part of the Claimants claim as contained in paragraph 30 (a-d) of the Statement of Defence. That this Honourable court has the inherent power to grant the reliefs the applicants are seeking. It is only through this process of Court (by motion on notice as provided by the Rules) that the Claimant/Applicants can urge the Court to enter Judgment for them as per the part of the claims admitted by the Defendant. The motion was supported by an 18 paragraph affidavit deposed to by AL- Mustapha Umar Elegu the 1st Claimant in suit, with the consent and authority of the 2nd -4th Claimants. The Deponent maintains that before the institution of the action in 2015 they as Claimants were amenable to settlement which involved exchanging a series of correspondences and meetings with the Defendant which lasted over two years to no avail. That this action was instituted as a last option. And having filed the action on 18th November 2015 it took the Defendant until the 23rd of May 2016 after a series of adjournments to file her defence. The deponent averred further that following the invocation of Section 20 of the National Industrial Court Act for the parties to explore settlement. The said settlement meetings commenced on 15th August 2016 at the Solicitor General’s Office, Ministry of Justice Abuja wherein the Director-General of the Defendant amongst others were in attendance. The Claimant maintained that they still made themselves approachable and amenable to settlement. The deponent averred that after the meetings there was a compromise reached in principle between solicitors of the parties. It was agreed that payment of the admitted sum to the claimant was to commence in December 2016 and the Defendant’s solicitors was to reduce the terms of settlement in to writing for parties to peruse. An until the present the Defendant had failed to prepare the terms of settlement and have not made any effort to pay any amount as agreed. And it had been one excuse to another leading to a series of adjournments to further waste the time of the Claimants and the Court and the Defendants have shown no commitment to the settlement. At the hearing of the motion the Claimant urged the Court to enter Judgment for them as per the Defendants admissions to part of their claim as contained in paragraph 30 (a-d) of the Statement of Defence and other ancillary reliefs connected thereto. In the Written Address in support of the motion, the Claimants formulated two issues for determination: WHETHER the Court has requisite jurisdiction to grant this application WHETHER the Claimants/Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought. The Defendants filed a counter affidavit on the 29th March 2017 of 14 paragraphs. There the deponent avers that he was informed by one Danjuma Tangani (Institute Secretary) Administrative Department Abuja Office that contrary to paragraph 5 and 6 of the affidavit in support of the motion for judgement, the allowances and salary payable to the Applicants was not paid (a) because their appointment were filled with irregularities and was done without established vacancies and budgetary provisions. (b) That the out of court settlement as ordered by the court is currently pending and that the Defendant/Respondent is still very much committed and interested in ensuring that the matter is settled amicably and adopted as consent Judgment. The deponent further averred that he was also informed by Olaniyi Anjorin a counsel in the Defendant office that contrary to paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the motion for Judgment, the Defendant/Respondent filed its Statement of Defence out of time because of the bureaucratic bottlenecks in the office of the Defendant and the rigorous official process of appointing external solicitors to handle the matter. The Defendants maintained that they were still interested in settling the matter amicably. The Deponent averred that contrary to paragraph 11 (a) – (e) of the affidavit in support of the motion for Judgment, the Defendants have the intention to reduce the terms of settlement into writing, but the Respondent in turn informed their solicitor of the pending applications to appropriate Government Authorities in order to ensure that the payment of the Claimants is resolved. That the further delay in paying the Applicants was occasioned because of the irregularities at the time they were employed which was to the Claimant’s knowledge. The Defendant also maintain that contrary to paragraph 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support of the motion for Judgment, the grant of the Application of the Applicant’s will prejudice and render nugatory the efforts of the respondents to have the matter settled out of court. That paragraphs 11(a) – (e), 12 and 15 of the Claimants’ Affidavit offends the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act. In the Written address of the Defendant/Respondent which accompanied the counter affidavit, two issues were formulated for determination:- WHETHER the Claimants/Applicants are entitled to the relief sought. WHETHER paragraphs 11(a) – (e), 12 and 15 of the Claimants affidavit does not offend Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011. The Claimants/Applicants in addressing issue one on the court’s jurisdiction to grant the instant application counsel relied on the provision of Order 15 rule 7. “Where a Claimant has served the Defendant/Respondent with the Claimant’s originating process in compliance with order 3 rules 9 and 10 of these rules and the Defendant/Respondent has filed a defence and served same on the Claimant in compliance with Rule 1 of this Order. The Claimant may file and serve a reply to the Statement of Defence and serve same on the Defendant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the Defence provided that the Claimant shall have the right to reply only to new issues raised by Defendant in the Statement of Defence.†On issue 2 whether the Claimant/Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought. Here counsel referred the court to its records by virtue of S.122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act 2011 (As amended) and urged the court to hold that the Applicants are entitled to all the relief sought. S. 122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act provides for facts which a court must take judicial notice. Counsel went on to stress that the Defendant in paragraph 30 (a-d) of her Statement of Defence have copiously admitted or conceded clearly to substantial part of the claim. He submitted that facts admitted needs no further evidential proof. Citing the case of N.A.S.V UBA (2004) SCNJ p-g. 388@pg.311, ratio 2. He urged the court to grant all the prayers contained in the Application. `2 On the other hand the Defendant Respondent in responding at its issue one, whether the Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought. Here it was submitted that the Claimant/Applicants are not entitled to the reliefs sought and urged the court to so hold. It was submitted further that the Defendants never deliberately refused to pay the Claimants/Applicants their salaries and allowances but due to irregularities in their employments which was done without an established vacancy and budgetary provisions and the applicants are fully aware of the irregularity and lack of established vacancies at the time they were employed. On issue 2 counsel submitted that paragraphs 11(a) – (e), 12 and 15 of the Claimant’s Affidavit offends the provision of section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011. I read through the argument and submission of counsel on this issue where he cites OSIAN V. FLOUR MILLS OF NIGERIA LIMITED (1968) ALNLR 432 at 434 where the Supreme Court held that the court should not rely on a deposition that does not disclose the source of its information. I find that in this case the deponent disclosed that he was informed by counsel S.O. Ekpo of the facts complained of. Now, regarding this counsel says the deponent merely stated the fact that he was informed by S.O. Ekpo without stating reasonable particulars with regard to his informant and the time place and circumstance of the information. I find that as to time and place the provisions S. 115 of the Evidence Act is contravened. However, I will not proceed to the rest of the arguments on that ground. The main issue for the court’s determination is whether the Applicants are entitled to reliefs sought in this motion for Judgment. Counsel for the Applicant had relied on Order 15 r. 7 of the 2017 Rules of this court, that provision, I find deals with time limit for Claimants reply to the Statement of Defence. The Applicants also stated that the Defendants in their Statement of Defence admitted at paragraph 30 (a-d) of her Statement of Defence to have conceded to a substantial part of the claim. I shall now reproduce paragraph 29 and 30 of the Statement of Defence of the Defendant filed on the 23rd of May 2015. “29. WHEREOF the Defendant states that the Claimants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in paragraph 47(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (d) (g) (h) as same is frivolous, unmeritorious and gold diggingâ€. “30. The Defendant states further that the Claimants are only entitled to: (a) The payment of the sum of N2,257,911.10 (Two Million, Three Hundred and Fifty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eleven naira Ten Kobo) only to the Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the Claimant for 18 months at the rate of N125,439.50 per month . (b) The payment of the sum of N1,131,098 only to the 2nd Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 2nd Claimant 8 months at the rate of N141,387.25 per month. (c ) The payment of the sum of N1,272,485, only to the 3rd Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 3rd Claimant for 9 months at the rate of 141,387.25 per month. (d) The payment of the sum of N277,523 only to the 4th Claimant being the accumulated unpaid salaries and allowances due to the 4th Claimant for 3 months at the rate of N92,507, per month.†Now, a closer look at paragraph 47 (a-h) of the Claimants claim show that the figures contained therein are higher than those admitted by the Defendant as due the Claimants. Hence the averment in paragraph 29 and the admission in paragraph 30 of the Statement of Defence. The law is that facts admitted need not be proved. Consequently Judgment is hereby entered for the Claimants based on the Defendant’s admissions in paragraph 30 of the Statement of Defence. The trial for the contested parts of the claim of the Claimant shall continue forthwith. Case is adjourned to the 27th June, 2017 for hearing. ___________________________ HON. JUSTICE E. D. E. ISELE JUDGE