Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The case of the Claimant was filed on 6/2/17 by a Complaint and statement of facts and sought the following reliefs - 1. Judgment in the sum of EUR 16,245 (Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Five Euros) being total unpaid salaries for the period due from August 2016 to January 2017. 2. Judgment in the sum of EUR 2,300 (Two Thousand Three Hundred Euros) being unpaid leave allowance due from 17th December 2016 to 8th January 2017. 3. Judgment in the sum of =N=600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) being unpaid living allowance due from October 16 2016 to January 17, 2017. 4. Judgment in the sum of =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being unpaid Car Maintenance Allowance due for the months of April and from October 16 to January 17, 2017. 5. Judgment in the sum of =N=24,000 (Twenty Four Thousand Naira) being unpaid airtime allowance due from May 16 to August 16 2016 and October 16 to January 17, 2017. 6. Judgment in the sum of =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being refund of cost of obtaining an economy class flight ticket for Claimant's last holiday. 7. Judgment on the above mentioned sums at the rate of 22% per annum from October 16, 2016 till judgment, and, thereafter, at the interest rate of 22% per annum till the said sum is liquidated. 8. The costs of this action. The Claimant's Complaint was accompanied by witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant neither entered an appearance nor filed a defence process in this case. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 11/10/17 and testified in chief as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 6/2/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 exhibits. The exhibits were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C4. The case of the Claimant as revealed by his testimony in chief is that he was Project Manager and an employee of the 1st and 2nd Defendants ; that the 1st Defendant is an engineering and construction company and subsidiary of the 3rd Defendant; that the 2nd Defendant is a consulting company and subsidiary of the 3rd Defendant; that the 3rd Defendant is the parent body/holding company of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and that all the Defendants are registered under the laws of the Federation of Nigeria, with their address at 10b Ligali Ayorinde Street, Victoria Island, Lagos. Claimant stated that he applied for and was offered employment with the 1st Defendant on April 7th, 2016, to commence work on 11th April 2016 for the position of Project Manager/Business Developer; that the employment relationship was governed by his Employment Contract; that on 7th October 2016, he was assigned to the 2nd Defendant as a Construction Manager with retrospective effect from 1st October 2016 with the conditions of contract remained essentially the same except that the yearly leave period was reduced to two weeks; that the leave allowances remained assessed at 100 Euros per day; that amongst the conditions of the job offer with the 1st and 2nd Defendants was a monthly salary of EUR 3,000 (Three Thousand Euros) to be paid offshore and the local allowance of =N=150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) to be paid monthly in Nigeria; that other terms of the employment included the fact that the work schedule was full time and that all statutory deductions would be made and remitted to the relevant authorities; that by virtue of his contract of employment with the 1st Defendant, it was also stated that the sum of =N=50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) would be paid to him as a monthly allowance for the use of his car and that a decent accommodation with the provision of a steward would be made available to me; that his employment contract also stated that the sum of =N=3,000 (Three Thousand Naira) would be paid monthly to him for his official telephone and that he would be entitled to a two weeks paid leave for every thirteen weeks of work; that there was to be provided, two international flight tickets (economy) per annum for his holiday and a leave allowance of 100 Euros per day for Twenty Three days. It is the case of the Claimant that while he performed all his responsibilities under the contract, the 1st and 2nd Defendants have consistently failed to carry out their own terms of the contract; that up till date, the last salary paid to him was in August (half payment) and from September up till the time of instituting this suit no other salary has been paid; that despite his consistent work ethic and devotion to his job all other allowances were similarly withheld as follows (a) Living allowance of =N=150,000 per month (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira Only) was last paid on September 16, 2016; (b) Car allowance of =N=50,000 per month (Fifty Thousand Naira Only) was last paid on September 16, 2016; (c) Airtime allowance of =N=3,000 (Three Thousand Naira Only) was paid only twice in April and September 2016 (d) he was given only one economy class ticket instead of two; (f) that he is being owed 23 days leave pay; that he eventually briefed his Solicitors, Victoria Chambers, to write to the 1st Defendant a letter detailing his claims and demanding payment; that as a result of the failure and refusal of the defendants to pay his salary and attendant entitlements, he has been unable to adequately take care of his family and this has caused him untold hardship and embarrassment. At the close of the case for the Claimant, same was adjourned for cross examination. Though served with hearing notices, the Defendant did not attend Court to cross examine CW1. The Defendant also did not attend Court to defend this case. Indeed, it needs be stated that the Defendant did not file any defence process, not even a Memorandum of Appearance. Pursuant to the failure of the Defendants to open their case as adjourned on 30/1/18, same was closed in accordance with the Rules of Court and parties ordered to file their final written addresses for adoption. 3. Final Addresses The Defendants did not file any final written address as directed by the Court. The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 17/4/18. In it learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether or not the Claimant is entitled to Judgment considering the absence of the Defendants throughout trial. Arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted, citing Order 38 R2(1), National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 that the Rules of Court is clear and explicit on what is to be done where a Defendant is absent in Court and not represented by a Counsel; that it is not for the Court to wait for a party to come defend a suit against him and that once requisite hearing notices are served, the Court is at liberty to proceed with the case. Learned Counsel cited Onyeakarusi v. Nwadiogo (2016) LPELR-40932(CA) and Akinniran v. Ade & Ors. (2017) LPELR-42175(CA) and submitted that the Claimant having proved his case, the Court should enter Judgment as sought by the Claimant. 4. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes as filed by the Claimant. I listened to the oral evidence of the witness called at trial, watched his demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibit tendered and admitted. That done, I set down a lone issue for the just determination of this case as follows- Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to a grant of all or some of the reliefs sough. The nature of adjudicatory system in Nigeria places the burden of proof at all times on he who approaches the Court for judicial intervention. That burden is discharged by adducing credible, cogent and admissible evidence which may be oral or documentary or both. The burden of proof is not discharged simply by the absence of the Defendant as in the instant case. Thus even where as in the instant case the Defendant did not appear or put up any defence, the Claimant still must adduce credible and admissible evidence in proof of his case. See Sections 131 & 132, Evidence Act, 2011. Otherwise the Court will be at liberty to find against him. After all, a Claimant must rely only on the strength of his case rather than the weakness of the case of his opponent. See Opoto & Ors. v. ANAUN & Ors (2015) LPELR-24734(CA). Now, has the Claimant proved his case to be entitled to the relief sought? The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 8 in all. While the reliefs 1-6 are claims for unpaid salaries, unpaid leave allowance, unpaid living allowance, unpaid car maintenance allowance, unpaid airtime allowance and refund of economy flight ticket reliefs 7 and 8 are for interest on the Judgment sum as well as cost of action respectively. I heard the oral testimony of the Claimant as CW1 in chief. I heard the Claimant on the establishment of the relationship between him and the Defendants in this case. Claimant also led evidence respecting how the Defendants became indebted to him in the various sums of money claimed both in foreign currencies as well as in the Nigerian currency. In addition, the Claimant tendered 4 exhibits to back up his claims. Exh. C1 was his contract of employment with the 1st Defendant while Exh. C2 was the letter re-designating transferring him to the 2nd Defendant. Both Exh. C3 & Exh. C4 were communication by Claimant's Solicitors to the Defendants demanding payment of money due to the Claimant. I note that although both Exh. C3 & Exh. C4 were delivered and so acknowledged, there was no reaction from any of the Defendants to the representation by the Claimant's Solicitors. The Defendants stayed away from this proceedings despite evidence of service of hearing notices on them. It is a trite law that a party cannot be compelled to defend a suit against it. It is as well trite that fair hearing is fundamental in all cases before the Court. However, once there is evidence of service of hearing notice, that suffices and the Court cannot and must not continue to wait or beg a party come forward to defend a suit against it. A litigant is at liberty to stay away from proceedings he is aware pending against him. That is the essence of liberty. If it is a gamble, it is sanctioned by the tenets of freedom and liberty and this is a constitutional right of choice or decision. See A. Ameh A. Akpa Diga v. Adam Tony (2013) LPELR-20768 (CA). Once a party sued is aware of a suit against it and chooses not to appear, without mincing words, it amounts to a desire on the part of the Defendant to abide with whatever the outcome of the suit. The evidence led by the Claimant remained unchallenged. The Defendants had sufficient opportunities to defend this case but they refused to utilise any of the opportunities. The right to fair hearing is nothing short of opportunity to be heard. Once afforded and not utilised such a party will be not heard to complain of absence of fair hearing. After all, the right to fair hearing has no magic wand behind it. The position of the law is that the Court is at liberty to rely on unchallenged piece of evidence in reaching decision in a case before it. See Obute v. Abdulkareem (2014)LPELR-23971 (CA). There being thus no challenge to the credible evidence led by the Claimant, I grant reliefs 1-6 as contained in statement of facts of the Claimant. The Defendants are here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 16,245 (Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Five Euros) being total unpaid salaries for the period due from August 2016 to January 2017. Secondly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 2,300 (Two Thousand Three Hundred Euros) being unpaid leave allowance due from 17th December 2016 to 8th January 2017. Thirdly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) being unpaid living allowance due from October 16 2016 to January 17, 2017. Fourthly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being unpaid Car Maintenance Allowance due for the months of April and from October 16 to January 17, 2017. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=24,000 (Twenty Four Thousand Naira) being unpaid airtime allowance due from May 16 to August 16 2016 and October 16 to January 17, 2017. Lastly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being refund of cost of obtaining an economy class flight ticket for last holiday. The Claimant also sought payment of interest on the above sums at the rate of 22% per annum from October 16, 2016 till judgment, and, thereafter, at the interest rate of 22% per annum till the said sum is liquidated. The first leg of this claim is pre judgment interest at the rate of 22% from16/10/16 till judgment. The law is trite that before a party can claim pre-judgment interest, he has to plead not only his entitlement to the interest, but the basis of the entitlement either by statute or contract/agreement between the parties, or under mercantile custom or under principle of the equity. See Dantama v. Unity Bank Plc (2015) LPELR-24448(CA). It is for the Claimant to prove his entitlement to the stated pre judgment interest. This accords with the age old principle that he who asserts must prove same. The Claimant has failed and/or neglected to prove how he becomes entitled to the rate of interest claimed. Not having proved same this head of relied is refused and dismissed. The second leg of the claim for interest is post judgment interest. In this respect the Claimant also sought payment of interest at the rate of 22% on the judgment sums from the date of Judgment till final liquidation. The Rules of this Court provides direction and guidance with respect to post judgment interest. In this respect, Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Court states inter alia that the Court at the time of delivering judgment may order interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum to be paid upon any judgment. Therefore, pursuant to Order 47 R 7 of the Rules of this Court all the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment (except cost) shall attract 20% interest per annum from today until final liquidation. The Defendants are to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant succeeds as follows - 1. The Defendants are here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 16,245 (Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Five Euros) being total unpaid salaries for the period due from August 2016 to January 2017. 2. Secondly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of EUR 2,300 (Two Thousand Three Hundred Euros) being unpaid leave allowance due from 17th December 2016 to 8th January 2017. 3. Thirdly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) being unpaid living allowance due from October 16 2016 to January 17, 2017. 4. Fourthly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being unpaid Car Maintenance Allowance due for the months of April and from October 16 to January 17, 2017. 5. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=24,000 (Twenty Four Thousand Naira) being unpaid airtime allowance due from May 16 to August 16 2016 and October 16 to January 17, 2017. 6. Lastly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being refund of cost of obtaining an economy class flight ticket for last holiday. 7. The claim for pre judgment interest is refused and dismissed for lack of proof 8. Pursuant to Order 47 R 7 of the Rules of this Court all the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment (except cost) shall attract 20% interest per annum from today until final liquidation. 9. The Defendants are to pay the cost of this proceedings assessed at =N=100,000.00. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with immediately. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge