Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction and Claims On the 18th of November, 2016, the Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complain & Statement of Facts and sought the following reliefs - 1. The sum of =N=12,055,590.00 (Twelve Million, Fifty Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Ninety Naira only) as Claimant’s arrears of unpaid salaries as at August, 2014 to July, 2016, unpaid medical bills, General Damages for wrongful dismissal, for pain, anguish and suffering the claimant went through both at the Ikoyi and Oba Abeokuta prisons for offence he didn’t know about nor committed, for sorrow, torment and distress the claimant’s family suffered during the ordeal of the claimant. PARTICULARS OF ENTITLEMENTS i. Monthly Salary Net - =N=50,000 only ii. Monthly Salary Net of N50,000 x 24 Months - =N=1,200,000 only, that is from August 2014 to July 2016. iii. Please Note; that the sum of =N=400,410.00 only was paid to the Claimant between August and July 2016. iv. Then =N=1,200,000 minus =N=400,410.00 = =N=799,590.00 only as balance of salary arrears. v. A breakdown of how the salaries of =N=400,410.00 was paid into the claimant’s salary account is as follows: 1. August 2014 = NIL 2. September 2014 = =N=45,000 was paid leaving balance of =N=5,000. 3. October 2014 = NIL. 4. November 2014 = N45,000 was paid leaving balance of N5,000. 5. December 2014 = N40,000 was paid leaving balance of N10,000. 6. January 2015 = N45,000 was paid leaving balance of N5,000. 7. February 2015 = N40,000 was paid leaving balance of N10,000. 8. March 2015 = N26,000 was paid leaving balance of N24,000. 9. April 2015 = N10,000 was paid leaving balance of N40,000. 10. May 2015 = NIL. 11. June 2015 = NIL. 12. July 2015 = NIL. 13. August 2015 = NIL. 14. September 2015 = NIL. 15. October 2015 = N36,500 was paid leaving balance of N13,500. 16. November 2015 = N25,000 was paid leaving balance of N25,000. 17. December 2015 = N30,000 was paid leaving balance of N20,000 18. January 2016 NIL. 19. February 2016 = N6,400 was paid leaving balance of N43,600. 20. March 2016 = N26,642 was paid leaving balance of N23,358. 21. April 2016 = NIL. 22. May 2016 = N24,868 was paid leaving balance of N25,132 23. June 2016 = NIL 24. July 2016 = NIL Therefore the total sum as balance of the Claimant’s unpaid Salaries for the said 24 months to =N=799,590.00 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Naira only) as at August, 2014 to July, 2016. The sum of =N=1,256,000.00 incurred as medical bills by the claimant at two separate times he was admitted at Divine Success Medical Child and Maternity Home of No. 8, Adebayo Street, Owode Ota, Ogun State. PARTICULARS OF THE MEDICAL BILLS a. He was admitted on the 4/11/2014 and was discharged on the 25/11/2014. DIAGNOSES: Appendicitis, Liver Related Diseases and others. • Card fees N2,500 • Consultation fee N10,000 • Injections N120,000 • Infusion N90,000 • Blood Transfusion N20,000 • Wound Dressing N35,000 • Laboratory Investigation N20,000 • Treatment taken home (T.T.H) N50,000 • Bed fees N52,500 TOTAL N400,000.00 b. He was also admitted on the 2/7/2016 and was discharged on the 22/7/2016. DIAGNOSES Bowel inflammation, Liver Related Diseases and others. • Consultation fee N50,000 • Injections N400,000 • Infusions N210,000 • Medications N55,000 • Laboratory Investigation N52,000 • Treatment taken home (T.T.H) N39,000 • Bed fees N50,000 TOTAL N856,000.00 2. The sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as General Damages for wrongful dismissal for pain, anguish and suffering the Claimant went through both at the Ikoyi and Oba Abeokuta prisons for offence he didn’t know about nor committed for sorrow, torment and distress the claimant’s family suffered during the ordeal of the claimant. 3. Cost of this action. Claimant's Complaint was accompanied by statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witness and list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant having entered an appearance filed all requisite processes in accordance with the Rules of this Court. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened his case on 4/4/17 and testified in chief as CW1. Claimant adopted his witness statement on oath of 18/11//16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C13. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his witness statement on oath is that as an employee of the Defendants he was arrested in the course of going to deliver diesel and prosecuted and eventually discharged; that while in prison custody he was ill and not properly taken care of medically; the when he was eventually released he sought medical attention and incurred some expenses. Claimant added that when he approached the Managing Director of the Defendant, the latter drove him out and asked him not to return to work. Under cross examination the witness stated that the Defendant did not give him letter of employment but gave him staff I.D Card; that Defendant was paying him =N=50,000 monthly; that his statement of account shows this; that Defendant agreed on =N=50,000 as his monthly salary; that the Defendant’s Lawyer did not secure his bail at Abeokuta; that at the Federal High Court Lagos a Lawyer employed by Defendant secured his bail; that he reported for work everyday and to be paid =N=50,000 monthly; that when he was sick and in the prison he had a boy who was working in his stead and paid the boy; that he knows the name of Counsel appeared for him at Abeokuta; that his name is S.A. Egbuwabi; that he is aware that the Counsel who defended him was from Atima K.A. & Co. Akure; that he is not aware that the firm was briefed by Defendant to represent him; that he was discharged and acquitted.; that the Court found that the Diesel he was carrying on that day was adulterated according to judgment of Court; that Defendant is owing him outstanding monthly salary; that he could not have left Defendant then because he had a case pending with the Police; that he worked all days including Sunday and 1st day of January and that he has never had any leave while with Defendant. 3. Case of the Defendant On 11/7/17, the Defendant opened its case and called one Dominic Owomoiyere as its lone witness. The witness having adopted his witness statement on oath dated 7/7/17 tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The 8 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D8. The simple case put forward by the Defendant is that the Claimant was not its permanent staff but rather a casual worker; that the Claimant was always paid commission on the basis of the work done rather than being on a permanent salary; that the Claimant did not attend any Hospital as claimed but only wanted to extort money from the Defendant and that the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant for any sum of money. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he was employed by Defendant in 2014; that there is no parameter stated for paying Drivers of Defendant on distance covered; that Defendant did not provide any sureties for the Claimant during this case in Abeokuta; that no document is tendered herein proof of any money paid to the Claimant while in prison; that the Claimant was charged alone at Abeokuta; that the Claimant was on official duty when he was arrested by Civil Defence Corps; that the Defendant wanted to provide Surety for the Claimant at Abeokuta but his brother opted to provide one; that the Managing Director of Defendant was not charged; that the purpose of an I.D. Card is to enable the Claimant deliver products on behalf of Defendant; that the commission payable to the Claimant depends on the distance he covers and whether there is heavy traffic on the route; that it was not the fault of the Claimant that he was arrested and detained in Prison; that the Claimant was employed as a Casual Worker; that he was not issued letter of employment and that the Claimant worked for 2 years before he was dismissed. 4. Final Written Addresses of Counsel The final Written Address of the Defendant was filed on 5/9/17. In it learned Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination - 1. Whether the claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of credible evidence to entitle him the Claim against the defendant & 2. Whether the defence has adduced credible evidence in defence of the claim for a dismissal of the claim. Learned Counsel to the Claimant on the other hand filed his final written address on 27/9/17 and set a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether by the evidence led in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant has proofed his case as a full staff of the Defendant not a casual worker vis-à-vis whether he deserves his entitlements. Finally, learned Counsel to the Defendant on 5/10/17 filed a Defendant Reply on Point of Law. I carefully read and understood all these addresses including the reply on points of law. I shall make references to these addresses if and when deemed necessary in this Judgment. 5. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I listened patiently to the testimonies of the witnesses called by the parties at trial as well as watched their demeanor. I also carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. In addition, I heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel on either side. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to be as follows - Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficiently cogent and admissible evidence in support of his case for a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought. The duty is on the Claimant to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought. The proof must be with cogent, credible and admissible evidence. See Mogaji v. Cadbury Nig. Ltd (1972) 2 SC 97; Omoregbe v. Lawan (1980) 3-4 SC 108; Fasoro v. Beyioku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 263; Nwabuoku v. Attih (1961) 2 SCNLR 232; Omo v. JSC Delta State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt. 682) 444; WAEC v. Oshioneto (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 272. The reliefs sought by the Claimant in this case can be easily placed under the following broad heads - 1. Arrears of salary, 2. Payment of medical bills, 3. General damages & 4 Cost of action. The Claimant sought payment of arrears of his salary in the sum of =N=799,590.00 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Naira only) as at August, 2014 to July, 2016. Parties agreed that they were in some form of employment relationship leading to the present suit and the claim respecting outstanding salaries. It is the case of the Claimant that he was employed by the Defendant and placed on a monthly salary of =N=50,000.00; that he was not given any letter of employment but that he was given a staff identity card of the Defendant; that his salary of =N=50,000.00 per month was only fully paid few months and that he had outstanding salaries in the sum stated. The argument canvassed by the Defendant is that the Claimant was not a full time staff of the Defendant; that he was indeed a casual worker; that he was not placed on any monthly salary but he was paid on commission basis. Let me state from the onset that the only controversy respecting issue of payment of salary was in the nature of employment as to whether it is a casual employment or a full time one. Now in proof of his case the Claimant tendered Exh. C1 a staff identity card No: 000172 which simply states as follows - ''This is to certify that the bearer whose name, photograph and signature appear overleaf is a staff of WOSIMS GLOBAL RESOURCES LIMITED'' and Exh. C10 - Bank statement of account of the Claimant. Perusing Exh. C10, I found out that the Defendant paid =N=50,000.00 to the account of the Claimant on 18/3/14 & 16/5/14. Aside from these, payments by the Defendant into the Bank account of the Claimant remained staggered with sums for as small as =N=6,400.00 for instant on 19/2/16. The Claimant had made averments respecting the shortfalls in his salary. I find the argument of learned Counsel to the Defendant to the effect that the Claimant was a casual worker and was only paid for the days he worked for the Defendant unsatisfactory and lacking in dept. I dare say that a worker is a worker irrespective of the nature of work being done. The important thing is that an employed individual is making useful contribution to the development and progress of an organisation. There is dignity of labour after all. While the Claimant tendered exhibits in support of this head of claim, the Defendant was bereft of cogent evidence in support of that position. I am satisfied that the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant a grant of this head of claim and I so do. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the arrears of his salary in the sum of =N=799,590.00 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Naira only) as at August, 2014 to July, 2016. I am inclined to add that there is no situation accepted as justifying failure to pay the salary of an employee as agreed. A labourer, it said, is entitled to his wages. I have had reason to make these comments before now and will not hesitate to repeat same here for emphasis. Adebusola Adedayo Omole v. Mainstreet Bank Microfinance Bank Limited Suit No: NICN/LA/341/2012, a Judgment of this Court delivered on 3/4/14 is on all fur in respect of reduction of salary. Some of my holdings in that case are relevant to the present case. In that case this Court had stated and I here restate that it is important for it to be said here and now that at the global level a unilateral reduction in the wages and salaries of workers is not acceptable. We must bear in mind that no nation can be an island to herself and any nation that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. Thus, the need to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with what is obtainable at the international scene found reflection in the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Thus the Act in section 7(6) provides as follows: 'The Court (that is National Industrial Court of Nigeria) shall, exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact'. More importantly, by section 254C1(h) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act 2010 the Court is endowed with power to have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters 'relating to or connected with or pertaining to the application or interpretation of international labour standards'. One method of gauging or determining international labour standards is an examination of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed the International Labour Organisation has for a long time frown at any act of unilateral deduction of workers' wages. Thus, the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 No. 95 specifically provides in Article 8 that - 'Deduction from wages shall be permitted only under conditions and to the extent prescribed by national laws or regulations or fixed by collective agreement or arbitration award. Workers shall be informed, in the manner deemed most appropriate by the competent authority, of the conditions under which and the extent to which such deductions may be made'. The above Article of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) has since been incorporated into domestic legislation. In this wise, Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 unequivocally provides that: 'Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act or any other law, no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deduction from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker, or to any payment to the employer by the worker, for or in respect of any fines: Provided that, with the prior consent in writing of an authorised labour officer, a reasonable deduction may be made in respect of injury or loss caused to the employer by the willful misconduct or neglect of the worker' The word used by both the Labour Act and the Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95) is 'Deduction' and not 'Reduction'. However, The New International WEDSTER'S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 2000 Edition page 334, defined the word 'Deduct' as 'To subtract', 'take away' while the word 'deduction' was explained as 'subtraction'. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary International Student's Edition on the other hand defined the word 'Deduct' on page 381 to mean 'to take away money, etc from a total amount'. The same Dictionary explained the word 'Deduction' to mean 'the process of taking an amount of, especially money away from a total'. Within the context of the ILO Convention No. 95 and the necessary intendment of the Legislature in enacting the Labour Act in general and the provisions of section 5(1) thereof, it is doubtful if it can be reasonably contended that the word 'Deduction' used therein convey a meaning different from the word 'Reduce'. Secondly, the Claimant sought payment to him of the sum of =N=1,256,000.00 as medical expenses incurred in treating himself at two separate times he was admitted at Divine Success Medical Child and Maternity Home of No. 8, Adebayo Street, Owode Ota, Ogun State. The particulars of the bills were provided. The Claimant also tendered Exh. C2 - Exh. C4 & Exh. C7, Exh. C8 & Exh. C9. These exhibits are the demand letters, receipts of payments and medical report of the Claimant. I watched the demeanor of the Claimant in the course of his evidence including under cross examination. There is controversy on whether or not the Claimant was really sick as claimed. It was the position of the Defendant that the documentary evidence tendered by the Claimant especially the Medical Reports were fabricated so as to extort money from the Defendant. Unfortunately, the Claimant did not call the Medical Doctor who attended to him to testify and be subjected to cross examination. I have reason to doubt the contents of these exhibits. It is mandatory for the Claimant to adduce cogent evidence in support of his case. See Oyediran & Ors. v. Adegbite & Ors. (2013) LPELR-22205(CA). For, it is then and only then that he would be entitled to positive disposition by the Court. It is my finding that this head of relief is not proved. Same is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. The Claimant equally sought payment of the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) as General Damages for wrongful dismissal, for pain, anguish and suffering the Claimant went through both at the Ikoyi and Oba Abeokuta prisons for offence he did not know about nor committed for sorrow, torment and distress his family suffered during his ordeal. In an action for wrongful dismissal, the Claimant has the burden of proving his condition of employment. This is to be done by placing before his contract of employment or letter of appointment stating the terms and conditions of his engagement. Once this is done, it is then up to the Claimant to prove to the Court who has the power to disengage his services, under what condition and what has made his dismissal wrongful within the confines of the applicable terms and conditions. See Pfizer Incorporated & Anor. Mohammed (2013) LPELR-22354(CA). In the instant case, the Claimant did not tender his letter of employment or contract of employment. Indeed, the contention of the Claimant was that he was not issued any such letter or contract. The other leg of the general damages sought is for for pain, anguish and suffering the Claimant went through both at the Ikoyi and Oba Abeokuta prisons for offence he did not know about nor committed for sorrow, torment and distress his family suffered during his ordeal. There is no evidence before the Court to the effect that the Defendant was instrumental to the arrest and criminal trial of the Claimant. It is also not argued that the Defendant was indeed the party that arrested or caused the arrest of the Claimant. The agency of the government that arrested and prosecuted the Claimant did so in the discharge of its constitutional responsibility. Unfortunately, that agency of the government is not joined as a party to this suit. I find no basis upon which to award general or any damages at all against the Defendant as sought by the Claimant. I thus refuse and dismiss this head of relief as well. Finally, for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, I hold that the case of the Claimant succeeds in part as follows - 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the arrears of his salary in the sum of =N=799,590.00 (Seven Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Naira only) as at August, 2014 to July, 2016 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from July 2016 until final liquidation. 2. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 as cost of this action. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge