Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts and sought the following reliefs - 1. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment which said injuries have made it impossible for the Claimant to continue normal work in the employment of the defendant. 2. A Declaration that the defendant is not entitled to determine the employment of the Claimant without payment of compensation to the Claimant for his permanent and work stopping injuries sustained in the course of his work as a crane operator in the employment of the defendant. 3. The sum of Twenty Million Naira (=N=20,000,00.00) only as compensation/damages for injuries sustained in the course of the claimant’s employment with the defendant which injuries are the real reason for the determination of the Claimant’s employment. 4. Costs of this action. The Claimant accompanied his originating processes with witness deposition, list of witness, list and copies of all documents to be relied upon at trial. The Defendant also react accordingly by filing its statement of defence, witness deposition, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 5/2/16 and testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 20/1/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. RK1 - Exh. RK4. The case of the Claimant as revealed from the pleadings and evidence led is that he was employed by the Defendant; that he sustained injury while in the employment of the Defendant; that his employment was subsequently determined and that although he was entitled to compensation for the injury sustained at work place he was not paid any compensation by the Defendant. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he was first employed by the Defendant in 1989 as Crane Mechanic; that the employment was terminated in 2005; that he was then paid his terminal benefits; that he still instructed a Lawyer to write Defendant that he was not fully paid; that he was later told by his Lawyer that he was fully paid; that he was re-employed in 2005; that upon termination of his employment he was paid his benefit; that he is aware that Defendant is a member of a Union and he belonged to that Union; that there is National Joint Industrial Council in the Union; that the Defendant is in a construction industry; that he is not aware of any agreement between the Defendant and the Union; that he still complained about the benefits paid to him; that he did not produce any medical reports; that he was in the hospital for more than 2 weeks; that he requested medical report but the Doctor told him that Defendant said he should send it to them; that he filled a pre-employment form with the Defendant.; that he was paid =N=450,000.00 as terminal benefit; that he signed for the money; that at the time his employment was terminated some other staff’s employment was terminated as well; that he does not know what is meant by “stood off” and that he was not fully paid his terminal benefits. 3. Case of the Defendant On 4/5/16, the Defendant opened its case and called one Kingsley Olayiwola Omojola as its lone witness. The witness adopted his written deposition dated 16/5/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 11 documents as exhibits. The documents were so admitted and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D11. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was paid his full terminal benefits in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) agreement being a member of the National Union of Civil Engineering Construction Furniture and Wood Workers (NUCECFWW) and that the Defendant is not in any way indebted to the Claimant. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he has worked for Defendant for 25 years; that the Defendant retained Doreen Specialist Hospital, Kanfat Road Off Lagos Epe Expressway, Ajah, Lagos State; that a staff would normally be referred to the hospital except it is an emergency where staff is taken to hospital directly; that Medical records of staff who attend the hospital are kept with the Hospital and upon request the Hospital will furnish the Defendant; that the Human Resources Manager would normally make the request; that an employee is entitled to request for his medical records; that he does not know if the Claimant requested his medical records and he was refused and that the Claimant did not sign Exh. D11. 4. Submission of learned Counsel At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel on either filed their final written addresses. The Defendant filed a 12-page final written address on 19/2/16. In it, learned Counsel set down the following lone issue for determination - Whether the Claimant has been able to prove his claims against the Defendant upon the facts and evidence adduced before this Court. The 10-page final written address of the Claimant was filed on 4/7/17. In it, learned Counsel canvassed the following issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant has proved his case against the Defendant as to entitle him to all the reliefs claimed; 2. Whether the Defendant has properly submitted a defence before the court having failed to file a fresh defence and written deposition on oath with other frontloaded documents in accordance with the rules after the order of striking out made by the Court on 20th May 2015 and 3. Whether the defendant’s Motion filed on the 9th day of February 2016 was competent without evidence of compliance with the Rules of Court for leave to regularize processes not before the court, in this case extension of time to file a defence and without filing the processes sought to be regularized. 5. Decision I read and understood all the processes filed by the learned Counsel in this case. I listened with attention to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial as well as carefully watched their demeanor. I also heard the oral submissions by learned on either side and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following - 1. Whether the Defendant has a properly filed any defence to this suit. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. Respecting the first issue set down for determination, it was argued on behalf of the Claimant that the Defendant did not have any defence filed in opposition to the claim of the Claimant the defence filed having being struck out on 20/5/15. It is important to bear in mind that a party sued is not under a compulsion to either enter an appearance and/or file a defence. It is a matter of choice. Thus where a party elects not to file a defence to a suit it may translate to mean that it is not opposed to the claims of the party suing. By the Rules of this Court, a party served an originating process has 14 days within which to enter an appearance and file a defence, See Order 15 Rule 1, National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, provided it has a defence and is desirous of filing one. Where it fails to file a defence within the time allowed by the Rules of Court, it may bring an application for extension of time within which to file same. Once the application is granted a defence process may be filed outside the time allowed. In the instant case, the Defendant did not file a defence process within the time allowed by the Rules of Court. Thus learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a motion on notice dated 15/5/14. It was filed on the same date. For more than one year, learned Counsel to the Defendant did not attend Court proceedings to move the said Motion on Notice. Hence pursuant to an application by the learned Counsel to the Claimant, the said Motion on Notice to regularise defence processes was struck out on 20/5/15. A subsequent application by the Defendant dated 11/12/15 and filed on 9/2/16 did not have any accompanying defence process. Now, the Motion on Notice dated 15/5/14 having been struck out it meant that for all intents and purposes, the Defendant did not file any defence to this suit. I so find and so hold. During trial, the Defendant relied on its defence process which were not properly filed and not regularised. Having so found and held that there was no defence process filed, I here discountenance the irregular defence process filed on 15/5/14 which the Defendant relied on at trial. Now having so held what is the effect of failure of the Defendant to file a defence in this case? The law is trite that the burden of proof is always on he who seeks judicial intervention to discharge on the balance of probability. See Ojo v. ABT Associates Incorporated & Anor. (2014) LPELR-22860 (CA). In Uwangwe & Anor. v. Oshorunaiye & Ors (2014) LPELR-23704 the Court of Appeal per Abiriyi JCA held that failure to file defence and give evidence did not relieve the appellants of the onus of proving their claim against the 1st Respondent. Secondly, the first two reliefs sought by the Claimant are declaratory in nature. Indeed the success or otherwise of the case of the Claimant is dependent on the disposition of the Court to these declaratory reliefs. The law is trite that the Claimant is under an obligation to prove his entitlement to the declaratory reliefs. The declaratory reliefs must be established to the satisfaction of the Court before a grant is made as such reliefs are not granted even on admission by the other party. See 102 Dumez Nig. Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 at 373 and All Ucha v. Martins Elechi (2012) MRSCJ Vol. 179 at 104. See also Omisore & Anor. v. Aregbesola & Ors (2015) LPELR-24803 (SC). Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant has no defence properly filed in this case, the burden of proof by evidence remains on the Claimant to establish his entitlement to the reliefs sought before the Court. The Claimant sought 4 main reliefs in this Court against the Defendant. They are as follows 1. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment which said injuries have made it impossible for the Claimant to continue normal work in the employment of the defendant; 2. A Declaration that the defendant is not entitled to determine the employment of the Claimant without payment of compensation to the Claimant for his permanent and work stopping injuries sustained in the course of his work as a crane operator in the employment of the defendant; 3. The sum of Twenty Million Naira (=N=20,000,000.00) only as compensation/damages for injuries sustained in the course of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant which injuries are the real reason for the determination of the Claimant’s employment and 4. Cost of this action. While the first 2 are for declaration the 3rd is for compensation/damages while the last is for cost of action. Now in accordance with the well known and age-long established principle of law that he who asserts must prove, the Claimant tendered 5 exhibits in support of his case. Exh. RK1 was his letter of employment dated 29/4/09, Exh. RK2 & Exh. RK3 were the letters of Stood-Off from the Defendant to the Claimant. Exh. RK4 was the Termination of Employment handed to the Claimant and dated 28/2/13 while Ex. RK5 was the Pre-Employment Form of the Claimant. Apart from the assertions of the Claimant in his evidence in chief, none of these exhibits is in support of his claim of having sustained injury in the course of his duties while with the Defendant for which he is making a claim for damages and compensation. No evidence was led respecting the nature of injury allegedly sustained. Of a truth, Claimant had alleged that he was denied his Medical Report by the Hospital. Yet, the Claimant who had an option to subpoena the Medical Director of the Hospital elected not to do so for reason best know to his Counsel. Secondly, Exh.RK1-Letter of Employment constitutes the contract of employment between the parties. That exhibit contained the terms and conditions of engagement binding on and regulating the relationship between the parties. The law is trite that parties are bound by the terms of their agreement. See Asikpo v. Access Bank (2015) LPELR-25845 (CA). I examined the content of that exhibit. I found no provision or clause in it respecting payment of compensation or entitlement to damages in the event of the Claimant sustained an injury while at work. Finally, the Claimant had sought payment of Twenty Million Naira to him as compensation/damages for the injury he sustained at work alleging that the injury was the real reason for the termination of his employment. Exh. RK4 was the letter terminating the employment of the Claimant. It is the law that a parole evidence will not be permitted to construe the content of a document. See Nekpenepen v. Egbemhonkhye (2014) LPELR-22335 (CA). In its opening paragraph, that exhibit states thus - ''This is to inform you that due to current downturn in business activities of the company, we are constrained to terminate your employment with effect from 28th February, 2013 on grounds of Redundancy''. It appears to me and that is apparent that the content of Exh. RK4 is unambiguous. The reason for the termination is not the same as alleged by the Claimant. It is not open to an employee to assume reason for the termination of his employment. It is therefore not correct as contended by the Claimant that the reason for the termination of his employment was his alleged injury sustained at workplace. The reason for the termination of his employment as stated by Exh. RK4 is redundancy and nothing else. It was part of the evidence of the Claimant under cross examination that he was paid the sum of =N=450,000.00 as his terminal benefit; that at the time his employment was terminated he was not the only staff of the Defendant whose employment was terminated and that ought to be paid more than he was paid. From the evidence led by the Claimant in this case, I find that there is no proof of any injury allegedly sustained by the Claimant in the course of his work with the Defendant; that the employment of the Claimant was determined on the ground of redundancy rather than injury-related reason as alleged by the Claimant and that being the case the Claimant is not entitled to the sum of Twenty Million Naira or any sum at all as compensation/damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with the Defendant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment the case of the Claimant is dismissed for failure to discharge the evidential burden of proof expected of him for this Court to grant any of the reliefs he sought. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge