Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant by his Complaint and statement of facts dated 15/8/14 commenced this suit against the Defendants praying the court for the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendants is still extant and continuing for failure of the Defendants to give effective notice of termination. An Order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimant arrears of salary from 1st day of May, 2014 till her employment with the Defendants is validly determined by effective notice of termination of employment. 2. The sum of =N=198,700.00 (One Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand Naira only) made up as follows: i. =N=120,000.00 being the Defendant’s pension contribution for the period of 20 months unpaid. ii. =N=72,000.00 being the Claimant’s pension for the months of November, 2013 to April, 2014. iii. =N=6,700.00 being unremitted pension in respect of the three months maternity leave allowance. 3. Compound interest of 10% per month on the sum claimed in No. 3 above from 1st of September, 2012 (and other accruals as they fell due) till judgment is delivered and 10% per annum until order of Court is complied with. 4. Refund of =N=126,608 (One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand and Six Hundred and Eight Kobo) being the money fraudulently deducted in excess of the Claimant’s pension and tax. 5. Compound interest of 10%, per month on the sum claimed in No. 5 above from 1st of September, 2012 till judgment is delivered and 10% per annum until order of court is complied with. 6. The default fees for the late remittances of the Claimant’s pension. 7. Compound interest on the sum lately paid as tax from date of deductions till date of payment and thereafter, 10% per annum until order of court is complied with. 8. =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira only) being compensation for damages suffered by the Claimant. 9. =N=1,500,000.00 (One Million and Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) being the cost of this action. The Claimant accompanied his Complaint with statement facts, witness deposition, list of witnesses as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. A statement of defence was filed on 26/10/14 and the Claimant filed a reply on 6/11/14. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened her case on 29/4/15 and testified in chief adopting his witness depositions dated 15/8/14 & 6/11/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 14 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C13. Two additional documents were tendered during cross examination and were admitted and marked as Exh. C14-Exh. C15.The case of the Claimant is that she was employed as a Mathematics Teacher by the Defendants on the 28th day of August, 2012 and was placed under six months’ probation; that she successfully completed the probation and got her appointment confirmed; that while in the employment of the Defendants, the Claimant got married and became pregnant; that she then applied for Maternity Leave vide a letter dated 24th day of March, 2014 attaching her doctor’s report and that the Defendants terminated her appointment, hence this action. Under cross examination, witness testified that she was employed to live in the Hostel to supervise children in Boarding house and as Mathematics Teacher; that she lived in the Hostel and got married in July 2013; that the school gave her the use of the School Hall for free during her marriage ceremony; that after the wedding she applied to the Defendant to be excused from House Parent duty and Defendant agreed but increased my work load as Mathematics & Further Mathematics Teacher; that all Teachers are not Houseparent; that her salary was =N=80,000.00 as a House Parent/Mathematics Teacher; that when she moved out of the Hostel the sum of =N=12,500.00 was removed from her salary being Hostel allowance; that her new salary was =N=67,500.00; that she later applied for salary review to the Defendant and the Defendant replied her. Claimant added that subsequent payments to her were made =N=80,000.00 notwithstanding Exh. C15; that her salary was reviewed to =N=80,000.00; that she could not remember how many queries she received while with the Defendant; that Defendant issued her a query to explain why some students who were not doing well in mathematics before started doing well under her; that there was no Unified Test for Second Term at the Defendant; that it applies only in the 1st Term; that there are however some examinations usually taken by all the students and that she would not be surprised that Henry Olieh who had 77% in the Continuous Assessment had 44% in the general assessment. 3. Case of the Defendant Defendant opened their defence on 8/2/16. One Muraina Olusesi testified as DW1, adopted his witness depositions dated 27/10/14 and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.MO1-Exh. MO8 respectively. Under cross examination the witness testified that he is aware of the academic side of this case; that he knew the Claimant based on the application she wrote for employment; that the total salary of the Claimant while with the Defendant was =N=67,500.00 and =N=12,500 as allowance for being House Parent; that the School Bursar is in a position to tell the Court deduction from Claimant salary as Tax and Pensions; that the Bursary will provide answer to how much the take home pay of the Claimant monthly was; that the Claimant’s appointment was terminated because of falsification of record; that he does not know why the Claimant was paid half salary in the month of February 2014; that he does not know if the Claimant applied for Maternity Leave and got for letter of termination of appointment the day same was to commence; that the Claimant was to commence her Maternity Leave on 1/5/14; that her letter of termination of appointment was to be effective on 1/5/14; that he does not have any document to back the fact of increase of Claimant’s salary; that he does not know if Defendant did not remit the tax deducted from Claimant’s salary; that he has been in Lagos since 1980’s and that he pays his tax. In reexamination, the witness stated that the records falsified by the Claimant were the academic record/sheets of the students in Mathematics. Julius Olufemi who testified as DW2, adopted his statement on oath dated 27/10/14 as his evidence in chief. Under cross examination that he knew the facts of this case; that Claimant was a staff of the Defendant; that Claimant salary was =N=67,500.00 and additional =N=12,500. as allowance for being House Mistress; that this was on her resumption; that the sum of about =N=3 as tax; that Claimant’s take home is =N=67,061.46; that the monthly take home may not remain constant because there may be deductions from staff salary such as deductions for absenteeism and late coming although this is not part of our pleadings. Witness stated further that Tax was deducted from Claimant’s first salary; that the Defendant remits tax to Lagos State Government every month; that he does not know why Claimant was paid half salary in February 2014; that he does not know Claimant’s appointment was terminated the day she was to commence her Maternity Leave; that the content of paragraph 13 of his statement on oath is a reflection of payment as contained in the Defendant schedule; that they are not usually contained in the letter of appointment and that the Claimant was not aware of this breakdown before she took up the appointment with the Defendant. 4. Final Written Addresses of Counsel At the close of trial, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. Learned Counsel to the Defendant did not file any final written address despite opportunities afforded it to do so. Counsel to the Claimant however filed an 8-paragraph final written address in which Counsel canvassed argument on 2 main issues as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has suffered damages traceable to the actions or inactions of the Defendants and 2. Whether or not the Defendant has presented sufficient material evidence before this Honourable court to disprove the case of the Claimant. I read all the processes filed by Counsel and understood same. I propose to refer to the final written address of the Claimant whenever same is found imperative in the course of this Judgment. 5. Decision I read all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side and I understood same. I listened to the submissions of learned Counsel for the Claimant while adopting Claimant's final written address. I should note that learned Counsel to the Defendant did not file final written address in this case and hence did not adopt any. I heard the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor as well. In addition, I carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted during the hearing of this case. The learned Counsel to the Claimant set down these 2 issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has suffered damages traceable to the actions or inactions of the Defendants. 2. Whether or not the Defendant has presented sufficient material evidence before this Honourable court to disprove the case of the Claimant. It is my belief however that the following lone issue is apt for the just determination of this case thus - Whether the Claimant has proved her case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. From time immemorial, the state of the law in this country has always been that he who asserts must prove the assertion. See 131 (1) & (2), Evidence Act, 2011. Thus whoever approaches the Court for judicial reliefs must be prepared to adduce cogent and admissible evidence in support. Otherwise the Court will be at liberty to refuse and dismiss the reliefs sought accordingly. Therefore determining whether the Claimant in this case has proved her case suffices for the justice of this case. I should point out that the Claimant has not sought a declaration to the effect that her appointment was wrongfully terminated. In all the Claimant sought about 10 reliefs. The first is for a declaration that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendants is still extant and continuing for failure of the Defendants to give effective notice of termination. In her evidence in chief and specifically in paragraph 9 of her statement on oath, the Claimant however testified that while she was pregnant and had applied for Maternity Leave she was issued a letter terminating her appointment. Claimant further tendered Exh. C3 which is the letter terminating her appointment with the Defendant. Claimant had argued that she was not given requisite notice. Exh. C3 was dated 1/4/14 and was to be effective on 1/5/14. The letter had effectively brought the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant to an end. The Claimant could therefore not continue to treat same as existing. I refuse and dismiss this head of relief as sought there being no basis to grant same. In much the same vein, the second relief for an Order of the Honourable Court compelling the Defendants to pay the Claimant arrears of salary from 1st day of May, 2014 till her employment with the Defendants is validly determined by effective notice of termination of employment is refused and dismissed. Claimant ceased to be a staff of the Defendant from 1/5/14. The Court will therefore not order payment of salaries for services not rendered. See Olatunbosun vs. NISER (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 55-56 and N.M.B. vs. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111 at 117. Thirdly, the Claimant sought payment of the sum of =N=198,700.00 (One Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand Naira only). This head is said to be made up of =N=120,000.00 being the Defendant’s pension contribution for the period of 20 months unpaid, =N=72,000.00 being the Claimant’s pension for the months of November, 2013 to April, 2014 and =N=6,700.00 being unremitted pension in respect of the three months maternity leave allowance. The claim under this head is in the nature of special damages. The law requires that it be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. See Agunwa v. Onukwe (1962)1 All NLR 537. Respecting the claim for =N=120,000.00 being the pension contribution for the period of 20 months unpaid, the period in question is not made known by the Claimant. For instant which months were involved? Again respecting =N=72,000.00 being the Claimant's pension for the months of November 2013 to April 2014 I find some confusion here. I find for instant that by Exh. C8 (page 2) remittances were made by the Defendant for the months of November 2013, March & April 2014. This head of relief is not strictly proved as required. Same reason applies with respect to the claim for =N=6,700. I thus refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof as required by law. Since this relief is not proved the claim for interest of 10% per annum on the sum is equally refused and dismissed. The 5th relief sought by the Claimant is for refund of =N=126,608 (One Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand and Six Hundred and Eight Kobo) being the money fraudulently deducted in excess of the Claimant’s pension and tax. Again this is a claim which is akin to special damages. It must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. The Claimant ought to show the Court how much ought to have been deducted and how much was eventually deducted for each of pension and tax. This relief is refused and in similar vein, the relief for Compound interest of 10% per month on same from 1/9/12 till judgment is delivered and 10% per annum until order of court is complied with is also refused and dismissed. The Claimant has made some complaints respecting late remittances of her pension as well as late payment of deductions to appropriate authorities. I have taken the time to carefully and patiently perused the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. I find merit in some of these complaints. For instance, on Exh. C8 the Defendant was remitting =N=1,818.75 monthly as pension contribution of the Claimant from 22/1/13 to 17/4/14 to her Pension Fund Administrator. Yet in May 2014, Defendant remitted the sum of =N=14,700.00. Unfortunately, the Claimant has not presented her case in a way to afford this Court opportunity to make order as may be found appropriate. Notwithstanding that however, I think it is not out of place for this Court to request both the tax and pension authorities to beam their search light on the books of the Defendant in this case and I so direct. The Claimant sought payment to her of the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira only) being compensation for damages suffered by her. The statute establishing this Court allows it to, '' ... in all other cases and where necessary make any appropriate order, including an award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by the Act or any other Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear''. See Section 19(d), National Industrial Court Act, 2006. The Claimant in this case had applied to the Defendant for Maternity Leave to commence on1/5/14. Exh. C2 was the application and it was dated 24/3/14. Claimant attached a copy of her Doctor's Report to the application. I find no evidence of the approval of that request for maternity leave. Rather by Exh. C3 dated 1/4/14 the employment of the Claimant was terminated to be effective on 1/5/14 the day Claimant was to commence her maternity leave. It is my position that employers of labour must treat their employees with some form of decorum and respect and as humans above all. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to be compensated for the manner in which she was disengaged by the Defendant more importantly given her status as a pregnant woman. Taking cognisance of the facts, circumstances of this case and the conduct of the Defendant, I award to the Claimant the sum of One Million Naira (=N=1,000,000.00) as compensation for the damage she suffered as a result of the conduct of the Defendant. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only to the Claimant as cost of this action. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge