Download PDF
JUDGMENT In the Claimant’s Complaint filed on 27th August 2015, the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendant: 1. An Order of this court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of One Hundred and Seventy Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Five Naira, Seventy Eight Kobo. (N170,545.78) being the amount the Claimant is entitled to from the Defendant, as a contributor in the staff contributory provident fund scheme while the Claimant worked with the Defendant from 14th November, 2012 till 30th April, 2014. 2. An Order of this court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000) being damages for the pain, the Defendant put the Claimant in, by the long delay. 3. An Order of this court ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Naira (N300,000) for the cost of this suit. 4. An Order of this court directing the Defendant to pay 10% court interest 5. And any other order this court may deem fit to order in this suit. Pleadings were duly exchanged and interlocutory applications taken and resolved. Hearing commenced de novo on the 2nd day of November 2017. Each party called one witness each. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Austin Egbuche, the Defendant’s head of Human Resources testified on behalf of the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on the 7th day of March 2018 and the court ordered parties to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. Parties adopted their final written addresses on the 17th day of July 2018. The facts of the Claimant’s case as contained in the statement of facts and in her evidence are that she was employed by the Defendant on 14th November 2012 as Nurse I in the Defendant’s Benin office. She was given a letter containing terms of her employment, application for employment form and Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers retirement savings account opening form. She filled these forms and submitted them to the defendant. The Defendant opened an account for her with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers after which the Defendant, in accordance with clause 1(d) of the terms of her employment, started deducting 10% of her salary for the staff contributory provident fund scheme. She worked for the Defendant from 14th November 2012 to 30th April 2014 when she resigned her appointment. Upon her resignation, the Defendant paid her the sum of N85,272.89 but refused to pay her its own contributions which amounted to N170,545.78. It is also the Claimant’s averments that after the Defendant opened an account for her with IBTC Pension Managers, the Defendant never informed her again of any other update concerning the staff contributory provident fund scheme. After her resignation, she obtained her RSA statement of account for the period 14/11/2012 to 20/4/2014 from IBTC Pension Managers but it showed no transaction for the period. In the Defendant’s reply to the letter from her solicitors, the Defendant stated that it did not owe the Claimant any money. The Defendant also said the sum of N170,545.78 contributed by the Defendant reverted to the defendant because the claimant failed to choose a Pension Fund Administrator of her choice. The Defendant filed a statement of defence and one Mr. Austin Egbuche, Head of the Human Resources Department of the Defendant, gave evidence on behalf of the Defendant. In the statement of defence, the Defendant admitted the Claimant’s averments in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 in the statement of facts but the other paragraphs were denied. DW1 told the court in his evidence that the Defendant did not provide the Claimant with retirement savings account opening forms. He also said the Defendant was not under obligation to provide the Claimant with any particular pension fund administrator. Upon completion of 1 year in service and confirmation of her employment, the Claimant was qualified to join the Defendant’s staff provident fund scheme and contribute 10% of her basic salary every month while the Defendant was also required to contribute 10% of her basic salary to the fund towards retirement or withdrawal service. However, upon completion of 1 year in service and confirmation of her employment, the Claimant did not join the Defendant’s staff provident fund scheme before she resigned from the employment in 2014. The Defendant deducted 8% from the Claimant’s basic salary in anticipation that the Claimant would avail the Defendant with her Retirement Savings Account so that the deductions can be remitted, but since the Claimant failed to choose a pension fund administrator, the sums deducted from the Claimant’s salary from November 2012 to April 2014, amounting to N85,272.89, being the Claimant’s pension contributions, was paid to the Claimant upon resigning from the employment. DW1 further stated that the Defendant does not owe the Claimant the sum of N170,545.78 or any amount relating to the Defendant’s 10% pension contribution because the Claimant failed to choose a pension fund administrator of her choice as required in the Pension Reform Act 2014. The Claimant cannot also claim the Defendant’s 10% contribution under the repealed Pension Reform Act 2004 which governed the relationship of the Claimant and the Defendant. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 17/7/2018. The Defendant filed his final written address on the 28th of March 2018 wherein learned counsel for the Defendant formulated 3 issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Suit, the Claimant having failed to fulfil the condition precedent as enshrined in Section 106(1) & (2) and 107 (1) & (2) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014. 2. Whether the Claimant, having failed to fulfil the pre-condition of opening a Retirement Savings Account in her name with any Pension Fund Administrator of her choice during her employment with the Defendant and accordingly notify the Defendant in line with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, has any cause of action against the Defendant. 3. Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to the reliefs sought in this Suit. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Defendant placed reliance on the authority of MOBIL PRODUCTION NIG UNLIMITED vs. LASEPA (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 489 at 501 para D and ADIGUN vs. OSAKA (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) 95 at 130-131, paras H-B and submitted that compliance with the provisions of the Sections 106 (1) & (2) and 107 (1) & (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014, which provides that a complaint against a Pension Fund Administrator or an employer by an employee should first be made to the National Pension Commission before approaching either an Arbitration Panel or this Court; is sacrosanct before this Honourable Court can assume jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. Counsel argued that the failure of the Claimant to complain to the Commission in writing about the alleged refusal of her erstwhile employer (i.e. the Defendant herein) to pay the Defendant's contribution under the Contributory Pension Scheme before approaching this Court robs the Court of its jurisdiction and Counsel urged the Court to so hold. See OKANGI vs. FATOBA (2012) NWLR (Pt. 1299) Pg. 266 at 292-293 para H-A. On Issue Two, learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimant having failed to open a Retirement Savings Account with any Pension Fund Administrator of her choice during her employment with the Defendant and accordingly notify the Defendant in line with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 has no cause of action against the Defendant. Counsel argued that opening a Retirement Savings Account by an employee with a Pension Fund Administrator of his/her is a pre-condition before such an employee can lay claim to the pension fund contribution of his/her employer in line with the provisions of Section 11 (1) & (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. On Issue Three, the Defendant’s counsel urged that the reliefs sought by the Claimant be discountenanced, and submitted that the Claimant was not qualified to join the Defendant's Staff Provident Fund Scheme on 14th November, 2012 when she joined the Defendant and she did not actually join the Defendant's Staff Provident Fund Scheme upon the confirmation of her employment in November 2012. Counsel argued that the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant and urged the court to resolve the issue in favour of the Defendant. On the 26th of April 2018, the Claimant filed her final written address wherein counsel adopted the three issues raised by the Defendant and argued on them. On Issue One, it was the submission of learned counsel for the Claimant that the issues canvassed by the Defendant on Issue 1 were contained in the preliminary objection of the Defendant which was heard and dismissed by the court. Counsel added that the court was functus officio after delivering its ruling. See RANKING UDO & ORS vs. MBIAM OBOT & ORS (1989) 1 SC (Pt. 161) 64 @ 76, 81. On Issues Two and Three argued together, counsel placed reliance on the pronouncement of the court in CHIEF SAMPSON OKON ITO & ORS vs. CHIEF OKON UDO EKPE (2000) 2 SC 116; CHIEF NKOKAMMA & ORS vs. PRINCE MOWETE & ORS (2002) FWLR (Pt. 108) 1536 and submitted that the Defendant is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the court in the instant matter between the Claimant and the Defendant on the ground of non- compliance to Sections 106 and 107 of the Pension Reforms Act 2014 being the same issue which the Defendant had previously raised, argued and dismissed. Counsel further submitted that the Defendant was lying when it denied giving ExhibitA4-A5; E- E1 to the Claimant to fill. Counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel submitted that the Defendant was negligent and that the act provided for the duty on the Defendant to move to open a retirement savings account for its employee when the employee fails to open one. Therefore, the duty to supervise to know which employee has not opened an account is also implied and compulsory to the Defendant. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Claimant. On 13th July 2018, the Defendants filed a reply on points of law wherein counsel argued that the doctrine of Issue Estoppel is not applicable in this case for the circumstance does not meet up with the conditions for the application of Issue Estoppel as set out in the case of OKUKUJE vs. AKWIDO (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt.700) 261 SC. at p.303, paras E-F. It was the contention of counsel that having started de novo, parties are at liberty to argue any issue, not minding if those issues had earlier been argued and discarded in previous proceedings. Counsel placed reliance on a plethora of cases and maintained their earlier submissions and urged the court to find in favour of the Defendants. COURT’S DECISION In view of the facts of this case and the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the parties in their final written addresses, the issues which, in my view, are to be determined in this matter are these: 1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved her case to entitle her to the reliefs sought in the case. ISSUE 1: In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the statement of defence, the Defendant pleaded that Section 106 (1), (2) and Section 107 (1), (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 provides for a condition precedent which the Claimant must observe before this court can assume jurisdiction on this matter. It was also pleaded that the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions before instituting this action. In his submissions in the Defendant’s final written addresses, the Defendant’s counsel argued that the Claimant failed to first refer his grievance to the National Pension Commission, contrary to the provisions of Sections 106 (1), (2) and 107 (1), (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014, before instituting this action. The failure to first submit the dispute to the National Pension Commission robs this court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, counsel further submitted. The summary of the foregoing position of the Defendant is that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action by the effect of Sections 106 (1), (2) and 107 (1), (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. In his response to the arguments of the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant’s counsel submitted that the instant issue has become an issue estoppel as it had earlier been raised before this court but was dismissed in a ruling delivered on 11th July 2016. The record of this court show that the Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 15th January 2016 where it raised this same objection to the jurisdiction of the court based on Sections 106 (1), (2) and 107 (1), (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014. The ruling on that application was delivered by my learned brother, Hon. Justice Isele, on 11th July 2016. I have taken a look at that ruling. It is observed that the substance of the preliminary objection, which is now being canvassed in this issue, was not determined by the court. The NPO was dismissed because it was found to amount to demurrer, hence the Defendant was ordered to file a defence so that “in the context of this suit, it will be proper to understand better what the particulars of non-compliance are, so that issues around them can be joined in the pleadings”. The grounds of objection in that NPO was not determined but deferred for determination after issues have been joined in the pleadings. Therefore, the Defendant is not precluded or estopped from raising the same objection again in this action. I have earlier reviewed the argument of counsels on the defendant’s objection to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this action. I will make the view of the court brief. This court is established by the Constitution which also set out the jurisdiction of the court. In Section 254C (1) (k) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), this court is given the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine causes or matters relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or non-payment of pension, among other employment entitlements. By virtue of this provision, this is the only court with jurisdiction to entertain pension matters. This jurisdiction is not shared with any other court of first instance or body or commission. It cannot therefore be contended, as did the Defendant, that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit, which borders on the Claimant’s claim for pension deductions. The provisions of Sections 106 (1), (2) and 107 (1), (2) of the Pension Reform Act 2014, even though do not even have the mandatory effect the Defendant attached to it, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. This court is the proper court in which to file any dispute arising from or relating to issues of pension. It is not the law that issues relating to pension must first be taken to the National Pension Commission before coming to this court. I hold, in the result, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action. I resolve this issue against the Defendant. ISSUE 2: The Claimant’s principal claim in this action is claim for the sum of N170,545.78 which she alleged she is entitled to be paid by Defendant being the amount the Defendant ought to have contributed on her behalf in the staff contributory provident fund scheme while she worked with the Defendant from 14th November 2012 to 30th April 2014. It is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 14th November 2012 and she resigned from the employment on 30th April 2014. The parties have also agreed that it was a term of the employment that 10% of the Claimant’s monthly basic salary was to be deducted and remitted into her Retirement Savings Account (RSA) under the Staff Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (SCPFS) while the Defendant was also required to contribute 10% of the claimant’s basic salary into her pension RSA. There is also no dispute about the fact that the sums deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from November 2012 to April 2014 as her own pension contribution, amounting to N85,272.89, has been paid to her upon her resignation from the employment. The Claimant’s claim in this case is for the Defendant’s own contribution from November 2012 to April 2014 in the sum of N170,545.78. In view of the evidence adduced by the parties on this claim, the issue involved in the claim is not a knotty one. It is simply to find whether or not the Claimant is entitled to be paid the said sum. In her evidence, the Claimant said that upon her resignation, she obtained her RSA statement of account from IBTC pension Managers for the period 14/11/2012 to 20/4/2014 but the account statement did not contain any transaction for the period. The Claimant also said that the Defendant refused to pay her its own contributions which amounted to N170,545.78. The Defendant did not deny not remitting its own contributions to the Claimant’s RSA. The reason for non-remittance of the Defendant’s contribution, as explained by DW1, was that the Claimant failed to choose a pension fund administrator of her choice as required in the Pension Reform Act 2014. DW1 also said the Defendant made the deductions but could not remit into the Claimant’s RSA because the Claimant failed to choose a pension fund administrator. That was the reason the sums deducted from the Claimant’s salary was paid to her directly by the Defendant upon her resignation. The reason the Defendant gave for not remitting its contribution to the Claimant was because the Claimant did not choose a PFA. The Defendant hinged its position on the Pension Reform Act 2014 which it said required the Claimant to choose a pension fund administrator of her choice. The Defendant’s counsel cited Section 11(1) of the Act in support of this contention. Evidence of the parties reveals that the Claimant left the Defendant’s employment on 30th April 2014. The Defendant’s contribution now in dispute accrued and ought to have been paid between November 2012 and April 2014. These were the periods the Claimant was expected to have chosen a pension fund administrator of her choice, as alleged. The Pension Reform Act 2014 came into force on 1st July 2014. This was after the Claimant had even resigned from the employment. The provision of Section 11 (1) of the PRA 2014 Act cannot go retrospective to the period the Claimant joined the Defendant’s employment as to be required to comply with the provision at the time. I do not think the said provision of the Pension Reform Act 2014 will apply to disentitle the Claimant from pension to which she ought to be entitled before the coming into effect of the Act. In her evidence, the Claimant said upon her employment, she was given a Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers retirement savings account opening form by the Defendant. She filled the form and submitted it to the Defendant and with it, the Defendant opened a RSA for her with Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers. The Defendant denied giving the Claimant the said RSA opening form and averred that the Claimant did not choose a PFA or provide RSA. Copy of the said account opening form referred to by the Claimant is Exhibit E-E1 while the Claimant’s RSA statement from IBTC pension managers is Exhibit C, C1 and C2. The Defendant’s counsel, in his final written address, objected to the admissibility of these documents. His grounds are that the documents are not admissible under Section 84 of the Evidence Act because they are computer generated evidence and there is no certificate of compliance tendered along with them. Let me first mention that when the Claimant tendered these documents in evidence on 2/11/2017, the Defendant’s counsel told the court he had no objection to their admissibility. The documents were admitted in evidence without objection. The proper time the Defendant ought to have objected to the documents was when they were being tendered. Having indicated no objection at the time, counsel cannot be heard at this point to object to the admissibility of the documents. Be that as it may, the documents were pleaded. I also find them relevant to the determination of this case. Besides, Section 12 (2) of the National Industrial Court Act has permitted this court to depart from the provisions of the Evidence Act where the interest of justice so demands. The fact that there is no certificate of compliance will not prevent the documents from being admissible, since they are relevant documents. I hold that the exhibits are properly in evidence. The Retirement Savings Account (RSA) statement in Exhibit C shows that it covers the period 14/11/2012 to 30/4/2014. Exhibit C shows clearly that the Claimant opened a RSA when she was in the Defendant’s employment. The account number of the Claimant’s RSA on the statement is 200626208618 and from the period it covers, it shows that the account was opened while the Claimant was in the Defendant’s employment. In paragraph 1 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that her RSA number is 200626208618. This fact was admitted by the Defendant in paragraph 1 of the statement of defence. By this admission, the Defendant has indicated that it was aware that the Claimant has RSA with number 200626208618. This admission of the Defendant makes it difficult for this court to believe that the Defendant did not have the Claimant’s RSA during the period of her employment. As for the Defendant’s allegation that the Claimant did not provide her PFA or RSA details, it is my view that the Defendant had a corresponding duty, as the employer making the deductions, to ensure that it obtained the Claimant’s pension account details for the purpose of remitting what was being deducted from her salary. I wonder why the Defendant continued to deduct from the Claimant’s salary every month without making any effort to make the Claimant provide a RSA for remittance. When the Defendant noticed that the Claimant did not choose or provide a PFA as alleged by the Defendant, it ought to have made the Claimant subscribe to one instead of continuing to deduct from her salaries without a RSA. In any case, I find that the Claimant chose a PFA and did open an account. It is also my view that the Defendant was aware of the account. Therefore, the Defendant had no justification for refusing to remit the contributions into the Claimant’s RSA or withholding payment till now. It is clear from the facts that the Defendant did not remit to the Claimant’s RSA its own 10% monthly pension contribution. The Claimant, in paragraph 6 of the statement of facts pleaded that the unremitted sum by the Defendant is the sum of N170,545.78. The Defendant admitted this fact in paragraph 1 of the statement of defence. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the total sum due to be remitted to the Claimant’s RSA as the Defendant’s contribution from November 2012 to April 2014 is the sum of N170,545.78. See also the Claimant’s payslip for April 2014, that is Exhibit B17, which discloses the sum of N170,545.78 to be the outstanding contribution from the Defendant as at the date. Under cross examination by the Claimant’s counsel, DW1 stated that the Defendant’s contributions have been kept in an account set aside for payment of deductions waiting for the Claimant to submit details of her PFA so that the money can be remitted to her RSA. The evidence of DW1 has clearly revealed that the Claimant is entitled to the Defendant’s contributions and the sum is still intact, only waiting for her to submit her RSA account. Since it is now obvious to the Defendant that the Claimant has a RSA all the while, nothing prevents the Defendant from paying the sum to the Claimant forthwith. Accordingly, I hold that the Claimant has proved this claim and she is entitled to be paid the sum, which sum was part of her entitlements in the contract of employment with the Defendant. The Claimant’s reliefs 2, 3 and 4 are claims for damages, cost of action and interest respectively. The Claimant has not proved the sums claimed for damages and cost of action. I will refuse these claims. I see merit in the Claimant’s claim for 10% interest. The Defendant has held on to the Claimant’s pension fund since April 2014 when she left the Defendant’s employment. The Defendant ought to pay the sum with interest. In the result of the foregoing, the Claimant’s reliefs 1 and 4 are granted while reliefs 2 and 3 are refused. This court hereby orders as follows: 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of N170,545.78 to the Claimant being the amount the Claimant is entitled to from the Defendant as the Defendant’s contribution in the staff contributory provident fund scheme from November 2012 to April 2014. 2. The Defendant is ordered to pay the above sum with 10% interest per annum from May 2014 until the sum is fully paid to the Claimant. 3. The sums hereby ordered shall be paid to the Claimant within 30 days from today, failing which it will accrue a further interest of 10% per annum until it is fully paid to the Claimant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge