Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. The claimants had filed this suit on 4th June 2013 by way of a complaint and the accompanying originating processes against 8 defendants, 7 of whom were later struck out leaving the 1st defendant. By order of this Court granted on 22nd June 2016, the present 2nd defendant was joined. By the claimants’ consequential amendment of their originating processes, the claimants are praying for the following reliefs: (1) A declaration that the non-payment of the claimants’ salaries and allowances by the defendant are wrongful and a breach of the contract of employment. (2) An order directing the defendants to pay over to the claimants the total sum of N18,588,957.59 (Eighteen Million, Five Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty-Seven Naira, Fifty-Nine Kobo) being the outstanding cumulative arrears of salaries and allowances due from the defendant to the claimants as at 30th April 2013. (3) The sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira only) against the defendants being the general damages for the discomfort so far suffered by the claimants as a result of the defendants’ actions and or inactions. (4) The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira only) being the cost of filing and prosecuting this suit. 2. The defendants entered appearance and filed their defence processes, to which the claimants filed a reply as well as a further written statements on oath. 3. On 26th January 2016, pursuant to Order 10 Rule 5(3) of the then National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, the Court had entered part-judgment of N2,040,000.00 and N2,540,000.00 respectively in favor of the 1st and 4th claimants without prejudice to the right of the claimants to prove their full claims. The instant suit is accordingly the claimants’ attempt at proving their full claims. 4. Up to the point the 2nd defendant was joined, the defendants were represented by counsel. However, as soon as the 2nd defendant was joined, counsel for the defendants stopped appearing in Court. Hearing of the matter, however, continued with the claimants calling 2 witnesses: Kola Oyedokun, the 2nd claimant, who testified as CW2; and Mrs Adefolake Durojaiye, the 3rd claimant, who testified as CW3. These witnesses were not cross-examined by the defendants as counsel for the defendants did not appear in Court for it. The day the 1st and 4th claimants were to be taken as CW1 and CW4 respectively, they did not show up in Court; as such the claimants were foreclosed, and written addresses were ordered. Only the claimants filed a written address on 5th December 2017; the defendants did not. 5. The claimants were employees of the defendants until they resigned from their employment. While in employment, the claimants had acceded to a 30% cut in their salaries due to the crash of the capital market between 2008 and 2009. See paragraph 9 of the amended statement of facts. However, aside from the last full salary paid in June 2012, the claimants’ respective salaries and allowances from July 2012 to April 2013 when the claimants resign is still unpaid. It is for this reason that the claimants are in Court to claim the arrears of salaries and allowances, which they put as N3,718,261.06 for the 1st claimant; N6,003,266.80 for the 2nd claimant; N4,521,409.00 for the 3rd claimant; and N4,346,020.73 for the 4th claimant. These are claims for special damages, which must be claimed specially and proved strictly, and cannot be inferred. See NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC). This aside, the claimants must show their entitlement to these sums and how they came by the quantum of the sums. See Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. The onus of proof is squarely on the claimants. The claimants understand this as the issue they framed for determination is whether having regards to the facts and the evidence adduced before the Court, they are entitled to the reliefs they claim. 6. From the pleadings, paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the amended statement of facts, all the claimants pleaded is that they are respectively owed N3,718,261.06 for the 1st claimant; N6,003,266.80 for the 2nd claimant; N4,521,409.00 for the 3rd claimant; and N4,346,020.73 for the 4th claimant. The claimants did not plead their respective monthly salaries. In paragraph 12, they pleaded that in 2010 the defendants resumed full payment of their salaries and allowances. In paragraph 13, they pleaded that the defendants never paid the 30% of their respective salaries and allowances from July 2010 to June 2010. In paragraph 15, they pleaded that the defendants paid the 30% cut of their respective salaries. What is the exact monthly salary of each of the claimants? This was not pleaded. As the Supreme Court puts it in Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47: A claim is circumscribed by the reliefs claimed. The duty of a Plaintiff therefore is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. 7. In addition, evidence given which is not in line with the facts pleaded goes to no issue and so is of no help to the party that produces it. See The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. Kwameh Ambah [1999] LPELR-3202(SC); [1999] 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 1; [1999] 2 SC 129. And where pleadings are defective, it is not the duty of the Court to fix it. As His Lordship Tur, JCA puts it in Chief James Onyewuke v. Modu Sule [2011] LPELR-9084(CA), a trial Judge should not embark on a voyage seeking to repair the damage caused by counsel in failing to plead material facts necessary to obtain judgment in the temple of justice since Courts are not carpenter’s workshops where Judges toil to mend defects in pleadings. The specific salaries of the respective claimants was not pleaded; as such the documents they frontloaded such as Exhibits C1, C2, C3, C3(a) and C4, all letters of appointment, even though they show the respective remunerations of the claimants constitute evidence without pleadings. On the authority of The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. Kwameh Ambah, such evidence cannot stand. Exhibits C8, C9, C10 and C11 are the letters of resignation of the claimants. In each of the letters of resignation, the claimant wrote to resign and indicated what the defendants owed the claimant. This cannot be proof of the defendant’s indebtedness to the respective claimants. At best, it is a demand note from the claimant to the defendants. Exhibits C12(a), C12(b), C12(c) and C12(d) showing summary of salaries and allowances owed the claimants is not endorsed by the defendants as to prove indebtedness of the defendants to the claimants. 8. Exhibits C13, C14 and C19 are unsigned documents. Exhibit C23 is equally unsigned and is an incomplete document. These documents have no evidential value and so cannot be used in this judgment. See Nwancho v. Elem [2004] All FWLR (Pt. 225) 107, Aiki v. Idowu [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 293) 361; [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47 and Sarai v. Haruna [2008] 23 WRN 130. Exhibit C15 is not a document related to any of the claimants. Its evidential value is accordingly doubtful. The source of Exhibit C18 is not know; as such its evidential value is doubtful. All these documents are accordingly discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. 9. In arguing the case of he claimants, their counsel at paragraphs 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of the final written address indicated that the defendants did not dispute indebtedness to the claimant and that the admissions and/or denials 1st defendant of the lesser amounts of moneys owed the claimants are without any proof is an attempt by the claimants’ counsel to shift the burden of proof away from the claimants. The further argument that the defendants failed to tender any documentary evidence in proof of how they arrived at the lesser sums admitted in relation to each of the claimants and that the defence of the defendants is speculative is equally trying to shift the burden of proof away from the claimants. Beyond the admitted sums already entered as part-judgment on 26th June 2016, the duty is on the claimants to prove the remainder of their claims. The argument of the claimants at paragraph 5.16 of their final written address that the instant suit is essentially documentary and the documents speak for themselves does not resolve the problem of the absence of specific pleadings as to the facts necessary to grant the claimants recompense. 10. As it is, the instant case has not been proved. It fails and so is dismissed. 11. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD