Download PDF
The Claimant commenced this action by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 30th October 2014 wherein he claimed against the Defendants as follows: An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay all the approved salaries, arrears, bonus and entitlements beginning from 2010 through 2014 which amounts to the sum of Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N2,500,000.00) only. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand naira (N500,000.00) only for the breach of employer and employee Contract Agreement as laid down in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N1,500,000.00) only for negligence and hardship suffered by the Claimant since 2010 till date. An Order of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00) only as general damages, inconveniences, transportation and unnecessary litigation in Court by the Claimant. Ten percent (10%) interest on the total sum from the date of judgment till liquidation. Along with the Complaint, the Claimant filed a Registrar’s certificate accompanying an affidavit verifying the endorsement on the complaint, a Statement of Facts, list of witnesses, witness’ deposition on oath, list of documents and copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial. The Defendant entered appearance on the 20th day of November 2014 and filed a Statement of Defence, list of witnesses, witness deposition, list of documents and copies of documents to be relied upon. Upon the application of counsel, the Defence witness deposition accompanying the Statement of Defence was subsequently struck out and substituted with another deposition dated 25th May 2015. Hearing commenced on 9th November 2015. Parties called one witness each. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while Mrs. Edidiong Ledee Nwineh testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on 13th March 2017 and parties were ordered to file their Final Written Addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Defendant’s Final Address was filed on the 3rd day of April 2017. The Claimant’s Final Written Address was filed on 7th June 2017. The Court on the 7th day of July 2017, deemed the addresses as properly filed and served. Counsel for the Defendant adopted the Defendant’s Final Address on 7th July 2017. The Court on that day, invoked the provision of Order 45 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and deemed the Claimant’s Final Address as adopted. In the Defendant’s final written address, counsel raised the following 4 issues for determination: a. Whether the Defendant owed the Claimant salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements beginning from 2010 to 2014, after the Claimant had left the employment of the Defendant. b. Whether the Claimant at the time of his resignation was entitled to any terminal benefit and if so, whether the Claimant pleaded and proved the said terminal benefit. c. Whether the Collective Bargain Agreement (CBA) - Exhibit E is the bedrock/binding agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant. d. Whether the Defendant breached the terms of Contract with the Claimant and if not, whether the Claimant is entitled to his claim. On Issue 1, the Counsel for the Defendant submitted that there is nothing to prove what was being owed to the Claimant. During cross-examination on the 8th day of November, 2016, the Claimant told the Court that the Defendant did not owe him salary or anything when he resigned. Counsel stressed that the Claimant having validly resigned from the employment of the Defendant, ceases to be an employee as well as receive any salary, bonus or entitlement from the Defendant. See Yesufu vs. Gov. Edo State [2001] 13NWLR (Pt.731) P.517 at 521. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not plead what his salary, bonus, arrears, entitlement and benefits were in his Statement of Facts and neither was evidence adduced in that regard. Counsel submitted that the Claimant only averred in paragraph 13 of his Statement of Facts where he pleaded that the negligence and delay of the Defendant to pay his accrued salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements the Defendant has put him into a shock and hardship with his family. The Claimant did not state with certainty what his allowances and entitlements were in his pleadings, evidence and Exhibits before the Court. Counsel further submitted that in an action for breach of contract of employment, specific terms of the contract of employment which have been breached should be pleaded so as to give the other party and the Court adequate notice of the nature of the claim before them in line with the rules of pleading. See University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Management Board vs. Issa Aluko [1996] 3 NWLR PT.434 P.74 at 76. On Issue 2, Defendant Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to prove this second issue for determination contending that all the documents pleaded, evidence led and Exhibits admitted did not prove that the Claimant is entitled to payment of anything at all and the Offer of Employment which was admitted as Exhibit A in this case clearly stated the terms of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant. Counsel submitted that the Contract of Service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case and that he succeeds or fails upon the terms and that by principle, it is not the place of the Defendants to so prove. See Amodu vs. Amode [1990] 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) P. 356. Counsel submitted that Exhibit E being relied on by the Claimant does not avail the Claimant. In the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc vs. Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares [2012] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) P. 550 at 554, the Court of Appeal held in Ratio 1 that 'The document which regulates the relationship between an employer and employee is the service agreement or the Contract of service and not a collective agreement. A collective agreement, standing alone is not binding on an individual, employee and the employer unless such a collective agreement is incorporated into the Contract of Service or adopted as part of the contract or condition of service'. According to Counsel, DW1 during cross-examination, gave evidence that every staff is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Offer of Employment which in this case is Exhibit A duly tendered by the Claimant and not Exhibit E, the Collective Bargain Agreement. Assuming without conceding that the bedrock Agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant is Exhibit E which is the Collective Bargain Agreement of 2007, it is counsel’s submission that Exhibit E does not assist the case of the Claimant in any manner whatsoever. Exhibit E did not provide for resignation benefit for any staff that resigns or voluntarily retires before attaining 10 (ten) years with the Defendant. Article 22 of Exhibit E is specifically referred to. Counsel also submitted that DW1’s evidence that the Defendant expended a lot of money in training her Staff and would not pay benefits to those that leave her employment in less than 10 (ten) years. There is therefore no provision for the computation of the terminal benefit of the Claimant who resigned after 8 (eight) years. The only duty of the court is to interpret the provisions which in this case are very explicit. See the case of Union Bank of Nigeria Plc vs. Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares [2012] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) Pg. 550 at 556 Ratio 4. Counsel went further that in exercising the principles governing interpretation of documents, the words used must be given effect, no word must be added and the whole document must be considered in totality and not in isolation so as to ascertain the intention of the parties. See Alhaji Mukhtar Ahmed Mohammed vs. Mouktar Mohammed & Anor (2012) 11 NWLR Pt. 1310 Pg. 1 at Pg. 8. By virtue of Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence may be used to contradict, vary, alter or add to the contents of documentary evidence. See Okon Bassey Imerh & Anor vs. Obong (Barr.) Ime Bassey Okon & 2 ors (2012) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1311) Pg. 270 at 273; Layade vs. Panalpina World Trans. Nig. Ltd (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) Pg. 544 at 547 (Ratio 2). On Issue 3, the Defendant’s Counsel submitted that Exhibit E which is the Collective Bargain Agreement (CBA) is not and cannot be the bedrock/binding agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant. DW1 in her evidence attested to the fact that Exhibit A is the bedrock of the Agreement with Staff and not Exhibit E. Counsel submitted that the legal interpretation of the position of Collective Bargain Agreement in an employer/employee relationship are not intended to create any legal relations giving rise to any contractual obligations and are therefore not justiciable; except where the terms of the agreement have been incorporated expressly. See Osoh vs. Unity Bank Plc [2013] 9 NWLR Pt. 1 at 8 & 9. According to counsel, the Claimant did not plead or attest that the Collective Bargaining Agreement Exhibit E (Collective Bargain Agreement) is the bedrock of his agreement with the Defendant. It can therefore at best be treated as a gentleman's agreement. See African Continental Bank Plc vs. Benedict O. Nbisike [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt. 416) Pg. 725 at 738. Counsel contended that the Offer of Employment (Exhibit A) contains the basic terms of the employment of a servant by a master and remains the bedrock agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant. On Issue 4, Counsel submitted that from the totality of the pleadings and evidence before this Court there is nothing to imply that the Defendant breached Exhibit A or Exhibit E or anything at all. Counsel argued that the terms and conditions stated in Exhibit A and Exhibit E are not ambiguous and that the Claimant failed to prove any of the provisions of Exhibit A allegedly breached by the Defendant. According to counsel, the claims of the Claimant were neither supported by his pleadings in the Statement of Facts nor his evidence before this Court. Not even the Exhibits tendered by the Claimant and admitted by the Court buttressed the claims of the Claimant. Counsel further contended that the Claimant did not make any case before the Court to warrant the grant of the Claimant's reliefs as contained in Paragraph 22 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Statement of Facts and such the Court is without power to award a Claimant what he does not claim as the Court in a civil case does not make a case which the party has not made for itself. See Babatunde Ajayi vs. Texaco Nigeria Limited & 2 others [1987] 3 NWLR Pt. 62 Page 577. Counsel urged the court to take cognizance also contended that the lack of a reply by the Claimant to their Statement of Defence leaves the issues raised in the Statement of Defence not contradicted and therefore admitted by the Claimant. In the Claimant’s final written address filed on 7th June 2017, counsel raised two issues for determination as follows: a. Whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement is binding on the Claimant and the Defendant. b. Whether the Claimant has sufficiently proved his case from the preponderances of evidence adduced and is entitled to the judgment of this Honorable Court. Counsel answered Issue 1 in the affirmative and submitted that the benefits that are meant for staff like the Claimant are provided for in the contract between the Defendant and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association Statement (PENGASSAN). See para 13 of the Claimant's Statement of Facts and Article 23 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). According to counsel, from the evidence adduced by both the Claimant and Defendant, it is not in dispute that the Claimant is entitled to the benefits that are meant for staff like him as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Counsel submitted that the Defendant admitted that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covers the employment of the senior staff and not the managerial staff and that the Claimant is a senior staff in the Defendant's company hence he is subject to the terms and conditions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The Defendant never tendered any document as a guide for employment before this Court. The Claimant being a senior staff is entitled to all the benefit of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) - Exhibit 'E' as it covers senior staff not the managerial staff of the Defendant. According to counsel, DWI under cross-examination had insisted that the PENGASSAN Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covers the senior staff and not the managerial staff. It is clear that DWI had not adduced sufficient evidence to divert the mind of the Court to believe that the Claimant is not entitled to terminal benefit from Exhibit 'E' pleaded by CW1 and DW1 as well as tendered and admitted in evidence as a proof of Agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant in this case. To counsel, Exhibit E takes precedent where there is no contract of service. The Defendant’s counsel contradicted the evidence of DW1 in Exhibit 'G' by the use of the word 'Generic'. DW1 did not give evidence to the fact that contents of Exhibit 'G' is a generic document given to every staff leaving the Defendant's employment and if accounts are reconciled, those not being owed will not be paid. This according to counsel, is contradictory to the answer given by DW1 in Cross- Examination on 13th March, 2017. Counsel also submitted that the letter is a generic letter for whoever that is been owed his/her outstanding salaries and allowances for any resignation from the company and that there is no other entitlement for any resignee unless those that retired. Counsel submitted that the letter is not generic as it directs the Claimant to collect his terminal benefit “less one month in lieu of notice from the account department". If the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant she would not have directed the Claimant to the account office to receive his terminal benefit. DW1 also failed to make any reference to Exhibit 'A' as a yardstick to her defence knowing that it does not contain the terminal benefit to the Claimant as contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). See Article 22(B), (3) and (4) also Article 23(1), (2) and 3, and Addendum 1 and Article 38 at page 18 of Exhibit E where the computation of the terminal benefits are explicitly stated. Counsel referred to the Supreme Court case of Nwobosi vs. SCB Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 58) and submitted that it is not in dispute that the Collective Bargaining Agreement forms the contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendant. Counsel reiterated that the Collective Bargaining Agreement where they exist undoubtedly bind the parties so it is not within the province of the court to invent a contract for the parties. Counsel also argued that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) forms the contract of service between the claimant and defendant and that S. 7(1), (F) of Labour Act, 2004 provides a period of not less than three months for the employer to give the worker a written statement specifying the rate of wages and the method in calculating the payment of the wages. Counsel submitted that there was no written statement of such specification and that the terms and conditions of service of the Claimant including the manner and periodic payment of the Claimant are covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). See Articles 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 4, specially relying on Article 22(B)(3)&(4), 23(1),(2)&(3), 27, 28, 29, 36, 37 and 38 respectively. It was also the submission of counsel that from the evidence adduced by both parties, it is obvious that the only document that covers the terms of service of the Claimant and the Defendant is the CBA. The Defendant could not provide any document to prove that they actually paid the Claimant his terminal benefit. See Corporate and Commerce Bank Plc & Anor vs. Experi (2009) 2 RSLR @ 194; NALSA & Team Association vs. NNPC (1991) 11 SCNJ 51 @ 61 - 62. Counsel answered issue two in the affirmative and submitted that the Claimant has proved his case, therefore is entitled to judgment of the Court by tendering nine (9) Exhibits: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I which were admitted as evidence of his case. Counsel submitted that the Claimant's resignation letter Exhibit 'F' was in line with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and that the test of whether the resignation of an employee is proper or unlawful is whether the procedure adopted by the employee in effecting the resignation conforms to the conditions laid down in the terms of employment enshrined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. See Paradine vs. Jane (1647) Aleyn 26, (1558-1774) All ER RE 17282 E.R 897. Afro Tech Services Ltd. vs. Mia & Sons Ltd. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 35) @ 695 S.C and Union Bank of Nigeria vs. Ogboh (1991) 1 NWLR 369. Counsel argued that the Claimant’s resignation letter was accepted and acknowledged by the Defendant and that he was directed to go to his account to receive his entitlements which he never received. Further, counsel submitted that after confirmation of the offer of his employment by the Defendant, the Claimant never received any query as to his competence to discharge his job and the Claimant executed his job diligently for the Defendant throughout his eight (8) years of employment. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant is entitled to his terminal benefits as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as specified in Exhibit 'E'. Counsel submitted that the Claimant made several demands through the letter written by his lawyer to the Defendant to pay his entitlements but they were futile. See Exhibits D, H and I. Counsel also reiterated that the Defendant caused a lot of hardship on the Claimant and that the Defendant failed to give educational assistance to the Claimant's children as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). See paragraphs 12 & 14 of statements of fact, also see Addendum 1, page 18 and see Article 38 of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Counsel submitted that there is no conflict or contradiction in the evidence of CW1. He urged the court to discountenance all the issues raised by the Defendant in their Final Written Address. COURT’s DECISION The facts of the Claimant’s case are that he was employed by the Defendant on the 26th June, 2002 as a Waste Management Trainee. His employment was confirmed by the Defendant on 10th December, 2003. The Claimant worked for the Defendant for 8 years when he voluntarily resigned from the employment by his letter to that effect dated 10th August, 2010. The Defendant accepted his resignation in a letter of the defendant to the claimant dated 11th August 2010. The Defendant also informed the Claimant in the letter to collect his terminal benefit from the account department which sum will be less one month in lieu of notice. The Claimant has since then been going to the Defendant’s office in order to receive his accrued salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements but to no avail. The Defendant kept promising him that he will be paid. The Defendant refused to pay the Claimant all his benefits meant for a staff like him as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Defendant and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigerian (PENGASSAN). The delay by the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s entitlements made the Claimant to suffer serious hardship. The Claimant had demanded payment of the arrears, entitlements and bonuses due to him through letters by his solicitors to the Defendant but the Defendant still refused to pay same to the Claimant. The Defendant admitted that the Claimant was a former employee of the Defendant. He was employed vide a letter of employment dated 26th June 2002 as a Waste Management Trainee and he resigned voluntarily from the Defendant’s employment. The Defendant’s defence to the suit is that the Claimant did not comply with the instruction of the Defendant for the return of the Defendant’s properties. The Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought because the Defendant did not owe the Claimant any salary, arrears, bonuses or entitlements. The Claimant was paid all his dues before he resigned and as such had no outstanding benefits at the time of his resignation. The Defendant was also not responsible for the hardship or shock the Claimant allegedly suffered even as the Defendant did not breach any provision of the Collective Agreement it had with PENGASSAN. In view of these facts, the sole issue to be determined in this suit is whether the Claimant has proved his claims. The facts clearly agree that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant and he voluntarily resigned from the employment on 10th August 2010. The Claimant is however seeking an order for the Defendant to pay him the sum of N2,500,000.00 which the Claimant claims is his accrued salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements from 2010 to 2014. This is in relief 1. The Claimant’s claim for salaries, arrears, bonuses and entitlements from 2010 to 2014 is a claim which obviously covers periods the Claimant was no longer in the employment. Having left the employment in August 2010, it is nothing more than mischief for the Claimant to seek to be paid salaries and other entitlements for periods he did not render any services to the Defendant. It is trite that a servant who has exited the employment cannot claim for or be entitled to salaries for period he was no longer in the employment. See OBOT vs. CBN (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 310) 140; SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191 at 1205. Consequently, I do not see how this court can order the Defendant to pay the Claimant salaries and entitlements’ covering periods the Claimant was no longer in the Defendant’s employment. In addition, the Defendant pleaded in paragraph 8(a) of the Statement of Defence that the Defendant did not owe any sum to the Claimant at the time of the Claimant’s resignation. See also the evidence of DW1. The Claimant confirmed under cross examination that the Defendant did not owe him any salaries at the time he resigned. That is to say both parties agree that at the time the Claimant resigned in August 2010 the Defendant was not indebted to the Claimant. If that is the case, how did the salaries and arrears the Claimant is claiming from 2010 to 2014 arose? I cannot find the answer in the Claimant’s pleading or evidence. This court finds the above to be very fundamental defects in the Claimant’s case. Again, the Claimant pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his Statement of Facts that the Defendant’s letter acknowledging his resignation indicated that he was entitled to be paid terminal benefits. As such he had been going to the Defendant’s office in order to be paid the terminal benefits but the Defendant refused to pay him. From these averments, it appears the Claimant’s claim to be paid terminal benefits was because the Defendant informed him in Exhibit G to “collect your terminal benefits” from the accounts department. The letter did not state the amount of the said terminal benefits and the Defendant has now alleged in this suit that the Defendant is not liable to pay any entitlements to the Claimant. Because the Defendant’s letter said the Claimant was to collect terminal benefit is not sufficient for the Claimant to claim to be entitled to be paid terminal benefits by the Defendant. The Claimant must go further in this suit to show that he was entitled to be paid terminal benefits on resignation from the employment and prove the amount of the terminal benefits and how it accrued. The burden is on the Claimant to prove the terminal benefits he claims in this suit. In his attempt to show that he was entitled to be paid terminal benefits, the Claimant pleaded in Paragraph 15 of the Statement of Facts that his benefits or entitlements are as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Defendant and PENGASSAN. The said CBA, executed between the Defendant and PENGASSAN in 2007 was admitted in evidence as Exhibit E. It is the Claimant’s case that he was employed by the Defendant on 26/6/2002 and given an employment letter. The employment letter is Exhibit A. I have seen that it contains terms of the Claimants employment such as his salary, benefits, working days and hours. The CBA, Exhibit E, was made in 2007 long after the Claimant had been in the employment with a condition of service. A collective agreement as Exhibit E made between an employer and a workers union are not meant to supplant or even supplement their contract of service. Collective agreements are not intended or capable of giving individual employees right to litigate over an alleged breach of their terms nor is failure to act in strict compliance with a collective agreement justiciable except its provisions have been expressly adopted either in the letter of appointment or in subsequent communication varying the terms of employment before the employee can enforce its content against the employer. See ANAJA vs. UBA (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 600) 1289 at 1300; BANK OF THE NORTH LTD vs. ADEGOKE (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 398) 263 at 289; OGUEJIOFOR vs. SIEMENS LTD. (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 398) 378 at 390. Therefore, before the Claimant can found any claim on the CBA, he has to show that it was incorporated into his terms of employment. The Claimant however did not make such assertion nor did he supply any proof to that effect. There is no evidence from the Claimant to the effect that the terms of the CBA were incorporated into his contracts of employment neither did he show that the terms of his employment letter were varied to incorporate the terms of the CBA as part of the terms of his employment. The result is that the Claimant cannot make any claim against the Defendant on the terms of the CBA. See TEXACO vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 162; NIGERIAN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS vs. OZAH (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 761) 1571 at 1584. The Claimant’s counsel dwelt on the evidence of DW1 under cross examination in his submission to convince this court that the CBA applied to the Claimant. Let me point out that most of the evidence elicited from DW1 under cross examination was not pleaded by the Claimant. Although it is trite that a party can take advantage of evidence elicited from the opponent’s witness under cross examination, it is however settled that such evidence must be in respect of facts already pleaded by the party seeking to take benefits of such evidence. In this case, the Claimant’s pleadings did not relate to or reflect the evidence of DW1 upon which the Claimant’s counsel base his arguments. Where evidence is on facts not pleaded, the evidence goes to no issue. Therefore, since the Claimant appears to have based his claims for entitlements and breach of contract on the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the claims are bound to fail. Furthermore, it was expressly provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement CBA at page 19, which is the execution page that the Collective Bargaining Agreement CBA shall be in force for two years from 1st March 2007 to 1st March 2009. At the time the Claimant resigned in August 2010, the CBA was no longer in effect. He cannot therefore found his claim for payment of terminal benefit or entitlements on the said Collective Bargaining Agreement CBA. In the result, the Claimant has not been able to prove that he was entitled to any entitlement upon his resignation from the Defendant’s employment. The same applies to all the reliefs the Claimant sought in this action. It is the law that he who claims must satisfy the court that he is entitled to the claim sought. Failure to satisfy the necessary proof will lead to a dismissal of the action. See SHITTU vs. FASHAWE (2005) 7 S.C. (Pt. II) 107; MIDFORD EDOSOMWAN vs. KENNETH OGBEYFUN (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.442) 266. I find that the Claimant did not prove his claim. His case lacks merit and it is consequently dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge