Download PDF
By an Originating Summons pursuant to Order 3 Rule 5 (A) (1) (2) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 Practice Direction made by the President of this court on June 15th 2011, the applicant herein claims against the respondent as follows: (1) A DECLARATION that the applicant’s Late Father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh (staff of the respondent before his demise) was a full fledged staff of the respondent and not a casual nor an independent contractor of the respondent. (2) A DECLARATION that Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was from 16th September 1996 to July 2009 when he passed on and prior to his demise was a staff of the respondent and thereby entitled to his beneficiaries to his death benefits as enshrined in the respondent’s employee’s handbook and for the determination of the following questions: (i) WHETHER Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, the applicant’s father was employed as a Security Grade II (a full fledged staff) by the respondent or a casual worker or an independent contractor of the defendant. (ii) WHETHER Late Mr. Mathew Umoh, the claimant’s father started working with the respondent as far back as September 1996 as evidenced in his identity card issued in his favour by the respondent, from 1996 up to his demise in July 2009. (iii) WHETHER the applicant is not entitled to the pension, death, benefits, contributions gratuity and other perquisites as provided at page 11/12 of the respondent’s Employees Handbook for Grade II employees which was the position Late Mr. Mathew Umoh occupied before his demise in July 2009. The respondent’s employees handbook page 11/12 provides as follows: (a) To pay his Late father (Mr. Mathew Umoh) personal representatives a sum equal to his eighteen (18) months’ salary. (b) For the company (respondent) to return the whole of the employee’s contribution made through the respondent to NSITF (Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund) to his personal representatives. (c) To pay gratuity to long serving staff who has worked up to 10 years and above. (iv) Whether by the respondent’s letter dated 11th February, 2010 tilted “RE: DEATH BENEFIT” and the sum of N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) via an Acess Bank cheque No. 00471080 in the sum of N60,000.00 given to the applicant’s family of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, was his entitlement final death settlement/benefit as provided for in the respondent’s employee’s handbook. (v) Whether upon the evidence before the court the Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh before his demise was never confirmed a staff of the respondent. (vi) Whether the purported claim of the respondent that Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was a casual worker before his demise is valid, legal and constitutional. (vii) Whether the respondent is liable to the claimant’s father Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh for the purported contravening acts of the respondent in the circumstances of this case. 3. An order for the respondent to make full disclosure of the usual death benefit of staffs in Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh’s cadre. 4. An order for the respondent to pay to the applicant his late father’s death benefits, contributions he made to NSITF, gratuity and other perquisites from July 2009 to date at the current rates paid to other demised staff beneficiaries of the same grade in the company. 5. An order directing the respondent to pay 10% interest on Late Mr. Mathew Umoh’s death benefits, contributions, gratuity and entitlements from the date of his death in July 2009 till judgment and until final liquidation. 6. An order directing the respondent to pay general damages to the personal representatives of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah for breach of contract. 7. Claim of One Million Naira for instituting this action. The Originating Summons was accompanied by a written statement on oath of Mr. Godwin Mathew Uwah Umoh, list of documents to be relied upon at trial, and the said documents, listed and named as Exhibits A to O, respectively. The applicant also filed a written address in support of the Originating Summons in line with the rules of court. The respondent in reaction through its counsel filed a memorandum of appearance, a counter affidavit, written address and two exhibits in opposition to the applicant’s Originating Summons. The applicant also filed a reply on points of law in response to the respondent’s written address. From the written statement on oath sworn to by the applicant Mr. Godwin Mathew Uwah Umoh hereinafter referred to as (the applicant). The applicant deposed that he is the first son and head of the family of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh and has the authority and consent of the family to institute this action and to depose to this affidavit. That as the first and head of the family of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, he is conversant with the facts of this suit. The applicant deposed that his late father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh is survived by his wife Mrs. Elizabeth Sunday Uwah Umoh and four children: Mr. Godwin Mathew Uwah Umoh, Ekaete Mathew Uwah Umoh, Kerefe Mathew Uwah Umoh and Anietie Mathew Uwah Umoh. That his late father was employed by the respondent in September 1996. That upon his late father’s employment, the respondent issued him an identity card to that effect. That in 1997 his late father was made to register with the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund for a monthly contribution which would be deducted from his salary by the respondent and such contribution will serve as his entitlements. That his late father had always received payment of his salary from the respondent. That in 2000 the respondent confirmed his late father’s appointment as a full staff of the company. That in 2002, his late father was redeployed from the Security Unit to the maintenance department. The applicant further deposed that the respondent handed over to his late father its Employee Handbook to confirm that his father is the respondent’s employee. That his late father worked devotedly for the respondent prior and from the period of his appointment until the first quarter of 2009 when he became ill. That his late father did not recover from this sickness but died in July 2009. That during the burial the respondent magnanimously contributed N30,000.00 towards the burial of his late father via a letter dated 28th August, 2009 tagged “RE: CONDOLENCE”. “Exhibit I”. That after the burial the respondent invited his family and gave the family the sum of N60,000.00 as full and final death benefit settlement to Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh’s family. That the respondent in giving the N60,000.00, indicated in their letter that the money given was an act of benevolence done gratis and that his later father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was a casual worker not entitled to it as a right under the company’s Employees Handbook. The applicant further deposed that finding this assertion contradictory, as his father’s position and the documents in his possession indicated otherwise, i.e. his letter of confirmation of employment, his identity card dated 16th September 1996, his pay slip dated 1998, NSITF card dated 3rd September, 1997 which established that his late father was a bona fide staff of the company and thereby entitles his dependants to his death benefits as per the respondent’s employee handbook, he approached the respondent for the clarification on the arrival of the payment of the N60,000.00 as full and final benefits but that instead of giving him clarifications, they brushed him aside. That not being satisfied, he approached a lawyer to write the respondent. That this was done and in response to the said letter, the respondent alleged that his late father was not a staff but a casual worker and more or less an independent contractor. That by the respondent letter dated 28th April 2010, the respondent alleged that his late father was a Security Guard at the residence of the Managing Director of the respondent and that when the Managing Director moved out of his residence that his late father’s services were no longer needed. The applicant therefore asked for the reliefs contained in the Originating Summons. The written address in support of the Originating Summons was dated and filed on 20th September, 2012. The applicant’s counsel raised the following issues for determination:- (a) Whether Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, the applicant’s father was a full fledged staff and a Security Grade II of the respondent, or a casual worker or and an independent contractor of the respondent. (b) Whether Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, the applicant’s father started working with the respondent as far back as September 1996 as evidenced in his identity card issued in his favour by the respondent, from the 1996 up to his demise in July 2009. (c) Whether the applicant is not entitled to the death benefits, contributions, gratuity and other perquisites as provided at page 11/12 of the respondent’s employees Handbook for Grade II employees which was the position Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh occupied before his demise in July 2009. The respondent’s Employees’ Handbook page 11/12 provides as follows: (1) To pay his late Mr. Mathew Umoh personal representative a sum equal to his eighteen months salary. (2) For the company (respondent) to return the whole of the employees’ contribution made through the respondent to NSITF to his personal representatives. (3) To pay gratuity to long serving staff who has worked up to 10 years and above. (d) Whether the sum of N60,000.00 given to the applicant’s family via an Access Bank Draft as purported by the respondent in their letter dated 11th February, 2010 titled “RE: DEATH BENEFIT” is the applicant’s late father’s entitlement/fund death settlement/benefit as provided for in the respondent’s employee’s handbook. (e) Whether upon the evidence before this court, Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh before his demise was never confirmed a staff of the respondent. (f) Whether the purported claim of the respondent that Late Mr. Mathew Umoh was a casual or more or less an independent worker before his demise is valid, legal and constitutional. (g) Whether the respondent is liable to the applicant’s father Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh for the purported contravening acts of the respondent in the circumstances of this case. Arguing issue one, the applicant’s counsel submitted that it is settled principle of law that the general principles of contract law governing the formation of the contract of employment. That where it is established that a contract of employment exists between an employer and an employee the terms of such an agreement whether expressly or orally, is binding on both parties. Learned counsel cited Morohunfola v. Kwara State College of Technology [1990] 4 NWLR 506. That once a contract is established to exist between the parties involved, then there is a contract of employment and this contract of employment is binding on the parties. Also that in Dr. Ben O. Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nig. Ltd [1993] 4 NWLR pt. 289, 512. The Supreme Court held inter alia that where parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into agreement, the conditions must be observed. Learned counsel therefore submitted that in this case a contract of employment existed between the applicant’s late father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh and the respondent as contained in Exhibits A – F of this case. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the applicant’s late father’s identity card no. 021 dated 16th September, 1996 was issued in his favour by the respondent, it is evidence that Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh started working with the respondent as far back as September 1996 and therefore was a full fledged staff of the respondent which entitles his successors his death benefit, contributions, gratuity and every other entitlements. See Exhibit A. That it is evident by the respondent’s letters attached herein as Exhibits D and E and employees handbook attached as Exhibit F that the applicant’s Late father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was a full fledged staff of the respondent, thereby entitling his personal representatives to his death benefits, contributions and gratuity as provided in pages 11/12 of the respondent employees’ handbook which is the term of the contract of employment between Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh and the respondent. On issue three the applicant’s counsel submitted that it is settled principle of law that where parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into agreement, the conditions must be observed. That by the respondent’s employees’ handbook attached as Exhibit F particularly at page 11 and 12 which provides as follows: BENEFIT ON DEATH “Where an employee while in the exercise of the company dies before the age of retirement the company may upon the resolution of the members of the Board of Directors approve for payment to the personal representatives of the deceased a sum equal to 18 months salary ….” Page 12 of the employee handbook further provides that: “The company shall also return the whole of the employees’ contributions”. And on gratuity it is further provided on page 12 of the handbook that: “Gratuity shall be paid to long serving employees who leave the company’s service after a minimum period of 10 years”. That the deceased worked from 1996 till his death in 2009, meaning that he worked for a period of 13 years which entitles him to gratuity which he never collected before he kicked the bucket. That the thirteen years he worked before his demise entitles his personal representatives to his gratuity. The applicant’s counsel sum up his argument on this issue that the respondent is bound to pay the personal representatives of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh the following death benefits: (i) A sum equal to his eighteen months’ salary. (ii) The whole of his contribution made through the respondent to NSITF. (iii) His gratuity as a long serving staff who has worked for 13 years with the respondent prior to his demise in 2009. On issue four, the applicant’s counsel submitted that the N60,000.00 paid to the family of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh is not and cannot be the final death benefit of the deceased for the following reasons: (1) That going by the provisions of page 11/12 of the respondent’s employee’s handbook, the personal representatives of the deceased are entitled to 18 months of the deceased’s salary. As at the time of the deceased’s demised, his salary was Ten Thousand Two Hundred Naira. That in the year 2002, the deceased’s salary was in the sum of Eight Thousand Naira per month as evidenced in Exhibit E. (2) That by the respondent’s letter titled: “RE: DEATH BENEFIT” dated 11th February, 2010 attached herein as Exhibit J, the respondent made it clear that the Sixty Thousand Naira given to the applicant is given gratuitously and not as a death benefit as according to them the applicant’s father Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was not a full fledged staff of the respondent. That paragraph 3 of that letter states: “Kindly note that this act of benevolence is done gratis as the deceased (a casual worker) is not entitled to it as a right under the company’s workers’ Handbook”. (3) That the applicant’s late father Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was also registered by the respondent with the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund for a monthly contribution to be deducted from his salary by the respondent which accumulated contribution would be given to his personal representatives in the event of his demise, that is if he did before retirement as provided on page 12 of the respondent’s employees handbook. That the NSITF card issued to the deceased is attached as Exhibit B. To counsel, what can be deduced here from Exhibit J is that only confirmed staff of the respondent are entitled to the death benefits as provided in the respondent’s employees’ hand which late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, following the fact and evidence that he was not only confirmed and given the employee’s handbook, but was also promoted by the respondent thereby making him a full fledged staff which therefore entitles him as of right to the benefits provided in the respondent’s employee’s handbook. Counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the death benefits, contributions and gratuity due to Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was not and has not been given to his personal representatives. On issue five, the claimant’s counsel submitted that it is settled principle of law that evidence must be tendered in proof of the fact, citing Towoeni v. Towoeni [2001] 12 NWLR 445 at 559 which the applicant has done in the instance case by attaching Exhibit D which is a letter from the respondent confirming the appointment of Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh. Counsel therefore submitted that Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was a full fledged staff of the respondent before his demise. On issue six, the applicant’s counsel submitted that by the content of the condolence letter from the respondent which in paragraph 1 provides: “please accept our condolence and sympathy for the passing unto glory of your son, father, uncle e.t.c and our esteem staff Mr. Mathew Umoh” clearly shows that the deceased was indeed a staff of the respondent and not a casual worker nor an independent contractor as claimed by the respondent’s lawyer in his letter of 28th April, 2009. With this learned counsel submitted that the deceased was a full fledged staff of the respondent and that because the respondent does not want to pay the entitlements due to Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh, to his personal representative, the respondent has denied that he was full fledged staff. On issue seven, the applicant’s counsel submitted that by Exhibits A – O attached to this application the respondent is liable to pay the deceased’s personal representatives his death benefits, contributions, gratuity and other perquisites paid to workers of the respondent within the maintenance unit of Grade II of the respondent which was the same position the deceased was before his demise on 2009 because the respondent is bound by the terms of the contract of employment as evidenced in their employees handbook. The applicant’s counsel then urged the court to grant his prayers accordingly. The respondent in opposition filed a counter affidavit deposed to by Mrs. Ann Nkeonyemesi a legal practitioner in the law firm representing the respondent. The deponent deposed that she has seen and read the written statement on oath of the applicant and states that they are false, untrue and misleading. That the applicant’s father Mr. Mathew Umoh (deceased) was employed by the respondent in 1996 as a security man and deployed to the personal residence of the respondent’s Managing Director being No. 10, Calabar Close, Agbara, Ogun State. That by a letter dated 31 January 2000, the respondent confirmed the employment of the said Late Mr. Mathew Umoh alongside other employees. That subsequently and in the same year 2000, the respondent’s Managing Director moved his residence to Victoria Island, Lagos and the deceased remained at the said personal residence as security man pending the letting of same to a Tenant. That in December 2002, the said personal residence of the respondent’s Managing Director was let to a Tenant Mr. Jerry Nwagba. That the Late Mathew Umoh and with the knowledge of the respondent transferred his services to the Tenant Mr. Jerry Nwagba who employed him as a security guard and swimming pool maintenance man. That the deceased preferred the employment offered by the Tenant Mr. Jerry Nwagba as the salary paid by the tenant was higher than that paid by the respondent. That after he disengaged from the employment of the respondent, the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund contribution he made and his NSITF card were given to him in year 2002. That the deceased did not render services to the respondent company and was not paid salary by the respondent company after year 2002. He also did not make any NSITF contribution to the respondent company thereafter. That the deceased was employed by the respondent for only six years [1996 – 2002] and was not entitled to pension and gratuity which are for employees over 10 years in service. That when the Tenant Mr. Nwagba moved out of the personal residence of the respondent’s Managing Director, the deceased approached the respondent late in 2008 for re-employment which the respondent declined because he has since exceeded 55 years being the retirement age for the respondent’s employees. That since he had a personal relationship with the respondent’s Managing Director who showed some compassion for him, he was allowed to remain in the respondent’s company as a casual worker and given stipends monthly to meet his needs. That upon his demise, the respondent and its Managing Director made payments to the applicant’s family and on grounds of compassion to wit. (a) Mortuary expenses - N20,000.00 (b) Personal contribution to burial expenses by the M.D. - N50,000.00 (c) Contribution for burial expenses by the respondent - N30,000.00 (d) Death benefit by the respondent - N30,000.00 That the applicant was not aware of the privileges and concessions enjoyed by his deceased father in the respondent’s company and the respondent’s written response to his claim did not change his position. That the applicant’s claim is in bad faith, a tale and a callous expression of ingratitude. That the interest of justice would be better served by a refusal of the applicant’s application. That the applicant would not be prejudiced by a refusal of his application. The respondent also filed a written address in accordance with the rules of this court. The respondent raised four issues for determination as follows: (1) Whether this suit is competent and the court clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues raised herein. (2) Whether the applicant has the locus to institute and maintain this suit. (3) Whether this proceedings (where facts are substantially in dispute) can be resolved by way of Originating Summons? (4) Whether on the state of evidence of parties his claim and entitled to the reliefs sought. On issue one, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the competence of a suit is a vital factor in determining the jurisdiction of the court, citing Ajao v. Sonola & Ors [1973] 5 S.C. 119. That except an action comes before a court by due process of the law, the court may be deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain the action. To counsel, this action was commenced by Originating Summons and as envisaged by Order 3 Rule 5A of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 (as amended). The said order declares as follows:- 5A (1) Any person claiming to be interested under an enactment, constitution, agreement or any other written instrument may apply by Originating Summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested. (2) The Originating Summons shall be accompanied by: (a) An affidavit setting out the facts relied upon. (b) Copies of the instruments sought to be construed (other than an enactment) and other related documents, (c) A written address containing the issues to be determined and succinct argument of the issues”. That the applicant is not a person envisaged by Order 3, Rule 5A (1) to apply by Originating Summons as his claim is not evidenced by any enactment, agreement or any other written instrument. Also that the applicant’s suit is not accompanied by (a) An affidavit setting out the facts, and (b) Copies of the instrument or other related documents sought to be construed, and therefore urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the respondent by holding that the suit is incompetent. On issue two, the respondent’s counsel submitted that locus standi can be defined to mean the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in a proceedings before a court of law, referring to RTEAN v. NURTW [1992] 2 NWLR (pt. 224) 381 at 391. That the applicant instituted this action as a “representative of Mathew Umoh Family”. That this is not a representative suit and the applicant did not state or deposed that he is neither an Administrator or an Executor of the Estate of Late Mr. Mathew Umoh. Counsel further contended that it is trite that only an Administrator or Executor (personal representatives) of an estate can file an action on behalf of the Estate, citing Section 3 (1) Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State, 2004 and the case of Okonyia v. Ikengah [2001] FWLR pt. 53, pg. 158. Counsel therefore submitted that the Beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased are not legally empowered to institute any law suit on behalf of the estate and urged the court to strike out this suit on grounds of want of locus standi. On issue three, learned counsel submitted that an Originating Summons is an originating process stipulated in the various Rules of Court as one of the modes of commencing actions threat. The general drift of the provisions of the Rules of Court is that Originating Summons is used for non-contentious matters and legal interpretations as opposed to factual disputes. That an Originating Summons is the ideal process to commence proceedings where there is no dispute on questions of fact or the likelihood of such dispute citing the cases of EJURA v. IDRIS [2006] All FWLR pt. 318, 646 and KEYAMO v. HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, LAGOS STATE [2003] FWLR pt. 146, 925. That from the affidavit of the applicant and the counter affidavit of the respondent, facts are substantially in dispute in this proceedings. That the conflict in the affidavits are the parties can only be resolved by calling witnesses and urged the court to so hold. On issued four, the respondent’s counsel submitted that this proceedings relates to the enforcement of the applicant’s father’s contractual rights that accrued under an employment contract. That a party claiming a breach of contractual rights arising from the exercise of his civil rights under his contract of employment must plead and prove the denial of his contractual rights claimed to have been breached, citing AJI v. CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS [2004] All FWLR (pt. 237) 424 at 446. To counsel, the depositions of the applicant shows that the contract of employment between the applicant’s Late Father and the respondent was neither pleaded nor proved. Counsel therefore submitted that the suit is incompetent and that the applicant has no locus standi to institute same and that the applicant has not furnished the court with sufficient materials to warrant the grant of his Originating Summons, and so urged the court to dismiss this suit with substantial cost. In reply on points of law, the applicant’s counsel submitted that if indeed the respondent moved the deceased to its Managing Director’s house, it had the right to do so and to wherever they so please so long as he was a staff. That the fact remains that the deceased was employed by the respondent and its employee’s handbook given to the deceased which contains the terms and conditions of employment binds the respondent, citing the case of Artra Industries Ltd v. Nigeria Bank of Commerce & Industries [1997] 1 NWLR (pt. 483) p. 574. In another response, the applicant submitted that going by the applicant’s Exhibits G, I and J attached to its written statement on oath, the deceased was and up till his death an employee of the respondent and so the issue of the deceased staying with Mr. Jerry Nwagba as claimed by the respondent is irrelevant in this suit. On the issue of NSITF contribution, the applicant responded that going by the exhibits, the deceased was still in the employment of the respondent as at 2009. Also that it is not possible that the NSITF identity card which was issued to the deceased as evidence of his contribution could have been withheld by the same NSITF and if up till today the NSITF identity card is still with the deceased’s family then the respondent never paid the applicant’s contribution to him as they claim. As to whether the deceased was only employed for six years and so was not entitled to pension, the applicant’s response is that deceased is qualified and entitled to pension and gratuity which are for employees over ten years in service. Also the applicant responded that the issues raised in the respondent’s letter, that such letter is contradictory to the respondent’s letter of appointment’s given to the applicant by the respondent. Therefore that the respondent is bound by its contract as enunciated in its employees handbook. After a careful consideration of the issues raised by the parties, the processes filed and arguments advanced by the parties, it is my view that the issues for determination in this case are: (1) Whether Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh was a full fledged staff of the respondent or a casual worker. (2) Whether Late Mr. Mathew Uwah Umoh is entitled to the death benefits, contributions and gratuity. (3) Whether this suit is competent in the manner it is instituted. Going by the facts deposed to by the applicant in his affidavit and the exhibits before this court, the deceased Mr. Mathew Umoh was a staff of the respondent. Even though there is no appointment letter exhibited by the applicant, both parties are in agreement that the deceased was a staff of the respondent from 1996. The law is very certain that what is admitted need no proof. See U.B.N Ltd v. Salami [1998] 3 NWLR (pt. 543) p. 538 at p. 546, Igbojimadu v. Ibeabuchi [1998] 1 NELR (pt. 533) p. 179 at p. 197, Shuaibu v. U.B.N Plc [1995] 4 NWLR (pt. 388P p. 173 at p. 179, Obo v. Comm. Of Edu; Bendel State [1993] 2 NWLR p. 46 at pp. 58 – 59. As a matter of fact Exhibit A which is the deceased’s staff identity card issued by the respondent to the deceased is dated 16th September 1996. By Exhibit D, the deceased’s appointment was confirmed via a letter of confirmation dated 31 January 2000. For the purpose of this Judgment, I hereby reproduce the said letter of confirmation. Ref: BFC/723/1/A/2000 31 January, 2000. Mr. Mathew Umoh, Brickfield Concerns Ltd, Plot C2/4 Ilaro Road, Agbara Industrial Estate, Ogun State. LETTER OF CONFIRMATION You are hereby informed that your appointment as a staff of the company is hereby confirmed with effect from 1st January 2000. You shall henceforth be entitled to all rights and privileges of a staff of the company. In the same vein, you have been elevated to the position of Security Unit/Department Grade II. Consequently, your package (salary) shall also increase and this shall take effect from 1st January 2000. Note that you are entitled to N500 as maintenance allowance being the increase percentage of your new position. Accept our hearty congratulations. Yours faithfully, For: Management Mr. N.N. Nwaokolo-Oba N.B. The company Employee Handbook will be made available immediately. From the content of the letter of confirmation, reproduced, it is clear that the deceased was a confirmed staff of the respondent. Therefore the argument of the respondent that the deceased was a casual staff is not correct and is not supported by evidence. Also by Exhibit E, the deceased along with other staff were redeployed from the security department to the maintenance department with effect from 11th November, 2002 and his salary increased to N8,000.00 per month by an Internal Memo dated 8th November, 2002 and titled: “Redeployment of Staff”. Therefore the argument of the respondent that in December of the same 2002 the respondent’s Managing Director moved out of his residence to Victoria Island and the deceased remained in the said residence and transferred his services to the Tenant Mr. Jerry Nwagba is not supported by any evidence. This is because even if the respondent’s Managing Director relocated in December 2002, by virtue of Exhibit ‘E’ the deceased had already been redeployed from the Security Department to the Maintenance Department with effect from 11th November, 2002 and so was no longer in the Security Section by December 2002 when according to the respondent, its Managing Director whose residence the deceased was guarding relocated. There is also no evidence to support the respondent’s submission that the deceased transferred his services to another employer. I therefore find and hold that the deceased was a staff of the respondent all this while and never transferred his services to another employer. As to the length of service the deceased worked with the respondent, the respondent’s contention is that the deceased worked for it between 1996 – 2002 i.e. six years and so was not entitled to pension and gratuity because the deceased disengaged from the employment with the respondent from 2002. I am unable to agree with the respondent on this position because there is no evidence of disengagement by the deceased nor any letter terminating or accepting the disengagement of the deceased to another employer. In the absence of such I am of the considered view that the deceased worked for the respondent until his demise in July 2009. I therefore find and hold that the deceased worked for the respondent from 1996 till his demise in July 2009 a period of 13 years. Having worked for a period of 13 years, the deceased is entitled to pension and gratuity in accordance with the provisions in the respondent’s employee handbook and I so hold. Furthermore, a perusal of Exhibit ‘G’ shows that the deceased was by a letter dated 22 April, 2009 granted two months sick leave with pay by the respondent to enable the deceased get medical attention and sufficient rest, this was in April 2009, I therefore wonder the kind of argument of the respondent to the effect that the deceased ceased to be its staff in 2002. Exhibit ‘G’ clearly contradicts the respondent’s submission that the deceased ceased to be its staff since 2002. Equally, instructive is Exhibit ‘I’ which is a condolence letter written by the management of the respondent over the death of Late Mathew Umoh where the deceased was described as our “ESTEEM STAFF”. This was as at 28th August, 2009 along with a contribution of N30,000.00 for his funeral. For the respondent to describe the deceased as our esteem staff and then turn around to argue that he was a casual worker who had stopped working with it in 2002 is to me most uncharitable to the memory of Late Mr. Mathew Umoh. Having held that the deceased was a full fledged staff of the respondent and worked for 13 years, I am of the view that the deceased is entitled to the death benefits and gratuity due to him. In this regard, the respondent’s employee handbook provides for Death Benefit as follows: BENEFIT ON DEATH: Where an employee while in the service of the company dies before the age of retirement, the company may upon the resolution of the members of the Board of Directors approve for payment to the personal representatives of the deceased – A sum equal to 18 months salary. The company shall also return the whole of the employees’ contributions. In line with the above provisions of the work manual for the respondent Exhibit ‘F’ the respondent is liable to pay to the personal representative of the deceased a sum equal to his eighteen months salary. As regards the deceased’s contribution to the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund NSITF, both parties are in agreement that the deceased was a contributor to the fund. The only point of disagreement is that the respondent posited that the deceased stopped contributing in 2002 when he ceased to be its staff. Since I have found that the deceased did not leave the services of the respondent in 2002, it therefore means that the deceased contributed for the fund up till the point of his death in July 2009. I therefore hold that deceased’s NSITF contribution be calculated and paid to his personal representative. On the issue of the competency of the Suit, the respondent argues that this Suit ought not to have been commenced by way of Originating Summons as the issues involved are contentious and that the applicant has no locus standi to sue on behalf of his deceased Father. A perusal of the exhibits and the affidavit shows that the issues in this case can be determined by the documents and the affidavits and I so hold. The applicant in this case sued as a personal representative of his deceased father, and even the work manual for the respondent provides on page 11 that the death benefits of a deceased staff be paid to his or her personal representative, the applicant in this case has deposed that he is the first son and personal representative of his deceased father, and head of the family, and this fact was not challenged by the respondent in its counter affidavit, I therefore hold that the Suit is competent and the applicant has the locus standi to institute this action on behalf of his deceased father. On the whole I hold that the applicant’s Suit succeeds. I therefore order as follows: (1) The respondent shall pay to the personal representative or next of kin of Late Mr. Mathew Umoh a sum equal to his eighteen months salary as provided in the respondent’s employee handbook. (2) The respondent shall refund the whole of the deceased’s contribution made through the respondent to the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund to his personal representative or next of kin. (3) The respondent is to pay gratuity of the deceased who has worked for 13 years to his personal representative or next of kin. (4) The respondent is to pay N30,000.00 cost. (5) This judgment is to be complied with not later than 30 days from today, failing to which it shall attract 10 percent interest until it is paid. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge