Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this action by a Complaint filed in this court on 21st September 2015. In his Complaint, the Claimant sought the following reliefs: 1. A Declaration that the purported redundancy without regards to her own terms and condition of service and other corpus of our laws is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconscionable, unconstitutional, and null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his redundancy payments. 3. An Order of this honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant all the outstanding arrears of his allowances which include leave allowance, utility allowance, medical allowance, transfer allowance, rent allowance, transport allowance, meal allowance, end-of-year bonus and redundancy payment in accordance with Defendant’s junior staff condition of service and the national Joint Industrial Council November 2011 (NJIC) terms and condition of service. The breakdown as follows: 1. Rent subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N1,134,000 2. Transport allowances (4 years and 3 months) = N 362,100 3. Meal subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N 340,200 4. Medical allowances (5 years and 3 months) = N 352,800 5. Utility allowance (5 years and 3 months) = N 236,250 6. Leave allowance (5 years) = N 259,200 7. Transfer allowance = N 66,000 8. End of year bonus (5 years) = N 180,000 9. Redundancy payment = N 180,000 TOTAL = N 3,110,550 Pleadings were duly exchanged and hearing commenced denovo on the 7th day of March 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1 while one Salawu Kehinde testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended the same day 7th March 2018 and the court ordered counsel to file their final written addresses in accordance with the rules of court. Addresses were duly filed and regularized on 14th June 2018. Parties adopted their respective final written addresses on the 24th day of September 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proof of his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness. His case is that he was employed by the Defendant as a welder on 10th March 2010 and he was given an identity card with number PJ-136. The Claimant also said his monthly basic salary was the sum of N36,000. He stated further that he worked for the Defendant until June 2015 when he was rendered redundant in disregard of the terms of the Junior Staff revised condition of service and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) 2011 which binds the Defendant. When the Defendant refused to pay him and 11 other affected staff their redundancy benefits, their lawyer wrote to the Defendant. The Claimant said he was transferred from Ibadan to Abuja in 2011 but he was not paid his transfer allowance. The Defendant also owes him rent, meal, medical, utility, transfer, end-of-year, leave, and redundancy allowances which he is entitled by virtue of the Junior Staff condition of service and NJIC. The unpaid sum was itemised by the Claimant as follows: rent subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N1,134,000; transport allowances (4 years and 3 months) = N362,100; meal subsidy (5 years and 3 months) = N340,200; medical allowances (5 years and 3 months) = N352,800; Utility allowance (5 years and 3 months) = N236,250; Leave allowance (5 years) = N259,200; transfer allowance = N66,000; End of year bonus (5 years) = N180,000; redundancy payment = N180,000. The total sum of these allowances was put at the sum of N3,110,550 by the Claimant The Claimant also said from the time he started work with the Defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from his salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension. The only information he has about his pension is since 2013. Since 2015, the Defendant refused to pay him his redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. His family is now undergoing hardship as a result. The Claimant urged the court to grant his claims. DEFENDANT’S CASE In defence of the action, the Defendant called one Kehinde Salawu, the personnel manager of the Defendant, as its witness. The witness, in his evidence, told the court that the Claimant was not employed in 2010 but in 2014. The Claimant had never worked for the Defendant prior to his employment in 2014. The Claimant’s employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014 and his identity card was issued on 1st August 2014 with staff no. PJ-136. DW1 also said that the Claimant worked for the Defendant until 2015 when he was affected with redundancy along with few other workers of the Defendant. The Claimant’s basic salary is less than N36,000. His monthly salary includes prescribed allowances, and a breakdown of his April 2015 income shows that his net salary was N29,371.13. The payment of monthly salaries depends on the number of days the Claimant worked for the month. This is shown in the daily job card signed by the Claimant each day he comes to work. It was used to calculate his salaries which were paid to him in addition to accrued bonuses. DW1 testified further that the Claimant was rendered redundant because the contract he was employed to work on was nearing completion. It is the custom to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. The Claimant was paid his allowances on monthly basis throughout his employment. The redundancy allowance is a month’s salary paid in lieu of notice. The Claimant was paid this allowance and he is not entitled to allowances he claims covering period of 5 years because he spent barely 2 years in the employment. The Claimant’s pension deductions were remitted to Sigma Pension. The Claimant is entitled to approach the pension fund administrator for his up-to-date statement of account. DW1 said further that PAYE, NSITF, Fines and union deductions were also deducted from the Claimant’s salaries. All these entitlements and deductions are reflected in the Claimant’s monthly pay slips. The witness urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s case. Upon the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses which were adopted on 24/9/2018. DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS The Defendant filed his final written address on the 4th day of May 2018 wherein the counsel submitted three issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the documents relied upon by the Claimant supports any of the heads of his claims. 2. Whether by virtue of redundancy, the Claimant's employment has been lawfully terminated, without malice or ill-will. 3. Whether oral evidence can be adduced or admitted to contradict and or vary the contents of documentary evidence tendered and admitted in Court. On Issue 1, counsel placed reliance on the Defendant's Revised Junior Staff Internal Condition of Service, 2014, particularly Article 18, and the National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) 2011, learned and submitted that the Claimant failed to show the Court that the documents relied upon by him at trial confers on him the purported redundancy and other allowances he claimed. Counsel asserted that the Claimant was employed and was confirmed in 2014 and that all entitlements, benefits and allowances were duly paid and that the Claimant's action is pre-mature. On Issue 2, counsel placed reliance on the pronouncement of court in the case of SAMUEL ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 289 and submitted that where an employee is declared redundant, he cannot come back to claim other benefits or allowances after his employment has been lawfully terminated. Counsel reiterated that the Claimant has not shown to the Court how the terms of contract of his employment with the Defendant conferred on him any of the purported allowances claimed by him. On Issue 3, counsel placed reliance on AIKI vs. IDOWU (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 984) 47 @ 65 and OGBEIDE vs. OSIFO (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 423 @ 441 and submitted that the Claimant admitted been paid monthly emolument by the Defendant and that by virtue of Exhibit P1, which is the pay slip of the Claimant's monthly payment, the Claimant's oral testimony is inconsistent with the said documentary evidence. Counsel emphasized that all the claims of the Claimant are based on "estimated" sums and not "actual" sums of the purported allowances. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant’s Final written address was filed on the 28th day of May 2018. Learned counsel formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether in the light of the facts and evidence adduced before the honourable court the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs claimed. In argument of the sole issue, learned counsel for the Claimant maintained that the Claimant's redundancy was illegal, void and urged the court to hold that the Claimant’s redundancy fee and accumulated allowances be paid with immediate effect. Counsel placed reliance on Section 131 and Section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 and several exhibits tendered in the suit and urged the court to discountenance paragraph six of the Defendant’s statement of defence and hold that the Claimant was transferred to Abuja and is entitled to his transfer allowance. Counsel urged the court to invoke the provisions of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. He submitted the authorities of FAMAKINWA vs. STATE (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1524), ZUBAIRU vs. STATE (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) at Page 526 and argued that the Defendant refused to produce the bank statement of account despite the fact that they had been put on notice. Counsel disagreed with the assertion of the Defendants that the documents pleaded do not support the claim of the Claimant or that it is an effort to misdirect this court. Relying on several authorities and statutes, Counsel submitted that the crux of the Defendants case is to avoid paying the Claimant his severance packages (redundancy) and other allowances owed by the Defendant and urged the court to hold against the Defendant. COURT’S DECISION Having examined the facts of this case and having also considered the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the parties in their final written addresses, I am of the view that the issue submitted by the Claimant’s counsel is apt for determination in this matter. The issue is: Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he claimed. Before I consider the issue, let me observe that the Claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence but he did not file a written deposition is respect of the facts pleaded in the reply. In other words, the Claimant did not adduce evidence on the facts pleaded in the reply to the statement of defence. It is trite that facts pleaded but which no evidence was adduced in proof of goes to no issue and must be disregarded by the court. See TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM UNLTD vs. OKUNDAYE (2003) FWLR (Pt.155) 665 at 679; OKORONKWO vs. COOPERATIVE AND COMMERCIAL BANK (NIG.) PLC (2003) FWLR (Pt.154) 457 at 491. The Claimant’s reply to statement of defence is not a process worthy of consideration in this judgment. In view of the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties in this case, the fact that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant until June 2015 when his employment was terminated by the Defendant on ground of redundancy is not in dispute. The Claimant has now sought, in his first relief, a declaration of this court to the effect that the redundancy is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void for the reason that it was done in disregard to the conditions of service and laws. Redundancy has been recognised as a method of termination of employment. See SAMEUL ISHENO vs. JULIUS BERGER NIG. PLC (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.840) 289. When an employer downsizes the workforce as a result of redundancy, the affected workers are relieved of their employment. In order words, their employment is terminated. Therefore, a claimant who alleges that the redundancy was wrongful is simply complaining that the termination of his employment is wrongful. In a master and servant employment, as in this case, the employer has the right to terminate the employment of the employee at any time and with or without any reason. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. Thus, where an employee, whose employment is terminated, alleges wrongful termination of the employment, the employee is required to plead and prove the terms and condition of his employment, the circumstances under which his appointment can be terminated, the procedure for termination and the manner in which the termination of his appointment breached the said terms and conditions of his employment. See W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512; PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967. In this case where the Claimant claimed for a declaration that the redundancy is wrongful, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void for the reason that it was done in disregard to the conditions of service, he has the legal burden to plead and prove the condition of service and adduce evidence to show the terms of conditions of service which were breached by the Defendant in his placement on redundancy. The Claimant merely pleaded the junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC which he claimed were disregarded in the redundancy. The particular provisions regulating redundancy or how the redundancy offended the provisions of the condition of service or the NJIC were not pleaded or given in evidence. The junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC were tendered in evidence. These are Exhibits B and C but there is no pleading or evidence to link the provisions of these documents to his allegation or claim. Since the Claimant failed to illustrate how the redundancy went contrary to the provisions of the conditions of service or the NJIC, it is not the duty of this court to fish for evidence with which to determine the Claimant’s claims. In the written addresses of the Claimant’s counsel, counsel submitted that the redundancy exercise was not done in accordance to Section 20 of the Labour Act. Before this court will consider whether the redundancy violated the provisions of Section 20 of the Labour Act, the Claimant is required to plead and prove the facts of how the redundancy went contrary to the provision of Section 20 Labour Act. The Claimant did not plead any fact or give evidence of the facts which will enable this court undertake that exercise. The arguments made by the Claimant’s counsel on how the redundancy contravened Section 20 Labour Act are on matters not pleaded or given in evidence by the Claimant. Address of the Claimant’s counsel cannot take the place of pleading or evidence. See NZERIBE vs. ANYIM (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 488) 378; MOHAMMED vs. ABDULAZIZ (2009) All FWLR (Pt.465) 1684. In order to do justice in this matter however, I took the pain to examine the provision of the Junior Staff internal condition of service, Exhibit B, on redundancy. Article 18 of the exhibit provides: “Redundancy pay shall be given as compensation for loss of future prospect with employer. Redundancy occur when the services of a worker have been in the continuous employment of the employer for two (2) years or more are no required by the employer due to no fault of the worker. Workers who are employed on contract for specific length of time are exempted from this provision”. I have not seen anything in the above provision which could make this court declare the Claimant’s redundancy wrongful or unlawful. When the Defendant placed the Claimant on redundancy, it only exercised its right in the contract to declare redundancy and place staff on redundancy. The exercise of a right under a contract of employment cannot be wrong unless the procedure laid down for the exercise of the right was not followed. Article 18 of Exhibit B did not lay down any procedure for redundancy. The only obligation on the Defendant is to pay redundancy benefit. If perhaps, it is the non-payment of the redundancy benefit the Claimant complains about, he could merely ask for payment but not to seek to have the redundancy declared wrongful or unlawful. I find that the Claimant has not discharged the duty required of him in the declaration he sought. He didn’t place any materials before this court in his pleading and evidence to warrant this court to grant the declaration he sought. In the result, the Claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to the 1st relief sought by him. In paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that since he left the Defendant’s employment in 2015, the Defendant has refused to pay him his redundancy payment and other accumulated allowances. The Claimant also gave evidence to this effect. It was on the basis of these facts he claims reliefs 2 and 3 where he sought an order of court directing the Defendant to pay him his redundancy payments and all outstanding arrears of his allowances. As observed earlier, it is not in dispute in this case that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was terminated as a result of redundancy. The Claimant has now alleged that he has not been paid his redundancy payment. In paragraph 9 of the statement of facts and in his evidence, he claimed that the sum of N180,000 is due to him as redundancy payment. He also alleged that he is entitled to the redundancy payment by virtue of the junior staff internal condition of service and the NJIC. These are Exhibits B and C respectively. In his evidence, DW1 told the court that the redundancy allowance is a month’s salary which is paid in lieu of notice. DW1 also said the Claimant was paid this allowance. From the pleading of the Defendant and the evidence of DW1, the Defendant has admitted that the Claimant is entitled to be paid redundancy benefit. The Defendant asserted though that the Claimant has been paid his redundancy entitlement. It is the Claimant’s case however that the redundancy benefit was not paid to him, hence his claim in this case for payment of the redundancy benefit. The Defendant, in paragraph 24 of the statement of defence agreed that the junior staff internal condition of service is the Defendant’s condition of service. Therefore, it is agreed that Exhibit B is the condition of service which regulated the Claimant’s employment in the Defendant. Article 18 of Exhibit B provides that the Defendant shall pay redundancy payment to workers who have been in the employment for 2 years and above but whose employment is no longer required. The scale of computation of redundancy payment is outlined in the Article as follows: • 1-5 years continuous employment: 4 weeks basic pay for each year of service • 6-9 years continuous employment: 6 weeks basic pay for each year of service • 10 and above years of service: 7 weeks pay calculated on total emolument. By this condition of service, the Claimant was entitled to be paid redundancy benefit when he was relieved of his employment on ground of redundancy. In his evidence, the Claimant mentioned the sum of N180,000 as what accrued to him as redundancy payment. The condition of service has laid down the criteria for calculating redundancy payment. Although the Claimant relied on it to claim the benefit, he failed to explain how he arrived at the sum he claims as redundancy benefit. From the scale of calculation, redundancy benefit is calculated using the number of years of service. The Claimant said he was employed in March 2010 and relieved of his employment in June 2015. From his evidence, it would appear the Claimant was in the employment for up to 5 years. The Defendant however disputed this claim when it averred that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant only in 2014 and not in 2010. In his evidence, DW1 told the court that the Claimant’s employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014 and an identity card was issued to him on 1st August 2014 with staff no. PJ-136. According to the Defendant, the Claimant only worked for the Defendant for a period less than 2 years. The Claimant who claimed to have been employed by the Defendant in March 2010 has the burden to provide evidence to back up his claim. He didn’t supply any such evidence. The Claimant said he was employed at Ibadan in 2010 but did not show any employment letter or any material evidence with which to believe that he was employed by the Defendant in 2010. There is also no evidence to establish his allegation that he worked for the Defendant in Ibadan at any time or that his working at Abuja was a result of a transfer from Ibadan. The Claimant did not tender any employment letter or letter of transfer or evidence of payment of salary for the period he alleged he was in the Defendant’s employment. The only evidence he relied on are identity cards issued to him by the Defendant. These are Exhibits A and A1. Exhibit A shows that it was issued on 1/8/2014 to the Claimant while Exhibit A1 has no date of issuance. Both identity cards do not indicate that the Claimant was in the Defendant’s employment before 2014. The identity cards are not helpful to the Claimant’s case. The Claimant also tendered his confirmation letter in evidence. That is Exhibit D. The letter dated 20th July 2014 contains the following statement: “CONFIRMATION OF EMPLOYMENT Having completed three (3) months mandatory probationary period, the management is pleased to inform you that your employment as a WELDER is hereby confirmed.” It is clear from the content of the confirmation letter that the Claimant’s employment was confirmed on 20th July 2014 having been on probation for 3 months. This document corroborates the Defendant’s assertion that the Claimant was employment in 2014 and confirmed on 20th July 2014. Under cross examination, DW1 told the court that the Defendant confirms its staff after 3 months of employment. In view of Exhibit D and the evidence of DW1, it supposes that the Claimant was employed in April 2014. The Claimant has not been able to present any evidence before this court to convince the court that he was employed by the Defendant in March 2010. The documentary evidence of his employment he presented established the period of his relationship with the Defendant to as recent as 2014. The Claimant did not also show any proof of payment of salaries from the Defendant as to believe he was in the Defendants’ employment from the period alleged by him. In paragraph 4 of his statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded his statement of account and alleged that it is not accessible to him because of the way the Defendant structured the account. The Claimant then put the Defendant on notice to produce the statement of account. In paragraph 2 of the statement of defence, the Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation and did not produce the said statement of account during the trial of the case. In his arguments in the Claimant’s final written address, the Claimant’s counsel made an issue from the failure of the Defendant to produce the said statement of account. According to learned counsel for the Claimant, the attitude of the Defendant, after having been put on notice to produce the account statement, amounted to withholding evidence and urged the court to invoke the provision of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act. Section 167 of the Evidence Act 2011 empowers this court to presume some facts among which is that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Before the court will make the presumption under the section, it must first be shown to the court that there was such evidence in the possession of the person who is alleged to have withheld it. It is the Claimant who alleged that there is such a statement of account. It is his duty to prove it, particularly when the Defendant denied the Claimant’s allegation. The fact that a notice to produce was given to the Defendant is not sufficient to presume that it withheld evidence. In any event, the Claimant has not placed any material before me with which I can make the presumption of withholding evidence. The implication of notice to produce is that where the party given notice did not produce the document, the party requesting for the document can tender any copy in his custody. The party who seeks to rely on the statement of account is the Claimant. Thus, that the Defendant did not produce the statement of account did not discharge the Claimant from his evidential burden in this case. The Claimant has failed to present any evidence to establish the date he alleged he was employed by the Defendant or the number of years he spent in the Defendant’s employment as to enable a calculation of what he ought to be paid as redundancy benefit. Although this court is a court of equity, it cannot exercise its equitable powers without cogent evidence from the party who seeks such remedies. Besides the redundancy benefit, the Claimant also claimed payment of other allowances in relief 3. These are: i. Rent subsidy for 5 years and 3 months amounting to N1,134,000 ii. Transport allowances for 4 years and 3 months amounting to N362,100 iii. Meal subsidy for 5 years and 3 months amounting to N340,200 iv. Medical allowances for 5 years and 3 months amounting to N352,800 v. Utility allowance of 5 years and 3 months amounting to N236,250 vi. Leave allowance for 5 years amounting to N259,200 vii. Transfer allowance of N66,000 viii. End of year bonus for 5 years amounting to N180,000 The Claimant stated in his evidence that the Defendant owes him these allowances by virtue of the junior staff condition of service and NJIC. He also said that the Defendant has refused to pay him the allowances since the time he exited the employment as a result of redundancy. On its part, the Defendant contended that the Claimant is not entitled to the allowances he claims covering a period of 5 years because he spent barely 2 years in the employment. It was also averred by the Defendant that the Claimant was paid his allowances on monthly basis together with his salaries as it is the custom of the Defendant to pay staff allowances alongside each month’s salaries. By the terms of Exhibit B, some of the allowances the Claimant was entitled to during his employment include rent subsidy, meal subsidy, medical allowance, utility allowance and transport allowance. The Claimant’s case is that he was not paid these allowances for period over 5 years extending from 2010. It is my finding in this judgment that the Claimant has not proved his period of employment with the Defendant. Although it is not in dispute that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant, but to determine his claim for allowances, going back to 5 years, the particular date he was employed has to be proved by him. He failed to do that. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim for allowances for period covering 5 years from April 2011 cannot be sustained. In addition, I also considered the sums claimed by the Claimant in respect of each head of allowance he claims. He merely mentioned amounts for each of the allowance without explanation or evidence as to how the sums accrued or how he arrived at the sums he claims. The Claimant pleaded the condition of service and the NJIC and tendered them in evidence but failed to lead evidence on the provision of these documents with respect to the allowances she claims. This court is not a magician as to know how the allowances came to the amount claimed unless the Claimant offered evidence to the effect. I find that the Claimant has not also proved the sums he claims for the allowances. The Claimant also claims the sum of N66,000 as transfer allowance. It is the Claimant’s case that he was transferred from the Defendant’s office in Ibadan to Abuja in 2011 but he was not paid his transfer allowance. The Defendant denied this allegation and stated that the Claimant was employed only in 2014. Besides the fact that the Claimant did not prove he was in the Defendant’s employment in 2011, he also failed to establish the fact that he was at any time transferred by the Defendant from one location to the other as to entitle him to transfer allowance. The Claimant’s allegation that he was transferred in 2011 has not been proved. Therefore, his claim for transfer allowance fails on this ground. Having examined the facts of the Claimant’s claim for allowances and the evidence adduced by him in that respect, I find that he has not been able to satisfactorily establish the allowances and the sums he claims. In his evidence, the Claimant alleged that from the time he started work with the defendant, the sum of N3000 was deducted from his salary as pension contribution with Sigma Pension. The only information he has about his pension is the one he has since 2013. In his relief 3 contained in the statement of facts, the claim includes payment of his pension deductions which does not reflect in his pension account. The Claimant tendered his pension account with Sigma Pension in evidence. That is Exhibit F. In defence of the claim, the Defendant averred that the Claimant’s pension deductions were remitted to Sigma Pension and that the Claimant is entitled to approach the pension fund administrator for his up-to-date statement of account. Exhibit F is the Claimant’s pension statement of account with Sigma Pension. The entries therein are from 1/1/2014 to 31/12/2014. The statement of account does not cover up to the period of June 2015 when the Claimant’s employment was terminated. Until the Claimant presents his complete statement of account up till the time his employment was terminated, this court cannot conclude that his pension contributions were not remitted up to date. I agree with the Defendant’s averment that the Claimant should approach Sigma Pension for his up-to-date statement of account. After obtaining the up-to-date statement of account and he finds that his pension deductions were not remitted fully, the Claimant is entitled to approach the Defendant for reconciliation and payment. I direct the Defendant to entertain the Claimant and cooperate fully with him anytime he presents himself with respect to his pension issue. It should be noted by the Defendant that the Claimant is entitled to his pension and it should not be denied him under any guise. In the final result of this judgment, I find no merit in the Claimant’s suit. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge