Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims On the 11th of June 2012, the Claimants approached this Court via their General Form of Complaint and sought the following reliefs - 1. A total sum of =N=2,204,946.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Six Naira) being the total sum entitled to by the claimants as benefits of service rendered to the defendant by the claimants. 2. =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of this action. The General Form of Complaint was filed together with a statement of facts, list of witnesses, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant entered an appearance to this suit on 31/8/12 and by leave of Court the Defendant filed its amended statement of defence on 14/7/15 accompanying same with all frontloaded processes as required by the Rules of Court. 2. Case of the Claimants Claimants opened their case on 6/3/14. Their lone witness Bakare Fatai adopted his witness deposition dated 22/1/13 as his evidence in chief and tendered 18 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C18. The case of the Claimants is that they were former employees of the Defendant who were respectively employed at various time between 2006 and 2007 with the letters of confirmation of their employments issued by the Defendant; that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 9th Claimants’ employment were terminated by the Defendant on 30/6/11, the 5th and 6th Claimants’ employment were terminated by the Defendant on 12/19/11 while the employments of the 4th and 8th Claimants were terminated by the Defendant between 30/6/11 and 12/10/11 with payment in lieu of notice as required by their Contract of employment agreements and the defendant’s handbook; that the Claimants besides the entitlements paid were also entitled to compensatory benefits of four weeks’ pay for each completed year of service in the employment of the defendant and that the Defendant refused to pay to the claimants upon termination of the claimants’ employments, compensatory benefits of four weeks’ pay for each completed year of service in its employment. Under cross examination, the witness testified that he is the 2nd Claimant in this case; that he was employed on 1/7/07; that other Claimants were employed at different dates; that he knows the name of the Defendant was changed from NAMTECA WA Ltd to the present name; that he and others received contract of employment with Defendant; that he has not read the contract very well; that his contract of employment was dated 1/6/07 while other Claimants have different dates on their contract. Witness added that he signed for and received a copy of the Defendant Staff Handbook in early January 2007; that he was not given notice before his appointment was terminated; that he is a Junior staff; that Clause 26 of the Exh. C17 1-14 is the same with other Claimants; that other Claimants were also confirmed staff of Defendant; that the Claimants were given one month salary in lieu of notice; that Claimants were given Leave Allowance, the accrued Leave Allowance and leave pay provision; that his salary for the month his appointment was terminated was given to him; that Defendant also contributes to Claimants' Pension Fund Administrators; that he has accessed/collected some money from his PFA; that his PFA is IBTC and some of the Claimants; that he cannot remember those Claimants having IBTC as their PFA; that he does not know if other Claimants have accessed the pensions; that he knows only of his own; that other Claimants have the right to go to IBTC to collect their pensions; that all Claimants were paid as he was paid 1 month salary in lieu of notice, accrued Leave allowance and Leave pay provision; that the Claimants want to be paid 1 month salary for every year we work with Defendant before termination of their appointment in accordance with the policy of the Defendant; that this is not stated in the contract they signed with the Defendant. Witness further testified that he did not go to the Lagos State Mediation Centre; that his entitlement was not paid to him in cash but rather paid to the Company’s Co-operative Society to pay off my indebtedness to the cooperative. 3. Case of the Defendant On 13/5/14, the Defendant opened its defence and called one Azeem Adekunle as its witness. Witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 31/8/12 as his evidence in chief but was not presented for cross examination. Having failed to substitute another witness learned Counsel to the Defendant urged the Court on 27/4/15 to discountenance the evidence of the witness and did not call any other witness in this case. It will mean for all intents and purposes that the Defendant did not defend this case. 4. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant At the close of trial, only the learned Counsel to the Claimants filed a final written address. It was dated and filed on 5/10/16. In it, learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed in this suit on the pleadings and preponderance of evidence led by the claimants in this suit. Arguing this lone issue, Counsel submitted that the Court is to determine whether the Claimants are entitled to compensatory benefits of four weeks for each completed year of service in the employment of the Defendant. Counsel referred to Exh. C16 (which he erroneously called defendant's handbook) as defining 'Redundancy' on page 24; that by virtue of Section 128, Evidence Act, 2011, there is nothing parties can do to circumvent the meaning of documentary evidence before the Court; that ''the only rational and logical inference that can be made from page 24 of the defendant's handbook (Exhibit C16(1-4) in the circumstances of this acse is that the Claimants' employment if terminated as a result of excess manpower, the Claimants shall be entitled to his(sic) accrued terminal benefit together with compensatory benefits of four weeks pay for each completed year of service in the employment of the company''. Counsel added that the letters of termination of the Claimants need not contain the word Redundancy for them to be entitled to the benefits as contained in Exh. C16; that the word Redundancy is mere semantics; that the employment of the Claimants were terminated at a time there was excess of manpower in the company and the Claimants had little or no work to do for months in the company and are therefore entitled to the compensatory benefit sought citing Olanrewaju v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2001)7 S.C (Pt. III) 8 & Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599. Learned Counsel therefore prayed the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimants and grant their claims. 5. Decision I read and understood all the processes filed in this case. I attentively listened to and watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial. I also carefully perused and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case to be - Whether the Claimants have proved their case to be entitled to the reliefs sought or any of them. The history of this case is a chequered one. Though the Defendant led its witness for evidence in chief, the witness was never presented to be cross examined. This, according to learned Counsel was because the witness had left the services of the Defendant. Thus, pursuant to application by learned Counsel to the Defendant the testimony of the witness was discountenanced. Efforts and steps by Counsel to call another witness was also unsuccessful. Claimants closed their case as far back as 6/3/14 and the Court had no choice than to close the case of the Defendant, pursuant to Order 19 Rule 10(3), National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 on 12/1/16. There being no evidence led by the Defendant in its defence, the pleadings filed are thus deemed abandoned. See Yesufu & Ors. v. Oke baale (Osogbo) NUT Co-Operative Investment and Credit Society Limited & Anor. (2014) LPELR-22102 (cA). Notwithstanding however that the Defendant, technically did not defend this suit, it does not remove the burden on the Claimants to adduce credible evidence for the purpose of proving their case. For, the burden of proof remains always on he who asserts. See Chairman, EFCC & Anor v. Littlechild & Anor (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA). The claims of the 9 Claimants in this case against the Defendant is for the sum of =N=2,204,946.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Six Naira) being the total sum entitled to by the claimants as benefits of service rendered to the defendant by the claimants as well as the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as cost of this action. The assertion of the Claimants is that they are entitled to the stated sum. Being their assertion, they are under an obligation to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of their assertions. For it is then and only then that the Court will find a basis to make a grant. It follows therefore that where these assertions are not backed up or supported by admissible evidence, the claims are liable to be dismissed. The facts of this case is not that the Claimants' employment was wrongfully terminated or that they were wrongfully dismissed from same or even that their terminal benefits were not paid. Rather the contention of the Claimants is that, pursuant to the Defendant Handbook (Exh. C18), they were entitled to redundancy benefit in addition to their terminal benefit. The law is trite that in a master/servant relationship, a master is not obliged to give reason for terminating the employment of its servant just as a servant need not give reason for deciding to leave the services of his master. However, where a reason is given, same must be justified. The contention of the Claimants is that they were all entitled to redundancy/compensatory benefits aside from their paid terminal benefits. They argued that their employment was terminated on ground of redundancy. Now what is the content, necessary intent and spirit of the letter of termination in this case? What reason, if any, was given for the termination of the employment of the Claimants? Exh. C9 is the letter conveying the termination of the employment of the 3rd Claimant to him. The letter stated thus - ''MR. ADELEKE ADESHINA TOBI (203) June 30, 2011. 19, Adebisi Street, Opesa Ipaja Ayobo, Lagos State. Dear Mr. Adeleke, Re: Termination of Appointment We regret to inform you that your services will no longer be required with effect from 1st July, 2011. That means your last working day with Altech West Africa Limited is 30th June, 2011. You will be paid the following entitlements: 1. Salary up to and including 30th June, 2011 (you have been paid full salary for the month of June, 2011). 2. Leave pay pro-rata (if any). 3. Payment in lieu if unspent accumulated leave days (if any). 4. One month’s pay in lieu of notice. 5. Any other relevant pay. Less 1. Any statutory deductions or indebtedness. Please submit your ID card, access card, uniform, safety boot and any other company property that may be in your possession before you collect the above payment. We thank you for your past services to the company. Yours faithfully, For: Altech W.A. Limited. Ademola Jenfa Ayinla Ogunbiyi Human Resources Manager. Head: Corporate Services. Cc: Manager Accounts''. Now, Exh. C9 happens to be the same in content as safe the names as sent to the other Claimants in this case. That exhibit did not state the reason for the termination of the services of the Claimants. It merely indicated that the services of the Claimants were no longer required and went on to state the entitlements of the Claimants. Claimants did not argue before me that their entitlements as contained in their letters of disengagement were not paid. Claimants did not contend that the calculation of their entitlements were not properly done. A documentary evidence necessarily speaks for itself and no oral evidence will be allowed to alter, add to or vary the contents of a written document. See Roba Investment Limited v. Arewa Metal Containers (2010) LPELR-4900 (CA). A documentary evidence is indeed more often than not the best form of evidence. See Rangaza v. Micro Plastic Company Limited (2013) LPELR-20303 (CA) & Ebem & Anor. Nseyen (2016) LPELR. I therefore find and hold that there is nothing in the letter terminating the services of the Claimants respecting the reason for the termination. I further hold that the letters of termination of the services of the Claimants did not indicate their entitlement to any redundancy benefits. Learned Counsel to the Claimants referred to the Defendant's Employee Handbook as the basis for the claims of the Claimants. That document was tendered, admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C18. On page 24 under the heading titled REDUNDANCY, the 4th paragraph states as follows - ''Any employee who is declared redundant shall be entitled to his accrued terminal benefit together with compensatory benefits at rates indicate below''. It is therefore obvious from the quoted portions that for an employee to take advantage of that provision the employer must have declared him/her to be redundant. Did the defendant declare the Claimants redundant in the instant case to be able to take advantage of the available benefit under Exh. C18? I answer in the negative as no evidence was led disclosing declaration of redundancy by the Defendant. See also Section 20, Labour Act. Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. I find no legal or equitable basis to grant the claims of the Claimant as put forward. The Defendant did not declare redundancy and the services of the Claimants were not disengaged on the basis of redundancy. I therefore refuse and dismiss the claim for the sum of =N=2,204,946.00 as claimed same not having been proved by credible and admissible evidence. The second relief is for the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 as cost of this action. The Claimants having failed to prove their main claim, the basis for cost of action is punctured and cannot stand. the main relief is the foundation upon which any cost of action would have been founded. It is trite that a man, and a woman too, cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will certainly collapse. See MacFoy v. UAC (1962) A.C 152. Thus in the same manner I refuse and dismiss the claim for cost of this action. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimants is dismissed in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge