Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court by her General Form of Complaint and statement of facts dated 2/7/14 and by her second amended statement of facts dated 19/1/17 sought the following reliefs before the Court - 1. A declaration that the Claimant is not indebted to the Defendant in any way. 2. A declaration that the Claimant was a staff of the defendant between 1995 till May 2014. 3. An order that the Defendant pays the Claimant her outstanding salaries from 2006 to May 2014, Pension and Cooperative contribution, put at the sum of =N=2,994,402.63 (Two Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Two Naira, Sixty Three Kobo). 4. An order that the Defendant remits the Claimant’s pension funds of 7.5% of her monthly salary to her pension administrators from 2007 to May 2014 forthwith. 5. An order directing the defendant to pay all the health benefit due to the Claimant between the year 2013 to May, 2014. 6. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant all her entitlements to wit retirement benefits in accordance with the staff Hand Book. 7. An order directing the defendant to pay all tax deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salaries from the year 2006 to May, 2014 to the appropriate authority – Lagos State Inland Revenue services. 8. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant all her entitlements to wit Severance pay in the sum of =N=815,081.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Eighty One Naira) in accordance with Section 17(2) of the Odade Publishers Associate Handbook. 9. General damages in the sum of =N=2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) against the Defendant. 10. The cost of Litigation put at =N=500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). 11. Further orders and reliefs as the Court may make in the circumstance. The Defendant reacted by filing its statement of defence along with all requisite front loaded processes. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened her case on 1/3/16 and called one Nyip Nej as CW1. The witness adopted his statement on oath dated 29/7/15 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any exhibits and was also not cross examined. The Claimant testified as CW2 and adopted her witness deposition dated 29/7/15 as her evidence in chief and tendered 22 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. MO1-Exh. MO22 respectively. CW2 also adopted her witness statement dated 19/1/17 and tendered 3 additional documents as exhibits. The 3 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. MO23-Exh. MO25. The case of the Claimant as revealed from her pleadings is that she was formerly known as Miss Monica Okolo; that she became known as Mrs. Monica Okongwu after her marriage; that she was employed in 1995 vide a letter of employment dated 30th August, 1995 by Odujinrin & Adefalu & Co a Company jointly owned by the Directors of the Defendant; that she was subsequently redeployed by the Directors of the Defendant to Odade Publishers the Defendant in this suit vide a letter of redeployment dated 17th January, 2006 as a Field Sales Representative; that her appointment was confirmed by the Defendant vide a letter dated 6th May, 2010; that she carried out her duties diligently and assiduously and earned several commendations and awards until she was compelled by the Defendant to resign her appointment with the Defendant sequel to its letter to the Claimant asking her to resign dated 31/12/13; that she was instructed by one of the Directors of the Defendant Prince Adeyemi Adefulu through one Mrs. Abimbola Anoyai ordering her to stop coming to work; that the state of affairs necessitated her resignation letter dated 28th May, 2014 after making a demand for her entitlements and arrears of salary; that the Defendant has refused to pay till date despite several demands and that the obstinate refusal of the Defendant to pay her arrears of salary and other entitlements necessitated this action. Under cross examination Claimant stated that she was a Marketing Officer I market for Defendant respecting its products; that she sought for customers for Defendant; that the 1st Defendant is a publisher of Law Books; that she canvassed for customers to buy books from Defendant; that as Senior Sales Representative, she represents Defendant in government offices and agencies to buy products of Defendant; that she worked with Defendant between 2006 and 2013; that during the period she did not work for any other establishment or do any business of her own; that the Defendant’s customers never paid money into her account; that some customers paid 1st Defendant cash through her and she paid same to Defendants account; that the Lagos State Government paid Defendant =N=10,000,000.00; that 1st Defendant supplied only 25 sets and promised the Lagos State Government that the remaining would come; that 1st Defendant did not receive =N=650,000 stated in Exh. MO13; that the Defendant was owing Lagos State Government over =N=2,000,000.00; that she explained to Managing Director that the rest of the books for Lagos State Government were not supplied; that some books 1961 – 1990. All NLR were supplied to Lagos State Government as part replacement for outstanding books yet to be supplied but paid for; that Olawumi and Neji worked under her and accountable to her; that she was accountable to Defendant; that Exh. MO25 was customer’s copy but customer did not collect it; that this is because the customer had given her a cheque for same; that she is being honest; that she does not throw away document not collected; that she keeps them and that the Account section of Defendant is very porous. 3. Case of the Defendant On 6/11/17, the Defendant opened its case. It called Ephraim Ochara as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 11/9/1 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any exhibit. The case of the Defendant is that it is not indebted to the Claimant in any way whatsoever; that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought; that it is indeed the Claimant that was indebted to her for unaccounted proceeds from the sale of books and that the Claimant has had her hands dirtied and cannot be said to have been a faithful servant to the Defendant. Under cross examination, he is no longer working with Defendant; that he joined Defendant in 2012 and that he is aware that Defendant issued queries to the Claimant. 4. Submission of learned Counsel At the conclusion of hearing and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 14-page final written address. In it learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows -Whether the Claimant has sufficiently adduced evidence in proof of the claim to be entitled to the reliefs sought. Arguing this issue, Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not account for the proceeds of the sale of the books of the Defendant and that the evidence of the Claimant also pointed to this fact and that the Court must reach a conclusion that the money deposited in the salary accounts of the Claimant were by customers of the Defendant and belonged to the Defendant. Counsel submitted further that the Claimant failed to lead evidence in support of her claim for outstanding salaries, pension and cooperative contribution; that the Claimant failed to state how much was due to her as health benefit for the year 2013 to May 2014; that claims respecting tax deductions is misconceived. It was the argument of Counsel in addition that the Claimant failed to supply the basis for her entitlement for award of general damages. Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. Learned Counsel to the Claimant in reaction filed a 22-page final written address on 2/2/18. Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether from the preponderance of oral and documentary evidence the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her second amended statement of facts. In arguing this issue learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant cannot without more claim that the lodgments into the salary accounts of the Claimant were monies deposited by customers of the Defendant; that the Claimant is not in any way indebted to the Defendant; that the Defendant did not refute the claims of the Claimant by any document at all; that having been forced to resign from her employment the Defendant was in breach of its contractual obligation to the Claimant citing Steyr (Nig.) Limited v. Gadzama (1995)7 NWLR (Pt. 407) 305. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence both oral and documentary in support of her claim. Counsel prayed the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision I have carefully read all the processes filed by both learned Counsel in this case, patiently reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial as well as listened attentively to the testimonies of witnesses called and watched their demeanor. In addition, I heard the oral argument of learned Counsel to the parties. The lone issue set down for determination by learned Counsel to the Defendant in his final written address is ''whether the Claimant has sufficiently adduce(sic) evidence in proof of the claim to entitle her to the reliefs sought''. On the other hand, the issue for determination as set down by learned Counsel to the Claimant is ''Whether from the preponderance of oral and documentary evidence the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her second amended statement of facts''. I note that there is unanimity among learned Counsel that the main issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. I so adopt same for the just determination of this case. The nature of our civil adjudication is that he who approaches the Court for judicial redress has the burden placed on him to establish his case by adducing cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of same. The only exception being in the face of unambiguous admission. See Onoba v. Abuja Building Products Limited & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22704 (CA). For, facts admitted need no further proof. Where there are more than one head of claim or relief, the Claimant as in the instant case must adduce evidence in proof of each head of relief to be entitled to same. In the instant case, the Claimant sought about 10 reliefs in all. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the Claimant is not indebted to the Defendant in any way. It is trite that in civil causes and matters, parties are bound by their pleadings. I have perused the pleadings filed by the Defendant. I note that there is no counter claim made by the Defendant against the Claimant. I also note that there is no averment in the statement of defence filed to the effect that the Claimant owes the Defendant any sum of money. I find no evidence led by the Defendant to show that the Claimant owed it any amount whatsoever. Indeed, it is on record here that aside from it averment in pleadings no iota of evidence was led at trial to convince the Court that its money is with the Claimant. I must add that the Claimant is not under any obligation to prove that it is not indebted to the Defendant. This is because it has nothing to lose if it leads no evidence to the assertion. Learned Counsel had urged me to hold that the evidence adduced by the Claimant points to the fact that she is indebted to it. On page 6 of his final written address learned Counsel to the Defendant had stated thus ''It is humbly submitted that from the Guaranty Trust Bank Account of the Claimant, the Claimant received a total of =N=3,737,000.00 (Three million Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven Thousand naira) belonging to the Defendant. This money did not belong to the Claimant since she was not engaged in any other business at the time she was in the Defendant's employment. This Court must reach the most logical conclusion that the money received by the Claimant were monies for the books she was given by the Defendant for sale, which she never remitted the proceeds''. With great deference from the learned Counsel, the evidence adduced by the Claimant did not support that position. It is not open to the Defendant to rely on an alleged weakness in the case of the Claimant. See Opoto & Ors. v. ANAUN & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24734 (CA). It is rather for it to adduce evidence in support of its own case. To argue that because a staff who maintained a salary account and claimed not to be engaged in any other business while in its employ meant that all monies in the account belong to the employer is off the mark. I have no hesitation in declaring that the Claimant is not indebted to the Defendant and I so do. The second relief is for a declaration that the Claimant was a staff of the Defendant between 1995 till May 2014. The averments of the Claimant support this head of claim. Her evidence in chief also tilted toward same. In further support of this relief, the Claimant tendered Exh. MO22 which was her letter of appointment as a Secretary. By that exhibit, the effective date of the appointment was 4/9/95. See Clause h of Exh. MO22. By Exh. MO1 dated 17/1/06, Claimant was redeployed by Odujinrin & Adefulu to the Defendant. The Defendant on 31/12/13 by Exh. MO15 gave the Claimant an offer to tender her letter of resignation while on 28/5/14, the Claimant in compliance with Exh. MO15 resigned her appointment via Exh. MO19. It appears to me that the events respecting this relief is straightforward. I thus grant this relief and hold that the Claimant was a staff of the Defendant between 1995 till May 2014. Thirdly, the Claimant sought an order that the Defendant pay to her, the outstanding salaries from 2006 to May 2014, Pension and Cooperative contribution, put at the sum of =N=2,994,402.63 (Two Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Two Naira, Sixty Three Kobo). In support of this, Claimant tendered Exh. MO19 her letter of resignation in which she listed the various period of her unpaid salaries as well as the period of pension deductions not remitted. In addition, Claimant tendered Exh. MO20, Exh. MO23 & Exh. MO24. These were her Bank statements of accounts also showing the various periods when her salaries were not paid since joining the Defendant. I hold that the Claimant has done all that the law requires her to do. She has discharged the burden of proof placed on her. The burden has thus shifted to the Defendant to adduce stronger and much more reliable and believable evidence to counter the ones put forward by the Claimant. Having done her part, all that is expected of the Defendant is to show evidence of payments of the monies sought by the Claimant. The Defendant did not do this. I find this relief proved. I order the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2, 994,402.63 being the Claimant's outstanding salaries from 2006 to May 2014. Claimant further sought for an order directing the Defendant to pay all the health benefit due to the Claimant between the year 2013 to May, 2014. How much is the health benefit due to the Claimant? How was the sum arrived at by the Claimant? In other words, what is the basis for any sum claimed? The Claimant in making this claim failed to adduce in terms of answers to the questions raised. This relief is therefore not proved as expected. It is refused and dismissed accordingly. The prayer for an order that the Defendant pay the Claimant all her entitlements to wit retirement benefits in accordance with the staff Hand Book is the same as the prayer for an order that the Defendant to pay the Claimant all her entitlements to wit Severance pay in the sum of =N=815,081.00 (Eight Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Eighty One Naira) in accordance with Section 17(2) of the Odade Publishers Associate Handbook. Exh. MO21 is the Defendant's Associates Handbook. Paragraph 17.2 of that exhibit deals with Severance Pay. It states thus - ''Severance pay is given to eligible associates to provide them with limited financial assistance while they seek other employment. Unless otherwise provided by contractual obligation, it is given only to associates with more than one year of service who are laid off for reasons beyond their control (e.g, staff reduction, elimination of position), or to resigning associates who are asked to leave prior to their scheduled resignation date. Associates who resign under normal circumstances are not eligible for severance pay. Severance pay consists of one month's pay for each year of employment, up to a maximum of two month's basic pay for management staff. Severance pay is only after the associate has returned to his/her immediate supervisor all Company's properties and completed the Termination Checklist in the handbook''. The Claimant was forced to resign from her employment by the Defendant. Thus it is apparent that she was laid off for reasons beyond her control. There is evidence before this Court to the effect that the Claimant served the Defendant from 1995 to 2014. That is a period of 19 years. By Exh. MO21, Claimant is entitled to a month's basic pay for each of the 19 years she worked for the Defendant. Now, what is the basic monthly pay of the Claimant while working for the Defendant? The Claimant did not show how she came about the sum claimed as her severance pay. However, Exh. MO9 shows Claimant's annual basic pay to be =N=420.000.00. The monthly basic pay is therefore =N=35,000.00 and when multiplied by 19 years of service the severance pay entitlement of the Claimant comes to =N=665,000.00. The Defendants is thus ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=665,000.00 being the Claimant severance pay as provided by Exh. MO21. The Claimant further sought an order directing the defendant to pay all tax deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salaries from the year 2006 to May, 2014 to the appropriate authority – Lagos State Inland Revenue services. Claimant alleged that her deductions for tax were never paid to the appropriate tax authority. There is no evidence that the Defendant indeed paid same. If at all, it ought to simply provide the evidence of payment. That was not done in the instant case. Tax evasion and avoidance are frown at especially at this time when governance is becoming a more and more expensive venture. Indeed in some jurisdictions criminal sanctions are being imposed. It appears, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that the Defendant has not been paying the tax authorities deductions made from the salary of the Claimant. I hold that the Claimant is justified in making this demand. The Defendant is here ordered to pay all tax deductions from the Claimant’s monthly salaries from the year 2006 to May, 2014 to the appropriate authority – Lagos State Inland Revenue services. The learned Counsel to the Claimant is here directed to bring the portion of this Judgment relating to issues of tax deduction and non-payment of same to the attention of the Lagos State Inland Revenue service. No doubt if the government is to be able to discharge its election campaign promises to the electorates and make dividends of democracy available in terms of provision of social infrastructures the entire citizenry including corporate institutions must be disposed to payment of their taxes. Claimant sought payment to her of the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 as general damages. Now general damages differs essentially from special damages in that the need for proof is dispensed with respecting the former. I have evidence before me to the effect that the Claimant forced to resign from her employment and further forced to join the long que of able, willing but unemployed members of the society. No reason was giving in support of the action of the Defendants. Indeed no justifiable reasons were offered for doing so. Perhaps none could have been adduced. The act of the Defendants in forcing the Claimant to resign from her employment is a wrong done the Claimant which ought to and must be remedied by the Court. For an employment to be suddenly terminated is bad enough. For an able body individual who is willing to work to be forced against his/her wish to resign from a gainful employment is certainly unconscionable. It is trite that where there is a wrong there must be a remedy. The remedy to the instant wrong can only be in award of damages against the Defendant. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 as general damages for the act of forcing the Claimant to resign from her employment. The Defendant is to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00 only. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The Claimant is not indebted to the Defendant. 2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2, 994,402.63 being the Claimant's outstanding salaries from 2006 to May 2014. 3. The Defendant is thus ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=665,000.00 being the Claimant severance pay as provided by Exh. MO21. 4. The learned Counsel to the Claimant is here directed to bring the portion of this Judgment relating to issues of tax deduction and non-payment of same to the attention of the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service. 5. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 as general damages for forcing the Claimant to resign from her employment without justifiable reasons. 6. The Defendant is to pay to the Claimant the cost of this suit assessed at =N=100,000.00 only. All the terms of this Judgments are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge