Download PDF
The claimant on the 4th March 2013, filed a complaint against the defendant praying the following; 1. A DECLARATION that the non-payment of the claimant’s unpaid salaries for six months (from October, November, December 2011 and January, February and March 2012) is unlawful. 2. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to be paid his salaries and allowances until judgment is given. The claimant was employed by the defendant on the 12th of March, 2011 as a Security guard and has his name on the pay roll of staff posted to MPZ Trucking Limited. That he worked with the defendant for one year that is from 12th of March to 23rd of March with a remuneration of N18, 500 excluding tax and other reductions. The claimant averred that the defendant owes him the sum of N51, 250.00 as outstanding salaries for six months because he was paid half salary for the months of October, November, December 2011 and January, February and March 2012 the breakdown thereof is as follows; Month Half Salary Balance for the Month October, 2011 N 9,250.00 N 9,250.00 November, 2011 N 9,250.00 N 9,250.00 December, 2011 N 9,250.00 N 9,250.00 January, 2012 N11,000.00 N 7,500.00 February, 2012 N12, 000.00 N 6,500.00 March, 2012 N 9,000.00 N 9,500.00 The claimant avers that on 1st of October, 2011, when he resumed work, he was informed by the Financial Controller of the Defendant’s client that on the 30th day of September, 2011 while he was off duty, there was a theft over night in MPZ Trucking Company Limited and due to the incident, the three guards who were on duty were arrested and detained for four (4) days pending investigation. That as a result, of the arrest claimant worked four days without off duty and without pay which is N6,000.00. That during that period, his wife put to bed and desperate to offset the medical bills he demanded his outstanding salary from the defendant to aid him settle the bills but the defendant in addition to refusing to paying the salary, threatened and assaulted him in the presence of his wife. Realising his act apologised to his wife and gave her the sum of N2,000.00 as her transportation fare promising to pay the outstanding salaries at the end of the month. As a result of that various demands made to claim the outstanding salaries failed, he then wrote a petition to the office of the Public Defender (OPD) to assist him claim his outstanding salaries. The office of the Public Defender invited the defendant for an amicable settlement, the defendant said the claimant is not entitled to be paid, and the Managing Director declared that he would not pay that no one would question his authority because he is a retired Police Officer. The claimant hence suffered loss and damages as a result of the unpaid outstanding salary. The claimant further claims against the defendant the sum of N 57,250 being the sum owed from the unpaid outstanding salaries by the defendant and 10% interest from the day the matter is filed till the day judgment is given and thereafter 5% interest till the final liquidation of the indebtedness. The claimant at the trial of this case tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits C1 and C2 The defendant on the other hand denies that the claimant is the direct employee of the defendant. That defendant recruited, trained and deployed the claimant as operational security guard of Client Company, called MPZ Trucking Limited on a monthly casual contract for guard services to MPZ Trucking Limited. The defendant averred that it’s a government licensed agency called ‘guard service agency’ which recruits, trains and deployed security guard, negotiate on their behalf and secure monthly casual monthly employment contracts and deployment with client that request their services on agreed terms of payment of ‘Guard Service Charge’ payable by the client. That MPZ Trucking Limited pays the sum of N30,000.00 on the claimant as ‘Guard Service Charge’ and defendant receives, shares and pay the claimant N18,500 and retains the sum of N11,500.00 as the agency fees on each security guard. On the 30th of September, 2011 MPZ Trucking Limited was burgled and the sum of N2 Million stolen. Investigation revealed that indeed the claimant was off from his duty but there was poor hands by the security guard which aided the successful burglary that by the professional security policy each guard shares joint liability for security breach at their duty post at MPZ Trucking Limited. The defendants following the burglary undertook to refund MPZ Trucking Limited the sum of N2 Million Naira in other to reach amicable settlement for peace and to preserve the existing contract with its client hence suffered the loss of N2 Million Naira but exonerating the security guards from criminal investigation without any detriment except the half salary which they wilfully collected. That as a result of the burglary MPZ Trucking Limited withheld but later paid the arrears on the ‘Guard Service Charge’ for January and February 2012 and October, 2012 at 50% that is the sum of N180,000.00 less the 50% reduction which equals N90,000.00 but with prior consent of all the security guards employed including the claimant who had an option to resign if he doesn’t consent. That no income for the defendant. That contrary to the averments of the claimant the Managing Director lacked the capacity to assault the claimant. That all invitation received from the Office of the Public Defender were attended to and denied liability to the claimant and this suit is frivolous, an abuse of court process which ought to be dismissed with substantial cost. The claimant at the trial of this case tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits B1 and B1 (1), B1 (2) The defendant on the 3rd day of March, 2014 filed its Written Address wherein three issues were raised for the courts determination; 1. Whether the claimant was the employee of the defendant or the defendant’s client MPZ Trucking Limited or employee of both. 2. Whether the claimant was under employment contract of guard services or employment contract for guard services, with either the defendant or the MPZ Limited or both. 3. Whether the reduced half salary which the claimant received or was paid for the six months, were consented to by the claimant or was it contractual for estoppels to apply. On issue one, counsel contended that by document titled ‘Operative Staff Salary for February, 2012’document of both defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited tendered by the claimant as governing his employment, the claimant is a professional security guard and employee of both the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited. That oral evidence is inadmissible to help interpret the content of ‘Operative Staff Salary for February, 2012’ he cited OGUNDELE V AGIM [2010] 9 WRN. As can be seen from the pleadings of the defence, which was not traversed by the claimant, MPZ Trucking Limited is the principal and the defendant is an agent in their employment relationship with the claimant and under cross examination, claimant admitted not knowing the relationship between MPZ Trucking Limited and the defendant, what MPZ Trucking Limited pays the defendant as security guard services charges. Hence learned defence counsel submitted that claimant has no cause of action against the defendant being the security guard service agent of MPZ Trucking Limited because the agency relationship of the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited has the legal effect of reliving the defendant from any liability to the claimant as the defendant is an agent of a disclosed principal. On issue two, learned counsel submitted that claimant neither traverse nor denied the averment in the statement of defence that the defendant recruited, trained and deployed the claimant as operational security guard of client company, called MPZ Trucking Limited on a monthly causal contract for guard services to MPZ Trucking Limited hence claimant was an independent contractor to the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited not a master-servant relationship. The contract for guard services differs from a similar contract of guard services. The claimant under the former is an independent contractor while under the later he is employed as servant of the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited. As the claimant was a professional security guard and independent contractor, his relationship with the defendant is not subject to Labour laws and no statutory or contractual benefits due from the defendant to the claimant. On issue three, learned counsel submitted that the reduced salary which the claimant received for six months were consented to by the claimant and that claimant is stopped from denying his consented half salary. Claimant never controverted paragraphs 2.0 and 2.1 of the statement of defence pleading estoppel hence he consented to the half salaries he received for 6 months following the burglary or theft of N2 million at MPZ Limited. Under cross examination, claimant admitted that the half salaries he received from the defendant were paid in instalments for six months starting from October- December, 2011 and January- March, 2012. Therefore it is difficult to agree that the defendant received the claimant’s salary in October, and spent same without claimant’s consent, then repeated same in November- December, 2011 and January-March 2012 hence estoppels will apply here because the claimant cannot approbate and reprobate against the defendant. Counsel also submitted that the defendant refunded the stolen money to MPZ Trucking Limited by accepting from MPZ Trucking Limited the payment of half guard service charges for six months and on the grounds of equity, claimant and his other colleagues enjoyed the benefit of being exonerated from criminal liability but later turned around by this suit claiming against the defendant. Equity will not allow the claimant to represent consent to the defendant who alters it position on that premises only to turn around with claims against the defendant. The claimant had five 5 other colleagues who may have cautioned themselves against this suit by the claimant but who may commence a similar suit against the defendant in the case this suit succeeds and such will be a great injustice to the defendant. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant circulated an internal memo for itself that all the security guards at MPZ Trucking Limited were duly notified by the said memo that the guard service charges were reduced by half. The claimant had an option to quit rather he continued his guard services at MPZ Trucking Limited hence stopped from denying his consent to the half salaries he received for the 6 months. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claims of the claimant in favour of the defendant who made the sacrifices on the contract with MPZ Trucking Limited which claimant wilfully enjoyed and now seeks to inequitably repudiate by reprobate. In conclusion, counsel submitted that claimant was employee of both the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited by virtue of document Operative Staff Salary for February, 2012, the claimant as a professional security guard under the employment contract for guard services with both defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited. That claimant consented to the half salary paid for six months hence estoppel applies. Counsel prays the Honourable court to dismiss the claims of the claimant with substantial cost. The claimant on the14th day of March, 2014 filed its Written Address wherein three issues where raised for the court’s determination; 1. Whether the claimant is an employee of the defendant. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the claims sought before this Honourable Court. 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to his salary till date. On issue one, counsel submitted that it is trite that a worker is entitled to his wages. He cited in support the case of UNDERWATER ENGINEERING CO V DARUSHA DUBEFON [1995] 6 NWLR (PT 400) 156. Continuing, he stated that this right is automatically incorporated into the contract of employment, whether express or not, because service and wages invariably constitute the twin pillars upon which a contract of employment rest. That where there is a dispute as to the kind of contract entered into by parties, there are factors to guide the court arrive at a just conclusion and the law does require a contract to be in a specific form. It can be oral, written, partly one and partly the other or by deed. It may be inferred or implied by the conduct of the parties. He cited SHENA SECURITY LIMITED V AFROPAK NIGERIA LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS [2008] 34 NSCQR PT II 1287. Where the Court held that; “contract of employment means any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker. That is by the definition of the Labour Act (Cap. 198) LFN, 1990 which applies to worker, strictly defined to the exclusion of the management staff. A worker is defined by the Labour Act as any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether or written and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour (section 91 of the said Act) this contract is commonly referred to as “Contract of Service.” Counsel submitted that the factors which usually guide a court are; (a) If payment are made by way of “wages” or “Salaries” this is indicative that the contract is one of service. If it is a contract for service, the independent contractor gets his payment by way of “fees”. In like manner, where payment is by way of commission only or on the completion of the job, that indicates that the contract is for service. (b) Where the employer supplies the tools and other capital equipment there is a strong likelihood that the contract is that of employment or of service. But where the person engaged has to invest and provide capital for the work to progress that indicates that it is a contract for service. Counsel submitted that by virtue of SECTION 91 of the LABOUR ACT, 1974, ‘A worker’ means: “Any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written and whether it is a contract of service or contract personally to execute work or labour...” From, the above it is trite that any employer who fails to give his employee a written statement of the terms and conditions of his employment about three months after the beginning of his employment is estopped from relying on the failure of the worker or his said employee to tender in evidence the said terms and conditions of his employment. He cited NWAKHOBA V DUMEZ (NIG) LTD [2004] 3 NWLR (PT 861) P 461 where the court held that it would not be proper for the respondent, the employer now, to contend that the plaintiffs failed to produce in evidence the NJIC conditions of service under which they claimed, when, the evidence in court established that it was the defendant/respondent who failed in its statutory obligation to provide any of the plaintiffs workers with conditions of service as provided in Section 7(1) of the Labour Act. It was stated that the defendant contravened the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Labour Act and such shall not be permitted in law to profit from its own wrong doing per Oduyemi J.C.A at 484; per Orji –Abadua J.C.A.(Pp. 70- 71, paras. F-D) Learned counsel submitted that the relationship between the employer and employee can be established by the production of payslip referring the Honourable court to Exhibit C1. He cited MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED AND ANOTHER V UDO TOM UDO [2008] LPELR- 8440 CA. Continuing, counsel posited that by virtue of Section 7(1) of the Labour Act, employees whose employers deliberately failed to give them letters of employment are protected by law to the extent that defaulting employer when exposed, is liable on conviction and by SECTION 21 (1) (c) of the Act, provides that where an employer contravenes Section 7(1) of the Labour Act. He shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding N800 for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding N1, 500. Counsel submitted that claimant has proved that there is employer employee relationship between the parties and defendant under cross examination admitted that the claimant’s salary was irregular, he was not detained in respect of the theft because he was not on duty on the day of the theft. In conclusion counsel prayed the court that claimant is entitled to his unpaid salaries and salaries till date and disregard defendant’s argument as it lacks merit and without substance and grant judgment in favour of the claimant. I have carefully considered the processes filed, have heard the witnesses on both sides and perused the exhibits tendered and admitted on record. Statutory and case law authorities cited by both counsel across the divide, It is in the calm view of the Court that the main crux of this case is whether or not the claimant was a staff of the defendant as to entitle him to the reliefs sought from it. It is the contention of the defendant that by document titled ‘Operative Staff Salary for February, 2012’document of both defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited tendered by the claimant as governing his employment, the claimant is a professional security guard and employee of both the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited. That oral evidence is inadmissible to help interpret the content of ‘Operative Staff Salary for February, 2012’. The defendant went on to liken its relationship with the claimant as that of an agent of a disclosed principal. It further submitted that claimant has no cause of action against the defendant being the security guard service agent of MPZ Trucking Limited because the agency relationship of the defendant and MPZ Trucking Limited has the legal effect of reliving the defendant from any liability. The claimant in his reaction to the above position of the defendant submitted that he had a contract of service relationship with the defendant and not with any third party. He stressed that the relationship between the employer and employee can be established by the production of payslip referring the Honourable court to Exhibit C1. The claimant urged the Court to consider his relationship with the defendant on the basis of payment of his wages/salaries and that the supply of tools to work. Now, from the facts before the Court would it be safe to find that the claimant is an employee of the defendant or the third party with whom he was posted to. It is apparent from the averments in the sworn deposition of the defendant's witness that the claimant was employed /recruited by the defendant, collects the sum of N30,000.00 per each security guard and pays the guards including the claimant the sum of N18,500 and retains the balance. The implication of this is that the defendant has a contract of service with the claimant, this is in view of paragraphs 4 of DW's sworn deposition. It is not in contention that the defendant recruited the claimant and seconded or transferred him to MPZ yard. The first point of call of the claimant is his recruitment and eventual employment by the defendant, he reiterated this in his testimony under cross examination thus- '' K2 International employed me and posted me to MPZ trucking''. He went on when he was asked whether his employer was K2 or MPZ, he responded thus- ''I know nothing about MPZ, because K2 employed me, I know nothing about its relationship with MPZ'' He stated further that K2 international was paying his salary of N18,500 per month, this is evident in Exhibit C 1, i.e the claimant payslip issued by the defendant. In ATADOGWU V ALADE [1957] WNLR 184, the question arose as to whether a taxi driver was a servant or employee of his employer. In that case a Proprietor engaged the cab driver on payment of monthly wages, to drive the cab, collect a fare and to report to the Proprietor regularly. Ademola C.J distinguishing this relationship from the common law bailment of the car to the driver held that the relationship in the case was clearly that of master servant, otherwise known as employer/employee. Taking a cue from this case and one of the major test of deciding whether or not the relationship between a claimant and defendant is the control test, which also consists of the payment of wages/salaries. As could be seen supra, both the claimant and the defendant are in tandem on who pays salary, which is the defendant. It is equally not in dispute that the claimant was recruited/employed (depending on which of the two words one chooses to use) by the defendant K2 International. The law is trite that an employee cannot derive security of service from a body other than the one employing him, this was the decision of the Court in OLTUNBOSUN V N..I.S.E.R COUNCIL [1988] NSCC(Vol. 19)1025. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant is an agent of MPZ Ltd. The law is long settled that he who asserts must prove, the onus of proving that the claimant was an employee of MPZ Ltd is on the defendant, but as would be seen on record, it failed to prove same. It is on record as also reiterated by the claimant that he was not given any letter of employment, this was not denied by the defendant, it is thus deemed admitted and true. This is in fragrant disregard of the provision of the law as captured by Section 7 (1) of the Labour Act and also highlighted supra in the claimant's written submission, that an employer shall give to a worker not later than three months after the beginning of the worker's period of employment a written statement specifying the terms and conditions of employment. Section 21 (1) (c) of the same Act provides for the penalty for none compliance with Section 7. This statutory provision was given a legal backing in the case law authority of NWAKHOBA V DUMEZ NIG. LTD [2004] 3 NWLR (PT 861) 461. As evinced on record, the claimant was employed by the defendant on 12th March, 2011, See paragraph 2 of the statement of facts and 4 of DW sworn deposition and up until he left the defendant's employment in March, 2012, he was not given any letter of employment or any other document in compliance with Section 7 of the Labour Act. It is therefore obvious from the assertion above that the claimant was an employee of the defendant and thus there was in existence a contract of service between the both of them. I thus find and hold. The final issue is whether the claimant is entitled to his unpaid salary? It is the argument of the defendant that the salaries of the claimant and his colleagues on posting at MPZ were reduced to half, in view of the theft of N2,000,000.00 that occurred at MPZ, the defendant tendered Exhibit B1in support of this, i.e. a letter dated 16th of December, 2011, written by the human resources Manager of the defendant informing its security guards posted to MPZ about its decision to pay them half salary because of the alleged theft. Our case law is replete with authorities establishing that contract of employment may be express or oral or may be implied by evidence. See Section 91 of the Labour Act, which defines a worker as a person who works under a contract with an employer, whether it is for manual labour or clerical work or expressed or implied or oral or written. This is in tandem with all that has been stated above, that the contract of service between the defendant and the claimant is an unwritten contract of service. Now, it is pertinent to ask and answer the question whether there is any agreement by both parties as regards cases of theft and consequences for which the defendant acted on by slashing the claimant's salary into half as posited by the defendant. The claimant is claiming 50% of his salary remaining unpaid by the defendant from October 2011 to March 2012. The defendant contended that it paid the sum of N2M stolen from the MPZ company and thus the security men attached to MPZ would be held responsible by paying the same vide the deduction of their salaries including the claimant. It is noteworthy, that both parties are ad idem that the claimant was not on duty on the day of the theft i.e. the 30th of September 2011. This is evinced in paragraphs 5,6,7, and 8 of defendant's witness sworn deposition. In answering the question posed supra, it is worth noting again that the claimant was exonerated from the alleged theft, also the letter informing the staff of the reduction in the salary was denied by the claimant, he denied seeing or acknowledging such a letter i.e. exhibit B1. Exhibit C2 which is the Police report of the theft exonerated him as well. It has been held supra that there is no written terms of contract between both parties in this case and that what existed between both parties was an unwritten and or implied contract of service based on the evidence before the Court. What this means with regards to the reduction of the claimant's salary by the defendant is that the defendant has no power under any guise to so act. It is long settled that where there is no written agreement/contract of service between a worker and his employer, the provision of the Labour Act shall apply. By Section 4 (4) and 5 of the labour Act, which provides thus- ''4.(4). No employer shall make any deduction by way of discount, interest or any similar charge on account of any advance of wages paid to a worker in anticipation of the regular period of payment of the wages.'' ''5. Except where it is expressly permitted by this Act, or any other law no employer shall make any deduction or make any agreement or contract with a worker for any deductions from the wages to be paid by the employer to the worker or for any payment to the employer by the worker for or in respect of any fines.'' The combined effect of the above provisions makes it unlawful for the defendant to deduct the claimant's salary, the Court hereby orders for the half salary of the claimant deducted from his salary from October 2011 to March 2012, the total of which is N51,250.00 should be paid to the claimant immediately by the defendant. As regards the pre judgment interest of 10% claimed by the claimant for unlawfully holding on to his salary for 6 months and a post judgment interest of 5% until the judgment sum is paid. It is in the considered view of the Court that the claimant is entitle to a pre judgment interest of 10% as prayed for holding over to 50% of his salary for 6 months. For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant's claim succeeds and it is declared and ordered as follows- 1. It is declared that the deductions of the claimant's salary for 6 months is unlawful 2. The defendant shall pay the sum of N51,250.00 to the claimant being money deducted from his salary for six months. 3. 10% pre judgment interest on the sum of N51,250.00 from March 2013 till July 2014,i.e. the sum of N76,875.00 shall be paid by the defendant to the claimant. 4. The judgment sum shall be paid within 7 days of this judgment, failing which the defendant shall pay 5% interest for each day of default. I award the cost of N50,000.00 in favour of the claimant, this shall be paid by the defendant within 7 days. Judgment is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyebiola Oyewumi Judge