Download PDF
The Claimant instituted this action via a Complaint with the accompanying frontloaded documents filed on 25th May, 2016 against the defendant for the following reliefs: Payment of N 5,193,576.80 being the accumulative sum of Accrued Service Gratuity, unremitted deductions from the claimant’s salary as contribution to pension scheme, and two months unpaid salary. The Claimant filed an APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on 9th February, 2017 supported by a 20 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the claimant praying the Court for An order entering in favour of the claimant/applicant as per his claim on the writ, to wit; # 5,193,576.80. GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION 1. The claimant/applicant was a staff of the defendant before he resigned as a result of ill health. 2. The claimant/applicant is entitled to all his retirement benefits. 3. As at 31 December, 2013, the ACCRUED SERVCE GRATUITY, for the claimant/applicant is in the sum of N2, 581,804.80 which has not been paid. 4. The claimant/applicant was an active contributor to the Pension Scheme and maintains Pension Account No PEN100318443525 with Stanbic IBTC, Pension Managers. 5. The monthly deductions at source from the claimant/applicant’s salary into the Pension Account is N35, 048.88. 6. The defendant failed, refused and/or defaulted to remit some deduction from claimant/plaintiff salary into his Pension Account in the sum of N2, 110,976.00 7. The monthly salary of the claimant/applicant in the sum of N500, 970 for the months of January and February were not paid by the defendant. 8. The total amount accrued and not being paid before this action stands at N5, 193,576.80. WRITTEN BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Whether given the background facts of this matter, is it such that can be dispensed by summary judgment. The Counsel A. A. Sadiq submitted that the claim of the claimant before the court is specific and certain which in law, is categorized as liquidated money demand. AKPAN V. A. I.P & MV. CO. LTD. (2013)12 NWL.R (PT.1368) PG. 377 AT 400. He submitted that Exhibit “C” is the confirmation of the unremitted deductions from the claimant’s monthly salary into his Pension Account No PEN100318443525 with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. The claimant filed this action on 25th May 2016 and adopted his processes on the 14th February, 2017 having duly adumbrated his position. The defendants despite the service of originating processes, other processes and hearing notices failed to appear in court or file any defence. By law “Summary judgment is a judgment granted on a claim or defense about which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the movement is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. For this type of judgment, the court will only consider the contents of the pleadings, the motions and additional evidence adduced such as documents produced as exhibits by the parties rather than one of law. This procedural device allows speedy disposition of a controversy without the need for trial”. See the case of AKPAN V. A.I.P. & INV. CO. LTD. (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1368) 377 S.C. See also BONA TEXTILE LTD. V. ASABA TEXTILE MMILL PLC. (2013) 2 NWLR (PT. 1338) 357; NKWO MARKET COMMUNITY BANK (NIG.) LTD. V. OBI (2010) 14 NWLR (PT. 1213) 169 (P. 400, paras. B-D) The claimant is asking the court to order the defendants to pay the claimant summarily the sum of N5, 193,576.80. being a total of N2, 581,804.80 being the Claimant’s Accrued Service Gratuity and the sum of N2, 110,976.00 as unremitted pension fund deductions due to the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed by the claimant. Order 16 rule 4 of the current rules of this court provide that; 4. Where a party served with the processes and documents referred to in rule 1 of this Order intends to defend the action such a party shall, not later than the time prescribed for defence file; (a) a statement of defence (b) documents to be used in defence (c) a counter affidavit and written brief in reply to the action for summary judgement; and (d) written statement on oath of all witness listed to be called by the defendant other than witness to be subpoenaed. The defendant have not complied with this provisions despite being served all the originating documents and other processes. It is aware that this suit has been filed against it. This is indicative of the fact that the defendant do not intend to defend this action. I am therefore satisfied that the defendant has no defence to this action and in the absence of the defence I shall proceed to evaluate the claimants claim. The rule is that a plaintiff must succeed on a case of his own and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case, the case itself supports that of the plaintiff and contains evidence on which the plaintiff is entitled to rely ALHAJI TAJUDEEN IBRAHIM OLAGUNJU V.ALHAJA HABIBAT YAHAYA (2004) 11 NWLR (PT 883) @ 24 @ 54 PARA F-H. In a civil suit, the person who asserts has the primary burden of proving his assertion. The failure of the defendant to prove or his refusal to testify cannot alleviate the primary burden on the plaintiff. Having said that in the case of ELFE LTD V.CITIBANK NIGERIA & ANOR (2013) LPELR-20721 (CA) PG 25-26, PARAS C-G It was held that “it is a well settled principle that the main object of summary judgment procedure is to allow expeditious disposal of a case or dispute, without the need to resort to a plenary trial on the merits. In support of the claimant’s entitlement to N2, 581,804.80 the claimant frontloaded the following exhibits A His letter of resignation, and Exhibit B the Certificate of accrued gratuity. In respect of his accrued gratuity the claimant has not put before the court the basis for his claim of N2, 581,804.80, the claimant would be expected to tender the staff condition of service wherein the gratuity entitlement was founded. The rules of this Court provides that in Order 3 rule 12(1) that a person claiming gratuity must state: a) the source of the claim; b) the amount being claimed or owed; c) when the amount for payment became due; d) when the demand(s) for payment was or were made; e) how the demand(s) for payment was or were made. The claimant also claimed two month’s salary yet neither the pay slip, or letter of appointment or bank statement was presented in court to indicate how much the claimant was paid. To enable the court in the absence of any defence to contradict that the claimant was not paid award the same to him. This claimant has not proved any entitlement to this amount. The claimant I find has not fully satisfied the court as to his entitlement to this amount. The second part of this relief is for N2, 110,976.00 as unremitted pension, in satisfaction of this part of the claim the claimant has tendered Exhibit C his letter from his PFA confirming accrued pension, supplied his PIN and pleaded that Stanbic IBTC are his Pension Fund Administrators. In the instant suit, the claimant is praying this Court to order that the said pension contributions due to him be paid to him The claimant have not shown to this court and there is nothing in the law to empower the Court to do this.. Where a statute orders that remittances are to be made to a named body, it is not open to this Court to rule that such remittances to be made to an employee even if the employee is the ultimate beneficiary of the remittances in issue. Remittances under the Pension Reform Act 2004 (note that as relates to this case, the cause of action is as governed by the 2004 pension Reform Act, not the 2014 Act, because the cause of action arose upon the claimant’s resignation due to ill health in 2013) fall under this rule. Now section 9(1)(c) of the Pension Reform Act No. 2 of 2004 mandates the employee and the employer to each contribute for the employee’s pension a minimum of seven and half percent of the employee’s monthly emoluments. The phrase “monthly emoluments” is defined in section 102 of the Pension Act to mean ‘a total sum of basic salary, housing allowance and transport allowance’. And the same employer is enjoined by section 9 of the Pension Reform Act to remit the deductions to the employees RSA (Retirement Salary Account) with his chosen Pension Fund Administrator. This Court cannot, therefore, accede to the claimant’s prayer that the said pension contribution be paid to him. Section 14 of the NIC Act 2006 provides that “This Court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by this Act, in every cause or matter, have power to grant either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just all such remedies what so ever any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim brought forward by the court, so that as far as possible all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and a multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of the matter be resolved” The claimant had indicated that Stanbic IBTC were his Pension Fund Administrators, now considering and having proved that by Exhibit C, the court with reliance on Section 14 can only make an order that the defendants pay the sum of N2, 110,976.00 being un-remitted deductions due to the claimant to his Pension Account No PEN100318443525 with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. However in order to make even that order the court is required to be satisfied that the claimant was legally entitled to be paid as Court orders are not in vain See ALHAJI RABILU ISHAQ V. MUHAMMED ADAMU BELLO & ORS (2008) LPELR-4337(CA) Firstly sections 3 and 4 of the Pension Reform Act provide that pension claims under the Act can only be by retirees who have attained the age of 50 years and there is nothing before the court to suggest the claimant has attained the age of 50. Bearing in mind that "Summary judgments are resorted to by courts, and given to the plaintiff without the necessity of plenary trial of an action. They are used for prompt and expeditious disposal of controversies without trial when there is no dispute as to material facts or inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts or words, when only questions of law summary of law are involved. In other words, when summary judgments are used for disposing with or dispatch cases, which are virtually uncontested, or where there is no reasonable doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for a mere purpose of delay. U.B.A. PLC. V. JARGABA (2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (PT. 1045) 247 AT 263, PARAS B-D, 270, PARAS. G-H (SC) (Summary of the decision of Muhammad JSC.) relying on SODIPO V. LEMMINKAINEN (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 15) 220; ADEBISI MACGREGOR ASS. LTD. V. N.M.B. LTRD. (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 431) 378. case the claimant has not put forward a case from which the court can draw the inference In the instant case that he is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit, material facts and evidence are required to substantiate the claimant claim and evidence in support of these fact I find is lacking. The claimant application for summary judgement can not be granted at this stage. The application for summary judgment is therefore refused the claimant is required to prove his case as far as the burden of proof rests on him. Order 38 (2). This is the court’s judgement and it is hereby entered. .................................................. Hon. Justice E. N. Agbakoba Judge