Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The claimants commenced this action via a Complaint dated and a statement of facts dated 8th May 2015. Pursuant to an order of Court for amendment granted on 12/10/15 the Claimants filed their amended statement of facts and sought the following reliefs – 1. A declaration that in line with Sections 1.5(1), 9(1) and (3) of the Pension Reform Act of 2004 and also the terms of the offer of employment entered into with Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased), the deceased is entitled to compulsory pensions. 2. A declaration that in line with Sections 1.5. 9(1) and (3) of the Pension Reform Act 2004, Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased), is also entitled to Group Life Assurance Policy. 3. A declaration that the refusal of the defendant to pay the claimants the pensions belonging to Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased), is unlawful and constitute a breach of the Pension Reform Act 2004 and the terms of the offer of employment with the deceased. 4. A declaration that the refusal of the defendant to pay the claimants the emoluments as provided under the Group Life Insurance constitute a breach of the Pension Reform Act of 2004. 5. An Order of Payment by the defendant to the claimants the sum of Six Hundred and Two Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Naira (=N=602,250) being the total of all pensions due to Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased). 6. An Order of payment by the defendant to the claimants, the sum of One Million, Nine Hundred and Eighty Thousand (=N=1,980,000) being the total sum of Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased)’s entitlements under the Group Life Insurance Policy of the Pension Reform Act of 2004. 7. An order of payment of interest of 10% per annum on the pensions and Group Life Assurance Policy due to the claimants from November 2012 to the time of determination of this matter. 8. An Order of payment of the sum of Two Million Naira (=N=2,000,000) as general damages for the willful and unlawful refusal of the defendant to pay the claimants the pensions and mandatory life assurance entitlements belonging to Late Augustine Nwauwa (the deceased) since November 2012. 9. Nine Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=900,000.00) as cost of action. 10. And any other Order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case. The Claimants accompanied their Form 1 with all other requisite processes as mandated by the Rules of this Court. The Defendant neither entered an appearance nor filed any defence processes. This is notwithstanding that Defendant was served all the originating processes as well as hearing notices for each of Court proceedings. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimants opened their case on2/2/16 with the 1st Claimant testifying as the lone witness for the Claimant. The witness adopted her witness deposition dated 8/10/15 as her evidence in chief. Witness also tendered 12 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 – Exh. C12 respectively. The case of the Claimants as revealed from their pleadings in brief is that their bread winner one Augustine Nwauwa, deceased, was an employee of the Defendant; that he died in active service with the Defendant; that they are his personal representatives and dependants; that the deceased was entitled to pension and other terminal benefits such as group life insurance benefit from the Defendant and that although they made demands on the Defendant for the payment to them of these benefits of their deceased husband and father, the Defendant refused and/or neglected to pay same to them. At the conclusion of evidence in chief, the matter was adjourned for cross examination by the Defendant. I note that throughout the hearing of this case, the Defendant did not enter an appearance or file any defence. Indeed, the Defendant was not represented at all by a Counsel. 3. Submissions of Counsel Pursuant to the direction of the Court at the close of trial, learned Counsel to the Claimants filed a 10-page final written address. In it, learned Counsel set down 2 issues for the just determination of this case as follows – 1. Whether Late Augustine Nwauwa is entitled to payment of Pensions. 2. Whether Late Augustine Nwauwa is entitled to payment of Group Life Insurance Policy by the Defendant. In arguing these 2 issues, learned Counsel canvassed the argument that by virtue of statutory provisions the deceased was entitled to both pensions as well as payment of group life insurance policy by the Defendant. Counsel submitted that deductions were made from the salaries of the deceased; that same was never remitted to any retirement savings account of the deceased and that the Defendant did not allow the deceased to open or maintain any retirement savings account with any pension funds administrator while he was working with the Defendant. Learned Counsel urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimants; that the Defendant did not defend the suit and that the Claimants have proved their case. 4. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by the Claimant in this case. I listened attentively to the oral testimony of the witness called by the Claimant at trial as well as watched her demeanor. In addition, I carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down the following – Whether the Claimants have proved their entitlement to all or some of the reliefs sought in this Court. Before I proceed with the consideration of the lone issue set down for determination, it is imperative that I examine, albeit briefly the contention of the learned Counsel to the Claimants respecting the attitude of the Defendant to this suit. It is on record that the Claimants dully served the Defendant all the originating processes as required by law. It is also on record that the Defendant was served all the processes as filed by the Claimants. The record of this Court also shows that there are proofs of service of hearing notices on the Defendant in the file of this Court. Yet the Defendant neither entered an appearance nor filed any defence processes respecting this suit. Notwithstanding all this, the burden of proof remains always on the Claimants to prove their entitlement to the reliefs sought before this Court. This entitlement must be proved by adducing cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of each head of the claim. The absence of defence or representation does not automatically entitle the Claimants to a grant of any or all the reliefs sought. In any event, a Claimant is only permitted by law to rely on the strength of his case rather than the weakness of the case of his adversary. See Opoto & Ors. v ANAUN & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24734(CA).Failure of the Claimants to prove their case will leave the Court with no option than to dismiss same with or without cost. The simple facts of this case as revealed by the pleadings of the Claimants and their evidence in chief together with the evidence led is that one late Chief Augustine Nwauwa a staff of the Defendant died while in the employment of the Defendant; that the Claimants are personal representatives and dependants of the said late Chief Augustine Nwauwa; that the deceased was entitled to contributory pension and other entitlement under the Pension Reforms Act, 2004; that although they made demands on the Defendant for the contributory pensions and other entitlements of the deceased the Defendant refused and/or neglected to pay same. The Pension Reform Act, 2004 was a revolutionary legislation in the area of pensions and other retirement benefits of employees in both the public and the private sectors. The Long Title of the Act states that it is “An Act to establish a Contributory Pension Scheme for employees in the Public Sector of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory and Private Sectors in the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. The objectives of the 2004 Act, among others, are to ‘ensure that every person who worked in either the Public Service of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory or Private Sector receives his retirement as and when due” and “establish a uniform set of rules, regulations and standards for the administration and payments of retirement benefits for the Public Service of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory and the Private Sector”. See Section 2, Pension Reform Act, 2004. Section 5 of the Act deals with Death of an employee. The section states that where an employee dies, his entitlements under the life insurance policy maintained under the Act shall be paid to his retirement savings account and that the pension fund administrator shall apply the amount paid in accordance with section 4 of the Act in favor of the beneficiary under a Will or next of kin or any person designated by him during his lifetime or in the absence of such designation, to any person appointed by the Probate Registry as the administrator of the estate of the deceased. An important and essential feature of the 2004 Act is the continuous reference to a pension fund administrator and retirement savings account. Indeed, Section 11 of the Act which deals with Retirement savings account and remittance of contribution, etc specifically provides that – (1) Every employee shall maintain an account. (in this Act referred to as ‘retirement savings account’) in his name with any pension fund administrator of his choice. (2) ….. (3) The employee shall notify his employer of the pension fund administrator chosen and the identity of the retirement savings account opened under subsection (1) of this section. My understanding of the combined reading of section 5 and section11 (1) & (3) of the Act and the operation of retirement savings account is that it is mandatory for an employee to open a retirement savings account with a pension fund administrator; provide the details to his employer; that it is into this retirements savings account that contributory pensions and deductions made from employees salary shall be paid and that in event of death of an employee the pension fund administrator of the deceased shall apply the funds in the account in favor of the beneficiaries or next of kin of the deceased or any person so designated. Thus opening and maintaining a retirement savings account with a pension fund administrator is fundamental and critical condition which an employee must fulfill for his beneficiary to take benefit of his pensions and other retirement benefits. Did the deceased in this case open any retirement savings account with any pension fund administrator? Did the Claimants lead any evidence in support of this crucial condition? I answer both questions in the negative. On page 9 of his final written address, learned Counsel to the Claimants had submitted thus – “It is the submission of the claimants that throughout the period the deceased worked for the defendant, it never allowed nor permitted the deceased to open or maintain a retirement savings account”. This submission leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Under the statute, an employee does not require the permission or consent of his employer to open and maintain a retirement savings account with a pension fund administrator. At best this line of argument must be taken intended to use the opportunity of final written address to panel beat the case of the Claimants. The law is trite and well accepted that no matter how beautifully couched and eloquently presented a final written address is never a substitute for pleadings or evidence. Onyemenam, JCA, expressed the point aptly in Hungwa v. Uwuokwu (2011)LPELR-3754(CA) in the following words - ''Addresses are meant to assist the court. Cases are decided on credible evidence and not on addresses. No amount of brilliance in a final address can make up for the lack of evidence to prove and establish or disprove and demolish points in issue. When the facts are straightforward and in the main not in dispute, the trial Judge would be free to dispense with final addresses''. The bottom line of the analysis made thus far is that the foundation of the case of the Claimants is rather weak. The absence of a retirement savings account maintained with a pension fund administrator has created a wide gully, a vacuum. The case of the Claimants is akin to putting something on nothing. As Lord Denning aptly put it in UAC v. MacFoy (1962) AC 157 it must collapse. I hold that in like manner this case collapses like a pack of cards. Consequently, same is dismissed in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge