Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General ForM of Complaint and statement of facts dated 9/2/16, the Claimant approached this Court and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. An Order of the Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=96,855.00 (Ninety Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Five Naira) hospital expenses incurred by the Claimant in treatment of the injury sustained in the course of his employment between March and October 2015. 2. An Order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=410,000.00 (Four Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) being the arrears of salaries owed the Claimant by the Defendant from March to December, 2015. 3. An Order of the Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as compensation for the life threatening injury the Claimant sustained while in the employment of the Defendant. 4. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay an interest of 25% on the =N=410,000.00 (Four Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) being the unpaid ten months salary of the Claimant from August 2014 till Judgment is delivered and thereafter 15% interest on the sum till finally liquidated. The Claimant filed along these processes all other requisite frontloaded processes as mandated by the Rules of this Court. On 9/5/16, the Defendant filed its memorandum of appearance, statement of defence along with all other processes required to accompany same. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened his case on 14/6/16 when he testified in chief as CW1, adopted his witness deposition dated 4/4/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C7 respectively. The case of the Claimant, briefly, is that he was employed by the Defendant by a letter dated 7/11/14 as a casual labour and posted to one of the Defendant's construction sites in Alimosho area of Lagos to work; that sometime in August 2014, he was struck by the Defendant crane at a construction site at Alimosho while at his duty post; that the crane was operated by one Mr. Otunba who negligently struck him with the heavy equipment while working for the Defendant; that he was taken to a hospital at Obalende, lagos where he was treated albeit shabbily with the injury continuing to disturb him thereafter; that the injury became so excruciating that he could not but complain to the Officers of the Defendant who later after so much delay referred him to another hospital where he was examined; that sometime in November 2014 the Defendant issued a memo directing that he should only be allowed to engage in light work as a result of the excruciating pains he was going through; that he kept reporting for work; that the said hospital was so unprofessional in handling his case to the extent that it cancelled an appointment earlier scheduled without adequate arrangement for further treatment;; that he was disappointed and frustrated that his family sensing danger posed by his condition took him to Kogi State where he was admitted at Thank God Group of Hospitals and discharged in April 2015; that the Defendant paid him salary up till February, 2015; that he is currently living with pain; that his condition is such that he cannot actively in any strenuous or tasking work; that he depends on family and friends for survival and that the defendant has refused to pay his arrears of salary, medical expenses and compensation to enable him carry out further treatment and find suitable work to do in view of his health challenges. Under cross examination, the Claimant testified that he knows crane; that it is used to lift slabs and dropping heavy objects; that he was the person removing the panels of the slabs before the crane would lift them up and that that is why it is possible for the crane to hit him; that he was standing and removing the panel when the crane hit him; that he was under the crane; that he did not see it coming to hit him; that he was working and when he raised his head the crane hit him; that he is aware that Ideal Hospital is a specialist hospital; that he was not treated shabbily at the hospital; that tests were conducted on him at Kogi Hospital; that he was first taken to Kogi Hospital on 1/4/15; that that was when he travelled to Kogi State for his treatment; that he was treated very well at the hospital in Kogi and was discharged to be well; that the last time he worked for Defendant was on 26/2/15 when he went for medical treatment; that he informed the Union Chairman that he was travelling to Kogi State for medical attention and that on 17/11/15 the Defendant took him to be examined at Ideal Hospital. 3. Case of the Defendant On 18/10/17, the Defendant opened its case. It called one Innocent Unogu as its lone witness. The witness adopted his written deposition of 9/5/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 11 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1- Exh. D11 respectively. The case of the Defendant as revealed from the pleadings filed is that as a result of the injury sustained by the Claimant while working with it, the Defendant formalise the employment of the Claimant who was a casual labour; that on 21/8/14 while still a casual labour Claimant was deployed to the pre-cast section of the construction site; that Claimant's responsibility was to separate the casted concrete from the iron mold using an iron rod; that while he was separating one of the casted from an iron mold, the iron rod he was using slipped from his hands and forcefully him on the chest; that neithet Mr. Otunba nor Defendant's crane was responsible for the Claimant's injury, rather it was the iron rod the Claimant was using to separate the casted concrete from an iron mold that injured him; that the Claimant was treated he placed on light duty according to Doctor's recommendation; that the Claimant later absconded from work sometime in February 2015 notwithstanding the fact that he was placed on light duty; that due to the downsizing exercise embarked upon by the Defendant in March 2015 as a result of redundancy the employment of 101 employees including the Claimant was terminated at which time the Claimant had absconded from duty; that the entitlements of all the employees concerned including the Claimant were paid Under cross examination, the witness stated that as Administrative Officer he was coordinating the activities of the Site Administrative Officers; that he keeps records and files of staff, issues letters of employment and of disengagement; that he operates from the Head Office of Defendant; that he was not on site on the day of the incident in this case; that the salary of the Claimant is not fixed due to overtime; that he cannot remember how much the Claimant was paid as terminal benefit; that his knowledge of what happened to the Claimant at site is what he was told or informed; that Claimant was on duty when he was injured; that Claimant was taken to various hospitals for treatment; that his being taken to these hospitals was not because of the seriousness of the injury sustained; that at the time the Claimant's employment was terminated, he had already absconded from work; that Claimant did not report back to Ideal Hospital for follow-up as directed by the Hospital; that when the Claimant absconded, Site Officers used all means to locate him; that the Union also did the same and that the Defendant could not reach him on his cell phone. 4. Submissions of Counsel The final written address of the Defendant was filed on 9/3/18. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues down for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court proved that the injury was caused by the crane negligently driven by the Defendant's employee to entitle him for claim in damages. 2. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court has proved that he worked for the Defendant from March-December, 2015 to entitle him to the sum of =N=410,000.00 claimed as salaries owed. 3. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence has proved his entitlement to award of compensation and special damages. Arguing these issue, learned Counsel submitted that negligence is a question of facts to be proved by evidence citing Royal Ade Nigeria Limited v. N.O.E.M Co. Plc (2004) NWLR (Pt. 874) 206; that from the facts it is not disputed that the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Claimant but that the Claimant has failed to show how that duty of care was breached by the Defendant and the Reply to the Statement of Defence dated 24/5/16 though filed did not form part of the evidence before the Court and must be deemed abandoned citing Ben v. Cross River State Water Board (2016) LPELR-41234. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant having abandoned his reply to the statement of defence he has failed to lead evidence respecting the cause of his injury. Counsel submitted further that there is no evidence before the Court to show that the Claimant worked for the Defendant from March to December 2015 to be entitled to the sum of =N=410,000.00 claimed as salaries earned; that by his evidence the Claimant while under cross examination testified that ''the last time I worked for the Defendant was on 26th February, 2015''; that the Claimant was paid for the month of March and did not work for the Defendant beyond that date; that the Defendant is allowed to rely on the direct evidence of the Claimant under cross examination citing Anyafulu v. Meka & Ors. (2014)2 MJSC (Pt. 3) 88. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold. On the claim for compensation, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to lead credible evidence in support of that claim. He thus prayed the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant. On 10/5/18 Counsel to the Claimant filed a final written address on behalf of the Claimant. In it learned Counsel adopted the same three issues as identified on behalf of the Defendant for the determination of this case. Arguing these, learned Counsel stated that the Claimant has led sufficiently credible evidence is proof of the 3 ingredients of negligence as stated by the Defendant; that in relation to the claim for =N=410,000.00 that due to the severe nature of the Claimant's injury he was hospitalised and could not carry out any work when he returned and was subsequently recommended to be allowed to engage in duty. On issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that the case of the Claimant is that he was struck by Defendant's crane carrying iron at the Defendant's constructions site at Alimonsho while he was in duty; that his case was not professionally managed in Lagos and he had to seek solace in another hospital in Kogi State and that from the totality of the evidence presented the Claimant is entitled to be paid compensation. Finally, learned Counsel prayed to grant all the reliefs as sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision It is agreed by the parties in this and their learned Counsel that the Claimant Mr. Ibrahim Yakubu was employed by the Defendant; that he worked for the Defendant; that he sustained an injury at a construction site of the Defendant while working for the Defendant. It is also agreed that the Defendant provided medical services to the Claimant. While the Claimant argued that he was shabbily treated by the medical facilities to which he was referred by the Defendant and hence had to seek further medicare in Kogi State, Defendant had different opinion. It is on the basis of the above recited facts, albeit briefly that the Claimant sought among others a refund of hospital expenses, arrears of salaries and compensation for the injury sustained. I read and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I listened to and watched the demeanor of the witnesses called at trial. I also heard the oral submissions of Counsel on both sides. I note that both parties adopted the same issues for determination in this case. I also therefore adopt the same 3 issues for the justice determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court proved that the injury was caused by the crane negligently driven by the Defendant's employee to entitle him for claim in damages. 2. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court has proved that he worked for the Defendant from March-December, 2015 to entitle him to the sum of =N=410,000.00 claimed as salaries owed. 3. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence has proved his entitlement to award of compensation and special damages. The case of the Clamant is one majorly based on negligence. The first issue for determination is thus whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court proved that the injury was caused by the crane negligently driven by the Defendant's employee to entitle him to claim in damages. Now, has the Claimant discharged the burden of proof placed on him to succeed in a claim for negligence? What then is negligence? What does a Claimant need to prove in order to succeed for an award of damages in negligence? In Kabo Air Limited v. Mohammed (2014) LPELR-23614(CA), Abiru JCA took time out to espouse on what is meant by negligence in the following words - '' ... Now, negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It means lack of proper care and attention; careless behavior or conduct; a state of mind which is opposed to intention and the breach of a duty of care imposed by common law and statute resulting in damage to the complainant. Negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation. It is also any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm - Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ozoemena (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 448, Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172 and Diamond Bank Plc v. Partnership Investment Co Ltd (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67." Negligence is said to be a fluid principle, which has to be applied to the most diverse conditions and problems of human life. See Ojo v. Ghahoro & ors (2006) LPELR-2383 per Ogbuagu JSC. Negligence is a question of fact not law. Therefore each case must be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances. The facts of a case bordering on negligence must be proved by the person who asserts same. This is in tandem with the age-long established principle of law that he who asserts must prove the assertion. See Okorie v. Unakalamba (2013) LPELR-22508 (CA).Therefore failure to prove particulars of negligence pleaded is fatal to the plaintiffs case Alhaji Otaru and Sons Ltd vs Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt 606) 330. In a case of this nature, that is a case allegedly founded on negligence, in order for a Claimant to succeed, this Claimant must prove the following -(a) that the defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant; (b) that the duty of care was breached and (c) that the plaintiff suffered damages arising from such breach. See SPDC Nigeria Limited v. Ikontia & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4910 (CA). It is imperative to bear in mind that a mere occurrence of an accident is not a proof of negligence. Negligence is also not proved simply because a party sustains an injury in the course of his employment. Thus, where there is duty of care and that duty is breached without an injury sustained there will be no award of damages. Secondly, where there is no duty of care but a party sustains an injury, no damages will lie for negligence. Thirdly, where there is no duty of care and accident occurs leading to injury the Court will not intervene to award damages. The point has earlier been made that negligence is a question of fact to be proved. The proof required is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. A party seeking damages in negligence must prove the 3 identified elements of negligence. He must prove the existence of a duty of care. He must prove the breach of that duty of care. He must also prove the damage resulting from the breach of the duty of care owed. The circumstances leading to the accident, the nature and extent of the accident must be pleaded and cogent evidence adduced in support. It is then that the Court will be able to determine whether partially or wholly, either the Claimant or the Defendant, caused the accident. See Abubakar & Anor. v. Joseph (2008) LPELR-48 (SC). I have taken time in setting out the law on negligence so as to prepare ground for the next enquiry which is whether the Claimant in this case has discharged the burden of proof on him to be entitled to a positive disposition by this Court. Does the Defendant owe the Claimant any duty of care? The fact that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant was not disputed by either side. It is also not challenged the fact that the Claimant sustained the injury in this case in the course of the discharge of his duties as an employee of the Defendant. These unchallenged facts go to establish the simple fact of existence of employer/employee relationship between the parties, at least prior to the occurrence of the accident leading to the institution of this case. The existence of employment relationship, even at Common Law, imposes a duty of care on the employer respecting his employees. The Court of Appeal in Kabo Air Limited v. Mohammed (2014)LPELR-23614(CA) reiterated the position thus - "...it is settled law that it is the duty of an employer, acting personally or through his servants or agents, to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen and other employees in the course of their employment. This duty extends in particular to the safety of the place of work, the plant and machinery and the method and conduct of work''. The Court, while noting that the duty of care of an employer to the employee is not restricted to the matters stated, further approved the Judgment of Lord Wright in Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v. English (1938) AC 57 at 84 that - "The whole course of authority consistently recognizes a duty which rests on the employer, and which is personal to the employer, to take reasonable care of the safety of his workmen, whether the employer be an individual, a firm or a company, and whether or not the employer takes any share in the conduct of the operations." It suffices from the pleadings of the parties and the unchallenged evidence led to hold that the Defendant as the employer of the Claimant owed the Claimant a duty of care. Has the Claimant proved the second element of negligence which is that the duty of care owed was breached? It is not sufficient that there exists a duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant to be entitled to award of damages. The Claimant is under an obligation to prove that the Defendant breached that duty of care. The mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to make a claim for damages. The accident must be linked to the fault or failings of the Defendant. See Avon Crown Caps & Containers Nig. Limited v. Bamigboye (2005)17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 275. The summary of the case of the Claimant is that while working at a construction site of the Defendant he was hit by a crane of the defendant which crane was driven by an employee of the Defendant. Claimant did not allege that the crane in question malfunctioned or that the crane was negligently driven by an unqualified employee or that the employee though qualified drove the crane negligently. To succeed, the Claimant must prove not only the existence of a duty of care. He must also prove the breach of same and the fact that that breach of the duty of care resulted in the injury he sustained. This the Claimant has not done. I therefore resolve issue 1 in favor of the Defendant and against the Claimant. I find and hold that the Claimant has not led sufficient evidence in proof that the injury he sustained was caused by the crane negligently driven by the Defendant's employee to entitle him for claim in damages. On issue 2 which is whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence before the Court has proved that he worked for the Defendant from March-December, 2015 to entitle him to the sum of =N=410,000.00 claimed as salaries owed. The evidence of the Claimant under cross examination in answer to a specific question is that the last time he worked for the Defendant was on 26/2/15 when he went for medical treatment. This is a clear admission of facts. It is an admission by the Claimant against his interest. The law is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. See Obawole v. Coker (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 245) 416; Anigbogu v. Uchejigbo (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 776) 472; Reg. Trustees, ECWA Church v. Ijesha (Pt. 1999) 13 NWLR (635) 368. and see also Akerele v. Ajose-Adeogun (2018) LPELR . Admission against self interest is not only admissible, it requires no further proof. It is also perhaps the strongest form of evidence available to the adverse party in any suit between the parties and the adverse party is perfectly entitled to rely upon and make use of such admission in support of his claim. A Court of law is perfectly entitled to rely on same. See Ezemba v. Ibeneme (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 617 at p. 661-662. See also FCE v. Anyanwu (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt. 501) 533. If the admission by the Claimant is anything to go by, on what basis should this Court order payment of salary arrears to him? Should the Court do as sought by the Claimant it would amount ordering payment of salaries for services not rendered. Based simply on the admission by the Claimant I find and hold that the Claimant not having worked for the Defendant beyond 26/2/15, he is not entitled to be paid any arrears of salaries for March to December 2015. The final issue for determination is whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence has proved his entitlement to award of compensation and special damages. Compensation is monetary award for infringement on legal rights. That legal right must have been proved to the Court. In the absence of proof of a wrong or breach of a legal right, no compensation will be awarded. It is settled law that a party cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. In the instant case, this Court has found and held that the Claimant failed to successfully prove the ingredients of negligence against the Defendant. Thus the basis for award of compensation is punctured. On the issue of special damages, the law is trite that same must be specially pleaded and strictly proved before the Court can make any meaningful intervention. That has not been done in this case. I resolve this issue against the Claimant and in favor of the Defendant. The bottom line of this Judgment is that the Claimant has not proved his entitlement to any of the reliefs sought. I so find and so hold. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant lacks merit. I have no hesitation in dismissing same. I so do. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge